Mr. Speaker, various speakers in the debate have made a great deal of fuss about the increase in the prices of food and the impression has been created that food prices have increased exorbitantly. Furthermore, in various ways, attempts have been made to link the increase in food prices to the political situation of the day. What I found very alarming, is that there are hon. members in the House who are trying to attach a racial connotation to food prices. [Interjections.] If we ever want to play dangerous politics in this country, we must give food prices a racial connotation and try to exploit them for political purposes. I am convinced that doing this is the height of irresponsibility. Let us look at the bread price. Here is a newspaper heading—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

Is that true or is it not?

I am not questioning the truth of the statement. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must not become so excited. He may lose his seat again in a moment, in the same way as he lost East London North some time ago.

And what happened in King William’s Town?

After all, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central congratulated an hon. colleague of mine on his re-nomination to the House. In my turn, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on the defeat that he suffered in East London North.

Come back to the point.

The hon. member for Wynberg does not have to be concerned about the point; I shall come to him in a moment.

If there is one factor in the country which affects the lives of all the people in the country every day, it is food. That is why I believe that we, as hon. members of Parliament, should speak with a great deal of responsibility when we discuss food prices. What is more, I think that we in this country must understand that not only do we produce enough food for our population, but in addition we are in the favourable position of even producing a surplus of food. We must be grateful for this. I think that we must be grateful that we are not in the position of a country like Poland where food prices are subsidized by 25% but where people have to queue in order to obtain food. Here in South Africa we do not have to queue in order to buy food. I want to make this point. When I listen to hon. members of the Opposition and when I listen to certain other bodies and organizations, then it appears that they accept price increases in clothing and shoes and motor-cars and television sets and razor-blades or whatever. They have no quarrel with that. However, wait until the price of food is increased and then they create the impression that the price increase is not justified. They also create the impression that there are people here who are making exorbitant profits, that the increases are exorbitant.

They hate the farmers.

My hon. colleague says that they hate the farmers. Who am I to argue with him! I ask myself: Why are those hon. members making such a fuss about increases in food prices? I ask myself why certain consumers’ organizations are making such a fuss about increases in food prices.

Because it causes famine amongst poor people.

Sir, the hon. member for Bryanston is alleging that if one increases food prices, one causes famine.

Yes, in large sections of the population.

If I am to take that hon. member at his word, one should never increase food prices.

The increases must not be exorbitant.

When I ask whether one should never increase food prices in that case, the hon. member for Bryanston says: Yes, but you are causing famine. [Interjections.] In other words, the logic of that argument is that one must not increase food prices because then one causes famine.

The increases are exorbitant.

The hon. member for Bryanston first has to put his intelligence into gear before he opens his mouth. The hon. member for Bryanston is inclined to put his foot in things easily. After all, we know him. He is fairly intelligent. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I made a mistake in saying that the hon. member is fairly intelligent! We all make mistakes. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw the words “the hon. member is fairly intelligent”. [Interjections.] Food prices are not increased because someone feels like it or simply for the fun of it. It is not a pleasant task for me as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, for the Cabinet and for the Government; it is not easy to increase food prices. One is aware of the fact that we are not all equally well off. It is something that one must do with a great deal of responsibility and circumspection. I have the impression that there are some organizations that allege that it gives us pleasure to increase food prices. Why do food prices increase? We must at least be realistic too. Food does not simply arise of its own accord; there are people who must produce it and the way in which it is produced, is by means of hard work. You also need production input in order to produce that food. You do not simply decide that you are going to plant maize and the next moment find your fields full of maize. One must have a plough and a tractor and one must buy fuel. One must hire someone … Is the hon. member laughing at it? Where is the former hon. member for East London City now? He is laughing at the farmers.

He really cheated old Van Zyl there. [Interjections.]

Then the farmer still has to cultivate his lands, and things like weeds grow, often a great deal of them too. Those weeds have to be eradicated. This requires labour and weed-killer, and sometimes that weed-killer does not work. Finally the harvest must be gathered and placed in containers. All these things cost money; one has to buy them. They do not simply walk up to the farm and say: “Here we are; fill us with vegetables.” They cost money. Therefore, there are production inputs in agriculture.

Let us take a look at what happened. Let us look at it with reference to what has happened over the past decade, say from 1968-70 until 1979-’80. Producers’ prices have increased by 200%. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, the former hon. member for East London North, is blowing himself up like a bullfrog. [Interjections.] When he hears the next one, he will blow himself up even further; He must just not puncture himself. Over that same period, the cost of farming inputs increased by 270%. Come on, let the hon. member blow himself up again …

Why did it increase to such an extent?

I shall say why. Because people like that hon. member sell tractors to the farmers at such high prices.

And windmills too, of course. [Interjections.]

Surely it is inevitable when production costs in agriculture rise, that those increased costs must be recovered from somewhere. The same things happens with razor-blades and any other commodity that is produced. This is why food prices increase: Because the input cost increases. The order of that increase is considerable. I do not want to waste the time of the House on this occasion by giving a long exposition of what the orders are in which the increases took place, but I can say that they are considerable, and practically every year it is considerably higher than the increase in the consumer price index or the general rate of inflation.

In addition, the farmer is running a tremendous risk, because what happens if it does not rain? These are the problems with which agriculture is faced.

Agriculture is a fundamental asset of our country and we must not disparage it, as some hon. members on that side of the House are trying to do. Agriculture is the origin, the source of development in this country, just as is the case in practically every other country. Agriculture is one of those basic activities that ensures prosperity for the entire population. I should like to refer to the immortal words uttered by an American philosopher, W. J. Bryan, in 1896—

This is still true about agriculture today, and that is why we must look after our agriculture. We must care for our agriculture. But we must also listen to reason.

I must react once again to what the hon. member for Wynberg said here. I must also react to an allegation made by the hon. member for Yeoville, although it is not an allegation characteristic of the hon. member. The hon. member for Yeoville alleged in his speech that the Government held back the increase of certain prices until after the election. The Government supposedly did this for political reasons. The hon. member for Wynberg then said that since the election, practically every price has increased.

But that is true.

We supposedly announced the increase in certain prices only after the election since we were supposedly afraid of the voters. This is the allegation that was made.

Except for more money for the public servants.

That hon. member must please just suck his dummy, keep quiet and go and squat on his lawn. Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are these. It has been alleged that the Government held back an announcement concerning increased prices and did not announce them at the usual time before the election. This is absolutely untrue and I contest it with everything in my power. I shall now mention the facts. There is a normal date and time when prices are announced every year, and this is when the prices are reviewed. In 1980, the year before the election, the dairy price was announced on 10 June and in this election year the Government announced this price on 1 June. Therefore, it was after the election. In 1980 the price of meat was determined on 2 June and this year on 10 July, a difference of six weeks. In 1980 the price of maize was announced on 18 April and this year on 23 April, in other words before the election. Therefore, it was the usual time. In 1980 the price of oil seeds was announced on 1 May and this year on 1 May once again. The price of wheat is announced in September every year and this year I shall announce it in September once again, even though a by-election may be in progress. There is not a regular date for the determination of the price of eggs, but in 1980 it was determined on 8 August, 7 October and this year on 29 June. Which increase did I now withhold before the election? I want to make a point here in connection with the maize price. If the Government ever wanted to play politics with a price, it would have done so on 30 April. However, as I have just indicated here, we announced the maize price before the election, viz. on 23 April. I could have easily announced it on 30 April. Was that a political game? The net price of the producers was not increased and they were not pleased and happy about that. However, the consumer was not happy either because his prices increased by 9½% and ultimately increased to 12½% in the trade. Therefore, he would not have been pleased either because he had to pay more. Anyone who says that this is a political game must think about the matter again.

If he can.

Yes. The question is whether he can. Certain prices were in fact announced during the election for political reasons. For instance, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced the maize price and increased it by 20%. I say once again that I do not mind him taking over my job, but he must at least consult me before he announces these things. I think it was a political price that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced. We had more political prices. I have here an interesting advertisement that is so large that I can practically not unfold it here on my bench. It says: “Since the last election food prices are up 94,8%”.

Quite right.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur confirms this. He should rather leave figures alone. As one Parliamentarian to another, I now want to give him some good advice. He should leave figures alone.

What did you say the percentage was?

What are the facts? It says here: “Since the last election food prices are up 94% ”. Then I checked it according to the indices, but I could not arrive at 94%.

Who paid for the advertisement?

That is a good question. It was placed by the Progressive Federal Party.

*As I said, I called upon the assistance of statisticians and economists. After all, the previous election was in March 1977, not so? [Interjections.] I mean November 1977. [Interjections.] They may go ahead and laugh, they must keep their mouths open, because the medicine is on its way. The period which is being referred to here, is the one to March 1981. In that period the consumer price index did not increase by 94,8%, but by 96,9%.

That is more.

96,9%?

Therefore, we are dealing here with an overstatement of almost 20% in this advertisement that appeared before the election.

Are you saying it was 96% ?

I mean 69%. [Interjections.] It was just a slip of the tongue. The best is yet to come. The advertisement says—

However, below that one reads—

Here they are lying in one and the same advertisement. They are contradicting themselves in one and the same advertisement. And what would this advertisement have cost? [Interjections.]

That is a “Cold water Omo advertisement.”

Yes. Sir, unfortunately my time has practically expired. I want to make another point. I do not question the fact that food prices have increased considerably. Let us look at the latest figures. From June last year until June this year the consumer price index increased by 14,5%. In the same period food prices increased by 25,8%.

Disgraceful!

The hon. member says it is a disgrace. The fact of the matter is that the increase in food prices was chiefly due to the increase in meat prices, which is a heavily-weighted item in the index. It is chiefly due to meat prices that carry a weight of 9,6% in the index. If I do not take the meat price into account, food prices have increased by only 13,3% from June to June in comparison with an increase of 14,5% in the consumer price index.

If you take it over six months, it might be only 6%. So what?

I am not talking about a period of six months, but about a period of a year. Therefore, if one does not take the meat price into account, the increase in food prices is lower than the increase in the consumer price index.

I want to point out another very interesting figure. It is based on the figures for the period from December 1980 to the end of June. What happened in this period? Food prices levelled off and the increase in food prices was lower than the increase in the consumer price index.

Tell that to the housewife.

I am telling it to the housewife and I am trying to explain it to that hon. member as well, although I know it is in vain.

*From December 1980 to June 1981 the consumer price index increased by 5,3%, while the food price increased by only 4,5% during that same period. Therefore, food prices have levelled off. The meat price has reached a level and is remaining there. To tell the truth, there has been a slight drop in the price of meat over the past six months.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what it costs to bake a loaf of brown bread? [Interjections.]

Oh, do not be silly now.

Mr. Speaker, when we have a lot of time to spare, I shall answer the hon. member’s question in detail. [Interjections.] The hon. member may do well to come and see me in my office. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to spend on his question. [Interjections.]

Order!

The statement that I want to make now, is that the meat price dropped by 2,5% from January to June. The meat price has found its level; that is why we have had a levelling off in the increase of food prices. [Interjections.] In conclusion I want to point out that hon. members on the opposite side are creating the impression that the population no longer has money to buy food; what is more, they are alleging that food is swallowing up all the available funds. They are making out that people have to use all their available income to buy food.

However, let us look at the facts. If we take private consumer spending at the constant prices of 1975 …

Now you must listen carefully.

Now those hon. members must take their medicine. They can start opening their mouths now. The total private consumer expenditure has increased by 8,4%, in real terms, in 1980. The expenditure on luxury goods has increased by 26,6%. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the increase was in the expenditure on food, alcohol and tobacco? It was only 5%.

Therefore, at the moment there is more money in circulation and the pattern which private consumer expenditure is assuming, shows that there has been a tremendous increase on the expenditure of luxury goods. Then there is a very moderate increase in the expenditure on food. This also proves to us that the food price is not putting food beyond the reach of people. I want to take the argument further.

If everything is so good, why is everything so bad then?

In 1978 the population spent 34,9% of their personal available income on food, alcohol and tobacco. In 1980 the population spent only 34,2% of their personal available income on food, alcohol and tobacco. Therefore, this indicates a drop; not an increase, and this is in real terms.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will not understand it in any event. However, these are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries except to say to him that all the statistics and percentages which he produced in this House this afternoon are no comfort whatsoever to people who are trying to make their pay packet equal the ever rising cost of living. They will not be impressed by the hon. the Minister’s percentages and his explanation of the level the meat price has reached, etc.

I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister something else. He talks about the high level of irresponsibility in making a political matter out of the prices of foodstuffs. I should like to tell him it is a political matter. One does not have to tell a hungry man that he is hungry. He knows it all by himself. [Interjections.] He knows it. Even if he is one of those slow thinkers to whom the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications referred last year. [Interjections.] For the rest I am going to leave my hon. colleagues to deal with the hon. the Minister later this afternoon and this evening.

I want to come back to a matter of very pressing interest and one which, I believe, all of us have been following over the last few weeks, some of us with interest and others, I may say, with anguish. That is, of course, the whole matter of the Nyanga East squatters. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may well groan; there is plenty to groan about in the matter of the Nyanga squatters. I want to start by placing on record, on behalf of those of us who sit in these benches, the strongest possible condemnation of the Government for its ham-handed, callous handling of this whole matter. There is no time to give a detailed history of what has happened with regard to this matter since the start of the squatter episode, which was in mid-July, when there was a raid on the Langa barracks and over 1 000 people were arrested and evicted from barracks where they had been trying to live a semblance of family life. There is no time to go into the details of that. The evictees set up their flimsy shelters on a stretch of land between Nyanga and Crossroads and since then there has been an on-going confrontation between these hapless people and the Department of Co-operation and Development.

A total onslaught.

The “co-operation” part of the department consisted of tearing down the flimsy shelters and is making it as difficult as possible for anybody to bring any assistance to the hundreds of people who were left shivering on the Cape Flats in the coldest, wettest winter that this area has experienced for many a long year. The “development” part of the Department of Co-operation and Development was a statement which was made last Friday by the hon. the Minister that the people among the squatters who were working would have their position legalized and that he would try to find work for them elsewhere outside of this area, but that their families would not necessarily be able to go along with them to their new workplaces. The work mentioned was work on the mines and farms in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

Not farms, cooperatives.

Co-operatives in the Orange Free State.

There is a big difference.

The offer was, not unexpectedly, not accepted, although I am not certain whether the terms were adequately explained to the people. I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation went along to explain the terms, but did not get around to doing it.

That is not true either.

Well, he went along and then he went off.

That is …

Well, he went along …

I went along, yes.

And then he ran away. [Interjections.] One thing is certain, however, and that is that that totally unsympathetic Deputy Minister could not have done very much to help the situation.

That is the greatest untruth.

Yesterday, negotiations, such as they were, broke down and this morning at dawn police and officials of the Administration Board were once again on the job breaking down the shelters and arresting everybody in sight. This, according to a statement which the hon. the Minister made later this morning, was to defuse the situation! Well, that is one way of defusing a situation, but it so happens that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Albany and myself went along there this morning at 08h00 and had access to the site. We witnessed with our very own eyes what I can only describe as grotesque. There must have been 150 armed policemen on the spot, many of them with dogs.

What is grotesque about that?

They were not looking very happy, I might tell hon. members. I do not believe that the police enjoy doing this to hapless people. I believe they do it only on the instructions of the hon. the Minister. They certainly were not doing it off their own bat. They were rounding up everybody in sight, putting them in huge police vans which drove off with hands sticking through the mesh, a sight to make one sick. [Interjections.] Yes, and they were coming back for more after they had unloaded these hapless people. I believe they were taken to Pollsmoor, and I am told—the hon. the Minister can tell me whether this is right—that they are now going to be charged with being illegal immigrants. That is the new charge that is going to be levelled against them. When we visited the site, the shelters were being torn down under the watchful eye of armed policemen, but no Press reporters were admitted. They were all excluded, true to our ancient tradition in South Africa of freedom of the Press, and true also to our tradition that the public has a right to know what is going on in South Africa. I am told that later this morning some of the squatters who had been sleeping elsewhere overnight, returned to the site to find everybody had gone, and then said: “Well, you had better arrest us as well.” What was the answer to that? I understand the police brought on a sneeze machine. That also to “defuse” the situation, Sir.

The children usually run away when they see the police, and I would like to know how many of them are in the bush today who do not know where their parents had been taken and have nowhere to shelter whatsoever. [Interjections.]

I want to say quite unequivocally that I believe that the goings-on at Nyanga East are an outrage. I believe they are utterly offensive to anybody who has any claim to a sense of humanity, and I believe that the steps taken by the hon. the Minister are completely useless as a solution to what is an on-going problem of great magnitude, and all of us know that it is a great problem, Sir.

I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister’s offer was turned down, because the truth of the matter is that he does not understand what is going on at Nyanga. [Interjections.] I am going to tell him what is going on. Many of the people have been in the area for many years, many of them illegally, if you like, for many years, but it is no good offering them jobs somewhere else. They want jobs here. [Interjections.]

That is very nice. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister should go back to Cradock where he came from. [Interjections.]

I challenge you to produce one job in Cape Town.

Many of these people are working, and many of them are working on and off.

Where must 20 000 jobs come from?

Many of them do temporary work, and it certainly is an opportunity which they do not have where they come from. They do not want to be sent away from a place where they have been for many years and where their wives and children have been able to join them. That is the important thing. They do not want jobs which do not include the sort, whatever it was, of family life which they had been able to lead, here in the Peninsula.

The hon. the Minister made one of his rush-of-blood-to-the-head statements on Friday and he made it over television. What did he say? He said that the people had deliberately created a situation in winter because they knew this was the best time in which to do this.

That is true.

But you selected mid-July to evict them from the barracks where they had been living for 2½ years. [Interjections.] I have all the facts. On Thursday I spent two hours with the hon. the Minister and he gave us the facts.

You did not listen.

I listened very carefully, Sir. The fact is they were evicted in mid-July, and they did not create the situation in mid-winter. The hon. the Minister created the situation in mid-winter. [Interjections.] Sir, I will tell you what the truth of the matter is. The truth is that this hon. Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and, for that matter, the whole House on that side, had no idea whatsoever of the resilience of the people of Nyanga East and their grim determination to stay in the area. They never imagined that this sort of thing could happen and, what is more, they did not have the slightest idea of what a storm of protest was going to break over their heads because of the callous treatment meted out to these hapless people. They had no idea how the ordinary citizens of Cape Town and, indeed, the rest of South Africa were going to respond to this disgusting treatment of human beings. [Interjections.] They had no idea how the outside world was going to react to this either. [Interjections.]

Why are you on the side of anarchy?

Why did they have no idea? I shall tell hon. members why. They think only of “illegals”. All that is in their heads is that those people are “illegals”. Other people, however, think of them as human beings. [Interjections.] That is the big difference. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister very quickly that the Nyanga squatters were not trying to defy him when they remained on that desolate stretch of land, night after night in the icy wind and the freezing rain. What they hoped for was that a survey would be done of the people who were there, just as was done at Crossroads, and that housing lists would be prepared. Because they did not want to be left off the lists, they stayed together, hoping that ultimately a survey would be done of their hapless plight and that something positive would be done to help them. We heard this over and over again. Let me tell hon. members that only brute force will move those people, and if brute force is indeed used against those people, it will have the most profound effect on race relations in South Africa. We would be faced with another crisis situation which I am prepared to say would be of the magnitude of the Sharpeville episode and the 1976 riots in Soweto.

You are inciting it.

Ever so long ago I gave up worrying about what those hon. members say about me. They should just look to the causes of the problem and not look for excuses, because I am not about to provide any. Those hon. members are going to be amazed at the reaction of the civilized world to all this.

I want to repeat here what I said the other day, and that is that the Nyanga people are refugees, in fact, from the want and the poverty of the Ciskei and the Transkei, and civilized countries care for refugees that come into their midst. [Interjections.] They care for them, even if they are foreigners. Indeed, most refugees cared for by any country are foreigners because they have fled from some other country. Here we are dealing with harassed and hounded people who are our responsibility, yet these poor wretches are treated like members of an invading army. These poor wretches have merely been trying to escape the hunger and the hardship of the homelands, and if there is one thing that has confirmed, beyond any shadow of a doubt, everything I have read about the Ciskei, it was a visit that I paid with my nine hon. colleagues last Saturday to the resettlement areas of the Ciskei. Perhaps the most significant thing about the hon. the Minister’s lack of understanding of what Nyanga East is all about, is that Nyanga is a microcosm of what is in fact, happening throughout South Africa. In every city or town, in every urban area, there are thousands of these refugees from the poverty of the homelands, these “illegals”. One finds them in every single urban area.

Why do you call them refugees?

Because they are refugees from poverty, from want, from malnutrition and a lack of jobs. That is what they are refugees from. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what “refugee” means. The hon. the Minister ought to know that Soweto becomes a vast indoor squatter camp every night when about 14 people—some of them “illegals” and some of them just legal homeless people—cram into a little house meant for six people. So every night Soweto is a vast indoor squatter camp. The hon. the Minister has forgotten the significance of the hundreds of thousands of people who are arrested under the pass laws. They are “illegals” because they are also refugees from want. The hon. the Minister seems to have completely forgotten the 84 000 people who registered, but were “illegals” before the moratorium was declared a couple of years ago. The western Cape, however, was excluded from that moratorium. Thousands of people could have registered, because I bet that this area has more “illegals” than any other area in the country. What we need is to get rid of this idiotic Coloured labour preference system. We need another moratorium, but we need it everywhere, throughout South Africa.

We need no more pass arrests while somebody sits down to work out how we are going to cope with this enormous problem facing us. We need no more removals; that is for sure; no more resettlement schemes such as the hon. the Deputy Minister told us about this afternoon. We do not want any more removals of Black “spots” to these impoverished homelands …

What you want is completely irrelevant. [Interjections.]

Little Napoleon from Cradock! I would not take a sick cat to that man.

We also do not want anymore relocation of Black urban townships. What we need is to get a move on with the revision of this whole terrible system that inhibits people’s mobility. It is a nightmare policy that has caused untold misery to millions of people in this country.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s first response to the situation in Nyanga was that his responsibility lay first with the people who are here in the Cape legally and who have jobs and who need homes. Some of them need jobs as well as houses. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is responsible for every Black person in this country.

If they co-operate.

Yes, co-operate, go back and be quiet about it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that enticing homeland leaders to take a de jure independence does not absolve him of the responsibility of looking after people who are de facto dependent on this country and who will always remain dependent. The poor White problem in South Africa was not solved by pushing people back into the rural areas and, equally, the poor Black problem, which is what we are faced with now in South Africa, will not be solved by pushing the Black people back to the rural areas. The problem must be solved by education, by training, by site-and-service schemes and by employment. We all know that. One cannot provide housing on a vast scale on Western standards set years ago by the Department of Community Development. We need site-and-service schemes. The Government itself solved a vast squatter problem immediately after World War II when there were 60 000 squatters in the Moroka squatter camp and in other areas around Johannesburg. The Government solved that problem by site-and-service schemes and by allowing industry to develop. We need to lift section 3 of the Physical Planning Act so that more jobs can be provided in metropolitan areas. All this is part and parcel of a scheme which can help to solve the problem, not arresting people and chucking them back into the homelands where they are going to starve. Nothing is new in this country; that is the worst of it.

You must learn one basic lesson.

