Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should like to announce that the part appropriation of the Railways will be introduced on Monday, 23 February, and that the debate on this measure will commence on the same day.

The part appropriation of the Post Office will be introduced on Wednesday, 25 February, and the debate on that measure will also commence on the same day.

During the remainder of the week the House will continue to deal with the items as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the course of this debate and what has happened around the debate in the form of propaganda, has caused a number of rather interesting points to emerge. One would have expected the official Opposition to come forward with clear standpoints as alternatives to the Government’s handling of the affairs of this country. I sat here listening to the speeches for a few days, and I also examined certain items of propaganda which appeared in newspapers with which the Opposition is befriended, and it was interesting to see how they struggled to escape from the stranglehold which the election has on them. From the ranks of the Opposition, and in the Press which supports them, an attack was made on food prices. However, if one compares the food prices in South Africa with those in other countries one realizes that ours are still the lowest in the world.

Not in terms of the per capita . . .

I am coming to that. The hon. member should not always let his mouth run away from his brain. The comparative figures for beef, butter, cheese, milk and white bread clearly indicate that as far as South Africa, Belgium, Switzerland, London, Paris, Tokyo and Washington are concerned, food prices in South Africa are the lowest.

But we live in this country.

Yes, we live in this country. In other words, we live in a country where food prices are the lowest in the world. [Interjections.] But the Opposition comes back at us every time by saying that we should compare the incomes and the housing of other countries with those in our country. Does the same apply to the Algerian quarter and the migrant workers in France? Does the same apply to Notting Hill in England and to the large number of unemployed workers there? Does the same apply to the Turks in Germany?

What does that have to do with it?

It has a great deal to do with it. The entire argument of the Opposition then falls away. [Interjections.] The fact remains that South Africa has the lowest food prices in the world.

And the lowest farm wages.

Sir, this attack from the ranks of the official Opposition and the Opposition newspapers is nothing but a camouflaged attack on the agricultural industry in South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are very funny this morning.

In addition it is also a camouflaged attack on the organizations in the agricultural industry. [Interjections.] It is an attack on the agricultural control boards . . .

It is a total onslaught.

Order!

It is an attack on the co-operative movement in the agricultural industry in South Africa. However, we shall expose them. The facts reflect that in Africa there are only three countries which are net exporters of food: The Republic of South Africa, South West Africa and Bophuthatswana. South Africa is one of the seven exporters of food in the world. In addition the Government has during the past year paid out R250 million in food subsidies to the benefit of the lower-income groups. For the coming year the figure is calculated at R300 million.

And GST on basic foodstuffs?

All these achievements were accomplished in spite of the fact that South Africa is a relatively poor agricultural country. Instead of this kind of agitation, the Opposition ought to agree with us that we should congratulate the agricultural industry in South Africa and thank it for its achievements. [Interjections.]

There was a second phenomenon which emerged from this propaganda, particularly from certain newspapers which support the Opposition. I am referring to the reaction to the salary increases announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. It was clearly apparent that they could not attack the salary increases because the Government had over the past three to four years gone out of its way to ensure that our State officials and our services received the proper remuneration due to them. The attention had to be distracted from this, and consequently a campaign against the salary increases for Ministers and also for the Prime Minister is now in progress. I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is in agreement with this misrepresentation, these distorted versions of the salaries of parliamentarians which are being published in some of his newspapers. [Interjections.]

We do not own them.

I have no objection to the salary of the Prime Minister, with allowances, and those of the Ministers being made public. We live under a democratic system of government, and consequently this ought to be the way of it. I have no objection to that. But what I do object to is the distorted version which is being given of these salaries and allowances. Figures are being published in those newspapers which may be questioned, as in the case of a morning newspaper in Johannesburg. These are figures which can, in truth, be seriously questioned, yet those figures are being widely publicised. For example, under the caption “More pay for Ministers” a comparison is drawn between the salary of the Prime Minister and that of a student nurse and a constable. I see this as an attempt to make not only the other Ministers and myself, but also all parliamentarians, suspect. If there is one invidious issue it is that parliamentarians should decide on their own remuneration. But there is no other way of doing it. Consequently we devised a scheme whereby we could introduce a natural process of increments which stemmed from decisions on other State employees, precisely in order to try to shift from our shoulders the unpleasant burden of having to decide on our own salaries. This was not only a reflection on my own person, but on all parliamentarians. Sir, under my personal guidance the Cabinet resolved this year that with the increase of salaries and wages for State employees, the average increase of 12% would not apply in respect of parliamentarians. We resolved that parliamentarians could receive an increase of not more than approximately 9%. Therefore we went out of our way to accommodate the middle-and lower-income groups to a greater extent with greater increases, and did not raise the salaries of Ministers and members of Parliament accordingly. But that is not being stated in these newspapers. They are giving the public a distorted version. These newspapers give the Prime Minister’s salary, but do not at the same time say what the salary of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. I shall now indicate what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. I shall now indicate what the hon. the Leader’s salary is. If my salary has increased so wonderfully in recent years in comparison with what previous Prime Ministers received—and I deny it—I feel that we should at least present a balanced picture. In 1966 the salary of the Leader of the Opposition was R7 000, plus R11 per day as a sessional allowance. In 1980 his salary was R24 312, plus R22,60 per day. This gave him a total income of R32 660. Sir, I do not wish to offend the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I am doing this because I wish to object on behalf of all parliamentarians to this kind of practice, because it is a misrepresentation to the country and an attempt to misinform the electorate.

Sir, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found himself in that post two years ago, great things were expected of him. Personally I also entertained high expectations of him. The Leader of the Opposition behaved decently and came to see me. From his side he tried to lay a foundation for co-operation between us, and I appreciated it. He knows I appreciated it. When he introduced his first motion of no confidence he bound himself to that with these words—

He was referring to the problems in South Africa—

Sir, we accepted it in that spirit. That is why we did not take it amiss of him for having, since he became Leader of the Opposition, moved successive motions of no confidence in this House, because it was his duty and his right. I do not wish to do the hon. leader an injustice now because, if it is in any way possible, I should like to preserve that good spirit. However, I wish to ask him whether he said the following words in the Press statement to the London Times of 26 September 1980—

He was referring to South Africa—

The hon. the leader could merely, with a nod of his head, indicate to me whether he spoke these words. These words were quoted in a report in that newspaper, a report of which I have a photocopy here. Evidently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not denying it, and consequently I must for the purposes of the argument assume that he did utter these words. Sir, if it is true that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this to an overseas newspaper during his stay abroad, it is a terrible thing, it is a terrible thing for the Leader of an official Opposition to say abroad. It is irresponsible; it is not true, and it does not become him. He went further, and on 10 February 1981, said here in South Africa—

I believe that the words he used abroad, and which I quoted earlier, he used because that was more or less the theme of his speech in this year’s no-confidence debate.

I should now like to tell him what his spiritual father, or rather the spiritual father of his party, Mr. Oppenheimer, has to say. Mr. Oppenheimer is the boss of that party, and he is also the spiritual father of that party. I think Mr. Oppenheimer is a little disillusioned with that party. I do not think he is providing them with as many funds as in the past. I would not pay them either if those are the services they render. I want to quote to him what Mr. Oppenheimer said. Whether one differs with Mr. Oppenheimer or not—and I differ with him on many things—he has always been an candid, honest and dignified figure. He states precisely what his standpoint is. We appreciate that in him. He said—

Do you intend doing that?

He said it. That is what the hon. member’s father said.

Yes, but I am asking whether you intend to do that.

According to the Bible one should not renounce one’s parents. Mr. Oppenheimer went on to say—

No one has ever said that. I shall come back to that later—

He has written them off before the time! Then he proceeds to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should listen to what his spiritual father has to say. Then he will not say the kind of things in this House which he does say here. I quote—

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is raising vehement objections. The hon. member for Sea Point and he went gallivanting all over the countryside for two years. The hon. member for Yeoville said I would only be Prime Minister for three months. The hon. member for Sea Point said: “The Government must resign.” But now that we are going to the country, they are complaining about it. What kind of Opposition is this?

We never complained about it. We are very pleased. We are complaining about the public’s money which is being spent.

Order!

What is important, in spite of all the protestations of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is what their boss has to say about the future pattern for South Africa—

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can say whatever he likes, but the forces behind him—this I predict—will drive him, with his national convention and all, towards “one man, one vote” in South Africa.

But you stand for one man, one vote in South Africa.

Yes, but on a completely different basis. [Interjections.] I am coming to that as well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes abroad and says these things, and if that is true, I take it amiss of him and we shall use those statements against him, for I shall demonstrate in a moment how untrue they are. However it is clear that he, together with some of his newspapers, are playing a certain kind of game. This game is that they do not mind humiliating and denigrating the Afrikaner in an effort to divide the NP. But, Sir, surely the Afrikaner is already divided. Why do we have to have it constantly dinned into our ears that “Nationalist Afrikanerdom” must be divided? Why must we be regaled every Saturday in one article after another with the statement that if there is to be a change in South Africa, a condition of that change is that “Nationalist Afrikanerdom must be divided”? Surely the Afrikaner is divided. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this; surely he is himself an Afrikaner. There he sits on the opposite side. There sits the hon. member for Johannesburg North, also an Afrikaner, or at least he was one. And there sits the rising sun of Stellenbosch, Prof. Nic Olivier. Surely the Afrikaner is divided, not only into Progs and Nationalists; he is also divided into various right-wing radical groups.

There sits Andries Treurnicht.

I am not counting the hon. member for Bryanston among the Afrikaners. Each nation has its black sheep. I say: Abandon this agitation, this constant representation of the Afrikaner, in a country where he plays a unifying part, where he is a catalyst—and the Afrikaner is a catalyst for many things in this country—to the world as a bully. I take up the cudgels for my people, even if they display the weakness of allowing people such as those hon. members to wind up on the opposite side, as they are sitting there in the Opposition. I say: Break the Afrikaner and Nationalist South Africa and you are gnawing at the roots of stability and orderly government in this country. And those hon. members know it. Take away the stability, remove the catalyst represented by the Afrikaner in South Africa and one is undermining the survival of this country, its orderliness and stability, because the security and happiness of all minority groups in South Africa depend on the Afrikaner. Whether they are English- or German- or Portuguese- or Italian-speaking, or even Jewish-speaking, makes no difference. Their security depends on the survival of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] White minority groups in this country, but also minority groups . . . What does the hon. member for Johannesburg North find so amusing?

What is a Jewish-speaking person?

Someone who speak Yiddish.

Oh, please.

Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to you to accommodate me so that I can get a chance to state my standpoint? I only have an half-hour at my disposal.

Order!

It is a false charge by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to allege, in the second place, that the will to bring about a change does not exist and that no real change is taking place. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would study the programme of principles of the NP, he would see that the NP not only stands for a powerful realization of national self-sufficiency in South Africa, that the NP not only regards the interests of the Republic of South Africa as paramount, but that the NP also stands for the just and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa and for the impartial preservation of the rights and privileges of each sector of the population. The point I wish to make today is that the equal treatment of all the sectors of the population, and the preservation and development of the rights of minorities, need not take place only in a unitary state, as is being advocated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He can do whatever he likes, but the speech which he made here during the no-confidence debate—hon. members would do well to go and read it—was in essence a camouflaged attempt to establish a unitary State in South Africa. [Interjections.] It was nothing else. [Interjections.]

Order! I have appealed to hon. members to stop interjecting. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be given an opportunity of replying when the hon. the Prime Minister sits down. I have to point out that the time of speakers in this debate is limited.

I come now to the point which the hon. member for Orange Grove put to me here by way of an interjection. The results of this fundamental standpoint is that under the NP the greatest change for the better has taken place in South Africa, for under the NP every population group has been able to produce its own leaders; and not only that but to govern itself as well.

Like the Coloureds?

That is why the Xhosa and the Tswana and the Venda were able to develop their constitutional structures and exercise their right to independence without any bloodshed. This took place without a single drop of blood being shed in their emancipatory process. That is why it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that the Chief Minister of Ciskei has informed me that he intends, also in a peaceful and constitutional way, to accept his independence on 4 December of this year.

Hear, hear!

Where in the world have nations been able to give expression to their own traditions, their own past, their own system of values, their own ideals, in such a realistic way and without bloodshed and without confrontation as has happened here, in conjunction with nationalism in South Africa? Why is it being denied? Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not tell the world that structures have been built here, that freedoms have been acquired, that a process of self-determination has been set in motion which has enabled people to acquire their own rights, and that those processes are still continuing? Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not say that as far as urban Black people are concerned, for example in Soweto, new processes have been set in motion at a cost of millions of rands during the past 2½ years, including electrification, housing, better amenities; and that in reality a new spirit has come into existence in Soweto? Why does he not tell this to the outside world? Why does he say things in the outside world to slander his own country?

He does not tell half-truths.

I take that amiss of the hon. leader. Why does he not tell the truth about Black and Coloured education? I have the necessary figures available. As far as that education is concerned there are hundreds, thousands of new entrants to schools, but if the number of matriculants have increased to such an extent, then the numbers of those who have been admitted to technical institutions, to colleges and universities, have increased by more than 100%, and even a few hundred per cent in some cases. Why does he not say that? Why does he say abroad that no headway is being made, that there is no progress in South Africa? On top of it all he insults the Whites by saying that they think there is change, implying that the Whites in this country are a lot of stupid sheep.

I wish to conclude because my time is limited. Finally I wish to refer to the issue of the total strategy. I have never alleged—no one on this side of the House has ever made such an allegation—that there is a total conflict by the entire world against us. What we did say was that there was a total onslaught on South Africa on the part of the UN and UN agencies, but particularly under the leadership of Marxism. That is something entirely different. There are many people and organizations in the world who are favourably disposed to South Africa and who are helping to state the other side of the case. There are even Governments that are trying under difficult circumstances to be on our side. The total onslaught exists in that there is, under Marxist guidance, an onslaught on our system of values, an onslaught on our institutions which, if they were to be destroyed, would cause chaos in this country. It is in view of this that I advocated a total national strategy, comprising (a) that we should cease to denigrate one another abroad; (b) that we should stand united as far as the defence and safeguarding of this country was concerned; and (c) that we should guard against stirring up racial feelings in South Africa while we are in fact capable of co-operating and creating better attitudes through consultation and the collective development of constructive tasks.

I shall continue. Let me say this to the hon. Leader of the Opposition today. The rumours that he is spreading in the country that I am allegedly under the thumb of this or that, compel me to state this morning that during the past two years or slightly longer that I have been Prime Minister I have undertaken to do nothing that I do not intend to carry out. [Interjections.] He may as well accept that now. I am in the process of doing so. What I said in public I would do I shall carry out as leader of this party as long as I receive the strength and the grace to lead. I shall not allow myself to be dictated to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as to how I should lead this country. He does not enjoy the confidence of this country; I do. Secondly, I wish to point out to him that he does not represent the Black leaders in this country; those Black leaders represent their own people. He must simply represent his small minority party, and allow the Black leaders to speak on behalf of their own people.

I am sorry that my time has expired, because I still wanted to emphasize the positive side of the NP’s standpoint on various other matters . . .

That would not have taken up much time.

… but let me just say this: We shall drive the Opposition from one entrenchment to another, because they are a small helpless and divided group.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister touched on a number of points to which I wish to react immediately. However there are other points, too, relating to the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, which are more the concern of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and I shall come back to them in due course.

I shall begin by dealing with the food prices. The significance of an increase in food prices is not so much that it is comparable with what is going on in other countries, but that the housewife who goes shopping at the end of the week to buy food for the household has to reconcile the prices with the money she has in her pocket. That is the real problem, and it is on that that our statement that the increase in food prices is causing problems, is based. It is not going to make her feel better when she enters that shop to consider how expensive meat is in Switzerland, for example.

In the second place, I want to refer to a point made by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with change, and the question he put to me with reference to a newspaper report concerning what I had supposedly said in this connection. It would be ridiculous and foolish for anyone to say that no change has taken place. Changes are taking place. [Interjections.] Changes are taking place in respect of the population increase, for example. This has consequences in the social and economic spheres. Since I entered politics there has been clear evidence from which I have been able to see that changes have indeed taken place. But what are the reforms or changes which the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind in regard to the NP’s cardinal policy of separate development? That is the question that is put to me. That is what people abroad and in our country want to know. I must adopt a standpoint in that regard, and when I am asked whether real changes have taken place in this regard I say “no”. No changes have taken place in the basic principles and points of departure of the NP. And it is on this point that there is confusion. In fact, confusion arises not only in Government ranks but also among those who oppose the Government. They are beginning to read reforms into things that the hon. the Prime Minister says do not exist at all. We had one of the best examples of this in the no-confidence debate when I had to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, for example, he would accept that Blacks might serve in the President’s Council. To that he replied “no”.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question in connection with the national convention?

I am coming back to that point; I promise the hon. the Prime Minister that.

The point I now wish to illustrate is that there are people who say that this is simply a trick, a temporary measure, that the Prime Minister has certain plans to bring this about at a later stage. All I can reply to that is that there is no change in this connection. The Prime Minister has been consistent.

Last year, during the no-confidence debate, the Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke about the death of apartheid as the world had known it. Subsequently a foreign newspaper asked me what that meant. Was apartheid dead? My reply was: “If you mean, is apartheid dead with regard to the Group Areas Act or the Separate Amenities Act, then I say: ‘no’. There is talk of apartheid being dead, but there is no change as far as these aspects are concerned.”

I think it is my right as Leader of the Opposition, it is my right as leader of a political party that adopts a standpoint on policy, to say this. What is more, I am going to say it here, and abroad as well, because I do not say things abroad that I am not prepared to say here. Let me also say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the most vigorous attacks I have made on the Government I have made in this House. I have made my attacks here and not abroad, and hon. members on that side of the House who were with me in New York know that that is the truth.

The third point raised by the hon. the Prime Minister is the question of the Afrikaner. He maintained that I was supposedly sowing division among the Afrikaners. I concede that the Afrikaners are divided. In fact, the Afrikaners have been divided from the outset. It is clear from the history of the years from 1910 to 1948 that there were a number of predominantly Afrikaans political parties. But division, or the lack of it, among the Afrikaners is not the issue; the issue is the NP, and the NP does not represent the Afrikaners, in spite of what the hon. the Prime Minister says in this regard.

What did I say in that regard?

The hon. the Prime Minister tries to create the impression that I and the newspapers of which I am supposedly the boss are trying to destroy or discredit the Afrikaner. That is untrue. What I do say is that if fundamental reform is to take place, the basic principles that form part of the policy of the NP will have to be abandoned, and if that occurs that must have an influence on the unity of the NP. Accordingly the unity of the NP is an obstacle in the process of reform—essential reform—and moving away from the NP’s basic policy.

Precisely.

To me that is a clear argument. However that does not mean that I am attacking the Afrikaner. It means that one cannot eat one’s cake and have it. One cannot, on the one hand, be in favour of traditional unity in the NP and on the other, be in favour of reform away from the policy of the NP. That simply cannot be done. That is a purely logical argument and has nothing to do with the question whether one is a good Afrikaner, a run-away Afrikaner or a half-hearted Afrikaner. I think the hon. the Prime Minister knows that in this case he is beating the tribal drum for the purposes of the election. I am not going to take any part in that.

Are you not one, then?

He is a good Afrikaner.

I am not afraid to say that I am an Afrikaner. I am proud of it.

Just be yourself then.

I do it my way . . . [Interjections.] . . . and the hon. the Prime Minister can do it his way.

