Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all hon. members of this House I want to tell you that it gives us great pleasure to see you back in the House this morning.

Hear, hear!

I should like to thank all hon. members for their interest during my indisposition. I greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I move, for the hon. the Prime Minister—

1. (1) Mr. Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members;
3. (3) Mr. Speaker may appoint and discharge members of Select Committees; and
4. (4) Mr. Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees.

Agreed to.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister dealt with a variety of economic matters, and I should like to touch briefly on some of them. Firstly, I should like to deal with the continuous high rate of inflation. In this regard the hon. the Minister said—

In other words, there is a tendency towards a reduction in the inflation rate, but there are other indications in the economy that in fact tend to indicate that the problem of inflation is far from being solved. On the contrary, it is clear that there are very serious problems that still have to be faced. Let us take as an example the announcement just made by Escom. This will not only have a direct and indirect inflationary effect, but the fact that it was made at this time is an even more important feature because there is no doubt that it heightens inflationary expectations. The problem that this brings about is, in fact, an extremely serious one and requires the hon. the Minister’s attention at the earliest opportunity.

Secondly, it is also clear that the attack that the hon. the Minister is making on inflation is largely through monetary control. The figures quoted by him are attractive, but there are other ways of fighting inflation and other aspects that need to be dealt with. In particular, there seems to be no real action in regard to the cost aspect of inflation. We really cannot allow continued inactivity in dealing with the cost aspects of inflation. In this regard I have, on a number of occasions—even repeatedly during this session—drawn attention to the fact that there is inadequate action being taken by the Government to deal with the exploitation of the consumer. That is an aspect I think the Government has neglected, and I believe that urgent action must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity.

The hon. the Minister also dealt with the question of the current account of the balance of payments. In this connection there are, of course, a number of imponderables. The indications in regard to the gold price are, I think, that in the absence of any major international political instability—and also bearing in mind that there are possible Russian sales in the offing—substantial increases are unlikely in the short term. Let me say immediately, however, that I hope I am wrong. Everybody appears to be looking to the middle of 1982 for the gold price perhaps to show some meaningful increase. If that is so it does, of course, have some very serious implications for the current account of the balance of payments.

Secondly, the state of the economies of our major trading partners indicates that there will be a low level of demand in the commodity market, certainly for another six to 12 months, and that also has serious implications for us. Even more important, however, is the fact that whilst those factors are exercising a negative influence on the current account, continued import demands are also having an adverse affect, and those import demands continue to be very substantial. In addition we have a relatively weak rand as against the dollar in comparison with the position that prevailed some 12 months ago. Whilst this does solve some problems in regard to the current account of the balance of payments it does, in itself, create other problems relating to inflation. What is fairly clear is that we are going to need substantial inflows of foreign capital to deal with the present current account situation. That being so, if it is to be our policy to have substantial inflows from trade financing, that would indicate that we are going to have continually high interest rates in South Africa in the short term, certainly higher interest rates than those prevailing in the United States. It also means that the rand is going to be at a discount to the dollar in the forward exchange market.

Higher than the United States?

I think that one is going to have interest rates here, in the short term, which may be higher than those in the United States, and that is what is worrying me. That is why I should like the hon. the Minister to react to my statement and to deal with this matter in greater detail.

This brings me to the question of economic growth. In that connection the hon. the Minister said the following—

No one really has any quarrel with that, but that brings us to the question of how certain monetary policies in South Africa are going to be applied and how the fiscal policy is going to be applied. The hon. the Minister says—

Let me say immediately that the problem of unemployment in South Africa is one of our major problems. I would certainly not like to see us accepting increased unemployment with any degree of equanimity. On the contrary, our policy should be directed, as far as possible, at insuring that unemployment in politically highly volatile sectors is kept to an absolute minimum.

This brings me to the question of discipline in public spending. The issue here is: Is the Government able to fulfil the functions required of it, unless it can satisfy some of the demands, aspirations and hopes created in this regard? A mass of statistics has been presented here. Firstly, in regard to the population growth it has been said that we will have a population of approximately 48 million people by the year 2000. The actual statistics, of course, to some extent depends on what will happen to the Government’s policy regarding independent States, but the reality is that South Africa is one entity. Secondly, there is the increasing number of workseekers. Thirdly, there is the housing needs, where eminent authorities are talking about R2 billion being needed every year for 20 years merely to deal with the problem in the urban areas, let alone in the rural areas. We have had the De Lange report in regard to the educational needs. We have had lots of statistics in regard to rural poverty and the existence of the Third World and industrialized world economy side by side. We also have the situation of increasing urbanization. Whatever the Government’s attitude may be, however, the reality is that the one-third of the Black population which is urbanized at present will in 20 years time probably amount to about 50% of the population.

Therefore there are tremendous demands which have to be dealt with somehow. There are aspirations which need to be satisfied if the stability of South Africa is to be ensured. The question which we have to ask, and ask firstly of the Government, is whether it is prepared to pay the costs of ensuring stability in South Africa, whether it is prepared to provide the money in order to bring about that stability and, secondly, whether South Africans are prepared to pay the cost of ensuring stability by seeing to it that there are services of an equal nature for all people in South Africa. To remove discrimination in regard to human rights requires social and political adjustments but actually involves virtually no economic price. On the contrary, it can have side-effects of economic benefit. However, to remove discrimination in exchequer allocations, has very meaningful financial implications and the question is that if this is a necessity for long-term stability, we need to deal with it and deal with it effectively, and we need to take the public into our confidence. We must tell the electorate what is actually needed to bring about stability in South Africa. The question which must be posed to the Government specifically today is whether it is prepared to take what may be in the short-term unpopular though necessary action and whether it is prepared to take that action in the face of exploitation of these issues from the right, which will undoubtedly take place. There should be a campaign in South Africa to make South Africans aware of the threats which exist to their future safety so that at least the White electorate will become aware of the real position in South Africa and of the fact that it is necessary to make some financial sacrifices today if one wishes to secure oneself for tomorrow. The hon. the Minister will also have to answer the question concerning what methods of financing he intends using. It is obvious that if one has education, one will have to have training thereafter in order to get greater productivity. If one has greater productivity, one can finance increased income and then there will be greater demand. After a while there will be a levelling out of the whole picture in regard to paying for the services because people will be more productive. In the meantime, however, we will have to find more methods of raising finance. In this regard I ask the hon. the Minister to react to some of the statements which were made in what I regard to be an extremely important speech made by the Secretary of Finance on 8 August 1981, as to how the hon. the Minister sees the picture in regard to how the money is going to be raised to deal with this matter. How, for example, is the hon. the Minister going to deal with the financial implications of the De Lange report? What will his reaction be to indirect taxation in the future? One of the things which troubles me is the great ease with which large sums of money can be raised in South Africa by only a relatively small percentage increase in the GST. An increase of 1% amounts in fact to an increase of 25%. In reality there is already talk that the retrogressive effect of this taxation only becomes apparent at a level of about 10%. I think the hon. the Minister needs to tell us how he in fact intends to finance these demands that are going to be made.

Then there is the issue that was raised by the Secretary for Finance in regard to the “Belasting op bates of rykdom”, i.e. how one is going to tax riches or wealth in South Africa. He qualified it by saying that he was referring to occasions when there are transfers of wealth and assets in the country. What is the hon. the Minister’s attitude to this issue? I think we are entitled to know whether that is what he in fact intends doing, whether rather than dealing with the demands of some of his colleagues for a reduction in estate duty, he may not have in mind increasing it. The question of capital gains should be faced squarely and not avoided. On all of these things we need answers from the hon. the Minister so that we shall know where we are going. Then there is the issue which is perhaps the crunch issue and which was also raised there, viz. whether in fact it is the policy of the Government that social services in respect of Whites should in fact mark time for a while while the others catch up. That matter was raised and the question is what the Government intends doing in this regard and what its attitude to this is.

In this regard there is the question of consultation with various sections of the private sector. We have been told that there is going to be a further meeting and further consultation with businessmen. There can be no doubt that the co-operation of businessmen is going to be needed and that it is correct that it should be sought. The question must however be put: Co-operation for what purpose? As we see it, co-operation is required for growth, the creation of jobs, fighting inflation, helping with the balance of payments and ensuring stability. All of those have our blessing. Business should however be able to commit itself to these objectives on a non-political basis. What is fundamental is that there should be no endeavour on the part of the Government to get business involved in political ideology. Business should be involved in order to deal with the five issues I have listed.

One matter which I think has to be faced squarely is that businessmen are in fact going to be in the front line when it comes to the problems relating to change in South Africa. Businessmen are going to have to face the issues relating to trade unions. They are going to have to face the issue that there is no parallel political organization and that the power of workers may be used not for economic but for political objectives. The leadership struggles that are going to evolve in the trade union movement may well result in ever increasing promises to workers and demands being made of employers, with the ability of defeated leadership to outbid existing leadership and the formation of unregistered unions being used in order to achieve their objects. The businessmen are going to have to face the demands for increasing living standards in real terms. In that regard they are in the front line. They are also in the main going to be the people who will have to provide the resources to the exchequer to ensure that the services on a non-discriminatory basis which have to be provided will be available. The businessmen are in this regard going to be in the front line for the next 10 to 20 years. They are going to be the front-line fighters in regard to the issue of change. That is why the cooperation of all businessmen on a non-political basis should, I believe, be obtained with regard to the five factors I have enumerated. We should however steer away from any endeavour to get businessmen involved in politically orientated objectives of the present Government.

There is one factor which to my mind is missing from all of this. If, with reference to the private sector, we talk about consulting businessmen, that is fine, but what about the question of consulting with the leaders of the workers of South Africa, consulting with the labour leaders of South Africa? I do not think it is enough simply to meet with businessmen. It is not enough only to meet with representatives of capital and entrepreneurship in South Africa. I believe that the Government should meet on exactly the same footing with the leaders of labour in South Africa and I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance to convene a meeting of the leaders of labour in South Africa in order to discuss and plan with them for the future in exactly the same way as this is being done with the businessmen of South Africa. Eventually there should be a meeting at which all of these people could be present in order to help shape the economic future of South Africa together.

If I may, I should like now to turn to another subject. I want to say specifically that in my view South Africa will have a date with its destiny in 1984. The reason why I say this is that there are a number of matters which are coming to a head at the present moment, many of which I think will come to a head in 1984. I am looking particularly at the changes in government as far as the Western powers are concerned. France already has a socialist prime minister who I think is unlikely to exercise a veto in our favour at the United Nations. As far as Mrs. Thatcher is concerned, whatever anybody’s views may or may not be in respect of her government, the reality of the matter is that her chances of being re-elected are somewhat remote, and in such circumstances we will find a different attitude displayed by a different government in Great Britain.

A Labour Government?

I do not think it will make any difference whether there is a Labour Government or a Social-Democrat Government in Britain in regard to the exercising of a veto at the United Nations. I doubt if one will have a Social Democrat/ Liberal Government exercising a veto at the United Nations on our behalf either. Therefore, I do not think we should have any illusions about that. I think that position must be very clear. The third point is that in so far as the United States are concerned we presently have the Reagan administration. However, history will show how many republican presidents actually serve more than one term of office and, secondly, nobody can guarantee what the administration of the United States will be after the next election there. The interesting fact is, of course, that so much of South Africa’s situation is affected by the change in political power in other countries. In other words, we are affected not only by our own politics domestically but also by the change in the political power and the political structure in other countries. We cannot ignore this fact.

The second matter with which I wish to deal as coming to a head in 1984 is world stability and its effect on South Africa’s internal stability together with the fact that activist minorities are able to intimidate moderate majorities by the use of assassination, terror and violence as a method not only of protest but also of bringing about political change. We in South Africa are not immune from and cannot evade what is happening in the rest of the world in this regard. I do not think we need a better example in regard to how the history of the world may be changed as a result of the assassination of one person in the present circumstances and of which we have recently had an example. We hope, Sir, that the assassination of President Sadat will not change the attitude of the Egyptian Government. However, when assassination is seen as a method of bringing about political change in a country then we have to look at what is happening in the world and at how activist minorities can dominate moderate majorities and in effect impose their will upon people in these circumstances. When we look at this world situation we cannot pretend that more than half of our gross national product is not in fact related to our trade. We are dependent very substantially upon our trade in regard to both imports and exports and I do not believe that our need for overseas trade and foreign capital should be understressed in the present circumstances.

Another issue which I think is fundamental is the question of South West Africa/ Namibia. To my mind there is a right time for the solving of problems and the appeal that I wish to make here is for this problem to be solved before 1984. If it is not solved before 1984 we may well have missed a great opportunity of solving this problem politically to the advantage not only of the people of South West Africa/Namibia but also of South Africa. I also believe that if we do not lay the foundation for a non-discriminatory society within the next few years while the time-table is still to some extent under our control and can be regulated then, by 1984, we may well find ourselves in a different ball game. I believe that we have to bear that fact in mind because while one can control time tables, one is able to deal with it in an orderly and a regulated manner, but the moment one loses control of a time table, one is in a completely different ball game and the thing changes.

The last point that I want to make on this issue is that we have to deal with both political and economic issues at the same time. It does not help if one just talks about constitutions, but does not deal with the economic realities of South Africa at the same time. It does not help one if one deals with the economic situations but does not deal with the political ones at the same time. History has shown that unless one deals with both in an orderly fashion simultaneously and unless the two sets of changes run side by side, one will not avoid the kind of conflict situation which, in fact, we want to avoid in South Africa.

Again I say that this indeed is a situation which is coming to a head and to my mind by 1984, if we have not solved these problems, there will certainly be a turning point in the history of South Africa. That is why I say South Africa has a date with destiny in 1984.

Will you then give up?

I do not ever give up. It is not a question of giving up anything. I should not be misconstrued and the hon. member should not look for things which are not there.

But you are very negative. [Interjections.]

The next point I want to make concerns the question of reform. If one has a proper policy of reform, every move which is made pursuant to a proper policy of reform would be welcomed as a step in the direction which will firstly solve the problems and secondly fulfil aspirations. A proper policy of reform brings that kind of reaction from the affected people, and then, when it brings that kind of reaction, it destroys the arguments of and the support for the revolutionaries because then the people who are affected say reform is working; we can see where it is going and we can see what is happening. If one finds the affected people welcoming each step in a process of reform, then in fact reform has a real chance as against the revolutionaries. That is what we want to see.

What, however, is happening in South Africa at the moment? There was a great impetus for reform. There is no question about it that there was an impetus, but now every single adjustment that is made is hedged in by endeavouring to show on the one side that it is not really a major change and by showing on the other side that it is a major change. One cannot win that way.

The worst of all worlds.

As my hon. leader has just said, in that way we are actually getting the worst of both worlds. That means that we satisfy nobody and we fail in the major purpose of reform.

The reason that I see for this failure on the part of the Government is firstly that it fears the right wing backlash. It is so afraid of that right wing backlash, but I should imagine that after the victory of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism they might get that now out of their system. The second reason why this seems to exist is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the Government to debate the alternative to separate development. What we do not say is that the Government should concede that it is wrong on separate development, but what we are saying is that the Government should at least debate with the people of South Africa the alternative to separate development. There is an alternative to separate development and the Government should debate it on its merits. The Government should debate the whole issue of whether separate development is the answer, on its merits, in South Africa. The Government should not introduce on every occasion an artificial issue of patriotism, an artificial issue of attacking people on the grounds that they want to destroy a society, but the Government should debate on its merits the real alternative.

The third reason is that the Government actually believes that when people vote for it, they vote for the whole package of everything the Government wants to do. The reality is that I do not believe that the Government has a mandate for separate development in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not believe it and if the hon. members opposite doubt it, I challenge them to put it in the form of a referendum to the people in order to test the situation.

The reality is that when there is an election, many people are motivated by many things and people vote on all sorts of different issues. I think that we have to enter an era in South Africa where we test the views of the public on issues. I therefore challenge the Government that on the fundamental issues of South Africa there should be more referenda held so that we can test what the views are because the Government will be surprised how many people do not believe in separate development in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when one studies the hon. member for Yeoville’s speeches over the past number of years in Third Reading debates such as this one, and also in budget debates, it of necessity always brings one to one conclusion, and that is that that hon. member cannot make up his mind whether he wants to be a spokesman on financial issues, or whether he wants to be the Jack of all trades of the Opposition. He makes it impossible to conduct a proper financial and economic policy debate because he always pulls in all the other issues of the day.

With regard to his last remark, I should like to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he should not be so sour about the fact that the governing party, we on this side of the House, have been able, over the past 33 years, to offer the voters of South Africa a package deal giving them the prosperity and the security which they desire. The policies of this side of the House are based on the realities of South Africa. Until such time as the PFP gets closer to the realities of South Africa and translates the realities of South Africa into workable policies, they cannot possibly expect to win the support of the electorate.

I was particularly perturbed by the hon. member for Yeoville’s reference to the envisaged conference between the Prime Minister and the businessmen of South Africa. I was perturbed because the hon. member immediately cast a certain shadow, in advance, over the proceedings of that particular conference. I say that because the very suggestion that the objective of the hon. the Prime Minister with that conference will be to involve businessmen in the political endeavours of the Government is totally counterproductive to the necessary communication between the Government and business people, without which we cannot possibly achieve both economic and political stability in South Africa. That is an absolute fact. I say this particularly in view of the fact that I have here in my hand the Charter of Economic Policy, which the hon. member for Yeoville was involved with as chairman. If ever there has been tangible evidence of the influence of political viewpoints on economics, and vice versa, then this is such a document.

You cannot separate the two.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member admits that you cannot separate politics and economics, why should he create suspicion in the minds of the business people who attend these conferences, that whenever the Prime Minister tries to get their co-operation with a view to stimulating economic development, he has, at the back of his mind, the intention of pursuing a political end? It is a fact that we in South Africa cannot separate political and economic interaction. We cannot separate those objectives. If he now casts this kind of shadow on that conference, I do not think he is acting in the best interests of South Africa, or even in accordance with his own stated economic viewpoints as contained in this particular Charter.

Turning to the question of inflation, I want to start off by quoting from this document, of which that hon. member was the main draftsman. I should like to refer to the paragraph which deals with inflation. I think this is a very important starting point when one comes to debate the question of inflation and other economic issues. He says here: “A major destabilizing factor in any economy is inflation.” And now, sir, listen to this. He says: “To combat this, Government must exercise a high degree of monetary discipline and fiscal control when necessary.” This is the entire foundation of the PFP’s approach to inflation.

Now you are being childish.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this document is not supposed to be a full and detailed explanation of the PFP’s viewpoint. In other paragraphs of this very same document he goes into much more detail. I should like to remind him that this question of inflation is such a deep-rooted problem in the economy of South Africa that by merely again, as he did in the past … Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could pay me the courtesy of listening to my comments. We always pay him that courtesy.

I am not only listening, I am also interjecting.

This problem of inflation is such an important one in the economy of South Africa that it surely warranted a greater degree of attention of this particular commission. Again that hon. member blames inflation solely on the Government. I want to warn him that if he does not cease with that kind of accusation …

Are you going to lock me up?

… and, also in terms of his own charter, address the business community, he is undermining the fundamental trust which there should be in the ability of any Government, be it a NP Government or a PFP Government or any other Government, to solve the problem of inflation. They found a very useful niche, a very useful subject to zero in on their attention for party-political purposes.

I want to make the point that the effects of very few other things in the economy are felt as dramatically by the ordinary man in the street as the effects of inflation. In other words, when you talk about inflation, it relates to the ordinary man. Therefore he listens to you when you talk about inflation. The very suggestion that the Government and the Government alone is responsible for inflation and is responsible for the solution of the problem, undermines the trust and the confidence in government to do so.

It is unscientific to do so.

It is unscientific to begin with. I should like to quote another sentence from this charter of the hon. member.

You are lucky we gave you a copy, otherwise you would not have been able to make a speech.

He said—

That is right. Do you not have a social conscience?

Of course, yes. When in the past has that hon. member or any other member of his party addressed the business community on the question of inflation? [Interjections.]

Please!

They should not deny it. Whenever they talk about inflation in this House they address the Government. Again this morning the same thing happened. Also, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central yesterday with reference to the Escom tariff increases accused the Government of undisciplined spending. I want to say that it is extremely irresponsible on this particular occasion to accuse Escom of undisciplined spending. Why do I say that?

*What are the facts? I have before me a document in which the facts which led to these price increases are spelt out. The facts are as plain as a pikestaff. In the first place, reference is made to the high rate of inflation. According to this document the tariff increase in 1979 was 4,1%. That was when the rate of inflation was 13,1%. In July 1980 the increase in tariffs was 7,3%. At that time the rate of inflation was 16,5%. In January this year the increase in tariffs was 5,5%. The rate of inflation then was 14%. In other words, the increase in Escom tariffs has always been well below the rate of inflation. We must not forget that Escom is also a consumer. Escom’s tariffs are therefore subject to cost increases just like the ordinary consumer. Its labour costs rise and the goods it purchases are also subject to inflation. It must also pay high interest rates, and then there was the break in the power supply from Cabora Bassa, which meant that as an emergency measure Escom had to operate certain outdated power stations with a lower cost benefit. Basically, therefore, Escom also has a cost problem, and the question now is how Escom is to deal with that problem. Must it, as it has done for the past three years, during which the highest tariff increase was 7,3%, whereas the inflation rate was never less than 14%, again absorb the greater part of these costs for the fourth year running? It simply cannot do so, because in terms of legislation its books must balance. It must therefore of necessity raise its tariffs.

This is according to a law of this Parliament. According to law it must do so.

That is correct; it must be done according to law. I concede to the hon. member for Yeoville that it is an inflation factor, but I think in the circumstances it was reasonable. In the circumstances I also feel that the way in which the increase took place was reasonable because it was a differentiated structure of increases. I feel the least we could expect was a little sympathy and scientific objectivity from the hon. members for Yeoville and Port Elizabeth Central regarding the necessity for a tariff increase and the responsible way in which Escom was able to effect it.

I want to say one final word on the question of inflation. A while ago I made the point that this aspect is constantly being blamed on the Government, the hon. member is giving people who at this stage are not involved in politics to the same extent as the Whites and do not have such a long Parliamentary tradition as the Whites—the impression that this Government, and this Government done, is responsible for inflation and is able to do something about inflation. A week ago we were in Germany, and at the moment the German economy is certainly not subject to the so-called ideological expenditure of funds of which the Opposition accuses us. However, the German economy is subject to a—for them—dramatic increase in their rate of inflation. We must not forget that their economy operates on a highly trained labour basis, and also a homogeneous labour basis, because they have a homogeneous community. This is an extremely important factor which one must take into account in South Africa when looking at inflation. Here we again have the problem with the official Opposition that they want to apply a model to the South African economy which does not suit it. They want to apply a Western model to us. However, they must remember that our labour force comes from different cultures where a day’s work is not necessarily regarded in the same light as that in which it is regarded by people from one of the European group of cultures.

I want to turn to another matter touched on by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said: “In 1984 we have a date with destiny”.

†Mr. Speaker, I think we have been having a date with destiny ever since we landed in this part of the world. However, I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville that Governments may change in Europe and elsewhere, but the interests of those countries will not change. The interests of the European countries and of the United States of America in terms of what South Africa can supply will not change. I think it is a very dangerous anticipation on the part of the hon. member to talk about details of what future foreign Governments may do. Things may change dramatically by 1984. Things may change dramatically in terms of fuel supplies and things may change dramatically in terms of mineral supplies as well. The interest which European countries may have in South Africa as a constant and reliable supplier of minerals is not diminishing but increasing.

A second point which is extremely important is that the strategic position of South Africa is becoming increasingly valuable to the rest of the world, and not vice versa. That means that regardless of who governs those countries, the interest that those countries have in continued stability in South Africa is increasing. When we talk about the outside world I think it is necessary that we make a few important observations, particularly as far as hon. members of the official Opposition are concerned. Why do we on this side of the House have a problem communicating with the outside world? Why do we have to battle to find a basis for constructive discussions with other countries? I think the fundamental problem as far as that is concerned is that the perception that those people have of South Africa differs dramatically from the perception that we have of our own country.

You are telling me!

That means that you agree that that is a problem, Brian.

The fact is that we are a multi-national, plural country. We on this side of the House believe that an inter-ethnic political power struggle is potentially so imminent that we shall have to construct our political dispensation in such a way that it will not be possible for any ethnic group to abuse the system and to dominate other people.

The approach of the official Opposition and of the greater part of the outside world is that they want to create an open system. They accept the reality of ethnicity but they want to create an open system in which ethnicity can manifest itself.

*However, as far as the entire continent of Africa is concerned, it is a fact that more blood has flowed in clashes between Black and Black, than in clashes between White and Black. In our political system we must therefore make provision for defusing that conflict potential. When we speak to foreigners what do we find? Among them we encounter the same idealistic view regarding the population composition of South Africa. They urge us to implement a federal system, a unitary system in which ethnicity can blow itself out. They propagate a Bill of Rights, etc., and claim that this will give us the necessary guarantees. This is an extremely simplistic approach, which cannot work with certainty in Africa or elsewhere in the world.

What about the USA?

What about the USA? What nonsense are you talking?

We cannot hold discussions with the USA about this if they do not understand that we are a multinational country in which multinationalism has a political dimension which it does not have in the USA. Ethnicity, “ethnic experience”, in the USA is a matter which differs completely from the ethnic experience in South Africa, for the simple reason that ethnicity in America does not have a political dimension which can manifest itself within that system and result in domination. In addition, the USA is homogeneous as far as over 80% of its population is concerned. In my contact with Americans I have never noticed a cultural difference, an ethnic difference, between a White American and a Black American. There is merely a colour difference.

Will the hon. member for Florida please indicate on what issue, he thinks, Andrew Young is standing in Atlantis for the position of mayor, if it is not a political issue related to colour?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. It is a political issue related to colour. [Interjections.] However, the fact of the matter is that in South Africa a colour problem does in fact exist. In this country colour differences do exist between people, but the colour difference in South Africa also has a cultural dimension. This is the important difference. It is a national dimension, a living cultural and national bond which exists in South Africa. In other words, the hon. member for Yeoville is guilty of acknowledging that racism exists in America. He did this by referring to the question of colour. In South Africa the fact of the matter is that wherever we differentiate with regard to the different nations and different cultural groups, and as it is manifested in a potential political power struggle, we make provision for this in our constitutional proposals. Why do we not have a convenient basis on which we can speak to overseas countries? It is because those hon. members take the easy way out in their contact with the outside world by saying that ethnicity in South Africa is not so important that it need be built into the political structure. That is why we do not have a basis.

So it is all our fault?

I am not saying it is all your fault. However, as a result of their own position and that of the media supporting them, those hon. members have a tremendous influence on the opinion voiced by foreigners regarding the realities of South Africa. I therefore want to tell them today that they must bear a great deal of the blame for the orchestrated campaigns against South Africa on various fronts due solely to the fact that they aid and abet people overseas who have a distorted perception of South Africa. Never in my life, even with all the contact I have had here and overseas, have I heard an hon. member of the Opposition sketch the question of ethnicity in such a way as to come anywhere near the realities of South Africa. That is the truth. They must not derive moral support from the fact that everywhere in the world, for example from research institutes and from other Government spokesmen, they get confirmation of their perception of the realities in South Africa. They must not derive moral support from that. They must feel threatened by it, because the fact of the matter is that a structure which does not make provision in South Africa for the potential power struggle, not only between White and Black, but also among the Black people, bodes no good for South Africa. The apartheid about which such a fuss has been made in the world for the past 30 years, is a different sort of apartheid to that about which a fuss is being made in today’s dispensation. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about this last night. In the implementation of its policy the NP and South Africa, too, have changed drastically over the past 30 years. The apartheid about which a fuss is being made in the world today, lies in the fact that the Whites still have a political position in this country. The fact of the matter is that the outside world expects there to be a Black majority Government here, and do hon. members know what the irony of the matter is? Foreigners see a possibility for the fulfilment of this view of South Africa in the policy of those hon. members. This is also true. They see that their view of South Africa under a Black majority Government can be fulfilled in terms of the policies of those hon. members. I therefore want to tell them that they must not derive moral support from finding favour with foreigners and overseas establishments. They should rather feel threatened, and it is time that in the interests of South Africa they straighten out their perception of the realities of South Africa.