In the ’forties two excellent commissions reported. There was the Van Eck Commission, the Agricultural Requirements Commission. There was also the Fagan Commission. I do not agree with everything either of those two commissions said, but they made some excellent recommendations about this problem. The Van Eck Commission pointed out that a fundamental aspect was urbanization that had to be tackled in South Africa. It was way back in about 1945, I think, that they pointed that out. The Fagan Commission, which reported in 1946—and I have the quotation here—said in it’s major recommendation that migration of Blacks into the urban areas was a natural economic phenomenon which could be regulated and guided, but not reversed. The Government is now trying to reverse the situation. The major recommendation of that commission was that stabilization of labour should be encouraged and facilitated. The commission also totally rejected the concept of total apartheid. Everything today is still based on the report of the Tomlinson Commission, although the priority requirement of the report by the Tomlinson Commission was that 50 000 jobs per annum, outside agriculture, in tertiary and secondary activities be provided. I do not believe that 50 000 jobs have been provided in toto, that is if one excises Babalegi, which happens to be in the PWV triangle.

South Africa’s great tragedy is that the election of 1948 was won by a party which has consistently ignored the findings of those two commissions which I have quoted. I wonder what a vastly different and improved South Africa we would be living in if only that tragedy had not taken place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton is on record as having said that Parliament is becoming ever more irrelevant but at least it provides a forum and that the real struggle is taking place outside this House. So once again today we have had an example of the hon. member for Houghton speaking to an audience outside of this House. [Interjections.] We heard the extravagant and emotive language that she uses—“an outrage”, “inhumanity”, “another Sharpeville” and “refugees”. The hon. member for Houghton says that everyone throughout the world cares for refugees. I do not remember her saying anything in this House or outside about the White refugees from Angola or the White refugees from Mozambique.

They were very well looked after, that is why!

The hon. member says that these Black people only want jobs here in the Peninsula. I want to remind the hon. member that all successive Governments and all successive political parties with the exception of the PFP have stood for a measure of influx control in South Africa. Influx control must be governed by the availability of jobs and availability of houses. I want to give the hon. member the assurance today that this Government is not going to have a succession of Crossroads throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. [Interjections.] This Government will continue to try to find a solution to a difficult problem which is being aggravated and not helped by the hon. member for Houghton and the colleagues surrounding her.

But you are doing nothing about it, nothing whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton speaks to an outside audience and it is the audience to which she speaks that I wish to deal with today.

R.P. 52—1980 is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Reporting of Security Matters regarding the South African Defence Force and the South African Police Force, known as the Steyn Commission. I regard paragraph 495 of that report as the most important paragraph in the report. It reads as follows—

Paragraph 496 refers to the public media as—

By “them” is meant the various population groups in the South African community.

The Steyn Commission draws a parallel between the situation under Justinian’s Empire and the situation here in the Republic today. In both cases, by weapons and by laws the State had to be maintained. However, the report goes further and strongly urges that in the case of the Republic there should be an indispensably important third leg, namely something that was lacking in the Justinian Empire, and that it should be added to our constitutional and social substructure so as to sustain the Republic and enable it to survive the gathering storms. Sir, the third leg it refers to as “Benevolentia” or goodwill which has to be engendered and maintained among the people so as to unite and direct the whole. The report states that in South Africa there should be a survival-trilogy of weapons, laws and goodwill and that the public media should play a vital role in this regard. However, Sir, this is very far from being the case in South Africa for the simple reason that South Africa’s largest news media, the Argus-Saan monopoly, is an active participant in the externally sourced assault against the Republic and is aiming to bring about what I call revolutionary and radical change in South Africa.

Utter balderdash!

This is the crux of the whole problem. Instead of getting better, I want to say today that the situation is getting worse.

I first brought this state of affairs to the attention of the House seven years ago. I argued that South Africa needed an English Press, which is our only internationally read news medium, that would help to build bridges among the races and the peoples of South Africa and would try to find consensus on national issues. I predicted that this could never be achieved under the then English language newspaper dispensation because they were virtually under one control. I backed up my allegations with an analysis of the Argus and Saan shareholdings showing that the Argus, having been prevented by Mr. Vorster from taking over Saan in 1968, was taking over Saan by stealth and that Mr. Oppenheimer through JCI and Charter shareholdings in Argus in fact could control both Argus and Saan. The torrent of denial and abuse that followed my speech was noteworthy for the absence therefrom of factual information to refute any of my allegations.

Again in 1976 and 1978 I spoke against the Argus/Saan monopoly, and once again full details of shareholdings were not forthcoming from them. At the beginning of 1979 I introduced into this House a private member’s motion and at the same time updated the Argus/Saan shareholdings. I called upon the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into newspaper group share-ownership, effective control and the effect of concentration of ownership and control on editorial opinion, comment and news. On the eve of that debate, for the first time the Argus and Saan managements made known the names of their registered shareholdings, but they declined to disclose the identities of their secret trusts and nominee companies. What was disclosed by them, however, was that the largest shareholdings in Argus are held by Mr. Oppenheimer’s JCI and Charter Company and that Argus, in fact, at that stage had increased its shareholding from the time I first spoke from 32% to 39,23%.

Let us have a look at the Argus for the moment. According to AMPS, the weekly average of the Argus/Saan combine is about 4 900 000 copies out of a total English-language circulation of 5 600 000 copies a week, excluding the Black newspapers. If one includes the Black newspapers, then Argus and Saan sell something like 5,7 million copies out of a total of 6,3 million; that is to say, over 89% of the total English-language newspapers in circulation. Only The Citizen, Daily Dispatch and Natal Witness are completely free of Argus/Saan control.

Let us have a look at its effect on the non-White market. They are anti-government, leftist liberal newspaper groups and their special non-White and normal editions play an enormous role in determining the relationships between Black and White in South Africa, and more particularly the attitudes of Blacks to Whites in South Africa. In the case of Whites this monopoly plays an incisive role in White politics because there is no alternative view put to them in their own home language.

What about the SABC?

International visitors are given a picture of South Africa that is wholly distorted, while overseas opinion, the attitude of foreign leaders towards South Africa, and foreign diplomats are materially shaped by what appears in the newspapers of the Argus and Saan groups.

One would think that the controllers of the Argus would be happy with Argus/Saan’s almost total control of English-language newspapers in South Africa. One would think that they would be satisfied with their joint ownership with Saan of the whole of the Allied Publishing Company which distributes Argus and Saan newspapers. One would think they would be satisfied with their ownership of the CNA, being the largest distributor of periodicals in South Africa as well as a major seller of newspapers of the Argus/Saan group. However, not a bit of it! Argus has recently expanded into commercial printing, into magazines and knock-and-drop newspapers. Argus has a 30% interest in Caxton which publishes most of the free English-language newspapers, suburban newspapers, in Johannesburg and on the Reef. In the last election, these newspapers showed a strong bias towards the Opposition party, the PFP.

Balderdash!

Argus and Caxton have also bought local newspapers in Natal with a combined circulation of approximately 56 000, and in addition to this, Argus has acquired or started other newspapers in that province. Gittins, who is an Argus company manager, recently became the managing director of Caxton. One wonders why a well-trained Argus manager should suddenly become the managing director of Caxton, while Argus only has a 30% holding in Caxton, if it was not aimed at full and overall control of that group.

Argus has recently acquired a 46,6% share in Hortors, and Hortors has recently acquired a 50,4% share in Triorand. This merger will result in the formation of the largest off-set printing combine in the Republic. Still more recent, is the news that Argus has bought a 50% share in the Info group of companies which provide a comprehensive information service from a computer-based data bank. This is going to supplement and complement information published daily in Argus newspapers. [Interjections.] The second significance of these moves is that the Argus group does not only dominate the English-language Press, but that they also intend to be a dominating factor in the printing industry and in the new electronic media industry. If this activity by the controllers of Argus seems to be positively imperialistic, what about their other efforts to concentrate even more printed power into their hands? Marion Shinn, who I believe is a journalist on the Rand Daily Mail, wrote in The Journalist, the official organ of the South African Society of Journalists, which of course only consists of Argus-Saan journalists because others do not belong to this body, under the heading “Aunty Argus” “’orrible appetite” in the July issue that English journalists and Afrikaans journalists outside direct Argus control—

during the last two years—

Then she analysed the implications of an attempt by the Argus controllers to withdraw their group from Sapa.

I now want to say something about Sapa. Argus approached Sapa with a three-pointed request. Argus wanted to withdraw from the Sapa franchise because, firstly, it wanted the Daily News to be published earlier in Durban on Saturdays and this could only happen with the concession of the other Durban franchise holders. Secondly, it wanted the opportunity to produce newspapers on a twenty-four-hour basis, so that they could aim at more circulation and greater advertisement opportunity. If they could not do that then, as members of Sapa, they would have to withdraw. Thirdly, Argus input to Sapa, both money and news, was not, according to the Argus, worth what the Argus was getting out of it. Miss Shinn said that, after much gnashing of teeth, closed-door discussions and changes of plan, the controllers of the Argus company eventually withdrew their request.

What has, however, been the consequences of this threat to Sapa? Sapa’s cost structure is being reorganized to accommodate Argus complaints. Some Argus newspapers, especially The Star, are to get leak lines of Reuter and Associated Press direct from Sapa.

What would the effects on Sapa have been if Argus had withdrawn? Let me say first of all what Sapa is. It was created in 1938 by newspaper owners to create a South African and Rhodesian Press with an independent country-wide news gathering service. It is the only one of its kind in the Republic. It has members, but it does not have shareholders. All major newspapers are members of Sapa, each contributing a fixed amount in the event of the company being wound up. Each member of Sapa is entitled to vote and a board of directors of 17 is elected, with due regard to claims based on territorial divisions and proper representation of the language groups. There is no domination of one language group over the other in Sapa. Indeed, the chairmanship in Sapa alternates between English-speaking and Afrikaansspeaking men. Clauses in the constitution require certain important decisions to be approved by a 75% majority, which means that there cannot be a take-over bid for Sapa. It is the only truly independent newsgathering organization in the Republic of South Africa. How would it be affected by Argus withdrawal? Argus already controls the lucrative afternoon market. If it withdrew from Sapa, and published its newspapers in direct competition with morning newspapers, those would collapse. If The Star, for example, were to gain another 20 000 copies from either The Citizen or the Rand Daily Mail its circulation would top 200 000, which would make it the biggest selling daily with unprecedented advertising attraction. Another consequence would be that English newspapers and Afrikaans newspapers would have to carry an extra financial burden, because Argus pays approximately one-third of Sapa’s net costs. The struggling English morning newspapers would fold and they would not be able to carry the extra financial load as well as face direct Argus competition. The effect of this would be to make Saan vulnerable for a complete take-over by Argus for rationalization purposes, and I may add they have long had their greedy eyes on the Sunday Times. They can always justify this by saying that this was part of the normal workings of a capitalistic society.

The Afrikaans group would not be able to carry Sapa, and Sapa itself would collapse. I may say that there has already been a cut-back in Sapa’s staff. Miss Shinn then speculates that Perskor and Nasionale Pers would possibly combine to meet the Argus Goliath. The picture would then be: Total Argus control over the written English word throughout the Republic, with the Afrikaans Press struggling to meet the financial onslaught of Argus, and, an emanciated Sapa feeding information to these two newspaper groups. Miss Shinn says that there would be a lack of diversification as well as a battle to survive, and Press freedom in the Republic would die, choked by the greed of Argus.

In 18 months time The Star will have new printing presses and it is strongly rumoured that The Star will then become a round-the-clock Star, Argus already having paved the way by getting its proposals for all-day franchises accepted by Sapa’s board. If the Government was prepared to stop Argus buying Saan in 1968, I am confident and certain that the Government will not stand idly by while the PFP-supporting controllers of Argus consume the entire English-language newspaper world and all its ancillary interests, to the inevitable detriment of the Afrikaans-language newspaper groups and with the further consequence that Sapa, our only independent news-gathering organization, will disappear or else be emasculated, and news will become entirely politically polarized in South Africa.

At the moment Argus and Saan are slavishly Prog, but recently there has been an agreement between Argus, Saan and Mwasa. Mwasa is a militantly Black organization, propagating Black power and Black consciousness. The chairman of Mwasa was Sisulu, and Sisulu’s attitude to a journalist’s job in South Africa is the following—

That was one of the men leading Mwasa, with which Saan and Argus have concluded an agreement, a capitulation by Saan and Argus to journalistic terrorism. How long will it be before the Argus and Saan newspapers under Argus control and domination go over to a straight policy of Black Power?

In conclusion, I read at the time that Mr. Sparks was dismissed as the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. Dalling called for an immediate explanation about this “outrageous dismissal”. I read on the 13th of this month a full-page statement on the change of editor on the Rand Daily Mail in the Rand Daily Mail itself. It was a statement with 294 signatories. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why his name is not there. Why is Mr. Dalling’s name not there? Why is the hon. member for Yeoville’s name not there?

Why is your name not there?

Why are the other Progs representing Witwatersrand constituencies not on this list of protesters? [Interjections.] Has something happened? Has there been a caucus decision taken not to get associated with Mr. Sparks?

I made a statement about the dismissal.

Why has there been no mention so far, during the censure debate or during this debate, of the dismissal of a Saan editor, a “courageous editor in the tradition of the Rand Daily Mail and Saan”? It was not so much as mentioned.

We leave it to you.

I want to pose this question: Are we standing on the eve of another Donald Woods incident? In the case of Donald Woods there was firstly, protest about his banning, secondly support for him, thirdly his escape, and fourthly traitorous conduct against his own country in the outside world.

That is disgraceful.

Is that what is going to happen? Is there going to be another Donald Woods? Time alone will tell. Or have orders been given by the controllers of the Argus and Saan groups to the party that is their puppet that under no circumstances should this matter be raised in public debate? Time alone will tell, but time is not on South Africa’s side. If the Government allows Argus to take over Saan and to monopolize all English-language newspapers at all levels throughout all the provinces of South Africa, I say: “God help South Africa”, because then we will go the same way as other countries not far to the north of us.

Repeat that outside. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, there would not be room for me on the same horse that the hon. member for Simonstown has been riding, much as I might enjoy breaking its back if I did so. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I shall not be able to follow his argument in the same vein. Perhaps there will be another occasion upon which to deal with the total objectivity of the Press in the light of the Unisa investigation.

I should like to deal with the budget now. I will come back to the hon. member for Houghton in a few moments when I will deal specifically with the matters she raised. Firstly, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will remember how he mocked me last year and shouted “rubbish”—his words then were: “It is complete and utter nonsense”—when I said to him that he would have a gold bonanza of R3 billion. Does the hon. the Minister remember that? I thought I would just remind him of what the president of the Chamber of Mines had to say on this subject in his presidential address this year. He said—

I felt it was only fair to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance of his nonsense, utter nonsense and complete nonsense reaction.

I was talking about revenue from the gold-mines in the State coffers.

I was talking about moneys accruing to the State. That was what I said.

You were talking about State revenue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has been shown to have been talking utter nonsense himself because the president of the Chamber of Mines, in his own annual report, says that taxation and lease payments received by the State came to nearly R4 billion. With that sort of money …

Do you agree with that?

Well, I can only believe the president of the Chamber of Mines. With that amount of money we would have expected a budget here which could have done some of the critical jobs which South Africa needs to have done. Instead, however, we find more taxes taken from the people—indirectly, admittedly—and again, before beginning to discuss the budget, I should like to refer to the appeal by the hon. the Minister of Finance, his pious appeal, to people not to exploit the increase in excise and not to increase the prices of old stock. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to take any action against people who do increase prices on old stock because of the increase in excise duty. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to take any action? He remains very quiet. He says: “Please do not exploit the public”. When I ask him what he is prepared to do about people who exploit the public, he is silent. I shall tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because the first person against whom he will have to take action will be the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs who has been sitting next to him all afternoon.

This packet of cigarettes in my pocket had its price increased on Friday. It was a price increase on old stock. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs put up his prices on Friday to incorporate the new excise duty plus the new profit margin taken by the manufacturer. He did so on old stock. That was on Friday, and I checked in order to ensure that it was old stock. That is the example this Government sets of not exploiting the people. [Interjections.]

We moved an amendment in which we said, inter alia, that the budget failed to meet the critical challenges of our time. One of those critical challenges is trained manpower and productivity. This subject was debated here at some length and I was proud that all three hon. members who have made maiden speeches from the NRP benches dealt with the issues of productivity, training and employment opportunities. I think the harshest condemnation of the Government came from the hon. member for Kimberley North during the course of this debate. What did he say yesterday? Referring to a comparison made with productivity in Taiwan, he said that Taiwan has inspired workers. I want to know why the workers of South Africa are not equally inspired. The answer is that by design, intent and policy the Government has done everything possible to ensure that people are not inspired. Entrepreneurs, faced with stop-go policies, frustrated by regulations and red tape, taxed out of making more profits, have no incentive to invest. The White worker, politically misled into a false sense of security, has no incentive to compete. The Black worker, artificially restricted, has no incentive to improve his own position. So we now have a sudden awakening. Rip van Winkle is now rubbing the sand out of his eyes. Rip van Winkle is now discovering that we have to train and educate people but is shrugging it off with a 158% increase in education over 5 years.

They say there has been no outcry over this budget and that everybody is happy about it. I want to warn hon. members that this is like expecting to be hit over the head with a bicycle chain at a Nat meeting and then only getting kicked in the stomach. What is happening is that the people are being kicked in the stomach and the hon. the Minister and the Government are doing nothing to alleviate the harm and hurt that that is going to bring about. I would describe this budget as a staging post between boom and gloom, for many, a prelude to poverty, for others a heightening of the despair they already experience. It is highlighted by tokenism, a little more here, a little more there, a little more spent on this and a little less on that. For example, there is the R30 bonus for White old-age pensioners which I say is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace in the present situation in which we find ourselves. But there is no new imaginative approach to crisis areas. An example of this is the matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton today.

Put taxes up by 25% and then we can do all those things.

I say again, there is no imaginative new approach to crisis areas and one of these crisis areas is clearly the situation that has developed over recent weeks in Nyanga. We, too, believe that this matter has been hamhandedly handled but we regret the extravagant language and terminology in which the matter has been dealt with.

Why?

Because we believe this contributes nothing to the solution of problems. Our attitude is absolutely clear. We believe the Government has handled this matter badly. We believe that the raids this morning were a panic action and that there were other ways in which this matter could have been dealt with. We believe that it could have been dealt with, firstly, by quickly and efficiently creating reception areas, by evaluating each case and then dealing with it. However, I do accept that there are problems with which I am going to deal in a moment. My point is that it is not enough just to shout the odds and criticize. One must look at the reality and look for solutions. There are some solutions that we reject. We reject uncontrolled squatting because we believe that one cannot countenance the human degradation and misery of uncontrolled squatting,

Who supports uncontrolled squatting?

Nobody can approve of uncontrolled squatting, the opening of the floodgates to another sort of misery which charity and soup kitchens cannot deal with or solve and which makes of innocent people the victims of forces which they do not understand. Equally, however, the Government appears not to understand the forces with which it is dealing.

The urbanization problem is accepted by everybody as part of the new world which we simply have to face and deal with. The Government tries to apply outmoded, old solutions and then suddenly finds that they will not work. They did it again here. They removed the people, they tried them under the law but the problem was not solved. These people did not just go away. I accept that it is likely to be found that the situation had been manipulated, encouraged, escalated and also politically exploited. These are new elements in the situation and that is why the old remedies did not work. The Government has, however, been unable to adjust to these new elements of exploitation and abuse. It has tried to apply tried and tested methods that worked in other circumstances but have not worked here.

There has been a belated appreciation—which we welcome—namely the offer to find 1 000 jobs and also housing. However, the reaction to frustration should and can be different. I have lived through another example of this sort of situation under different circumstances and with different causes. I am referring to the post-war tragedy of displaced persons where millions of people and not just a few thousand were involved. There were no established governments, no administration and few resources. Cities were flattened to the ground and no housing was available. Millions of people poured into areas where they did not belong. This situation had, however, been foreseen and planned for and action could be taken.

We have made it clear through our speaker on co-operation and development, the hon. member for King William’s Town, that this is how we believe this situation should have been handled—in the same way as the post-war displaced persons were handled. Reception centres should be established even if they be in stables. I have quite happily lived and slept in stables during my lifetime. There should be shelters where by special procedures people can be quickly and efficiently evaluated and their circumstances established. Those who are identified as being entitled to assistance can be helped while those who are not can be sent back to where they came from. In the meantime proper health services and other facilities can be established for these people. As I have said, this happened to millions of people during the post-war period in Europe. I was there during that period. Although no housing was available, there were no squatter camps. However, there were reception centres where people were dealt with expeditiously and places were found to which they could be transferred. These people, as in this case, came mainly from the rural areas, and therefore they were, in the first place, sent to farms and villages. Before sending them there, however, it had to be ascertained that there were jobs and the necessary facilities to enable these people to exist. We therefore see this as a two-pronged problem. On the one hand one must deal with the problem here, where the people are, at the point where there is a build-up of people. One must also, however, deal with the problem at the points where those people come from.

The hon. member for King William’s Town and the MPC for King William’s Town went to the Ciskei about four to six weeks ago to discuss this same problem with the Chief Minister of the Ciskei and his officials, whom they met on that occasion. There were lengthy discussions about the lack of employment and opportunities for the people in various centres in the Ciskei. We did not wait for a crisis in Nyanga. We made our move about six weeks ago, and I myself went there even before that—last year in fact. We went to look at the problem and seek solutions. We did not go there with cameramen and reporters to make political capital out of the issue. We went to look for answers which we have discussed in our own circles, which I myself have discussed with the hon. the Minister and on which I have made suggestions. We also went to Nyanga, again without cameramen and reporters at our heels, to look at the situation and to seek ways in which the problem could be dealt with without trouble or difficulty. My suggestion, in the form of an appeal to the hon. the Minister, is not to treat these people as criminals until it has been established that they are but rather to deal with them in reception centres. That hon. Minister has money tucked away. He can make money available now as an emergency measure. What I am suggesting is, for example, an amount of R10 million [Interjections.] … to initiate an imaginative socioeconomic action plan in certain centres of Ciskei and also to assist Transkei, if necessary, to give those people jobs to go back to.

In our view the amount set aside for aid of this kind for the whole of South Africa is a minimal amount. The amount has, it is true, increased since last year—I accept that—but it is still a minimal amount. Here we have a specific problem, and my appeal to the hon. the Minister is not just to add a crumb or two but to launch an imaginative emergency programme so that these people have something to go back to, the people who have come here to look for what does not exist, seeking homes and jobs which do not exist. We need a programme to enable those people to go back and to have something to live on. There should be a constantly expanding system to create permanent opportunities for them.

One can never stop the flow to the towns. I have here the opinions of the experts, e.g. Dr. Flip Smit and others. It is common cause that one cannot stop urbanization. Therefore we have to cope with the problem both at this end, in the cities, and also at the other end where the people come from. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this an emergency situation and to use money from his Vote to deal with it now. He must not simply allow the crisis to go on escalating because I believe that it is being exploited. The longer he allows it to be exploited the longer there will be adverse publicity and harm caused to South Africa as a country.

What we need—and I want to conclude with this—is what I mentioned in the censure debate. We need a properly structured confederation of South Africa in which all elements can jointly establish a blueprint for an imaginative, demonstrable and workable system to reduce the pressure on people who flow into the towns where there are no jobs for them. Ensuring effective and systematic co-ordination for dealing with essentials can only be achieved in a properly structured set-up. In our view that can only be a confederation. I do not intend to deal with the political issues; I do not have the time anyway. There will be an opportunity to deal with the political side next week.