I now turn to an argument which crops up repeatedly, and this is the last point before I deal with the Part Appropriation. I refer to the issue of a unitary State, of a Black majority Government, which is something the hon. the Prime Minister comes back to time and again. I believe that there is an element of fundamental dishonesty in the standpoint that we supposedly advocate a Black majority Government in a unitary State, whereas the Government maintains that in terms of its constitutional structure it does not advocate that. Let me illustrate my point. We state very clearly that we are not in favour of Black majority Government or of any Government by a dominant race. We have made this very clear in the past. In the joint political structure which we advocate, which is not a unitary State, all people have to have the vote on an equal basis. We say this. The Government also says that all people must have the vote, but is the Government prepared to say that in the joint system which the Government has in mind for Coloureds, Whites, Asians and Chinese —which ultimately will be more of a unitary State than the joint system we advocate—it will be prepared for all people to have the vote on an equal basis? If it does not do so, then it is dishonest, and surely then it is discriminatory. Then surely he will be deceiving those groups. That is what the people want to know. The people of South Africa want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to say, before the election takes place, what is going to happen with regard to those people. We cannot hide behind the President’s Council in matters of fundamental principle. In terms of our policy we go on to say that we have a joint system in which there must be an equal vote but with no domination of minorities, no domination of one group by another. The same problem applies with regard to the joint system in which the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to accommodate the Coloureds and Asians. Anyone can make calculations. Anyone can count.

We are just as aware as anyone else that the proportions as regards the Coloureds and Asians will have been completely reversed by the year 2020. That is also a fact that one could exploit for cheap political gain by saying that the NP stands for Coloured domination in that joint system. Alternatively, the hon. the Prime Minister must go to the people and explain how that is going to work. We must be clear on this point before the election takes place. I am not afraid to go and tell the people exactly what our standpoint is. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this debate has brought no clarity. There is fundamental confusion among the electorate and the general public in South Africa as to what the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP have in mind. I have said this repeatedly during the no-confidence debate. Now the hon. the Prime Minister refers to Mr. Opperheimer as our “spiritual father”. However he is no spiritual father of mine. He is a person whose opinion I respect, just as the hon. the Prime Minister respects it. The hon. the Minister quoted from his speech. I can quote from his speech too, of course. In his speech he stated very clearly—

One can say that one agrees with that or not. Incidentally, I have said that there is confusion, and that we are not sure about fundamental aspects concerning which the hon. the Prime Minister wants to go to the electorate. We have not said that we are afraid of the election. We have said that we want to know why the hon. the Prime Minister want to hold the election. In other words, we want to know what mandate he is seeking. I shall refer to this again at a later stage.

†Sir, I want to come back to the debate and to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to start off by using a quote which the hon. member for Yeoville . . .

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

No, unfortunately I have very little time. If there is any time left at the end of my speech, the hon. member may put a question to me.

†Sir, I should like to link up with the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that inflation is public enemy No. 1 in South Africa. I want to quote Milton Friedman, an economist who is very popular on that side of the House. He said—

Sir, what is inflation? The hon. the Minister of Finance has given us a definition. He said: “Inflation is simply a case where too much money pursues too few goods and services;” or, to put it more technically: “Inflation is a too rapid increase in the quantity of money in relation to the available goods and services to be purchased.” This means that when there is inflation, the value of the rand decreases and one can buy less than before with the same amount of money. Today, for example, R1 is worth 36 cents whereas it was worth 100 cents in 1970. Inflation makes all of us poorer, it increases the cost of living and crushes the poor, the elderly and the underprivileged. It forces people to ask for higher wages and it forces prices to go up. Between 1975 and 1980, for example, the consumer price index rose by 82% in respect of all items, and by 94,8% in respect of foodstuffs. Between 1978 and 1980 the consumer price index rose by 37,9%. During the past five years the cost of housing has gone up by 57%. At present the inflation rate is calculated to be 15,7% and some argue that it will be approximately 18% by the end of this year. In other words, inflation is threatening to get out of hand. Why do we have inflation? This is a very difficult problem to understand, but we have to come to grips with it. Everybody condemns inflation, particularly the Government, and says it is bad and nobody wants to associate themselves with inflation, but surely someone must be responsible for it. The Government always tries to blame someone else, for instance, by saying that there is inflation because of wage demands. But wage demands arise as a result of inflation; they do not cause inflation. The Government may argue that inflation is caused by low productivity. Again, Sir, higher productivity could cure inflation but low productivity does not cause inflation. The major cause of inflation, however, is the increase in money supply as the hon. the Minister of Finance himself has admitted a number of times. One has inflation because too much money is printed in relation to the goods and services available to be purchased with that money. But who prints the money? The Government prints the money. Therefore the Government is the major cause of inflation in South Africa as is any Government in any country where it prints too much money. Only a Government can print money and when it prints money in a disproportionate manner to the available goods and services, it destroys the value of that money. Therefore, if inflation is public enemy No. 1, this Government is the willing friend of that enemy against the interests of all the people in the country. The Government alone has the power to increase the money supply by printing more rands. This is a hard thing to say but it is true. We can now ask the next question: “Why does the Government print more money?”

You must fire the Government Printer, man.

That is perhaps not a bad idea.

†Perhaps it is done with the very best intentions—to provide social security, to try to see to it that there is full employment etc. But, Sir, there is a fundamental dilemma here. When the private individual tries to spend money that he does not have, he soon ends up in court. When the Government starts doing it, or wants to do it, it goes to the printing press that the hon. member for Rissik referred to. The Government prints money because it wants to finance its own expenditure. When we look at Government expenditure, we can see that some of it is obviously necessary, such as expenditure on hospitals, schools and Sasol. But some of the expenditure is unnecessary and it is this unnecessary Government expenditure that we have to deal with. When a Government spends money against the interests of most of the people and does so non-productively, it causes inflation which, as I have said, is not in the interests of the people. Spending money on apartheid, on separate development, is doing just that. This is the major theme I want to illustrate to the hon. the Minister of Finance and he can come back to me on this.

Will you give us examples?

Yes.

Therefore, the price of apartheid is higher inflation. The practice of apartheid, the practice of separate development, is inflationary. Let me give hon. members an example.

The practice of your policy is chaos.

Let me give an example. With increasing inflation, we end up in chaos in any case. Let me give the example of influx control. It has been calculated conservatively that the implementation of influx control, as practised by the Government, costs us roughly R112 million per year. It costs R112 million per year to implement influx control, which basically means that one is trying to prevent certain people from coming to the cities looking for jobs. That is already R112 million per year. Secondly, because of the way in which influx control is implemented, the prisons are overpopulated. Gen. Brink has said that our daily prison population is round about 100 000 people. The prisons can only accommodate 70 000. Almost 40% of that prison population consists of people who have been prosecuted under the influx control laws of the Government.

Let us take another example. Take education. We are not satisfied with one education department, we must have four. I read very carefully what the hon. the Minister of National Education said in this respect. The first thing he said, as far as I can remember, was that we must rationalize education in South Africa. But we must have four departments. We have had this position for a number of years. In other words, educational institutions are duplicated. We had a long debate in which the hon. the Minister of Education and Training explained in detail why there should not simply be one technikon for Blacks but a number of technikons for the various Black groups. Rather than look at the educational needs of the country as a whole, the Government looks at the various racial groups and says “we must give them separate but equal facilities”.

*One reads in the Oosterlig of 1 July 1980—

The next day the Oosterlig published the following editorial—

Here again is an example for the hon. the Minister of Finance.

†Another inflationary aspect of the policy of separate development is, of course, that over the years we have deliberately limited the pool of productive labour in this country. While there is an expanding economy and an increasing population the productive pool of labour has been limited. That pool is therefore not only limited but it is decreasing. Now there is a crisis and now we have to broaden the productive base after years of inflationary political activity in this instance.

Another sphere in which I can give the hon. the Minister an example is the nonproductive consolidation of land areas for ideological purposes. I do not have to say this myself. I need simply turn to the chairman of the Van der Walt Commission himself. This session of Parliament he said the following (Hansard, col. 376)—

Is that not a wasteful expenditure of money? This is simply inflationary.

So I can go on giving the hon. the Minister examples. The point I am making is that by printing money to finance its own expenditure on separate development the Government has become the major cause of inflation in South Africa. It is making us all poorer by trying to implement an unattainable policy.

Instead of introducing clear-cut reforms away from inflationary spending, the Government resolutely sticks to its ideology whilst ignoring the essential services necessary for sound administration. That is why we have a crisis in education, in nursing and in the Public Service. What is the cure for inflation? The cure is to cut back on Government spending. That means that you cut back on unnecessary and unproductive Government expenditure. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows this. He has said so himself. He has appealed for restraint many, many times. He has asked that we exercise restraint and discipline. He is basically a conservative economist. He runs a very tight argument in terms of this, but he is trapped. The hon. the Minister of Finance is trapped. He is a conservative economist trapped within a politically inflationary policy. That is his problem. I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be a fly on the wall in the hon. the Minister’s office when they start drawing up the budget. I can see the hon. the Minister of National Education coming to him last year and saying to him: “Please, Mr. Horwood, I have promised the teachers that I am going to give them a 25% increase before Christmas”, and the hon. the Minister of Finance saying: “You must be joking. You must be joking, you cannot have it.” Then, of course, the hon. the Minister of Finance might say: “Maybe in April; we shall see.” Then I can also imagine the chairman of the Van der Walt commission going to the hon. the Minister of Finance and saying: “You know, if we want to consolidate the land areas we need R3 000 million. Can we please get R3 000 million?” I think the hon. the Minister of Finance would say: “Please, I cannot stop laughing; you are joking too much.” The hon. the Minister of Finance cannot do that and he knows that he cannot do that because if he makes these concessions then we shall really have inflation with a vengeance.

Instead of abandoning this wasteful policy the Government looks for other ways and means to cut back on expenditure. It starts neglecting and ignoring its essential services over a long period of time.

*Keep the teachers where they are. Keep the policemen where they are. Keep the civil servants where they are.

†And they start ignoring the situation until it reaches crisis proportions. The Government starts getting stingy with the poor and the elderly. Slowly it starts ignoring people until there is a crisis. Then, when it reaches crisis proportions, the Government quickly calls a general election and it tries to buy off political discontent by announcing hopelessly inadequate concessions. This Government knows that because it does not have the guts to tackle inflation where it hurts politically, namely, in the policy of apartheid or separate development, we are heading for greater economic hardship towards the end of the year. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows this. That is why the Government wants the people to vote now because it knows they have to pay later. Nothing illustrates this more than this minibudget. This mini-budget illustrates this very principle. With this mini-budget the Government is really displaying its true colours. What is it actually saying to the people? It does not really care about the effects of inflation and the increased cost of living. Secondly, it takes people for granted. It takes people for granted and regards them simply as voting fodder. That is what it is doing.

How can you possibly say that? Did Harry write that for you?

Thirdly, the Government is cynical in its manipulation of household budgets for the sake of political expediency. Fourthly, it thinks it can bluff the people about the ravages of inflation by giving them short-term hand-outs. In the no-confidence debate I asked the hon. the Prime Minister a number of questions that could have steered us away from inflationary separate development spending. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister what is going to happen to land consolidation. The hon. the Prime Minister said he could not take the people into his confidence.

No, that is not true.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister . . .

I tell you that what you are stating there is not true.

The hon. the Prime Minister said it was a delicate matter and that he could not tell the public then.

What you are stating is not true. I made a full statement.

I asked the hon. the Prime Minister specifically on that question and he came back and said it is a very delicate issue.

Do not repeat the remarks you made in London.

Secondly, I asked the hon. the Prime Minister what was going to happen about the removal of discrimination. I mentioned a specific example, namely, the Separate Amenities Act. The hon. the Prime Minister said that they were giving attention to this matter from time to time.

No, I replied to you in full.

But the reply was not informative. That is what I am saying.

Just speak the truth.

Thirdly, I asked the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us about the new deal for urban Africans and then the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development informed us that the Bills were going to be withdrawn—thank heavens for that—and that a new commission had to be appointed. All these issues bear directly on wasteful and inflationary Government expenditure, and we simply have no clear-cut guidelines from the Government how we are going to cope with these before we go into the election. We do not know, and if I am wrong I would be quite happy for any member of the Government to explain to us what is going to happen in this respect.

*That is why I say that due to this inflationary expenditure on the part of the Government we have a crisis situation in certain services in the country. But that is not all; we also have the Government’s policy which is becoming a threat to us, a threat to our security. The question we must ask is this: Due to rising inflation, which is directly bound up with Government spending and Government policy, are we more secure today than we were four years ago, when the election was held? It is ironical that the very threat to the security of all of us, the Government’s policy and its consequences for our economy and ethnic relations, is being swept under the carpet by the Government for this election. The threat to us does not lie outside this country. It lies here, within. It does not matter what the external threat is. The stronger we are internally, the better we shall be able to avert it. Is there less subversion, are there fewer terrorist onslaughts than before? In 1977 we destroyed the terrorist bases in Angola. Today we are doing the same in Mozambique. Of course we have to combat terrorism and violence. Of course we must try to promote and protect the possibility of peaceful evolutionary change, but if this Government tries to create the impression that every time a terrorist base is destroyed it has nothing to do with our internal situation, we are all being deceived.

The Whites are proud of the efficiency of the Defence Force action in Maputo. But the Blacks in Soweto want to know whether they can hold a funeral. That is the hard truth. We cannot bluff ourselves. We must take cognizance of that. There has been research in this connection. The hon. the Prime Minister himself says that a new spirit is discernible in Soweto. What does he say about this newspaper heading: “Revolusie is ’n oplossing, glo Soweto?” That appeared in the newspaper only last week. [Interjections.]

Those reports were later denied.

I read that it was said that 25% of the people in Soweto believe that revolution offers the solution.

And you are a mediator for the leftists.

I maintain that this is a crisis, and that we must give it our attention.

Those reports were denied, in any event.

It is pointless our closing our eyes to internal dissatisfaction and external terror. It must be seen in relation to our internal situation and political actions. We cannot ignore it.

You act as a mediator for the revolutionaries. [Interjections.]

What about all the interjections now?

Surely we cannot make out that this dissatisfaction cannot be exploited by acts of terror, violence or revolution. When political measures are rejected, when they create frustration and cause polarization, it is the responsibility of our politicians to change them so that actions by our Defence Force are not in vain. If we do not do so, we shall be cursed by posterity. That is clear. It has already been said that military action is quite sufficient. Defence Force action is the steel fence behind which we must work out the prerequisites for the safety and security of all of us, but let me spell out the minimum prerequisite for political action.

We must not divide and embitter the people of South Africa by political action, but must develop common and patriotism among all our people—among White, Brown and Black. We must not arrogantly decide for other people where their place in our society should be, but must plan together and negotiate together to work out a common future. We must not tell anyone that he is not a citizen of South Africa and then still expect him to co-operate with us. We must negotiate an equal citizenship with him, irrespective of race or ethnicity.

There is no security in race discrimination. We must get rid of it. That is the prerequisite for our security and safety in South Africa, and I charge this Government with ignoring this prerequisite and as a result, threatening the safety and security of all of us.

The Government must begin by combating inflation in an imaginative way. Government expenditure can be reduced by abandoning unproductive, inflationary apartheid measures. It is unnecessary to waste millions upon millions of rands by unnecessary consolidation measures. The Government must not waste millions upon millions of rands by the forced resettlement of people and the Government must not waste millions upon millions of rands by implementing hurtful influx control measures. Nor must the Government waste money on the doubling of facilities in areas where they can be shared.

It is clear that you advocate a unitary State.

That is of course the greatest nonsense which the hon. the Prime Minister is now uttering. What kind of State does the hon. the Prime Minister propose for the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites? What sort of State is that? It is a joint Governmental system. The hon. the Prime Minister knows it. The same problems repeat themselves there. It is pointless our discussing Blacks and thinking that the same problems are not going to repeat themselves in the case of the Coloureds and the Asians. [Interjections.]

You are advocating a unitary State.

It is pointless attacking us on the problems which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have himself. [Interjections.] That is why we say that in the coming election we shall unmask the Government. We shall expose the Government in this connection because they do not want to tell the people in South Africa where they are taking them. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the accusation which the hon. the Prime Minister levelled at him with regard to what he had said abroad. [Interjections.] I should now like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pay attention to what I want to say.

I am listening.

I have before me a newspaper report which I shall quote for the purposes of my argument. It appeared in the London Times. According to this report, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

Now the hon. the Leader is saying that in point of fact he did not say this overseas but in South Africa, and that what he said . . .

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a minute. Just give me a chance. Allow me to finish what I am saying. The hon. the Leader said that he had maintained that no change was evident in the fundamental principles of the NP. But surely that is not what is stated here. In this report he expresses an opinion on reform as reform, and not on the concept of the NP’s principles. But I want to go further. The hon. member said that there was a climate of revolution in this country. I want to analyse his assumption and ask him to listen to what I have to say. What bodies or persons in any country create a climate of revolution?

An NP Government.

I want to ask him what persons or bodies are creating a climate of revolution in our country. Let us analyse this today. The hon. member will be aware that external forces foment revolution in countries. I think he agrees. But he will also know that there are bodies and people within the country’s borders that foment revolution.

Just so.

I want to identify a third group today, one in this very Parliament, for we in this House can unwittingly— I am qualifying my words . . .

You will have to qualify your words very carefully.

Yes, I shall.

. . . foment the forces of revolution by means of our statements.

Tell that to Hennie Smit.

The hon. member must please give me a chance: I really did not interrupt him. I have 15 minutes; he had half an hour at his disposal. [Interjections.] I am saying that the party sitting there is fomenting radical thinking in this country, both leftist and rightist radical thinking. I want to warn him that the rightist radical movement in this country is being strengthened by those hon. members’ contempt for the rights of Whites in South Africa. That is a fact.

That is not true.

They are fighting against you, not against us.

Just wait a minute. Those hon. members are elected by Whites in this country and I ask them to go and read their own speeches to ascertain what percentage of those speeches are devoted to the rights and privileges of the Whites in this country.

What is more, the hon. members adopt the standpoint that Black people in this country have no voice and that they must therefore give the Black people a voice. But they are guilty of a fundamental error of logic, for they are equating a voice with the franchise. Surely the hon. member knows that that argument does not hold water. Let me ask him: If reform had not occurred in this country as a process in recent years, who would have given Black leaders a platform? If reform had not come to this country, who would have made bodies the platform of Indian and Coloured leaders? Long before other countries in Africa the Government realized that it was not possible to have a monopoly of political power in the hands of one group, but in contrast to the hon. member opposite we are not prepared to bring about an abdication of our own rights in the process of the devolution of power to other people. In fact, the hon. member said that he did not advocate one man, one vote in one State, but if one analyses his speech on the basis of the details which, according to what he advocated, should disappear, one sees that its result is one man, one vote in a unitary State. That is what the hon. member is advocating.

You did not say that in Simonstown.

Man, you are too stupid to understand it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that he was not in favour of one man, one vote in a unitary State, but what is a federation but a unitary State? The fact remains that the central authority in a federal concept has to be elected on the basis of one man, one vote, has it not? Why is the hon. Leader of the Opposition not prepared to say what he stands for?

What about the Coloureds and the Asians?

I am talking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, and if I have time I shall discuss the Coloureds and Asians as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I say this frankly—would have been prepared to serve on the President’s Council; other members of his party have prevented him from doing so. [Interjections.] I state that as a fact.

Nonsense. [Interjections.]

Wait a moment; please give me a chance. The hon. member served with me on a commission of enquiry; in fact, he is going to serve on a Select Committee again, and I am grateful that we are able to serve on it together. Can he deny that witnesses came forward with two definite elements, viz. firstly, that if we do not incorporate ethnicity in the model, we shall be creating an instrument of confrontation and conflict? Does the hon. member agree? The second element was that whatever the model may be, if it is not given effect to in the geographic sense, it cannot succeed. The fact is that we may theorize about our political structure if we wish, but if we do not adapt it to the realities of this country which it is meant to serve, we shall be formenting conflict instead of reducing it. The hon. member is nodding in acquiescence.

What was the other evidence? If I may sum it up in my own words, what it amounted to was that a political model is the result of processes which extend over long periods, and which reflect the attitude of people who live in the country concerned and have to be served by that political structure.

What was the evidence of the Blacks?