The last statement I want to make concerns change. Who in this country does not know that the manpower legislation was a dramatic change in the country? When one visits overseas countries one asks oneself: Why is there no understanding of this? Why is there not even appreciation for what has happened here, real and substantial change? I think the confusion lies in the fact—and those hon. members help create that confusion—that change in South Africa, as preached and carried out by the NP, is distorted by many people—perhaps honestly, but I think maliciously—so that it must mean a change in principle, and not changes within the parameters of the principles of the NP. Our party’s principles leave ample room to bring about a peaceful dispensation in South Africa. Within our party’s principles every rightful political and economic aspiration of all people in South Africa can find expression.

The more apartheid changes, the more it stays the same.

Within the framework of the principles of this party a confederation of States can be established in Southern Africa which can bring us the peace, prosperity and stability without which Southern Africa can never make the grade.

I believe that the misconception regarding change in South Africa which exists here and overseas and which takes place within these parameters, is the result of the fact that there is misrepresentation and that the target of change is set so high that if one refers to the changed labour dispensation, it is relatively so slight that it becomes insignificant, whereas in South Africa it was a dramatic step forward in the evolution of economic rights to which every person in South Africa is entitled.

To sum up, Sir, I can say that the hon. members opposite owe it to South Africa not to overlook the forces which reside in ethnicity in the political field for the sake of their own political objectives, not to ignore them purposely and adopt standpoints which will not be in the long-term interests of South Africa. Today we must ask them whether it is really in the interests of South Africa for them to join the chorus of people who want to establish a form of Government in South Africa which militates against all forces here and against a safe future for us all. I believe that we on this side of this House have the principles, policy and leadership to steer South Africa, with the co-operation of all well-meaning persons, on the path which will ensure peace, prosperity and stability.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida and I came to this House in the same year, 1974, and I have always looked forward to listening to his contribution to the debates. I listened to him with great care today, and I must say that it was almost sad to hear what he had to say. [Interjections.] It is sad because he in particular knows as well as I do that apartheid is not exportable, that one cannot sell it. Indeed, apartheid is not even going to be sold in this country. The hon. member now suggests that it is our fault, that this small party that was last night described as being totally irrelevant is responsible for all the harm, damage and misconception of apartheid. The harsh truth of the matter is that South Africa in terms of its racial policies is out of step with the rest of the world. [Interjections.]

That demonstrates your misconception …

That is the result of separate development. It is not Whites who are separated, but Black and White, Coloured and White, Indian and White, while we are all the time trying to bind together the two widely divergent cultural White groups. That hon. member knows that very well. He thinks he can fool some people some of the time, but he can never fool the world. They know what is going on in this country, not because we have some secret transmitter, but because it is world news. Every time the Government takes one step forward, again and again there are incidents that are hurtful and of course the world listens and reads about it. The hon. member should know that. All the public relations and marketing in the world by the Government will not sell apartheid to the world. The tragedy is that the Government will never be able to sell it inside South Africa either. That is why we have conflict and confrontation. [Interjections.] I know that hon. member will understand that I cannot discuss this matter in greater detail because I have another subject I want to touch upon.

I do, however, briefly want to mention his comment on the PFP’s economic commission report. He is free to disagree with what we have stated in that report. It is, of course, open to disagreement. We accept the fact that it is not a perfect document. He must give us credit for one thing, however, and that is that ours is the only party—this is my belief—that has started a debate on the economic issues and choices confronting South Africa today. The hon. member for Yeoville is absolutely right when he says that it is all very well to spend all one’s time …

What is the budget about?

We certainly do not have the time to do that in the budget debate. The fact of the matter is that here a debate can start. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville is quite right when he says that we can spend all our time looking at constitutions, or formulating new constitutions, but unless we also deal with the economic situation in South Africa, we shall not make any progress in this country whatsoever. [Interjections.]

I have very little time at my disposal, and I do want to try, to some extent, to respond to the De Lange Commission’s report that has virtually hit us like a bomb-shell. [Interjections.] The De Lange Commission was born on the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister, and it was brought into being as a matter of urgency. It is important for this House—in fact for South Africa in general—to realize that its urgency arose out of the crisis facing education in South Africa. There was a crisis in White education, a crisis specifically related to the teaching profession, although not limited to it. Even more urgent was the dissatisfaction, the grievances, felt and expressed by Blacks, Coloureds and Indians who even went so far as to demonstrate their feelings by way of widespread boycotts. It is in that mileu that the De Lange Commission was born, and I give the hon. the Prime Minister full credit for calling such a commission into being.

One must understand, however, that a very high level of expectation has consequently been created in the context of that report. Even those who have, in the form of boycotts, demonstrated their anger and disillusionment at the present disparity in education between Blacks and Whites, have been prepared to wait and see, hoping for radical reform. It was against this background that the De Lange Commission came into being. The hon. the Prime Minister asked the commission to complete its task in the very short space of 12 months. It is to the commission’s credit that it did so in the space of 13 months, because the scope of the commission’s report is mind-boggling. All concerned in this massive effort must therefore be warmly congratulated on having done a quite remarkable job. The number of people involved, the high calibre of those who participated, the high level of analysis and of the proposals, must surely be a record in South Africa. Never before—despite many other intensive investigations and even on-going investigations—have we had such a far-reaching and mind-blowing report on education. The HSRC must, of course, take a great deal of the credit for this.

Having read a good deal of the report since 6 p.m. yesterday, and since I have on previous occasions listened to Prof. De Lange speaking, it is quite clear to me that the inspiration and genius involved is that of Prof. De Lange himself. This man has a passion for his task and for his profession which is wanning and encouraging. There is no doubt about it that in the same way that “Wiehahn” will always, I suppose, be associated with labour reforms in South Africa, the name “De Lange” is going to be associated with educational reform. He therefore needs to be congratulated warmly, together with so many others who worked with him. I am sure that he, amongst many others, is concerned that the sensitive political issues do not outweigh the far-reaching recommendations concerning education. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that politics has a great deal to do with education in South Africa. Whether we like it or not, that is a reality. Therefore there are, of course, very real political considerations. One of the most important and significant recommendations is the call by the commission that the control of education at a central level should be vested in a single Department of Education under a single Minister. That is one of the major recommendations. Secondly, as far as the programme for the equalization of education is concerned, the report recommends four guidelines, and these are briefly: Firstly, the progressive provision of means which will make it possible for every resident to attain a necessary minimum level of knowledge, ability and values, a matter which will be accorded the highest priority in the programme for the provision of education; secondly, no person shall be denied the use of available educational opportunities on non-educational grounds. This recommendation is very far-reaching in its implications; thirdly, in the provision of facilities such as buildings, equipment, staff and the educational level of the teachers, the principle of equal advantages for each level of education on a non-racial basis will be a priority and, fourthly, where discrepancies which are not related to education do exist in the provision of education, reform in education means that these discrepancies will be eliminated. That is a quite remarkable statement of intent, and we warmly welcome it.

The commission also points to the terrifying discrepancies in the education for various groups as it exists today. This brings me to the next point, viz. that some of the statistics furnished by the report are staggering in their implications. To achieve the objective of one teacher to every 30 pupils—which is the ratio recommended—24 981 Whites, 22 708 Coloured, 6 064 Indian and 245 405 Black teachers will have to be trained by the year 2020. This means that roughly a quarter of a million Black teachers will have to be trained by the year 2020 if the objective of one teacher to every 30 pupils is to be reached. This is a staggering implication.

Vista University.

I shall come back to Vista University, make no mistake. Those hon. members must be suffering in their benches now. Secondly, taking as a criterion Std. 10 and a degree or a diploma, the following percentage of teachers in South Africa are underqualified at the moment: Whites, 3,35%; Indians, 19,7%; Coloureds, 66,14% and in respect of Blacks, the staggering figure of 85%. Over and above that, the commission suggests that the present teachers’ corps is urgently in need of re-education. In other words, even those who meet those qualifications need to be retrained.

The Government’s response to these recommendations is most important and all of us have been looking forward to it with keen anticipation. I can only describe its response as desperately disappointing and unbelievably negative. It is true that in the little blue book it tells us that it is prepared to accept the basic principles, but I think the Government will be the first to agree that the principles from 1 to 11 are very wide, to say the least, and can be interpreted in many different ways. The important point, therefore, is not the acceptance of the principles, but the qualifications which follow thereon.

What are these qualifications? I believe that the Government has merely restated the policy of separation in education. In that sense its response is timid, tepid and tentative. On the one hand, afraid of a right-wing reaction, it has clung to the worn-out framework of the past, but, afraid of entirely dashing the hopes of educationists and so many others who have been involved in this massive undertaking, it has stalled for time. It hops from one foot to the other. At one moment it says: “Do not worry. We accept your principles; however. Then come the well-worn phrases. On the other hand it says: “We accept them; do not give up hope. Keep believing in us. We may yet deliver the goods if we can just deal with the right wing in our party.” It is distressing because, if one looks at the basic approach of the commission, one sees that it was a scientific approach and not a political one. It rests on the basis of educational principles and they are to be highly commended. Therefore, one cannot argue their recommendations away by simply saying: “Well, it is too bad, but the Government’s position is well-known. We stand by this; we stand by that.” Why then did the Government appoint the commission in the first place if it immediately turns round and pours cold water over all the hopes?

One must remember that this report was supposed to be urgent: “You must finish your work in 12 months; there is a crisis at hand”. So what happens? First of all, the Government keeps the report for a long time and we did not get to see it this session. So there were a lot of discussions without the recommendations even being known. Then, when the report is submitted, the Government simply submits it to yet another committee and we are told that no real decision will be taken until the end of March 1982. So much for urgency!

Those of us who know the Government’s thinking best are not really surprised, especially after listening to the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and if one looks at the legislation which Parliament passed in respect of education. Take for example the Vista University Bill. The recommendations of the De Lange Commission make it absolutely clear that the acceptance of students at university level should be left to the council of the university. That is exactly what we argued for and again and again our arguments were rejected and we were told we were being irresponsible and did not understand what we were talking about. Now this great commission comes and says exactly the same thing. Are we going to throw that out as well? Are their findings also going to be rejected?

“Tjoepstil!”

Yes, now the Government members are absolutely “tjoepstil”. If one takes the Financial Relations Amendment Bill, there one had the provision with regard to private schools and the marvellous catch-phrase that, if the pupils belonging to a certain race group at a private school exceed a certain number—and the number is not specified—the school will be declared a Black school, a Coloured school or an Indian school as the case may be. This really places a tremendous threat on these private schools. What has the commission said? It says private schools should enjoy total autonomy—exactly the argument we raised.

Make Fanie Minister of Education.

Once again, the members of the De Lange Commission are educational specialists drawn from all over South Africa. I warned the hon. member for Virginia and both hon. Ministers concerned that they should wait for the recommendations before moving ahead on these important issues, but they said: “No, we do not have to wait. We are just going to go ahead.” That is exactly what has happened. They have not bothered to wait for the experts, for the “urgent report” requested by the hon. the Prime Minister. If the Government’s intransigence is clear from its morbidity and sterility, one other point is also crystal clear and it is as well for us to understand it. The overall thrust of the commission’s report is towards a non-racial, common society which is a vindication of this party’s basic policy on education and other matters. The direction is clear: The direction is away from apartheid and away from the sacred cow of separate, fenced-off ghettoes towards an open society that must be shared by all South Africans. The significance of this report is that it is not a PFP document but one which bears the signature and imprint of a wide cross-section of educational opinion in South Africa. It is the true voice of South Africa that is being heard in this report and the only people who are opposed to it are the Government. It comes to us like a breath of fresh air. It is true that this will demand sacrifices of all of us, and the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned this in his speech. There are going to be financial demands made upon all of us and we have to be ready to meet those sacrifices if we have any concern at all for the future of South Africa. As far as the question of finance is concerned, I am on record as saying that if we are going to implement even the majority of the recommendations we shall have to commit ourselves to what I call a defence-like budget.

Is that what you want?

Yes.

A defence-like budget, and this is entirely appropriate as it affects every individual in South Africa.

So you say we have to spend more?

But it is part of defence.

That is what you want to do?

That is exactly what we want to do. It is part of the defence of South Africa.

How do you finance it?

That is the hon. the Minister’s job, Sir. That is why he is the Minister of Finance.

You tell us.

We say that we are going to need that kind of money and, if it requires sacrifices, I want to say that we are prepared to be among those who will make those sacrifices. [Interjections.]

Good. That is what I want to know.

The hon. the Minister knows that he and I and others in South Africa are going to be called upon to make enormous sacrifices. I hope, however, that we all clearly understand that these sacrifices will not be in order to maintain and facilitate apartheid but to break free of its shackles. It is for that reason that we require this money. In educational terms, we must be prepared to follow the principles of equality wherever they may lead us.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to describe the report of this commission as a child conceived in crisis and born in hope. I want to say that child will never be lulled to sleep by the lullabies of the past. We cannot go on that way. I believe that in response to this report and to these recommendations a new and brave song is waiting to be born in South Africa, but that so far the Government has missed its cue. For South Africa’s sake and for the sake of all of us I can only express the hope that this new and lively child is not so neglected that it will die in infancy.

Mr. Speaker, if one has had the privilege of taking cognizance of such an important and undoubtedly epoch-making report as this, it is astounding that hon. members on the opposite side of this House are not in the first place concentrating on the great wealth of pedagogical recommendations to improve the education system, but that they primarily want to scratch this flea again to which I referred yesterday, viz. the flea of an open community, of a mixed school system and of an integrated society. In other words, to come back to the crux of their political ideology, just as they have, in recent weeks, been misusing people who were brought here during the cold of winter, people who squatted here and who were used by those hon. members to achieve their political goal by way of political agitation … [Interjections.] … their primary purpose now is to use a report which has been submitted by authorities on education and which contains a large number of extremely important recommendations on which all of us could agree, as a lever for making political capital. I should like to refer to a remark which Dr. Garbers, the President of the HSRC, made at the Press conference yesterday afternoon. He was speaking to the media people and, in my opinion, through them to their bosses in the benches opposite. He asked them to take two things into consideration. The first was that since this report had given prominence to serious bottlenecks in education, we ought not to lose perspective to such an extent that we forgot what excellent characteristics already existed and what achievements had in fact been brought about—under extremely difficult circumstances which were being experienced by few other developing communities—by the education systems of this country. He asked them to recognize these achievements in spite of the deficiencies, so that they could serve as an encouragement for the future.

His second request was that since education—as the hon. member for Pinelands rightly conceded—inevitably contained a considerable and significant political element, too, the political hobby-horse should not, with reference to the report, be ridden to such an extent that this would eventually cause the educational recommendations to miscarry.

But is this not politics as well?

Of course it is. It is NP policy.

I just want to say from this side of the House that we, too, have the greatest measure of praise and appreciation for the work which has gone into this report, for the leadership of Prof. De Lange and the ability he displayed in gathering together, within a short space of time, a team of collaborators who covered the entire educational spectrum ideologically speaking, and producing a report.

There is very great appreciation for this report and the Government, as it has stated, will also deal with it in all earnest and with the greatest possible haste. At the same time education is one of the most precious, but also one of the most complex structures in society, and simply to effect all kinds of changes here in a precipitate way would also be unjustified.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the fact that “the Government is going to submit this again to another committee”, but that is precisely what the HSRC recommended as an interim measure. In the first place it recommended that one specific Minister should be designated to deal with the matter on behalf of the Government. This has been done. In the second place it recommended the appointment of an Interim Council. We have not in fact appointed an interim council as was proposed, but we have appointed a working group. The principle is that the Government should not decide on its own, but should involve experts to assist it in interpreting and assessing the recommendations plus the comments which are going to be made on these recommendations. This is what we have done, but now, after having acted in this way on the recommendation of the report, the accusation is being levelled at us that “we are again referring it to another committee”.

I want to point out that in the first place this investigation was carried out comprehensively—and for the first time in history—into the education of all population groups. This gives expression to the attitude of the Government that, besides recognition of the separateness and the distinctive identity of the diversity of peoples in conjunction with the need for self-determination of its own interests by each of the population groups, there is in addition an interdependence in the sphere of education within South Africa and even between South Africa and its neighbouring States, its neighbouring States which are becoming independent, an interdependence as far as educational matters are concerned. If this had not been the case, this report would not have had the impact it has in fact had.

In the second place I want to emphasize once again—this emerges time and again in the interim memorandum of the Government as well, but it was not convenient for the hon. member for Pinelands to admit this—that it was the declared objective of the Government, the declared objective which the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized when he stated the terms of reference, that there had to be a movement towards education services of an equal standard for the entire population, but within the means of this country. This point is re-emphasized in three of the paragraphs of the preliminary White Paper, and the intention of the Government in this regard is quite clear.

In fact, I am merely referring once again to the effective way in which the Government has already given expression to that intention by means of the growth in the provision in the budget for the Department of Education and Training over the past three years. As has already been pointed out by my hon. colleague, there was an increase of 26% during the year before last—an increase of twice the average growth of the budget for the whole State during that year—there was an increase of 42% the following year, and this year it is an accumulative 51%. This is certainly not the final word on this matter, but it is at least a concrete, material indication of the seriousness with which the Government is dealing with this matter.

I want to point out that this report has formulated the objective in respect of parity in far more cautious terms than those in which the Government formulated its intentions in that respect. The Government said that it would endeavour to achieve educational services of an equal quality for all population groups. However, it is stated in the report that there are few things in education about which more nonsense has been spoken than the concept “equal quality” and that this concept has to be dealt with carefully. That is why reference is made in the first principle of the provision of education to “equal opportunities” for all population groups without distinction and together with that “equal standards”. This is a justified variation on the Government’s statement, and it is as though this report were telling the Government: Do not be too optimistic in what you wish to achieve; you must also be realistic.

In the third place I want to point out the Government’s acceptance of the eleven principles for the provision of education. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned this, but also tried to detract from it. It is indeed true that these principles have been broadly formulated and that this allows a great deal of room for movement and flexibility in the interpretation of those principles and, depending on the point of view from which one assesses matters, that these principles lend themselves to sharply differing interpretations. I want to accept that if these principles had not been formulated in broad terms, it would have been very difficult for the main committee of this inquiry, made up as it was of people from such a broad spectrum to have reached concensus. It is inevitable that a formulation of this nature should be broad, therefore allowing a certain scope. It is for that reason that the Government has consequently clarified its existing policy on certain points, within the scope allowed by the principles of the report.

It is and was simply naïve of hon. members opposite and of people elsewhere in this country to have expected—thereby creating false expectations among others—the NP, on the basis of the fact that it requested an expert investigation, to abandon its policy in respect of educational matters, on which it held an election a few months ago, and obtained an election mandate, and in fact to use this investigation to implement another party’s policy. Surely this is plain political folly, Sir, and it would be educationally irresponsible as well.

I repeat, the investigation was based on a wide variety of problem areas, and I would say that 90% or more of the recommendations that stemmed from these problem areas were, politically, reasonably uncontentious and contained few political implications, but could give rise to drastic educational improvements. I want to repeat the words of Dr. Garbers and Prof. De Lange in advocating that we should concentrate on seizing upon those 90% of the matters on which it is readily possible to reach consensus, within the objectives which the hon. the Minister stated in the past, in order to move towards educational services of an equal quality for all, to the extent to which the means of this country allow, and that we should not, in the first place, use this report for the 10% of the recommendations which are politically contentious and entangled in an effort to use this as a basis on which to drag one’s own party political wagon forward out of the morass in which it has become bogged down.

I should also like to issue the warning that hon. members on the opposite side of this House should not, on the basis of their own ideological obsession, incite people to such an extent with regard to this report and the Government’s preliminary White Paper on it that this is going to prevent the problems from being solved productively and constructively. There is a whole series of drastic recommendations which I should like to outline very briefly. There are recommendations in connection with the improvement of the school readiness of a large number of the pupils in our schools, who are not ready for school. There is a recommendation in connection with a bridging year, which will ensure preparation for school readiness. There is a recommendation that there is to be compulsory school education for everyone for a period of nine years, of which six years will be at school and the other three years either at school or in other controlled learning situations. There is the recommendation that there should be far greater emphasis in education on career-oriented tuition, and that the imbalance that exists in the schools of all population groups between academically-oriented and career-oriented education, should be urgently rectified. There is a recommendation that there should be a bridging year for those pupils in particular who leave school at a reasonably early stage, to enable them to cope more effectively with their transition from the formal learning situation of the school to the practical work situation in their occupation. Furthermore, great emphasis was placed on the interrelationship between the informal, the formal and the non-formal aspects of education. This means the influence which is exerted on the forming of the pupil by his parental home and environment—the informal; by the school, the college and the university or technikon—the formal; as well as by the in-service training situation or other adult educational experiences, which are characterized as non-formal, and to which attention is given after the formal school situation. I think that it is one of the most important guiding principles of this report to point out to educators in this country that they have up to now seriously neglected the interdependence of these facets and are now required to give attention to this aspect. There are further recommendations which emphasize, in non-formal education in particular, that besides the State the private sector must become involved in helping to make provision for this vast expansion of education services. There is the recommendation to which urgent attention should be given, viz. that certain education services are so sophisticated and manpower-intensive that they cannot be duplicated among the education systems and consequently have to be provided on a cooperative basis as a central education service.

In this regard I am referring to curriculation, to guidance, to education technology and similar matters. In addition the report refers to the necessity, although it makes few specific proposals and merely diagnoses the problem, of having to create statutory negotiating machinery to enable the education profession to negotiate more effectively on its conditions of service. Emphasis is placed on the need to lay down norms in respect of teacher training, the number of pupils per teacher, physical facilities, etc., so as to be able to move, in accordance with those norms, according to a time-table, towards a defined equal quality.

Last but not least, and I welcome this because I have already issued an instruction in this regard on my own initiative, there is a proposal that the formula for the subsidizing of universities should be less dependent on the growth in the number of students and that there should consequently not be such an urgent hunt for and recruitment of students for universities. I may mention that I directed the University Advisory Council to give attention to this matter a few weeks ago.

I would say that the 10% politically contentious recommendations, simply to express it as a round figure, fall into three categories. Since the Opposition is now implying that the Government has as it were, written off this report in its essence with its preliminary White Paper, I should just like to dwell on these three politically contentious issues for a moment.

I want to say in advance that when it comes to the scientific nature of the human sciences we are dealing with a different kind of science to that of the natural sciences. The human sciences are not like the natural sciences which deal with unchangeable, objectively ascertainable facts, but deal with a highly variable element, viz. the human being. No two people are the same and no two groups of similar people are similar as groups. There is an inherent diversity, indeterminability, therefore a character unlike that of the natural sciences, in any individual human or human group situation. The science dealing with this has a restricted scientific character unlike that of a natural science. Consequently a major element of uncertainty is an inherent part of this science. But, in the second place, it is also a science which is based on specific premise values, choices of values, philosophies of life. The way in which you assess and study specific human science situation, a human situation or a human group situation, is inevitably influenced and qualified by your point of departure as a scientist, your premise based on your view of life or philosophy.

I should therefore like to refer to one element in the report which the Government did in fact find rather disconcerting. I am referring to page 201 of the report. I should like to draw the attention of this House to the formulation which the hon. member for Pinelands also came across and which deals with the issue of free association and the possibility that the school governing bodies should have the freedom of making themselves open institutions. This formulation is a fine illustration of how the human scientists can also act in a value-oriented and prejudiced way. I quote—

This sentence contains three prejudiced prejudgements which are unscientific. With all due respect for the excellence of the report as a whole, I want to say that this specific recommendation of free association and of freedom for school governing bodies to decide for themselves, places a very big question mark against this part of the report. It is purely a value judgement, purely an opinion. The three aspects of prejudiced adoption of a standpoint here are, in the first place, that the concept cultural identity is being placed between quotation marks as though this was merely a quasi concept. In the second place it is stated to be a “predetermined” identity. This is not an identity which stems from the realities of society, according to the person who wrote this; it is a pre-determined identity. In the third place the locational origins of the identity are, as it were, being determined as well.

They come “from above”, but exactly where they come from above is not very clear to me. Nor is it clear to me from what dimension they come from above. Anyone reading this document, however, cannot but realize that however much appreciation he may have for the rest of the report, certain value prejudgments do occur here. One is entitled to be prejudiced in one’s values, for this forms part of the human sciences. Consequently value prejudiced assessments have been given, and this one dealing with free association and the possible throwing open of schools is one of them. This side of the House, on the basis of its election mandate and since it has left no doubt whatsoever in this matter as to its policy, is as entitled as anyone else—whether he be a human scientist or whatever—to express a value judgment in this respect which would be just as valid. It is a value judgment which has been based on a political point of departure and it is a democratic point of departure which has been controlled by the voters.

You said we must approach it from an educational point of view.

I should just like to analyse these three politically contentious issues more closely for a moment. In the first place there is the issue of what form the operational education departments should take, in other words what form those control structures or departments which possess and control schools and also employ teachers, should take. This is the organization which really teaches. There is no doubt that the report is vague and undecided on this aspect—which is referred to as the middle or second level. In reply to questions Prof. De Lange made it very clear yesterday during the Press interview that the Main Committee had been unable to reach consensus in this regard and that it had consequently followed a very vague formulation. What did he say? He said that the political choices had to be left to the Government as they had to take the political decisions. He said that this was a political decision and not an educational one. Consequently that decision had to be left open so that the Government could take it. The report therefore leaves this issue open as to whether these middle or second level operational education departments may be organized either according to population group—they use the word demographically—or on a geographic basis where the various population groups are grouped together within the same department. However, the report does not express a view on that subject, but leaves the choice open. The Government has a policy with regard to this and states that it wishes to make a choice, and the choice we are making is that which we have always advocated, viz. that each population group should have its own operational education department. The report did not oppose us in this view or say that we should do something else. They left it open because they were unable to reach consensus themselves.

What I am about to refer to may be a little unfair on the hon. member for Pinelands and he must kindly forgive me. However, we shall be able to take this matter further during a subsequent debate. I am referring to the supporting report—the report of the working group—under the heading “Educational management” which was compiled by Dr. Hartshorne. Even within the work group in connection with education management problems were experienced in arriving at an agreement. On page 9 of the report of the work group which was compiled by Dr. Hartshorne the following was said—

He was referring to the working group—

In the annexures there are also a few deviations in respect of the direction which is advocated in that report.

You are ditching the report already.

The report on “Educational management” was not accepted by the main committee. In fact, even in the formulation expressed by the main committee the matter was expressed quite ambiguously and left open, and the Government exercised its choice there.