As this is, however, a budget debate, I believe we should look at the socioeconomic problems which would become the field of responsibility not by bilateral discussions or by backdoor discussions but by discussion in a structured confederation where all those concerned could get together and together plan what is needed to ensure regional development, the spread of growth areas and the provision of jobs. The Development Bank of Southern Africa is one portion of it but that is the bricks and mortar; the blueprints must come from a political structure. The Government will claim that it is doing all that but I believe that it is doing it on an ad hoc basis. The President’s Council is dealing with the Republic itself. I have said it before and I still say that they should be given time. The confederation should be the immediate step now to deal with the relationship with the homelands.

What is happening in Nyanga strengthens our appeal for a proper Erika Theron-type of investigation into the urban Black of South Africa, his identity and his aspirations so that he too can find his place in the final pattern of the whole of the South African structure. That is why we have moved an amendment saying that this budget fails to provide the answers to the critical challenges of this time in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, for his moderate criticism and the responsible way in which he behaved here this afternoon. This hon. member came to see me and we had a constructive, positive discussion, and I should also like to express appreciation for the suggestions he made. I shall deal with some of them in the course of my speech.

Having said this, I must resort to the use of strong language this afternoon. I have been sitting in this House for many years and before I resort to that strong language—which I honestly believe is based on facts—I wish to make an urgent appeal to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to every member on that side, to call a halt to what they are now doing. Those hon. members are not hurting the NP—in fact they are strengthening the NP—but they are causing South Africa irrevocable harm. [Interjections.] We are faced here with a new situation and since the recent election the hon. members of the Opposition have taken decisions which, if they were to continue to implement them, would have catastrophic results for South Africa. I ask those hon. members to call a halt to what they are doing. They know very well what I am referring to. Apparently the hon. Leader of the Opposition is quite incapable of controlling some of the hon. members on the opposite side. For example, the language we heard here from the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon was entirely in the idiom of revolution. It was in the idiom of total anarchy, not only in Cape Town, but in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. What is involved here is the issue of civil disobedience. Do the hon. members on that side want us to find ourselves in a state of civil disobedience in this country in the circumstances into which we have been plunged? Is that what they want? [Interjections.] Time and again those hon. members emerge squarely, wittingly and knowingly, intellectually and emotionally, on the side of those people who not only wish to promote civil disobedience in this country but are practicing it. [Interjections.] Is that acting in a responsibly way towards South Africa? And they are doing so solely for political gain. But they are politically so stupid they cannot see that in the process they are strengthening the NP.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister said that we on this side have wittingly and knowingly supported the forces of civil disobedience in this country.

Order! Would the hon. the Minister kindly repeat what he said?

Sir, I said that time and again those hon. members wittingly and knowingly, intellectually and emotionally, emerged on the side of those people who not only promote civil disobedience, but are practising civil disobedience in this country. I stand by what I have said and I shall prove it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister has not accused the official Opposition of directly fostering civil disobedience. He has said that they side with those doing so.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order was in regard to the expression “wittingly and knowingly” that the hon. the Minister used. That expression is as strong as anyone can use to say that we are knowingly and wittingly and intentionally fostering civil disobedience.

No. The hon. the Minister said that the official Opposition sided with them. He did not accuse the official Opposition directly. It was similar to saying that the official Opposition were acting as advocates for them. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of those hon. members are engaged in doing something else, as well, and that is that in a highly emotional situation, one which has absolutely nothing to do with this party’s ideology, they are making irresponsible remarks. I was trained as a social anthropologist, and I say this in all modesty. I studied at what are in my opinion two of the best universities available. The fact of the matter is that we are faced with a socio-economic problem. If White people had been involved we would still have had the same socio-economic problem. [Interjections.] No matter what race was involved the socio-economic problem would remain the same. These are the facts of the matter. There is nothing racistic about this matter. There is absolutely no colour or ideology involved in this matter. [Interjections.] We are dealing with a socioeconomic problem and a human problem one could sit down and cry about. No one can accuse me of acting inhumanely. My entire record proves the exact opposite. But now these people are acting in this way. I can do nothing but appeal to those hon. members, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition in particular, to put a stop to this kind of behaviour.

I have here a report entitled “Nyanga barbarism”. It reads—

This is how they carry on. The report continues—

And so they carry on. Then the hon. member for Pinelands came and—

Who initiated this report on so-called Nyanga barbarism and famine? Can anyone stand up and say this is not blatant incitement? See what appears at the bottom of this report they are distributing among the Black people in Nyanga—

Disgraceful!

Sir, it is indeed disgraceful. And the hon. Leader sits there like a sphinx and does nothing about it. This is what they are doing to the Black people. I say it is vile and I do not know as many adjectives as that hon. member used in her speech. I am asking the hon. members on the opposite side to stop it. They have not purchased the sole birthright to be humane towards people. Who gave them the right? After all, I am just as humane and the hon. members on this side can be just as humane. Who gave those hon. members the right to think that they are the only humane people?

Just look how piously they are sitting there. [Interjections.]

Have the hon. members not learnt—surely some of them have studied the classics—that “the hallmark of good government is the maintenance of law and order”. This saying has stood the test of time, but I can quote chapter and verse to show that the hon. members on that side keep on obstructing us in the simple enforcement of law and order. The hon. members are doing this here in the Mother City, where the foundations of this country were laid, where Van Riebeeck landed. The hon. members are proud of their actions, and they carry on here the way that hon. member for Houghton did. To paraphrase the Bible, Solomon, who spoke from bitter experience, said that the constant contentions of a wife are a continual dropping on a corrugated iron roof. [Interjections.] The hon. member must really cut it out. [Interjections.]

Order!

My time is limited, and therefore I have only been able to lift the veil slightly. I have been among those squatters many times. I went to see what was happening and acquaint myself with the conditions. There is not a single member on that side of the House who knows more about this situation than I do. I have been there until late at night. I go there without any police escort or anything like that because I want to acquaint myself with the facts.

That makes it even worse.

In spite of this background the hon. members and their newspapers are acting in the way I described. But they go even further. When they visited the Ciskei they did not have the common decency to ask Chief Minister Sebe for permission to visit the Ciskei. They did not have the common decency to come and ask me, a Minister they know to be as accessible as the grace of God, whether I had any objection to their going there. If they had done so I could have contacted Chief Minister Sebe. But what happened? They are inciters and when I say that I am referring to the other things …

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “inciters”.

It irks me to do so. If it were not for the fact that I want to finish my speech I would not withdraw it …

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but only to be able to continue with my speech. [Interjections.]

Sir, on a point of order …

Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally. The hon. members know exactly what I mean.

You are playing with the Chair.

Arising out of what happened there, I have here a copy of a document Chief Minister Sebe said should please be submitted to the Commissioner General of the Ciskei. He is a Black leader, a venerable gentleman. He is referring to the PFP—

[Interjections.] I should now like to ask those hon. members a question: While my officials and I had to struggle and make strenuous efforts late into the night to find over 1 000 job opportunities for these people, for whom I feel sorry and whom we want to help, did we get a single offer of a single job anywhere in the Republic from that side? All we got from them was words and more words. In this connection the Chief Minister is quite right. He went on to say—

The Chief Minister concludes—

[Interjections.] Sir, just the other day I quoted what Chief Minister Buthelezi had to say about those hon. members. I am in constant contact with the chairman of the Community Councils. You can ask my officials. Hardly a day goes by when I am not having discussions with these Black people. So I know what I am talking about. When you talk to these Black people and Black leaders you find that they speak with contempt about what those people are doing. If they do not want to listen to me they must listen to the Black Chief Minister. I can quote so many examples of what Black leaders have said. Here in my hand I have a report entitled “Squatters incited”. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

Sir, I know this man personally. He is a distinguished man and used to be a clergyman. For 14 days we held discussions with him to try to find solutions to these problems. He said—

This is a Black leader talking.

So what?

He continued—

He addressed himself to the hon. members opposite—

He went on to say—

He went on to explain the agreement we had, in the process, reached in this connection.

They are all sitting in Pollsmoor now.

I should like to discuss another point. How did all this start? I have adopted the most humane approach possible to this Crossroads situation. In the process I had to put up with a lot of criticism from my own people who claimed, with every justification, that I am too approachable. Sometimes we stayed in Crossroads until two o’clock in the morning—I have witnesses to prove this—talking to the people there and trying to find a solution to this socioeconomic and human problem. Indeed, we reached an agreement and they are trying to adhere to it. Up to now I have also succeeded in keeping our side of the agreement. That agreement was arrived at in April 1979. One of the points made clear in the agreement was that there would be no further squatting in that area. They also tried to keep this part of the agreement. This is the background against which this matter must be seen.

What happened then? We are now being accused of inhuman behaviour and of keeping families apart. Let me tell you what one of my first instructions to the officials in my department was after I became Minister of this Department and after we had grappled with the Crossroads situation. The hon. members can drive out and take a look at the new Crossroads. Already more than 400 families are living there happily now. Over 30 houses are being completed every month. On various occasions I have made personal telephone calls to the directors of Besterecta, asking them to speed up their work as much as possible. The programme includes 1 700 houses. We have also begun a scheme for 500 houses in the Peninsula, where a start has been made with a first phase of 160 houses. My colleague can tell the hon. member of the problems we had to find the necessary money. We went out of our way. Other priorities had to take a back seat so we could continue with this. We have KTC camp on our hands, where people under legal circumstances are having a difficult time. The hon. member referred to “site-and-service schemes”. There are 25 000 Black people living in Crossroads. When I go there I am saddened by the sight of 200 houses under water. When I see the infinite misery of little children and the people living there, I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I can understand this attitude in a few of the hon. members on that side, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for instance. He will still get the beating he deserves. That I promise him. Make no mistake. I just do not have the time for it this afternoon.

Come and stand in Gardens.

The hon. member for Houghton makes speeches after receiving honorary doctorates in America, but speaks in favour of revolution in South Africa. The hon. member for Pinelands, who is not present here at the moment …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Houghton spoke in favour of revolution in South Africa … [Interjections.]

Sir, I withdraw that.

Since we are discussing all these things, I should like to tell you what one of my first instructions was. There were hostels in which up to eight Black people were living in one room. I saw this with my own eyes. I said: “Good grief, we cannot carry on like this.” We then decided on a scheme whereby these hostels are being converted into 1 700 family units in which those people could live on a family basis. We converted 900 units in this way. People can go and look at them if they wish. Those people are proud to live in those units. One can see this from the curtains in their windows, the gardens they have laid out and many other things. I have spoken to them. They are happy there.

However, while we were busy with these things, and after we had converted 900 units without any problems, the first signs of trouble became evident—in the winter. Then I received a telephone call and I was told that there were 25 people who were no longer prepared to co-operate. I gave instructions that their cases be investigated and that if they had work we would see what we could do to help them. The hon. member for Houghton spoke of site-and-service schemes. We are giving assistance there at a level even below that of site-and-service schemes. [Interjections.] I said that was fine as long as we did things in an orderly way. Hon. members can go and see for themselves. We then erected 25 decent huts. Immediately afterwards I received another telephone call and was informed that there were now more than 50 people. I again replied that if they had work we would see if we could accommodate them. Then came the news that there were more than 60 people. I still remained patient. Even when I was informed that the numbers had swelled to 82 I did not lose my patience. Once again I gave my approval to assistance for those 82 people. Hon. members would do well to go and have a look at those huts. Then, after we had established 82 units on a family basis, those people decided that winter was a good time to challenge and confront the Government, and this happened while we were settling these people on a family basis. As far as they were concerned the process was taking too long and they therefore decided to go and squat there. I wish to make it quite clear that it was not the Government which chose to evict those people from their houses in winter.

But you evicted them.

They were the ones who chose the winter. Now I ask myself whether a Government may not maintain law and order in the winter, but only in the summer? What nonsense is this? [Interjections.] In statement after statement made here in this House and outside I explained the matter. The problem is that I am too humane. That is the whole trouble. My own people on this side of the House will also tell you this, Mr. Speaker. All along, I remained adamant about two points. One of them was that I could not do a thing if the people in the Nyanga area created a situation of confrontation. I told them they were tying our hands. I put it to them that if they would only co-operate we could deal with every separate case on its merits. As a matter of fact that is what we are now doing.

The second point I put to them was that we could not allow that Nyanga be used for any other purpose than that for which it was earmarked. Because certain expenses have already been incurred we cannot allow squatting to take place there. That is absolutely out of the question.

I wish to make one thing perfectly clear to the hon. members on the opposite side. No matter what happens squatting will never be allowed there. Squatting will not be allowed in that part of the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.] I wish to make it quite clear here today that, no matter what happens, this challenge to law and order will not be tolerated. No matter what happens we shall not allow people to enter the Western Cape, specifically the Cape Peninsula, merely because they want to do so. We shall not allow them to come and squat here as they please and think it quite in order. We have a duty and we shall carry out that duty.

They come here with the encouragement of the PFP.

And while we are doing all these things, we have these terrible accusations hurled at us by the PFP, these unbelievable accusations against the Government.

In conclusion I should like to quote certain figures in regard to the position in regard to the Ciskei, where we are rendering assistance. In addition to the R9 million already mentioned, more than 13 000 job opportunities have been created there. Surely that is an enormous number. Of the 1 172 people who were arrested here, only 28 were from the Ciskei. Three of them were from Alice, two from Keiskammahoek, eight from King William’s Town, 10 from Whittle-sea, one from Middeldrif, one from Mdantsani and two from Fort Beaufort. Now we must also realize that Sada and Oxton are situated in the district formerly known as Whittlesea, from which only four, in other words less than 1% of those arrested, came. The stories of the hon. members on that side are therefore completely unsubstantiated. However, what have we done? Let us see how those hon. members are indulging—and I say this with all due respect—in political untruths—if I may call them that—in limitless political untruths. I want to give just one example from what we heard here today. Besides the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton which were—I wanted to use the word “grotesque”, but since she used that word I shall refrain from using it—and in which she used only superlatives, she said here this afternoon that the police used sneeze machines this morning. The information I received from the hon. the Minister of Police—information on the best possible authority—was that no sneeze machines were used this morning. The police acted calmly and considerately. Nevertheless, untruths of this kind are proclaimed here and to the world at large. If I had the time to sit down and make a list of all the untruths uttered about this situation in Langa and Nyanga during the past few weeks I am convinced there would be more than a 100. That is what these hon. members are doing and how they are doing untold harm to South Africa.

Certain funds were given to the Ciskei. We gave them R9 million in the form of emergency aid. We have already discussed this. We are also helping them create job opportunities and helping them with soil conservation, the building of small dams, the eradication of noxious weeds, the building of fire-breaks and abutments, etc.

However, this is not all we have done. In addition to the Ciskei’s own budget, R12 300 000 was made available in the 1981-’82 budget for the establishment of towns. For every R1 million 100 employment opportunities will be created. An amount of R3 500 000 was made available for rural development at Zwelidinga and Ntabatema, i.e. for the building of dams, canals, etc. An amount of R3 million was made available for establishment projects, i.e. for the construction of infrastructure, etc. There was a special allocation of R1 250 000 at Oxton, plus expenditure of R20 million on construction work with a view to the coming independence of the Ciskei. Can the hon. members envisage how many hundreds and more employment opportunities will be created in that way? The following share capital has been made available to the CIDC for the provision of employment: R7 388 000 for 1980-’81 and R8 400 000 for 1981-’82. I wish I had the time to inform the hon. members of the work done by the Wentzel Commission in the Ciskei, to bring about things which that hon. member is requesting. The amount involved is R27 million, for which we already have approval, spread over a number of years, to overcome those appalling conditions in an orderly fashion. The success already achieved is proved by the fact that so few people from that part of the country wished to come and live here in the Western Cape.

I wish to conclude by saying that we shall continue to handle the situation as humanely as possible. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the people now being detained at Pollsmoor who have work here and can prove it, keep their jobs, but it has been decided that employers exploiting these people and employing them illegally will be brought to book. They will be able to keep those people in their employ, but they will have to be brought to book.

We shall also be compelled to impose a minimum fine, because the Government does not intend to allow anarchy to take over and to destroy law and order here in the Western Cape and specifically in the Mother City. If we are compelled to take stem action they shall find that we not only have the means to do so but that we are also capable of doing so successfully. We are forced to do so, but we shall do so in the fairest and most humane way possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think that was one of the most distressing and depressing speeches this House has heard for many a year. It shows that the Government has no sense of shame for the inhuman and callous way in which it treats people.

Order! I have allowed the word “callous” to be used now but I am not going to allow it to be used any longer.

Mr. Speaker, do you want me to withdraw it in relation to the hon. the Minister or in relation to the actions of the officials?

In relation to the hon. the Minister.

In relation to the hon. the Minister I want to say that he has no sense of shame for the callous and inhuman actions of the officials of his department. The hon. the Minister shows that he has no appreciation of the fundamental forces or the socio-economic factors that are at work. He comes with a series of red herrings. He has the effrontery to say “dit het niks met NP-ideologie te doen nie en niks met ras of kleur te doen nie”. What arrant nonsense! Where does one find a White man who has to get a permit to live with his wife? Where does one find that? Where does one find a White man subject to the urban laws of the Urban Areas Act? Where does one find a White man who has to get a permit to do a job of work?

Do they need a permit to live in Transkei with their wives?

We are talking about Government ideology. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister said the other day that they had put them in taxis and buses and had dropped them at the “doanehek van Transkei”.

Could I live in an Oxford College with my wife?

Who established Transkei? It is part of Government ideology. Of course, this action of the Government, this problem that exists, this ugliness that has arisen, is the direct result of Government policy and the callous action of certain officials. The hon. the Minister then talks about “burgerlike ongehoorsaamheid”. He talks of anarchy. He knows that those wretched people crowd in there to try to keep their bodies warm trying to find protection against the elements. Does he say they are anarchists? No, they are the victims of the policies of this Government. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister suggests that the Government is the captive of its laws. Does he not realize that laws are the instruments of the Government to ensure the happiness of people? That is what laws are all about. If the hon. the Minister finds that these laws are creating these miserable situations and dehumanizing people, then he has the responsibility to come to this House and admit that the Government was wrong and that it must change those laws.

Sir, we will not be put off by any of the red herrings of the hon. the Minister.

Or threats.

We are not going to be put off by the threats. This issue has its origin in the short-sightedness of the Government in respect of the whole process of urbanization.

*The Government is so obsessed with apartheid and the ideology of separate development that it has forgotten its humane feelings. It is so obsessed with its ideologies that it does not care a farthing any more for the ordinary citizen in South Africa.

†That is what the situation is.

That is not true.

I want to come back to the origins of this situation. I want to say more about housing because this is a manifestation of the Government’s ineptitude and stupidity.

Let me say as many people have said before that the amount provided for housing in this budget is totally inadequate. In fact, it reinforces the fact that the Government has not yet come to grips with the whole problem of urbanization in South Africa. When one listens to hon. members it is quite clear that it is not just the quantum of money—and that is miserable enough—but it is the fact that the Government does not have an overall strategy to deal with the housing situation in South Africa. This Government itself is responsible for the tinder-box situation which is developing in and around the cities of South Africa.

It is not just this side of the House which says that the money available for housing is inadequate. I ask the hon. the Minister to look at the annexure to the budget, the report issued by the Department of Community Development in regard to the amounts that, in their opinion, are necessary to deal with the housing situation. The implications of what appears in this report are that of the R882 million required only 29% is being provided in this budget, and of the R411 million required for Black housing outside the homelands, only 20% is being provided.

Look at the most recent report of the Department of Community Development. On four or five occasions it refers to the inadequate amounts of money being made available for housing in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister says that, in fact, it is the Opposition and “opstokers” who are responsible for this problem. [Interjections.] Let me quote from the departmental report—

That report was issued by the Department of Community Development, not by us. The Department of Community Development says poor housing was one of the causes of the 1976 riots.

The money is apart, Sir, the Government has no strategy to deal with this problem of housing and urbanization in the next two decades. Let us look at the magnitude of this problem. The department says 520 000 houses costing R411 million per annum will be required during the next 10 years to meet the backlog in Black housing. The Director-General for Co-operation and Development says that there is today a shortage of 420 000 houses for Black people in South Africa. Mr. Knoetze said that in the next 20 years we will need four million new houses for Black people in the urban areas. The Urban Problems Research Unit of the University of Cape Town says that five million houses will have to be provided in the next 20 years. Mr. Andre Spier of Syncom says that 6 150 000 houses at R80 000 million are going to be required in the next 20 years. These figures give us some idea of the magnitude of the problem.

Let us face the fact that there is no field of life in any country where the lack of facilities or the fear of loss of facilities is socially more destabilizing or politically more explosive than in the field of housing. This Government can pump all the money it wants to into military hardware; it can arm the police and the riot squads to the teeth; it can give itself whatever powers it likes but South Africa will not survive as an orderly society if there is not adequate housing at prices that the people can afford. That is the reality. If this Government fails in the future, as it has failed in the past, to provide proper housing, it and nobody else will be fanning the flames of revolution in South Africa. That is the gravity of the situation confronting us in South Africa. What we have is not so much a housing problem as a housing crisis. Those hon. members can say that we are doing quite well—we hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the houses that have been built—but let those hon. members go to the so-called independent States and see the vast rural slums that are developing there. They only have to go to a homeland like Ciskei where people are dumped in a state of poverty and helplessness. Go to parts of kwaZulu, which crowd in and around Durban. Go to Langa or Nyanga, Elsies River, Lenasia or the Coloured township of Reigerpark or the vast Black townships on the Witwatersrand, and see the extent of the overcrowding. Let hon. members go to Port Elizabeth.

Why do you not go to McHenry?

One of the officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development said there that that area was a disaster area and that it would require R500 million to upgrade the houses in those townships. He said “one-third of the existing township houses had very serious damage or defects which, if allowed to go one step further, would have the houses collapsing or would leave them unsuitable for habitation”. Go to the squatter camps and see how ordinary people, depressed and persecuted by the law, look after themselves in the most abject poverty. Go even to Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis and listen to the mounting anger as costs rise or essential facilities remain inadequate. If it is hurtful for hon. members to go to the wrong side of the track, let them come to Sea Point or Green Point or go to Hillbrow, Durban Point or Gardens to talk to the elderly people, to the people who are still suffering as a result of the insensitive way the Government handled rent control and sectional title issues. Let them talk to the elderly people who are reeling under the impact of the staggering rises in rentals, building costs and the mortgage bond interest rates. We expected the hon. the Minister of Finance to tell us what he and his Government were going to do to curb the spiralling cost of building. What is he going to do to ensure that rentals do not rise above the means of ordinary people?

You want a socialist state.

No, we want a common-sense state, not an apartheid State, in South Africa. If that hon. Minister would only stop ideological expenditure we would have money for housing in South Africa. [Interjections.] We expected a number of things to be done for the ordinary, average South African, e.g. incentives by way of depreciation and tax allowances or low-interest loans to encourage the private sector to come to grips with the building of lower income group housing, direct rental allowances for the aged and less affluent so that they do not have to live in fear of eviction and tax deductions for home and flat owners in respect of interest rates on mortgage bonds. Those are the problems of many ordinary South Africans but they pale into relative insignificance when measured against the desperate plight of millions of people in the lowest income groups in South Africa who are tossed around like leaves in a storm caused by the process of urbanization on the one hand and the Government’s shortsightedness on the other.