We may offer the country the finest ideals, but if the ideals cannot withstand the test of reality, they mean nothing. I want to say in all seriousness today that what the country needs most is not a new political structure, but a change of attitude among people. I want to issue a warning to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His party is not helping to reform peoples attitudes so that we may reform the political structure as well. On the contrary, the hon. member and his party are in their way contributing towards the heightening of the climate of conflict. This is the charge I make against that hon. member.

A racist party.

After all, the hon. member knows that this country is in a process of transformation, and in that process it is always possible that conflict and confrontation may occur, for on the one hand there is resistance to reform, and on the other, expectations which are too high to be satisfied. If the hon. member and his party continue day after day only to emphasize how other peoples are discriminated against—apart from the fact that it is untrue —what does he expect the reaction of those peoples to be? And what does he think the reaction of those who have to accept the reform is going to be?

We must understand that if reform is to take place in this country along constitutional lines, it must take place by means of this Parliament, and this being so, those who serve in this Parliament have to accept the reforms. I want to warn the hon. member in all seriousness that this is a prerequisite for reform.

But the hon. member is now saying that no reform has taken place. Did we not also all accept that there must be consultation to be able to do this? Have we not already initiated such a process through the President’s Council? Is he unaware of the atmosphere of debate which characterized the first sitting? Many more people of colour than he thinks are far better off today in every sphere of life than there were before this party came to power. However, whereas this party has brought reform and created institutions which are also to contribute towards creating a climate for further reform capable of giving expression to the objectives of the unprejudiced maintenance of the rights and privileges of every section of the population, that party is isolated from those processes.

Did we make an assault on District Six?

Your party is a boycott party.

We are approaching an election. During this election we may, if we so wish, appeal to people’s deepest emotions, but we must bear in mind that the dominant emotions in people’s lives are those of fear and selfishness. If all of us were prepared not to create selfish expectations, we would not nourish the revolutionary climate and would succeed in preventing radical ideas in this country from spreading.

This society is what it is because it was created that way. This society’s potential for conflict is greater than that of other countries because its divisive elements lie deeper and are more sensitive. There is no point in seeking to apply the models of developed countries, which were established after those countries were able to afford it, to a country which is at this stage of development in Africa. Are we in this country not capable of generating our own ideas and initiatives? Why do we say on the one hand that we are an African country, and on the other hand that we want to build it up into a First World country? It is not the recognition of rights which is at issue among us. That is axiomatic. It is rather the preservation of rights that is at issue. The hon. member knows that the emotional intensity in our society is high, and if the policy implemented does not take into account the realities of the country it would lead to the destruction of the one thing which all of us desire, i.e. a specific set of value systems. Whether we want to realize it or not, if the position of the Whites is destroyed, the value systems of this country are destroyed. This is my reply to that unitary state of the hon. leader. That is why I say that all the population groups in this country must realize that one prerequisite for their development is the preservation of my group’s rights. I plead that we should pray every morning to understand and grasp that what is at issue is not what we want to do in this country, but what we are able to do within the limitations of the society here.

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would have liked to devote all the time available to me to reply to the hon. the Minister, I am unable to do so because I intend raising a matter which I consider to be of public interest as a result of a judgment passed in the Supreme Court here in Cape Town on 11 February this year. Before I do that, however, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that we in the NRP will concede to much of what he has said today in regard to the rights of groups in South Africa to express themselves as they wish and their right to the preservation of their culture in this country. The NRP is a party consisting of pluralists, a party which acknowledges ethnicity and I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of that. We believe that the constitution has to entrench group rights because without such entrenchment there will in fact be revolution at some time or other. Hon. members have spoken about revolution on the part of Blacks but I should like to say that if power were to be passed from Whites to Blacks, there might be internal revolution between Black and Black as we have seen in Africa recently, as well as between Whites and Blacks. I think it is a pity that we do not learn from our own history. We have seen the Afrikaner nation fighting for their culture, for their identity and for their ethnicity. I believe that any White politician who has no appreciation of our history has no appreciation of our future either in respect of the emergence of Black demands for their rights to their ethnicity and their future. That is why we in these benches remain in the NRP.

Sir, I want to refer, as I have already done, to a judgment given in the Cape Town Supreme Court on 11 February 1981. This particular court case concerned an internal squabble between a man who believed that he had been unjustly treated by a certain company which he claimed had led some 200 000 South Africans to lose approximately R20 million on the stock market in 1969 and 1970. This concerns the collapse of National Fund Investments. I do not believe that there is a single hon. member in the House who has not, at some or other time during the past few years, received letters or communications from Mr. Richard Benson, a chartered accountant who practise in Cape Town and who is also an investment adviser. I received these letters during the past few years and, as I do with all letters that I receive, I tried to investigate the problem. As a result of the court case, I have here a letter from Mr. Benson addressed to the Chairman of the Shareholders’ Association of South Africa and I want to quote from it—

1. 1. The NFI Prospectus was false.
2. 2. False statements were made by company officials to shareholders in 1969 and 1970.
3. 3. The listing of NFI was obtained by giving misleading information to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
4. 4. An offer made to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange to obtain listing was not fully carried out once listing had been obtained.
5. 5. 3. and 4. above were in addition to a false and misleading prospectus.
6. 6. False information and assurances were issued to shareholders after listing.
7. 7. As late as June 1970 the chairman issued a false statement on the accounts of the main subsidiary of NFI.
8. 8. Losses of NFH were transferred to NFI after listing.
9. 9. The Prospectus itself was contravened.
10. 10. Members of NFI management had their NFI shares repurchased at cost.

Who was the chairman?

The chairman was a Mr. Abrahamson who . . .

A supporter of the Progs?

The hon. member says he is a supporter of the Progs, but I know that he was involved in the Information scandal. This letter proceeds to claim that fraud was committed against subscribers and other share buyers. Further down one reads—

He goes further, if I may quote again—

I am not a lawyer and this judgment from which I have quoted is some 68 pages in length. May I say that over the last few years I have studied Mr. Benson’s documents and find that he has been frustrated in his efforts to get some action taken both on the part of the Department of Justice and the Department of Police. It is strange that this should now arise out of an action which his attorneys brought against him because he refused to pay his legal fees because of what he considered was an abortive attempt to try to recover his money from NFI. On page 501 of the judge’s judgment one reads—

On page 52 one reads—

Sir, I am running out of time, but I would ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Finance to have their respective departments go into this judgment in great detail . . .

Thoroughly.

… and thoroughly, as my hon. colleague from Berea says, because I believe that some 200 000 South African citizens have lost a consider able amount of money on the stock exchange. If this judgment proves to be correct, this was the result of one of the largest frauds ever perpetrated in South Africa. I just want to quote once again, from page 53—

He was the secretary of this particular company—

As I say, I have limited time. However, I believe that the Government must investigate this matter. Articles have been written in the newspapers, letters have been distributed to people throughout the country and a shareholder’s association was formed to try to fight this case. In fact it goes right back to 1970. I have here a clipping from the Sunday Times where this particular association appealed to the Government to hold an investigation and nothing was done.

Why?

As the hon. member for Berea says, the question is: Why? I realize that the hon. the Minister of Justice does not have the time in this debate to reply to me, but as this is the last opportunity that I shall have during this session of raising this matter, I do so in the public interest and I sincerely hope that both the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Justice will look into this matter to see whether this fraud has been perpetrated against the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will forgive me if I do not react to what he has said. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to that later.

Arising out of what has been said by various speakers I should like to put forward a few thoughts to the House. Firstly I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. the Prime Minister asked him a pertinent question. I know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be a man who creates the impression that he knows what it is all about, that he has come to terms with himself, and I also know him as an honourable man. However, I find it very strange that although a direct question was put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—it was even read out to him— there has been no direct reply to it up to this moment. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I am sitting in a back bench and perhaps the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now content and satisfied to supply me with the answer— and it is very simple: Did he utter the words as quoted in that specific publication, yes or no? Very well, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head and I will therefore accept that he . . .

I said what I said, after all.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has definitely not given the hon. the Minister a direct reply as to whether he uttered those words, yes or no.

I have said what my words were.

No, but the particular words. It is not a question of the words which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in fact uttered, but of particular words. Very well, it seems to me as if we are not going to get a reply to that either, and we leave it at that.

Read his Hansard.

No, we do not need to read his Hansard; we were here in the I regret that the hon. member for Pinelands is not in the House. I told him that I wished to react to certain statements he made with regard to education. I therefore take it that he did not know when it was my turn to speak and that he will probably be here shortly. I hope so. Throughout this whole debate hon. members of the Opposition have been trying to avoid the opportunity of stating their policy. They are trying to elevate certain other things, as if they were what is most important. We had the same thing from the hon. member for Pinelands when he tried to show that teachers were unjustly treated as regards their salaries. He also tried to show that in relation to total Government spending, too little was given to education. The hon. the Minister of Finance will react to that further.

However, I wish to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that to take the salaries of teachers as a group and try to indicate that in real terms they have benefited less, is meaningless. It is senseless if the hon. member does not compare them with all the other different groups within the public sector. Only then would he have an argument.

I hasten to add that we on this side of the House of course accept that during the past two or three years teachers have had justifiable expectations. We also recognized that through their mouthpiece, the Federal Council, they did negotiate for improved benefits for themselves. However, what did the Government do? The Government held the view that if there were justifiable requests, they should be proved to be justifiable. And the way to do this is to appoint a scientific committee that can indicate without any doubt whether there is indeed merit. With great respect to the Federal Council I wish to say that they came forward with specific requests, but that they did not always have the scientific character of a wide-ranging investigation into salaries coupled with comparable posts in the rest of the public sector.

In 1959 the Government took the initiative into its own hands and appointed a projects committee under the very able leadership of Dr. Roux Venter. That projects committee was instructed to investigate the status of the teacher, with special refe-the Government is going further, and in order to further reaffirm the scientific nature of the investigation, the HSRC has also been involved, with much broader terms of reference with regard to education in general. The question can now justly be asked as to what the Government did after it had received a scientific report from the projects committee.

That is the question.

That is the question that can be put. I will furnish the hon. member with a reply. However, this is precisely my objection to the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands is acting negatively here. He knows certain things, but he does not inform the House of them. He says nothing about the positive things that have already flowed from the report of the projects committee. While the hon. the Minister of Finance was delivering his speech the hon. member for Pinelands wanted to know by way of an interjection what the teachers had to say about it. He keeps asking what the teachers have to say about it.

I shall now tell the hon. member for Pinelands what the teachers have to say about it.

Where is the hon. member?

He did not say where he was going.

Surely the hon. member for Pinelands must have taken note of the fact that Mr. Peter Mundell, chairman of the TTA, commented on this matter. Hon. members know of course that Mr. Peter Mundell was by no means full of praise for this Government with regard to the salaries of teachers. We know what happened in Transvaal and what the TTA was responsible for there. After he had called together representatives from all the branches of this association and discussed the matter there, Mr. Peter Mundell made the following statements. It pleases me to see that the hon. member for Pinelands is back in the House.

Mr. Peter Mundell says that as chairman of the meeting, he expresses his satisfaction on behalf of that meeting with the announcements regarding the salaries of teachers. However, he goes further and says that they are satisfied that the salary increases, in the light of the current inflation rate, are realistic. This is coming from a man who began by attacking the Government. The hon. member for Pinelands knows it. However, he did not mention it in this House.

Mr. Peter Mundell goes on to say that the report of the projects committee is an excellent instrument for negotiation. He perceives this and concedes it.

The secretary of the SATU praises the hon. the Minister of National Education for the way in which the matter was handled and for the way in which the Government dealt with the matter when the scientific investigation had been concluded. The Federal Council—the highest authority in education— also expresses its appreciation for this. I take it amiss of the hon. member for Pinelands that he should selectively single out certain matters in this House in an effort to bring the teachers into conflict with the Government.

No, that is not so.

No, the hon. member must give me a chance to speak now. I did not interrupt him when he made his speech. The hon. member for Pinelands is underestimating the intelligence of teachers. He does not know the soul of the teacher. The teacher is one who dedicates himself to his task, one who, as a person bound to his culture—whether it be the White culture, or whether he is a Black or a Coloured teacher, is immaterial—has a deeper feeling for these matters than the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member dragged the honour of the teachers over the floor of this House.

Nonsense.

It is true.

No, that is not so. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands says, for example, that teachers are “demoralized” and “demotivated”.

That is correct.

I put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that that is absolutely untrue. To say anything of the kind is an insult to teachers.

They themselves say it.

While this whole campaign was taking place, teachers performed their task with dedication in their classrooms. That they did negotiate, is something that we do not want to hold against them. That was appropriate and in order. However, in the mean time they carried on with their work.

One would now be justified in asking what the Government did after it had received a scientific reply from the projects committee. What were the findings of the projects committee and what did the Government do?

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

No, I do not have the time to reply to questions now.

Besides, you will not be able to reply.

The Government accepts the findings of the projects committee with regard to the determination of the amount for teachers’ salaries. The Government accepts the finding that teachers’ salaries have fallen behind salaries paid for comparable posts in the public and private sector. The Government accepts that. The Government accepts that educational salaries must be increased in such a way that the schools sector must be comparable with the salaries of similarly rated posts in the public sector. However, the Government goes even further than that. The Government also accepts that with certain provisos, the results of the evaluation of posts must serve as a basis for the structuring of the new salaries. The Government goes further. The Government accepts the principle of professional differentiation and—and this is important— states by way of the hon. the Minister of Finance that the Government is continuing to deal with the question of education as such within the public sector. In other words, the Government understands the problems of teachers as a group within the public sector. What is more, in addition to this the Government states that it does not accept the recommendation that the differentiation between the salaries of men and women in education should be maintained, in contrast to the recommendation of the projects committee. In other words, the Government is showing its appreciation of the contribution of women in education.

Since the Government has now accepted these recommendations of the projects committee, you would also be entitled to ask me: What does it mean? What is this going to achieve? The hon. member for Pinelands could have made a positive contribution in this House by also expressing the gratitude of that side of the House for the fact that the Government has done these things on the basis of this scientific investigation. However, we have heard nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we find that he insulted the teachers.

No!

Mr. Speaker, it is very clearly indicated in his statements that on the basis of what has been accepted here, salary increases of 20% and more—and I wish to emphasize this clearly—will be granted to teachers. This means that the problem with regard to the promotion opportunities for teachers on the first post levels will be eased by the extending of the scale from 7 to 9. What does this mean? This means that in addition to the increase of 20% on average, a qualified teacher who is on his maximum will get that first increment, the 8th notch, as well, and will actually be considered for a higher increase than the 20%. Acceptance of this means that the existing 10 post levels up to a chief inspector are reduced to six. This will have the effect that certain persons who were on a lower post level with regard to the old structure will now immediately come onto a higher post level, with the necessary or consequent benefit which he will also receive in respect of salary in this regard. In point of fact, this means that in certain instances considerably higher percentages than the 20% will be granted to teachers.

You neglected them for five years.

The hon. member for Pinelands was not here when I dealt with that argument. Now the hon. member comes and wants to interrupt me. If the hon. member had been in the House a short while ago he would have had the reply to that remark.

A further very important result of this acceptance is that salary differentiation on the basis of classification categories is retained, but that from the revised post level 3, undifferentiated scale maxima are introduced from category D, but their scale minima remains differentiated. In teaching circles this is a very important adjustment which will have the support of many teachers. Time does not allow me to go into detail, but hon. members can take it that this will be very significant for education.

Having said all this, I also wish to say that over the years since 1948, this side of the House has always had a special feeling for education, and that it is indeed so that this Government, as a responsible government, has always responded to the requests of the teaching profession. It is true that what happens in education affects not only education, not only the children, but indeed the soul and the being of the whole nation. As far as I am concerned, the NP is also part of the nation and will therefore naturally treat education as an important profession as such.

The public spotlight has in recent times fallen very much on education, the teacher, the school and the university, and as a result it also placed an important responsibility on those teachers. It also placed a special responsibility on the Government, because that spotlight also fell on the Government with regard to its handling of this important matter. However, I suggest that the Government can look the teaching profession in the eye, because it took vigorous action on the basis of scientific investigations. We are still awaiting the report of the HSRC but I wish to say today without fear of contradiction that the teachers can have confidence in the Government of the day on the grounds that it has done what it has promised, after scientific investigations, and has acted responsibly. The Government will also continue in future to take the teacher by the hand for the particularly important work which he does.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia made his usual sound contribution. I think all of us were very concerned about the education situation and we believe that the profession will benefit from the increases which were granted by the hon. Minister of Finance.

The speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition created the impression of total frustration throughout. However, one must have a measure of sympathy for the hon. members of the Opposition because they find themselves in a dilemma. The hon. the Minister introduced a budget which one really cannot criticize, only applaud. In my opinion hon. members opposite who nevertheless tried to criticize it, failed dismally. As I have said, we should in fact sympathize with the hon. members of the Opposition for they will agree with me that one should after all have something to offer the voters before an election. One should have something which one can sell to the voters. But in one election after the other the Opposition came forward—whether it was the NRP or the PFP—and offered what they had to sell, and every time they were sent packing. This reminds one of a farmer who arrives on the market with a truck-load of rotten tomatoes. If he is unable to find a buyer for them he blames the Government.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there was fundamental confusion among the voters and that the Government should eliminate this fundamental confusion. But can the hon. Leader of the Opposition tell me how long this fundamental confusion has existed? Has it existed since 1943 or 1948 or for the full period of NP government? When did this confusion start?

Since you have been there.

For in spite of the fundamental confusion the Opposition has fared worse in every election since 1948. The question arises: Why does the Opposition continue to fare worse? This is the question which the hon. members for Hillbrow and Yeoville must ask themselves. Even though there was a fluctuation from one political party to another, why do they continue to fare worse?

I am doing very well.

You ousted Lorimer; now you are doing very well.

Surely it is true that in 1948, in fact up to 10 years ago, the NP was basically an Afrikaans-speaking party whereas the Opposition was basically English-speaking. Who has now left which party? Surely the Opposition has lost its basic support among the English-speaking people. Surely this is a fact. Who can argue about that if it is in fact true? Surely it is not the farmers who have left the Opposition. It was the English-speaking people, and if this is true, the Opposition must ask themselves why the English-speaking voters have left the Opposition and joined the NP. I think there are a few reasons. These people also wish to share in the initiatives which are being taken by the Government. They are not prepared to listen to the pious talk of the Opposition year in and year out without being able to participate. The onslaught on South Africa is a reality to those people. They believe that there is a Marxist onslaught on South Africa, whereas the Opposition says that the Government sees a communist lurking behind every bush. If the Government is wrong, why is the Opposition losing its support? I can furnish another reason. Those voters also believe in South Africa first. They do not flee the country and make all kinds of statements abroad. They do not write letters and make telephone calls to foreign countries to seek assistance. They believe that this country is their country and that we wish to co-operate in this country in order to make it a better and safer country for all.

Basically the Opposition will have to accept one thing, and that is that the voters of South Africa do not want a left-wing Government. That is a fact. Furthermore it will have to be accepted—on 29 April those Parties will realize this again—that basically the voters stand for orderly co-existence and neighbourliness, for internal security and order and that basically they do not allow themselves to be led by the nose by the poisonous English Press which is the mouthpiece of the official Opposition. Despite the bitterness of the English Press, the Opposition simply continues to lose support. The more the English Press tries to get the people to the Opposition’s side of the polling station, the more they come over to the other side. I still remember the position in 1977. A small NRP tent stood there and not even 20 people turned up there during the day. There was also a huge PFP tent, almost as large as this hall, but not even 200 people turned up.

It is probably you people who cannot count.