The second politically sensitive aspect is the idea which emerges in the report that there should be a central structure—the report proposes a department or a ministry—for policy and norms. The Government has taken no decision on this and made it clear in the White Paper that it recognized the necessity for co-ordination and cooperation among the education structures of the various population groups. This is one of the first matters which the Government will have to consider in the light of the comments it has received. Consequently this matter has not been rejected in advance. This is a far-reaching matter and must be studied properly.

If a central structure is used for the co-ordination of policy and norms, that structure—as is in fact stated by the Government, too, in its fifth point of departure—must take constitutional reality into consideration. Now, the problem is firstly that constitutional reality, in its present form, affords limited opportunity for self-determination for the various population groups with regard to their own education and secondly, that the Government is specifically engaged in a process of reform in order to bring about a new constitutional structure. Consequently, since this committee of investigation—and this is another point which Prof. De Lange emphasized during the Press interview—did not know what the constitutional alternatives were to be in future, it simply made a proposal based on the existing reality. But this will have to be dealt with by the Government in such a way that, when it considers a central education structure, that central structure has regard not only to matters as they are at present, but also to the possible new dispensation towards which we may be moving in future.

Consequently the Government intends and is determined to act in a responsible, well-considered and in particular a constitutionally justified way with regard to this aspect.

The third politically contentious issue is that of the so-called free association, the idea that separate schools should have autonomy to decide on how their pupil body shall be constituted. In contrast to my interpretation, Prof. De Lange said during the Press interview yesterday afternoon that the intention with the report had been to leave this aspect open, just as the question of the medium or second level had been left open, since they had been unable to reach true consensus on the matter. However, the Government had no doubt—just as the hon. member for Pinelands, for example, had no doubt—that the words of the report in fact meant that it had to be possible to exercise the option with regard to open schools on the local level. That is not the policy of the Government and consequently that is the way the Government stated its position. I should also like to point out that the research team informed me that a survey had been carried out, which had been reported to the main committee as well as to the central formulating committee, in connection with the extent in which educational leaders and educators in the various population groups felt a pressing need for open schools. I was also told that the survey indicated that there was no appreciable—in fact, a negligible—need for integrated schools, but there was in fact a pressing need for common, co-ordinating mechanisms and a common department to bring about collective norms and principles. Why would the Government now kick up a fuss about something with regard to which there is really not a need among these people—viz. to throw open schools—and do so merely for the sake of the ideological obsession of the people who are being driven to distraction by the itching of this flea, which makes them keep on scratching? [Interjections.]

Consequently I want to state that the Government has adopted an extremely responsible approach to this valuable and instructive report, that, where it has adopted a standpoint, it has done so in a responsible way and that in most cases the way it has been given the scope, through the recommendations have been put forward in the report, to adopt such standpoints.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but could he please tell us whether the Government is intending to produce a more extensive White Paper on this report and if so, will it be available before the end of March next year or only after that date?

Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair question. I would have thought, however, that reading the preliminary White Paper would have made that point quite clear. The preliminary White Paper states quite clearly—I do not want to read it now because if I do so the hon. member for Pinelands might misunderstand it again. Perhaps I should just explain that the Government is awaiting comments until 31 March. Thereafter the Government will consider all the recommendations contained in the report, together with the comments, and then, acting on the advice of the task group, in due course issue a more comprehensive White Paper. If I may venture a guess, I should say that the scope of this report is so wide that the Government would probably be acting wisely—if I may be so presumptuous to say this—in producing perhaps more than one White Paper. It might first deal with the most urgent matters and subsequently, as in the case of the Wiehahn Commission report, issue a White Paper dealing with further matters. This is how I see the matter.

*In conclusion I should just like to make an appeal and say that we should deal with this report for the sake of the education of our children and of the future. This report entails inter alia that there will have to be large and drastic expenditure in future. This is expenditure which is not only going to give rise to problems for the hon. Minister of Finance, but which is also going to signify an altered dispensation for the entire country, for the private sector and for everyone who receives free education today. Accordingly I want us to deal with this report in the light of the responsibility we owe to our children and to the standard of their education and, through them, to the growth, the development and the prosperity of the future of this country. We must not exaggerate the ostensible grievances of the other population groups and their education leaders in order to misuse them, as was done with the squatters, in a kind of cold educational winter, just like the squatters’ physical cold of winter, and exploit them for party-political purposes. This cause is too important. There is a majority of sufficient, concrete, useful recommendations on which we can act in concert, and utilize in a responsible way the tremendous and important task which has been performed by Prof. De Lange and his collaborators, and for which I again want to express my appreciation and very great admiration, in such a way that it will indeed be a milestone in the future of the education of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister that the De Lange report and its implications will have a tremendous impact on South Africa, and my only regret is that I cannot follow him in this debate on this particular subject because I have another matter that I wish to raise, a matter that I consider to be of great public interest and a matter that I should like the hon. Ministers whom I have asked to be here to please give attention to. First of all I should like to say that this matter is the matter of the National Fund Investments débâcle …

Again?

… and the listing of National Fund Investments Limited on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1969, a fact which subsequently resulted in some 200 000 shareholders, many of them pensioners and charities, losing an estimated R20 million. This débâcle has also been described as the biggest fraud in South Africa’s history, a fraud on which one of the shareholders, Mr. Richard Benson, has spent nearly 11 years and in excess of R100 000 of his own money trying to expose. He appealed to me three years ago and I now have at my disposal considerable evidence which has led me, after much consideration, to make an appeal to the hon. Ministers concerned.

For record purposes I want to refer to Hansard, col. 1998, of 20 February this year, where I first raised this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. I also want to refer to the Standing Committee on the Industries, Commerce and Tourism Vote in the Senate Chamber on 7 and 8 September this year, to the discussion of the Justice Vote, Hansard, col. 3977, on 16 September and to questions that I put on 26 August, namely Questions Nos. 20, 21 and 22 and on 28 August, Question No. 10. I believe the information contained herein will provide a background to the débâcle. I have also asked the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism to be here because I believe there have been contraventions of the Companies Act. I have asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to be here because I believe there have been contraventions of the Stock Exchanges Control Act. I have asked the hon. the Minister of Police to be here because the commercial branch have a long history of investigating this matter. I am not referring to the hon. the Minister of Police himself, but to the Department of Police who has investigated the matter. I have also asked the hon. the Minister of Justice to be here because the Attorney-General has been very much aware of what has been going on in recent years. Despite all my representations and letters to the Ministers I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply to my questions. In fact, while the Attorney-General informed Mr. Richard Benson as long ago as 4 September of his refusal to prosecute, I have yet to receive any communication in writing to this effect. Having said this, I wish to say in all sincerity that I bring this matter to this House because of years of rumours, accusations, frustration and suspicions, and I therefore call upon the hon. the Minister of Justice or any other hon. Minister directly concerned to institute a judicial commission of inquiry into this entire matter so as to satisfy once and for all the truth about the National Fund Investments débâcle.

The accusations are, firstly, that the promoters of National Fund Investments conned some 200 000 of the South African public to invest millions of rands in worthless shares thereby defrauding them of their money. They are also accused of contravening the provisions of the Companies Act and the Stock Exchanges Control Act. In this connection I refer hon. members to the judgment given in the Cape Town Supreme Court by Justice Van den Heever on 11 February this year, to which I have already referred. I believe that there is evidence that there were contraventions of certain provisions. The Attorney-General is, I believe, aware of this, and the Minister of Police has investigated the matter.

The Attorney-General has informed Mr. Benson that he sees no reason to prosecute because there is no guarantee of a conviction. However, one must ask the question why it is that the Attorney-General has repeatedly over the years refused to grant Mr. Benson a nolli prosequi certificate which, I am led to believe, will enable Mr. Benson as a private individual to lay a criminal charge against the directors and managers of National Fund Investments.

Prosecute.

Very well, prosecute. At this stage I should like to read from a report that was submitted to the Press Council by a former financial editor of The Natal Mercury, Mr. Jack Keir, in about 1976. This was written by Mr. Keir for Advocate Buys to assist him in preparing The Natal Mercury’s reply to complaints made to the Press Council by Mr. Benson. I want to read from page 3 where Mr. Keir has this to say about Mr. Benson—

My time is limited, Sir, but I believe that Mr. Benson’s case has to be heard and that is why I call for a commission of inquiry.

I have in my possession copies of minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of National Fund Investments and other related documents that I will submit to the hon. the Minister, which clearly show that the directors of National Fund Investments were dealing in their own company’s shares. They were also buying back shares from disenchanted senior managers of the company and other related companies who had suffered losses. There was also talk of the possibility of bailing out hundreds of charitable organizations who invested nearly R500 000 in worthless NFI shares.

I also have evidence that the general manager of National Fund Investments at the time, a Mr. E. Tannenbaum, who later became a director, sold shares worth nearly R500 000 at a tremendous profit when at the time he must have known the real financial position of the company. As I have already said, I will submit these documents to the hon. the Minister of Justice.

In his fight to see justice done, Mr. Benson launched a massive publicity campaign both through direct mailing and also through the Press in an effort to expose the fraud. The result of this was that demands for damages against three newspapers and their financial writers, totalling R5 million to R6 million, were made by the 15 directors and former directors of NFI. They alleged defamation and demanded public apologies from the newspapers, and they got their apologies. The claims were then dropped. They also swamped complaining shareholders such as Mr. Benson, however, with similar massive demands alleging defamation. Demands against Mr. Benson himself totalled R300 000. Elderly pensioners were also threatened, and Mr. Benson informs me that after receiving such a demand from the directors, one couple sold up all their possessions in a matter of weeks and left South Africa, having been frightened off. One individual, I understand, suffered an attack shortly afterwards and unfortunately passed on. Just before Christmas, I believe, one individual collapsed on receiving these demands. Mr. Benson, on the other hand, refused to be intimidated. It is ten years later, however, but despite his continuing open and public campaign, no action has yet been brought against him. He told me just yesterday that he would welcome action being taken against him. Mr. Benson has been pressing for information from the company, information which, in terms of the Companies Act, he believes he is entitled to as a shareholder of the company. To this end, in May 1975 he and 122 other members of the company requisitioned a general meeting of the company, in terms of section 181 of the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973, in order to ask the directors certain questions which, if answered, he believed would expose the full extent of the fraud and also the contraventions of the Companies Act.

I have here the notice of that meeting which was legally called, but at the meeting the directors refused to give replies to the questions, and it is this that Mr. Benson has now been fighting for 10 years so as to enable him to launch his civil case against the company. I have asked the hon. the Minister of Police whether the Police investigation into this matter actually obtained the answers to these questions. The hon. the Minister’s replies are recorded in Hansard, but I have received no actual reply in this regard. Mr. Benson’s attorney and advocate offered—an offer in writing to the hon. the Minister of Police and the hon. the Minister of Finance—to assist in the investigation and have appealed for the two Ministers’ assistance in obtaining this information, but all to no avail. The chronological record of this case shows that Mr. Benson has been frustrated in his efforts to obtain this information that he believes is urgently needed in order to see justice done.

The question that now must be asked—and this relates to the second charge—is whether there has been a massive cover-up by the authorities, and if so, why? This accusation persists, and it is for this reason that I call for a commission of inquiry.

I have here Press statements dated June 1971 which clearly state that nine Cabinet Ministers had obtained allocations of National Fund Investments shares. I named the Ministers at the time as having been Mr. B. J. Vorster, Dr. Diederichs, Dr. Connie Mulder, Mr. Lourens Muller, Mr. Ben Schoeman, Mr. Pelser, Mr. Frank Waring, Mr. J. Loots and Dr. Piet Koornhof.

Piet!

The reports go on to state that if Mr. Vorster had obtained his allocation of 5 000 shares in the same manner as any allottee he would have had to have held 125 000 shares in the National Growth Fund valued at R125 000 in order to have qualified for such an allocation. These reports created quite a stir in the Press at the time and were the subject of a series of articles on legal matters in The Argus under the pen-name “Judex”. When Mr. Benson wrote to The Argus editor asking whether “Judex” would pass an opinion on this matter, he received a reply dated 5 September 1974. Referring to “Judex” the reply stated—

“Judex” happens to be the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, who is a S.C. That was his view at the time. Mr. Benson appealed to the then Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Lourens Muller, who had received an allocation of shares. He asked him to institute an investigation. I have a Press report here on a Press statement issued by the Minister saying that there was no need for such an inquiry. In fact, certain sections of the Press tried to crush the story, which adds to the claims of a giant cover-up. The question is: Why was this done and who was involved? The rumour is that one of the reasons was the involvement of certain Cabinet Ministers. I wish to state here that the managing director of NFI was none other than Mr. David Abrahamson, who, with Mr. Pegg, was a key figure in the Information scandal. It has been said that he was the kingpin in the entire fraud. Knowing a little of what happened in 1969 and 1970 during the boom on the stock market and the mood of the market at the time, I am prepared to concede that many people—not only the public, but possibly also the Cabinet Ministers—could have been conned into obtaining shares from the promoters because they wanted to protect themselves when the bubble burst. However, I have asked that the only Cabinet Minister still remaining in the House, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, should be here today. I believe that, in his own interest, and also in the interest of the public, he will give weight to my request for a commission of inquiry.

[Inaudible.]

I believe such a commission is needed to clear up exactly what happened in this regard. It is quite possible …

My reply is that I will personally be in favour of it if that is the type of accusation that is being made.

Thank you very much. The issuing of shares to certain persons prior to the listing on the Stock Exchange is part of the information which Mr. Benson has been seeking from the directors, to see who had pre-listing shares, because as I have said, some people made a killing on this, while the ordinary shareholder lost. Mr. Benson has fought for this information for many years, but he has been blocked wherever he has gone to obtain this information. He recently received a letter from the hon. the Minister of Police saying that under the law he could apply to the directors for minutes of the meeting. Despite letters and telegrams to the directors, however, they refused to supply him with that information.

Why doesn’t he apply to the court?

Another question that has also bothered me since I became involved in this matter in 1979 is: Why has the official Opposition not taken up this matter? [Interjections.] After all, the Chief Whip of the PFP in a letter to Mr. Benson dated 29 September 1977 said—

Therefore I would have imagined that he would have carried this further.

George, I can show you a file inches thick.

Was it because a senior partner in the firm of the issuing brokers, Max Borkum, is also a senior member of the PFP? According to my information, an issuing broker is responsible to the Stock Exchange under the Stock Exchanges Control Act to ensure that all fisting requirements of a company seeking listing are met, including the prospectus. From Judge Van den Heever’s judgment we know that the prospectus was misleading. Is it perhaps that Mr. Abrahamson was playing both sides of the coin? He was possibly not only conning members of the NP, but also members of the PFP.

He gave them R10 000.

It has been alleged that he made massive donations to the PFP. The hon. member for Simonstown says that Mr. Abrahamson gave R10 000 to the PFP. I believe a judicial inquiry is needed to clean up these allegations.

This story goes even further. Like the PFP, the English-language Press also appears to me to have been very reluctant to use its investigative skills and powers to expose the Information scandal. It appears that Mr. Abrahamson and NFI directors also bought off the Press. Earlier on I referred to the report written by a former financial editor of The Natal Mercury, Mr. Jack Keir. He submitted this to the Press Council in 1976. I have given copies of this report to the Press. This report clearly shows that the NFI was bribing financial editors in the hope that they would push NFI shares. I quote from page 9 of the report—

May I say that Mr. Keir and The Natal Mercury come out well from this report—

On page 10 under the heading “Perks” the report goes further—

In this report one finds that employees of the Sunday Times were working the stock-market by buying shares on Friday and Saturday, pushing them over the weekend by printing certain articles in the weekend Press and then selling those shares the following week.

The incorruptible Press!

This is a very, very sad story. It may be argued that in a free enterprise system the investor takes the risk. That is true, but we pass laws in the House—and in this regard I have made appeals to the Government throughout the session—to protect the public against unscrupulous people. I have given this matter a lot of thought—and I stand here as an elected representative of my people in Amanzimtoti—and I believe that we cannot allow this to continue. As recently as 6 September a report appeared in the Sunday Times with the headline: “The Law must impose heavy penalties on unscrupulous company promoters”. This is still happening in a smaller way. The questions regarding NFI are: Was there fraud? If so, were there contraventions of certain Acts? If so, why have these people not been brought into the dock? Has there been a cover-up? Has it involved Cabinet Ministers and the Government? Has it involved certain members of the official Opposition or the Press?

The public’s right to know!

I believe the public does have the right to know in this regard. To my mind the only thing the Government can do now in order to settle this matter once and for all in the true spirit of this Parliament and everything we stand for is to institute a full judicial inquiry into this entire matter. May I say that the most important man to be spoken to is Mr. Benson. After all, what has it cost him? It has cost him 11 years of frustration and R100 000 of his own money. I believe that a man like this is to be admired and supported.

Mr. Speaker, in the Second Reading debate hon. members of the Opposition hurled accusations concerning the increase in the money supply. The hon. member for Yeoville put it as follows—

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti alleged that the economy was upset because South Africa was flooded with money and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens alleged that the Government had neglected to control the money supply. Of course the money supply increased too much, but the revenue derived from the sale of our most important export item, namely gold, increased by over R4 000 million within a period of one year. What were the solutions these hon. members suggested? The hon. member for Yeoville did not make a concrete suggestion but, as always, made vague statements and asked questions such as: Why were steps not taken earlier? Economists tell us there are a few options. There could have been a relaxation of exchange control, or the rand could have been allowed to increase further in value. He says there are also other choices and that is all he says. True to form, he leaves the problem in the air. I do not have the time but I should also like to comment on this new economic policy of the PFP. In this connection I just want to quote one point, and it is one of their points of policy. It reads as follows—

What does this say? It surely says absolutely nothing. It is neither here nor there.

The solution proffered by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is very simple. He says all the hon. Minister had to do was to decide to keep that money outside South Africa for a while in the form of loans, and then South Africa could earn interest on it. An even better suggestion he made is that the hon. the Minister should have used the thousands of millions of rands streaming into the country as a result of the gold windfall to finance the Sasol project. The hon. member for Gardens posed a problem, but he did not even try to suggest a solution. With such an Opposition one really cannot conduct a proper financial debate. What is the actual position? The origin of this monetary expansion lies in the combination of a record surplus on the current account of the balance of payments during the 1979-’80 and 1980-’81 financial years. On the one hand there was the enormous increase in the dollar price of gold in those years and on the other, there was the continued implementation of comprehensive currency control. It was this combination of circumstances which led inevitably to the accumulation of money in the hands of companies and persons as well as a continued increase in liquidity in the banking system, which in turn enabled banks to create even more money by means of credit loans to the private sector. It is this excessive increase in the bank credit to the private sector which was ultimately by far the most important statistical cause of this excessive increase in the money supply. No one can blame the State of having a net inflationary effect on the economy by over-expenditure or by creating money in the 1980-’81 financial year. During this period the increase of 2,6% in real Government expenditure compared favourably with an increase of over 12% in the real gross domestic expenditure. The Treasury exercized a limiting effect on the money supply by transferring more than R1 200 million to the Stabilisation Account. These funds are used to finance the stockpiling of oil and other strategic goods. As these goods are almost exclusively imported and not used but kept in stock, this replacement of foreign exchange reserves ensured that the budget had a limiting effect on the domestic economy. It is still somewhat early to draw a conclusion as to what the effect will be on the economy of the budget in 1981-’82. The aim of this budget is, however, still to help to combat inflation and to bring about the required balance of payments adjustment.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to interest rates here. The importance of South Africa maintaining realistic market-related interest rates in the period ahead, cannot be sufficiently emphasized. Neither the present deficit on the balance of payments in the current account nor the deficit prior to loans in our budget, is excessively large in comparison with our gross domestic product. Nevertheless they are deficits, and deficits have to be financed. In the case of the balance of payments it means that in the months ahead an increased amount of foreign trading credits and other loans will have to be made use of and in the case of the budget the deficits must be financed without excessive creation of money by the banking system.

It is imperative that the financing of the deficit is not undertaken by means of bank credit. The money must therefore be found on the capital market. It ought to be possible to achieve both these aims without many problems provided our interest rates remain at market-related levels.

A further question arises: Ought the fiscal and monetary policy now to be aimed at stimulating expenditure and economic activity in an effort to prevent the growth rate from dropping, or must the present conservative and restrictive approach be maintained in order, firstly, to consolidate the tremendous economic progress of the past few years, secondly, to combat inflation and thirdly, to help the balance of payments to adjust to the lower gold price?

I choose the latter of the two directions without hesitation and I associate myself fully with the approach of consolidation and adjustment announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. It is clear that South Africa, like most other countries, in a phase of consolidation and adjustment will be faced by difficult and challenging economic conditions.

The expertise and the determination of the monetary authorities to overcome these problems will be tested to the utmost. For this reason, with the continued co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy and—very important—with the support of the public as well, I do not doubt that the necessary adjustments can and will be made. I believe that in this way a firm basis for the future can be laid down.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield has covered a wide range of financial and budgetary matters so I hope he will excuse me if I do not react to them today.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a speech about matters concerning the NFI and in the process of his remarks he made some very serious allegations. One of them causes me to ask whether he suggested that some of the incorrect dealings related to members of the official Opposition. I should just like to ask him whether that is correct or not.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation, I should like to say that if in the course of my speech I referred to the official Opposition, I apologize because that was not my intention. I want to make it clearly understood that I intended to say “members of the PFP” and not “the official Opposition.”

In regard to this matter I should like to inform the House that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to help this gentleman for a period of four years without being able to get anywhere and he certainly wishes the hon. member for Amanzimtoti better luck and better success in that respect.

He should be the Leader of the Opposition.

We would welcome a commission of inquiry to establish the full facts in this matter, and on behalf of the official Opposition I have the authority to support formally the request for a public judicial inquiry into this matter.

During this short session, as mentioned by the hon. member for Walmer yesterday, there has been some area of agreement, although limited. I think that area of agreement is the agreement that the status quo in South Africa as it exists at present is untenable. This has been discussed particularly in the context of constitutional and labour matters, but there has been general agreement on that score. We live in an era of change, whether we like it or not, and whether the Government initiates that change or not. What is critical in a period of transition is that the people in a country have confidence in the Government as such; not necessarily in a particular party in government but in the concept of Government. There are two aspects of that; the one is competence and the other, integrity. Competence tends to be far more of a matter of opinion, because some people like what a Government is doing and others do not. The question of integrity, however, is critical, and I should like to address myself to this question today.

This country, a few years ago, and for some years after that, suffered from the Information scandal, which was a most unpleasant aspect of our history. It shocked people throughout the country and probably throughout the world too, and it undermined the confidence of people in the institutions of Government, irrespective of who in fact the Government might be. I would have hoped that the Government would have learnt some lessons from that event, including the hon. the Minister of Finance, who in my view did not cover himself with glory in that episode …

What do you know about it?

Yes, the way he signed that document—with dark glasses on!

… even if he did perhaps cover some other things, as he explained to the Erasmus Commission.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the lessons that should have been learnt from this? The first lesson is that the public is entitled to know what is happening to its money. The second lesson is that public money is not there to be spent on projects to further the interests of the NP, or secretly to enrich friends of the Government.

On 10 September last year, at the S.A. Mint, mini-Krugerrands were launched for the first time. These were the 1980 mini-Krugerrands. Only 60 of each proof, i.e. one half-ounce, one quarter-ounce and one tenth-ounce Krugerrand, were minted. The 1981 total is at least 24 000, compared with the total, for those three groups, of only 180 for last year. Furthermore, these coins were not made available on the Mint’s Numismatic Collectors’ List.

What is the result of this? Firstly, the collectors of Krugerrands, many of whom have supported the concept since 1967, and have bought them in good times and bad, now have a gap in their collections. Those who had collected a full range of proof Krugerrands, now have a gap. Secondly, 1980 proof mini-Krugerrands are either unobtainable, or very nearly unobtainable. Thirdly, there are 60 lucky owners of what are referred to as “1980 VIP sets of proof Krugerrands”.

One of the questions is: Who are the lucky owners of those 1980 proof mini-Krugerrands? On 21 August this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance, and the last part of the reply, in relation to who received them, reads as follows—

That was in reply to question No. 89. On 7 September I asked a further question—No. 262—and the reply I received in this regard was as follows—

Mr. Speaker, why embarrassment? I shall tell hon. members of this House why: Because only 60 sets were minted, when the demand was obviously for more than a 100 times that quantity. Obviously an artificial scarcity of those coins was created, and the hon. the Minister of Finance is a good enough economist to know what the effect of scarcity is. For a full set, the guests were required to pay R473,83. The value today, some twelve months later, cannot be precisely determined because there is no ready market in these coins, as I have mentioned, but it has been quoted at figures ranging between R5 000 and R11 000 per set. I know for a fact that there is a buyer in Johannesburg who is prepared to pay R10 000 for a set but who has not been able to get one. That is something like 2 000% appreciation in one year. Those coins have increased in value 20 times in one year. In effect the hon. the Minister of Finance has donated some R500 000 to 60 invited guests and he will not say who they are. I believe the public has a right to know. Specifically, was a set made available to the hon. the Minister himself?

I can answer that very easily.

Good. Was a set made available to any other Cabinet Ministers, to any MPs?

In terms of marketing a new product, these coins, in the normal course of events it would be quite reasonable to invite people from various parts of the world who sell or promote the sale of Kruger rands, and also to invite certain local dignitaries connected with the S.A. Mint and the goldmining industry, and in those circumstances I believe it would be acceptable to hand out mementos of a nominal value.

I take the strongest exception to the hon. the Minister of Finance handing out largesse on a grand scale to guests of his choice at taxpayers’ expense. Furthermore I consider it typical of Nationalist arrogance that the hon. the Minister refuses to inform the public who his 60 lucky guests were. Has the hon. the Minister learnt nothing from the Information scandal? Does he think it is his right to distribute taxpayers’ money on large scale to a chosen few to enhance his popularity or that of his Government?

The public is entitled to know who the people are who have shared in this R500 000 windfall and why the hon. the Minister allowed it to happen. If the hon. the Minister does not supply the information I have requested and is not able to give a satisfactory explanation, he will stand accused of abusing his position as Minister of Finance and as guardian of the public purse.

Order! The hon. member must be very careful with his words. I do not think “abusing” is parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I say that if he is not prepared to supply the information … [Interjections.]

You are an arrogant little twerp.

I will deal with your version of this matter. What a performance!

What a party you had. I suppose you had your eyes closed while you were drawing up the guest-list.

I will deal with you.

Historians will deal with you; do not worry.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will excuse me if I do not reply to his, as far as I can see, arrogant speech. One of my colleagues will reply to him at a later stage.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He has raised a very important matter here today and at the same time asked for a judicial commission of inquiry.

*I want to choose my words very carefully, because more than one department is involved here. It involves the Department of Finance, the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, and therefore also those Ministers, the Department of Justice and its Minister, as well as the South African Police and its Minister. At the outset we want to admit that this is a really serious matter which the hon. member raised here. We do not for a single moment want to ignore or play down the seriousness of the matter which he put to us in such very clear terms. I am just sorry—and I hope the hon. member will forgive me for mentioning this—that the hon. member did not confine himself specifically to the facts of the matter, but that in the same breath he hurled wide-ranging accusations of “cover-ups” which involved not only members of this House, but also people outside, the hon. the Minister of Justice as well as officials of his department, our Judiciary, the hon. the Minister of Industries as well as officials of that department. By implication the accusation of a “cover-up” was even taken as far as the official Opposition. I think it is a great pity that the hon. member, who probably had a very strong case, tried to drum up a little emotional support by suggesting there had been a cover-up. I should like to object to this and in a friendly manner, but with all the earnestness at my disposal, object to the fact that the possibility of a cover-up has been linked to the entire matter in this way.