The Government’s record in responding to the process of urbanization and low-cost housing has been a disaster. It is the direct cause of the situation that is developing in our cities in South Africa. The Government’s decision 10 years ago not to build additional married quarters for Blacks in the urban areas was one of the causes. The Government’s decision 10 years ago not to build any more houses for Blacks in the Cape was another one of the causes of the present situation that has developed. The administration boards, with one or two exceptions, do not have the expertise, the resources or the will to make a meaningful contribution towards solving the Black housing crisis in South Africa. I do not have the time to point to the confusion that exists between the Department of Community Development and the Department of Cooperation and Development when it comes to various types of housing. I hope that this will, however, be resolved with the help of the Viljoen and Louw Committees.

What I now want to speak about are some positive, constructive changes that should come about in the field of housing policy. What is needed? Well, money is, of course, needed, but what the budget has provided is hopelessly inadequate. More than money, however, is needed. What we also need is a new and revolutionary approach …

That is something you understand.

… to low-cost housing in South Africa. Yes, in the sense I am using the word, we need a revolutionary approach to low-cost housing because, with the size of the backlog, the projected growth in the population and the increased demands that will be caused by urbanization, there is no way in which this Government is going to solve the low-cost housing crisis in South Africa if it tries to stick to conventional methods of building, conventional standards or conventional methods of financing. There is no way in which the State is going to obtain, from its own resources, the capital that will be required to finance the acquisition of land, the provision of roads and services and the construction of homes. As long as this Government sticks stubbornly to a conventional approach or a conventional policy it is doomed to failure.

What are the three essential elements of a new approach to housing which the Government should adopt? The first is a new approach to building methods and building standards. The concept of relying on orthodox housing built by the capital provided only by the State to standards set by the National Housing Commission, must be abandoned. That conventional approach will not succeed. I cannot tabulate all the problems arising out of that approach now. Let me say, however, what the Government should put in its place. It must make massive use of controlled site-and-service schemes, core housing schemes and self-build housing schemes in South Africa. This new incremental approach would reduce the total amount of capital required per unit of housing and spread the capital available among a much broader spectrum of recipients. It will bring people in the sub-economic levels into the field of controlled housing at price levels which they can afford. It will allow individuals to make a practical contribution towards the provision of their own housing through the capitalization of the individual home-owner’s own labour. It will also allow housing to be progressively up-graded according to the priorities determined by the home-owner himself. That is what has to be done. There are three points which I must make at this stage. The first is that, as the use of building techniques will require a dilution of the relatively high building standards set by the National Housing Commission, such schemes must obviously be carried out under supervision and control. Secondly, the type of scheme should be permitted on a selective basis depending on the location, demand and the economic circumstances. Thirdly, this incremental approach should not be used to replace the conventional system but should be used to supplement the conventional system of providing housing in South Africa.

The second radical change that will have to take place in Government thinking, is on the question of home ownership for people in the lower income groups. I believe there should be a dramatic swing away from the policy of tenant occupation to the policy of individual home ownership. Home ownership is a stabilizing factor bringing the vital elements of security and a sense of belonging into the life of an individual and his family. It provides the individual with the soundest form of capital formation and the best possible hedge against the ravages of inflation. It releases moneys provided by the State to meet both the initial cost of construction and the ongoing cost of maintenance so that these moneys can be employed, in conjunction with the private sector, to generate more housing for those people still needing it. Home ownership also shifts individuals from the tenant class to the owner class and in so doing helps to close the ugly and dangerous gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” in South Africa. This can be done. It involves a deregulation of the myriad of laws and regulations which retard and prevent individuals from owning homes and prevent the private sector from playing the part that it could.

What must the Government do? It is clear that the 99-year leasehold system does not work; one only has to listen to the figures which the hon. the Minister gave to the hon. member for Houghton. It is clear that it does not work, and for a variety of reasons. The Government must now allow Blacks in the urban areas to own their own homes. They must follow the advice of someone like Mr. Louis Rive. He said—

The Government must get on with home ownership in place of the 99-year leasehold system. In respect of the townships they control, the Government should permit tenants who have been leasing houses for a certain period of time, say ten years, to purchase those houses at their historical cost, i.e. at the cost at which they were constructed. Secondly, they should allow those tenants to convert their current rental payments into instalment payments for the purchase of those houses. Thirdly, the Government should allow those people to borrow funds from the private sector at interest rates subsidized by the State in order to improve and up-grade their properties. That is what the Government has to do as far as home ownership is concerned.

Finally, and because it affects this budget directly, there should be a new approach to the financing of low cost housing. Given the size of the problem, it will not be possible over the next 20 years for the State to find all the capital if it uses conventional financing from its own resources for the acquisition of land, the provision of roads, services and amenities and the construction of houses. The State cannot divest itself of the overall responsibility to see to it that there is adequate housing. The State must still play a direct role in the financing of housing for the indigent, the frail and the inform. The State must play a direct role in the acquisition of land and the provision of township infrastructure such as roads, services and amenities. When, however, it comes to the financing of houses to be constructed, I believe the Government should adopt a bold new approach. Instead of having the number of housing units restricted to the size of the capital sum made available by the State, it should adopt a policy that will result in the capital available for housing being the sum total of the moneys provided by the State, the input of the individual owner and the money available from the lending institutions in the private sector. They should blow up the size of the cake by taking their blinkers off and looking for a new approach to the financing of housing in this country. In this way the overall sum for low-cost housing can be increased enormously. I believe that building societies and many other lending institutions would be prepared to play a major part in financing low-cost housing if the Government would only make it possible for them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to you that when it comes to the construction of homes the Government should see its financial contribution not as the total capital required but primarily as the amount available to subsidize individuals so that they are enabled to obtain loans from the private sector at rates that are economic and in line with prevailing interest rates on capital borrowings. In other words, the State should use its money to bridge the gap between the sub-economic interest rates that the individual can afford to pay and the economic interest rates at which the institutions in the private sector are prepared to lend money.

This will require certain radical changes in Government policy as well. It will require the Group Areas Act either to be scrapped or amended to enable lending institutions in the private sector to acquire land for development and for resale and the proper passing of mortgage bonds on the properties concerned. We will never get Black housing off the ground until the Group Areas Act has been amended to make this possible.

In the second place it will involve a change of attitude on the part of the Government and the officials of the Department of Community Development. The Government will have to depart from its prevailing attitude of using departmental control of the housing supply as a means of political coercion or as a means of trying to enforce ideologically motivated influx control. That is what it has to do. Housing will have to be seen as a means of giving people shelter thus enabling them to lead a normal family and community life and not as an instrument for imposing separate development or apartheid on the mass of economically underprivileged people in South Africa.

Sir, this housing problem, this urbanization problem, can be solved but this Government has to get away from its obsession with race and with ideology. It has to find a means whereby the private sector, the individual and the State can combine to deal with the problem.

I want to warn the Government as other speakers have done. We believe that the problem can be solved but we believe that this requires some imagination. It means the Government must admit that it was wrong. It means that the Government must change some of its laws. This problem can be solved. But we believe that along the lines of this budget and because of the parsimonious approach to the making available of money and the old-fashioned approach to the conventional financing of housing in South Africa, what is happening at Nyanga is merely the forerunner of something much worse to come.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I last heard such a long series of banalities as I heard from the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon. He began his speech by telling us what the real problem at Nyanga is. He said the problem was simply the Government’s obsession with apartheid. He said that the Ciskei was a creation of this Government and that what we were now seeing was the consequences of that creation in Nyanga. But that is an absurdity. If that party had been in power and there were no job opportunities here in Cape Town, although people were flocking here in their thousands, whether they were Xhosas, or Coloureds or Whites—they are now squatting and there are no job opportunities for them—what solution would that hon. member and his party suggest? [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that the Government was not doing enough in respect of housing. They alleged that far too little was being budgeted. Five years ago an amount of R141 million was voted here for housing. That was in the 1975-’76 financial year. Included in that amount was the reversionary capital of the National Housing Fund. During the past financial year it was R304 million, and that means an increase of more than 100% over a period of five years, a growth of 20% per annum.

But it is less than the building cost index.

If that hon. member thinks it is inadequate, I should like to ask him whether it should be more than 20% per annum.

But where does one find it? If we increase tax, you moan. Look at the figures.

Apart from the fact that there are limitations on the ability on the hon. the Minister of Finance to find funds—hon. members might have observed from his budget speech how dramatically the contribution of gold has diminished—surely it is also clear, for it has been repeatedly stated, that if the hon. the Minister of Finance were to appropriate more money, it would not necessarily mean more houses, but would mean more expensive houses since we have a building industry which cannot cope with the demand. Let the hon. member try to call for tenders for a house he wants to build—he will not receive any. That is the factor which is causing inflation to escalate. There are limitations on the ability of the building industry which cannot cope with the demand today.

South Africa is unique in the world with its rotating fund for housing which stands at almost R2 milliard. Wherever our officials go abroad they find that South Africa is the envy of other countries because we have such a fund. But that hon. member came forward with a superficial solution, which he wished to offer.

He does not know about the rotating fund.

His facts are not correct either. He said we decided 10 years ago not to build any further houses for Blacks in the White areas.

That was the decision.

But surely that is not true. During the past 10 years 94 000 houses have been built in the White area for Blacks. Apart from that, houses have been built in the national States for Black people in which 1,5 million people are being accommodated. We did the sensible thing by building those houses where the people were living. We also took job opportunities to where the people were living. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said this afternoon that 13 000 job opportunities were created during the past few months in the Ciskei alone.

The hon. member said the reason for all our problems was “this influx control”.

I did not use those words.

The hon. member for Houghton said the solution to all these problems was not to be found in our sending all these people back to their homelands. I think it is a very callous view of the hon. member to rob those States of people in their most productive years by wanting them to come here to the cities. The hon. member for Sea Point thinks it is incredibly funny. [Interjections.] I read a poem the other day—I wish I could remember who wrote it—which tells of a Black man who leaves the rural area to come to the city. The poem points out the cultural shock which such a man feels, far from his familiar environment, in this urban complex. He says—

Surely it is inhuman to expect that these people should be provided with work away from the familiar environment, away from their people and wrested from their milieu and cultural environment.

The hon. member asked what we have done about housing. During the past five years we have built 138 683 houses for people of all population groups in the White area. This does not include the number of houses that have been built in the Black States. We built these houses for an amount of R1,340 milliard. At the same time the private sector built 146 711 houses, i.e. 8 000 more than the Government sector built, but it cost them R3,946 milliard, almost three times as much as it cost the Government sector. I believe that our department has the ability and the skill to build houses far more cheaply than others. In the private sector the houses cost R27 000 each, while we succeeded in building houses for just over R9 000 per house. I think that is a tremendous achievement.

While I was listening to the criticism of the hon. member I thought of a letter which we received some time ago from a person who is not favourably disposed to South Africa. The letter was written by Prof. Henry Cowan, Professor of Architecture at the University of Sydney. He wrote to a Mr. Gresford: Director of the Office of Science and Technology of the United Nations. In his letter he told of trips he had made all over the world to study low-cost housing. He wrote—

He goes on to say—

And then he says—

See what happens in the rest of the world.

Now the hon. member says that we must have a new approach. We must build much cheaper houses, we must stretch the rand for housing. Surely the hon. member knows that at the beginning of the year the hon. the Minister announced that the Louw Commission had been appointed precisely for the purpose of inquiring into the question of standards. I want to ask the hon. member, who appears to know so much about this subject, whether he gave evidence before that commission. Did he put forward his ideas on new standards and lower standards? The solution offered by the hon. member is a simplistic solution. It is the old “site-and-service” solution. Can the hon. member tell me the name of one housing expert who advocates “site-and-service”? After all, we tried the site-and-service method ourselves. We had such a scheme of 9 000 houses at Elsies River, and at present we are having to demolish those houses because they are shacks. It is costing us millions of rands.

You are going to do it, actually.

Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited, I should like to come to the hon. member for Pinelands, who has now put his oar in.

†In the censure debate the hon. member for Pinelands referred to the officials of the Administration Board who were supposed to be harassing the squatters at Nyanga. He said they were breaking those shacks down, they were burning their blankets and were even cutting down the bushes under which they sheltered. He said that immediately after he had made the very pious statement that God is not mocked.

That is not a pious statement. It is a fact.

It is a question of fact. Did our officials in fact cut down the bushes where people were sheltering?

Yes.

That is not correct. I spoke to officials about that …

I spoke to eyewitnesses.

… and they emphatically denied it. In fact, they feel very aggrieved by that statement of the hon. member.

Ask the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned. He will tell you.

What you were carting there were trees. You know that full well.

After that statement, the hon. member went on to say (Hansard, 4 August 1981, col. 201)—

He was referring to the officials of the Administration Board—

Read on.

That is sanctimonious rubbish.

I want to ask that hon. member, who is so concerned about the consciences of other people, whether his own conscience is clear.

Nobody’s is.

The hon. member is pointing an accusing finger at other people, but are his own hands clean?

To put my question in perspective, let me go back a few years to 1972 when we had the student demonstrations here on the steps of the cathedral. I happened to pass by there that day and one of the young students handed me a pamphlet which I stood reading there in his presence. He stated in that pamphlet, inter alia, that the wage of White miners was approximately R400 per annum while the wage of Black miners was R22 per annum.

Per month.

I mean per month. I said to that young student: “Young man, this shocks me. I shall go and check whether these figures are correct. But in fact you flatter me, because I do not own any mines. I cannot do anything about this. I suggest you send this to the chancellor of your university. He owns many mines.”

He owns most of the mines.

What I should have said was: “There is a certain Dr. Alex Boraine who is head of Labour Relations in the biggest mining house in the country.” If I had known a few years ago what the hon. member was going to say, I would have added: “And he has an extremely sensitive conscience. Will you not please send this pamphlet to him?”

What was he earning at the time? [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. member this one question: When he was in this position of authority, is it true that Black miners were earning R22 per month, yes or no?

No.

Is it not correct? Can the hon. member, across the floor of the House, tell me what they were earning?

No, I cannot. [Interjections.]

I want to say that I checked those figures and found them to be correct. In 1972 Black miners were earning R22 per month.

I can tell you straight out that it is not true.

Well, what is the figure? I have asked the hon. member for the figure, but he just shakes his head.

It is now 1981; not 1972.

I am referring to 1972. In 1972 that hon. member, who now, in 1981, is sitting here, was head of Labour Relations and he should know what the figure was then.

Out of the blue?

Yes, out of the blue. Name the figure. Was it adequate?

I know your figure is incorrect. R25 per month is for food and lodging alone.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands a further question. I checked those figures at the time and found them to be correct. I want to ask the hon. member whether his own salary was not at least 50 times R22 a month then.

I cannot work that out at random.

It works out at about R1 100. His salary was more than that.

It has nothing to do with you.

Of course, it has much to do with me.

It should have much to do with your conscience, Alex.

I do not ask you about your salary.

I want to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether he ever felt a twinge of conscience …

Yes, often.

… when at the end of the month he received his salary cheque, while 50 Black people were lining up simultaneously to collect their pay packets?

At least, I did not throw them out of their jobs because they were Black. I also did not burn their houses because they were Black.

I ask the hon. member for Pinelands, Mr. Speaker, was there ever a twinge of conscience with him while he was sitting in his plush air-conditioned office …

Fat cat pad. [Interjections.]

… while at the same time there were men down in the bowels of the earth, in the heat and the humidity, in the slush and mud, where stones were falling and where men were dying for a pittance, while the hon. member for Pinelands was at the head of labour relations. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands, with his very sensitive conscience, with his pangs of conscience, is a living example of man’s inhumanity to man. [Interjections.] It ill befits him ever to point an accusing finger at anybody else. I want to put it to the hon. member for Pinelands, who is a liberal, that I am not one of those who condemns a person of liberal views outright.

But you have just done it.

I think they are very starry-eyed and misguided people. For many of these people however I have an admiration. I admire the man who champions the cause of the underdog. I admire him who identifies himself with the cause of those wretches of the earth and who suffers with them. As a young schoolboy I read stories of men and women who went out into the slums and who worked with the flotsam and the jetsam, the dregs of humanity; they were my heroes then. They are still my heroes. I admire those people even if their views are liberal, but the hon. member for Pinelands is not one of them.

He is a pink liberal.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that the public is long suffering and will tolerate many weaknesses and many shortcomings of public representatives. There is one thing, however, which the public will not tolerate, one thing that the public abhors. This was proved by the letter written by Dr. Lennox Sebe; he despises those people. One thing that the public despises is inconsistency, insincerity and hypocrisy. [Interjections.]

*What does the hon. member for Pine-lands wish to achieve with this conduct of his, this emotional attack in which he does not even adhere to the truth.

Listen to who is talking.

Why this attack? Where does he and where do some hon. members of his party want to go with this country?

I want you to face up to your responsibilities.

I think the hon. member let the cat out of the bag. He let the cat out of the bag right at the outset of his speech the other day, when he said that if a democratic election were to be held there would be few if any hon. members on this side of the House who would be returned to Parliament. The hon. member was correct: None of us would be sitting here and there would be few of them sitting on the opposite side. Is that what the hon. member wants, viz. our demise. This party and the people it represents are in no mood to commit suicide. We know only too well that when the hon. member and his people and their kindred spirits take over, everything which has been built up over generations will collapse with a thunderous crash.

But you are doing that already.

I gained courage as I listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he quoted the great words of N. P. van Wyk Louw—

†Hon. members will agree with me that the hon. member for Pinelands cannot stem the tide of nationalism with a “Sive” and as I listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I got the impression from the tenor of his speech—and it impressed me—that that “sive” would not be available in any event.

Mr. Speaker, in Afrikaans literature they speak about dramatic variation, and that is more or less what it is to have to make a maiden speech now under these circumstances. The assumption is that one will be as uncontentious as possible in a speech of this nature. However you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is a very great privilege to be allowed to represent the finest constituency in South Africa, with the possible exception of Vryburg. I believe that if the Upper Berg River Valley, i.e. Paarl and Franschhoek, were situated in Europe, there would probably be no place on earth which received more visitors. Look at this valley from Du Toits Kloof or from Franschhoek Pass and there can be no more beautiful place on earth. I should like to invite hon. members to come and test this statement over a glass of wine and a slice of brown bread in Paarl.

On this occasion I should very much like to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, a man who was the representative of the Paarl constituency for 23 years, a man who made his mark in this House, Mr. Wynand Malan. At one time he was also chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and he made very important contributions in the financial and agricultural debates. Before him Mr. Pieter Hugo was the MP for Paarl and I think that some of the hon. members present were contemporaries of his. Hon. members will realize that it is a very great responsibility to have to follow in the footsteps of these two persons. It is in particular a privilege to have been elected unopposed and consequently to be able to represent all the voters in Paarl. I may just add that two of my voters are present in this hall. The one is the hon. member for Wellington and the other, the hon. member for Wynberg. Although I probably cannot assume that both of them voted for me tacitly, I can be sure that neither of them voted against me at the last election.

I have referred to Paarl’s natural assets as well as its people. I can also refer hon. members to the unique character of that beautiful town with the farms in its midst and then, in particular, its rich cultural-historical heritage. It was in Paarl more than a century ago that a religious revival occurred which spread throughout Southern Africa and really made us realize once again what the task and calling is of us who are here on the southern tip of Africa. It was in Paarl, too, that a small group of young people, the “Patriotte”, established the “Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners” just over 106 years ago—it was in fact exactly 106 years ago last Friday—which gave shape to the Afrikaans language. This movement culminated in this House exactly 50 years later, in 1925, with the recognition of Afrikaans as an official language.

However, I want to dwell briefly today on an exceptional heritage which could at the same time be one of the most important tourist attractions in South Africa, and in particular in the Western Cape, viz. the Dal Josafat area. It is the area between Paarl and Wellington in which the fighters for their language, the “Genootskappers”, lived and worked. This area must at all costs be restored and utilized as a debt of honour and as a living memorial to the origins of those who formed our language. People such as W. A. de Klerk, the well-known author, have in the past referred to Dal Josafat as the true monument of the Afrikaans language.

It is true that the rapid changes in our way of life brought about by technological development and the accompanying urbanization have instilled in our people an insatiable thirst for the preservation of our national heritage across the board spectrum of our cultural history. It is also true that a nation without a history is like a man without a memory or, in other words, a nation which forgets its past has no future destination.

The Dal Josafat area can in reality be divided into two parts. There is, firstly, the “Onder-Dal”, the so-called Hugo Farms, chiefly comprising the farms Non Pareille, Goederust and Roggeland, as well as the Onder-Dal School which was attended by a number of the “Genootskappers”. The farm Schoongezicht, birthplace of the well-known Voortrekker leader, Sarel Cilliers, is also situated in the “Onder-Dal”. One may ask why these Onder-Dal farms are so worthy of preservation. The reason is that they have historical value. In 1963 these farms were allocated to the Huguenots and were subsequently inhabited and formed by the “Genootskappers”. The Onder-Dal School in particular is a historic building and was built in 1855 by the inhabitants of Dal Josafat, and on the occasion of its inauguration the vow was made that this building would always be used for religious and educational purposes.

Only after the greater part of the “Onder-Dal” had been proclaimed a non-White housing area in the ’sixties, was the real historical value of these farms realized, and after lengthy representations, the Cabinet decided that the farmhouses, the farmyards and parts of the farms be deproclaimed so that they could be preserved for posterity. It was decided inter alia that they would fall under the CSIR for restoration purposes and that R150 000 would be made available for this purpose, on condition that a meaningful use be found for these buildings. On behalf of my constituency, and also on behalf of all the people of South Africa, I should like to express my gratitude to the Cabinet for this decision.

However, there are certain problems and one of them is that the R150 000 is unfortunately inadequate for restoration of the whole “Onder-Dal”. It is also essential for a meaningful farming operation to be revived on those farms, and consequently I ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to consider the inclusion of these farms under the aegis of the Constantia Control Board, or something of the kind. In addition, the farmhouses must be used meaningfully, and as far as this is concerned, there are various possibilities, inter alia, an agricultural museum like the Willem Prinsloo Museum in Pretoria, a winehouse, a restaurant or an hotel, like the Lanzerac. The buildings could also fall under the Department of National Education, for the presentation of courses at the technical institute.

That disposes of the “Onder-Dal”, which today is under Government control. The second part, the “Bo-Dal”, comprises the so-called GRA or language cultural farms and includes Kleinbosch, the farm on which S. J. du Toit was born and lived. D. F. Malherbe was born on this farm as well. These two houses stand on Kleinbosch. The graveyard where many of the “Genootskappers” were buried and the Huguenot Memorial School are also on Kleinbosch. Just opposite there is a farm with a very beautiful name “Druk-my-niet”, and further down the road is a farm with the name “Noubepaald”. It is interesting to know that the very first Patriot was printed on “Noubepaald”. Two years ago a commemorative plaque to commemorate the event was unveiled on that farm in the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister. Those farms are all privately owned and partially restored, except for the Huguenot Memorial School. The Afrikaanse Taalmonumentkomitee, under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Gericke—to whom I should really like to pay tribute on this occasion—has already allocated an amount of R100 000 for the restoration of the Huguenot Memorial School. The vast majority of these buildings have already been declared national monuments, and on this occasion I should very much like to request the Cabinet to contribute towards the restoration of the whole of Dal Josafat, and the “Onder-Dal” in particular. I also want to request the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to assist in the meaningful utilization of these areas.

We have a debt of honour to restore this area to its former glory. The Dal Josafat area could eventually form part of a cultural historical route from the Castle in the Cape to Somerset West via the farm of W. A. van der Stel, past Vergelegen to Stellenbosch with its cultural treasures and Franschhoek, where the Huguenots arrived in 1688, and then to Paarl with all its assets such as the Taalmonument, the language museum and Dal Josafat.