No, the counters were able to count. The hallmark of the South African voter is that he is basically conservative. He is basically conservative and also has an anti-revolutionary attitude. If the Opposition does not realize this, the Opposition parties in South Africa that are constantly engaged in Black politics will not succeed in retaining the real voter, the enfranchised person in South Africa, who is still voting for them at present. I believe the NP, which is at present the Government, has succeeded over a period of 60 or 70 years in building a bridge between the language groups in South Africa. I do not think it is possible to dispute this, for no one else has tried—particularly not the Opposition nor the Opposition Press—to create a better political relationship between the two language groups in South Africa. It was the NP that did this. I think that that bridge has already been built. We need only look at the result in Simonstown to find proof that the bridge has already been built. Consequently I believe that the Government—as well as the voter when he votes on 29 April—is now faced with bigger problems. Other bridges will now have to be built, including bridges of goodwill, but this time not between the language groups. This time the bridges will have to be built between peoples, between ethnic groups. But, the dilemma is that we no longer have 60 or 70 years to build those bridges. We no longer have 60 or 70 years to build bridges of goodwill and co-operation between the population groups or peoples of our country and Southern Africa.

But there is another problem. The NP is always expected to take the initiative and to come forward with the solutions. In other words, it is expected that the bridge should be built from one side of the chasm only. The time has arrived for those on the other side of the chasm of alienation as well to assist in working and building together. They have to accept co-responsibility. One cannot ask the Whites in South Africa alone to make the sacrifices, to come forward with initiatives while there are Coloured and Black people in South Africa as well. It will become essential for the other people who want to coexist with us here in this country to accept the responsibility and to take the initiative to an increasing extent. If we wish to develop the orderly society in South Africa our only choice is that the Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians should each accept responsibility and realize that everyone also has a responsibility towards orderly co-existence in South Africa.

Sir, this brings me to the attitude of the official Opposition to the President’s Council. I believe that with this body an instrument has been created which is going to serve a very good purpose and I believe that with the necessary goodwill among the various groups that are represented there, positive proposals will emerge, proposals which can give effective shape to orderly co-existence and the recognition of human dignity. But then one asks oneself this question: “Why is the official Opposition adopting a head-in-the-sand political stance? Why is it burying its head in the sand like an ostrich when real problems exist and they may after all be able to make a contribution?” I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his party will be called to account on 29 April and will have to tell the voters why it has not succeeded in contributing its share as well to solving the problems of South Africa. I want to assure him that the NP, even without the assistance of the official Opposition, is prepared to face the problems of South Africa and if necessary to go it alone in an effort to solve them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East started off by extending sympathy to the official Opposition. But may I say that after listening to this morning’s performance, I actually want to extend my condolences to the NP.

Do not bluff yourself!

The electorate will decide.

Sir, one thing is very clear, and that is that this morning the guidelines were laid down for the kind of campaign that will be waged during the election. What are these guidelines, Sir? They are “Swart gevaar”, Black majority rule, unitary States, “Boerehaat” thrown in once again, total onslaught, boycotts, you name it, Sir—all the emotive things which are not going to help South Africa in the slightest now form part of the package. If hon. members want proof of this, here is the stuff that is issued by this new fat cat party, a party that can afford to spend a fortune on issuing pamphlets all over South Africa two months before the election date. What is contained in this supplement? It is full of naked racism and is the kind of hate campaigning that has become characteristic of every election campaign that the NP has had.

Where do they find the money?

The reality is that between elections one has a sort of “softly, softly catchee monkey” approach, but when it comes to election time, the true Nationalist comes out. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, for a reason which perhaps is very readily understood, when the hon. the the Minister of Finance replied to the Second Reading debate he spent a considerable amount of time on the question of Natal, as did the hon. member Mr. Klopper. He went out of his way to endeavour to assure people that, if for some reason the NP should take control of Natal, there would be no changes. In other words, what we were being given was a promise that in fact there would be no changes.

In the light of that, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to tell us, when he replies to the Third Reading debate, whether he participated in the decision which applied to the showing of cinematographic films on Sundays. There was a matter on which the people of Natal held one view and the Minister of Justice, no doubt supported by the hon. the Minister of Finance—we were told it was a Cabinet decision—held another view and imposed it in the circumstances. If that is the situation in regard to the showing of films, what will perhaps be the situation in regard to other matters, for example a harmless activity like playing cricket? That requires an answer.

The difficulty is that the history of the NP in South Africa is strewn with broken promises, one after another. It does not matter whether it is a broken promise in regard to the Senate, the Coloured vote, Port St. Johns and other places one can mention, tenants, etc.—there is a long list of broken promises. What worries me is that the hon. the Minister of Finance is sitting right next to an hon. Minister who is known as “Piet Promises” because he has meandered in his charming way from department to department leaving broken promises lying around to a greater extent than even the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs with his “broken china”.

I do keep my promises.

I think the people of Natal must see this in the correct context.

I think the hon. the Minister of Finance also owes an apology to the hon. the Prime Minister. You see, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is an expert when it comes to “Swart gevaar” politics and “Boerehaat” politics. When it comes to that sort of thing, the hon. the Prime Minister takes second place to nobody. But when it comes to economics, he is after all only the sorcerer’s apprentice, and here the sorcerer passed him the wrong notes.

You are a real Boerehater.

With great respect, Sir, where the hon. the Prime Minister gets the courage—I want to use that word . . .

Euphemistically, of course.

… the courage to get up in the House and talk about food prices in these circumstances is quite beyond me. The reality is that there are two factors he has not taken into account. The price of food is important relative to salaries and preceding prices. On the basis of that analysis, we see that food prices have risen by 30% over a period of time and that meat prices have risen by no less than 57% over the period of a year. I think that a Prime Minister who gets up and defends that must be a very courageous fellow or he must be a little desperate—one of the two. Otherwise there is no basis for it. Another matter is that when one compares food prices with food prices overseas . . .

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

No, I have no time for your questions. You refused me a few more minutes; so just remember that.

Do not complain now. When we were speaking you kept on making interjections.

In years gone by the hon. the Minister of Finance got up in this House to discuss what the true test was with regard to what one could buy with one hour of labour in different areas. He has quoted these statistics before, but he knows that he cannot quote them now, because the most recent statistics show that whereas South Africa was shown in a very favourable light, it is now shown that there has been a marked deterioration in South Africa’s relative position in the world.

What do you suggest? Are the farmers getting too much?

That is the reality of the matter. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that what we are doing is paying the price for prosperity. That is his argument. But the question is who is getting the prosperity and who is paying the price. He is asking the lower-income groups to pay the price and he is asking other people to get the prosperity. If the argument is, as he says, that we are paying the price of prosperity, then I hope you will forgive me, Sir, because I have a little card here which I am going to ask him to hang in his office. It has printed on it what I think is the appropriate slogan for this hon. Minister of Finance. It says: “Who is afraid recessions? I have failed during booms”. That is the reality of the matter. The hon. the Minister of Finance has been a failure during a boom, and do hon. members know why? I shall tell hon. members why the Government has failed in these circumstances. In the old days of the National Party the hon. the Prime Minister was an organizer. It was then a people’s party. It was concerned about the people, about the aspirations of the Afrikaner people in particular. But that party has ceased to exist. Today the NP does not care for people; it only cares for power. That is the reality of the situation.

I shall give another example. This is the last opportunity available to us to debate the question of Police overtime, and Police overtime and policemen are important to South Africa. Yesterday when the Additional Appropriation Bill was being discussed, the hon. the Minister of Police did not care to turn up. Today he still has not turned up, and to this day all we have had is a little bit of semantics to say the term used is not “overtime”; it is something else. That is all that we have had, while the truth is that the Government has stopped overtime for policemen. The money is available for it and the policemen are needed on the beat, but the Government is endangering the safety and security of the people of South Africa. The reason is that they do not care; they only care for power. That is the reality of the matter.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister today: Why do you not fight the election on the real issues, not on these imaginary things that you have advanced today, but on the real issues, on what the differences are between the political parties? The hon. the Prime Minister cannot talk about a total onslaught by Marxism and say that there is a difference of opinion between us on that issue.

Tell us about your clique.

He cannot talk about Black majority rule or “one man, one vote” in a unitary State, because he knows that is a smear tactic; it is not a genuine issue between us. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that that is so. Let us therefore talk about the real issues. If we deal with the real constitutional issue between us, it is very simple. This party has a policy reduced to writing and which is available to everybody to look at. That party has no policy. All it says is: “Wait, maybe the President’s Council will find an answer.” Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said that no price was too high to pay if the President’s Council can find an answer. But what is he going to the electorate with? I shall tell hon. members what he is going to the electorate with. He is going to the electorate with an issue in terms of which he is saying to them: “Give me authority, trust me; I do not know what I am going to do, but I am going to find out something to do and maybe the President’s Council will help me.”

Do you know what you are suffering from?

Mr. Speaker, I always listen when the hon. the Prime Minister speaks. Will he now give me a chance?

You are suffering from hallucinations.

No, Sir. [Interjections.] If I were suffering from hallucinations, it would be easy for the hon. the Prime Minister to get up and state what the policy is that his party stands for in respect of the Coloured people. However, what is the reality of it? Let us look at the reality of the problem in South Africa. Admittedly the NP say they want to solve the relationships between the Coloured, the Indian and the White people on the one hand, and the Black people on the other hand, by the creation of independent homelands and separate citizenship. That is an issue between us. It is a real issue in the coming election, because as far as we are concerned citizenship should remain with every person as a South African, and there should in fact be a federal South Africa in which everybody has a part. That is a real issue. Let us look at the rest of South Africa then. What is the constitutional dispensation in the rest of South Africa going to be—that is with the exclusion of the independent homelands—as between the Coloured, the Asian and the White? What is that constitutional dispensation going to be? Is that constitutional dispensation going to be without discrimination? Is it going to be a dispensation in which everybody is going to have a place? Is it going to be a unitary system with one man, one vote for Coloured, Asiatic . . . The hon. the Prime Minister shakes his head and says no. Is that correct?

I have already told you I am against a common voters’ roll.

What is the system going to be then? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister is faced with the same dilemma in the relationships between White, Coloured and Asians as already exists in South Africa in respect of the relationships between all people. [Interjections.]

I do not stand for a unitary state as your hon. leader does. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister is in fact advocating a unitary State for White, Coloureds and Asians. If he then does not have one man, one vote in that dispensation, in accordance with his policy, and if he does not have majority rule, he will be in trouble. [Interjections.] The dilemma in which the NP finds itself is that it can actually not face the electorate with that reality of life, and in those circumstances the NP now wants to go into an election without any policy at all. [Interjections.] That is also an issue in the coming election.

That is right.

That is a real issue in the coming election. That is not a pretended issue. It is not an emotional issue. That is not an issue which is the product of hallucinations. That is reality.

Challenge us on TV.

Shut up, you little black sheep.

I believe we in the PFP are therefore entitled to challenge the NP to debate this issue with us before the public of South Africa.

On television.

Let them come on television. [Interjections.] If they do not want to choose the hon. the Prime Minister to debate, let them choose their most photogenic person there and let him debate against the hon. Leader of the Opposition. That challenge is issued to them because the truth is that they cannot actually debate that issue before the public of South Africa. [Interjections.] They actually have to . . .

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

I have no time. If I am given the time I shall answer a question. If the hon. the Minister will ask his Whip to give me extra time, I shall answer his question. [Interjections.] May I have an extra two minutes? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put only one question to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted this morning what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said in a report in a British newspaper . . . [Interjections.]

Do not explain. Put your question.

Shut up, you mongrel. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “mongrel”.

Will the hon. member for Yeoville please indicate to me, in the extra time given to him now, whether he agrees with what his hon. leader said in that newspaper report, as quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier?

Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy question to reply to. If the hon. the Minister of Health had listened to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, he would have known what he said to the newspaper and what took place here. I venture to suggest that not even the hon. the Prime Minister disagrees with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the House this morning. [Interjections.] That is the whole point. That is the reality of the matter.

That is not what he said in London. Surely you know it.

Oh no. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister agrees with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on what he said.

That is not what he said in London. [Interjections.]

One thing is perfectly clear. If we consider the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, we can clearly prove that he had said that there had been no change in connection with the policy of separate development. Is that not true?

No, you know that is not the answer.

No, but is it not true? Is there any change in connection with the policy of separate development? Is it still the policy of the NP? [Interjections.] What has happened? Some say “yes” and others say “no”. So it is a yes-no story. But let me ask Piet Promises—I beg your pardon. I mean the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—what he has to say? Of course he says “but perhaps”. What is the problem? The problem is that in reality the NP is ashamed of apartheid today. [Interjections.] If we use that word, we are attacked. They say there is change today, but the way I understand it from the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, the policy remains separate development.

Do you agree that there are changes?

Yes, I agree— there are changes. There are various things which have changed, but one thing which still stands, is the NP’s policy of separate development. It is on that policy that they will have to fight the election.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville displays a code of conduct which is very well known to us on the farms because we encounter it in a certain predator. The more he barks and kicks up a fuss here, the more mischief he does elsewhere. Today the hon. member delivered a tremendous tirade, but at home he kicks the hon. member for Orange Grove out of his nest.

Oh, shame!

That is typical of the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member and his fellow members of the official Opposition are particularly concerned about the Police. There has been a constant refrain of reproaches concerning the Police and the remuneration of the Police for after-hours work. To what is this exceptional concern due? Sir, with great respect towards you as Speaker and towards the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders as regards the admission of questions on the Order Paper, I must point out that questions about the Police have been asked here in recent years which have reflected upon the honour of the Police and on the work they do in the interests of the security of our country. Those hon. members have consistently asked penetrating questions and created a climate in which it seemed as if the Police, from the officers down to the young constable on the street, were evil-doers. Now they are seeking to create the impression that they are the champions of the Police.

The hon. member for Yeoville went on to allege that the NP would convey a concept of fear to the electorate as a vote-catching ploy. I want to point out to the hon. member that we are not approaching the election battlefield with such a psychosis. We are going to try to put the facts before our voters. On one occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell the voters what they have to hear; not what they want to hear, but what they have to hear. However; the voters tell us what we have to hear, too.

There are a number of young men farming in my part of the world who used to farm in Zimbabwe. These are level-headed people, and one of them asked me recently: Sir, by how many years have confidence, stability, development, productivity and the standard of living in Zimbabwe been set back? I could not reply to that, but this we can say: What happened there, is the final outcome of a policy advocated by this official Opposition.

Oh, no, that is your policy.

It is the policy they advocate and they cannot escape that. It is the policy of integration which leads to the “one man, one vote” idea. We read the newspapers, after all. In one of them the heading is: “Bloedbad in Bulawayo.”

Good old Smithie; good old PW!

That is what they want to read in this country. That is what we must say to our voters. While that report appeared in the newspaper under the heading “Bloedbad in Bulawayo”, it was reported that 10 000 telephones were being installed in Soweto. I say this with reference to the remark by an hon. member this morning to the effect that Soweto preferred a revolution. That was based on a false report which was later repudiated. As regards the Development Bank and the Small Business Development Corporation, the following heading appeared in one of the English-language newspapers: “Small Business Scheme mirror of the beautiful face of capitalism.” This is said of this praiseworthy development project in which the State and business enterprises are co-operating with a view to development of the other communities. Surely these are achievements, Sir! This is what we are going to tell the electorate, because these are questions they are going to ask.

I have also been asked what the growth rate is there. Does that growth rate compare with the 8% growth rate in our country? Are projects such as Mitchell’s Plain not being tackled in this country? Are Sasol I, Sasol II and Sasol III not rising on the horizon? Apart from the projects mentioned we can show those people new projects that are mushrooming in that part of the world, for example power giants at Matla, Duva and Tutuka. However, they do not want to see them or even refer to them. Nevertheless we can proudly point to these projects as the realities. They are opportunities afforded by the country. This is not a fear that we are projecting, but the realities that are being established by the State in co-operation with the private sector. I repeat, it is not fear that we are projecting, but realities and confidence.

In the second place I am going to invite the voters to open the Opposition cupboards so that we can see what is inside, because that is the kind of politics practised by the hon. Opposition. [Interjections.]

The hon. member harps on the old concept of apartheid as if it was something terrible. However, let us see what goes on within the Opposition in all its facets. The hon. member for Pinelands—he is not present at the moment—raised the cry of: “Free Mandela”. He must not think the voters have forgotten that. The hon. member for Yeoville would do well to listen. That is the cry of the hon. member for Pinelands. Hon. members opposite can tell me about patriotism until they are blue in the face.

Do you still support apartheid?

The hon. member for Pinelands said: “Free Mandela.” At the same time I must mention that the hon. member for Sandton said during the no-confidence debate, and that is that there is not a total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. What there is, he said, is a concept of hostile attitude towards the racist policy of this Government. I shall come back to that “racist policy”. The hon. member said: “Free Mandela.” A contemporary of his also said that—Sam Nujoma at the Geneva Conference. He objected to their deputation sitting there without Mandela. What do they have to say about that? Nujoma argued that their deputation was incomplete because their men were in prison.

He was not talking about Mandela, but Toivo.

The hon. member said that there was not a total onslaught on South Africa, but I maintain that that is either frivolity, naiveté, wilfulness or a devil-may-care attitude; if not, there is a hidden motive behind that statement, and I shall tell that to my voters. However, I do not know whether the Opposition will have a candidate in my constituency. If so, we shall ask him what lies behind that. The hon. member for Sandton made this statement and now I want to ask him whether he has a son on the border.

My son is only nine years old.

If he does not have a son, it is easy for him to talk this kind of nonsense. If he had a son who had to serve on the border while he and I could remain in safety, he would feel differently and speak differently about this matter and would not be so frivolous about it.

Where were you in 1939?

Where were you in the Battle of Blouberg?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must make fewer interjections.

As one matures and is blessed with the very ordinary characteristics that the Creator has endowed one with, one ought to develop, and as one passes through one’s phases of development, adaptations ought to occur as circumstances change. That we do not deny.

That brings me to the other skeleton in their cupboard. The hon. member for Sandton made reference here to racists. I wish to quote from a pamphlet. I shall only quote a few lines. Perhaps they touch on a sensitive area, but we cannot be dishonest. One must read this kind of thing. One cannot betray one’s history, for it is part of one’s being. I quote—

That is the influx of Blacks into the Western Cape region—

Now I come to the important sentence.

This document is a paper written by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier. [Interjections.] These are facts that were written there. He formed part of that history, but today he is sitting over there denying the root of the existence of ethnicity.

Some people can learn.

He denies the concept of a distinctive nationhood. He denies his own identity. He denies the concept of nationality in the essence of every person. This kind of thing is repeated over and over again in the history books. The Zipra and Zanla forces are ethnic groups. What I am saying today I do not say as a prophet, but as a humble student of history and of the Black peoples. That Government can try and smother it as much as it likes, but it will eventually erupt and they will be at each other’s throats. The history books prove it. The Matebele are a proud people, and are in fact a member of the Nguni tribe. They are fighters par excellence and they feel that they have been deprived of their rights. That has nothing to do with us. We learn about this in history. They have been denied those rights, and although other things have been put before them, they will fight for what they have been deprived of. Only read what the Matebele say of the Mashonas in the history books. They say: “They were dogs of the king.” However those hon. members seek to deny history. In other documents Prof. Olivier says that the only escape route or solution is to recognize ethnicity, but today, as the official Opposition, they deny it. We shall go to our electorate and ask them, in all honesty, whether such a party can be trusted with the development of peoples in their slow and difficult progress, by fits and starts, without fighting or quarrelling, because the cardinal, the most elementary, the profoundest respect for people is inherent in the opportunities for dialogue courageously undertaken by the Government such as this.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member was in fact trying to imply that a bloodbath such as the one which had taken place in Zimbabwe—and which is still continuing— could actually be prevented in South Africa by this Government. However, it is very clear to me—here at the end of this short session—that as long as we as Whites in South Africa have all the effective political power in our hands, with large groups of people having no political power—large communities such as the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Blacks who are all in political vacuums today—so long will the danger of a blood-bath exist in this country. The people who will have to wake up and move away from it, will have to be the members of this Government, and they will have to do so very quickly.

Rome was not built in one day.