I shall deal with the matter as briefly as possible because the facts are already generally known. The hon. member quoted a large number of facts here. I want to take a brief look at the involvement of the Department of Finance and the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism in particular, and I shall try to sketch our involvement in this matter as briefly as possible. The one point I want to make quite clear is that as far as NFI is concerned, that body was never registered as a financial institution as it was merely a company. As far as the Department of Finance is concerned, it never was subject to any legislation of the department regarding financial institutions because it was not registered as a financial institution. It was therefore merely a company with subsidiaries through which it carried out its activities. The only interest the Department of Finance had in this matter was the fact that that undertaking’s shares were quoted on the Stock Exchange. I want to state categorically here that the Department of Finance reacted regularly to representations that were addressed to us. As a matter of fact we built up a very thick file over a period of 11 years. As soon as we possibly could, we contacted Mr. Benson or the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to sketch the situation to them as we at the Department of Finance saw it. I think that the most recent letter to Mr. Benson and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti—the hon. member must correct me if we did not send him a letter as well—stated that the matter had been handed over to the Commercial Branch of the Police, which is investigating this entire matter. This is the extent to which the Department of Finance was involved.

As far as the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism that deals with the legislation on companies, is concerned, I think this is not the first time that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has raised this matter. As a matter of fact I think he even raised it in Parliament. I can clearly remember him doing so on a previous occasion. As was the case today, when the matter was discussed by the Standing Committee dealing with that Vote, the hon. member mentioned the representations that had been addressed to the Government by various persons and organizations, requesting an investigation into the affairs of NFI. I think this statement is basically correct. During 1968 and 1969 there was exceptional interest in the shares quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. As a result of that interest the prices of those shares rose to unrealistic levels. At that stage the hon. the Minister of Finance warned on various occasions that persons investing injudiciously in shares, could suffer heavy losses. Round about 1968 the Johannesburg Stock Exchange gave NFI a listing and at the same time that company offered a large number of shares for subscription by means of a prospectus. According to available information the NFI received so many applications for shares that it could not deal with the number of applications properly. It was therefore inevitable that things would have had to come to a head at some stage or other. Mr. C. R. Benson, to whom the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred during the activities of the Standing Committee and again today, purchased a large parcel of the NFI shares just before the prices of those shares dropped. Mr. Benson had expected to make a considerable profit on the shares he had purchased, but his expectations were not realized. The case of Bowens v. Charles Richard Benson and Golden Disc (Pty.) Ltd., referred to in question No. 21 for oral reply here in the House, on Wednesday, 26 August 1981, is a case in which the judge found, inter alia that the directors of NFI, in the prospectus that was published, had made certain statements although they realized that the facts on which the statements were based differed from what they had stated, and that the directors of NFI had disposed of their shares in NFI, while those shares could still be sold at good prices.

Although Mr. Benson lodged complaints concerning NFI and its directors with the Police, no legal proceedings were ever instituted in consequence of those complaints. As far as can be ascertained, the Attorney-General to whom the Police submitted their reports on the investigation, was not prepared to institute a prosecution. As a matter of principle, no Attorney-General will furnish reasons as to why he does not wish to institute criminal proceedings.

The Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism’s involvement in this matter may be set forth briefly as follows, and I think it is perhaps important for purposes of the record that I do so, particularly as I intend to set forth the policy of the department in this connection to the House briefly. Let us first take a brief look at section 258 of the Companies Act, in which the responsibility of the Minister and the Department regarding matters of the nature raised here today, are set out. Section 258 of the Companies Act, 1973, provides—and I am quoting it in full because I consider this to be a very serious matter—

I should like to comment very briefly on this. In the first place this department never received a resolution from the company that it should investigate this matter. In the second place as far as we know a court order was never issued either, in which the Minister was requested to institute such an investigation. I now quote further from section 258 of the Companies Act, as follows—

1. (a) that the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors or the creditors of any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a matter oppressive or unfairly prejudicial or unjust or inequitable to any part of its members or that it was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose; or
2. (b) that persons concerned with its formation or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of any fraud, delict or other misconduct towards it or towards its members; or
3. (c) that its members have not been given all the information with respect to its affairs they might reasonably expect.

As regards section 258(2)(b) and (c) the fact of the matter is that the information we received, created the impression that activities of the nature referred to in this section occurred in this case. By this means the appointment of an inspector by the Minister could be authorized. Now the department has a policy, and I should like to spell it out very clearly because it is basically this policy that was the consideration which gave rise to the hon. the Minister deciding not appoint an inspector, and it reads as follows—

Mr. Benson addressed representations—

That is the section I have just quoted from.

I want the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to listen carefully to this—

I shall continue by indicating what the implication would be if we were to appoint an inspector on the supposition that a crime had been committed. In this case there was the suspicion of a crime and it was therefore not necessary for us to do so because in the first place it could have resulted in great expense for the person requesting such an investigation. In the second place the investigation could not have been to any advantage to him. It could only expose the company’s circumstances. The rest would in any case have had to be settled in an ordinary court case; in other words, once the company’s inspector has completed the investigation and the crimes do in fact exist according to the inspector’s investigation, the dossier is handed to the Police, they undertake a new investigation and they institute proceedings. That is why the procedure of not appointing an inspector is adopted.

In general I can say that I discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Justice and we are convinced and feel that as a first step we should perhaps consider the alternative handling of this type of offence in terms of the Companies Act. However, in my opinion and in the opinion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, this is a matter for the Hoexter Commission which is at present considering the question and also for the future, but it is a matter to which we shall give attention.

I also hear that the Attorney-General has again refused to institute proceedings, but the reasons for his refusal are not known to me.

In conclusion I want to come to the representations addressed to us by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. In this connection I should like to tell him that we on this side of the House treat his representations sympathetically and I do not want to tell him now that we accept the appointment of a judicial commission, but what I can say is that in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police I have decided that we shall look into the possibilities of such an investigation, and this does not exclude the appointment of a judicial commission. In co-operation with the departments we shall look into this matter carefully, and now I am speaking on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police. We shall consider appropriate steps. We shall investigate this matter, and this does not exclude the possibility that we may eventually decide to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said because he dealt specifically with the matter that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised.

We have now reached the end of this Parliamentary session and the end of the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill too and one would like to look back at what has been said during the course of the session by Government spokesmen and others and to try to determine what it all means. I listened very attentively to hon. members on the Government side who participated in this debate, including the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of National Education. As far as they are concerned, they stated an alarming standpoint and I believe that the House should take note of this, because in my opinion it is an indication of the train of thought of the NP with regard to change in South Africa. From what hon. members opposite have said, it is very clear that the Government is in fact ready to bring about change in South Africa, but it must be very clearly understood that such change will be brought about only between the extremely narrow confines of the apartheid policy of the Government.

According to the principles of the NP.

I am grateful that the hon. member is confirming it. Therefore, what we are dealing with here, is not an attempt on the part of the Government to change apartheid as such or to do away with it.

What is apartheid? [Interjections.]

That is an interesting question. I should like to know from that hon. Deputy Minister what apartheid is. Both the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Minister of National Education said that there will be change and adjustments, but South Africa and the world outside must understand very clearly that such changes will have to take place within the confines of the apartheid policy of the Government.

Yes.

Do not be stupid. It is according to the principles of the NP.

When I mentioned that, an hon. member on the other side of the House said: “yes” …

These are the principles of the NP.

No. I feel it is alarming and it is important that we should take note of this.

The word “change” is on everyone’s lips. The question is continually being asked in South Africa: Is change taking place? Has change taken place? Are changes going to take place? When one talks to some members of the NP, one finds that they are disgruntled due to some aspects that accompany change. Furthermore people are asking why there is so much resistance to the concept of change, because there is in fact resistance on the part of the HNP and the right wing of the NP. Why is there so little enthusiasm for the changes that are now being made, for instance to the labour legislation?

What you are saying now is not true.

The hon. member should be quiet now because he too asked this question. Why is there no recognition for the efforts of the Government in this regard? Why is there not a decrease in the tension prevailing in South Africa? Why is there not an improvement in relations in South Africa as a result of the change that has already been made? This is a problem with which the NP is faced. I can understand it and I should like to help them with it.

Thank you.

I want to help them by discussing a few of the problems with them. If they listen carefully and attentively to me, I shall be able to help them, because I am a friendly fellow and I should like to help them. [Interjections.] The changes that the Government has in fact made, took place as a result of pressure and have in fact never been real reform. However, the Government must understand that there is a big difference between concessions and reform. If the Government wants to bring about reform, it must bring about a dramatic improvement in the standard of living, the lifestyle and circumstances of the various population groups in our country on its own initiative and with enthusiasm. In other words, on its own initiative the Government must eliminate injustice and create opportunities for the other population groups in South Africa. The Government must not, as was the case in the past, wait for riots in Soweto for instance or for bloodshed to force it to make changes; then that is not reform, but concessions. Of course, the goodwill of the other groups will never be achieved by means of concessions. True reform, with the co-operation and assent of all the people affected by it, is the way in which this Government should forge ahead.

This brings me to the second factor. The rhetoric of the Government—the type of things that are being said here and abroad—creates expectations which the Government does not fulfil. Surely this is true. Hon. members will remember what tremendous expectations were created by the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in Upington. There, in the most conservative part of South Africa, before an audience who have committed themselves totally to apartheid, the hon. the Prime Minister said that we shall have to change. This was something that grasped the imagination of the entire nation in South Africa, because now we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to declare from a platform that we must change. [Interjections.] However, then nothing happened. After that we had the hon. the Prime Minister attending the Carlton conference and he used fine words there too. The hon. the Prime Minister even went so far as to visit Soweto. He was the first Prime Minister of South Africa to visit the city with the largest population in South Africa. This can be compared with Margaret Thatcher visiting London or Reagan visiting New York. That visit caused repercussions in South Africa. Then, believe it or not, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development also said in Palm Springs that we were going to do away with all discrimination and this Government was going to grant full citizenship to all South Africans and to kill apartheid.

That is the tenth time that you have quoted that speech wrongly.

The important point is that this rhetoric creates expectations, but the Government has not fulfilled those expectations. The consequential disillusionment, disappointment and resistance then simply increased. My point is that we do not want words, but actions.

It is high time!

If changes are to be made that will enjoy the approval of South Africa and the rest of the world, we need actions and not words.

The third factor is that the changes that are in fact made, are always made unwillingly. They are slow changes that are made inch by inch and one practically cannot notice them once they have in fact been made. This inept way of making changes will not have the desired effect. The changes are always accompanied by a whole series of incidents caused by the fact that the Government has not seen to it that its bureaucracy has been geared to the changes that are in fact being made.

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

No, I do not have time for that hon. member’s questions. If the Government wants its changes to succeed, the population as a whole must be able to see that the Government’s intentions are good with regard to the changes …

Can you not see that?

… and that the changes are being made with enthusiasm.

Take for instance changes in the sporting sphere. A few years ago the Government said there could not be any mixed sport. One remembers the Loskop Dam speech. However, sport apartheid has been destroyed little by little by the Government, but in such a way that we have not achieved anything by it. We do not have any apartheid in the sporting sphere today, but is South Africa better off as a result? No, and this is due to the reluctance of the Government, the lack of enthusiasm. That is why it has meant nothing to us.

What about Royal Cape?

The fourth important factor is that the Government does not define what change means. Everyone in South Africa has his own definition of change. For instance, if one speaks to a verligte member like the hon. member for Innesdal, who is very close to the PFP, one has one definition of change. [Interjections.] However, if one speaks to the hon. member for Waterberg, one has a completely different definition of that word. [Interjections.] Surely it is no use using words like “unnecessary” and “hurtful” discrimination. What does this mean? What forms of discrimination are unnecessary or hurtful? Surely one must spell it out. It is no use saying we are going to do away with unnecessary and hurtful discrimination if it is not stated at the same time what is meant by these concepts. What is “necessary” discrimination? If one does away with “unnecessary” discrimination, one must also give a definition of what one means by “necessary” discrimination. What is “necessary” discrimination? For what purpose is it necessary?

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

No, Sir, I do not have time for that hon. member’s questions.

Horace, you are scared.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member for Bryanston is scared?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I am petrified of his ignorance.

*There are no definitions, and the Government will simply have to provide definitions. It is no use carrying on in this way without the Government being prepared to say what it means by the things that it says.

I now come to the question of double talk. There are no two hon. members on the Government side who spell out the same thing. Only the other day we heard a certain standpoint from the hon. member for Waterberg with regard to the future political rights and participation of the Coloureds, and a few days after that it had to be repudiated by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. We are not dealing here with two backbenchers in the NP, but with two hon. members who are competing with one another for the future leadership of the NP, and even they cannot agree with one another. I want to quote as an example what Dr. Worrall, the chairman of the constitutional committee of the President’s Council, said the other day. He said—

This is of the entire process with which the Government is involved—

Not similar—

This was said by the most authoritative member and the chairman of that committee. On the other hand, however, we have the hon. the Prime Minister who said that as long as the NP governs, there will be no Coloureds on a common voter’s roll and there will be no common Parliament. We cannot deceive the people of South Africa in this way. We must be honest with them. Those hon. members must be consistent; otherwise their changes will never be accepted.

The next factor is sincerity. How sincere are the Government’s intentions? Can the people accept that the Government is being sincere with them when it talks about change? I want to put the Government’s sincerity to a small test. For instance, take the President’s Council.

You are not allowed to speak about that.

Yes, I am allowed to speak about the President’s Council. In accordance with legislation that was passed by the House the other day, it was said the other day that the members of the Council should enjoy the same status as members of this House. In order to achieve this, in terms of that legislation they will now have the same powers, rights and privileges as the members of this House. I accept this and I can understand that the Government wants the members of the Council that they have created, to enjoy the same status as hon. members of this House. After all, they are South Africans and, according to the view of the Government, leading representatives of their various population groups.

They are.

Now I want to put a question. If I were to invite the Coloured and Indian members of the President’s Council, who now have the same status, privileges and powers as White MP’s, to dine with me in the dining-room in the Parliamentary building today, what would the consequences of that be? This test proves that the Government is not sincere in its dealings with these people. In other words, the Government’s standpoint is: “Yes, but over there on the other side.”

Yes.

Those people have separate status and a separate body, but in this body they are not accepted as equals. The hon. member for Brentwood said “yes”. I am pleased that he said it.

Yes, just like at the Royal Cape Golf Club.

Why do the members of the President’s Council not sit in the Senate Chamber? A beautiful chamber is standing empty there.

We are using it and you know it.

I asked a few Nationalists why this was the case. Now the verkramptes say they do not want the President’s Council to be viewed as a second Chamber.

Who are they? Name them.

Of course, the verligtes have a completely different answer to this. However, I know what the reason is. If the President’s Council with its Indian and Coloured members had sat in the Senate Chamber, it would have created a problem because we have White toilets only in Parliament and we have a White dining-room only. What I should like to say, is that with the standpoint that the Government is adopting, it must be able to prove its sincerity with regard to the changes. If it cannot do so, the public will always be suspicious and believe that the Government is merely making the changes out of expediency and is not sincere about them.

The next factor is the strategy of the Government. The strategy of the Government is hopelessly wrong. The strategy of the hon. the Prime Minister is first of all to boast, then to do nothing and then to call an election. Surely this is completely wrong. That election was a fatal step on the part of the Government. Prior to that time the Government spoke about the possibility of a right-wing group and the dangers that it entailed for South Africa, but the election gave that very group the opportunity to mobilize its forces and to provide evidence of its numbers. That was unfortunate. If one wants to bring about change, one must work out one’s plans very carefully and in great detail. Then once one begins with one’s changes …

You are good at that, aren’t you?

Yes, I am very good at it. Then it must be carried out with military precision. One must carry out one’s plans very well and then one must take action and make all one’s changes. Only after the dust has settled, does one call an election. I am quite prepared to offer myself as a political consultant for the NP. [Interjections.] I am prepared to do for the NP what I did for the old United Party. [Interjections.]

The next factor is the fear of the right-wing group in the ranks of the NP. The Government must not show that it fears the right-wing group. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in his speech on his Vote: “If we were to do what you say we must do, we would have an HNP Government.” We would not have an HNP Government, but a PFP Government.

That would be an even greater disaster.

Hon. members must bear in mind that the verkrampte approach and the verkramptheid of South Africa’s voters is the product of 33 years of indoctrination. This Government exploited colour prejudice disgracefully for its own political gain. I want to tell the Government that it must be prepared to confront the right-wing group in its ranks. It must not be afraid of them, because if it is afraid of them, it will be strengthening the right-wing group. If it is afraid of them, they will become stronger and then in the end the Government will not be able to change at all.

There are many other things that I could say to help the Government but they will have to wait until next year.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to address the House, I want to say that I had another look at the concluding sentence of the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I consider that it contains a suggestion of abuse of powers by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. member must therefore withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the hon. member for Bryanston, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made some unsavoury remarks about and smeared by innuendo the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is obvious that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has no respect for the feelings of his fellow members in this House. I heard that hon. member say in this House that guests had paid for those mementoes, those coins, and I also heard him say that people had been invited. I find nothing wrong with that and yet the hon. member comes along here and he says that the hon. the Minister distributed largesse. I say therefore Sir, that if the hon. member does not take this matter to the Advocate-General and does not submit a sworn statement, I shall consider him to be a political coward. That is the way the hon. member should go about it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When I made certain accusations of abuse subject to certain circumstances, Sir, in a hypothetical context, I was ordered to withdraw them. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Pretoria West is entitled to make an accusation of cowardice on my part on a hypothetical basis?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pretoria West spoke of a “political coward”.

Order! Will the hon. member for Pretoria West explain what he said?

Yes, Sir, I said so.

The hon. member must withdraw the expression.

I withdraw it, Sir. I challenge him then to go to the Advocate-General …

You are a political idiot.

… otherwise he will be branded as a monger of wild politically coloured statements.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston allowed to say that the hon. member for Pretoria West is a political idiot?

Yes, he is.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand. If “political coward” is not unparliamentary, why must I withdraw the expression “political idiot”?

I ordered the hon. member for Pretoria West to withdraw those words, which he did.

I am sorry, Sir. I withdraw the words “political idiot”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the hon. member for Bryanston passed that remark, the hon. member for Groote Schuur said: “Yes, he is”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition explained that he believed that the hon. member for Bryanston was entitled to say so. He did not corroborate what the hon. member for Bryanston had said. The hon. member for Pretoria West may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell on one matter and that is the policy of the NP which is being distorted by those hon. members. I want to say that the policy of the NP has come a tremendously long way. To tell us now that we are afraid of the left wing or the right wing is to ignore the facts of the situation totally. I want to begin by referring to our policy of confederation. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd said the following—

[Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville must have had a very good lunch but if he will allow me to continue with my speech I shall be very much obliged.

*In other words, this idea of the NP of a constellation of States has come a long way. It is something which to us is in fact the hallmark of the NP. We believe in “separate” and we believe in “independent States”. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

We in this party are absolutely on the path of Dr. Verwoerd. We are on the way to implementing the ideas and the policy of Dr. Verwoerd at this juncture to the best of our ability. In other words, we are implementing what he said. He also said—

This is the consistent policy of this party today. The hon. member for Bryanston spoke of domination and discrimination. I want to tell him that it is our policy that there will eventually be no discrimination and no domination of one nation by another. When we come to the President’s Council, about which they had so much to say, I say that this body was established to bring about changes in South Africa. Where necessary they must be implemented. Dr. Verwoerd said—

He went on to say—

This is exactly what we are doing. We are being led by our intellect and our belief, even if our heart is often eloquent.

That is why the policy of the NP is consistent. It is a policy that guarantees the freedom of all people. One can rely on the policy of the NP; it is consistent.

My time is very limited, but I should like to consider the official Opposition as a possible alternative Government. I want to see how consistent they are. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reported as follows in Hoofstad of 6 October—

This we must fully understand: The PFP view of majority government is not a majority government in the strict sense of the word, but merely a constitutional mechanism. The report continues—

He therefore recognizes the right to domination of the majorities and his whole aim as regards these mechanisms is in fact …

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member should rather listen; perhaps he will learn something about his own party’s policy. [Interjections.]

I refer again to the statement that the mechanisms whereby to restrict the rights of the majority groups, do exist. This is now incorporated in a constitution which they want to submit to a national convention, but do they really think that the majority will make their right to domination subservient, as the hon. leader himself admits, to a mechanism which they, by definition, begrudge a majority government? It is too ridiculous for words.

The PFP believes in a federal State in which the principle of “one man, one vote” will apply, but in which the majority will not dominate. By means of these mechanisms they want to protect the future of the Whites. They want to tell the Whites: Your future is safe in the hands of the PFP because we have a mechanism.

No, the right to self-determination of the White is not made subject to mechanisms. Nor will the Black man make his majority subservient to mechanisms. This is absolutely impossible, and that is why the PFP has no future.

†I should like to refer to their so-called “minority veto on the vital levels of political decision making”. On the vital levels of political decision making they want to have a minority veto. One would like to know what the purpose is of such a veto, and they themselves provide the answer. They say that “it gives recognition to the fact that South Africa is a culturally diverse society”. I should like to point out that the PFP says further that “to ignore the political significance of such a diversity, is to promote conflict”. Here then do we find the reason for this veto. I want to ask a very important question, but I see that the hon. members are not listening. What is there in a culturally diverse society which has a political significance in promoting conflict?

That is, I think, the question they, the PFP, should ask themselves. They answer that question themselves. They say the “political interests of people tend to cluster around primordial loyalties identified with ethnic groups”. So, Sir, what they really are saying is that in order to remove the conflict potential, something has to be done about the ethnic loyalties. Therefore it follows, firstly, that a process of eradicating group loyalties is necessary for the success of that party’s policy. If they cannot eradicate the ethnic loyalties, they are doomed to failure. I say that it is on that rock that they are going to be dashed to pieces. The second possibility of course is that of separate development. To avoid ethnic groupings leading to violence, one can do one of two things; one can eradicate those loyalties as the PFP suggests, or one can have separate development as the National Party suggests.

*If one looks closely at the policy of the PFP, one sees that in fact they arrive at the policy of the National Party as the only possible alternative.

†Now, Sir, I want to refer just briefly to the PFP’s so-called “economic democracy”. I want to read the first point only, for my time is very limited. “Political freedom”, they say, “is an essential ingredient for a just economic society.” What is their interpretation of political freedom? Their whole idea is to circumvent the rights of the majority with a mechanism. They have no real idea of what political freedom is. For them “political freedom” is their own jargon having their own special definition. If one looks at political freedom, one must ask them: Would they have given Ciskei political freedom? I say that in terms of that party’s policy there is no political freedom, and never can anybody become independent.

*I conclude by saying that those hon. members have not heard the last of their policy. That is still coming. The attitude of this party, with which we are proceeding on the road of South Africa, and which has come a long way and has been spelt out by various able leaders, is contained in what Dr. Malan said: “Laat ons gedrywe word nie deur haat nie, maar gedrywe word deur liefde. Hierdie liefde vir Suid-Afrika sluit in die hele bevolking van Suid-Afrika.” We on this side of this House know we have the solution. We know we can rely on the loyalty of the population, which that side cannot. It gives me pleasure to support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the debate which is now nearing its end has covered a wide field, as one could expect a budget debate to do. Interestingly enough, much more has been said about political matters than about economic and financial policy, possibly because our financial policy is so successful. However that may be, the hon. member for Pinelands also referred today to the report of the De Lange Commission on national education. We had a very competent and thorough reply from the hon. the Minister involved in that matter. Listening to my colleague, it was difficult to believe that he and the hon. member for Pinelands were talking about the same report. At an earlier occasion the hon. member for Yeoville—I do not see him at the moment …

He will be here in a minute.

Before that hon. member had been able to study the report of the so-called Browne Committee, he remarked on it here in Parliament and said that it was a very disappointing report. He said that the report did not have much substance. I think he must be very sorry today that he spoke so soon, and I think the hon. member for Pinelands is going to find himself in exactly the same position, because I think that when he examines this De Lange report properly, he will adopt a different attitude from the one he adopted here today. I do not wish to give too much attention to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, but I just wish to reply to the very unpleasant and I think unfounded insinuations which the hon. member made here today at the end of the session. What the hon. member said here today is a very serious reflection on the Director of the Mint and the President of the Chamber of Mines. I want to give the hon. member some advice. He is a young member and this is not the first time in his first session that he has been so unpleasant and has made such unfounded allegations. He should reflect carefully on where he is going to end up if he goes on in this way, because this Parliament has certain structures and certain remedies for dealing with this kind of behaviour.

+The hon. member is suggesting that there was some kind of irregularity at that very pleasant function where the so-called mini Krugerrand was launched and where it was in fact first given publicity. That was in September last year. That function was arranged entirely by the Director of the Mint and the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines is, of course, generally responsible for the sale of gold coins and the Director of the Mint is, of course, the man who is responsible for the minting of those coins. It so happens that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the inviting of guests. That was a matter for the Director of the Mint and the Chamber of Mines. That is the first point. What happened there was that, apparently, as I stated in my reply to the two questions for written reply put to me earlier this session, 60 proof coins were minted of the half Kruger rand, the quarter Kruger rand and the tenth Kruger rand, because these were the coins that were being launched. There was, for example, an occasion at the time when Dr. Dönges was Minister of Finance when certain coins were launched too. On that occasion 120 guests were invited and coins happened to be distributed to those guests who paid the proper prices ruling. This is, therefore, an old established procedure which was again followed on this occasion by the Mint and the Chamber of Mines. The prices were the ruling gold prices as the Mint determined them, plus 26% for refinery costs, plus 10% which was a further premium added. The prices were thus determined, as I stated in my formal reply earlier this session. It was absolutely regularly done, in the proper way. Those 60 guests were given an opportunity to pay those properly determined prices for each little set they were offered as a momento, just as has been done in the past. It was not my decision. In fact, as far as that is concerned, I can say that I had nothing to do with it.

Who invited the guests?

I have just said the guests were invited by the Director of the Mint in association with the Chamber of Mines.

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

No, you may not, my friend. I am answering this offensive man now. I want to say that this hon. member has been here a very short time, but in that short time he has shown himself to be an unusually offensive young man. I am still going to deal with a second point relating to him. I want to ask what is irregular about this matter. Where did the Director of the Mint and the President of the Chamber of Mines go wrong?

Why did you describe yourself as the host?

I will tell that hon. member why. Nominally I suppose I was. I was invited to be present as Minister of Finance, and the Mint is, of course, part of the financial structure of this country. That is the form in which I appeared as “host”. I need not have said this in my written reply to the question and I would still have been quite correct. In fact the reply was drawn up by my officials, and that is how we put it forward and I stand by it. Nominally I suppose I was the host, but the function was, in fact, arranged by the Mint and the Chamber of Mines just as it was done in the past. I take absolutely no responsibility for these insinuations being made and I think that hon. member should take the first opportunity to withdraw them because he has cast a very serious reflection on the Director of the Mint and the Chamber of Mines. That is the point. Nobody got away with anything. It was an old practice which was followed in a perfectly regular manner.

Why was the guest-list secret?

Why was the guest-list secret? I will ask the Director of the Mint and the Chamber of Mines whether they would wish to hand this matter over to the public.. Why should they? If they have invited people why should they say to the hon. member who these people were?