We have a debt of honour to the Afrikaans language, the mother tongue of millions of Whites and non-Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a singular privilege to be a member of this House. I also regard it as a privilege to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Paarl on his maiden speech. I knew that hon. member as a colleague in the Cape provincial council where I felt he made an impressive contribution to the debates. I wish him well as a member of this House. As I stand here today, speaking in this House for the first time, I am deeply conscious that this is an historic chamber. Much of the political history of South Africa has taken place in these precincts. This Parliament can trace its descent all the way back down the years to Van Riebeeck’s Council of Policy which, I believe, met for the first time on the high seas aboard the Drommedaris in 1652. To be a member of this sovereign Parliament makes a profound impression upon me as a new-comer.

Like countless other hon. members before me I have found that it is not easy to settle on a suitable subject, worthy of a Parliamentary audience, for my maiden speech. I first considered economics as a subject, because that was my field of formal university training, but one of my lecturers at university was none other than the present hon. Minister of Finance. I therefore feared that I would drift too close to controversy if I were to choose that field.

You can try.

I duly considered the maiden speeches of other hon. members of this House in my search for inspiration, and the one which particularly captured my interest was that of the present hon. Minister of State Administration, who spoke here for the first time on 17 February 1972.

*In that speech the hon. the Minister set out his personal credo as an Afrikaner. He spoke about the circles of human life. He spoke about an inner circle of his own people, with wider circles surrounding that inner circle, outer circles from which his “people in particular are differentiated and also wish to remain differentiated”.

†I thought that this concept of an individual’s circles or spheres of existence would be an interesting point of departure for me to briefly attempt to set out my own credo as an English-speaking South African. I do not see South Africa in terms of concentric circles radiating away from an inner circle of prime importance. For me there is only one prime circle, which is that of broad South Africanism which contains within it all the many other richly diverse and overlapping circles of lesser importance. This prime circle should be greater than the sum cf its constituent cultural parts. This is not to denigrate any other cultural group in South Africa. On the contrary, I believe that in correct perspective, cultural pride and background give the individual a place to stand in society and a place from which to grow. My key-point is merely that while I am proud to be what I am—an 1820 Settler descendant as it happens—I believe that broad South Africanism must always command my first loyalty and specific cultural allegiance my second loyalty.

When I speak of these things as an English-speaking South African, it must be asked: Who are the English-speaking South Africans? We are not easily defined. The English language has been adopted in South Africa by many people of different heritage and background, originating in various immigrant waves. We are spread among many religious denominations and we are also, to a degree, spread across race lines. We do not constitute a sharply defined cultural group. Our cultural borders fade and merge into other elements of South African society. It is said of us that this lack of sharp cultural definition reflects in our attitude to public affairs, in which field we are accused of apathy. In 1909 Patrick Duncan went so far as to say that the English-speaking South Africans have about as much cohesive principle as chaff on a windy day. I believe, however, that two subsequent world wars proved him wrong.

Against this brief cultural sketch I wish to set out a personal three point credo which guides my political thinking. The first point is that I believe that the cultural open-endedness of English-speaking South Africa is a good thing. The doors of our language and our culture should always be open to voluntary newcomers. They add strength and resilience and enrich the cultural group. In order to underline that English-speaking South Africa, in all its diversity, is now deeply rooted in this country and has transplanted itself from its countries of origin, I believe we should consider calling ourselves by some other name, possibly “Anglikaners”, for want of a better name. Any South African citizen who chooses to speak English can be an “Anglikaner” if he wants to.

The second point of my credo is that we must nurture our language; we must cultivate our roots and our commitment to this part of Africa; we must be proud of our best traditions and of our achievements; while at the same time preserving a humility about the mistakes which blot the record. In short, English-speaking South Africans should be proud and stand tall but never make the mistake of thinking themselves to be better than others. Above all, we should never allow a healthy cultural pride to become grossly perverted into the kind of destructive jingoism identified by Benjamin Azkin in his book State and Nation in terms of which—and I quote—

The third point of my personal credo is that I stand for the arousal of a conviction among English-speaking South Africans that we have a useful role to play in the public life of South Africa in spite of being a minority within a minority. For too many years too large a proportion of the English-speaking community has confined itself to business, and has kept aloof from an energetic involvement in the practicalities of civic life. Whatever the reasons for this might have been—and there have been many analyses —the future can be different. There are certain golden threads which run through the hearts of most English-speaking South Africans; unifying qualities which can be awakened when necessary and pressed into service for South Africa. The role we must claim for ourselves is that of a creative minority committed to a constructive partnership with all other South Africans. I therefore call upon my fellow English-speaking compatriots to come forward and fulfil such a role as active bridge builders. We are all jointly and severally responsible for our country. Multiracial, multilingual South Africa presents great challenges to us all. We must meet those challenges with faith and hope and courage. In this regard I believe we must remember the words of William Schreiner who was Prime Minister of the Cape at the turn of the century when he said—

Another favourite quote of mine is one by the Rev. Dugmore who was an 1820 Settler who said—

I believe these injunctions remain valid today for all South Africans and they are among the things I shall work for as a member of this House. I say this, Sir, because I am firmly convinced that the most durable solutions we can find for South Africa will be the solutions which all South Africans find together.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Constantia on his maiden speech in this House. Not only did he deliver his speech with great enthusiasm but he also discussed a subject on which I can agree with him to the fullest extent. I wish him the very best of luck during his period of office as a member of this House.

*Mr. Speaker, I should just like to point out that this is the first occasion on which the name of this new constituency, Helderkruin, is officially being mentioned in this House. Helderkruin is situated in such a way that it is surrounded by the constituencies of North Rand, Randburg, Florida, Roodepoort, Krugersdorp and Ventersdorp. Consequently it includes a large urban area, but a considerable rural area as well. It is not an area with large industries, but it is an area, which, as far as the number of people living there is concerned, is growing very rapidly and which has a few growth points such as the Lanseria Airport which is included in it.

The name “Helderkruin” embodies a fine promise of prospects and it is a fine name for a fine constituency with fine people. I feel exceptionally honoured to be able to represent that constituency in this House.

Before coming to this House, I was a lecturer and, as you know, the life of a lecturer gives rise to a few problems in the sense that it is difficult to define your task. One student defined a lecturer as a person who is paid to talk in another person’s sleep. Now, if one were to examine the task of a lecturer, what would one’s task be? It would be to lecture. However, as any farmer would know, to lecture means that one spoonfeeds something to a number of sheep and this became rather problematic in the environment of the university. One could also say that one gives a lecture, but there one once again has a problem in the sense that a student once defined a lecture very aptly as the process in which knowledge is transferred from the book of the lecturer to the book of the student without affecting the thinking process of either of the two. Then one could go even further and say: Well in that case I shall address my students. There, however, one again has the problem that once one has finished one is faced with a number of dense students. Consequently, against the background of that dilemma, I proceeded to this House because the terminology of this House appealed greatly to me.

If one wants to make one’s contribution here one’s first task is to rise. That is something I have wanted to do my whole life so that people could say: That man rose. When one is on one’s feet, it is one’s turn. This is a very wide concept. It could be one’s turn to say great things; it could be one’s turn to make a fool of oneself. It could, of course, also be one’s turn to face the fast bowlers of the opposite side. In any case this is a wide concept.

If there were to be an interruption presently, the officer in the Chair would subsequently say: “The hon. member may proceed.” I was deeply moved by that expression, for if we are continually given permission from the Chair to proceed, I think that after a short while not many problems will remain in this country.

To come to another subject, one could say that one of the fundamental premises of the budget is to make provision for South Africa as a plural or multi-national country, a country in which many groups live. It is this group facet of society which I should like to discuss.

People organize themselves into groups because it is then easier for them to be able to achieve things. One of the most important elements on the basis of which people organize themselves, is their values, their national values. This phenomenon of organizing on a basis of national values is called ethnicity.

Ethnicity or national consciousness is something very real in the world, and is once again emerging, in the second half of the twentieth century in particular. The champions of liberal democracy in the West tried to negate the phenomenon of ethnicity and it was eliminated from their constitutions etc. But they could not escape from it. In fact, this is the case to such an extent, in the USA in particular, that the Government has to redefine who belongs to which group, if only to be able to say that so many people of this kind must be in this school. The point I want to make is that ethnicity is a fact, as the students would have said, you can’t get away from it—it is inescapable.

That is why it makes sense to me that the national administration is regulated in such a way that it makes provision for this phenomenon among people, that it makes provision for people’s desire to be able to move within their own ethnic group. Consequently one finds that innumerable group forms such as trade unions, churches, schools etc. are inclined to evolve within this larger grouping.

The one perspective in which I want to place this accommodation of ethnicity, is the following: One can take a look at another example in the social structure, viz. that of capitalism as opposed to communism, in the sense that one fundamental human characteristic is selfishness, the pursuit of one’s own interest. Both the Marxist as well as the Christian philosophies see this human characteristic in a negative light. It is not good to be selfish. The Marxist philosophy, on the one hand, tries to eliminate and eradicate this bad characteristic of the human being. That is why self-enrichment is at times even a capital crime in the Marxist States. On the other hand, in the capitalist system and the Calvinist philosophy, the self-interest of the human being is specifically used to benefit the community at large. Consequently this so-called sinful characteristic of the human being is being used there to the greater benefit of everyone. It is in this light, too, that I want to place the handling of ethnicity. We must not negate this desire for an ethnic allegiance, but accommodate it in such a way that it can be to the benefit of everyone. One good way in which this can be done is in terms of the Labour Relations Act which came up for discussion in this House last week and in accordance with which it is being made possible for people to associate themselves within their own ethnic context if they wish to. This does not mean that it should also be done in exactly the same way in the political and social spheres. However, what is essential is that we must accommodate this desire in our planning rather than to try to negate it. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, allow me the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Helderkruin. First of all he cleverly involved us in his argument by means of subtleties, and then he came to the crux of his speech. I want to tell the hon. member that Helderkruin is a fine name, and I am inclined to say that Helderkruin has a fine representative too, but let us just say that the representative of Helderkruin made a fine speech. Congratulations!

The name of Wellington can also now be mentioned here as a constituency for the first time, and it is a privilege for me to be able to represent it here. I should like to thank the men who represented my voters previously. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs had one section and the hon. member for Malmesbury had the other. I want to thank these two gentlemen for what they have done. I am not only doing so because it is customary or for the sake of courtesy. It is also sincere, because this is the message that I have received from my voters. Thank you very much to these two gentlemen.

The Wellington constituency is situated in the Boland, or in the Western Cape, if we look at it in the broad context.

I should like to dwell briefly on the socio-economic development of the area that we know as the Western Cape. We know it is a region without any natural resources, particularly with regard to minerals. The only true natural resource which I believe we have in the Western Cape, is the human material, people of all races, colours and stations. With their skill, these people have developed the Western Cape into a thriving agricultural area, which produces products on which commerce, industry and even services in this area are based to a much larger extent than elsewhere in the country. As small as it is, this area has also made a large contribution over the years as an earner of foreign currency. What I consider important is that, since agriculture is extremely labour-intensive in this area, it plays a special role as a provider of employment in this region now and may perhaps do so to a much larger extent in the future. Together with the commerce, industry and the service sector, agriculture has made a considerable contribution towards the socio-economic development of the Western Cape. When we speak about the socio-economic development of the Western Cape, I am afraid that in the past few years we have spoken too much and done too little. We recognize that Saldanha and Atlantis, where diesel engines are manufactured, have come into being, but on the other hand we may possibly have had too much of an ad hoc approach and the one hand has not always known what the other hand was doing with regard to the socio-economic development of the Western Cape. That is why I want to request that we should take another look at agriculture. It is an old approach, but let us say it is a new old approach, and let us say that we are possibly looking at the socio-economic development of the Western Cape from another angle. With all the development that we have had in agriculture in the Western Cape, with all its sophistication, we have reached a point where agriculture in the Western Cape really cannot develop much further. We have reached the point where more is required for further development. The farmers of the Boland have managed very well with the poor soil in the Boland. You will know, Sir, that our friends in the North say that in the Boland we do not have top-soil nor do we have sub-soil: All we have is background. The hon. member for Worcester has already said that the Transvalers are now buying up our background and carting it away!

My approach to the development of the Western Cape is that we should go back to the basis of everything, viz. the soil. We need more irrigation water to develop the soil further here, that thin layer of soil. Over the years the farmer of the Boland has been obliged to provide the water himself, usually at a high cost. With his knowledge, and by means of sophisticated irrigation systems, he has been able to utilize this water to the full and as well as possible. Over the years, requests have been submitted for the construction of new schemes and the day finally dawned when the Theewaterskloof scheme was announced. Considerable progress has already been made with the construction. The fact that the farmer of the Boland was right at the back of the queue for irrigation schemes, may be ascribed to the fact that the farmer of the Boland has been too independent and has looked after himself too well over the years—if I can call that a disadvantage. As a result of this, it was believed over the years that the farmer of the Boland would continue to help himself in this way. This was impossible, and fortunately the State has now stepped in. Eventually, that water will hopefully flow through my constituency too. There has been an urgent need for it there for some time already.

I want to give one example. In my constituency there is an area which we can develop fully in order to establish our own nut industry in South Africa. The soil, the climate, the skill and the marketing are available. Everything is there except for the necessary irrigation water. In the meantime we are importing nuts at a very high cost whilst we could have just as well been exporting them. Now the farming community is concerned that the water from the Theewaterskloof may be too expensive by the time that it flows across the borders of the farms. That is why I am particularly grateful towards the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for the fact that a committee of inquiry is in the process of looking at this matter at the moment. We as farmers of the Western Cape believe that the outcome will be favourable for us.

In order to develop the Western Cape on a socio-economic basis, it is essential for agricultural development to keep pace. If we look at the reasons why some other irrigation schemes have been established in our country over the years, it is the socio-economic aspect that comes to the fore. One can think of Kakamas for instance. In the case of Kakamas the main reason was to combat the poor White problem. I want to allege that the Western Cape is faced with a poor Coloured question today. In order to combat this, now and possibly even more so in the future, it will be necessary for us to begin where everything begins, viz. the soil.

If we are serious about creating employment opportunities for Whites and Coloureds, for our workers, here in the Western Cape, if we are serious about providing people with a job and a home, then it has become essential for us to look at this aspect of development. That is why I am submitting this plea for the development of agriculture in the Western Cape. Let us begin where the serious bottle-neck exists at present, viz. irrigation water, so that we can develop agriculture and develop the Western Cape for the sake of its people but for the sake of our country too.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Wellington on what I regard as an extremely successful maiden speech. The people of the Boland love their part of the world, and the hon. member’s speech bore testimony to that. However, he did not only reveal his love for his soil, but also showed that he knew his part of the world and was in touch with the people of those parts. I enjoyed his speech and I can tell you even now, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the hon. member is going to play a very important role in this House.

After a few maiden speeches I must now disturb the peace of the House again by coming back to a few aspects that were raised, yesterday and today in particular. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development quoted from an article today and came to the word “famine”. This caused him to glance at this side of the House, almost as if he wanted to contend that there is no famine in South Africa. He was not the only one. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Turffontein paid tribute to the NP for having accepted him as a member of this House. It was clear that he tremendously enjoyed giving that speech.

He delivered a good and responsible speech.

I agree with that. I, too, enjoyed his speech. However, I do not think it was so very good of him in the past to have disparaged his party as he did. Nevertheless, I concede that he made a good speech. [Interjections.]

However, I should just like to present to the House certain aspects of the hon. member’s speech. For example, he asks whether the hon. member for Yeoville, who is so concerned about Black people in South Africa, has ever looked at the income per capita of people elsewhere in Africa. Then he asks whether there is any Black man in South Africa today who is starving, who has no food to eat. That is what he asked. An hon. member on this side of the House interjected “Yes”. To that the hon. member for Turffontein replied that he was not talking about the bread price. Once again he repeated the question as to whether there are any starving Black men in South Africa. I therefore infer from his speech that the hon. member for Turffontein does not believe that there are Black people in South Africa who are starving. However, I do not blame him if he thinks that.

Let us now consider what the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions had to say in his now famous R20 speech. In that speech he said—

That is correct, just look at you!

The hon. member says that that is correct. That is of course because when he and hon. members of his party speak about South Africa, they mean White South Africa. They do not speak about Black South Africa. [Interjections.] It is very difficult to determine the total number of people starving in South Africa. It is extremely difficult to obtain all the relevant facts. I put a question to the hon. the Minister to which I received a written reply today. My question was as follows—

Mr. Speaker, kwashiorkor is one of those diseases which occurs due to a lack of nutrition. It is the result of a lack of protein.

It is malnutrition.

It is malnutrition. Correct. The hon. member is quite right. [Interjections.]

Malnutrition is not starvation. [Interjections.]

Oh, malnutrition is not starvation? Very well, malnutrition is not starvation. [Interjections.] No, it is definitely not starvation, says the hon. doctor for Turffontein. [Interjections.] Marasmus is a disease caused by a lack of carbohydrates. These are the definitions of these two diseases. The hon. member for Turffontein now maintains that malnutrition is not starvation. I have before me an advertisement which appears every week in the newspapers in bold type in which the following, inter alia, is stated—

It is a matter of starvation—

Now this is supposedly not starvation—

Let us analyse these figures a little. We are now concerned with 50 000 people in our country.

I cannot believe it, has it been proved?

I cannot obtain the figures from the department and I should be much obliged if the department could provide me with the figures. Kwashiorkor and marasmus are no longer notifiable diseases.

†They used to be notifiable diseases and I want to beg the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions to again make kwashiorkor and marasmus notifiable diseases. Then we in South Africa will be able to determine the extent of the disease in this country, the extent of malnutrition.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he realizes that the Black man in South Africa spends more money on cool-drinks than on milk? That is a fact.

I am quite prepared to concede that too much cool-drink, etc., is bought. There I agree with the hon. the Minister, but that is not all. There is also a shortage of food. [Interjections.]

†50 000 people die in South Africa every year from diseases which are related to malnutrition. That means that 950 will die this week in this country during the discussion of the budget. That means 126 per day and five in the past hour. Those are the figures relating to this country. However, the hon. member for Turffontein says: “Ons moet maar in heim die Swart man wys wat honger ly.”

*That is not all. If hon. members saw the previous advertisement they will have seen the photo of a man who, “looking into the eyes of a starving child, will ask himself: Can I ignore him?” That was Momé du Plessis. Did hon. members see the previous advertisement? It was one of Prof. Chris Barnard. These are not people who speak about these things lightly. Their names appear on the advertisements. In my opinion it has never been proved that this is untrue.

†I now come to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to refer to his own area in Natal and to the King Edward VIII Hospital and the Edenvale Hospital. Hon. members have asked for facts. I have here statistics from the hospitals themselves. In 1979, 939 children suffering from kwashiorkor were admitted to the King Edward VIII Hospital and there were 259 deaths. 28% of the children admitted to this hospital in Natal died from malnutrition. Out of 581 cases of marasmus, 169 died, namely 29%. Let us take the figures for undernourishment. There were 1 245 admissions of whom 18% died. Taking the population as a whole, if they receive normal nutrition only 9% die. I think even the hon. member for Turffontein will understand that if 9% of those who enjoy normal nutrition and 28% to 30% of those who suffer from abnormal nutrition die, then malnutrition must be the cause of their deaths. I think that is very clear.

What do you propose?

What do I propose? I should very much have liked to reply to that question, but my time is limited. However, I am going to be in this House for a long time yet to reply to that hon. member.

†Let me refer to a report which appeared in The Star of 26 May 1980. Hon. members query the existence of malnutrition and starvation, but listen to this—

This is happening today in South Africa; it is happening in our midst. [Interjections.]

What about the rest of Africa?

The rest of Africa? I am a doctor and if anyone were to consult me and my diagnosis was that he had cancer of the stomach, but I told him that he need not be upset because in England there are two people suffering from cancer of the stomach, what has that to do with that man? I ask that hon. member to say to the parents whose children are dying of hunger: “Look at what is going on in the rest of Africa,” and then he can hear what they have to say to him—

The authors continue—

We are all concerned about that.

Malnutrition and its related diseases are not only due to not getting enough food. There are many other reasons for this condition and I accept this. [Interjections.] Hon. members are so keen that I should help them that they do not want me to state my case. Ignorance, lack of education and housing, lack of work, migrant labour, the breaking up of families, the breaking down of people’s shelters and forcing them out in the cold—these are all causes of this disease. [Interjections.]

In conclusion let me say that I hope hon. members will enjoy a hearty meal tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I am very tempted to reply to the hon. member for Parktown, but my time is limited and therefore I want to try to finish before we adjourn for supper. I rather want to devote myself to more important politics and that is why I shall not give any further attention to him.

The great Prime Minister, statesman and political prophet, D. F. Malan, said on one occasion: “Bring bymekaar wat uit innerlike oortuiging bymekaar hoort.” Against this background I should like to take a look at the results of the recent general election this afternoon in all sincerity and honesty. I also want to say very honestly that I, and probably all the hon. members on this side of the House—I do not hesitate to say so—would have liked to have had a better outcome than the one that we did in fact have. Surely it is only honest to say so. We came back with an overwhelming majority, of which we are proud, but it could have been more, and it will definitely be more in the future if we can win back our people who have strayed, and we are going to do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

Some members will of course be wondering: Is this the place to talk about such things? I feel it is definitely the place to talk about them, because it will be no use at all to say in a closed gathering what I intend to say here. Therefore, I want it to be recorded in Hansard and distributed amongst the strayed National voters so that they can take note of it. They must not be able to reproach us later on, because the NP is not a party that becomes dispersed. The NP is a party that grows.

We are all intelligent people. Our newspaper reporters are intelligent, as well as their readers, and politicians are even more intelligent. After all, we all know that there were thousands of Nationalists who did not vote. There were also many Nationalists amongst my people and amongst my colleague’s people, who voted for the HNP.

You sound worried.

The Opposition—and I do not say this with contempt—does not give me any cause for concern. In all honesty I think that they have reached their peak in the politics of South Africa.

That has already been said often in the past.

The majority of practically every Nationalist MP, including myself, was halved in the past election, in comparison with the election of 1977. Why is this? There are a few reasons. One reason is that our people have been misled on a large scale, firstly by the lie that the National Government has now become a government of integration. An interesting piece of history also took place in that time. Then, Rhodesia lost its White domination, and many of our people were reminded of 3 February 1960 when Sir Harold Macmillan, the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, delivered a speech here in which he used the prophetic words about the winds of political change in Africa. When the White Government fell in Rhodesia, many of our people looked across the Limpopo and said: “Is it now only the Limpopo that is the only dividing line between us and domination by others?” In that period the lie was also spread that the NP became a government of integration. At that time a change also took place in the Government in South Africa, because a new Prime Minister was elected. Then an interesting and unusual thing happened, which had never happened before. The Opposition press began to praise and adulate the National Government. In the light of what happened in Rhodesia, and the propaganda campaign against the party that alleged that the NP had become a Government of integration, many of our Nationalists, particularly our Afrikaner people, asked: What is wrong? They asked this, because surely they had learnt in the past that if the Opposition Press praises the Government, something is wrong somewhere. Therefore, for thousands upon thousands of Nationalists it was the proverbial kiss of death.

There are only two paths that can be followed in the politics of South Africa.

That is a good speech.