Sir, one hears a lot about a “total onslaught”, but when I start thinking about these things and about the inability of the Government to move away from that and to come forward with at least a workable formula, I must say that the Government is part of the total onslaught on us in South Africa. Their policy is part of that onslaught, because as long as one denies people fundamental political rights and pretends that those communities do not exist, one will be endangering the life of every single person in this country, be he White, Brown or Black. The Government will have to look to itself to find a solution to that problem.

Sir, two days ago when I was not in the House, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services accused me during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said, among other things concerning sectional titles, that I should never have said what I said during the no-confidence debate, viz. that the Government had double-crossed a large number of people, including those who had purchased accommodation under the sectional titles scheme. He also said I should never have said “especially our senior citizens who live on fixed incomes and pensions”. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services as well as his Deputy Minister are here so that I can reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In the first place, the best proof of that double-cross is the fact that the hon. the Minister came here with amending legislation. I also welcome the fact that he tried to deny it, for it now gives me the opportunity once again to tell the House how the double-cross started. The first step in the double-cross came when a solemn promise was made when the phasing out of rent control took place, that people who were protected tenants would not be evicted even if their flats were sold under sectional title. That was the promise. They were told to trust the Government. What happened then? The Government came to the House with amending legislation to say that those people could be kicked out if there was an eviction clause. Sir, is that not a double-cross? What was the effect of that? The effect was that there were elderly people who either decided to move out or who were forced to purchase their property. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services told us himself during the debate a few weeks ago that people were being given 48 hours either to purchase their property or to get out. Those were the words of the hon. the Minister. Because people feared that they would be evicted after 1 April—that was the factual situation—they were forced either into purchasing their property or they had to try to move into other accommodation. This led, in turn, to increases in rental. Then, in November last year, the hon. the Minister came and said: “No, this will not happen on 1 April.” He said this after people had used their savings to purchase the accommodation they were living in. In his speech the hon. the Minister provided us with statistics when he said that 44% of flats bought under sectional title were not occupied by the purchasers of those flats but were occupied by tenants. He said that figure could represent a cross-section and that only 37% of the flats were occupied by the actual owners of those flats. People now realize that they should never have moved; they could have stayed on.

But that is what I said.

Yes, the hon. the Minister said so himself, so of course it was a double-cross. What about the people who purchased flats, because I also referred to purchasers, thinking that the property would become available on 1 April? Of course, that will not be happening now.

But I did say that.

Yes, I am with him. The hon. the Minister is a great friend of mine. I am just saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister should have adopted the hon. the Minister’s attitude . . .

You are now trying to question the man’s words.

No, I am quoting from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech. I am just saying it is a great pity, because the hon. the Minister in fact admitted that a mistake had been made and said they were trying to rectify it.

You made the mistake and I am trying to rectify it.

But in the process a lot of people suffered. It is only with a view to that that I am saying this.

Those who were double-crossed suffered.

Sir, this mini-budget can, I think, also be referred to in some respects as a defeatist budget. It was necessary for the hon. the Minister to say that this budget involved a record total, but I do not think they should be too proud of the fact that it is some R9 800 million. Usually increases in expenditure, apart from expenditure on defence and in respect of emergency matters, are introduced because it is the intention of the State to provide bigger and better services to the public, to improve the quality of life of people. But, in spite of all the promises in the past, this budget is not going to do that. This budget is merely a reflection of the inability of the Government really to counteract inflation. All that has happened is that the Government and the public have been forced to pay more for exactly the same type of services, inadequate as those services have been. At best I think this will be remembered as an ineffective attempt at a rescue operation by the Government in fields of activity where there has been gross neglect in the past. I do not have to elaborate on this. There has in fact been exploitation for many years of those who educate our children, those who police our streets and those who care for us in illness. The record is there for everyone to see.

I cannot say that the hon. the Minister’s announcement on increases in the salaries of teachers, something to which I just want to refer briefly, has, despite what people may think, even in these early stages met with the great enthusiasm one would have hoped for. The reason for that is simply that there is still uncertainty. The only point I want to make to the hon. the Minister in this respect is that it will take more than just increases in the salaries to restore the lost confidence. This is something we are going to have to look at over a great number of years. It will take a long time before we reach the stage where once again people will come forward with full confidence to enter the teachers’ profession. I hope they will do so, but that is the reality. We must not underestimate the intelligence of the teachers or the public when it comes to this matter. We must not think that an increase of 20% or more will in itself be sufficient without some other real changes in their conditions of service.

The hon. the Minister of Finance came yesterday with his onslaught on Natal and made the amazing and intriguing statement: “Do not fear, because nothing will change.”

“Never fear. Owen is here!”

The hon. the Minister said the people can vote for the NP and there will be no change there. I believe it was a silly statement to make. What it really means is that, as far as the hon. the Minister’s party in Natal is concerned, there are no principles for which they are fighting and it does not really matter. I wonder whether he really feels so strongly about it that the traditional way of life in Natal should not be changed and that it is the right way of life. I think he must consider putting up candidates against the members of his own party in other provinces, because quite clearly in many cases one finds that things are not allowed there which are allowed in Natal. I think it was really a ridiculous statement to make. One cannot go to people and tell them: “Vote for us, and everything will remain exactly the same.” In that case one should not be in the field at all.

Members of the PFP come forward and say that they want to bring about change. They say that they want to fight us in the NRP as well as the members of the NP. They want to bring about certain changes. For example, minority groups, as far as they are concerned, will be effectively protected by a minority veto of 10% to 15%. That is the argument they put forward. Of course, they know full well that on a basis of population strength in South Africa, that protection will be a protection for one group only and that group will be the Zulus who are the only population group as far as I know who have a proportionate strength of more than 15%. The official Opposition also insists on a system of one man, one vote on the same common voters’ roll within a geographic federation. This will ensure that at all levels there will be domination of the minorities on proportionate strength. These are the things that they say and I believe it is a wrong vision for South Africa.

You do not understand our policy.

The hon. member for Musgrave says we do not understand their policy.

You are misquoting it.

He says I am misquoting it. Let me just go back a little. The policy of the PFP is that they stand for a geographic federation. In that geographic federation each adult will have the same voting rights as any other adult. They will all be on the same voters’ roll.

Say no if you disagree.

In other words, it will be a common voters’ roll. In that sort of situation, based on a system of one man, one vote there will be a common voters’ roll at all levels, from municipal level to federal level and right to the central Government.

In a federal form of government.

In a federal form of government. Exactly! But if it is a federal form of government it will be on the basis of one man, one vote. [Interjections.] I am trying to praise that party for being so honest.

But what about proportionate representation?

I have already indicated that in a province such as Natal, or in any other province for that matter, one finds, for example, that on a national level the Indian population accounts for 3% of the population.

Who says it will be in Natal? [Interjections.]

But this is the same. The hon. the Minister of Finance has a new friend here, because he also wants to say to me: Vote for the PFP, we want change in Natal. They all want to bring about some change in Natal. In fact, I was going to praise the PFP for saying that they stand for one man, one vote in a geographic federation, because that will ensure domination by the majority group at every level of government, right from municipal level to the top without an effective protection for minorities.

In a federation one votes for four provinces.

All I am trying to say is that it would be nice if we could get that sort of honesty from the Government.

Does everybody have to vote on racial lines?

The hon. member for Houghton asks whether everybody has to vote on racial lines.

They do not, you know.

I can only say that in spite of the fact that all are educated and that some are rich and others poor, one finds that by and large, in spite of all efforts to the contrary, they do vote according to group lines. In the Rhodesian situation the people voted according to group lines. And who won? Because they were all on a common voters’ roll with proportionate representation and the Matabele were proportionately weaker than the others it was a foregone conclusion that the Shonas would win. This did happen. It has also happened in other countries where people are divided on religious lines. This is just a fact of life. One cannot wish that away in the same way as the NP are trying to wish the existence of communities such as the Coloureds, the urban Blacks, etc., away. It is for that reason that I am saying to the hon. the Minister that if we want real security in South Africa, we shall have to develop a new republic where there will be a recognition . . .

Local options.

Local options too, yes. I should like to live in a South Africa where if I want to be exclusive I can say that I want to send my child to a school with a guarantee that it will be a government school which is exclusively for my race group. That is the sort of new republic I want to see. I do not want a new republic that the hon. member for Hillbrow will offer me where because of their Bill of Rights no individual parent will ever have the guarantee that he can send his child to a school which will be an exclusive government school for his own race group. Their Bill or Rights will militate against that and one cannot have group protection at that level. I am sick and tired of the Government trying to regulate everything for me and making decisions for me. That is why I am fighting the Government and why I am fighting the PFP too. It is because I want to have freedom of choice in South Africa. If I want to be exclusive then I want the right to be exclusive, and if I do not want to be not exclusive then I want that right as well.

Mr. Speaker, the kindest comment that can be made on the speech by the hon. member for Durban Central is, “The hon. member for Durban Central also spoke”. The hon. member began his speech on a relatively bloodcurdling note by speaking of a blood bath which he foresaw. As he went on, however, this mountain brought forth a mouse. The hon. member also entered into discussion with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services, a conversation which did not produce anything either. In passing, he did touch on the budget, too, and in doing so he made the rash and ill-considered statement that—

I shall come back to that later in my speech. However, my most serious reproach against the hon. member for Durban Central is the fact that his speech practically emptied the House just before I had to rise to make my own speech. [Interjections.] I am afraid that the hon. member for Durban Central let slip a golden opportunity to make an impressive farewell speech in this House. [Interjections.] I say this because there is a strong possibility that the hon. member for Durban Central sang his swan song in this House today. [Interjections.]

However, I do not think I should devote any more of my time to the hon. member for Durban Central.

In the USA, President Reagan is struggling at this moment to clear up the economic chaos he inherited from the previous administration. Europe is experiencing an economic crisis. Israel has to endure an inflation rate of 130%. The hon. member for Yeoville, who likes to make a fuss of these things, would do well to take note of this.

Son of Zion himself.

And Africa is dying before our eyes. This is the situation which prevails in the world around us, and in the midst of these international circumstances the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced an additional appropriation in this House this week which testifies to economic prosperity, to welfare, to growth and stability. The economic situation in which the world finds itself is in sharp contrast to this extremely favourable budget which the hon. the Minister of Finance was able to introduce here, and serves as a background against which one should view this budget in order to see it in the right perspective and to make a proper evaluation of it.

I ask myself what the implications of this favourable budget are. Firstly, I wish to state that this favourable budget means that we as the people of South Africa have reason to be very humble and grateful to the Creator and Provider for the blessings with which He has so abundantly favoured us, in the form of, among other things, raw materials, human resources, climatic and weather conditions and the peace that prevails in our fatherland. Secondly, this budget also testifies to the inherent strength of the South African economy and is bound to give pause to those who so easily speak of boycotting the Republic of South Africa.

In spite of all these favourable factors, however, it would not have been possible to introduce such a budget in this House if the components for growth and welfare had not been correctly utilized, and what is equally important, if the necessary infrastructure and climate had not been provided by the Government, enabling these components to be utilized in the best possible way. Economic growth and economic prosperity, like freedom, are not self-generating. Economic growth and economic prosperity, are the products of the inputs made into that economy. That is why, when hon. members of the Opposition talk about the economic strength of South Africa, but at the same time deny the input of the Government of South Africa into that powerful economy, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the true situation. Economic strength is indissolubly linked with political power, with military power and with spiritual power. It is true what is often said, that a country cannot be militarily strong if it does not have a strong economy; that economic strength is in fact the foundation of military strength. I say this is true. However, it is equally true that a country cannot be economically strong and cannot remain economically strong if it is not also able to defend that economy and the sources of that economy against aggressors. That is why I see these spheres as parts of a circle in which the military strength is equally essential to the economic strength as the political strength is to the economic strength and the spiritual strength to the political strength.

The Government sees to the maintenance of foreign relations, which is an essential prerequisite for extensive foreign trade and large foreign investments in the Republic of South Africa. The fact is that in the times in which we live, the maintenance of good foreign relations is not an easy task for the Republic of South Africa, for a variety of reasons which I do not have time to discuss now. In spite of the hostile climate which has been and is being created against South Africa abroad, the Government, specifically the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is succeeding in maintaining relations, to such an extent that South Africa is still a popular country for investments from abroad. The Government is also succeeding in defending and protecting our national borders against aggression and in preserving our freedom. Furthermore, the Government is successfully maintaining law and order inside the country, which is in its turn the essential prerequisite for stability, without which there can be no economic growth. The maintenance of law and order in a country with a plural population such as South Africa goes hand in hand with the maintenance of good relations between the various ethnic groups. The Government also provides and maintains the necessary infrastructure in the form of services, including communications, transport services and many structural services which are designed to ensure that the economy of South Africa remains strong and healthy.

But let us now consider for a moment the role of the Opposition. What is the role of the Opposition? The Opposition is playing a negative, obstructive and opportunistic role.

But they are damn good, though.

I do not for one moment suspect the Opposition of sympathizing or siding with the enemies of South Africa. Let me say that categorically. I do not even suspect the Opposition of being soft on communism. I do, however, charge them with forever playing down or minimizing the extent of the Marxist threat to the Republic of South Africa and the severity of this threat to the maintenance of law and order within the country.

You do it so well yourself.

On the one hand, the Government is accused of exploiting the threat to the country’s borders for party-political purposes. We heard it again this morning from the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he quoted from the speech by the person whom the hon. the Prime Minister has called the hon. leader’s spiritual father, Mr. Oppenheimer. In that same document, Mr. Oppenheimer also accused the Government of doing this. They are continually saying that the Government is exploiting the situation for party-political purposes. On the other hand, the Government is continually being criticized when steps are taken against the forces which threaten the maintenance of law and order in our country. I do not have to search for confirmation of this statement. One has only to refer to the Hansard of debates in recent years when the Police Vote, for example, has been discussed, or when legislation intended to maintain law and order in our country has been debated.

Where is the Minister of Police?

We have only to look at what the standpoints of the hon. members of the Opposition have been on those occasions. [Interjections.]

Our foreign relations are endangered by rash statements made by hon. members of the Opposition and their Press, and also by their remarks and actions when they are abroad. As examples I shall merely mention the interview which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had with the London Times, to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred this morning, as well as the letter which the hon. member for Sandton wrote to the New York Times and to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred the other day. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs really took the hon. member for Sandton to task for that, but—I say this with all due respect to the hon. the Minister—I do not think the hon. member has been punished severely enough. I think he should be punished much more severely, especially on 29 April.

Relations between the various ethnic groups are bedevilled by the hon. Opposition. It must be remembered that good inter-group relations implies that there should be a positive attitude on the part of Whites towards non-Whites, as well as on the part of non-Whites towards Whites. These relations are therefore bedevilled by denying non-Whites the right and opportunity to live a dignified life, but what is equally true is that inter-group relations are also bedevilled when demands are put to the Whites which are unacceptable to them and when expectations are aroused among non-Whites which cannot be satisfied. Good inter-group relations are not served by continually telling non-Whites that they are suffering an injustice at the hands of the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the last hon. speaker in this debate should have dealt effectively with the financial and economic affairs and the policy of this country. I therefore wish to congratulate him sincerely on his contribution. From the speeches made in this debate—especially today, right from the outset with the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister—it was clear that hon. members on this side really touched the hon. members of the Opposition on the raw. This happens to such an extent that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition shied away as soon as possible from the matters raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, and turned to me, to say much more than usual about financial policy.

He spent half his time on the Prime Minister.

I shall to that again shortly. I just wish to refer to one or two other matters before doing so. In the course of this debate, I said something about the report of the Committee on Pension Affairs, and I am very sorry that a misunderstanding seems to have arisen in this connection, a misunderstanding concerning recommendations made by the interdepartmental committee of inquiry into specific pension affairs affecting the preservation of the pension interests of members of pension funds. In most cases, this misunderstanding is based on inadequate understanding of the measures that are envisaged. During June 1980, the report of the committee was released to the public for comment, and as a result of the valuable proposals that had already been received from interested parties, the Office of the Registrar had made good progress, after consultation with the interdepartmental committee, with the preparation of a draft Bill. I had originally intended to have the Bill published in the Gazette for general information and comment before the end of February this year. However, I have now learnt that there will be an orderly and in-depth discussion of the recommendations of the report on the occasion of the annual conference of the Association of Pension and Provident Funds of South Africa late in March this year and that the Registrar of Financial Institutions and members of his staff will participate in the discussion. Because of the thorough knowledge of pension matters on the part of members of the association, I consider it important that cognisance should be taken, in preparing the draft Bill, of any further useful suggestions which may be made during the conference, and for that reason it has been decided to keep the completion and publication of a draft Bill in abeyance for the moment.

I just wanted to make this position quite clear.

Sir, I also wish to prefer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†He referred to what he called a very serious situation in respect of the court case which arose out of the activities of National Fund Investments. He said he thought it was necessary that the Government should investigate the situation that had arisen. I should like to tell the hon. member that I have discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Justice, and his immediate reaction, and mine, was that we should certainly obtain the judgment—which we will do at once—and he will look at his side of the story and I will certainly look at mine, particularly as it affects the Stock Exchange and other financial aspects. When we have done that, we will be in a better position to talk to the hon. member about this matter. I thank the hon. member for drawing our attention to it.

Sir, you will remember how the members of the Opposition, in particular the hon. member for Pinelands, repeatedly commented in the House on how dissatisfied teachers were with the new dispensation we have given them, a dispensation the size and implications of which I tried to explain yesterday by giving figures. None of those figures was queried. I think those figures are extremely persuasive. When we said how good a deal we thought this was, the hon. member kept on asking: “But what do the teachers say?” This morning the hon. member for Virginia was able to point out that the first reaction of Mr. Mundell of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, as well as the Federal Council, were favourable. In fact, Mr. Mundell, who had certainly been very critical earlier, had adopted what appears to be a very different attitude since the announcement was made a few days ago. The question I want to ask the hon. member . . . Is he here?

He is coming now.

I want to ask him why he repeatedly asked “But what do the teachers say?” when he must have known what Mr. Mundell had said, because if was widely reported, and must have known what the Federal Council has said and must have heard many of the other comments, many of which were favourable. I myself in the last few days have had a number of telephone calls from teachers, some of whom I have never heard of. Without exception they certainly reacted favourably and expressed appreciation for what the Government has done.

Do they know what they are getting?

That hon. member must stop asking superficial questions. I am dealing with facts. He had his opportunity to speak yesterday. I do not know that all his facts on pensions were correct either, as I think I made clear.

The hon. member for Yeoville has made what I think is a rather typical speech for him these days. He starts off in a financial or economic debate by making a few hit-and-run references to some financial or economic matter, does not develop them and then suddenly switches to party politics. This has become quite typical of his contributions. I really do not know what I am supposed to say in reply to his speech. He spoke about food prices and apparently tried to criticize what the hon. the Prime Minister had said about food prices. But the hon. member knows that food prices throughout the world have in recent years gone through the ceiling. They have risen tremendously. The hon. member will know what one used to pay for a normal meal in London, New York, Frankfurt or wherever up to a few years ago and what one pays today. He knows that if one compares that with the position in South Africa today, the comparison is absolutely remarkable. These are the things that should be said. I thought that, frankly, the hon. the Prime Minister had the last word on that subject this morning.

The hon. member for Durban Central was, with respect, really naive. He thought he also had to get onto the band-wagon with Mr. Frank Martin, with his leader—the hon. member for Durban Point—and with some reporters of The Daily News, The Natal Mercury and whoever, by referring to what I think was a very misguided attempt by the Opposition newspapers and members of the NRP, even before the first salvos were fired in this election, to try to raise the cry in Natal that if the NP gets the majority vote in Natal—they seem to be very, very nervous on that point—we are apparently going to change all the old traditions of Natal.

Are you?

I was asking questions.

I thought the hon. member was in the House yesterday when I spoke. What could have been more specific than what I said?

Are you going to deal with the question of cinemas being open on Sundays?

I raised four issues, and on everyone of them I stated the attitude of this side of the House. I think the hon. member for Durban Central was not only extremely naive, but also less than candid. What did he say, Sir? He said that I had said nothing would change.