The guests were invited in your name.

One gets the impression that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is really embittered. Was he sorry that he did not receive a set? Was he sorry he had not been invited? I do not think the Mint had even heard of him at that point.

I have no Kruger rands at all.

The hon. member must just accept the facts and stop making these insinuations, for, as my hon. friend said, we can investigate these things much further. I have nothing whatever to hide. This was completely regularly done in the nicest manner. It was a particularly pleasant function and it was very much to our advantage. Subsequently I happened to be in London when these coins were launched there at a magnificent ceremony held in the Goldsmith’s Hall. I was invited to be present and this function was very much to South Africa’s credit. We received excellent publicity, none of this sort of thing that we had here today. It was absolutely uncalled for and absolutely unjustified. I leave that matter there but I want to say this …

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

No, you may not ask me a question. I am talking now and you had your say. I am sick to death of these tactics. [Interjections.] I want to say this: What did the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens do earlier this session when my vote was discussed in this Chamber? That hon. member was here at the time and he took part in that discussion but said nothing about my pensions policy or anything about me in that regard. What did he do? While the discussion on my Vote was taking place he ran across to the Senate Chamber where the Votes of the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions were being discussed. He attacked me there without any knowledge on my part that he was going to do it. What does this House think of that? [Interjections.] Not only that, but what did he say? He said that I had misled the pensioners. The hon. member will be interested to know what was the reaction on the part of the pensioners to that. Not only did I receive several telephone calls the following weekend, but I also received a number of letters, which are on my file, strongly condemning this attitude of his, because it is absolutely untrue. What did he do? He said that we had covered up. In fact, in my budget speech and in the debate we said more about what this Government had done for the pensioners and was doing for the pensioners than I had ever said before. Where was the cover-up then? He also said that he could understand why the Government was ashamed of the way it had treated old-age pensioners. What arrogance, Mr. Speaker! This hon. member is completely ignorant. There are pensioners who are writing to me and I have a big file on which these letters are kept where they say how much they appreciate what is being done. The facts show that no Government in South Africa has done more for pensioners than this Government has done, particularly lately.

Come and stand against me in Cape Town Gardens. There are lots of pensioners there.

Mr. Speaker, much as I would like to stand against that hon. member it would be asking a great deal of me to be in such close propinquity to him. I would really find that difficult. The hon. member must learn that while this House expects lively debate and is quite accustomed to strong language and strong debates, it is not accustomed to unmannerly conduct on the part of a new member. I leave the matter of the pensions there, but I think it was an extremely unsavoury and unjustified attack he made. He did not make that attack here in this House, in my presence, but in another place. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He simply cannot get away from that.

It is the pensioners we are talking about. [Interjections.]

I am merely drawing the attention of hon. members of this House to that hon. member’s attitude. It bears out what I said earlier about his being a singularly offensive young man, and I am sorry that I should have to say that. He is a singularly offensive young man. [Interjections.]

There was another very interesting aspect of this debate, I thought. The hon. member for Yeoville took part in the debate earlier today, and astonishingly, I thought, he never mentioned a single word about the report of the economic commission of the PFP, which has just appeared. It appeared within the last 48 hours, I think.

So what?

However, not a single word did the hon. member for Yeoville mention about it. I think it is astonishing. Is he trying to hide anything?

You are astonished very easily. [Interjections.]

I must admit that I am astonished on this occasion; that I can tell the hon. member.

Did you not read the newspaper?

Of course, I saw some sort of sideways reporting on it in the newspaper.

It was fully covered; there was no sideways reporting on it at all.

I cannot say that I was tremendously impressed by the newspaper reports I saw. I do, however, have a copy of that particular report, and I should like to quote one or two points from it to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Harry is on the socialist track.

Yes. [Interjections.]

Are you prepared to put your policy in the same way? I have challenged you twice to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the Government’s economic and financial policy is set out in detail. How much time is spent in this House every session on the discussion of economic and financial matters? The debates go on and on. How long does the budget debate take? Including the discussion of all the Votes the Committee Stage of the budget debate lasts upwards of 100 hours. The Second Reading debate lasts 20 hours, and the Third Reading debate 12 hours. That means 32 hours in addition to the time taken up by the Committee Stage. How can the hon. member for Yeoville then say that we do not state our policy? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville should give me a chance now. This report contains some quite interesting points. I am just going to refer to one or two of them very briefly. Among other things it says that the economic environment should give encouragement to the individual to work, and incentives to use his ingenuity and to further his ambitions in fair and competitive circumstances. I quote—

That is correct.

What does that mean? Exactly what does it mean?

Exactly what it says.

Mr. Speaker, a very great man, Abraham Lincoln, when he was President of the USA, said: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.” What does it mean when the hon. member wants the strong to be restrained? [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Speaker, we have verbiage here, but what does it mean? Let us take another example. He says here that there has to be provision of equal access for all races, education for all, and they all have to have access to reasonable health facilities. Let us just take this last point. Does that mean a national health scheme?

It does not say that at all.

But what does it mean then? [Interjections.] What does it mean? Time and again I can take examples from this report, examples which, if one puts them together, seem to mean simply massive welfare.

Social democracy.

That is exactly what has killed Great Britain. Last year the hon. member for Yeoville said here we should have social democracy.

What is wrong with that?

Now the hon. member says we must have economic democracy. What has happened to his social democracy now?

That is my party’s proposal. I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a social democrat, have I? [Interjections.]

He further says that the market system should operate to achieve the goals of productivity and efficiency, but that it should do so within the constraints of social conscience.

[Inaudible.]

No. The hon. member for Yeoville must listen to me now. With respect, I did not interrupt him while he was delivering his speech. He says that all this must happen within the constraints of social conscience. What does that mean?

Do you want me to answer you?

The hon. member should have told us when he had the opportunity of doing so. He then goes on to say that where jobs cannot be provided the State should provide relief which includes unemployment benefits. We already have a big unemployment insurance scheme. He also says the State should use fiscal, monetary and other measures to assist in job creation. I want the hon. member not to answer here, but to be good enough to tell us later, in writing, precisely what these things mean. I say that is welfare again.

Will you debate this in public during the recess?

Yes, we can debate it. If the hon. member had spoken this morning, we could have debated it here.

We can debate it on TV.

The hon. member spoke for half an hour this morning and he never mentioned this document. I could have debated it if he had said what these things meant.

I thought we were dealing with the budget.

The document deals further with the wide gaps in income and wealth in South Africa and proposes that it requires special action to enable those in a disadvantageous position to better their situation. It says that this aim can only be achieved by uplifting the underprivileged rather than by impairing the standards enjoyed by the more fortunate. What happens now to the constraints that had to be placed on the strong? This statement is inconsistent with what the hon. member for Yeoville said earlier. The hon. member must go and think again.

But will you debate this when it is published?

The hon. member says further that the extreme poverty of certain regions requires special development activity in such special areas. This is to create special opportunities for work, to reduce deprivation and to improve the quality of life of urgent priorities. I ask: What is the decentralization policy of the Government all about if it is not that?

It has been abandoned. It is now deconcentration.

Been abandoned? On the contrary, it is being made more effective. What about the constellation of States and the policy of development through cooperation of the hon. the Prime Minister?

What about it?

The hon. member should have taken this into account. He says this has now got to be done, but all this is being done.

But you are not doing anything.

There is nothing new here. I would have thought that if this is the philosophy of the PFP, then that party would have accepted and would have strongly supported our decentralization policy instead of attacking it.

We agree with it.

No, you criticize it all the time. Where is that party’s consistency? They say that one must develop the rural areas and the undeveloped areas. They say so in their report. We are doing it and we get no support from the PFP whatsoever.

On the same footing, and this is the last point I want to raise, they say at the end of their report—

Every step the Government takes that is aimed at political reform is opposed by the official Opposition.

Oh, come on.

Oh yes. We can talk of brotherly love on another occasion! But I want to ask the hon. member: What about the President’s Council? They say that there must be political reform. Here is a serious attempt at political reform which has the support of the great majority of South Africans, yet this hon. member and his party are opposing it. I said earlier that I thought that that was the biggest error of judgment the PFP have probably ever made, and I still believe that. I think their opposition to the President’s Council is going to be an albatross round their necks for a long time to come.

We shall see round whose neck it will be. [Interjections.]

That may be, but what I think this amounts to is that it is really a massive welfare programme that is being put forward here. How it is going to be paid for

Harry is on the socialist track.

How it is going to be paid for I would not know.

You are the one who wanted to nationalize the goldmines. You were the one who wanted to nationalize the banks. There sits the hon. the Prime Minister, the greatest socialist ever.

Order! I have already asked the hon. member for Yeoville to contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, they keep asking me questions.

The hon. member said this morning that he had a number of questions to put to me, but he must ask himself those questions. Our policy is as clear as daylight and we are implementing that policy. That hon. member now comes with a number of things to which he must give us the answers. If one analyses their report, I think it is really socialism and welfare dressed up in verbal finery. The hon. member must go and look at this critically and then tell us what these things mean, this high-falutin’ language. I do not think it is going to impress the electorate. In fact, I feel very sure it will not.

*I just want to refer briefly to another aspect which has also been highlighted in this debate. It is said that the hon. the Prime Minister has done nothing to implement his policy, as it were. In this connection, reference has been made to the Carlton Conference which took place a few years ago and the question has been asked what has been done as a result of it.

†This is one of those remarkable questions that hardly justifies serious attempts to analyse or answer it. Nevertheless, let us look at it because, obviously, the hon. member for Pinelands will repeat that sort of question whenever possible. Let us look at the terrain of economics and finance. These things are all taking place under the direct guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister. What have we not done? What has happened to the standard of living in this country? What has happened to our stability? Why is it that our credit rating is today the envy of many countries in the world? Wherever one goes in the world, people will tell one that this is so. Is this great scheme of development co-operation that is subsumed under the constellation of states and the confederation idea—which is the hon. the Prime Minister’s own initiative—not something that ought to excite everybody in this country, living as we are in a multi-national type of community? Is this not something that deserves the support of everybody in this country, irrespective of party affiliations? This is being done under the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative, and yet hon. members opposite say nothing is being done.

We have also made enormous strides in the field of labour and manpower during the past two years. There is an industrial revolution taking place before our eyes, and nowhere more so than in the field of labour and manpower. The work being done today is always put in terms of Black and White which, I think the hon. member for Umbilo rightly said was not the issue; it is not a case of absolutely Black and absolutely White. Nevertheless, look at what Blacks are doing today in industry alone. It is an eye-opener, and this has been taking place particularly during the past couple of years.

Take the security and safety of the State. Who has done more for the security and safety of this country than the hon. the Prime Minister? How long was he Minister of Defence? Right up to this day, all that is being done in this regard, takes place under his personal guidance, as I witness every day. Is this not something that one can tell the world instead of asking what the Prime Minister is doing in regard to his initiatives?

In regard to education we have the De Lange Commission report that was referred to today. I must again put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that he spoke prematurely today. He will have to look far more thoroughly at this report. In my view this report is a milestone in the history of education. The hon. member laughs, but what is there to laugh about?

We also think it is a wonderful report.

There is obviously a different milestone that the hon. member has in mind, because I am not laughing about it. [Interjections.] This commission was set up under the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. Has he therefore done nothing?

Then why do you turn it down? Why have you not accepted it?

Who is turning it down?

In regard to the all-important constitutional dispensation of this country, I had the honour to serve on a Ministerial committee chaired by the hon. the Prime Minister when the previous Prime Minister was still in office. This committee was instructed to look into the constitutional dispensation of this country. That led to a commission of inquiry and that commission’s work led to the appointment of the President’s Council. Is that not progress? Again, how can hon. members opposite ask what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing? This is more progress than we have had in a generation. [Interjections.]

Take the all-important issue of relations among the different nationalities in this country or, as it is referred to in Afrikaans, “die verhoudingsbeleid”. What could be more important than the steps that are being taken today to improve those relations? What Prime Minister has spent more time and effort in consulting with all sections of the population than the present Prime Minister? Let us be factual. Who has taken greater initiatives to consult and negotiate with leaders of all the national groups in this country than the present Prime Minister? Has that not led to a better understanding and more stability in this country? If one is going to close one’s eyes to the facts, all these efforts will not look like anything. However, if one is going to open one’s eyes to the facts, one is going to be greatly impressed.

Let us take the all-important issue of so-called national unity amongst the Whites of this country. Who has done more than the present Prime Minister, in the years since he became Prime Minister, to improve those relations, even under difficult conditions? By difficult conditions I mean, for example, what happened when the hon. the Prime Minister went to Durban earlier this year to hold a public meeting at which he dealt with this matter only to have the English language Press virtually completely ignore it. I am therefore justified in using the term “difficult conditions”. Surely if the hon. the Prime Minister deals with such an all-important matter, it should be reported and the public should be told. [Interjections.] These things are not easy, but such matters are being pursued all the time. Yet hon. members of the Opposition come along and, in parrot-like fashion, repeat the old question: What, in fact, is being done? There are initiatives taking place today at all these levels, more so at any rate than ever before in my time.

*I do not want to say much more. I just want to say that I was recently asked to open the agricultural show at Zeerust. It was a very pleasant occasion. On that occasion I was given a bottle of “mampoer” as a gift. Since I grew up in the Boland, however, I know more about “witblits” than about “mampoer”, but I must say the strongest “witblits” I have ever tasted was quite weak compared with that bottle of “mampoer”. The hon. member for Ventersdorp addressed an appeal to me and said that we should consider licensing mampoer, and after my recent experience I just want to say that I am very sympathetic towards this request. [Interjections.] It is a pity that this is such a short session, because I have certain proposed amendments here to the Customs and Excise Act. We have kept the legislation very short, as hon. members will see this afternoon, but something which we almost included was precisely this question of the transferability of licences for the products of agricultural distillers. Of course, one cannot define agricultural distillers without including distillers of “mampoer”. [Interjections.] So the hon. member for Ventersdorp must just give us a little more time, because we are working on it.

While I am on the subject, I want to take this opportunity of assuring our good friends in the wine industry that the Government takes a very great interest in this important industry. We know there are problems in connection with customs and excise policy and taxes. But much more than this is involved. I have already said in this House that it is time we took a careful look at the price structure in this industry. I think the farmer today receives 11% on the retail price of brandy—this is an average figure—and this really cannot be justified. We must go into this. We must also investigate the wine and spirits industry as a whole. We are prepared to examine it in much greater depth. The wine industry itself is quite competent to do these things in co-operation with us. However, I just want to give the hon. members who represent the important Boland constituencies in this House the assurance that we have a special understanding for the problems they have to contend with. We shall discuss this further and examine it more thoroughly.

Now I want to make a brief announcement about something quite different. It is traditional in the Republic of South Africa that the people pay tribute to their retired or deceased State Presidents. There is probably no more appropriate or permanent way of doing this than for that person to be portrayed on the country’s coins. The Government has consequently decided that all coins minted for circulation during 1982, from the half cent to the R1 nickel, will bear the image of former State President B. J. Vorster. I take pleasure in making this announcement on behalf of the Government.

†I have promised to keep my eyes strictly on the clock, and I think my time has run out. I should like to thank hon. members for their contributions to the debate and their interest in financial and economic affairs and many other matters, as we saw arising out of the debate. As I said earlier, I am sure we will always differ. In fact, I think a void has developed in many respects between hon. members on this side and the official Opposition, but one hopes to be able to persuade them to narrow that gap. However, I think that as long as we can debate these things courteously and fairly under your distinguished guidance, Mr. Speaker, we will be upholding the best traditions of Parliament. I should like to suggest, with great respect, that in a country like South Africa where we are a sophisticated people with a long and deep cultural tradition and, I think where we have learnt to respect one another, we ought at this time to leave insinuations aside, especially if there is absolutely no substance in them. Let us at least deal with the important matters as decent, responsible people who can be friends, despite the fact that we may have very great differences.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading debate on the Status of Ciskei Bill, a Bill which has been exhaustively debated in the House. No amendments were accepted at the Committee Stage and therefore we on these benches see no reason why our attitude at the Third Reading should be any different from the attitude which we adopted at the Second Reading. Therefore I want to move the same amendment that my hon. Leader moved at the Second Reading, as follows—

We on these benches remain quite implacably opposed to a measure which we believe cannot benefit the vast majority of Ciskeians who live both inside and outside that territory although we are sure it will undoubtedly be of benefit to those who tread the corridors of power in that sad, impoverished land. We are not newcomers to this type of legislation. Some of us on these benches have sat through three previous debates on measures granting the status of independence. I for one was utterly unmoved when I heard the hon. the Minister quote from Chief Minister Sebe’s poetic utterances about the independence of Ciskei. I was no more moved by that than I was when the previous Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill was introduced, waxed lyrical and referred to “a nation reaping the fruits of our Government’s system of Bantu self-government, with its rich constitutional dynamism”. It is precisely because we have had experience and the opportunity of observing what exactly the effects have been on the other independent nations that are reaping these fruits, that we are pretty sure what the effect of this Bill is going to be on Ciskei. The hon. the Minister states that the Status of Ciskei Bill differs from its predecessors. He claims that this is unique—that is the expression he used. He bases his claim on the so-called independence convention, which did not accompany the three other “Status” Bills.

Before examining the claim that the convention makes this “Status” Bill unique, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we take the strongest exception to the way in which the hon. the Minister produced this document. Having ditched the package deal, he then produced the convention, like a magician produces a rabbit out of a hat, when we had actually started the Second Reading debate. He was taxed on this late entry by the hon. member for Durban Point. That hon. member taxed him on the late entry of the document, which the hon. the Minister claimed to be of great importance to the Bill. Then the hon. the Minister said by way of an interjection that the convention had been completed months ago. It does not seem to occur to the hon. the Minister that by that admission he was in fact insulting Parliament. To produce this convention, which had been completed months ago, only during the Second Reading debate while he claimed that that debate was vitally affected by the convention, is an insult to the people meant to debate the Bill and decide whether they are going to support it or not. Here we sit—there are 177 of us—charged with the duty of safeguarding the interests of those who are committed to our care, and we are presented with a document, which according to the hon. the Minister is of vital importance, when we are actually halfway through the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Having said that, I want to examine the convention.

I introduced it at the beginning.

At the beginning of the Second Reading debate.

In his speech.

Yes, in his speech. While he was speaking, we on these benches were all expected to study the significance of this document and decide on the strength of it whether we were going to support the Bill or not. Did it not occur to the hon. the Minister that he should have submitted that convention to us weeks ago? He should at least have submitted it to us pari passu with the submission of the Bill itself. That never occurred to him.

Let me now examine his claim that the convention makes so much difference. First of all, as my hon. leader has rightly pointed out, it is not binding in law. All the “Whereas’s” do not amount to a row of beans as far as being binding in law is concerned. Secondly, the convention is vague in the extreme. Apart from the specific provisions which relate to travel documents, there is nothing whatever in the convention which makes it any different or which makes the position of the Ciskeians any different from the position of the Transkeians, the Tswana or the Venda. Apart from the travel documents, there is just nothing in it that makes it any different. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that, force majeure, the Republic of South Africa has had to issue travel documents to the citizens of the independent States of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda if they wish to leave these shores, for the simple reason that those territories are recognized internationally by nobody—except themselves and the Republic of South Africa.

What is your criterion for recognition?

There are six additional subjects dealt with in the convention, but they are in any case embodied, in fact, in clause 6 of the Status of Ciskei Bill, just as they were embodied in similar clauses in the Bills relating to the Status of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, in order, it is said, to safeguard the existing rights of their nationals; that is to say, the rights existing at the time when independence was granted to them. Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would at least do me the courtesy of listening to the arguments that I am advancing. [Interjections.] He and the hon. the Prime Minister are having a cosy little chat and if the hon. the Prime Minister does not care to listen to my arguments, he may just as well leave the Chamber as far as I am concerned. However, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to listen to the arguments of hon. members. He cannot listen, Sir, if he is talking to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] You stop yelling at me you … [Interjections.]

Why don’t you keep quiet just for a moment?

I won’t keep quiet for you.

It is a moot point as to whether the agreements that have been entered into between South Africa and those States have not in fact undermined the importance of section 6 because some of those agreements deal with the right of people to move in and out of the Republic. However, in terms of section 6 of the other Status Acts those persons who were about to become the citizens of independent countries were not supposed to lose any of their existing rights except in so far as they were losing their citizenship. However, they were supposed to be able to move freely in and out, they were supposed to be able to come into the urban areas for a certain period of time. But the actual agreements to some extent undermined the rights they had. This was never demonstrated more clearly than it was at the time of the Nyanga squatter crisis when all the people who used to be citizens of South Africa, nationals of South Africa—although they were also citizens of Transkei—were simply uprooted and sent back by bus to Umtata. Where were the rights that they were supposed to be enjoying in terms of section 6? In fact, they were supposed to be able to enjoy the right of a two-week stay in the Republic without let or hindrance. However, notwithstanding this, they were bussed back under a law which in fact deals with aliens. Exactly the same thing is now going to happen in regard to Ciskei. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows this but the interesting thing about these Transkeian squatters is that they are all back here and no doubt this time orchestrated by the hon. the Minister himself—not the Black Sash, not the church but orchestrated by the Government. Some 400 of them are back here clutching a little piece of paper which gives them the right to return and asks employers to give preference to them as far as work is concerned. However, nothing is happening at this end. Those people are back here in a hopeless state without any place to stay and without anybody doing anything about finding employment for them. I am prepared to say that exactly the same thing is going to happen to Ciskeian citizens when they are uprooted and sent back to wherever they came from and then attempt to come back to this country.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister just how binding these 33 agreements are that have been approved by the cabinet committees of the two governments. How binding are they? Almost without exception, of course, they contain a clause in terms of which either one of the parties may terminate the present agreement at any time by giving six months’ written notice to the other party through diplomatic channels. This is a normal clause in international agreements but the hon. the Minister must not tell us that this convention and the agreements that have been accepted by the cabinet committees of both governments are therefore binding for all time. They are not binding for all time. What of the specific issues? Where are they? What has become of the issues mentioned in the package deal and which were referred to by the Raath Committee? Where, for instance, is there anything in these agreements about the planned programme to phase out discriminatory legislation in the Republic before a certain date? There is no mention of that whatsoever. There is also no mention of citizenship that has to be conferred upon all Ciskeian residents in the confederation, the non-existent confederation. I want to point out again that the whole issue of citizenship is fraught with problems. It has become a burning grievance that started way back in 1963 when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed which made every single Xhosa-speaking Black person living in the Republic and not belonging to another homeland a citizen of Transkei. This issue was taken further in 1970 when the National States Citizenship Act made every single Black person in the Republic whether or not he belonged to a so-called independent or non-independent territory—there were none then—a citizen of the ethnic homeland to which he was linked, however vaguely. However, he was then still supposed to retain his South African citizenship and his South African nationality until such territory became independent.

There is a lot of argument about this and I am not a constitutional lawyer. Some people say that the Black citizens all lost their South African citizenship at that time and retained only their nationality. It seems to me, however, that the Government considers that they retained their South African citizenship, otherwise clause 6 of the Status of Ciskei Bill would not have started as follows—

The Government therefore evidently considers that the Blacks retained their citizenship of South Africa as well as becoming citizens of the homelands. It is only when those homelands become independent that they lose their citizenship and, of course, they also cease to be South African nationals.

Citizenship is a major issue and it has been so in every single case where independence was offered. Transkei and, no doubt, even Chief Mangope thought that their citizens would be able to opt for South African citizenship, because we had that extraordinary little Bill passed which amended the National States Citizenship Act. The amendment which was introduced in 1978 allowed those people who lost their citizenship by virtue of independence to shop around to find another citizenship of a non-independent homeland, thereby regaining their South African nationality. Some 1 687 people did this and of them 1 517 regained their nationality via Ciskei. What is now going to happen to those people? Once again they have been deprived of South African nationality and once again they will have to shop around to see whether kwaZulu or Gazankulu or Qwaqwa or one of the other non-independent homelands is going to take them. It is absurd, but the Government goes on doing this despite the fact that the Cillié Commission found that one of the major causes of dissatisfaction which led to the riots was the citizenship problem.

There are a number of issues which do not figure in the agreements and certainly they do not figure in the Bill. There is nothing, for instance, about this famous confederation of Southern African States. When is that going to see the light of day? This year, next year sometime never, as far as I can see. Certainly it is “never” as regards the land area which has been so confidently included by Chief Sebe in the package deal at the beginning of the negotiations, all that land from the Stormberg to the sea, from the Great Fish to the Kei. All that is gone and there is no mention of it and it is simply now the subject of discussion.

A lot of things were to be decided before independence would be taken. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt stated that the boundaries of Ciskei would be finalized by Parliament before independence.

No.

Nobody said that.

We want to know whether Hogsback is going to be included. Are the pineapple lands near Kidds Beach going to be included? We all want to know this. Are parts of Berlin going to be included? We are creating an independent homeland with no boundaries. What is the point of it? It is absurd. As for the 1975 proposals, those have been delayed by another year.

What about this business of Ciskei having a share in the natural resources of a nonexistent confederation? What about this undertaking “that no citizens would be prejudiced in their rights to such resources by virtue of an anomaly of geographical distribution”—I am quoting in all its glory a sentence which is to be found on page 8 of the Raath’s Committee’s interim report on the constitution and development of Ciskei. Well and good, all good intentions, but one can seek in vain in the convention and in the agreements because one finds no mention of the share in the natural resources. To sum up the effects of this Bill, in Prof. Marinus Wiechers’s words, “The Government is using international law fictions to solve constitutional problems”. I believe that the 64 000 dollar question remains to be answered. Perhaps the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, or the Minister can tell us the answer. That question is: What happened between 1 May 1980, when Chief Sebe addressed the Rapportryers in Port Elizabeth, and the end of that year, that so radically changed Chief Sebe’s mind? In May 1980, when he addressed the Rapportryers, he said—

His words were: “We either go into independence with all the details of confederation negotiated and settled, or we stay as we are.” Now, what made him change his mind?

Why do you not ask him that?

What was he offered, that made him change his mind? Have any of these things been settled? Is there any possibility that they ever will be settled? Why did the Chief give up all his firm claims? That is what we want to know. Why did he back away from his original demand that a binding obligation be laid upon South Africa before he would go into independence? I can only say that in accepting independence on the terms that he did, Chief Sebe has let his people down, and he has let them down very badly, for the referendum gave everybody a very different impression indeed. And, Sir, again I want to point out that almost half of the people who could have registered to vote in that referendum did not even bother to do so. The overall percentage vote was 59,5%.

What is going on in Ciskei already? This is thinly disguised blackmail that I have in my hand. It is a letter on official paper with a letter-head which says “The Ciskeian Independence Office, Government Complex, Zwelitsha”. It is addressed to all Ciskeian businessmen, and this is what it says—

Believe me, they will remember it all right. It continues—

They learnt that from Aronson.

It continues—

Now listen to this, Sir—

That is sheer blackmail.

Of course it is blackmail. I wonder what will happen to the businessmen who do not subscribe to these independence celebrations when they apply for their trading licences next year. That is the important question.

I wonder how many of the people who voted for independence at the referendum did so under the shadow of Proclamation 252. All this is nothing but intimidation and blackmail.