They are very clearly marked out. The one political possibility in South Africa is that of integration. The NP rejects this. The other is that of characteristic, separate development, and this is the policy of the NP. For those thousands of Nationalists who strayed during the past election, I want to read what the hon. the Prime Minister said two weeks ago, in order to confirm once again that the Government—the party and the Government—is a Government that is still on the road to separate development. He said (Hansard 1981, col. 41)—

He went on to say—

Then he said—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

I want to point this out to the thousands of Nationalists—my people, our people—who unfortunately abstained from voting during the past election, those who have strayed. The NP and the NP Government is still on the road to separate development.

If I were to be asked why I am mentioning these things in the House this afternoon, I could give a few reasons. The first reason is that the NP has been good and still is good to South Africa and all its people. I want the people who belong to the NP, back in the party. I have always tried to put the NP above myself. Since the NP is good to South Africa and because it has treated me well as a person, I am prepared to put the NP first. I can mention a few examples. In 1966, on the death of the late Dr. Verwoerd, the Heidelberg constituency decided to nominate me to Parliament. I said: “No, a great man represented Heidelberg; we must look further.” At my insistence we approached Dr. Piet Meyer, the then chairman of the SABC. Mr. Fanie Botha, from my constituency and I spent an hour and a half in his office in the Hertzog tower trying to convince him to stand, but he would not. I was then obliged to stand. The persons that I am mentioning here, are all still living, and hon. members can therefore check up on what I am saying. On two occasions in 1967, because I thought it would be a good thing and of service to the NP, I offered my seat to Mr. John Vorster. I did this because I thought that he might need my seat in order to bring someone in from outside for an appointment on the Cabinet.

I love this party and that is why I am making a request of these people who belong in the NP, to come back.

In conclusion, I want to say that I grew up on a farm in the Southern Transvaal. To the south of the farmhouse there were giant poplar trees. I was still a small boy when I realized that when the poplars took on a white appearance for three days, thunderstorms would break out on the third or fourth day. We boys were then taught to bring the small stock closer to the camps and kraals. When I was a little older, I realized why the poplars became white. I realized that it happened when the north wind had been blowing for three or four days and turning over the leaves of the poplar tree so that the white underside of the leaves was visible. When the poplar trees had been looking white for three days, we boys had to fetch the small stock and bring them back to the camps and the kraals. I want to tell the Nationalists who have strayed, that the onslaught on South Africa from within and without is a tremendous one. They must come back to the camp; they must come home; the poplars are looking white.

Mr. Speaker, this important session of Parliament has now almost reached the end of the second most important debate of the session. We have had the censure debate, in which the official Opposition and also the other Opposition parties had the opportunity to criticize the Government. Perhaps they had reason to argue that at the time of the censure debate it was not their task to set their policy against that of the NP. However, we were justified in expecting that in the budget debate, after the hon. member for Yeoville had struggled to find criticism to level at the budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance—he was unable to find any—and the debate had passed on to other matters, the official Opposition in particular would seize the opportunity to set policy against policy. However, we did not get this from the official Opposition.

What did we have instead? I am tempted to say that the official Opposition looked forward to, and not only looked forward to, but were also a vehicle for causing a problem in the Western Cape with regard to the squatters in Nyanga, and now we have the situation that they are trying to use that problem to attack the Government.

I want to come back to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the censure debate. At the end of his initial speech—we listened to him attentively and we found it unsatisfactory; and not only we; it also failed to satisfy his own people and his bosses, the English-language Press—he set four requirements which would have to be met in working out a future dispensation in South Africa. I want to refer to the second requirement he set. We on this side of the House are always being accused of saying that certain matters are not negotiable, but now we at least have this from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Hansard, 3 August 1981, col. 35)—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear”. That means that the official Opposition has at least one thing which they say is not negotiable. They say that a common citizenship for all people in South Africa is something which cannot be negotiated. Now, we know that those members do not recognize an independent Transkei. We know that they also do not recognize an independent Bophuthatswana and we know that they do not recognize an independent Venda either.

That is untrue!

The hon. member for Bryanston maintains that that is untrue. I now come to the problem we have been faced with for the past few days. Is it not the case that those hon. members have taken it upon themselves to act as champions of Transkei? Is it not they who have taken it upon themselves to act on behalf of the few Ciskeians involved in this matter? This arises out of their basic philosophy, the philosophy that they refuse to accept anything other than a so-called common citizenship for all the people in South Africa as a solution. As far as this is concerned, they are at least consistent. They are consistent in that just as they display their contempt for the lawfully elected Government of this country, of White South Africa, they also display their absolute contempt of the lawfully elected Government of Transkei and the lawfully elected rulers of the Ciskei. They have demonstrated this before and they did so again today. Here we differ fundamentally from the official Opposition. The NP regards certain things as not negotiable. We regard as not negotiable the self-determination of the Whites over the Whites. As regards the other nations with us in Southern Africa, they are fully entitled to decide what they regard as not negotiable. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are uncompromisingly committed to the standpoint that the self-determination of the Whites—and as a necessary corollary, the final control of their fate—must remain in the hands of the Whites alone. We cannot and dare not negotiate that. The hon. member for Simons-town rightly said this afternoon that the official Opposition had reached the conclusion—and they were acting in terms of that conclusion—that they regard this Parliament, this House of Assembly of ours, as irrelevant. Therefore they are not prepared to help to make a success of the instruments created by this House of Assembly. They do not want to help to make a success of the instruments of negotiation and in so doing find a solution for South Africa’s constitutional problems. In spite of the fact that they are prepared to sit in this White Parliament, they are not prepared to participate and assist in making a success of the President’s Council. Not only do they go out of their way to avoid taking part in the functions of the President’s Council; they do everything in their power to cause it to fail. What is their modus operandi? It is quite obvious. On the one hand we have the oft-repeated question asked by the official Opposition: If the President’s Council recommends this or that, will you be prepared to accept it? If we then say that we are not prepared to anticipate possible recommendations by the President’s Council, one immediately has the argument from the official Opposition, and from elsewhere, that the NP no longer has a standpoint. If we put forward the standpoint of the NP, in reply to the hypothetical questions of the official Opposition concerning what the President’s Council may recommend, one can immediately expect from them the argument: “But why did you establish the President’s Council? Surely, then, you have already decided what must be done, and the President’s Council is simply a smokescreen.” No, Sir, those people must decide whether they are prepared to co-operate in finding a peaceful solution for the complex questions of South Africa. With all the goodwill at my command I cannot but come to the conclusion that the official Opposition is not prepared to accept any solution other than one which fits their ideology.

I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is not present this evening. He told the hon. the Prime Minister that he had to choose now between the so-called ideologists and the so-called pragmatists in the NP. I want to put that question to the official Opposition, too. I want to ask them whether the time has not come for them to decide and choose, not only between ideologists and pragmatists, but also between the radicals on their side. If one is to be pragmatic and one is involved in the White politics of South Africa, then surely one has to realize and acknowledge that the White voters of South Africa have repeatedly decided and repeatedly affirmed that the Whites of South Africa are not prepared to sacrifice their right of self-determination. But the official Opposition, which is now telling us that we must be pragmatic, is not prepared to recognize that fact. I cannot but reach the conclusion that the official Opposition has decided that they can no longer defeat the Government by parliamentary action. Therefore they have taken the step of resorting to extra-parliamentary action in order to overthrow this Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Barberton just stated that the official Opposition and hon. members on this side of the House were resorting to extra-parliamentary action in order to overthrow the Government. The insinuation is, without any doubt, that this alleged action is unpatriotic, that we are disturbing law and order … [Interjections.]

Order!

… I am referring you, Mr. Speaker, to a previous ruling from the Chair on this very subject in which this sort of allegation was declared unparliamentary.

When was that ruling given?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you the exact reference. Some two years ago it was held that that was an insinuation of upholding the forces against law and order. It was in fact ruled then that it was unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: When the hon. member for Barberton states that hon. members of the official Opposition resort to extra-parliamentary action, there is no implication that their action is unconstitutional. I contend that the hon. member for Barberton has the right to say that.

Will the hon. member for Barberton please repeat what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I repeat it with pleasure. I said that the official Opposition had reached the conclusion that they were not able to overthrow this Government by way of parliamentary action and that they were therefore resorting to extra-parliamentary action. [Interjections.]

Order! What does the hon. member mean when he speaks of “extra-parliamentary action”?

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean what the hon. member for Groote Schuur understood thereby. I did not mean that the hon. member for Groote Schuur was engaged in revolutionary action. I do not know why the hon. member thought that I meant that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to indicate that what the hon. member for Barberton said here is confirmed by a document written by Helen Suzman. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already given my ruling. The hon. member for Langlaagte must please resume his seat. The hon. member for Barberton may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time has almost expired. However, I want to put it to the official Opposition that if they think that they will bring this Government to its knees by way of extra-parliamentary action, they are making a mistake. I want to put it to the forces of anarchy that if they think they will overthrow this Government in this way, they are making a mistake. The fact remains that the Whites of this country and their expressed will, the NP, are, have been and will be prepared to negotiate, to conduct discussions, but that the Whites of this country and the expressed will of the Whites of this country, the NP, are not prepared to capitulate, whatever the conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually sorry that the hon. member for Barberton has obliged me to react to some of the things he has said. It was really my intention to deal with a subject which would have brought us closer to the budget itself. However, I must say that I reject with contempt any insinuation by the hon. member for Barberton that I or any of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House resort to extra-parliamentary action to overthrow this Government. [Interjections.] I reject it as a scandalous statement. [Interjections.]

I want to go further by making the unqualified statement that I am speaking on behalf of myself and every member of the official Opposition when I say that we are indeed prepared to do everything in our power—this is our whole philosophy—to find a peaceful solution for South Africa’s problems. This has been stated time and again and I want to repeat it.

As far as the President’s Council is concerned, we have stated our standpoint very clearly time and again. That standpoint was stated in the minority report of the Schlebusch Commission report and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is fully acquainted with it, because in it the conditions are set—not conditions for the co-operation of the party in the President’s Council, because the party is not represented there, but the conditions on which this party would support the institution of the President’s Council. They are very clearly stated in that minority report.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the issue of participation in the President’s Council was discussed in his caucus?

I can assure the hon. the Minister that with the exception of one hon. member of the caucus at that time, there was not a single member of that caucus who questioned the leadership of the Leader in any way.

Was it Harry?

Let me state unequivocally that there was not one.

If we speak about a body which is really engaged in negotiation, which has to find a peaceful solution for our problems, and we find (a) that that body includes nominated members of the other groups and (b) that the biggest group in South Africa is excluded, but we still say that it is a body which is truly suited to find peaceful solutions for us, then that is simply outrageous.

The hon. member for Barberton had a great deal to say about the right of self-determination of the Whites over the Whites. How can this occur in a society in which—leaving aside the Blacks—the society is so intermingled that it cannot be split up into Whites, Coloureds and Asians?

And Progs. [Interjections.]

We are proud to regard ourselves as part of the population of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister wants to set himself outside of it, then that is his responsibility and task, not mine.

If we speak of a society in which at least those three groups form an integral unit, and we then speak about the right of self-determination of the Whites over the Whites, then that is ridiculous. It is totally ridiculous. It will not function. The speech by the hon. member for Randburg also touched on these points and I should like to reply to that on a later occasion.

We are not harming Transkei, Venda or Bophuthatswana. What we do object to, however—and I want to state this here because we oppose this and we shall always oppose it—is that when a homeland becomes independent, all the so-called citizens of that homeland are automatically deprived of their South African citizenship. We object to that because to us it is totally unacceptable. I also want to point out to the hon. member for Barberton that no more than 3% of the Transkeians resident in the Transkei took part in that election when the independence of the Transkei was decided on. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that.

I now wish to deal with the budget, and I want to associate myself with what the chief spokesman, the hon. member for Yeoville, has already said, viz. that the problems entailed by the rising rate of inflation affect the lower-paid groups in our society in particular. It is clear that the rate of inflation has a very detrimental effect on four groups in our society in particular. First there are the pensioners and, secondly, retired people who have invested their money and therefore have fixed incomes. They stand by and watch while their savings dwindle due to the rate of inflation. Thirdly, the rate of inflation also affects the unemployed. In many instances these people are not unemployed as a result of their own wishes and desires, but due to the economic growth rate we are experiencing at present. In the fourth place, those who fall into the lower wage and salary categories are detrimentally affected by the higher rate of inflation. In the nature of the matter this affects in particular the non-White population groups in South Africa, viz. the Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. I cannot understand what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has against the sober statement that inflation affects our lower-paid people in particular and that the biggest group of people who fall into this category are indeed Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. This certainly does not mean that we are dragging an element of race into the issue; surely those are the facts of the matter and no one can deny them. Therefore I find the hon. the Minister’s statement in this regard totally inexplicable.

Let us consider this issue soberly. In the Bulletin of Statistics for 1981 it is indicated that the average income of a White employee is R770 per month; that of a Coloured, R257; that of an Asian, R337 and that of a Black R196. The Blacks are undoubtedly the lowest-paid section of our community and therefore it is important that we should take this fact into account when analysing the effect of the rate of inflation on these people in greater depth.

It is very clear that the increase in the food prices in particular has a more detrimental effect on those groups than it has on the Whites, who are at a far higher level of income. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Health is not present at the moment because I want to refer to a revised diet drawn up in January 1975 and September 1976 by the Department of Health and in which the minimum food requirements of Black and Coloured families are indicated. This is not my estimate, but that of the Department of Health. The minimum monthly food requirements for a Black adult between the ages of 19 and 50 years are indicated. I shall give approximate figures in kilograms. I do not believe there is a single responsible person in this House who will say that he regards this quantity of food as satisfactory for anyone, particularly for us. The quantities cover a month’s consumption and are as follows: Skimmed milk powder, 1 kg 200 grams; meat, ¾ kg; fish, ¾ kg; eggs, ¼ kg; cheese, less than a ¼ kg; dry beans or peas, a little more than 1½ kg; fresh fruit and vegetables, 10 kg; margarine, ¾ kg; oil, 300 ml; brown bread, 6 kg; mealie meal, 13 kg; sugar, just a little more than 1 kg; coffee, 200 grams and spices, 171 grams. There is no one in this House who would be prepared to get by with this sort of diet.

You would look a lot better if you were to try it.

Order!

I do not want to repeat details, but there is one matter to which I should like to draw attention, and I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to assist me.

I am listening, but please do not repeat everything.

For a Black woman, the only real difference is that the quota for maize products is reduced to 5 kg, and then there are also a few other minor details. Data are also provided for children and for Coloureds.

In November 1980 the Institute for Planning Research of the University of Port Elizabeth issued a report on the “householders’ subsistence level”. In this report the minimum food requirements were processed and the amounts necessary to meet these requirements expressed in financial terms. At that stage, October of last year, a minimum of R20,17 was necessary for a Black man to maintain this level in Cape Town. For a Black woman the amount was R17, for a child between four years and six years it was R13,21 and for a boy between 11 and 14 years it was approximately R20.

But what is the point?

I am coming to the point. [Interjections.] I want the hon. the Minister to know that we shall have to subsidize food prices for those people. That is my point. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to make a case and submit it to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs does not care how other people stay alive, but he is also a Minister who ought to be concerned about the welfare of all our people. [Interjections.] If we take it that the average Black family has six members—two adults and four children—then, taking into account the increases which took place recently, approximately R100 per month is necessary for that family to subsist on that diet. In the meantime we know that since October last year there have been considerable increases in food prices. In fact, some of the biggest increases have taken place since October last year. In other words, the calculations done by the institute in October 1980 are in fact already completely out of date due to the increases which have taken place in the interim. Apart from food prices, mention is also made in the report of the amounts necessary for cleaning materials, transport and rent to meet the minimum subsistence requirements. The conclusion is reached that a Black family in Cape Town needs a minimum income of R206,89 to maintain the minimum standard of living. I take it that hon. members are fully aware of all these details and know that an amount of R206,89 is not nearly enough nowadays to maintain the minimum subsistence level. I am speaking about Cape Town now, although there are comparative figures for other centres. The minimum subsistence level is important, however, not only for what it includes, but also for what is excluded, because the amount I have quoted makes no provision for any medical expenses, medicine, hospitalization, education, school fees, books or recreation of any nature. This kind of situation cannot be tolerated in South Africa, because there is no aspect more explosive than a person’s inability to maintain even a minimum standard of living on his salary. Therefore this report states the following—

The report goes on—

There are various ways to tackle this problem. Linking wages to the consumer index will not work. Only 25% of all employers adjust their wages in terms of the consumer price index. It is very clear that we shall have to take all possible steps to increase the wages of the Blacks, and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Manpower will use the Wage Act to improve matters in this connection.

Even if we were to do all this, it would still remain imperative for larger subsidies on food prices to be granted. In the course of this debate we were asked where the Government was to obtain the money. If the Government is in earnest, it is the task of all of us—and I want to approach this matter in a responsible way—to say: “Very well, let us look at priorities, because it is only in terms of our priorities that we shall be able to determine what we can eliminate from our budget to provide for bigger subsidies.”

Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with this in detail and I do not want to say this about all aspects of the Government’s policy, but there are aspects of that policy which are counterproductive in financial terms. In fact, they are not in a position to meet these requirements. I shall mention one of those aspects. I refer hon. members to the speech by Mr. Len Abrahamse in 1976 in which he elaborated on what apartheid has cost us. [Interjections.] It is pointless hon. members reacting to me; they must accept or reject that analysis. In his speech Mr. Abrahamse maintained that our gross domestic product would have been R13 000 million more if it had not been for apartheid. Hon. members can refuse to believe that, but then they must work out the figures themselves.

Do you believe it?

Yes, I believe it. Dr. Savage of the University of Cape Town has calculated that the implementation of influx control measures costs us at least R121 million annually. That is how simple it is.

Have you calculated what the Prog policy would cost us?

Perhaps we should not even go further and look at the Administration Boards, but according to my calculations, the Administration Boards receive an amount of R60 million annually from the fees paid to labour bureaux and R4 million in fines. In terms of total turnover the Administration Boards receive R119 million and R135 million respectively from the sale of liquor and sorghum. If the Administration Boards could be abolished—because I do not believe they perform an effective function—we should have sufficient money available to pay these increased subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to talk very seriously to the Opposition tonight. Before doing so, however, I wish to correct a statement which the hon. member for Groote Schuur made a short while ago. I have here a newspaper report under the heading “The Big Split”, and, beneath that, “Helen says all”.

†I really do not want the shy hon. lady to sit behind the hon. member for Yeoville.

Here I am!

That is lovely. I want the hon. member for Houghton to recognize her own words and tell the House that it is true what she said on a certain date. I want to explain to the House that in 1974 that hon. young lady was very upset because she had failed to bring new people to the House.

[Inaudible.]

Was it a little earlier? I will always give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt.

But you are always wrong.

The hon. member said then that she was really tired after the breakaway. She called the United Party a lot of … Mr. Speaker, I cannot use the word in the House. It is not a nice word at all.

I was talking about you.

Then she said—

Note what I have just read—“extra-political activities”. [Interjections.] Do hon. members want an example of this? [Interjections.] All right, I shall give it because I have an example of it. In my hand here is a little story which was written by a member of the Progressive Party and I believe this to be the extra-political activity of a Prog. I am going to read to the House …

Little Red Riding Hood? [Interjections.]

The story has “The Orderly” as a heading and it was written by a young man called Mr. Dalling. Anybody who reads this short story will shudder. The short story appeared in a magazine which was published world-wide. I had to fill in two forms …

You found that very difficult, hey? [Interjections.]

… in order to get hold of this. I cannot quote it because it is a banned publication and one has to have permission … [Interjections.] I see that all the hon. members on the other side are smiling. Even the young hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North sits there smiling. Does the hon. member really know what the implications are when a publication like this one is banned?

But let us hear it.

The hon. member ought to know that I may not read it without the consent of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Langlaagte may just as well read it.

Well, if the House permits me, I shall read it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have to give you a short introduction to this. This man wrote about an orderly sitting in Pretoria in a court where a lot of terrorists were about to come in one by one. The author then described how this orderly saw these terrorists—

[Inaudible.]

It is funny that the hon. member knows all the funny books! [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton to contain herself for just a minute. [Interjections.] The hon. members should listen very carefully—

But you read that five minutes ago.

Let me continue—

I do not have the time now, but this is the story of a so-called homeland leader who was not prepared to do whatever the White government wanted him to do. According to this member the man was eventually murdered, or killed. Those are the kind of extra-political activities that are indulged in by members of that party. I quote further from the next page—

Why do you read so badly?

Because it is written so badly! [Interjections.] It is with shock that I have to admit that the person who has written this sort of story is a member of the House of Assembly.

Disgraceful!

It further gives ideas to other people about this man, Kotzé. I quote—

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the gravedigger, or was it the tunnel digger, to give me time. Will the hon. member for Koffiefontein please give me time? I quote again—

His wife then wants to know what happened. He replies—

This is the way people in that party portray South African police, South African orderlies and South African courts to people outside. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Bryanston reminds me of a front-end loader, but there is a difference—in the case of a front-end loader the engine works first and then it scoops, but the hon. member’s scoop works before his brain! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when people laughed in exactly the same way when I put questions to the hon. member for Sea Point. I asked him many questions. I kept on for ten minutes and he did not answer me. Then I took bets, 20 to 1, that he would not be here after the next election as leader. Nobody wanted to take me on. The only member who took me on was the poor man whom all the hon. members opposite kicked out in favour of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Mr. Lorimer was the only man who took me on.

He is a born loser.

All the others were quiet. Were they all in the know at the time? Were they covering up? I am just asking.

There are a lot of things which get laughed away in this House, but which would not be condoned in any way in other Houses of Parliament throughout the world.

Like you.

There are many who make jokes in the House and I think that we on this side of the House need to look into some of the activities of the hon. members on the other side. A lot of those things we should not regard as jokes. I can quite accept that a lot of the hon. members opposite do not understand economics, but certainly they must be able to understand it when their country is threatened or endangered. Yet at this time, while more than 800 of our young men have died on the border, we get this kind of story being passed around in the UNO and all over. It is banned in this country. I think it is a shame and I think that a member like that should in fact …

… resign.

… not only resign but should also withdraw such a publication. He should say that he wrote it at a time when he was emotionally disturbed or there was something else wrong with him and that when in full possession of his senses he could not write something like this and send it into the world more or less as the truth.

Give us another speech. You made this speech last year.

I want to come to the aid of the people of South Africa tonight. I want to come to the aid of the worker and all the women who do their budgeting at home.

*The Opposition has clearly proved that it is misreading the totality of our politics and our economics. Year after year the hon. the Minister draws up a fantastic budget, a budget which does not cause budget fever to break out in the country. One does not see money being moved from one sphere to another. One sees stability. These are the things we should notice.

However, I want to point out one thing which is happening in our country. The chain stores have an enormous psychological network of sales methods. They are so cleverly devised that the ordinary housewife cannot escape the effect. Why can she not escape it? The reason is that nowhere in the chain store can she read what the actual price of the article is. I have often seen this. One day the price of coffee is given as R2,30; the next day that coffee on the same shelf costs R4. This is perplexing, especially to those who do not have a great deal of money. It is very difficult in any event to work out in advance how much money one is going to spend, especially when the general sales tax is not included in the price of an article. All I am asking, therefore, and what I would like the hon. the Minister seriously to consider, is that it be made compulsory for the prices to be clearly marked on all articles in all shops. If necessary, price lists can be put on the walls. That is all I am asking for. I have seen knitting patterns, for example, on which there were four or five separate price stickers, one on top of the other. The prices on them varied from, for example, 65c to R2,53. This kind of thing is causing problems for housewives which they cannot handle.