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

The hon. member need not worry. I am coming to the question of cinemas. The hon. member for Durban Central said I had said nothing would change.

That is what I understood you to say.

I said nothing of the kind. Why did the hon. member say that? I mentioned four matters with which he, his party and his little following of newspapers in Natal, tried to frighten the voters of Natal. I told him yesterday again quite clearly where this party stood on those issues—and he knows it as well as I do. The hon. member must not be so concerned. The election has not even started yet. We shall deal with these things in Natal. I think this is going to boomerang to such an extent on the NRP that I think they are already very much regretting that they made such an error of judgment.

What are you going to do in Natal?

The hon. member for Yeoville asked: “What about the cinemas?” After very, very careful consideration and after consultation with a whole number of responsible people and organizations in Natal, the former Minister of Justice came to this decision, and . . .

He said it was a Cabinet decision.

But he was a member of the Cabinet. The Cabinet takes joint responsibility for decisions.

In other words, you participated in that.

This was a most considered decision, and I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I think I know a little bit more about what is being said and thought in Natal than he does. I want to tell him what has happened since that decision was taken. I understand that the hon. member for Orange Grove is talking of contesting a constituency in Durban. He must listen very carefully, because I want to give him a tip free, gratis and for nothing.

He wants you to stand against him.

We have first-class candidates in Natal. Do not worry about that. Do not think that we are not going to stand. We shall work out our own strategy as to who should stand and who not and where they should stand. In doing that we take the best interests of the party into account. Make no mistake about that.

Is it not in the interests of your party that you stand?

In the last few years our representation in Natal has gone up, as far as parliamentary representation is concerned, from three to ten. The hon. member must have a look at that too.

Are you still going to give us the tip?

Yes, that is what I am giving you, free. Since that decision was taken this matter has been absolutely disposed of and has not been an issue at any time. The majority, as we have said all along, have wanted it and they have accepted it, and now the hon. member for Yeoville tries to raise a little skeleton out of the cupboard, and that little skeleton will also be no friend to him.

I now want to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he wanted to talk about inflation. He said that the real cause of inflation in South Africa was the increase in the money supply and he blamed the Government head-on for that increase in the money supply. He said that he thought I would agree that that was the real reason for the inflation. Sir, if the matter were as simple as that, we would have handled it effectively long ago. However, this question of inflation is, as I tried to indicate in my Second Reading speech and again in my closing speech yesterday, infinitely more complicated than that. This matter of inflation is not only a question of money supply; it is in fact also—and here I am astonished at what the hon. member for Yeoville said—partly caused by imported inflation. The hon. member for Yeoville also said that the Minister advanced the argument of imported inflation. He said that he was rather staggered that the Minister should advance this argument at this stage, because, firstly, the reality of the situation was that only about a quarter of the wholesale price index was related to imported goods and, secondly, the latest figures showed that the prices of locally manufactured goods had been rising at a rate much higher than those of imported goods, about 17,25% as against 14,7%. Therefore, he said, the Minister’s argument in relation to imported inflation certainly did not apply in the present circumstances. I find this a completely astonishing argument. If the prices of imported manufactured goods have risen by nearly 15%, despite the fact that that might be less than some other price rise, how on earth can the hon. member claim this is not a factor in the inflation? How can he conceivably say this is not a part of the reason for the fact that the general price increase in South Africa is something over 15%? Of course there is imported inflation, and I suggest that the hon. member should go and talk to members of the FCI, the Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Mines, the S.A. Agricultural Union and a few others of our business leaders, and let him then make that statement. I should very much like to hear their comment, because I talk to these people very regularly.

Are those statistics incorrect?

This part that imported inflation is playing is a very great worry to the whole country.

Talking about the complicated nature of inflation, I just want to put the point that inflation is, of course, also caused by the fact that there have been substantial increases in wages and salaries. In many places in the private sector it has been 20% during the past 6 to 12 months. In addition to that the Government has, for some years, been committed to a policy of deliberately trying to narrow the wage gap, as we call it. The hon. member knows exactly what I am referring to. I need not go into detail.

During the past few years the wages of the lower income groups, particularly the Blacks—this is the big mass of people—have increased out of all proportion compared with all other sectors in the economy. In fact, in real terms that increase, during the past five or six years, has been between 40% and 50%. That is conservatively calculated. It is a very big increase.

One cannot possibly increase productivity in that proportion. It is quite impossible. Therefore, this is a deliberate policy which has a substantial inflationary effect because we believe that for other than economic reasons this is very important. We believe that for broad social, political and other reasons, this is the policy that we must adopt in this country at this time. We have been following this policy for some years and it plays a very big part in the fact that our inflation rate is above 15% today. So, it is not simply a question of the money supply. As I said yesterday, if one has a country like South Africa, which, in one year, has earned money, has brought money into the country at the rate of R10 000 million for one commodity—gold—while that figure for the previous year amounted to R6 000 million, it is quite feasible to contemplate that one might easily have an increase in one’s money supply of 50% or 60%. It is an enormous influx of liquidity and the Government took, and is still taking, very strong measures, through the Reserve Bank and through Treasury, as well as through the budget, to counter that. I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has rather missed the point. I do not know whether he was in the House when I spoke yesterday but I did make the point then that, by virtue of the very large sums involved in relation to the economy, the budget plays a very far-reaching role here. I want to reiterate the point I have been making ever since I introduced the budget. That is that the budget, through the measures taken through it and all the measures flowing from it, has in fact destroyed more money in the economy than it has created. I am quite prepared to argue this point at length anywhere. So, how can one then blame the Government?

I do not know who wrote the part of the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s speech dealing with that point. I found it quite interesting and I looked across the floor at the hon. member for Houghton. I disagree with her on many things but she has a very good grounding in economics. I said to her then: “I am quite sure you did not write that speech” and she smiled. I do not know who wrote that part of the speech. The hon. member for Yeoville is looking particularly virtuous at the moment. I do not know whether he wrote it or who wrote it.

I am a virtuous fellow. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is, however, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there was too much money and that that was really the reason for the high inflation rate. He said the Government was to blame because the Government printed the money. According to him the Government is the only authority that prints money. The money printed by the Government, however, is notes. And what proportion of the total money supply is the note issue? Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition ever thought of that? The main reason for the quantity of money in circulation is bank credit.

Give him a lecture on that now.

If there is one thing that is beyond dispute in all the financial circles I know of in this country, it is that the big increase in the money supply is chiefly a result of the big increase in bank credit. It is not caused by the printing of money by the Reserve Bank. Note issue is a small part of the total. [Interjections.] I am sorry to have to labour the point but the hon. Leader of the Opposition was so eloquent in this regard. He stressed the point that the Government was printing the money and that that was the reason for the big money supply. That is a very small part of it indeed. There again, I believe, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to admit that that argument hardly holds water.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also took us to task because, as he put it, the Government was spending too much money. He stressed the point that the Government was spending money particularly in an unproductive manner. He listed certain examples. The hon. Leader talked about an amount of R112 million that is being spent each year on implementing influx control. I have not yet had an opportunity to check his figure but let us leave the amount at that. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a simple question. Does he claim that in this country at this moment there must not be any influx control at all?

Yes, that is what he is saying.

The implication is clear.

Ask your bench mate.

But Sir, as the hon. Leader put it this morning, the implication is absolutely clear. He is taking us to task for spending this money on influx control. I am saying that if one does not have an effective policy of influx control we shall have complete social chaos in this country. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows sufficient about these issues, Sir— after all, they are his field—to agree with me in this respect.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke about education and referred to the four department that we have instead of one. I am sure the hon. Leader knows that it is not quite as simple as all that to have only one department of education in this country. I think that if he analyzes the position he will discover that this is not quite so simple a matter. However, I am not going to advance a great deal of argument on this point.

He also said that we had limited the pool of productive labour. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has done precisely the opposite, particularly over the past five years and certainly since I have been Minister of Finance.

What about the planning?

We have spent money to the limit on all kinds of education, training, training in industry and giving tax deductions on an ever-increasing scale.

But you make it as difficult as possible for employers to employ Black labour.

How can the hon. Leader say we have limited the pool of productive labour? We have made tremendous efforts to increase the supply of skilled labour. I must take issue with the hon. Leader in this regard.

The hon. Leader also spoke about what he called the non-productive consolidation of land. This is a very big issue. I am quite prepared to say that I think that there may well be instances where land has been bought for consolidation purposes and where as things have turned out that land has perhaps not been used as productively as we would have liked to see. I do not wish to argue in this regard. I do not say that this has happened throughout. I do say, however, that I would not like to say that it has never happened. Nevertheless, I do not think that one can say that this is a reason for a substantial maldistribution of Government revenue. I think that that is taking matters a little too far.

I want to put matters much more positively, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us where our priorities are wrong. Where are our expenditure priorities wrong? In the first instance, for five or six years in succession we have taken a firm grip on Government spending in this country. I know that the hon. Leader understands these figures. He knows full well that year after year there has been practically no increase in Government spending in real terms. Now, because of the inflation rate being what it is and our heavy commitments in respect of Defence, which we regard as a necessity, and in respect of very basic infrastructure, it is possible that there may be a slight rise in the expenditure rate by the end of this year.

And a couple of million for the President’s Council.

I say that, by and large, for five or six years in succession we have scarcely permitted Government spending to increase at all in real terms.

That is true. I can testify to that.

Yes, Sir, my hon. colleague is a little sensitive about that! As a matter of fact, Sir, when one speaks to bankers and others in this country as well as to financial people and leading bankers abroad, this is the one thing they all mention. Whatever they may have to say about us, this is certainly one of the things in regard to which they do find that they can give us some praise for. Therefore, in aggregate terms, one cannot possibly say to this Government that we have spent too much money.

What have been our priorities? They have been defence and security. There has obviously been an enormous increase in this respect. I do not believe that I have to defend that policy. We have heard so much about education. I gave only a few figures yesterday but I can give many more. I can show what has been spent on education over the past few years for each of the population groups in this country. I think that these are extremely impressive figures. Take the case of housing. For a country this size and in respect of the problems that we are experiencing in regard to housing I wonder whether hon. members can mention any other country that has done better in this regard.

No other country has the gold that we have.

I am talking about the contribution by the Government towards the provision of housing in this country over recent years. What other country has a better record than we have? It is one of the best things that we have done. Take the case of energy. The question of energy is one of the problems today that has many countries at their wits end. They do not know how to handle it. What has this country done? Since 1950 or 1951 we have been producing oil from coal. More recently—I do not have to go into this but it is a good thing to have it on record—we have constructed a second Sasol plant which is ten or eleven times larger than the first.

It is in production and it is one of the wonders of the world today. How many people, in how many countries, have not said that to me. We are now constructing a third Sasol the size of Sasol II. This, Sir, is technology second to none throughout the world. When these plants are in production we will be producing 55% to 60% of our requirements of oil, petroleum and related products. No country in the world can hold a candle to us in this field and yet the hon. member says we are guilty of unproductive expenditure.

I never said that in regard to Sasol.

No, the hon. member did not say that in regard to Sasol. I am merely trying to put the positive case because it is projects like these that we have to finance and this runs into hundreds of millions a year.

Then there are all the forms of infrastructure such as roads. Look at our roads today. Then we have the railways, communications systems of all kinds, and harbours. Let us look at our harbours. We are today in a position to export coal on a large scale to the Far East. Why? Because the Government had the foresight to construct, in the face of considerable opposition and criticism . . . [Interjections.] Hon. members must please give me a chance because I am giving them facts. Some years ago this Government had the foresight to construct a modern deep-sea harbour at Richards Bay. This is a first class harbour costing hundreds of millions to the taxpayer. At the same time the Government had such confidence in the future that it started the construction of a second deep-sea harbour at Saldanha Bay. That is in operation and is responsible for exports of iron ore and many other products on a very large scale to a number of countries. That is productive expenditure if ever there was. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill, but even during the Second Reading, and in more detail during the Committee Stage, we indicated our opposition to it, because we consider it extremely dangerous for South Africa in the political as well as the constitutional spheres. We believe that the possibility exists that the national will may be frustrated by this legislation and that it could create a situation in which the democratic will is not duly given effect to.

The hon. the Minister mentioned constitutional conventions on which he would depend and the real meaning of such a convention was argued across the floor of this House. The hon. member for Yeoville explained that such a convention concerned the question of who could avert a motion of no confidence in this House, rather than merely the number of elected seats represented by a specific political party. The hon. member for Mossel Bay agreed with us in a certain sense, viz. by conceding that as regards this specific situation concerning nominated members . . .

You must read my Hansard.

I read the hon. member’s Hansard twice. Doing so was painful enough. He cannot expect me to read it a third time. But I can assure him that what he said is clearly stated there, viz. that there is no convention as regards the eight indirectly elected members and the four nominated members.

Surely there are other conventions.

The hon. member is making a noise and kicking up a tremendous fuss, but he does agree with me. Let us therefore try to do so in an orderly manner, rather than by trying to hit out at one another. Consequently it is very clear that there is doubt as to what the convention is in this regard.

However, there is only one historical example to which one can refer. I am referring to the case of declaration of war when during the time of General Hertzog, the Governor-General was asked to call an election. There was very clearly a dispute between the two of them as to how that convention ought to be interpreted.

But that was during a session and not after an election.

That is irrelevant, for the one’s standpoint was apparently that one had to lose a motion of no confidence before one was constitutionally obliged to resign and consequently to lose one’s position as Prime Minister of the Country. That was General Hertzog’s standpoint, but the Governor-General’s standpoint was as clear. His standpoint was that because General Hertzog had been defeated on the question of the declaration of war, he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House. Therefore, even at that time there was a dispute as to the interpretation of the convention. But the hon. the Minister is now asking us to depend on a convention which derives from British constitutional law, a convention which has to a certain extent taken root in South Africa—I concede that—but which has apparently been interpreted in various ways in the past, as I have indicated, and which will necessarily be influenced still further by the innovation introduced in this House last year when the eight indirectly elected members and the four nominated members became a possibility. They have of course since become a reality, and in terms of the provisions which were incorporated in the constitution, a certain eight members are now sitting in this House and the overall composition of Parliament is affected thereby. Consequently the existence of such a convention is as far as I am concerned not at all reassuring to this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a question to the hon. member who is launching such an attack on us nominated members . . .

Put your question.

Yes, I shall put the question. If the hon. member loses in Green Point, is he going to make himself available for election as a nominated member?

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

If ever there was an argument against the admission to this House of indirectly elected or nominated members, then that is it. However, I do not want to take the matter further. I shall reply to the hon. member’s question with the greatest of pleasure. But there is something I first wish to make clear. At no stage have we ever, directly or by implication, attacked the individuals who are seated here in terms of section 40(1C) or section 40(1B). The hon. member must understand that now, and if he were to page through our speeches up to now he would see that we have never attacked one of those members. The hon. member should look it up himself. What we are discussing here is the danger which this Bill poses to democracy in South Africa.

But just answer my question.

No, I shall not be available for election.

I shall remember that.

The hon. member may remember that by all means. The hon. member amuses me, even though he keeps interrupting my speech. Not only could this amendment enable a minority Government to remain in power, as we have repeatedly indicated, but if that possibility is then excluded, the possibility remains that legislation may be adopted for the brief period of 180 days by a Government which in fact no longer enjoys the majority support of the nation.

Finally, I just want to make the point that the problem which the hon. the Minister originally wished to solve, viz. the problem of the interruption of the terms of office of these hon. members, could in our opinion have been solved in a far simpler way. The problem could have been solved by legislation in a far less harmful way. As far as the four nominated members are concerned, there is, of course, no problem. The State President may appoint them the next day and consequently there will be no interruption in their terms of office. As far as the eight other nominated members are concerned, we concede that the electoral college cannot be convened at once, but we believe that it is possible to introduce legislation to resolve that situation without creating this real danger for democracy in South Africa. Under the circumstances, because in our opinion the legislation is very dangerous, we do not see our way clear to supporting the legislation at the Third Reading either. Accordingly we shall oppose the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the argument—I will not say the logic—of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in his Second Reading speech regarding the debate between this party and himself when we discussed the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to show the hon. the Minister that there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of that side of the House when they say that the Senate has created a precedent on which one can base the same principles of argument in comparing the Senate with the nominated, indirectly elected members. I think this is totally fallacious and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me after he has listened to me.

Sir, we are talking here about what will happen as a consequence of clauses 1 and 3 of the amending Bill, the effect of which is to extend the political lives of these members beyond 29 April 1981. First of all, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the Senate was in tandem with the House of Assembly in a bicameral system.

I said that last night.

We agreed, Sir, but the hon. the Minister kept saying that we in this party were in fact arguing amorally— rather than immorally—because we were prepared to accept the conditions of service of our Senators when they were in recess. That is the point I should like to come back to.

No, I did not say that I was referring to the position where Parliament had been dissolved but not the Senate.

That is what the hon. the Minister said, Sir. He implied, or rather, he stated directly that we were being illogical by saying that we are not prepared to accept that principle for the indirectly elected or nominated members but we were prepared to accept it in the case of the Senate. That is where we differ. Before the hon. the Minister replied, I told him by way of interjection that I thought that that side of the House and I should agree to differ on the similarity between what happened in the Senate and what will happen here. But the hon. the Minister told us that it was amoral of us to do so. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the effect of clause 1 which will extend the political lives of these members, has no parallel as far as the Senate was concerned. The Senate was a tandem part of a bicameral system; they were an entity on their own. What is even more important in terms of our argument is that all Senators were treated equally within that system. We are now introducing a principle of differentiation within the House of Assembly where we will be differentiating possibly not only in terms of the advantage to the Government in the event of an election where there is a minority of one but also within the House and among members of the House. If the hon. the Minister wants to take his argument to its logical conclusion that the Senate was a parallel case or could act as a precedent for members of this House in this situation, I ask him, as the question was asked the other day regarding fringe benefits: Is the hon. the Minister then prepared to get up and say that the comparison must be exact and therefore all members and Senators should have been treated equally in terms of conditions of service in the Senate and the House of Assembly? If that is the case, then when an hon. member loses his seat in this House as a result of a popular democratic election, he must surely also receive a golden handshake as was the case in the Senate. I am afraid the hon. the Minister’s argument that the Senate was the equivalent of the House of Assembly is totally fallacious.

But what is even more important is that we are introducing a new principle in this House in that we are differentiating in regard to the functions and benefits of members here. Here I am talking about individual members as well as the differences between the parties. Therefore I do not think it is logical for the hon. the Minister to argue the case that a precedent was created in the example of the Senate. I do not think his accusation against us that it is amoral for us to have accepted the situation where Senators were paid during the recess applies. I am afraid we cannot agree with that. The hon. the Minister must look at the House of Assembly as an entity on its own and at the discrimination which is starting to occur between individual members who have a similar function to perform within a homogenous situation. I am afraid that for that reason alone, let alone the other arguments raised by my hon. colleagues and particularly the hon. member for East London North we shall definitely still be voting against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the hon. member for Durban North either did not follow me or did not understand me.

I have read your Hansard.

The hon. member made the accusation that it was immoral that certain members retain their posts after Parliament has been dissolved, while the constitution of the parties may change. That is what was at issue. I then asked how that hon. member and other hon. members opposite could speak of morality when they had retained their seats in the Senate after a general election of the House of Assembly even though they had not had the voting strength to justify retaining those seats.

We were unable to do anything about it.

With all due respect, Sir, if the hon. member wants to debate that matter, let us do so. But then we must not misrepresent people’s words or statements. Surely this is unreasonable. The question of morality arose on the basis of the argument of the hon. members of the NRP that it was wrong. They think their party is going to fare better than the PFP and that they, and not the present official Opposition, will consequently be able to elect the one member. Then the hon. member opposite said that it was immoral to allow the present member to retain his seat for a period of six months. My reply was that if it were immoral, then what morality was there in the hon. member’s party continuing to occupy seats in the Senate after an election of the House of Assembly when they were no longer in a position to elect the Senators? I said there was no difference in morality. That is all I said. When the hon. member quotes me, I should be obliged if he were to do so correctly. Otherwise a second question of morality comes into the picture.