And so, Sir, I say we come to another sad chapter in South Africa’s history. We are about to take the fourth step towards the completion of the gigantic confidence trick that is inherent in the overall objective of creating independent Black States out of the land mass of the Republic of South Africa. This is the fourth round of the numbers game, as I have called it on previous occasions, as millions of Blacks are stripped of their South African citizenship and nationality, as homeland after homeland becomes independent—a status which, as I have said, is not recognized by anybody else in the world. Already, as the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, has pointed out, over 7 million people have been stripped of their citizenship and nationality. He said they have become independent. Far more than half those people live in South Africa. They may be de jure Ciskeians or Transkeians or Venda or Tswana, but de facto those people live in South Africa, they earn their living in South Africa, and they will always remain in South Africa, for they have no alternative. We can decrease our demographic table by 7½ million, and add another 2,1 million people after 4 December, but South Africa’s political problems remain exactly as they were before. The Government thinks that as long as these people are de jure citizens of another country, they can be deprived of all claims to participate in the political processes of the Republic now or in the future. That is what it is all about. I do not believe it can be justified by “selfbeskikking”. The Quail Commission stated, and I quote from their report (page 120)—

I do not believe that Blacks are yearning for national identity. I believe that, like everybody else, like any White, Coloured or Asian, they yearn for equal opportunity, for a decent system of education for their children, for adequate housing, and for relief from the harassment of the pass laws, for the right to live a family life and for their fair share of the wealth of the Republic which they helped to develop. They also yearn for the right to participate in the laws that govern their lives from the cradle to the grave. And the majority of those people, almost two-thirds of the Ciskeians who live outside the Ciskei, yearn for all those things where they live and not where they do not live.

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton is absolutely nothing new to us as far as the argument regarding the independence of Ciskei is concerned. In the first place, I think the hon. member owes the hon. the Minister an apology for the accusations she levelled at him. She was not present when we discussed the Second Reading. She had no part in the debate.

She had the permission of the Speaker.

It does not matter whether she had the permission of the Speaker or not. I can understand why she was not present. However, if there is anyone who displays audacity, it is she. She did not take part in the Second Reading debate in this House and she has now repeated exactly the same arguments raised by hon. members of her party during the Second Reading debate. I really want to ask the official Opposition when we are going to have the situation where they realize what it means when the principle of the Act has been accepted and that one cannot discuss it again. The official Opposition misuses the opportunity. The hon. the Minister of Health said the other evening that the purpose of a Third Reading debate is to ascertain the effect of the Bill which has been approved in principle. If the hon. member for Houghton pretends she can link the aim of the Act to the situation of the squatters, she must explain to me how one links these two things. Towards the end of the debate the hon. member made an insinuation that the Secretary of the independence committee wrote a letter in which he invited businessmen to make contributions and to turn the occasion into a real festival for Ciskei. Then the hon. member asks this insulting question. She asks what will become of the people who will apply for the renewal of their licences next year. This is an absolute insult to the Government of Ciskei. The hon. member refers disparagingly to the situation in respect of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. I think that in any case as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned we have an absolute model. We cannot deal with that model and the goodwill of those people in the way the hon. member has. The hon. member said that both the hon. the Minister and I had said that the borders of the Ciskei will be approved by Parliament before the Ciskei becomes independent. I think that hon. member owes us both an apology, because that is not true. What they said was that the borders would be known. We explained the procedure that after the Cabinet has given its approval to the proposal, the proposal would be made known. The hon. member is not that uninformed, because she has had a seat on the Select Committee for many years. She knows that the contents of that report must go to the Select Committee and that the Committee must table it here in Parliament. There can be no finality in connection with the borders before Parliament has agreed to it. What we said was that the Cabinet’s standpoint in respect of the borders will be known before 4 December. That is what we said. We explained in this House that the territory that is now being incorporated in the description of the borders of Ciskei has nothing to do with the 1980 or 1981 proposals relating to consolidation. This concerns land which has already been obtained and is within the borders of Ciskei.

I do not want to be quite as negative as that hon. member and I should like to say a little more about Ciskei. If the 300 000 ha accepted up to and including the 1975 consolidation proposals are added to the territory, that territory will comprise 830 000 ha. Of these 180 000 ha, approximately 100 000 ha must still be purchased in terms of the 1975 proposals. The Cabinet has told Chief Minister Sebe that the Cabinet aims to complete the outstanding land purchases in terms of the 1975 proposals by the end of 1982. I can ask the hon. member to keep an eye on us. We have a problem with funds and the hon. member knows this. The remaining land which we must purchase before 1982, will probably cost us between R45 and R50 million, and that is a great deal of money. As far as consolidation purchases are concerned, we cannot confine ourselves to the purchases for the Ciskei because there are also other areas in the country where we are also forced to purchase land.

At this stage the de facto population of the Ciskei is approximately 660 000, with a possible de jure population of 2,1 million. However, there is a large question mark hanging over this figure of 2,1 million, because hon. members are now very fond of arguing that the vast majority of Ciskeians actually live outside the Ciskei. I concede that most live outside the Ciskei, but I would not say the vast majority do. The figure of 2,1 million is still being contested today. There are people—and they are a great deal cleverer than I am—who refer to a figure of 1,3 million when they speak about the de jure population of the Ciskei. However, it is not a simple matter to determine how many citizens these Black States actually have.

In the Ciskei a reasonable degree of urbanization has already taken place because almost half of the de jure population of the Ciskei is already urbanized. This is one of the highest urbanization figures as far as our Black areas are concerned. This brings me to the argument used here by the hon. member for Wynberg when he said that we were settling the people in the Ciskei in such a way that the agricultural land could not be utilized properly. I concede that there are cases where this has happened. At present things are going much better than they did at that stage. The hon. member also referred scornfully to what she called the so-called referendum that was held in Ciskei. I tried to obtain the latest figures in this connection. It is, however, interesting to note that since the referendum took place in Ciskei, and it was decided that Ciskei accepts independence, the Government of Ciskei has had a problem housing Ciskeians returning to Ciskei. Those people have been returning to their country since Ciskei decided to become independent. This is a sign that those people are eager to make a success of Ciskei and to return to their own country.

It is to get away from apartheid.

I want to refer to development in Ciskei. This is an aspect I do not wish to dwell on for very long. Nevertheless I believe there is one matter I must put right. It is the matter raised by the hon. member for Wynberg on an earlier occasion in this House. I referred to this last night too. It is the allegation that agricultural production in Ciskei is supposedly so terribly poor. The hon. member used the figures for 1978. For the purposes of my argument I shall therefore also use the 1978 figures. What is interesting, however, is to note what the situation was in 1971 and 1972, and how it had changed by 1977 and 1978. It is also interesting to note the latest figures which I gave in connection with the agricultural contribution, namely R15 million instead of R8,2 million. In 1971-’72 it was only R6 million. In this way we can see how these statistics grew in respect of all the States. If we compare the total growth potential of Southern Africa with the growth potential and actual growth in the Black States, it is not always possible to calculate a reliable figure when one is not dealing with an independent State. However we found—in the case of Bophuthatswana and Venda, for example—that since their independence their growth rate has almost doubled.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member must not try to disparage this now. I do not wish to contend that this will save the situation. However, because the South African Government set up an independence budget for these Black States, just as it will do in the case of Ciskei, with the aim of aiding them to get off the ground economically and to provide certain services, economic growth is in fact taking place there. There can be no doubt about this. For example, we need only consider the building activities taking place. Before a Black State becomes independent, an enormous number of facilities must be provided; job opportunities must also be created, but at the same time many of those people remain in their existing jobs.

This year we had a growth rate of approximately 8%. I am now speaking of the Republic of South Africa. In the corresponding period Venda showed an economic growth rate of 8%. Certain sectors in the economy of Bophuthatswana had a growth rate of up to 34%. Therefore, when we criticize and say that economic growth has not taken place rapidly enough, we must at the same time ask ourselves whether there is a need for economic growth to take place more rapidly. It is quite correct to argue that it is easier to grow when one starts with nothing than it is to increase the growth rate when one already has a reasonable capacity. However, the fact remains that one must take note of the attempts being made to bring about growth. It is pointless trying to talk one’s way around this. It is essential that we recognize it.

In the case of Ciskei we now know what the independence budget will be. We know what is being planned for Ciskei. My time has almost expired, but I do just want to ask that as we have now reached the Third Reading stage of this legislation on Ciskei, we must not overlook one very important aspect. It is something which the hon. member for Houghton referred to right at the beginning of her speech. That was when she said that this independence legislation of Ciskei does not differ from that of the other States that became independent. The hon. member referred to the so-called “convention”. However there is one very important difference. I agree with the hon. member that the convention is not a law. It is basically the written wishes of two governments. In the specific circumstances of Ciskei the wish to gain independence was voiced against the background and in the atmosphere of a constellation of States and a confederation. It was done in that atmosphere. That is why there is a tremendous difference between this legislation and the previous legislation. This is important, because in these two concepts and the things surrounding these two concepts, lie the watchword for the economic development and political stability of Southern Africa and of these Black people as well. That is why today, in this Third Reading, we must look ahead and also say that we want to tell the Government and the leaders of Ciskei that they must accept this responsibility which has now been placed on them. They must continue to show the same responsibility as they have shown to date. We must wish the people of Ciskei everything of the best. We wish them everything of the best for growth and stability in their country, and when we do this, we as Whites are telling those Black people that we consider them to be people just like us, with aspirations just like ours, and that we want to extend the hand of friendship to them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, says that Ciskei agreed on the basis of the expectation of the constellation and the confederation. I should like to have clarity on this. The hon. the Minister spelt out the difference between the constellation and the confederation very clearly. Is the hon. member now referring to a confederation or a constellation?

Both.

They are two totally different concepts. The hon. member now wants both.

The one does not exclude the other. Do you not understand?

This is an indication of the degree of confusion in Government thinking. Ciskei spelled out very clearly that they desired a confederation. A constellation is something totally different. It has to do with foreign countries. It has to do with agreements between South Africa and other countries of Southern Africa. The confederation is for the countries of South Africa itself as it used to be.

A confederation is wider. What would have happened if Ciskei wanted to be part of the …

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he admits that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that the constellation is larger than the confederation?

We now have to ask the following question: Will a member of the confederation be a part of the constellation as an individual State or as a member of the confederation?

As an individual State.

That is to say that Ciskei must join the constellation as an individual State. Therefore its membership of the constellation has nothing to do with the confederation. Now we are very clear—and this is important—on the point that as the Government understands it, independence means …

Independence.

… total separation of the Republic, except for consultative contact. I shall come back to that.

The hon. member Van der Walt also talked about the model, the perfect model from which there must be no deviation. I, too, want to deal with that.

†We are now dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill. It has emerged from the Committee Stage totally unchanged—not a comma or a full stop was altered.

Untouched by human hands.

After the fanfare of trumpets, after all the talk and all the expectations, what we have before us at the Third Reading are the cold words as they stand in the printed Bill, and all the rest does not matter. All the rest is simply a declaration of intent. The heady expectations have developed into a carbon copy replica of Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana except for one little difference in regard to citizenship in the case of Bophuthatswana. The hon. the Minister was not even prepared to alter the preamble to indicate the intent of confederation. In other words, it is a carbon copy, and the only difference lies in the “whereas”, “maybe” and “perhaps” of an intended agreement that has not yet been spelled out. Unfortunately I do not have time to analyze the intended agreement, but the actual words and the meaning contained therein cannot stand the scrutiny of examination.

However, I do not want to tie my arguments to hair-splitting in regard to words. The debate on this measure has revealed a fundamental difference between the thinking of the NRP and that of the Government in regard to what a confederation is. The Government sees it solely as consultation, as a bilateral agreement for consultation, that is all. The Government maintains that that is the only sort of confederation there is, and the proposed “Convention” makes this quite clear. The Convention says—

In other words, their total concept of confederation is one of consultation, plus a few concessions on movement and employment. But, Sir—and this is the crucial “but”—those concessions are made completely within the ambit of the philosophy and policy of the NP and of the Government. Those concessions are made entirely subject to restriction within the ambit of the law of this Parliament, and there is no concession, no departure outside those parameters. It is nonsense to say that this is a breakthrough if it cannot be altered to any extent, not even by a comma or a preamble, from the format of the status Acts of the other States. If this is a breakthrough, then surely this is the measure that should have shown the difference between the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda and the independence of Ciskei, because this should have been the example to demonstrate that this was in fact a new deal, that this had a new content and that this was the start of a new direction. However, by limiting it to a carbon copy, we are in fact denying that it is anything new. What it should have contained are new elements which in their content should say to the TBV countries: Look what is now growing out of independence, look at the road ahead, here is something you can join; we have moved into a new phase, come along with us.

Instead of this it had to be a carbon copy. Why? Because of the Government’s narrow concept of what a confederation is. Because of this, Sir, I want to say that this Bill does not meet the aspirations either of this party or of the Black States themselves. Bophuthatswana made it absolutely clear that it was only taking independence as a step towards a confederation. The hon. the Minister will not deny that. President Mangope said he was taking independence as a step towards coming back into South Africa through a confederal relationship. Transkei has accepted confederation as its objective, but not this sort of confederation, not simply one of bilateral consultation and agreement to consult. One does not need a convention to agree to hold consultations.

Let us look for a moment at the argument that independence is crucial—is vital. Both the PFP and the Government adopt the attitude that one must have total independence before one can be a member of a confederation.

Of course, yes.

Yes, of course! On 6 February last year, in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the non-homeland Blacks. In those days, only a year ago, “constellation”, and “confederation” were, of course, synonymous terms as far as the NP was concerned. For the first time in this debate they have been spelled out and clear definitions of the difference furnished. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said (col. 250)—

That is in the homelands—

That was the Prime Minister.

I do not think that those hon. members who shouted so hastily about “constellation” and “confederation” not being the same would pretend that the Black citizens of Soweto are going to become members of the constellation, under government policy because they would obviously have to be part of the confederation. [Interjections.] Their political rights, according to the thinking of the NP, are going to be exercised through the homelands or in the confederation. I challenge the hon. the Minister to say that Soweto or other urban, non-homeland Blacks are first going to have to obtain independence before they become part of the confederation. It makes nonsense of their own argument. If it does not make nonsense of their argument, it blows the whole concept of non-homeland Blacks achieving their political destiny through a confederation sky-high and exposes it as a bluff. I say this because it has to be one or the other. Either the non-homeland Blacks are going to be members of a confederation, not as independent States—in which case the argument of equality of status falls away—or they are not going to have a future in terms of a confederation.

Let me, however, look even further. Let me look at the Government’s definition of confederation. Firstly I want to refer to section 708 in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, under the heading “Political systems”. There is a sub-heading: “Confederations”. I do not have time to quote at length, but it is quite clear that confederations can vary in form. Let me start in the middle of the paragraph—

That is what that hon. Minister and the Government as a whole stand for—

In other words, a confederation is not a static concept designed purely for consultation. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines the consultative form as “trivial” and takes the other extreme as far as to include joint decision-making that is binding. It then goes on to give examples, e.g. the Deutsche Bund and the Confederation of the United States.

That is not a confederation.

It is a federation now. If that hon. member were to study the background he would know that the United States started as a confederation.

That was many years ago.

Yes, many years ago.

You started many years ago, didn’t you?

First there was a government formed under “Articles of Confederation”. In that confederation of the United States, which subsequently became a federation, they had an executive committee which enjoyed the powers of Congress when Congress was not in session. They elected a president and forfeited some of their sovereignty. The only limitation was that Congress could not legislate for or apply legislation within any member State of the confederation. However, it had a whole structure for joint decision-making. It had a president and an executive. It dealt, among other things, with foreign affairs, land and naval forces, the appointment of officers etc. There is a whole list of things that were dealt with at confederal level. Therefore confederation is, in fact, a term that can be applied to different forms of association and different structures, depending on the needs and wishes of those concerned. The classic minimal, “trivial” concept accepted by the Government is not going to provide a solution. With South Africa’s diversity, this country needs something stronger and firmer than consultation.

The PFP is opposed to this measure in principle, and one of the strong grounds on which they oppose it, is that they are opposed to the fact that power will vest in the Parliament of Ciskei. In fact they voted against the clause that makes provision for this. They said that the Ciskeian Parliament was not a proper Parliament and that it was not democratically elected because it had nominated members. Therefore, because they did not like the form of the Ciskeian Government, they could not support its power to govern. I want to quote from a booklet entitled The Constitutional Policy of the PFP. [Interjections.] It took me quite a while to find this booklet because I had lost mine, and do hon. members think I could get another copy! However, I should like to refer to section 5, on page 27, where there is a heading “The Self-Governing Federal States”—federal, not confederal. In paragraph 5.6.1 it is stated—

Are you sure that is our policy?

Well, it is in your book.

Are you sure that is our policy?

That is your party’s policy. It is in the book.

But you said we did not have a policy.

I said that party does not have a confederal policy, and that those hon. members will not debate their policy in the House. They will not debate it, but what I am quoting shows what the PFP accepts in its federation, States will be entitled to decide on their own form of government. [Interjections.] What does that party stand for? Do they have a policy which provides that each State can decide for itself how it will be governed, or were their spokesmen in the debate and all those hon. members who voted against the clause empowering the Ciskeian Government to rule, in fact voting in conflict with their own policy? It must be one or the other: They either have no policy or they voted on this measure in direct conflict with their own policy.

I want to conclude by setting out what this party believes is the minimum for a confederation in South Africa if it is to be powerful enough to replace the Westminster unitary system. The minimum is self-government of communities over their own affairs—which is common cause between the Government and ourselves—on an ethnic, group or community basis. This is where we fall out with the PFP because they do not accept the concept of a group, ethnic or community basis. We believe there must be a formal structure for co-operation and for deciding together on matters of common concern. Once a decision is taken, we agree it should be reported back to member states. It should not be a binding decision taken by the majority in a super-Parliament. There must, however, be a formal body where, at ministerial or top level, decisions are taken together—not just consulted over—to create a unanimity of approach to problems.

We believe there must be a common confederal citizenship. Time does not allow me to deal with it, but I refer hon. members to the European Parliament and its minutes: “Naar een Europees burgerschap”, the movement towards a European citizenship—and Europe is not even a confederation yet. On this we disagree entirely with the Government. We believe there should and can be a confederal common citizenship.

We believe in a common economy to which all will have access. We believe, too, that this is a continuing process and that these are the minimum requirements to form a base on which to build. On those key elements one can create a future for South Africa. Without them, we do not see any real answer to the future. We are therefore not prepared to vote in favour of this Bill, and as the official Opposition have moved an amendment, we shall support that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point will forgive me if, owing to a lack of time, I do not react directly to everything he said. I am in fact longing to continue the entire discussion on federation, confederation and constellation, but I am afraid it will have to wait for another time. In addition, in the course of my speech I shall touch on aspects of what he said.

The outstanding aspect of this debate was the degree to which and the anxiety with which the PFP opposed this legislation. This facet exceeded all reasonable bounds. That is why I actually call it resistance arising from anxiety. I asked myself why this was so and why they had to go to such extremes to resist this legislation. The answer is actually very clear. It is that this sort of legislation totally destroys the basis of the PFP’s policy in the sense that if the NP continues to make nations independent, and in particular if it comes to an agreement with the Coloureds and the Indians by way of the President’s Council, there will be no one left to take part in the PFP’s national convention. That is their problem. The problem of the PFP is therefore that every time “status” legislation is accepted in Parliament, their dream becomes a little more inaccessible. If the reasons why they resist this legislation, if the grounds which they advance—this is important when one considers the future—were valid, this would have implications for the success of this legislation in the future. That is why it is appropriate that we should take a brief look at a few of these reasons in this Third Reading.

The three reasons I was able to identify are, in the first place, that they say the Ciskeians are being deprived of their rights. The second point was that the referendum was not a valid expression of the will of the people of Ciskei; and the third concerned the so-called package deal.

On the first point, namely the deprivation of rights, I do not wish to say much. I just want to say that what actually happens in practice, is that the rights of the people of Ciskei remain exactly as they were. Again it is the case that the only thing one can say falls away, i.e. in connection with citizenship, is not a right. It is merely a claim that if they were citizens of South Africa they could one day be entitled to vote for this Parliament. I can assure the hon. Opposition that as long as this party is in power, absolutely nothing will come of this claim. If they take over the Government one day, they can put the entire matter right. However, that is part of the problem. They know they will not be able to “put matters right” because once these States have become independent they will never want to revert to a unitary state in South Africa.

I want to touch on the matter of the referendum in a little more detail. The hon. member for Greytown in particular dealt with this point. The hon. member for Greytown said that there are 950 000 Xhosa-speaking people in South Africa outside the Transkei who therefore are or must be citizens of the Ciskei. In the first place this is a debatable supposition. He also said 503 000 people are registered. He then drew this inference—

This however is a specious argument. This is the sort of argument one seizes upon when one tries to rationalize an emotional thing as the PFP has constantly tried to do with this legislation. They tried to do this in the sense that if it were correct that 450 000 people did not register, it is by no means obvious that those people refused to register. In the USA the Civil Rights Movement had to battle for years to persuade Black people who were entitled to register as voters to in fact do so. It was a long struggle—and that was in a country with a democratic tradition spanning hundreds of years. The fact that 450 000 people did not register cannot be accepted as an indication that by doing so they gave evidence of their resistance. The hon. member also drew the following inference. He said that that was why only one-third of the people voted for independence, as against two-thirds who did not want it. Therefore, proceeding from that one point of departure, he arrived, by way of a specious argument, at a totally misleading deduction.

What one must look at is, for example, what happens in an election in the United States. Recently the United States had a presidential election. How many people voted? 52% of the registered voters voted. Of those 52%, approximately 60% voted for President Reagan; in other words, one can argue that only about 30% of the people of the USA wanted President Reagan as president, but if one were to argue as the hon. member for Greytown does, one would have to say “and 70% of the people opposed it”. Surely that is absolute rubbish. [Interjections.] Then he goes even further and says as regards another point: This referendum is not valid; you must take cognizance of the real facts. He then quotes from an opinion poll held in Mdantsane in 1976. Anyone who knows anything about opinion polls will know that a small group of people are selected and they are then asked their opinion on a matter. These things are usually very much open to question. However a survey held in 1976, is held up to us as an example and he says—

In this way one can analyse each one of the arguments advanced by the official Opposition, and when one does so, one finds that they are without substance.

A final thought. 21 years and four days ago a referendum was held in this country to decide whether South Africa should become a Republic. The old United Party set themselves heart and soul against the Republic. The irony of the matter is that that party, when it had to disband a few years later and form a new party, formed a party which calls itself “the New Republic Party”. This is the greatest irony of history. I want to tell you that those people who are voting against this measure today will find themselves, in 20 years’ time, in exactly the same ironic situation as that in which the old United Party’s successors have found themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Helderkruin opened his address by making the allegation that we were opposed to this Bill because once these independent homelands have taken their independence, then there would be nobody left in South Africa to take part in our national convention. That is not so; there will be no less than 18 million Black people still living in South Africa without any political representation of any consequence who will have to be accommodated in our political system in South Africa. He then went on to talk at great length about the referendum and how it was held, but that is not of any consequence in a debate which should be concerned with the consequences of the Bill before us.

Therefore I should like to continue by dealing with some of the matters raised by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt in an effort to answer some of the questions which we on this side of the House had asked.

I do not want to fight with the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, because he made an honest attempt to answer our questions, and where the hon. member has a vision for Ciskei, we must say that we do not wish the Ciskei ill. We do not want to see the Ciskei founder. If the Ciskei can be transformed into a land of milk and honey, well and good. That, however, is not the important point. The important point concerns those Ciskeians who will be living outside of the Ciskei. That is what worries us. That is the point of cardinal concern to us.

The hon. member felt that there was some doubt about how many Ciskeians there might be outside the Ciskei. I should like to refer him to what he had to say. On 29 January this year the hon. member said this concerning Black people in general (Hansard, col. 376)—

Not less, Mr. Speaker, but many more—

That is why I say that the hon. member is honest. He looks the problem in the face and he attempts to find a solution. We on this side of the House are therefore happy to debate this issue with the hon. member any time that he chooses.

What we are now doing is to consider the consequences of a Bill which summarily deprives millions of Black South Africans of their citizenship. If we look for the consequences of this, we can engage in a veritable orgy of crystal-ball gazing. I want to pick up from where the hon. member for Houghton left off, and look briefly at some specific anomalies which have already begun to manifest themselves.

The first of these is the creation of a condition of statelessness among Blacks. This is a most serious problem, particularly when no constitutional provision has been made for these people outside of the homelands. I hope the hon. the Minister is listening, because I want to question him again specifically on this point. He did not answer me last time. I now pose the same question to him. It is all very well for the South African Government and the Ciskeian Government to sign agreements determining citizenship, but what if the Ciskei should unilaterally decide to dishonour that agreement? It has already happened in the Transkei. I referred earlier in the session to the state of affairs which is pertaining in the Kokstad district, where there are some 600 Xhosa youths who have no identity documents because the Transkei Government has refused to issue them with documents. The facts of the matter are that Xhosas born in the Republic have no security of citizenship either of the Republic or of the so-called homelands. We should consider the consequences of this. For a White to be without a document is bad enough, but for a Black to be without any kind of identity document, is catastrophic.

What I should like to ask the hon. the Minister specifically is this: If the Ciskei feels disinclined to allow expatriates, who live outside the country and who do not contribute materially to the well-being of that country, to continue playing a decisive role in Ciskeian politics, and decides to terminate this role, what will the response of the South African Government be? Will it seek to coerce the Ciskei, or will it allow the ranks of stateless Blacks in South Africa to continue growing?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most interesting anomaly of all concerns the attitude of this Government towards expatriates. If I were to tell the hon. the Minister that I knew of some South African of English descent, someone who was born and bred in South Africa and who enjoyed all the privileges of life in South Africa, including a good job, a comfortable home and all the rest, but who still spoke of England as “home” and who refused to sing Die Stem van Suid-Afrika and who sang God Save the Queen and Rule Britannia at every opportunity, what would the hon. the Minister say? I am sure he would shake his head pityingly and advise me to choose my friends more carefully, because the proverbial “Rooinek” who continues to speak of England as “home”, has long been a standing joke with South Africans and is mocked as a jingo.

However, what have we just done with this Bill? We have created a million and a half black jingo’s. We expect those Xhosas who live outside Ciskei, who have in many instances done so for generations, who have nothing or little to do with Ciskei, now to talk of Ciskei as “home”. Instead of encouraging these people who are South Africans born and bred to pay allegiance to the land of their birth, to take citizenship of the land that defends and succours them, to become patriots of the land of their birth, we give them the jingo option. They are now expected to pay allegiance to a flag which will never fly over them and sing the praises of a land they are never likely to see.

When the grand design of apartheid has finally been completed, when all the homelands have been coerced or cajoled into taking independence, we will be outnumbered three to one by “uitlanders” in our own country. By the turn of the century the ratio is likely to be in the vicinity of five to one. The chilling part of all this is what history has taught us in South Africa about the denial of political rights to people. I predict that the 32 million Blacks who will be living in White South Africa at the turn of the century will reject the jingo option. They will reject “uitlander” status. They will find the denial of political rights in the land of their birth, in the land in which they live, in the land in which they work and raise their families, intolerable as did the white “uitlanders” of yesterday in South Africa—more intolerable, in fact, because unlike the English, the Germans and the French, unlike those people who came to this country to seek their fortune, these people are Africans; they are of Africa; Africa is the land of their birth. If we seek to deny the immutable laws of history, if we close our eyes and ears to the lessons of the past, we delude ourselves most dangerously. Unfortunately it is not us but our children who will pay most dearly for our delusion.