Another request I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that general sales tax should be made inclusive throughout. For most people it is the last straw when sales tax has to be added to the purchase price of an article at the point of sale. It also deprives people of the ability or the right to bargain about the price of a given article. A suit may cost R14, for example, but before the prospective buyer can bargain for a lower price, he is deprived of his initiative by being told by the shopowner that another R3, for example, has to be paid in sales tax, money which goes to the Government. In this way, people are deprived of their bargaining power. I request that serious attention be given to this. It cannot be alleged that the administrative aspects would make a very great difference to this. No shopowner has a separate compartment in his till for the money intended for general sales tax. All the money is put into the cash register together, and the general sales tax is only calculated afterwards.

However, if irregularities do occur and people do not meet their obligations, we shall simply have to make use of one of the best American methods, namely to indicate the manufacturer’s price on every article. When the manufacturer’s price is indicated on an article, and there is a price increase, people will not be able to sell their old stock (“ou ‘stock’”) for the new price.

“Bestaande voorraad” is the correct expression; not “ou ‘stock’”.

The advantages of this would be enormous.

I want to point out another very important thing this evening. It is one of the things that are causing a very great problem in our South African economy. This is the extremely high prices which householders have to pay for their services. We have a water supply. We also have the Electricity Supply Commission. My request is that the Rand Water Board, Escom and a sewerage board should be combined in one body. In addition, there should be a board to investigate the structure of services to householders. In some places, the services are costing houseowners up to 50% of the prices of their houses. This is causing enormous problems. The ordinary municipality is not able to solve these problems. They budget in a way which is completely different from what is actually required.

I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this, but in 1951, one did not pay for sewerage at all. At that time, sewerage was still financed from a loan which was repayable over 20 years. The money for it was obtained from the payments for other services. Since then, the entire economic structure has changed and housing has lapsed into a fixed pattern from which we cannot easily extricate it.

What we are doing at the moment is to lower the standard of White housing in order to be able to raise the standard of housing for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. In spite of this, our standard of housing remains too high. This is because we are working from top to bottom and following a pattern which we shall not be able to keep up in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise for the first time in this House on this occasion and to make my maiden speech. I would far prefer to participate in the debate. That would be easier, for the debate has a nice rollicking pace.

However, I shall have to adhere to the good order of this House and discuss a subject which is topical, otherwise it would not have come up for discussion in this House so often before.

I want viz. to discuss the principle that everyone has to build up a pension for himself during his working years. Leading employers have adopted this principle in South Africa and have, therefore, begun to consider this to be a logical condition of service for their employees. Membership of a pension fund is consequently one of the levers these people are using to compete against each other for services of a particular employee.

We in South Africa are inclined to think of a pension fund as a fund which will make provision for certain needs upon retirement only. However, other things which could happen to an employee ought to be incorporated in it as well. In the first place, an employee could become sick on the way to work and consequently be unable to complete his daily task. He could die early, or he could reach the pensionable age and then live for many years after that. The reasons why a pension fund are of the utmost importance to employers and employees in South Africa are that individuals, when it is left to them, in the first place fail to make provision for their own pension of their own accord, and when they do eventually reach an advanced age, they find that they have no income and then have to be dependent on charity from either the State or their employer. When a pension has to be provided as a lump sum by an employer or by an individual upon a death in a family, disability or retirement, we are talking about a tremendous sum.

We are talking about a capital amount, when we include inflation, which is astronomical when we discount it over a long period. If we were to leave it to an employee to provide this amount alone, it would be within the capacity of almost no employee to do so on his own. Consequently both the employer and employee must make provision for these needs as early as possible in an employee’s working life, and over as long a period as possible. A percentage of a person’s salary, which is at the moment starting to look like an adequate one, is in the vicinity of 25%, which has to be utilized for this purpose on a monthly basis.

In the second place as I have already said, it also causes competition between employers for the continued labour of an employee. When he has identified a good worker it gives the employer bargaining power in obtaining him and in keeping him in his employ. We need not elaborate on the importance of this. It was thoroughly discussed in a previous debate on labour affairs.

Consequently there must also be a pension fund to give a person emotional security in respect of his old age. When a person is employed and knows that he need not be concerned about the day when he is no longer able to work, he will also be happy in his work and this in turn will stimulate a better relationship between employer and employee. The Government realizes the necessity for providing a pension. Concessions are certainly being made to the employer and employee with a view to retirement. Contributions which are being made by an employer and employee are deductable from expenditure and lump sums which are payable are being dealt with very leniently by the tax collector. I want to ask that an investigation be instituted into the taxation which is payable on pensions. This is a question which is put very often: Why do I, who made the necessary provision, have to pay tax on my pension? I believe that if it were not to be taxed, this could serve as a stimulus to moving away from a social pension so that we could eventually arrive at a situation where we shall have as few people as possible in our community who are dependent on social pensions; i.e. we shall have to do everything possible to stimulate people to be self-sufficient in this regard.

I said that there were a few specific needs which the worker had and that the Government was certainly taking cognizance of this. In the past provision was made for retirement, disability and death. Consequently these are not new concepts. In the past, however, there was no connection between a person’s income and the provision which was made. This resulted in people receiving pensions which were totally inadequate. Widows received widows’ pensions which were totally irreconcilable with the real income of their husbands. At the moment the private sector and other sectors which are involved in this market are certainly taking cognizance of real incomes, and the whole industry has moved into top gear to render a good service to the community.

Pensions are provided in various ways. In the first place there are private funds which are usually administered by large business concerns and employers. Then there are pension and retirement annuities which are underwritten by insurers, and then there are also the funds which are managed by investment advisors. Despite this there was in the past no strong competition between these people to obtain this business. Now it is different. This industry has now become highly competitive. Administrative costs are now being cut to the minimum and maximum investment possibilities are being obtained for the client.

The benefit structures of such funds are being very thoroughly revised and adjusted on a regular scale, and drastic changes have recently been made to existing schemes. An investigation by a major insurer into 100 of the largest pension funds has, inter alia, indicated that contribution rates of members which in the past stood at 5% at the most, are now between 6% and 8%. The difference in cost of providing a pension is now being born by the employers. It is no longer a fixed percentage according to the old system; it now revolves around the question of cost. In 80 per cent of the cases the retirement age for men varies between 63 and 65 years. For women it is 60 years. I do not know why this is the case, for women usually live six years longer than men. I think we should let them work a little longer!

In most cases retirement pensions are estimated at an average of the salary over the last few years of service and are expressed as a percentage of the number of years of service. For example, a person who receives a 2% pension will on retirement after 30 years of service at a company retire with a pension comprising 60% of his salary.

In two thirds of these 100 funds it was found that they were certainly aware of the influence of inflation on pension moneys and a growth factor was built into the pension to make some provision for inflation.

Whereas a death benefit used to be a lump sum payment in the past, it is now a lump sum payment, plus a widow’s pension, plus a pension payable to the children.

These days virtually all the funds make provision for disability insurance. This is linked to the salary of the employee or to his salary and his period of service.

In virtually all cases it was customary that on retirement before attaining the retirement age, a person received the premiums he had paid in, plus a very moderate interest rate.

It is reasonable to maintain that most pension funds these days provide their members with very satisfactory benefits.

However, there are a few bottlenecks, inter alia, elderly people who did not have the opportunity to make the necessary provision during their working life. We have them with us. They receive a small income or no income and are consequently dependent on the State or welfare institutions. So for employers have not been compelled to establish pension funds for their employees. However, the most leading employers are already doing this. There are also persons who do have a small pension and who can still take a portion of it in cash. When the pension as such is then exhausted by inflation, the person begins to make use of the cash. Perhaps this is a matter which one could examine in future as well, for those people, too, consequently become a burden for the State or the community.

In the past employees discontinued their pensions when they changed their work. Allow me to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on the announcement of legislation which is to be introduced to rectify this matter. This is a very timely change in the legislation. Inflation means the erosion of pensions. Many funds make provision for the increase in the rate of inflation, but the cost attached to covering it in full, is tremendous. A person who is still alive 20 years after his retirement, will at an inflation rate of 10% be able to buy only 15 cents worth of goods for every rand of his pension. This is what inflation can do to a fixed pension.

The State realizes its responsibility towards its people. I should just like to quote a few figures to show what the position was on 31 March 1980. On that date pensions amounting to R245 379 000 were paid out to 200 426 White persons and R163,5 million was paid out in old-age pensions alone—to approximately 140 000 people. We must examine how the State has looked after these people and has allocated funds to try to curb inflation. In 1975 a White person received R64 per annum, in 1980, R109 per annum and as from October 1981 he will receive R122 per annum. The figure for the Coloureds and Asians is R34 per annum, R62 per annum and R71 per annum, and for the Blacks R15 per annum, R33 per annum and R40 per annum. Consequently we see that the State, in the allocation of its funds, has certainly taken cognizance of the effect of inflation on pensions and that the State has certainly made its contribution and in addition is specifically engaged in narrowing the gap between the various population groups.

If we in South Africa were to change over to a fund which makes provision for the current payment system, or as it is also called “pay as you go”, or rather a national pension scheme, I would not be able to associate myself with that. Countries in which there is at present a pension scheme of this nature are already experiencing financial problems with this scheme, and problems are just around the comer for the others.

I want to indicate what the pension situation looks like in South Africa at present. At present there are 14 funds under Government control with a membership of 53 000 and 9 000 pensioners. There are 9 887 underwriting funds with a membership of 1 581 000 and 48 000 pensioners. There are also 37 industrial funds with a membership of 312 000 and 3 000 pensioners. In addition there are seven foreign funds with a membership of 1 000, but they do not yet have any pensioners. Furthermore there are 712 administered funds with a membership of 1 527 000 and 81 000 pensioners. There are 10 Government Service funds with a membership of 706 000 and 118 000 pensioners. Consequently we are dealing here with a very large input which has been made in this sphere by various people. The committee which was appointed to institute an investigation in connection with pension funds said, inter alia—

There are already sound pension schemes in South Africa which render a valuable service to thousands of members. Problems which still exist can be resolved through sound co-operation between the State and the private sector. Step for step improvements can be made in the interests of everyone. Instant solutions such as a national pension fund should be avoided. We must, with confidence in the private sector and in the co-operation of the State, leave this matter in the hands of very competent people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, may I commence by congratulating the hon. member for Springs on his maiden speech. I rather suspect that my predecessor in Umbilo would have been delighted to hear this speech. Mr. Geoff Oldfield spent the best part of 23 years working on pension matters and what the hon. member for Springs had to say, was virtually a follow-on on what Mr. Oldfield said over those many years.

When the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was robustly defending the actions that had been taken at Nyanga he made a statement which rather intrigued me. This statement was to the effect that the hallmark of good government was the maintenance of law and order. Whilst I cannot altogether disagree with the hon. the Minister, I rather suspect that he has got the quotation a little distorted because, as I know that quotation, it reads: “Law and order is a hallmark of good government.” Used the way in which the hon. the Minister used it, that quotation would, for example, mean that the Government of Russia, if it can maintain law and order, is good government; the government of Mao Tse-tung’s China was good government. Even the government of Adolf Hitler was good government. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister did not mean that at all. I do, however, concur with him that one of the criteria of good government is the maintenance of law and order. It is part and parcel of the maintainance of law and order to have, generally speaking, a contented population. A contented population would have good food at reasonable prices, housing at a price it could afford and security. These are matters which are presenting certain problems in the country today. One therefore wonders whether the Government of today is quite as salubrious as the hon. the Minister would have had us think.

I now come to the question of the budget. I believe a budget should also be judged on how one equates what is being appropriated and what is being spent with the way in which these objectives of getting a happy population well-fed, housed and secure are achieved. One cannot help but feel that in this House we have a peculiar situation, because—it will be appreciated that I am relatively new here—if it is a speaker from the Government side, everything is perfect and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the budget. On the other hand, if it is a member of the official Opposition who is speaking, there is absolutely nothing right with the budget. It does rather confuse somebody who is relatively new to the proceedings. I might add that I have had considerable experience in dealing with matters relating to budgets and yet it is rather confusing, as I say, when one finds this sort of situation.

Bearing in mind that I have to do the best I can and be honest in my own approach to matters, I look at the situation and I find two things. The one is that I have come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister had very little option in regard to the sort of budget he framed on this occasion because of previous commitments and possibly an over-reliance upon the benefits of gold in the past year. On the other hand I also do notice that there has been a certain amount of progress in thinking in a field in which I have been particularly interested for many years. I refer specifically to the question of interest in local government.

There is no question that in this budget there is considerable thought being given to what is to be done to assist local authorities in their activities. It is rather a coincidence that in my very first session in this House this should be in the budget because, as the hon. the Minister of Finance will possibly remember, I as a member of the Natal Executive Committee was one of the people who were with him at the very first meeting when the Browne Committee was brought into being. At that stage the hon. the Minister was sympathetic to the situation and he proved his point by appointing the Browne Committee.

I must confess that it has taken the committee an awfully long time to come forward with its views and, quite frankly, the report, when it came forward, was a little disappointing. But nonetheless, there have been signs of progress even from the report of the committee. I for one, having been interested for so many years in local and provincial government, am delighted to see that the first steps towards a proper appreciation of the place of that tier of government in the governmental spectrum have been taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The paying of rates—80% is the figure in the budget—is I think not exactly generous, but I think it is fair under the circumstances because the Government is providing services also for the citizens of the local authority wherever it may be. I know that in some of the larger cities they will quibble about this because they are providing regional services, but nonetheless I do not believe this is too unreasonable; I think it is a fair view in this regard.

In so far as fire and ambulance services are concerned, these are also major problems for local authorities and I rather suspect that in the future, having taken this tentative step in the direction of assisting local government, the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to find that these two subjects are going to be rather expensive as time progresses because, while matters are handled by the local authority and the local public have to pay out of their own rates, they will accept modified services. However, once they know “die Regering moet betaal”, then the situation will be somewhat different.

As I say, the situation of local government has interested me over many years. In the province of Natal, which I had the honour to represent as a member of the executive, we have made many efforts over the years, many of which have been taken up in the other provinces. The one that I should like to make particular comment on is the question of the participation of non-Whites, particularly the Indian and Coloured people, in local government.

We in Natal decided that any programme that was devised by the Whites would not be acceptable to the Coloured people or to the Indian people. We knew that if we devised it even if it was perfect for them it would not be acceptable because their ambition was to be participants in such deliberations. Therefore, we had a full meeting with representatives, elected representatives, of the Coloured and Indian communities. We did not have the Blacks at the same meeting because it was not the function of the Provincial Council to deal with the Blacks. We sat around the table for nearly eight months on and off and eventually, although we started off with diametrically opposed points of view, we finished with a scheme which did not make everybody happy but at least a consensus had been reached. For the first time since Union, to the best of my knowledge, an agreement was signed between White, Indian and Coloured representatives as to what they would be prepared to go along with in any sort of political dispensation.

And it was subsequently rejected.

As regards the question of the subsequent rejection, I do not know whether the hon. member is referring to the NMA or whether he is referring to certain members who were part of that deal. If he is referring to the NMA, the NMA turned it down because of the peculiar system of United Nations voting they apply—that a little dorp has the same voting power as a large town. In the United Nations Mauritius has the same voting power as the Soviet Union or the United States. However, the major local authorities in Natal accepted it. As far as the various people who participated are concerned, to this day they have not said that they repudiate signing that agreement. That agreement, as far as I am concerned, still stands. As I understand the situation the matter is now being debated before the President’s Council and I rather suspect from what one hears that the likelihood is that the Natal proposals will come before this hon. House in due course as being what is to be the proposed system of local government for the Coloured, Indian and White communities. I feel that it is very important that it should be clearly on record that the people concerned were not a bunch of “ja-broers” or were they Uncle Toms either. If you can call people like Norman Middleton, Charles Tifflin, De Vries and Young among the Coloured community Uncle Toms, that is fine. From the Indian community there were J. N. Reddy, Ismail Kathrada, J. B. Patel, the late Dr. Mayat, Yunis Moola and Mr. Patchai from Ladysmith. They were all signatories of this particular document. I am not even mentioning the names of the members of the White community. They were not a bunch of Uncle Toms.

Basically, what was agreed—and this is the extraordinary thing that I do not believe everybody really understood—is that they accepted the basic concept that we would start on group areas. Nobody has accepted group areas outside of the White community in the past. However, they had accepted this On the basis that all communities should so far as is practicable govern themselves in viable independent local authorities in respect of all parochial matters and matters of a localized nature and that such local authorities should be created on a proper geographical basis; and that where possible and/or desirable regional services such as water, sewerage, etc., should be controlled by a regional or metropolitan authority. This was accepted, and was at least for the moment to get the thing off the ground, an acceptance of group areas as a base to work on.

Which thing?

That was the Natal local government scheme. We put it through the provincial council and regrettably it was turned down, though not in the provincial council. As hon. members will know, provincial ordinances have to be approved by the State President, and regrettably it was not accepted by the State President and fell by the wayside. The result is that now we have a situation where the local affairs committee system is beginning to fall on its face. Incidentally, we in Natal had this system going long before anybody else and we developed it further than anybody else to the extent of having four fully fledged local authorities. As I have said, this system is beginning to fall on its face and the provincial authorities and the central Government will have to do something about it in due course. I regret that we shall be going back to the old situation we have had in South Africa for so long, namely that of “too little too late”. By the time we get around to accepting this in 1982, 1983 or whenever it may be, the people who were participants in 1978 will say: “Well, that was all right five years ago, but today we are not prepared to accept this. We want more.” Like Oliver, they will ask for more—if like other hon. members I may also make a classical reference.

As I have said, I am very, very happy indeed that this budget for the first time does show an interest in local government finances. I do sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will go even further in March by way of assisting. However, we should also bear in mind that, in my view at least, it is not good for local government to get so much assistance that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I rather suspect it would be bad for local government if the central Government had too much say in what went on.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an in-depth analysis of the present state of the Opposition parties. I should like to evaluate the significance of the Opposition parties in South African politics for the period 1910 to 1981. It is essential to reflect on the history of political parties in order to establish why the present Opposition parties and their predecessors over the past seven decades have continued to go downhill with the occasional spark of life, or it may merely have been a final spasm?

Why have the Opposition parties not made any meaningful contribution towards South African politics? What were, and are, the reasons for their failure? If one studies the course of Opposition politics, researches it and evaluates it, then the answer is obvious. When the real, basic and fundamental issues in the history of South Africa were at stake, when the interests of nations and of South Africa were at stake, they did not understand it and they overlooked it. They have ignored the crucial moments in political history.

Why then, in contrast to this, has the NP achieved success and why has the Opposition parties continued to fail? The reason is obvious. The programme of principles of the NP, as well as its election manifesto has been built upon fundamental principles. I am going to quote a reference here by an authority, viz. Dr. G. D. Scholtz. In a doctoral study, he dealt with the development of the political concepts of the Afrikaner. Seven volumes of that work have already been published and I want to refer to Volume 6. I quote from page 133—

Now what is his comment on this programme of principles? He makes the following remark about this (pages 140-141)—

It is in this very respect that the programme of the NP, as it has been drawn up, distinguishes it from the programme of principles of the SAP, the predecessor of today’s opposition parties.

Therefore, in contrast to the clear, straightforward principles of the NP, the Opposition has been based upon confusing principles from its inception until today. That is why in the past election, and also in the past debates, the PFP has continued to evade its policy. I just want to quote prof. Scholtz yet again as an authority, from page 96 of the volume that I have already mentioned. What does prof. Scholtz say about these predecessors of today’s opposition parties?—

Then he goes on (page 134)—

This characteristic vagueness runs through the entire course of opposition politics like a poisonous, hereditary disease. The success of the NP, its triumph, its progress, its continual renewal, is due to the fact that its programme of principles rests upon a fundamentally Christian basis. Our leader summarized it briefly as follows on 10 April last year in Stellenbosch—

Therefore, there are actually three main principles that emanate from this basis.

The first is the principle of South Africa first. This includes: Sovereign independence in 1926, our own flag, our own national anthem and finally, the declaration of a Republic in 1961. The NP strove for this. In contrast to this, the predecessors of today’s opposition parties, as well as some hon. members of today’s opposition parties, fought it tooth and nail.

The second main point of the NP’s fundamental principle rests upon the basis of the recognition of every nations’ identity and the right to self-determination. Since its inception the NP has fought for the identity and the right to self-determination of the Afrikaner and of the Englishman, and later of the independent Black nations, as well as of the Coloureds and Indians. In contrast to this, we find that the opposition parties did not do this. It is actually an undeniable fact in South African politics that if one is not loyal to the identity of one’s own nation, one cannot understand the identity of another nation, its strivings and its ideals.

In this regard, Geni. Hertzog made this interesting statement 60 years ago, on 13 October 1921, in Bloemfontein, on the occasion of the congress of The Free State NP, which applies to that era, which applies today too, and will do so tomorrow as well, because the NP Government does not have confusing principles, but clear principles. He put it as follows—

This truth still applies today and it is still an integral part of the policy of the NP, but what was the attitude of the Opposition parties towards this fundamental principle? In 1961 the Opposition parties opposed the right to self-determination of the White, the Afrikaner and the Englishman. They did the same with the Transkei and with the other two homelands after that. But in actual fact the policy of the official Opposition goes further than that. In their policy, they actually bear the seed for the destruction of the principle of the right to self-determination of every nation in South Africa. I want to support this with a quotation from the first official announcement of the new Prog policy in this House on 5 February 1979. Their then leader said at the time (Hansard, 5 February 1979, col. 45)—

They know just as well as we do that that Constitution is not the worth the paper on which it is written. In other words, this policy statement of the PFP incorporates all their pet liberal ideas, viz. full communal decision making, power sharing, “one man, one vote”, political integration and a model of consociation. What is the result? It means heading for a Black dictatorship, friction, chaos and a destruction of the other minority groups and nations. In brief, the new PFP policy is simply a continuation, in fact the bearer of the liberal direction of integration in South Africa which has been adhered to from the earliest times by a handful of wealthy men, like the hon. members on the other side, a handful of clergymen, like Dr. Philip, Van der Kemp and the hon. member for Pinelands.

You do not really believe that.

In addition a handful of vagabond Afrikaners, like Dr. Jan Hofmeyer, Dr. Jan Steytler and Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

What about Kowie? [Interjections.]

What is the third chief characteristic of the NP’s foundation tion of principles? This is that it has been based upon the principle of justice. If one tests the NP’s task of governing according to what has happened over the past few days, then one must come to the conclusion that the NP reacts in the interest of all, of all interest groups, viz. the farmer, the teacher, the poor man, the middleman and the worker, can all feel that they belong in the NP.

And the HNP.

In other words, the NP is not a worker’s party like the old Labour Party was. The NP is not racist party like the HNP. It is not simply a Natal party like the NRP. Nor is it simply a rich man’s party in rich suburban areas, like the Progs are, but it is a party that reacts in the interests of everyone and in the interest of all nations. I want to support this with regard to one Prime Minister of the NP who has been represented in the wrong context in recent times, particularly by the leftist groups. This Prime Minister, Adv. Strijdom, said the following in this House on 8 July 1958—he died a few weeks after that—(Hansard, 8 July 1958, col. 44)—

I repeat “at the same time to allow justice to be done to the non-Whites”. The NP’s policy is not liberal, humanist or racist, but is based on Christian justice.

In conclusion I want to say that the Opposition has failed and will continue to fail if they do not change their basic premises. Therefore, as far as the future is concerned, the Opposition parties will continue to play a minor role and will actually disappear from politics in South Africa unless they make a radical change in their basic principles.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say, on the occasion of my first speech in this House, that it is an honour and a privilege for me to be able to participate in the decision-making process of this country and its people.