You must read my Hansard too . . .

But surely I did not react to that hon. member only. Surely his colleagues spoke as well.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. It is interesting that there is a difference in emphasis between the speech he made this afternoon and his speeches during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. During the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage he made the categorical statement that the Government would use this legislation to convert a minority into a majority. Hon. members must note how his choice of words has now changed. He said that there was a possibility that the Government could negate the national will. That has an entirely different emphasis. The fact is that in terms of the existing Act the Government is able to avert a motion of no confidence with the votes of those members. It is not the legislation before us which gives rise to those consequences, but the factual situation at the moment. Surely we are not debating that set of circumstances. We are debating the reconstitution of the House of Assembly after it has been dissolved. That is what we are arguing about and that is the subject of this legislation. The hon. member for Yeoville understood this, but the hon. member for Green Point is unable to understand it.

Let me repeat it for his sake. As I interpret it, the House of Assembly is not fully constituted if all its components are not present. The Act stipulates what they are. The Act states that there are, firstly, 165 members elected on the basis of their constituencies, secondly, four people nominated by the State President and, thirdly, eight elected by an electoral college consisting of the members elected on the basis of constituencies. It is not physically possible to bring this about on the same day. In other words, the House of Assembly cannot be constituted on one date, for certain vacancies remain. All that this legislation does is to overcome that situation. With all due respect, one cannot put it more simply.

The hon. member for Green Point maintains that he understands my problem. However, he said that I could rectify that situation by means of other legislation, not this legislation. What type of legislation does the hon. member have in mind? He did not give us the benefit of his ingenuity, for perhaps it is possible. Since the hon. member has failed to come forward with an acceptable solution, mine must necessarily stand. There is no alternative.

Today, however, the hon. member advanced an even more nonsensical argument than he did yesterday. He said that after the general election we would be able to pass legislation with the majority which these people would give us. This is incomprehensible, for we have been arguing with each other all along about the reconstitution of the House of Assembly. With all due respect, the hon. member can make political capital out of this. I can understand that the temptation to do so is great. But I want to tell hon. members opposite that I find it regrettable that the attitude of certain hon. members towards other hon. members is manifested in the way it has been in this debate. I should like to repeat that . . . [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member over there did not participate in the debate; nor did he listen to the whole debate.

One of the hon. members said that when the legislation was introduced, the assumption was that knowledgeable people ought to become members. The implication is now that they are not knowledgeable. I reacted by saying that there was a difference between expertise and wisdom. It seems to me that hon. members opposite possess neither. The fact is that the status of the members of this House is determined by this House. It behoves no one to cast a reflection on any other member. I reject that with the utmost contempt.

In the second place, a report appeared in the newspaper in consequence of the debate on this legislation, which made a categorical statement that this legislation would enable the Government to convert a minority into a majority. I say that is a lie.

It is the truth.

I say it is a lie and anyone who says so, is telling a lie, whether he says it here, or outside. Of course there is no convention in respect of indirectly elected and nominated members, but there is indeed a convention in respect of elected members. And what does the convention say? The convention says that when those members are elected and the party in power loses the election, the other party must be called upon to form a Government.

Oh, you are saying the twelve must be ignored?

Of course!

Where is that to be found in the Act?

The hon. member asks where it is to be found in the Act. Surely the convention about which we are talking is not laid down in the Act.

You do not take any notice of the constitution, let alone a convention!

I suppose one must not blame the hon. member for Bryanston; I suppose one must take into consideration where he came from.

We still recall the packed Senate and the High Court of Parliament.

Order!

It is irresponsible to spread a rumour in this country, even in the world, to the effect that the Government would not be prepared to surrender power if it were to be defeated in an election. Despite the fact that it is a lie and that it causes harm internally, it has extremely detrimental effects for South Africa abroad. The hon. member for Green Point need not shake his head. They are accustomed to besmirching their country’s name abroad. [Interjections.]

That is not true, and you know it.

It is true.

It is quite untrue. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot say that hon. members of this House besmirch their country’s name overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. However, those hon. members do not hesitate to make statements overseas which damage their country.

The Government?

No, the country.

To you it is the same thing. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask the hon. member for Green Point a direct question. If it is said of a country that its Government manipulates the outcome of an election, is it to the benefit or to the detriment of the country in question?

It is a reflection on that country’s Government.

Oh, a reflection on the government? Now I want to know from the hon. member why his party, since they are now assuming such a high moral tone, is making use of this legislation . . .

Why is old Nic coming to sit here as well?

Why does Nic not resign?

Is he going to resign? [Interjections.] I repeat: Is he going to resign?

He will not resign.

No, the fact is that those hon. members’ political morality varies from day to day.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of this session of Parliament, I should like to place on record, on behalf of myself and my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. member for Yeoville, our thanks to the chairman of the committee. I think it should be placed on record. His is not always an easy task but he handled it with a good deal of tact and sympathy and for that we should like to thank him.

I should like to comment particularly on some points relating to this report especially Vote 12—Health, in regard to which the unauthorized amount is about R9,912 million. The reason why the expenditure is unauthorized is fairly clear. It arose because of conflict in the original system of departmental budgeting and the concept of programme budgeting which has recently been introduced into the department. Under this system of budgeting items voted under one head could be transferred to another head provided they were still being used on the same programme. In this particular case, money voted by Parliament under Vote 41 for the improvement of service conditions for staff was not used for that purpose but for expenditure on certain specific programmes with which the Department was busy. One can fully appreciate why this arose because if one looks at the cost of medicines—I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions will bear me out here—one finds that medicine prices have escalated quite substantially in recent years. Also when one has a shortage of staff, medicines in fact become even more important. If one does not have sufficient doctors one has to ensure that one has adequate medicines. The Department of Health therefore found itself in a situation very similar to that in which many housewives find themselves today—they had to rob Peter to pay Paul. This, in fact, highlights a very serious situation.

What is significant under this particular heading is not that the money spent was unauthorized. The reason why recourse has had to be had to this particular method of finance is in fact because the department has reached a stage where they cannot give the patients the treatment that they need. Let me quote a very good example. We have a new drug called Refampicin which is used to cure tuberculosis and is in fact extremely effective. It is, however, very expensive. A single capsule costs R1,33 and one needs at least one capsule per day. Because of the expense involved, the department has had to curtail supplies to local authorities and consequently only 10% of institutionalized patients who have tuberculosis can use this drug. I can appreciate that the Treasury and the Minister of Finance are concerned about the overspending of funds but when one considers that the use of this drug curtails the period that a TB patient has to spend in hospital, one realizes that this is in fact a long-term saving to the taxpayer. In fact, if the department had not used these funds the situation would have been even worse, and this is a very serious situation. I say this because TB in South Africa is on the increase. There are more TB cases now than there were five years ago.

This brings me to a second example I should like to quote. I am referring to the use of preventive medicine. At the present moment we spend approximately 3% of our Health budget on preventive medicine. Let us take something like Downe’s Syndrome. By spending R160 on an antenatal examination, this can be detected, but the cost of keeping patients in institutions is approximately R36 000 to R40 000 per annum. I know that there are calls on the money, but I think that health, particularly preventive health, is one area where we cannot afford to curtail expenditure. I do, in fact, have sympathy for the department which, in all honesty, was trying to do its best but had to resort to this type of financing.

I should now like to refer to Vote 4 involving Defence. I think this highlights the problem that was, in fact, raised yesterday, and that is that one cannot budget either for when people are going to attack one or for when one has to attack other people. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to budget for such contingencies. I should also, however, like to refer to the amount of R496 000 at the bottom of the page. This shows once again how the taxpayer’s money can be wasted when people will not follow the rules laid down before expenditure is incurred. I think it also highlights the fact that the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa, particularly in the Defence Force is costing the taxpayers of South Africa money. Circumstances surrounding this expenditure were most suspicious indeed, and I think fully justified the committee’s decision to refuse to ratify it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. member for Edenvale for his kind words to me. I should like to thank the hon. member very much for his kind words. I appreciate them. I should also like to say thank you very much to all the members of the Committee who made it possible for me to submit a unanimous report to the House. I also want to say thank you to the Auditor-General and his staff, from whom we received the best of co-operation, as well as to the Secretariat.

This report, as I said, is a unanimous one. In discussing the unauthorized expenditure I allowed hon. members to cover a relatively wide field, because I think it is essential for the accounting officers to have an opportunity to state their side of the case too if they have proposals for the improvement of the system. Sometimes it is very difficult to establish when a Select Committee on Public Accounts is criticizing policy and when it is simply the system as such that is at issue. With the introduction of system of budgeting by objectives we experienced certain problems which gradually became evident and to which we shall have to give attention. In introducing the system, the general policy was laid down that the objective was to enjoy the highest priority and that the items in the vote are subordinated to the objective. Therefore, financial control was not directed at the items and an interaction between items may occur. This is the overall philosophy. The problem actually arose with the introduction of Vote 41, the Special Vote that is voted annually by Parliament for the improvement of conditions of service. The committee went into the problem fully and identified it. The Exchequer took note of the fact and undertook to give attention to the possible improvement of the system and then to report back to the committee. Our problems with the column 2 items are chiefly due to the rationalization of the Public Service. Here too, we shall have to take another look at which items should be column 2 items.

Once again thank you very much to all the hon. members for their friendly cooperation. It is a pleasure for me to submit this unanimous report to the House.

Report adopted.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at this legislation one is inclined to say that there is in fact precious little to say about it. Many of the changes, as the hon. the Minister explained in his Second Reading speech, are being made to bring the principal Act into line with metrication. Therefore “mass” replaces “weight” and “metres” replace “feet”.

I should like to raise one or two points to which the hon. the Minister could perhaps reply in his reply to the Second Reading debate and I think that will save the House the trouble of going into Committee on the Bill. I notice, for example, in the amending Bill before us that “15 feet” becomes “5 metres” and “30 feet” becomes “10 metres”. The problem I have, Sir, is that 15 feet is in fact equal to 4,57 metres. I realize that this might not cause a problem but the two points I should Eke to raise, are firstly, will this affect those who already have claims granted to them in feet? Having read through the Act very carefully, it does not seem to me that it will but I think this is very much a practical matter and I am sure the hon. the Minister will be able to clarify this. The second point relates particularly to clause 9 which amends section 46 of the principal Act where “30 feet” becomes “10 metres”. This amendment will affect roads on alluvial diggings not open to pegging. The question I have, is: If one has an old claim contiguous with a new claim, will one have a sort of saw-tooth effect with regard to the road or is this a purely theoretical problem that will not arise in practice?

Sir, I come now to clause 18. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred to the removal of an anomaly. I should Eke to tell the hon. the Minister that if he lived in an urban area like I do and he referred to the removal of sex discrimination in the economic life as an anomaly, he would find himself in a lot of trouble. This provision is, in fact, quite interesting, as it shows that previously we assumed that a woman would not be a licensed dealer. During his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that the words “in consultation with” in clause 23 will now be replaced by the words “with the concurrence of’ and I think this is a good change because the department could obviously consult the Minister of Finance and having thus fulfilled its obligations, it could then do exactly as it pleased. I think the words “with the concurrence of” clarifies the position.

While on this point I should like to say that one finds that many Bills do not read very well. I think the drafters of this Bill should be congratulated because this is a Bill that reads very well indeed, particularly when one looks at clause 23. When one looks at the old section 109 of the principal Act for which a new section is to be substituted here, one can see that it was in fact legalese. However, the proposed new section 109 has been set out very well. I think this is a fine example of good drafting and one welcomes it.

I should also like to comment on the proposed new section 93(8)(b) which deals with the role of bankers. Historically the bankers play quite an important role in this industry, a role which dates back to the old Kimberley diamond mines. Today some people, particularly people from overseas, prefer to deal with a banker because they know they are dealing with a recognized financial institution. I know that at times it has been suggested that bankers should not be allowed to do this and I am glad to see that in this amendment to the Act the position has been set out with some precision. I think it is a good provision and it helps to clarify the situation. It also reflects fairly accurately what the present situation is. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can just clear up the meaning of the phrase “with the consent in writing of the chief of the diamond branch”. That worries me. The practice that has developed is that people have been using telexes. This is understandable, because if one has a foreign visitor and one has to make an appointment and move quickly, one tends to use the telex system, rather than to write letters. I think that at the present moment telexes are used in such circumstances, and it is acceptable. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can just confirm in his reply that the use of telexes wil still be all right. I appreciate that one cannot act on a telephone call, but I think that with a telex one will have some sort of written record.

Finally, I should like to comment on clause 25 which allows the Minister to delegate his powers, with certain exceptions, to the Director-General and other officers in his department. This is a change from the principal Act in that while that specified the powers that could be delegated to the department, in the amendment the powers that cannot be delegated are specified. Therefore there is a slight difference. I have looked carefully at the powers concerned and I do not think there is any large extension in the Minister’s powers. While we in these benches do not like Ministers getting additional powers, in a period of increasing administrative complexity this is sometimes necessary. The point I want to make is that, although the Minister can delegate responsibility, which we accept, he cannot delegate his accountability. If anything happens that is wrong and we find out about it, we will hold him accountable for it.

Having said that, I want to say again that I think it is a good piece of legislation and that we will have no hesitation in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Edenvale, that this Bill has been very well prepared and contains very useful improvements. I think the hon. member is unnecessarily concerned about the question of measurements. These are matters that are merely being arranged to change from Cape feet to metres, and to avoid working with fractions of metres. The practical implication thereof can be worked out very easily because the legislation also makes specific provision for this.

Then there is the question of the emancipation of women which is contained in clause 18. Besides, it has already happened that a licence was granted to a woman. Therefore we must also provide for the husband being covered too, just as in terms of the old Act she is covered if her husband has a licence.

The hon. member also referred to the question of telex messages. I do not think this will cause any problem. Reference is made in clause 19 to the fact that the banks may receive assistance, but this merely has a bearing on the fact that when the bank requires advice from any person from outside and that person has to be called in, the person whose services the bank uses in order to provide its client with proper service, must be certified by the head of the diamond branch. Consequently, this will make no difference whatsoever to the customary transactions.

The principal Act of 1964 which is now being amended, regulates all basic aspects in connection with the mining, processing and trade in precious stones of which diamonds are, of course, by far the most important. The diamond industry in South Africa which is regulated by this legislation, occupies three very important first places in the Western World. In the first instance, we export by far the most diamonds in the Western World. We produce the most diamonds, and we have the largest reserves of diamonds in the Western World. I am saying all of this specifically to reach one important point, and this is that Namaqualand makes by far the largest contribution towards this achievement by the Republic of South Africa. Effective legislation is essential for every industry, but for a sensitive industry like the diamond industry it is even more important, because nothing that comes from the earth is coveted more than the uncut diamond. I say we must have effective legislation, and apart from a few technical changes, improvement in wording, and the omission of references to obsolete, antiquated legislation, there are also a few amendments that make this Act more effective in the sense that it will do more towards combating illegal transactions, and it will also ensure that there will be more efficient administration. In the first instance those amendments have a bearing on the more effective selection of those who will work and live on alluvial diggings, as prescribed in clause 6.

In the second instance it ensures that all those who are involved in any way in dealing with uncut diamonds, must either be licensed or have the permission of the head of the diamond branch, as prescribed in clause 19. These two amendments combat illegal transactions. In the third instance the Minister may delegate any of his powers apart from the exceptions to which the hon. member for Edenvale also referred, and which are referred to in section 122 of the new Act. Those sections refer in particular to those things which the Minister may not delegate, and this concerns two matters in particular viz. in the first instance his power to hear appeals. He cannot delegate this. I think it is a very good principle that is contained here. Secondly he cannot delegate his powers to make regulations either. This ensures effective administration without affecting the authority of the Minister in any way.

I am pleased to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to say that we have no difficulty with any of the clauses of this amending legislation. We welcome it. It is a considerable improvement and some of them, of course, are improvements which of necessity have to be made, e.g. metrication, and others are an improvement regarding the operations of the semi-precious stones industry. However, at this stage I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the possible consequences of the application of this particular law, and not these amendments specifically, in regard to South West Africa. As we heard from the hon. member for Namaqualand, the majority of the diamonds which are controlled by this Bill do in fact come from that area. In the light of the fact that institutions, in particular financial institutions, are starting to create their own corporate identity under separate legislation in South West Africa, one wonders what the effect is going to be regarding the implementation of Acts or amendments similar to this in South West Africa when those corporate financial bodies are no longer registered as companies within South Africa, and what plans the hon. the Minister’s department has for this bridging period, because it is absolutely certain that administrative transfer, particularly of financial institutions, will be separated from South Africa long before the political transfer of power.

We should just like to welcome the amendments of this Bill. We have no difficulty with them at all, and we shall be supporting it throughout all stages.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank all hon. members for their support of this Bill. It is clear to me that all of them have made a thorough study of it and that they have also given a great deal of thought to the implications thereof.

†A particular word of thanks to the hon. member for Edenvale for congratulating those who were involved in the drafting of this Bill. I think they deserve the appreciation which the hon. member expressed here. I also think they have succeeded in describing very technical matters in a quite understandable manner.

Turning now to the specific questions put to me, I want to refer in the first instance to the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member referred to clause 5 of the Bill, in terms of which a change is brought about in the size of claims.

*This was done merely for practical considerations. The actual practical difference is extremely small. In any event, it is much easier when surveying if one can work with round figures. Proper provision was made for the maintenance of old claims according to the prescribed sizes in the Act, in its previous form. Consequently, the new provision will be applicable only after the legislation under discussion comes into operation, and will apply to new claims only. Therefore, in actual fact this does not give rise to any problems.

In the second place the hon. member referred to the road that was widened from 30 ft. to 10 metres. In practice this should not give rise to any problem. The difference is very, very small. In any event, claims are not pegged right up to a road. There is always a reserve space. The small difference can therefore be absorbed into that reserve space, particularly when there are old claims on the one hand and new claims on the other. Therefore, in practice this should not give rise to any problems for us at all.

Now I come to the question of telexes. Apart from the reply which the hon. member for Namaqualand has already given, I would prefer to go into the matter a little deeper before I commit myself absolutely to a reply. In practice, however, I can assure hon. members that matters of this nature are regulated on an administrative basis, particularly when they are urgent. In the same provision, which has already been applicable to diamond dealers for many years, there are no practical problems of which I am aware. Therefore, I do not expect this to give rise to problems. However, I shall investigate the matter in greater depth and if it appears that there are any practical problems, I shall not hesitate to put the matter right.

In the final instance, as far as the delegation is concerned, I have taken note of the proviso’s. As far as the mineral legislation is concerned, I believe we may now accept that hon. members no longer have to warn me that I remain answerable. I am quite prepared to accept this. I accept that I cannot get rid of my answerability by delegation. Delegation simply remains an administrative action in order to ensure that decisions are made quickly and easily and that the work load is distributed in this way so that matters of policy are dealt with on more of an executive level, whilst ordinary administrative matters remain in the hands of people who are equipped to deal with them. I thank the hon. member sincerely for his contribution.

I also thank the hon. member for Namaqualand for his contribution. It is very clear to me that, as one of the chief spokesmen on matters of this nature, he has once again made himself very familiar with the subject and that he also has a special interest in it, due to the positioning of his constituency. His voters may feel happy about the fact that they have a representative here who is rapidly becoming a real expert in this particular specialized sphere too, an expert upon whom this House can depend and from whom we may expect many good contributions in this House in future.

To the hon. member for Durban North I say thank you very much for his support and for that of his party.