We in the PFP have a different vision; we have a different ideal. We stand for uniting the country and not for dividing it. We stand for creating South African citizens, not for destroying South African citizenship. We stand for eliminating discrimination, not for fostering it. That is why we have fought this Bill tooth and nail. That is why we will continue to fight similar Bills whenever they are put before us in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to devote my contribution to the Third Reading of this very important Bill to the preamble to the Bill, which reads as follows—

If you switched them round, you would be more accurate.

I want to use these words as the basis for my short speech. When I was considering how I could start my speech, I sought inspiration in a quotation from the sermon of Dr. Runcie when he solemnized the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana. He had the following to say after he had spoken of “fairy tales”—

He then went on to say—

This is not a wedding. It is a divorce, and a particularly messy one at that.

There is so much wisdom and depth in this remark of Dr. Runcie, that I want to apply it to this Bill and also to Ciskei as an independent geographic area which will be the home of an independent nation. This is the beginning of a new era for Ciskei and it is the beginning of a new era in the relationship between the Republic of South Africa on the one hand and Ciskei on the other. It would be unwise and stupid for either Ciskei or ourselves to say “and we lived happily ever after”. This is where I want to associate myself with the quotation from the theologian to which I have just referred. The challenge and the problems can now be tackled in earnest. If one looks at Ciskei and the people living there—those people whose fatherland it will be—there is not one facet of their pattern of living which does not contain tremendous possibilities for growth. The political facet of their pattern of living, the economy, the field of industries, agriculture and animal husbandry, education and all its branches, systems of work, sport and every other facet of that nation are lying fallow and waiting to be exploited.

Ciskei also has a great deal in its favour. They not only have the territory and the desire to be independent, they also have a good neighbour in the Republic of South Africa. In addition there are a few other aspects I wish to single out. There is not only the possibility of growth inside Ciskei and the good friendship they will have with the NP in South Africa; they will also encounter opponents and enemies on the path they must follow. I want to put this thought to the Ciskeians for their consideration: We in the Republic of South Africa did not come by our independence and our sovereignty and our growth easily either. When we became a republic in 1961 there were people who voted against us. When I look in front of me, every hon. member sitting there—except those who have changed their minds in the interim—is representative of that element of the White electorate that opposed the achievement of South Africa’s republican status at every turn.

That is not true.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier can indeed say it is not true, but at that stage he was a Nationalist and at the time he voted for the NP. That hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, that there is one thing an Afrikaner and a White man must do to be a member of the PFP, and that is that he must renounce his own identity and origin. This is the one requirement, and that is why the hon. member can now selfrighteously say that he voted for a Republic.

Ciskei must know that we as a Government want to implement their wish because we deem it expedient, but we want to tell them that within the White community in Southern Africa there are people who want to put a spoke in the wheel of growth and progress in the Ciskei of the future. At the moment their mouthpiece in this House is the PFP. I also take it that there are a number of people representing the Ciskeian Government who also do not want to continue with the independence of Ciskei, probably for the same reasons as the members of the PFP and also perhaps people who have been led astray by the wonderful and attractive arguments of the White liberals of Southern Africa. I should like to point out to hon. members, as well as to the people of Ciskei, that every country and every nation has a small beginning. This also reminds me of the Biblical comparison of the tiny mustard seed, which has the ability to grow and sprout into a big tree. In this connection I should like to quote today from the work of the author J. S. M. Matsebula, a Swazi who wrote a book entitled A History of Swaziland. In the preface to that book he wrote, inter alia—

The hon. member Prof. Olivier would do well to take note of these words. The writer goes on to say—

These wise words of the author Matsebula, written in 1972, must needs represent the ideas in the hearts of the people of Ciskei. The PFP and the White liberals, as well as other extremists in Southern Africa, can denigrate the Republic of South Africa and its ideas and achievements. They can also do this to Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, as they are in fact doing to Ciskei now. However, I am convinced that the best we can learn from the history of Africa is inherent in what the NP is doing. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote in this connection from the book Fool’s Gold for Africa, written by Dr. Bruno Bandulet. This work was originally published in German under the title Schnee für Afrika. It was very well translated into English by the hon. member for Benoni. The entire theme of this book is actually the donation of money to Africa by the White West, and what Africa did with that money. The writer ends his book as follows—

I now want to quote one final extract which I believe is also of importance in this connection. At the beginning of the ’fifties there was a German who toured through Africa a second time. After this second journey he wrote a book entitled Wat groeit er uit dit Afrika? Again I shall read only the last paragraph of this work—

In the ’fifties these words were written by a man from Europe. If one makes a comparative analysis, and compares the growth in the rest of the world with what we have done in South Africa, one finds that not only do we in Southern Africa have major achievements to our credit, but I believe that the NP with its people, its leaders and its supporters will, with the co-operation and collaboration of the leaders of people such as those we have in Ciskei, build a Southern Africa which will be an example to the rest of the world. This side of the House, the NP and its people, with a knowledge and a love of this part of the world, not only wishes Ciskei everything of the best; we shall also be there to work and walk hand in hand with them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik who has just resumed his seat, brought this debate to the level where it actually belongs because it is an important debate. Quite by chance, in doing so he also illustrated the absolute gap that exists between us on this side of the House and the hon. members on that side of the House. While the hon. member for Rissik was speaking here, the words of a song that my own mother told me before I went abroad to study came to mind. It has meant a great deal to me throughout my life and still does today, and I want to drive another nail into the coffin of the Opposition by holding it up to them as an example. The song goes—

Hon. members may go ahead and mock it. This is what has galled us so much in this debate, viz. the absolutely arrogant insensitivity of those hon. members on that side of the House towards a nation that is inspired and infused with this love for what belongs to them. The arrogance with which those hon. members did it, is in my modest opinion absolutely boundless.

At the Third Reading we should discuss the effect of the legislation. I think one can apply no better criterion, since we now have three predecessors here, after all, viz. the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, than what has happened there and what the results and the effect has been of the discussion in this Parliament five years ago, four years ago, etc. I looked at the Hansard and I ask hon. members to listen to what the hon. the Minister said almost five years ago during the Third Reading in this House on the Status of Bophuthatswana Act by way of concluding his Third Reading speech. Hon. members must take note of how it applies, practically word for word, to what we have been experiencing over the past few days with regard to this extremely important matter in connection with a nation achieving independence. I now read from Hansard, col. 8825 to 8827, 23 May to 24 June 1977, Vol. 69 of Hansard. Col. 8825 reads—

The hon. the Minister then went on to say (col. 8826)—

Why? We saw it again here this afternoon. I quote further from Hansard of almost five years ago (col. 8826)—

He goes on to say—

He concludes as follows—

Bear in mind, this was nearly five years ago—

Just as it was the other day when I began with the Ciskei, and this Third Reading is an historic day too—

These are extremely significant words, Sir, although they were uttered five years ago.

Why do you not have a record cut of it?

Then the Minister went on to say—

Let us now look at the effect of the Bill that those hon. members opposed so extremely hot-headedly. What has happened in Bophuthatswana over the past four years and more?

Sun City.

I now quote what the president of Bophuthatswana said, as it was reported in the magazine Ikonomi (Vol. I No. I of July 1981). I am now talking about the effect of legislation that hon. members opposite opposed so violently. The president of Bophuthatswana says—

Third World countries except those that are oil-rich.

[Interjections.] The hon. members opposite are becoming confused by the facts and that is why they are making such a fuss. I quote president Mangope further—

Hon. members opposite accuse us of indulging in a pipe dream.

They hate Mangope.

Yes, but I have not yet finished the quotation. President Mangope goes on to say—

This, according to the official Opposition, is the contemptible Bophuthatswana! One can look up what hon. members opposite said in connection with Bophuthatswana four years ago. Now they are speaking about the Ciskei with the same measure of contempt. I quote president Mangope further—

If facts could speak, these facts would speak volumes. President Mangope goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

In Bophuthatswana it was 27,9%. President Mangope goes on to say—

In conclusion he says that whilst the world growth in agricultural production was a mere 3,4% over the past year, that of Bophuthatswana was 34%.

They hate Mangope and they hate Sebe.

That only goes to show how you neglected the area prior to that.

Just as we experienced that progress in connection with Bophuthatswana, as well as with respect to the other TBV countries, we shall yet experience the same thing over the following four years with regard to the Ciskei, because the potential is there. It is going to happen without a doubt, because those people are inspired and infused with the desire to bring out the best in themselves, as is the case with other nations too.

What is the effect of what we see here before us? In the first place independence really emphasizes the national pride of the Ciskeian people and they realize that this is now their opportunity to improve their lot on their own. Therefore, this places a tremendous responsibility on the people of the Ciskei. Secondly, independence removes the final stumbling block for the Ciskei on the way to a community modelled on their own traditions and structured according to their own value systems and criteria.

Thirdly there can now be full political expression which frees the spirit of the nation from any frustrations, from foreign control, and creates the atmosphere for voluntary co-operation with their neighbours as equal partners. Fourthly after independence the Ciskei will be able to negotiate with people abroad to its own benefit, and although it will be said that the Ciskei will not enjoy any international recognition, individuals will in fact negotiate in cases where it will be to their benefit as well. In addition, they will now be able to forge inter-state links in their part of the world, to their benefit and to the general benefit of the area and they will be able to do so as equal partners. Fifthly, the citizens of the Transkei are obtaining the above benefits whilst the rights and privileges that they have in the RSA, remain intact. Therefore the Ciskei—as well as the TBV countries—does in fact enjoy the best of two worlds. However, hon. members opposite deal with this matter with contempt, as they have in fact done.

Then I should like to mention another effect that will result from independence, and here I am referring to their own income. After independence the basis is being broadened by adding additional sources of which the following are the most important: Personal income tax, with regard to Whites in their area too; company tax; customs and excise duty; post office revenue; rental of properties, etc. These are things that they did not have previously. Of course, this is apart from any new projects that are being launched by the Ciskei itself, as well as any possible co-prosperity projects. There are the transfers from the RSA, for instance remuneration for the use of the rand as a unit of money. There is also development aid. We give them a statutory sum. There is project aid, subject to express conditions, instead of additional votes that they are going to receive as well. This is why one does not have to be a prophet to predict that the Ciskei will follow the same path as Bophuthatswana followed after independence, for instance, viz. one of development.

We simply have to look at how the national statistics of the Ciskei have increased since the Ciskei obtained self-government. In 1973 the GDP was a mere R52 per capita. In 1974 it was R77; in 1976, it amounted to R120 and in 1977, R132. In a little over three years it has therefore almost tripled. If we look at the figures of Bophuthatswana and the other TBV countries, we see exactly the same type of thing. Why should it therefore be disparaged? Do hon. members know that the average annual increase in the figures that I have just quoted, is 26,2%? However, let us now look at the gross national income. In 1973, when they became self-governing, the gross national income per capita in the Ciskei was R121. In 1974 it was R162; in 1975, R197; in 1976, R271 and in 1977, R307. Therefore, the gross national income has practically tripled as well, and the average annual growth was 26,2%. One can look at the matter from any angle that one wishes, but when national pride is set free, it is like a golden key to the creation of a better future for these nations. Then there are also the other very great possibilities that were discussed here, viz. the possibilities of confederation and everything that it can offer.

In conclusion I want to reply to a few questions. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I honestly think that the NRP and we on this side of the House have made progress in this debate in being able to find one another with regard to this matter of cardinal importance. At the moment it is very clear that as far as confederation is concerned, their approach and ours are diametrically opposed. However, I think that if we can discuss the matter, those hon. members and ourselves will achieve the point with regard to certain basic things, due to practical consideration, where we will be able to find one another with regard to this matter.

†Certain aspects of the convention will be ratified here in this Parliament and it will also be ratified in the Parliament of Ciskei. Should it become a multi-lateral convention, it will be ratified in the respective Parliaments of the different parties to the multilateral agreement.

*I want to say something else to those hon. members of the NRP who are trying to make a positive contribution. Confederation will grow. It must be built up step by step and stone by stone on the foundation of sovereign independent States where the one is definitely not inferior to the other, but where they are bound together by a common bond of loyalty towards a confederation of States of South Africa. It is a major ideal to strive towards, and there is a possibility that it will hold many advantages for White, as well as Black, in the future. However, we must walk that road with care and build confederation step by step.

I now come to the hon. member for Albany. I said during the Committee Stage that we are not creating any stateless people in South Africa, and this is a very great achievement. This afternoon the hon. member referred to Kokstad and once again spoke as if there were stateless people there. Surely this is not true. What are the facts of the matter? The facts are that there are no stateless people in South Africa. The hon. member must understand it now once and for all. The only problem that exists—and this is in fact what the hon. member was referring to—is that there are certain people in that area who do not have documents. This is in fact true, but no one is stateless, and no one can become stateless in terms of the legislation of this Government. We are working on the problem of people who do not have documents. It is a matter for the Transkeian Government, and assistance is being granted in solving that problem.

I want to conclude by thanking hon. members on this side of the House who participated in the debate, for the positive contributions that each one of them made. The questions that were put, were all answered during the Second Reading, and we have argued about them ad nauseam. I have also now replied to a few other questions that were raised in this debate, and that is why it is not necessary for me to elaborate further on this.

I want to conclude by giving the House two Ciskeian idioms. Both of them are extremely significant. If hon. members do not find them fine idioms, I can tell them that not only do I think they are fine, but that they are inspiring too. Recently there has been an idiom in the Ciskei, with reference to the Republic of South Africa and the Ciskei, that inspires the people there and about which they become very enthusiastic. The farmers in the House will be able to understand it very well. They refer to the Ciskei and the RSA and say: “The two of us, Ciskei and RSA, are a milking rope and a milk pail. Together this is enough. We have spoken.” It is very important for the House to take note of this. The kwaNdebele have the slogan “Vusa ezi vusako!” This means: Help the one who wants to get up to do so. If one hears 80 000 to 90 000 people shouting that cry and one sees how it inspires them, one would not speak in the way that hon. Opposition members spoke here. Recently the Ciskei has developed a slogan in contrast to the “Amandhla” salute, with the clenched fist raised and everything that it entails, including the communist context behind it, which is also very dangerous if they do not yet realize it. We are ad idem with the Ciskeian people with regard to common interests that bind us together. As I have just indicated, they are just as aware of the Russo-communist danger as we are. They now have a slogan in contrast to “Amandhla” and the raised clenched fist and it is a very fine slogan. They point ahead with the index finger and then call out: “Thambele Ma Ciskei Amahli.” When they shout this, they are deeply inspired and motivated. Do you know what it means, Sir? It inspires them and they will even sacrifice their lives for it. That slogan means: “Onward, honest Ciskeians!” In that spirit we wish them God’s richest blessings and in actual fact we say to them: “May you be blessed. We shall be with you like a milking rope and a pail and we will really stand by you. We also say to them and together with them: ‘Onward, honest Ciskeians!’”

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will observe, amendments to two Acts which are administered by my department are being proposed in this Bill, and the amendments deal more specifically with two particular subjects, i.e. the leasehold system in Black residential areas on the one hand and the enlargement of the Commission for Co-operation and Development on the other.

As regards the first aspect, viz. the amendments pertaining to the leasehold system, the idea has been mooted for a considerable time now that the private sector ought to be more readily allowed, and ought indeed to be encouraged, to participate directly in the provision of housing for Black people in Black residential areas. Although the Government has made a very large contribution to providing our Black population in the cities with housing, the demand for housing has begun to assume such proportions that the problem has to be gone into all over again. In this connection the Viljoen Committee was therefore appointed, not very long ago, to go into this matter, specifically in relation to Soweto, with the object of involving the private sector in this major problem of improved provision of housing for Black people. Many important matters are covered in the report. One of the recommendations contained therein is to make leasehold rights available as well to persons other than Black persons.

By so doing it is possible, for example, to forestall one of the major problems in regard to the provision of Black employees with accommodation by employers, viz. that of security to cover such an investment. At present an employer may provide a Black employee with housing in a Black residential area, but then this is done by way of a contract between the employer and the Administration Board concerned. However, the latter remains the owner of the land on which the housing is erected and the employer receives no registerable right in respect of such land. This of course delays the process. It also entails that such an employer finds it very difficult to obtain financing for the erection costs of such housing.

†The Viljoen Committee recommended it and this Bill, in clauses 1 and 2, now brings about amendments which will enable any employer, township developer or, for that matter, any other person whom the Minister may recognize for the purpose, to obtain a right of leasehold in a Black township. To protect the interests of Blacks in townships, hon. members will, however, appreciate that an unqualified right of leasehold cannot be granted to persons other than Blacks and that they will have to be restricted in the exercise of their rights of leasehold to the purpose for which such right was granted. For instance, an employer who is not a Black may very well be granted a right of leasehold but under condition that the site in question may only be used for residential purposes by a Black person, and the holder of the right of leasehold may not have a right to occupy the premises himself. On the other hand a right of leasehold may in the foreseeable future be granted to a business not entirely owned by Blacks and this holder of a right of leasehold may very well need to occupy the premises concerned for purposes relating to his business, and his rights in this respect will not be entirely restricted. He will, in other words, be able to do so.

As the amendments are worded, the Minister will be able to judge each case or category of cases and impose such conditions, if any, as to the acquisition or exercise of rights of leasehold by persons other than Blacks as he may deem necessary in every case. This will add to the flexibility of the system. As hon. members will have noticed, what I have just said has been accomplished by, firstly, amending the definition of “qualified person” in section 1 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Amendment Act, 1945, to include any person who has been recognized as such by the Minister. In terms of the Interpretation Act, 1957, the word “person” has an extremely wide and unrestricted meaning and it is used in this sense in this amendment. The further amendments to the said Act are necessary in order to make it possible to qualify the rights of leasehold of certain persons who are not Blacks.

*The second very important subject which is receiving attention in this Bill is the enlargement of the Commission for Cooperation and Development. As I announced earlier this year, during the debate on the Vote of the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Government has decided to expand the commission so that attention can also be given to Black people outside the national States—hence to the urban problems. The object in enlarging the commission is to divide up its activities, so that a part of the commission under one vice-chairman may confine itself to the national States and matters such as consolidation, while another part of the commission under a second vice-chairman will confine itself to the problems of the Blacks outside the national States. The amendments to the Black Affairs Act, 1959, in addition to the substitution of certain obsolete expressions, simply seek to enlarge the commission and to make it possible to appoint more than one vice-chairman.

There is something which was envisaged on a previous occasion. During the discussion of my Vote in the House of Assembly, which was very closely concerned with this enlargement of the commission to give attention to the urban problems of Black people as well, I mentioned the fact that I intended acquiring the services of an expert to assist me and the Department of Co-operation and Development in connection with Black urbanization and housing. Negotiations in this connection have in the meantime been conducted with the HSRC, and it is a great pleasure for me now to announce that the services of Dr. P. S. Smit have been acquired for this purpose. Arrangements have been made in terms of which Dr. Smit will, on an agreed basis, be at my disposal and at the disposal of the Department of Co-operation and Development for research and the furnishing of advice in regard to Black urbanization and housing. The intention is that Dr. Smit should also co-operate closely in this connection with the Commission for Co-operation and Development, as it is now being enlarged and also with the departmental committee on development research. I am convinced that this is the beginning of good things on the road ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that this side of the House supports this legislation. We are sorry that the hon. the Minister did not go further, and do what we actually all know must be done, namely to grant free and total property rights to Blacks in the urban areas. Nevertheless, within the ambit of the Government’s existing policy, we welcome the developments brought about by this Bill.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, what is involved here is the extension of the definition of the person to whom a right of leasehold may be granted. As he also indicated, it concerns the interpretation of the word “person”, as it appears in the Interpretation Act of 1957. It is therefore now possible for a company and for other bodies, such as the Small Business Development Corporation and also the Urban Foundation to acquire leasehold rights under such conditions as the Minister may determine. In this sense I in fact believe that we are on the threshold of a major extension of the possibilities as regards the provision of housing in our urban Black areas. This is one of the reasons why we definitely welcome this measure wholeheartedly. We just hope that the hon. the Minister will not be too strict as regards the conditions he will lay down, but that he will make it possible for such bodies to invest in the urban areas, and will encourage them to do so, in the form of the security of the 99 year leasehold. It goes without saying that we should like more details from the hon. the Minister as to the sort of conditions he has in mind, but on the other hand we realize that it may be difficult for the Minister to lay down conditions in general terms. I assume that there will be individual cases where those conditions will of necessity have to be adjusted. In this connection I want to say that I welcome the amendments, because the definition of “association”, as it appears in the Act at the moment, is limited to associations manned entirely by Blacks. Now, with the new definition of “person”, that possibility is extended.

As regards clause 2(a), I welcome the removal of the distinction drawn between the granting of a right of leasehold for residential purposes on the one hand and for the conducting of any profession or business on the other. I think that this, too, is also a considerable improvement, which again can help towards bringing the housing situation closer to a solution.

In particular I also welcome the provision in the proposed section 6A(1)(b), in terms of which the granting of a right to a qualified person who is not a Black, also includes the possibility of developing and administering such premises. The hon. the Minister explained what he had in mind. I should like to tell you what my own interpretation is. It appears to me that in terms of this provision it would be possible for a body such as the Urban Foundation, for example, to develop an apartment complex in the urban areas, with the provision that when those apartments are sold to Blacks under title deed, the leasehold will fall away. In this sense it seems to me as if this too is a measure to be welcomed. In other words, we welcome the provisions regarding the extension of the right of leasehold of a qualified person.

As regards clause 3, which deals with the Commission for Co-operation and Development, I only want to say that in the light of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister earlier, it seems to me as if the extension of that commission is in fact essential in the times we are living in. I therefore welcome the fact that the commission may be extended so as to furnish the Minister with advice in connection with the position of Blacks outside the national States as well. The functions and activities of the commission, as hon. members are aware, are defined in the Act of 1957 and I need not therefore go into that.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has obtained the services of Dr. Smit, whom we all know to be a good scientist in this field. I know that Dr. Smit can in fact make a real contribution to the department in connection with the handling of this situation.

I hope the hon. the Minister will take the extension of the number of members of this commission further as regards membership of the commission. I had hoped that he had Dr. Smit in mind as a full-time member of the commission, but apparently this is not the case. I hope that he will not consider only serving politicians for membership of this commission.

When the recommendation of the Beaumont Commission was made in 1917, the idea was that this commission would be a commission of experts. When Act No. 23 of 1920 was tabled in Parliament for the first time, the intention was that this commission would consist, inter alia, of experts outside politics. As far as I know, in the entire time that this commission has existed since 1920, there has only been one case where a non-serving politician was appointed as member of the commission. Accordingly I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard as well. This is no reflection on politicians. We all have the greatest appreciation for the work done by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, for example. I am therefore not casting any reflection on politicians in this connection when I say that the value of the work of this commission can be increased considerably by also appointing to it people who are not necessarily politicians. I hope the hon. the Minister will give due attention to this.

I wish I had the opportunity to place the matter we are discussing here within the broad context of Government policy in respect of urban Blacks. We know that the number of urban Blacks is going to increase tremendously in the decades to come. We know that the Blacks are going to play an increasing role in our economy. We know, too, that unless we find a satisfactory arrangement in respect of the urban Blacks we shall certainly not make any peaceful progress in South Africa. It is of special importance that the young urban Black must be given an idea of where we are headed. It is in the hands of that hon. Minister in particular to give the young urban Black that idea. In this connection I want to tell the hon. the Minister—I know he will not dispute this—that the policy we are following at the moment is not able to give that young urban Black a vision for the future. In this sense I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I hope that by means of this measure and others he will be able to do something about this basic shortcoming in the Government’s policy.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House welcomes the fact that the official Opposition, with the hon. member Prof. Olivier as its spokesman, supports this legislation. It goes without saying that there are matters about which we differ from one another, but we must agree to differ. We nevertheless welcome the support we are getting.

Towards the end of the hon. member’s speech he rightly pointed out that one of the greatest challenges facing us is the housing of our urban Blacks. This is a threat we shall have to face and we shall definitely have to give very serious attention to the housing of those people, and this is indeed receiving the department’s very serious attention. We also trust that by means of this step we can help many of the young people who are leading dissolute lives. We are also doing other things for them, but I believe that if we can give these people an atmosphere of home, we shall already have eliminated a great deal of the element of criminality and the search for adventure by undertaking all manner of escapades.

Conservatively estimated, the housing shortage for our Black people at the moment totals 160 000 and it is clear that we are facing a formidable task, and I must emphasize that the Government can never be expected to eliminate this backlog on its own. The Government can at most establish the infrastructure and undertake housing for the subeconomic group. We therefore felt it was definitely a step in the right direction to introduce the leasehold system, because this system has the potential to become one of the most dynamic projects of the Nationalist Government. We hope that in this way many of the entrepreneurs in the private sector can be persuaded to build houses for their employees. We admit that we initially experienced problems with the leasehold system. This system gave rise to problems with, inter alia, the land surveyors. However, these problems have all been solved and we now have a system which is more or less within the reach of most Black people, because we supply the plots to these people at very reasonable prices and we also help them with advice, plans, etc. However, we should welcome it if more private entrepreneurs supplied houses for their employees. Not only does it lead to stability, it also provides a stable labour force on which the entrepreneur has a claim.

I should like to refer to a few statistics. We are frequently criticized because the leasehold system is not as popular as it ought to be. We admit that it has gained momentum slowly, but we have made a great deal of progress since it was established. In the Eastern Cape, for example, seven leasehold registrations have been effected at this stage and provisional grants total 65. At the moment there is no waiting list. In the area of the Highveld Administration Board there have been 19 registrations and five provisional grants, while 200 applications are pending. The West Rand Administration Board already has 1 002 registrations in respect of people who have built houses for themselves in terms of this system. Apart from that, 144 have been granted provisionally and 1 340 are pending. On the East Rand there are 19 registrations and 171 provisional grants while 50 are pending. In the area of the Administration Board for the Southern Free State, one registration has been finalized, and there have been six provisional grants. A further 620 cases are pending. In the Orange-Vaal area there were 74 registrations and 71 provisional allocations. In total, therefore, we already have 1 122 leasehold registrations, while 262 provisional grants have been made, and there are a further 2 260 applications pending. Time does not allow me to go into this matter in detail. However, I just want to outline certain aspects briefly. On the West Rand, for example, we made 65 839 plots available. That is in the area of the West Rand Administration Board. In the Southern Free State we made 11 026 plots available and on the East Rand, 22 648 plots. The Western Cape does not qualify for the leasehold system. The total for the entire country is, however, 150 323 plots. This is the number of plots available at the moment for the building of houses in terms of the leasehold system. I feel this system could really make a tremendous contribution towards solving our housing problems. In our approach to the housing shortage we must get away from the idea that the Black man cannot afford to build himself a home.

We have found that we have Black people who are earning R1 000 or more per month, and are renting houses subsidized by this department. We give them cheap interest rates and offer the houses to them at a low tariff. That dispensation simply cannot continue any longer. We cannot afford it and in any case I think that in this regard we are making a mistake, because we are giving the Black people the impression that it is our duty to provide them with those services. We believe that the Black man must be just as independent as the White as regards the building of his home. We are indeed prepared to grant aid in subeconomic cases. We are also prepared to create the infrastructure, and to do so as cheaply as possible.