The Schweizer-Reneke constituency has been represented by several persons in this House in the past, and I wish to pay tribute to them this evening. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Mr. Hennie van der Walt, who is still sitting in this House as a nominated member. I want to thank him for the fine example he set me.

Rising from this green chair a few moments ago, I felt rather lonely, almost like an elderly gentleman who, I am told, also had to make a maiden speech in this House. His wife helped him to write out his speech properly, and the day he had to make the speech, she was sitting on the gallery, watching him. Half-way through his speech he got stuck completely. He fumbled with his papers and after a while he looked up and said, “Never mind, dear, I shall manage.” I do not have anyone to support me yet, but I think I shall manage too.

As a newcomer, I should like to take this opportunity of discussing a matter which is very close to my heart and which I feel very strongly about, and that is the depopulation of the rural areas. I am a country boy myself, from the Western Transvaal, and that whole area, just like other parts of the country, is being depopulated completely. It appears from the 1980 census that in Transvaal, the number of Whites has declined in 196 districts, while there has been an increase in only 120 districts. In the Cape Province, too, the number of Whites has declined in 89 districts, and in the Orange Free State this has happened in 38 districts. The PWV area and the South-Western Cape have absorbed more than 53% of the shift in the population, on less than 2% of the land area.

The figures also show that in 1970, South Africa had an urban population of 3,2 million. This figure had risen to 3,9 million by 1980. Today there are 493 000 Whites living in the rural areas. Percentage-wise, this means that 88,9% of the Whites are today concentrated in urban areas, while 11,1% are living in the rural areas. This figure of 11,1% includes the number of farmers in agriculture today.

According to the report of the Jacobs Committee, 93 000 farmers were actively involved in agriculture in 1968. By 1978, this number had dropped to 72 000. I venture to predict that the number will decline further to 60 000 in 1988. Several reasons can be advanced for this, and many farmers in this House know that the agricultural industry is struggling because of poor, scattered and unreliable rainfall, hailstorms, plagues and so forth.

Apart from these physical-biological circumstances which are complicating agricultural production, the main reason why the rural areas are being depopulated and people are leaving their farms is an economic one. Farmers are finding it more and more difficult to adapt their production systems to economic demands and to the technological-scientific revolution in agriculture, which makes high demands on investment and management.

The right which existed in the past to divide farms into uneconomic units has had far-reaching economic, biological and sociological implications, and is probably one of the major causes of rural poverty and depopulation today.

Rising production costs have become the farmer’s biggest enemy, and I suggest that the small farmer specifically should be considered. A lot has been said against the small farmer in the past, but in my opinion, we cannot afford to lose another one of these farmers, because they have already withstood an economic sifting process.

As a further reason for the depopulation of the rural areas, I want to allege that among many wealthy city-dwellers it has virtually become a status symbol to own a farm, and it is logical that this phenomenon will have an effect on the White rural population. The question which arises is simply whether the time has not come to compel these people to have the farms occupied by Whites. Over the past few decades, economic development has stimulated a great demand for skilled and semiskilled White workers, especially in industry and in the service sector, and agriculture finds it difficult in many respects to compete with this wider choice of gainful employment.

Experts believe that when an area is so rapidly depopulated, the people in the area lose their self-respect and young people then doubt whether they themselves should settle in such an area. The drop in the farm population has also led to a large-scale decline in the number of Whites in many rural towns. Compared with the increasing attraction of bigger urban areas, the social attractiveness or viability of the rural areas has suffered.

I have mentioned a few reasons for the depopulation, and this brings me to certain conclusions. The migration of the Whites to the cities has to a large extent led to a loss of certain conservative characteristics, such as diligence, religious feeling, thrift, perseverance, a strongly developed spirit of freedom, and patriotism, qualities which are nurtured especially in the rural areas. In the light of the specific population composition of South Africa, it would be wrong to measure the contribution of the farming population in economic terms only. It is my considered opinion that if the White Christian civilization is to survive, an economically independent farming community, with strength of character and a sense of vocation, should be the ideal we should strive to realize every day.

Like a very good doctor who has diagnosed an illness, I also want to prescribe a remedy which will cure the disease. Therefore I wish to conclude my short speech tonight with a few recommendations which, as a young man, I wish to put forward as a means of meeting this problem. I request an in-depth investigation of agriculture in South Africa, for in the future agriculture is going to play a very important role in solving the problem of the over-concentration of people in our cities. I request that the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee, most of which have been accepted, be implemented constructively every day. I would also suggest that we make industrial decentralization much more attractive and that the establishment of industries in metropolitan areas be made more and more difficult, so that our decentralization programme may succeed. We should also consider extending the decentralization benefits which exist for many industrialists in the rural areas to our farmers as well.

This brings me to a further point I wish to suggest as a possible solution. We must investigate State land which is at present being reserved, for dam basin areas, for example. There is other land as well which is being reserved for State purposes. In South Africa today, 222 000 ha has been set aside for dam basin areas. We shall have to look at these areas and perhaps to plough them back into agriculture so that young farmers may be settled there.

Now I come to my last proposal but one. If we could provide the rural areas with more electricity, it would do much to enable us to keep many farms occupied. I also propose that more funds be made available to co-operatives so that more research may be conducted and more extension services may be provided in agriculture. Financial guidance by co-operatives will play an increasingly important role in the future.

I conclude by appealing for an in-depth investigation of the position of the rural areas, and I request the creation of an inter-departmental committee which will exert itself on as many levels as possible to counteract the depopulation of the rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke on his maiden speech here tonight. He has made a sincere plea to the House on a subject which is obviously of great importance to all of us. He researched his subject well and I am sure he will have a successful career in the House.

Before going any further, I should like to react briefly to what Chief Minister Sebe of Ciskei is alleged to have written to a Commissioner-General about a trip undertaken by certain members of the House to parts of Ciskei, including those in my own constituency. We, as parliamentarians, regard it as our duty to familiarize ourselves with conditions prevailing in those parts of South Africa where there are problems. An amount of R130,75 million appears on the Estimate of Expenditure in the budget this year and we are entitled to see the territory where at least some of this money is to be spent. We reject the extravagant, and defamatory claims made by Mr. Sebe and we would like to place on record that as long as Ciskei remains a part of sovereign South Africa, we are not answerable to Mr. Sebe for our actions regarding this area. [Interjections.]

I wish to raise a question regarding the budget. According to the budget, an amount of R67 million has been set aside … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to you for a fair hearing, please?

Order!

According to the budget, an amount of R67 million has been set aside for the purchase of White-owned farm land. This amount is R6 million less than the amount budgeted for last year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he and the Government are serious when they talk about the meaningful consolidation of the homelands. The hon. the Prime Minister has often stated his belief that the future of this country depends upon the meaningful consolidation of the homelands. He has even gone out of his way to define what he means by “meaningful consoli dation”. Speaking at Kuruman last year, the hon. the Prime Minister said—

No one on this side of the House would argue with the hon. the Prime Minister about this definition. The important point is that the hon. the Prime Minister has made a commitment to meaningful consolidation. This is the foundation stone on which his party’s policy rests. If, for whatever reason, it becomes apparent that meaningful consolidation is not practicable and that homelands are destined to remain “lappies” and “stukkies” of land, we are being asked to support a policy which is nothing more than pie in the sky, an impossible dream. I believe that the budget laid before us by the hon. the Minister of Finance is the clearest admission that I have yet heard since my involvement in politics that the policy of apartheid is nothing more than an impossible dream. I am, of course, referring to the cost of implementing the policy of meaningful geographic consolidation. I do not, however, want to use my own figures or those of opponents of the Government. I shall use the figures supplied by Government spokesmen themselves.

The chairman of the Consolidation Commission, the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, has given us some estimates of what geographic consolidation is going to cost. I have the highest regard for the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, and for his abilities. I have no reason whatever to doubt the validity of his estimates; in fact, if he has erred at all, it is on the side of conservatism. According to the hon. member, the pursuance of meaningful, geographic consolidation will cost us some R6 000 million over the next ten years. The hon. member is of the opinion that it cannot be done and we in these benches agree with him. The hon. the Minister of Finance, apparently, also agrees with him, because he has budgeted for only 1,1% of this amount to be spent during the next year. At this rate it is going to take the best part of a century to consolidate the Black homelands geographically in a meaningful way. I sympathize with the dilemma in which the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, now finds himself. He has in good faith entered into agreements with certain Black leaders on behalf of the Government. I want to quote from Hansard of 29 January, 1981, col. 374-375—

We see, therefore, that the total sum that has been allocated in this budget for national consolidation—R67 million—is less than will be required to consolidate only one homeland during the next year if the Government is going to keep its word. These are not my figures, Sir. As I have said, these are the figures of Government spokesmen themselves. So what is it to be, Sir? Is it going to be an amount of R6 000 million, a meaningful consolidation, or is it going to be one-hundredth of that amount each year in an attempt to tie together “lappies” and “stukkies” of land?

In the meantime, what is to become of the White farmer? These people have had the shadow of consolidation fall over their farms. What is the result? They are living in some kind of Umbo; they are neither in the homeland nor out of it; they are neither of one nor of the other. They cannot sell their farms because nobody is interested in buying them, and neither can they put their hearts and souls into working their farms as though there were a future for them because there is no future for them. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that these farmers would not be found wanting if they were called upon to make a sacrifice for the country. They have done this before. If this is to be the case, what will they be called upon to sacrifice? They will be called upon to sacrifice a lifetime’s work of sweat and toil and tears but if this is to mean that their children can live peacefully in a safe and secure South Africa they will do it and they will do it gladly. However, what do we hear? We hear the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, say the following (Hansard, 29 January 1981, col. 376)—

that is, spent R6 000 million—

Why, then, all the heartache, the sacrifice, the last backward look at a place that has been one’s home and that of one’s family for generations in many instances? And this for a policy that does not solve a thing and which, in the words of a Government spokesman, is “not the answer”.

There is one further aspect in regard to the consolidation of the homelands with which I should like to deal. On Tuesday morning I heard a statement made which I endorse fully, and I quote—

What is remarkable about this statement is not its content, but the fact that it was made on the SABC programme entitled “Editorial Comment”. Here we have a tacit admission by the propaganda arm of the NP that the Blacks are on the move, not towards the Black homelands but towards the metropolitan centres that offer hope of employment. To accept the rising tide of urbanization is one thing but if we do not accept the fact that a rising tide of political aspirations will accompany those Blacks to the cities then we delude ourselves. We are deluding ourselves by providing for political accommodation in the homelands only, by providing political institutions in parts of the country on which 70% of this country’s population have turned their backs. [Interjections.] There is no more reason to believe that a second or third generation Black man, living in Guguletu or New Brighton would be satisfied with the franchise of the homeland political system than I, as a South African of English descent, would be satisfied with a vote in England. [Interjections.] Mrs. Thatcher’s laws do not interest me because they do not affect me. The essence of democracy demands that citizens of a country should have the right to hold to account those in Government who make the laws that affect them in everyday life in their country. As long as this Government refuses to accept that fact, we shall continue to live in a country in which long-term peace and stability will remain an unattainable dream.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany started his speech by saying that Chief Sebe is alleged to have made certain statements. I want to ask him whether he does not believe that Chief Sebe made that statement which was quoted by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. [Interjections.] Does he or does he not believe that Chief Sebe made the statement that was quoted by the hon. the Minister this afternoon?

Ask Piet!

Whose word is he calling into question, that of the hon. the Minister or that of Chief Sebe, who is the leader of a large group of people in South Africa? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Albany is being derogatory about a homeland leader who has represented South Africa overseas on many occasions, a leader who has; in fact, done more for South Africa in West Germany than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done. [Interjections.] It is only common courtesy and common decency, when one enters a leader’s homeland, to consult with the leader of that homeland. One informs him that one will be coming. I am sure that if they had consulted with Chief Sebe he would have made facilities available to them that would otherwise not have been available to them. I want to know from that hon. member why he wants to undermine the status of the man like Chief Sebe. [Interjections.] Chief Sebe is a man who wants peaceful solutions in South Africa. That is why, if hon. members in this House want peaceful solutions in South Africa, they should acknowledge a man like Chief Sebe and consult with him when he offers consultation. [Interjections.]

In The Argus of 13 August 1981 we saw that the Director S.A. Consumer Council and the local Chambers of Commerce and Industry all approved of the budget.

*Mr. Speaker, it is only the Opposition who in their loneliness, are against this budget. The economy of South Africa is sound and the hon. the Minister introduced an excellent budget under very difficult circumstances. Unemployment and inflation are phenomena in the major Western countries, and are so bad in Africa that in 1975, 63 000 000 people were unemployed or did not have adequate work. The hon. the Minister and his officials have over the years ensured controlled growth to such an extent that South Africa could serve as an example for most other countries.

South Africa has a very important task to perform in Africa. We have created the infrastructure with which we can help other people who are willing to co-operate with us. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville stated that he was a champion of a stable economy and that the economy had to be strong enough to look after all our people properly. There is nothing wrong with that idea expressed by the hon. member. But then the hon. member must see to it that his colleagues do their share, too. The PFP has to accept responsibility for the conduct of its senior members who, with their utterances, do not promote orderly and stable government, and thus harm the economy. I want to begin by referring to the hon. member for Pinelands. He is a former head of the Methodist Church in South Africa and he knows what words mean. The hon. member is, or was, chairman of the federal council of the PFP. He knows that it is everyone’s responsibility not to stir up racial hatred in South Africa. He also knows that political stability and law and order are prerequisites for peace and tranquillity and economic progress.

The hon. member for Pinelands is responsible for a report which appeared in the Evening Post, dated 8 August 1981, a report which includes the most irresponsible utterances which an hon. member of this House could possibly utter. The report is an encouragement to people not to maintain law and order in this country. This report is a disgrace and impugns the person of the hon. the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet in a way unprecedented in South Africa. I should have liked to avoid quoting from this report, but it has already been published. If other hon. members of the PFP do not reject this report, it means that they condone it.

†I should like now to quote an extract from this article which appeared in the Evening Post of 8 August and was compiled by the hon. member for Pinelands—

That is absolutely true.

I quote further—

That is absolutely true.

All right, let us hear the hon. member say that the following is also absolutely true—

Is that true? I read further—

I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston whether he agrees with that. Does he agree that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should be detained or banned or both? [Interjections.]

Now they are as quiet as mice.

Does the hon. member for Johannesburg North say he is in favour of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet being banned or detained? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition notice that I should like the hon. member for Pinelands to be here. I notice that he was here a little earlier but he left very timeously.

How can the PFP support this article and at the same time say they stand for economic or political stability? This Press report is a licence to perform criminal acts and undermine the authority of the State. It is the most scandalous and disgraceful article a politician can write. This article appeals to the worst in people. I should like to challenge the hon. member for Pinelands to repeat in the House the statements appearing in the article. It is the sort of article that discourages investors from investing in South Africa. It is this sort of article that can encourage the exploding of bombs in the city centres of South Africa. This article is divisive and must offend every law-abiding citizen in this country. It offends one’s sense of decency, is completely without foundation and is completely untrue.

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

I do not have time to answer questions. Political stability is an important component of economic stability. Law and order are vital for economic growth. Certain elements of the PFP and their Press have tried to outdo themselves in breaking down instead of building up. Some of them are not contributing towards a climate of stability. There are certain elements within the PFP and their Press that are not assisting in creating an investment climate in South Africa. We have a heterogeneous population. What must these people think when a newspaper publishes a damaging allegation by an hon. member of Parliament such as that made by the hon. member for Pinelands? In that particular article people are encouraged to upset the stability of the country. It calls for people to show disrespect where they should show respect. It adds a cloak of respectability to the elements of society that are against peace and stability. It encourages those who do not want law and order in the country. It encourages those people who want unrest in South Africa.

Hon. members of the PFP are now trying to tell the Government what to do in every respect. According to the Financial Mail the PFP has spent almost two years brooding and has not yet been able to produce a detailed economic policy to fit its prospects for South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville, who is chairman of the commission, told the Financial Mail, in November 1980, that it was only a matter of a few weeks before he would submit his report to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Approximately eight months later, in July 1981, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had still not received that report from the hon. member for Yeoville.

He has the right to know, Harry. [Interjections.]

The public relations officer of the PFP … [Interjections.] I shall answer the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] It is in the Financial Mail of July 1981. [Interjections.] The public relations officer of the PFP, Mr. Peter Soal, admits that there is a clear division in the party between socialists and supporters of the free enterprise system. The hon. member for Yeoville is very hardworking and it is impossible to believe that under his chairmanship they have been unable to produce an economic policy, even after two years. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville—as they are now formulating their economic policy—that he should not worry. He can simply leave matters in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He will run things satisfactorily. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville received a news headline in the Eastern Province Herald on 31 July 1981. It reads: “Schwarz knocks reasons for bread price rise.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was also given a newspaper headline by The Argus on 30 July 1981. It reads: “Bread price rise could worsen S.A. tension.” In this particular newspaper article the hon. the Leader of the Opposition warns that the bread price rise could have serious implications. I quote—

He then went on to say—

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the bread price was increased as a matter of necessity and not because anybody wanted to make life more difficult for anyone else. Because of the various cost increases it would have meant that the subsidy would have had to be increased to R233 million a year if the bread price had not been increased. The State subsidy for the financial year 1980-’81 was R162 million and, in the light of the demands on the Treasury and the much more difficult financial situation, it was not possible to pay the additional R71 million by way of a subsidy. One would have hoped that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Press and the hon. member for Yeoville would not have made cheap politics out of this very serious situation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his statement, says one cannot compare the situation in South Africa with that in other countries and that the majority of people in this country compare the cost of living with their real income. In terms of the promise of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I shall not compare our situation with that in, e.g., the USA, England or France, where the bread price is two or three times as high as it is in South Africa. What about Zambia, however, or Zimbabwe, Zaire and Malawi? The real income of people in those countries cannot be any higher than that of our people. I should think it would be considerably less. In South Africa a loaf of brown bread costs 28 cents. Let us look at how this price compares with the price in some other African countries. In Zambia brown bread is not sold. The price of a loaf of white bread in that country is 60 cents. In Zimbabwe brown bread costs 34 cents a loaf, in Zaire R1,70, and in Malawi 32 cents, without any fixed weight. It is thus clear that our brown bread is still the cheapest. The PFP, however, is not interested in telling South Africa the facts. The PFP merely uses the bread situation in order to create misery and division and is not interested in assisting the situation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes a further shocking statement in regard to bread. He says—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is obviously saying to the Black, Coloured and Indian people that if they had taken part in the election the increase in the price of bread would not have taken place or would have taken place but would have been less. Whatever the hon. the Leader of the Opposition meant or did not mean, such words can sow the seeds of serious trouble in this land. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also implies that because the Government is White, the other people in South Africa cannot expect fair decisions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the non-participation of the majority in the election had nothing whatsoever to do with the practical decision to increase the price of bread. Why should the hon. the Leader of the Opposition create difficulties and ill-feeling among the various race groups when there is no need to do so? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the same statement, said that he found it cynical that the bread price increase had been announced on the day of the royal wedding because, he said, it was as if that event could somehow draw attention away from the severe impact the increase would have on the family budgets of the majority of people. What an absolutely scandalous statement! It is totally devoid of truth. What a terrible impression he creates with that statement, both in and outside South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville, some 12 days before the budget—according to the Herald of 31 July 1981—wanted the hon. the Minister of Finance to make public immediately whether or not general sales tax would be increased thereby ending speculation. What a nonsensical request! According to the report, it was speculated that GST would go up to between 5% and 6%. It is totally ridiculous to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement 12 days before the budget. This speculation could have been-avoided if the Prog press had not published such speculation and if it had not been underlined by the PFP. This is the sort of sensationalism the PFP seeks so as to cause poor people unnecessary concern. The hon. the Minister’s confidence and faith in the medium-term and long-term price of gold has been vindicated in the past and will be vindicated in the future. There has never been a substitute for gold, and it is only a matter of time before the price adjusts itself.

With regard to the increase in defence expenditure, I thought that there was a measure of agreement between the Government and certain elements of the Opposition. However, if one looks at The Cape Times of 13 August, one sees that the leader article refers to the increase in defence expenditure as representing “a siege budget”, and they add that this, in part at least, is the price that has to be paid for apartheid. I had hoped that every member of the Opposition would have totally rejected those remarks that are completely devoid of truth. The remarks show hostility, not towards the NP but towards the people of South Africa. It is common cause that experts assess our defence requirements. In the light of Soviet and Cuban expansionism in this region and in view of the disorders in many parts of the world, the Government has to ensure the best possible defence for South Africa. Included in this are the best possible armaments and the best possible training for our people. There are numerous factors that I do not have the time to outline. South Africans who have the interests of their country at heart are not going to oppose much-needed and much-required defence expenditure. The remarks made by The Cape Times, which I mentioned earlier, do not show a hostile attitude towards the NP but a hostile attitude towards South Africa. This defence expenditure is not for a political party but is a safeguard for a country and all its people. The Cape Times, of course, has no responsibility for the defence of South Africa, and it is also very much aware of how fleet-footed the Argus group was in Zimbabwe when Prime Minister Mugabe took over.

I should like to deal with one other matter and that is the building society movement. The hon. the Minister has appointed a commission to investigate the building society movement and I should like to make certain submissions to him that he may wish to consider or place before the commission. Basically the building societies obtain fixed investments, as he knows, for one or two years or for a slightly longer period, and they then lend money out for 20 or 25 years. One finds that invariably the bonds are, for various reasons, cancelled over a much shorter period. This means that the building societies are borrowing short and lending long. It is therefore essential that the position of the building society movement in South Africa must be stabilized. The housing needs of a nation cannot be borne by the Government alone. In fact, there are institutions such as pension funds and insurers sitting on enormous amounts of money for investment. It must be made attractive for these institutions to invest some of their funds in housing. The building societies must give preference to building new houses and new blocks of flats. Existing houses and existing blocks of flats cannot be given the same preference. The reason for this is simple, namely the more units we build the better our chances to accommodate all our people and eradicate the backlog. The building of new units will have a beneficial effect on our economy and there will also be a ripple effect on the building and allied industries. One possible solution would be to float a loan stock issue. The Government could consider giving building societies permission to issue a loan stock issue which would rank as a prescribed investment and could be supported by all institutions. Naturally, the issue of loan stock would have to have a variable interest rate which would alter with the market rates. The societies’ issue could be pitched slightly higher than, say, the Escom issue and could be variable twice a year.

According to information furnished by the building society movement, bonds held by them as at 30 June 1981 totalled R10 493 million. One must think in terms of converting this R10½ billion into liquidity. If we could convert this money into liquidity, it could be relent for housing.

If one looks at the American system, one finds that they have a secondary market for mortgage associations and corporations which has been established in order to assist in the provision of housing and the purchasing of mortgage bonds. If the South African Government through, say, the agency of the Department of Community Development, could guarantee some of these instruments and so constitute an approved investment for the purposes of the Pension Funds Act and the Insurance Act, then one could create a new source of investment.

The instruments made available to the secondary market would be based on mortgages that are conservatively negotiated by the building societies. Because of State or private insurance guarantees, these offer undoubted security and it would assist in mobilizing all our resources towards eliminating the housing backlog. The secondary market would provide an attraction for foreign investors who may wish to assist in the provision of housing for other groups in South Africa.

In conclusion I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that his department has engendered confidence. There can be no doubt that they have made and will make an impact on the South African economy. All of us on this side of the House will support the Budget.