†The hon. member referred to the question of South West Africa and possible problems which may arise. Obviously this legislation does not apply to South West Africa. The inter-relationships between South Africa and South West Africa with regard to matters relating to the producing of diamonds, are very good. There is a very good administrative co-ordination, and there is also a very good producers’ co-ordination. I can give the hon. member the assurance that sufficient structures exist which will ensure that a situation will not arise which will allow for a real conflict of interests and for a parting of the ways in such a manner that it will be to the detriment of either South Africa or South West Africa. The hon. member can also rest assured that I have taken careful note of his comments in this regard and that we will be devoting attention to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the amendments relating to financial institutions and banking institutions. Could the hon. the Minister tell the House whether these amendments will also not apply to financial institutions in South West Africa?

The legislation does not apply to South West Africa, but we are trying to ensure procedures that are more or less the same. There will be administrative liaison. In general we find that the practice that we are following here, is applied successfully there too. We shall ensure that in Southern Africa—more broadly speaking, the same procedures will be applied in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation Limited Act, 1979 (Act 119 of 1979), which I shall henceforth call the Iscor Act of 1979, was passed in 1979 to replace the Iscor Act of 1928 and the 15 amending laws that had been passed by Parliament until that stage. The Iscor Act of 1979 has not yet been put into operation, because an attempt is being made at the same time to put into operation the regulations that have been revised in general and that can be made in terms of section 32 of this Act.

In drawing up the regulations it was discovered that, due to the more complete formulation thereof than in the past, all proposed regulations are not fully authorized by the new Act and that certain provisions that would have been included in the regulations, should rather form part of the Act instead.

Furthermore it appeared advisable to supplement the existing Act in certain other respects.

As a result of this it is necessary to amend the Iscor Act of 1979 as proposed in the measure that is before the House at the moment.

Firstly section 12 is being expanded in such a way that written decisions that are circulated amongst the board of directors and signed by the majority of them, may be declared a decision of the board.

In the second place it enlarges the powers of the Minister to make regulations.

Thirdly, the Iron and Steel Industry Encouragement Act, 1922 (Act No. 41 of 1922) as well as a later amendment thereof, is being repealed and fourthly certain expressions that have changed since the Act was passed, are being rectified.

†The addition to section 12 to provide for the taking of decisions by means of the circulation among and the signing of written documents containing such decisions by the majority of the directors, is a practical measure which is aimed at the elimination of delays in the taking of urgent decisions between the regular monthly meetings of the board. In this way immediate action can be taken while the resolutions concerned will be recorded in the minutes of the board meetings, following on the resolutions passed as described by me. This procedure serves as an emergency measure and will obviously be applied sparingly.

In the drafting of the regulations after the passing of the Act in 1979 it became evident that a more precise and detailed description of certain aspects, such as the transfer of shares and share certificates, the procedures at general meetings of shareholders, etc., was advisable in order to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty. The 1979 Act does not empower the Minister to make certain regulations in this respect and accordingly clause 6, which is a proposed amendment of section 32 of the principal Act, was drafted to correct the matter.

It was also found necessary to repeal the Iron and Steel Industry Encouragement Act, 1922 (Act 41 of 1922) and the Iron and Steel Industry Encouragement Act, 1922, Amendment Act, 1926. These Acts are completely outdated and will now, in terms of the Government’s rationalization of statutes programme, be repealed as proposed in clause 7.

The other amendments in this Bill are mainly due to the abolition of the Senate, the change of name of the Minister’s portfolio, the institution of the President’s Council and the proposed re-institution of the Coloured Representative and Indian Councils.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say too much about this Bill as it is relatively straightforward. However, I should like to make some comments on some of the clauses.

I find clause 2 fairly interesting. It disqualifies the holders of certain positions from acting as directors of the corporation. When one looks at it one notices that one of the bodies mentioned is the Senate which has now been abolished, another one has not yet been created because it has not any members. I refer to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Of course, the third is the President’s Council. I personally welcome the fact that we include members of the President’s Council. I think this is a sound principle that there should be no conflict between holders of public office and their private office. In this regard I am one hundred per cent behind the hon. the Minister. But I have some difficulty in squaring this with recent statements by members of the President’s Council themselves who said that they were in fact encouraged to maintain their other occupations. The principle advanced in this Bill is, in fact, a good one.

Clause 4 allows the taking of decisions by circularizing a written document. I am glad that the hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said that this is something that would only be used sparingly. One can appreciate that for administrative reasons this is convenient. I do, however, feel that this should not be used in the case of controversial decisions, because it is important that one does not steamroll minority directors into a situation that they do not want, consequently it will not be used where the matters are either very complicated or particularly controversial. However, I am sure it is the intention of the hon. the Minister not to use it in matters of a controversial nature.

Clause 6 is an extension of the powers vested in the Minister. Whenever I see extensions of powers I look very carefully at them, but these powers are, I think, essentially of a secretarial nature and consequently I do not think we have any problems with that and will therefore be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my wholehearted support of the amending Bill that has just been introduced by the hon. the Minister. In particular I support the amendment of section 12 of the principal Act. This has a bearing on the directors and the following addition is now being made—

This amendment aims at bringing the legislation in line with section 242(2) of the Companies Act. It contains the standard clause that applies to companies. Previously, this provision was contained in the rules only, but now it is being brought in line with the Companies Act of 1973. Then if one takes into account the vastness of the iron and steel industry, one must agree that the duties of directors would be facilitated considerably if they were not tied to their monthly meeting for making decisions. Speedy decision-making saves time, and these days time is money. Large capital projects have been planned for the following five years. The Pretoria works, the Newcastle works, the Vanderbijlpark works, Grootgeluk coal mine—there it is actually simply a case of the mine being completed—Sishen iron ore mine and the Thabazimbi iron ore mine are in urgent need of modernization and expansion. If these people can take decisions quickly and settle matters quickly, it is going to speed up matters a great deal and it is going to be to the greater advantage of all. We can understand that decisions on such projects are sometimes very urgent and as a result of the shortage of skilled labour the corporation has to recruit people here and abroad. Here too very speedy decisions can be made. Iscor itself takes care of the training, and nearly 4 500 apprentices are being trained in training centres. Nearly 18 000 production workers have completed various training programmes in order to achieve the necessary standard of competence for the positions concerned.

There is also a department where bursaries are granted. Nearly 311 students are studying on Iscor bursaries. Imports and exports are being promoted more rapidly here. The above are just a few departments that must be controlled, and these amendments will go far towards facilitating the task of the directors a great deal. There are about nine directors who do not all live close to one another. They are wide-spread. Many of them are sometimes abroad and some of them cannot attend meetings at certain times. That is why I want to give my wholehearted support to the provision concerned, because it provides for the fact that they can legalize a dcision merely by signing a petition.

Mr. Speaker, in Britain they have the Iron Lady. In South Africa we have “die man van staal” and it is very pleasant to hear that we also obviously have an iron lady, the hon. member for Germiston-District who speaks so knowledgeably about the South African iron and steel industry. We, too, will be supporting this measure. We see it as an improvement. We do believe it is a step in the right direction that the President’s Council members should be precluded from membership of the board. We also feel that clause 4 is very interesting in that it does something that should become more commonplace in the business world. It provides for decision making without the necessity of having to call a board together. Although the hon. the Minister stressed the importance of the fact that it would obviate delay—I agree with that wholeheartedly—I also believe that there is the very important facet that it can also obviate the wastage of time and fuel, and time and fuel are wasted when a board is called together to make a decision that has to be made in terms of the Companies Act, or whatever, but is not really all that important. The only way that that can be done is to call the board members together and go through all the motions in the proper fashion. I think that is something that commerce should look at and accept as being part and parcel of a natural way of conducting business.

Like the hon. member for Edenvale, the extension of powers is something that we also look at very closely indeed. In this regard my only comment is that it is obvious that what is happening here is that these extensions are merely bringing the powers into line with those embodied in the Companies Act as in normal commercial practice.

So we have no difficulty with this measure whatsoever and will happily support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Bill is being supported by both sides of the House and I too want to express my support of it.

The one amendment that may cause reservations, is the one to which previous speakers have already referred, viz. the amendment of section 12 of the principal Act by clause 4, where provision is made for the decisions to be taken by means of a written document being signed by more than half of the total number of directors. The majority that is being prescribed here, is a larger majority than required at an ordinary meeting where the majority of the quorum or half of the quorum plus the casting vote of the chairman would be able to take a decision. But to take such a decision by means of one director after the other signing a written document, will probably be a clumsy, time-consuming procedure which would not be followed in any event if it was not really necessary. In addition it is true that what is now being prescribed by law, was already authorized by regulations; in other words, it is a procedure that has already been followed in practice by the directors of Iscor. This means that the necessity and usefulness of the procedure has already been proved.

It is alleged and experience has proved that in spite of the regular monthly meetings, circumstances may arise which necessitate interim decisions—decisions that are so essential that if provision cannot be made for an alternate procedure, a special meeting will have to be held in spite of the cost attached to such a meeting. There are possible alternatives.

One possibility is that the chairman accepts the responsibility to use his discretion to make a decision without any formal or valid authorization because he is convinced that the meeting will approve of it and that it will then be approved at a later stage. This procedure is often followed and I think it works well as long as the chairman is prepared to authorize such a decision, but if he does not do so, nothing happens. Therefore it is an unsatisfactory procedure because it cannot be followed in all cases.

A second possibility is that a management committee or executive committee that can be readily available, may be appointed by the board and that defined powers are delegated to them. However, such a procedure has shortcomings too. I think it has been found in general that a management committee or executive committee makes more and more decisions that should rather be made by the full board of directors.

This aspect also causes the spotlight to fall on the underlying principle which as in the case of Iscor, is applied to State corporations and other boards for which the Government accepts responsibility and which are therefore subject to parliamentary control. The knowledge, skill and wisdom of the people who are appointed as directors, is put at the disposal not only of the corporation, the institution or the board, but at the disposal of the board of directors too. The presence of every director at such a meeting of the board and his active participation in the discussion before a decision is made, is to my mind of cardinal importance. The signing of a decision by a director, after he has listened to the motivation of someone who recommends that the decision be made, misses the inter-action of argument and counter argument which forms the basis of wise consultation at the meeting of a board of directorss. Therefore, whilst there is no doubt that a meeting of the directors is the desired procedure for decision making, it is conceded that the procedure for emergency decisions that is now being proposed in the amendment Bill, is the best procedure for answering to this purpose. A possible drawback of this procedure is the possibility of persuasion. Members of the board of directors can be persuaded as it were to endorse decisions. However, I believe this possibility may be considered unlikely, firstly because every decision that is made in this way, must deal with proposals that cannot wait until the next ordinary monthly meeting. It is very easy for each one concerned to judge whether such urgency does in fact exist. Secondly, I feel that the matters on which urgent decisions must be made, always fall into a few categories, which in time will form a fixed pattern so that the possibility of abuse will in fact no longer exist. It is a privilege for me to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the support that they have granted this amending Bill. The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out that the directors that are appointed, should have powers which will enable them to act in a responsible fashion. He also pointed out that the matter that is being proposed with the amendment of section 12, is above suspicion and need not result in abuse, due to the responsibility of the directors as well as to the procedure that is being proposed, viz. that the proposal should be signed.

†That was about the only measure to which hon. members on the other side referred, and I should like to assure the hon. member for Edenvale that that will be used sparingly. That provision is actually necessary to enable the board to take decisions particularly with regard to loans which are required from time to time. The important fact is that this was already laid down in regulations. It has now only been transferred to become part of the principal Act.

*The hon. member for Germiston District also pointed out a very important aspect, viz. that not only is Iscor a tremendous corporation, but also that the management and board of directors of Iscor should be congratulated on the outstanding way in which they have performed over the past years. It is not the occasion to talk about the achievements of Iscor this afternoon, but I think the corporation’s latest annual report gives an indication of the fact that this tremendous organization is being managed in an excellent way. The profits that were achieved in the latest financial year, are definitely a matter that we can discuss once again later. I thank the hon. members for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The incorporation of the departments of Justice and of Prisons into a new Department of Justice with effect from 1 November 1980, as part of the rationalization programme of the Public Service, necessitates certain amendments to the Prisons Act. These amendments are contained in clauses 1 to 3 and 7 of the Bill now before the House. The opportunity has also been utilized to introduce three other amendments of a different nature in clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. For purposes of efficacy, I shall first deal with all amendments resulting from the process of rationalization.

The deletion of the definitions of “member of the Prison Service” and “the Prisons Service” proposed by clause 1 of the Bill, is merely consequential to the provisions of clause 2, with which I shall deal in a moment. The reasons for the amendment of the definition of “Minister”, the deletion of the definition of “Public Service Commission” and the insertion of that of “Commission for Administration”, which are also proposed in clause 1, are obvious and need no explanation.

As a result of the diversity of functions of the erstwhile Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons, as it used to be known, a complete organizational integration of the two departments for purposes of rationalization is not only not feasible but also not advisable in the best interests of good administration and the morale of personnel. However, close co-operation between and joint management of the two disciplines Justice and Prisons have clear advantages. Clause 2 therefore establishes the Prison Service as a separate entity within a new Department of Justice as one leg of the department, the administration of justice being the other.

Clause 3 entrusts the Prison Service to the control of the Commissioner subject to the directions of the Director-General of Justice who may himself at any time exercise the power and perform the duties of the Commissioner. The Minister retains overall control and furthermore has the right of direct access and control over the Commissioner in the exercise of the latter’s functions. Provisions to this effect are contained in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 7 are aimed at the substitution of certain obsolete words and expressions.

*I shall now deal with the provisions of clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, which are not related to rationalization. Section 46 of the Act prohibits, inter alia, any pecuniary dealings between a member of the Prisons Service and a prisoner or, in relation to a prisoner, with the friends of that prisoner. Since the concept “friends” obviously does not include a member of the family as well, it is being proposed in clause 5 to expand the scope of the prohibition to a realistic extent by prohibiting all such pecuniary dealings, except for the purposes of the execution by such a member of his official duties.

In clause 6 of the Bill an amendment to section 94 of the Act is being proposed, which makes the establishment, administration and control of a medical scheme for all members of the Prisons Service possible by making regulations. In terms of section 94(1)(b) bis a Fund may at present be established for the purposes of providing medical, dental and hospital treatment only in respect of retired members and their families, as well as the families of deceased members. Serving members are treated at State expense. The measure which is being proposed in clause 6 conforms with and is based on the same motivation as the corresponding clause in the Police Amendment Bill, which commenced its passage through this House a few days ago. Consequently I do not wish to bore hon. members by repeating the motivation which was stated while that Bill was being dealt with. I merely wish to point out that the establishment of a separate medical scheme was decided upon after members of the S.A. Police and the Prisons Service held talks with the Technical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services, the Commission for Administration and the Treasury, and the matter was subsequently submitted to the Government. In addition section 26(1)(b) bis of the Public Service Act already makes provision for the establishment of medical aid schemes in respect of other public servants. There appears to be no reason why a scheme of this nature, for which provision is being made in the proposed measure, ought not to be established in respect of members of the Prisons Service.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by telling the hon. the Minister that we are not going to oppose this Bill. There are certain parts of the Bill which we accept unreservedly, but there are one or two points I should like to query. Therefore I think I shall begin at the end and come back to the beginning.

The hon. the Minister mentions in his Second Reading speech that the scheme that is established now is similar to the scheme which was set up for the Police and accepted by this House a few days ago. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will just give us one or two details in connection with this. Is this a non-discriminatory service for all members of the Prison Service? In other words, will Black members of the service also be entitled to benefits under this scheme; If not, what differences are there going to be between the various race groups in the Prison Service? That is the first point I want to query. If there are differences I think we will have to refer this Bill to the Committee of the whole House. Otherwise that will not be necessary.

We also have no objection to the clause which deals with the pecuniary side; in other words, members of the service having pecuniary dealings with prisoners or anybody connected with the prison scheme. That is a good amendment and we have no objection to that.

We are a little worried about this business of two legs to the department, so to speak— one for Justice and one for Prisons. The Prisons Department seems to be bandied around constantly between different departments. Originally there was one Minister who was responsible for Justice, Prisons and Police; all three of them. Last year it was changed, and the Prisons Department then fell under the Department of Justice, while the Police Department was put under the Minister of Police. That has now been changed again, and we are having a separate department for the Minister of Police, while the Department of Prisons is being taken away from the Minister of Police and it is now becoming the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. That means there are two separate legs to the department according to the ministerial description mentioned in the hon. the Minister’s speech. What we really want, of course, is to have a separate Prisons Department altogether. In other words, there should be a Minister of Prisons who is not the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Police, because both these departments and the Ministers concerned are, I believe, intimately connected with the Prisons Department from the point of view of the one department being responsible for the apprehending of the people who are ultimately going to end up in gaol, while the other department is responsible for the prosecution of the people who have been apprehended. We believe there should really be a complete differentiation in the functions of the three different departments, and the Minister responsible for the prosecution of people and their actual imprisonment should not be the Minister who is thereafter responsible for the well-being of the people who are incarcerated. They are a different category of people. They require different attention and I really believe that this should be the responsibility of a different Minister.

We are not going to pose this at this stage, but I do want to give the hon. the Minister due notice of the fact that I believe the time is going to come when we are going to have to raise in this House the setting up of a department of prisons completely divorced from both the Department of Police and the Department of Justice.

This is no reflection on the personalities of the hon. Ministers concerned, but we only believe that there will be better administration and a better dispensation altogether for the Prisons Department.

With those few words I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to my query on the question of the differentiation, if any, between members of the Prisons Service who are now going to benefit from the medical scheme which is being instituted.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to indicate that we agree with this legislation in principle. By now we have grown accustomed in this House to dealing with certain pieces of legislation which are really necessitated as a result of the process of rationalization in the Public Service.

If one takes note of the provisions contained in clause 2, one finds that the effect is that the commissioner, unlike our experience of this rank in the past, will in future occupy a lower rank in the Public Service as such. In any event, it seems to us as though that is going to be the de facto position. Moreover, it seems that rationalization is not going to affect the situation in that there will still be two departments, except that there will also of course be a Director-General who will then exercise co-ordinating functions as the man in charge of the services being rendered by the department. To a certain extent the Prison Service has a character of its own and perhaps one could still make out a case for saying that what is happening here is not for the best. One hopes of course that the new dispensation is going to be more permanent than the old one was, in view of the fact that from time to time the Department of Prisons fell under various portfolios.

As for the medical scheme, one should like to express the hope that the separate scheme will be a medical scheme which will not only operate efficiently, but will also be a scheme which does not have the deficiencies which some other schemes related to the Public Scheme have.

†You know, Mr. Speaker, it is such a pity that we still find today in regard to medical schemes, even if one starts off with the benefits and advantages that are offered, because of the rapid increase in medical expenses problems arise unless there is on-going machinery for updating benefits and bringing them into line with this rapid increase in medical expenses. This problem is especially marked in respect of independent medical schemes, the members of which find themselves at a financial disadvantage. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent this particular medical scheme has an in-built mechanism for updating benefits. In what way will it be controlled? Will it be exactly the same as the schemes that exist for the other Government departments? I may just mention, Sir, that I was not in the House when the medical scheme for the Police Force was discussed a few days ago.

With those few remarks, Sir, I want to say that we shall support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the limited time at my disposal, I shall have to speak quickly and I hope the hon. members accept this.

I wish to reply to the hon. member for Durban Central’s last remark that the medical scheme is a scheme which, like all similar schemes, falls under the Public Service Act. In this case the scheme will be administered by a wing of the Public Servants’ Association. In regard to benefits, it goes without saying that the scheme will constantly be placed in a comparable position to other similar schemes. There is one of the advantages which a separate scheme will have.

The second advantage is that an expertise which is already available to other public servants is now being made an integral part of this separate scheme. One is obtaining experience here under very equitable circumstances. In the Additional Appropriation Bill which was considered last night provision was made for funds so that the necessary infrastructure could be created and so that it will be possible to launch this scheme on 1 April this year. I think we will be able to cope with any problems which may arise. I cannot remember whether the hon. member put any further questions.

As regards the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton, I shall also begin with her last point first.

Order! The hon. the Minister will have to begin with the first point last on Monday.