Thereafter, however, the Black man also has a duty to help himself.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to follow on the hon. Deputy Minister of Co-operation. It is also very encouraging to hear that the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the Department of Co-operation and Development is in fact that the Government cannot tackle this problem without the assistance of the private sector. It is also the opinion of this party that every possible aid should be harnessed in order to overcome the problem. It is on that basis too that we support this amending legislation.

I should, however, appreciate the opportunity of stating very clearly what our policy is in this regard. The introduction of the 99-year leasehold during 1978 was welcomed by all parties in this House as a step in the right direction. It was seen as a step forward on the road to creating stable Black urban communities, and particularly to allay the fears of section-10 Blacks, who were deeply concerned about the possibility of losing their rights as a result of the homelands becoming independent. Progress, however, has been painfully slow and inadequate, resulting in this amending legislation being brought before this House today. The aim of this legislation is mainly to extend the scope of the activities in respect of the financing of housing by financial institutions, building societies, employers, developers, etc., within the ambit of the meaning of the term “qualified person”.

The non-acceptance, however, by the Government of the permanent nature of the presence of Black people in the White urban areas of South Africa has resulted in a tangled skein of legislation in terms of which the housing problem and influx control feed on one another to produce a hybrid, artificial economic situation, which is incapable of generating its own dynamism. There is no substitute for full ownership rights in order to meet the demands of urbanization which is now upon us in this country. In an effort to promote progress when it comes, this party has always accepted any positive measure, however inadequate, which alleviates the situation. Therefore we now make a renewed plea for the introduction of a meaningful parallel scheme in terms of which full ownership will be introduced in order to complement and assist the 99-year leasehold system, a scheme which will give it an increased credibility and which will also enable participants to have a choice in the matter. There is no single final solution to the present problem of housing a poor and rapidly growing population. This problem will be with us constantly, and will require continued study and programmes of evolutionary strategies in order to solve particular problems as they arise. It will also have to include studies of housing policies adopted in the Third World, taking into account the nature of the specific local population. Furthermore it should also be aimed particularly at the upgrading of existing dwellings and services. But surely the removal as far as possible of all impediments from the free market force to encourage the building, buying and selling of property among the Blacks remains paramount to real achievement?

With these words I think I have made it clear that whilst we welcome the breakthrough in the 99-year leasehold system and the amendments now before us in this legislation it is quite obvious that we must use every possible tool including full ownership at our disposal to assist in combating this particular situation.

With regard to clause 3, which deals with the amendment of section 1 of the Black Affairs Act, 1959, we in these benches have repeatedly called for the appointment of a commission to investigate the urban Black and the non-homeland Black in this country and, of course, we are vitally interested in the implementation of the terms of reference of this commission which in fact will commence its work in a field which is such an important field that I do not think that hon. members have yet realized how terribly important its findings are going to be and how vitally they are going to affect the future planning, including constitutional planning, of this country.

With these few words I wish to say that we in these benches support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon. member for King William’s Town. He has delivered a very responsible and common sense address. I think there are three questions which we should ask ourselves about the Bill which is now before the House. Firstly, will the move prompt the investment required from the private sector? Secondly, will it do so quickly enough? Thirdly, would some other alternative perhaps be very much more effective? In answer to the first question, namely will the move prompt the investment required, I believe it would more easily prompt that investment if the Government itself was seeing to be doing more in the way of supplying funds for this particular purpose. If one looks at the amount which averages something less than R50 million per annum for housing over the last six years, one will see that private enterprise definitely has the feeling that the Government has not done what it should do. Although I disagree with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development on almost everything that we have discussed so far, I actually do not believe that he is being given a fair chance, because it is impossible to handle the problems that he has to handle with the financial resources that are made available to him. They are in fact 12% of what the department itself believes is necessary. I remember the advice that was given to me when I was still a young man and had just started off in business. It came from a very brilliant Frenchman who said: Never ever go into business without a good accountant and never let the accountant run your business. I have a feeling that we have a situation here where the accountant is running the business. Providing houses on this basis is a slow process because the Black man looks with reluctance at the scheme and he knows the type of title that he is getting is not the same as the title that is current in the rest of South Africa. He therefore asks himself whether his investment is safe, whether it is enduring and whether its transmission to his descendants is assured. He is worried about that and it makes him a slow buyer. The average White employer is busy, is harassed and he is not necessarily very enlightened. He is just an ordinary, common businessman who does not like taking a lot of his very limited capital and allocating it for Black housing. When one presents him with the problems of 99-year leasehold, he has to go to his attorney because he has no natural feeling for what this actually means to him and he is inclined to shy away from it. This also makes it slow in getting it off the ground. The White employer who finances a house like this is also not quite sure how good his security is. He knows that he can sell property under freehold, but he still has to get used to this leasehold process.

With regard to the second question, namely whether the investment will be forthcoming from the private sector quickly enough, I think urgency is a relevant term and we must actually, if we are not mad, take the views of the people who are close to the subject, like the hon. the Deputy Minister, who said when he was in Port Elizabeth that with regard to this housing problem we are sitting on a powder keg. I do not think that he is exaggerating when he says that, because the urgency is very, very great. Recently, at a housing seminar in Port Elizabeth, Louis Koch very graphically said that in a list of priorities in South Africa he puts housing only second to defence.

Secondly, Blacks will buy houses under the 99-year lease, but because they have Hobson’s choice this slows down the whole process. Let us look at the track record of leasehold and, while we do so, remember that we are not changing leasehold at all. All we are hoping to do by this measure is to put more money behind it. Housing is analogous to somebody who has a horse that is both lame and hungry. He gives the horse more oats and says: “Now I am going to stuff oats into this lame horse, watch it run.” I believe that intrinsically leasehold is second best. In the approximately three years since we have had leasehold, we have actually only registered 1 122, and this is not because there were no stands available. There are, however, another 2 700 in the pipeline. All we are doing in this regard is to put more money into it, but the system is still struggling.

Finally, would some alternative be better? I should like to read a list of names that starts with Mr. Louis Rive and that is followed by the Urban Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. Every acknowledged academic authority on urban housing that I have been able to speak with, including authoritative comments in Afrikaans and English Press, all state that the solution lies in freehold. Last of all, it has been reported in the Press that according to informed sources, the Grosskopf Commission has recommended that Blacks with urban residents’ rights should be granted full freehold title to property. One and all are convinced that we do not grasp this nettle. We must accept freehold if we are going to have any hope of marshalling the resources necessary to overcome this problem that has been so graphically described.

We should examine some of the reasons for not going ahead with freehold. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation says that the 99-year leasehold is much cheaper. However, whether land is being sold under freehold or leasehold, the State has the means to acquire the land, to survey it, to design the services and to pay the cost of installing the infrastructural services. It is absolute Mickey Mouse bookkeeping to say it is more expensive. Whatever proportion of that cost one charges the man who moves into the house is a separate decision. Surveys have to be done on an equal basis, either for a 99-year leasehold, which is a very long time, or permanently.

Another reason that is sometimes given is that if one gives freehold, one ultimately commits yourself to political rights. I believe that one is in any case going to reach that point some time, and I therefore do not believe that that is a valid argument either. The 99-year leasehold, just as freehold, is a valid title.

We are losing a major opportunity, Sir, and I should like to make two quotations. First of all I should like to quote Dr. Smit, who, I am delighted to see, is coming to join the hon. the Minister. He said—

Lastly, Mr. Steyn made the following statement which, I believe, we should all ponder and consider—

Gevolglik voel die Swart man dat hy weinig voordeel uit hierdie stelsel kry waar hy ander op die proef moet stel, en die ander is die kommunisme.

Mr. Speaker, just as the hon. member for Walmer, I too am keenly interested in housing and especially housing for Black people. I have had private discussions with the hon. member and am aware that he knows a great deal about that subject. I have this afternoon also listened with great interest to him. Without being long-winded, especially on this occasion and at this hour, I should like to tell the hon. member that the Department of Cooperation and Development, also the Department of Community Development—indeed the whole Government—have really tackled the problem of housing in a most vigorous way. I could refer to many things that have been done in the past 12 months to improve the situation in our country, but I just want to refer specifically to the Viljoen Committee, which has already submitted its report to us. A great deal of progress has already been made on the basis of that report and announcements about it will be made in the very near future. I sincerely believe that owing to the excellent work done by the Viljoen Committee a great deal of progress will be made. One of the results of the Committee’s recommendations is before this House now. It will definitely make a contribution towards getting the 99-year leasehold scheme off the ground more quickly and efficiently. It will certainly make a contribution towards more and better housing for Black people. There can be no doubt about that at all. So we are making good progress in this regard. One is very happy that that is so, and I want to thank the hon. member for his very positive contribution this afternoon.

This brings me to the hon. member for King William’s Town. I also want to thank him. I know that he is also very interested in this specific topic. He made the point that we should remove all impediments to the provision of Black housing. This is obviously one impediment that is being removed. So I also agree with him, and within the limits that bind us, we will try to do our best and we shall also do it as fleetfootedly as we can. I hope the hon. member understands what that means! [Interjections.] I also want to extend my utmost appreciation to the hon. member for taking my part against the hon. the Minister of Finance. I am always trying to get as much as I can from him. I must say that the hon. the Minister for Finance and Treasury are indeed very sympathetically disposed towards this and really do bend over backwards to help us. The private sector and others must, however, also play their part. That would enable the Government to do even more than it is doing at the moment. We can do it and I think we are well on the way towards getting it done.

*I also want to thank the hon. member Prof. Olivier very sincerely for the positive note on which he introduced the whole matter, and also for the fact that he and his party support his Bill. I also wish to thank the NRP in this respect. I have great appreciation for their doing so. I shall try not to be strict at all in determining the conditions which will be imposed. We should very much like to get this matter off the ground. However, within the restrictions which we have to impose, we shall try to be as accommodating as possible.

In reply to the question about the urban foundation, the answer is indisputably “yes”. Any undertaking may state that it wishes to build 500 houses and then do so in that way. Under the 99-year leasehold system it will subsequently be able to sell the houses as well. The only restriction will be that it will not be able to occupy any of those houses itself. Consequently there are great possibilities for the future. Any undertaking or body will of course be able to do so, but the hon. member referred specifically to the one body, and that is why I dealt with it.

In reply to another question by the hon. member, I want to say that it is the intention to have Dr. Smit attached to the commission on a full-time basis. However, the commission has with very good results already involved a considerable number of experts in consolidating the work which the commission has done so far. With the enlargement of the commission it will also be possible to involve other experts in this matter, according to the needs. In this sphere as well, we can therefore look forward to wonderful development. We all hope that this will be the case.

The hon. member also referred to another matter which is of cardinal importance. I am glad that I am able to react to this briefly. I have discussed this before in Parliament, but I should like to refer to it again. I am referring to the question of a vision of hope for the future which has to be presented to our young Black people. This is of cardinal importance. I, my colleagues—in fact the entire department—are doing everything in our power to do this. Greater success has been achieved in this regard than people frequently imagine, or the news media ever care to mention. I am convinced that if we cannot hold out a vision of hope for the future to the young Black people in this country, we shall not succeed in realizing the vision of hope for the future which we hold out to the young White people and the young people of the other population groups.

On this positive note I should therefore like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone. It is a pleasure for me to finalize the introduction of this positive Bill in this pleasant way, after all the harsh debates on other matters with hon. members of the Opposition during this session.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The part played by the small business undertaking in our economy is a matter which has recently been the subject of considerable discussion. This is a sound development, because, from several points of view, the small business undertaking plays, or is able to play an important part in the economy.

This applies to both the developed sector of the economy, where in terms of numbers the small business undertaking are by far in the majority, as well as the less developed sectors of our economy, for example the national States and the Black and Coloured urban areas, where small business undertakings constitute, by their nature, an important means of access to the free enterprise system for Black and other coloured entrepreneurs. The frequently expressed need for some or other form of assistance to small business undertakings is consequently a need for the support of existing small business undertakings in respect of various impediments to which they may be subject, and on the other hand the encouragement of small business undertakings as a method of producing new entrepreneurs.

There are already various ways in which support can be given to small business undertakings. For example the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has, since its inception, been rendering financial assistance to the Advisory Bureau for Small Business Undertakings in Potchefstroom. Over the years the Industrial Development Corporation has provided far more than a thousand small industrial concerns with financing and has also supported such undertakings by constructing and leasing factory complexes. The Economic Development Corporation provides small business undertakings among the Blacks with financing, training and follow-up services on an extensive scale and similarly the Development and Financing Corporation does the same among the Coloureds and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation among the Indians. The Mining Corporation, too, numbers among its functions the financing of small mining undertakings.

During the Prime Minister’s Carlton Conference on 22 November 1979 with leading businessmen, prominence was given to the question of increased assistance, including financial assistance, to small business entrepreneurs.

After the recommendation of the report of the Economic Co-operation Panel, viz. the Brand-De Waal panel, on the rationalization of State Development Corporations were accepted by the Government, a company which is registered in terms of the Company’s Act, 1973 and which is known as the Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC) was registered on 3 February 1981. The composition of this company is on the basis of a “partnership undertaking” between the private and the public sector. The private sector acts as an equal partner of the State. The share capital of the SBDC was fixed at R150 million, to which the private sector will contribute half and the Government half. The private sector has already committed itself to the full amount of R75 million. The Government has already taken up shares to the value of R10 million in the SBDC via the IDC.

It will therefore depend on the value of the total assets of the IIDC and the DFC which are to be transferred to the SBDC whether the Government will have to make any further share capital available to comply fully with its part of the obligation, viz. the taking up of shares to the value of R75 million.

A further factor which led to the establishment of the SBDC stemmed from the Brand-De Waal inquiry which indicated that there was a large measure of duplication of functions among the five South African Corporations and that there was competition for the same scarce manpower and skill. This applies particularly in respect of financing, industrial development, training, staff functions, research and the identification and evaluation of projects. The separate right of existence of the various corporations is therefore derived almost exclusively from the fact that each one was established for a different population group. At the same time it was found that none of the existing development corporation was dealing with the functions of entrepreneur development—in which small business development is included—and of development co-operation. The following development co-operations or divisions of co-operations must therefore be included in the SBDC—

1. (i) The Indian Industrial Development Corporation (IIDC).
2. (ii) The Development and Financing Corporation (DFK).
3. (iii) The Small Industries Division of the IDC.
4. (iv) The small business activities of the EDC which cannot be decentralized to the national development corporations.

The functions of the SBDC are of a remunerative nature and are briefly as follows—

1. (i) Financing of small business undertakings by temporary participation in share capital and loans in the short-, middle- and longer-term;
2. (ii) The guarantee of loans provided by the private banking sector to small business entrepreneurs as their own clients;
3. (iii) The rendering of other remunerative services to small business undertakings which are too small or too inexperienced to fulfil such functions economically themselves, for example central purchasing facilities, central marketing services, the arrangement of sub-contracts, etc.;
4. (iv) The rendering of follow-up services which directly support the financing function of the SBDC itself; and
5. (v) The provision of basic services (infrastructure) which are specifically aimed at the needs of the small business undertakings such as factory complexes, industrial parks and business centres.

The functions of financing and the guaranteeing of loans are ancillary to the normal services of the private banking sector.

The services of the SBDC will be directed primarily at South Africa, since the national States and independent neighbouring States already have institutions which are devoting attention to such services. The SBDC ought indeed to be able, where the need exists, to operate or provide advice in neighbouring States through the agency of other organizations. The representatives of the State on the board of the SBDC will in this case be able to influence the nature and distribution of the activities in neighbouring States.

†I wish to take this opportunity to reassure the various population groups that their interests will not be affected disadvantageously as a result of the merging of the existing development corporations in the Small Business Development Corporation. In fact, the rationalization of the various activities will enable the new corporation, through its regional offices and the support of the combined expert knowledge of the staff of the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, to render a more efficient service to the small business community in South Africa than has been the case in the past.

I would now like to turn to the draft Bill before the House. To enable the Small Business Development Corporation to carry out its functions, it is necessary to transfer the activities, assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation and the Development and Finance Corporation to that corporation. The transfer of the said obligations also includes the obligations towards the employees of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation and the Development and Finance Corporation. I would like to emphasize that the conditions of service of the said employees will not be less favourable than those applicable to them immediately prior to their transfer.

To ensure continuity of the activities of the Small Business Development Corporation any reference in any law or document or elsewhere to the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, shall be construed as a reference to the Small Business Development Corporation.

As regards the shares to be issued by the Small Business Development Corporation the said corporation shall from time to time, issue at par to the State or its designated deputy, so many of the B-Shares from its authorized share capital as are in the aggregate equivalent in value to an amount equal to the net asset value of the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation at the date of the passing of all the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations. The total number of B-shares to be issued shall at no time exceed the number of A-shares issued by the Small Business Development Corporation. Any amount by which the net asset value exceeds the par value of the B-shares, shall be deemed to constitute an interest-free loan granted by the State to the Small Business Development Corporation, redeemable only by the issue of B-Shares except in so far as authority for the writing-off thereof is granted.

A further aspect which I need to mention is that on the date on which the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation pass their assets, rights and liabilities to the Small Business Development Corporation, the Development and Finance Corporation Act, 1962 and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1977 will be repealed and consequently the corporations which were instituted in terms of those Acts will be dissolved and will become an integral part of the Small Business Development Corporation. This will result in the Small Business Development Corporation becoming a larger organization with countrywide regional offices. This in turn will enable the corporation to render a more efficient service to the relevant population groups in all the provinces. It was also found necessary to amend section 23 of the Liquor Act, 1977 to enable the Small Business Development Corporation to continue with the investment made by the Development and Finance Corporation in the liquor trade. A suitable amendment is contained in the Liquor Amendment Bill, 1981.

The Bill before the House has been drafted in collaboration with the Development and Finance Corporation, the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, the Small Business Development Corporation, the Industrial Development Corporation, the Central Constellation Committee, the Council for the Promotion of Small Businesses (previously the Programme Advisory Council) and the Department of Internal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches approve of this Bill. We particularly approve of the principles involved in the Bill. We see that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to develop small businesses irrespective of any racial connotation. This we welcome very much indeed. To bring this about, obviously the Development and Finance Corporation, which operates in the case of Coloureds, and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation are now to be included with Whites and Blacks in this Small Business Development Corporation. We applaud this thoroughly and totally.

I believe there are certain points that we need to bring to light in regard to the Bill. To start off with, a major difference in so far as the two corporations are concerned is that the private sector is involved. The private sector has invested funds and the private sector will invest more funds over the next five years or so. Again we applaud, but I believe we must note that this places the Small Business Development Corporation in a very different ball game from the purely governmental situation in which the D. and F.C. and the IIDC were previously involved.

Having said that we applaud and shall support the legislation, we nevertheless see certain pitfalls and the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to some of them. I think we should like some additional reassurances from the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to the debate, some we believe are of great importance and some less important, but they also need comment or clarification.

The first one is in regard to clause 2 which deals with the transfer of assets to the Small Business Development Corporation to which I shall refer as the SBDC because of haste at this particular stage. The clause allows these transfers to be done free of transfer duty, stamp duty and any other fees. This, however, only relates to these two corporations and we are under the impression that the Industrial Development Corporation, the IDC, and the Corporation for Economic Development will also be transferring assets into the Small Business Development Corporation. We understand that this will be approximately R24 million worth of assets and we applaud this, but we want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must make the same sort of arrangements with the transfer of assets as he has made for the transfer of assets described in clause 2. We should like his assurance that this will be done.

Secondly, I believe we should address ourselves to the private sector to a certain extent. I believe they must be made aware that they are investing in the future of South Africa and the upliftment of South Africa. Their dividends are likely to be indirect ones. Their dividends will be the overall economic welfare of the land in which they do business, rather than, I believe, in the direct return of monetary dividends. I do not believe the private sector will or should expect anything major in the way of a direct financial return on their investment.

The Small Business Development Corporation, by the very nature of its business, will have to invest in higher risk situations with far more regularity than the normal investment company, because if it was a purely normal investment, then one would not need this particular corporation in order to bring that investment about. By its very nature it is going to be to a degree higher risk.

Secondly, for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians it will have to invest large amounts in low-return infrastructure because the basic business accommodation is not available in certain areas to the extent that it is available for Whites. This, of course, is another problem to which I shall return.

As an example, the D. and F.C. has lent money at just over 8% and it has let premises at returns as low as 5%. Obviously one tries for a return on these sort of investments which is market related, but often it cannot be done for historical or legislative reasons. I believe that the private sector are not looking for normal dividends. I believe they are looking at their investments largely as a “social investment” and the direct profit factor is not the main motivation.

The next point I want to come to is the training and assistance factor. To those of us in these benches, this factor is of paramount importance. It should not be charged for, nor should it be discontinued, because it is not directly profit-making. Money is important, but training, support and business education in methods is vital to the success of the average man going into his own business for the first time. Funds can disappear through as many holes as there are in a colander. Experience is vital and hard earned, and Whites often can gain their experience as managers and executives for large corporations. This route is often not available to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, for various reasons, such as legislative or regulatory obstruction, lack of basic education or even language problems. Thus, Sir, the SBDC has to supply this shortcoming, and the ultimate success of the whole scheme is going to depend on their ability to educate, assist, motivate and instruct their customers both before and after they have made money available. The less privileged in this land have a lot of leeway to make up, and we must help them in doing so, although in providing this assistance, it obviously is not directly motivated in terms of profits and dividends.

Perhaps the most important factor to be considered is the fact that legal obstacles exist to the equal treatment of all applicants, i.e. applicants for funds or assistance from the SBDC. In an ideal situation all citizens, regardless of colour, should have an equal opportunity in the industrial and commercial fields. However, in our society most of the prime sites are reserved for the use of one race group only. Thus ultimate success and consequently lower risk is more likely within the more fortunate group. Secondly, for this group more infrastructure is available in long established developed areas. This is a totally different situation to the situation in new areas such as Atlantis or Mitchell’s Plain, or older areas such as Guguletu, Langa, Kwazahkele or New Brighton. In other words, the rand spent for the development of White small business will be easier to spend and will obtain greater mileage. There will be a great temptation to channel the bulk of the funds available to the better appearing investments in the White race group. It will be a great temptation, and what we are looking for from the hon. the Minister is the assurance that this step that we are supporting will not be to the detriment of those groups that in the past have been assisted by the two corporations that are disappearing.

You may not talk about the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. Minister wants to start having a political discussion on the extension of rights to other race groups in the central business districts, etc., then we can get involved in a full-scale political argument. I am trying to handle this relatively responsibly, but that hon. Minister would not recognize responsibility if he saw it.

We believe that the SBDC funds should be primarily used for the advancement and development of the less privileged in our society in relation to industry and commerce.

We have noted with pleasure that the chairman of the SBDC has indicated that they will provide bank guarantees for small businessmen to enable them to borrow funds from commercial banks. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister also mentioned it in his speech. We approve this and see it as means by which the SBDC’s own funds can be preserved for the use of the underprivileged.

The fifth point I want to make is that there are a number of legislative barriers, such as those relating to CBDs for Whites only, the fact that many industrial areas are for Whites only, Blacks not being allowed to own property outside the homelands, and the removal of Indians and Chinese from the traditional corner store in the suburbs. All these restrictions we believe ultimately must and will disappear. However, there are restrictions which must be removed now so that the Small Business Development Corporation can operate effectively with Black traders.

I want to refer particularly to the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. There are many restrictions in this Act. I am not going to complicate the issue by referring to them now, but there are restrictions in this Act which complicate the issue. Almost everything done in the Black urban areas is under the control of an administration board. If this SBDC is to operate effectively with Blacks we believe it should be given the right to operate without having to get the by your leave of the Administration Boards or having to consult with them to any major extent in the assistance of these particular Black traders.

Finally, to sum up, we approve of this legislation and the removal of the race tags involved. However, we are concerned that it could be operated in such a way that the underprivileged are deprived. We look forward to assurances from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, one should probably welcome the fact that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his party are supporting this legislation, even if he mentioned as the main consideration for doing so that this legislation was not colour orientated, and even if he seized upon this legislation as he seizes upon anything to make another plea for the destruction of the South African way of life.

We on this side of the House are also pleased with this legislation in the sense that it is not colour orientated, but for other reasons as well. We believe that this legislation can bring about greater harmony in respect of the economic national development in our country, that it emphasizes the economic interdependence of the people in our country and that, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, it also establishes the possibility for greater rationalization which will also make it possible to undertake this important task with less skilled manpower.

There are also other reasons why we believe that this legislation is of the utmost importance in view of the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives. In the first place it emphasizes and confirms yet again the Government’s belief in the system of free enterprise. Small businesses play a key role in a free market economy. It is estimated that 80% of the manufacturing industry and no less than 90% of the retail trade, the motor industry and the building industry can be classified under the category of small businesses. In South Africa the small business undertaking is perhaps even more important than in Europe and the USA where the small business undertaking has been receiving attention for many years. For us in South Africa it is important because the small business undertaking forms a bulwark against socialism and communism. Small businesses undertakings encourage private initiative. They promote free competition. They are a training school for entrepreneurs and distribute economic activity, especially in the more depopulated areas. We all know that free enterprise is vulnerable in a democratic system. It has been proved throughout the world that the creators of welfare are becoming larger and fewer and that the distance between employer and employee is increasing. This leads not only to trade unions, but also to political expression in the form of socialism. In contrast the small business undertaking is a powerful mitigating factor against excessive State interference.

In the second place this legislation promotes harmonious economic policy by establishing a partnership between the private and the public sectors. This is also an outcome of the Carlton conference.

Whereas the initial target was an initial capital of R100 million to which the private sector would contribute R50 million and the public sector R50 million, we on this side of the House also welcome the fact that thanks to the spontaneous intervention, the spontaneous enthusiasm of the private sector it was in fact possible to increase this amount to R150 million. Banks and financial institutions contributed over R14 million of this amount while the mining sector contributed a further R14 million. The contribution of the insurance industry was R9 million while industries contributed a further R23 million. We are also grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister announced that the State would take up all its B shares after the assets of the other corporations have been determined. It is necessary to note that the directorate of this corporation will be constituted in the same way from the public and the private sector and that it will therefore be possible to an increasing extent to synchronize the economic policy of both the public and the private sectors.

We believe that this legislation is an important building stone in the pattern which is unfolding under this Government. It uplifts one of the greatest bulwarks of the Western way of life from where it is possibly in a Cinderella position in our society. As such it is an essential instrument in the defence against the total onslaught facing this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has motivated the necessity for this Bill in a very efficient manner. I would like to tell him that we in the NRP take pleasure in supporting measures such as these. We do so because the two development corporations will now as a result of this legislation be part of a much larger organization, namely the Small Business Development Corporation which we believe will be in a far better position to enable the Indian and Coloured communities to achieve the objectives which were originally set for the two previous development corporations. We believe that this is even more so because—as has already been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—it is now going to obtain even more support from the private sector and from certain banks, an aspect which we applaud.

I am not going to discuss any of the clauses other than to say that we are particularly pleased with clause 5, which clearly states that the existing employees of the two development corporations are going to be looked after as a result of this merger and that they will not be left out in the cold.

Having said this I would like to emphasize something which I believe is already obvious to most hon. members, and that is the tremendous importance of the proposed corporation and the great potential role it can play and indeed must play in South Africa’s economy in the coming year. What South Africa needs more than anything else today is the development of a kind of business structure which, relative to the cash investment, is able to create a large number of jobs. This is what the small businessman does. The economic history of most modern industrial nations show us that it has been the small businessman who played a very important role in this regard, not only in the past but also in the future.

In this regard I would like to quote from a booklet which was published by the Conservative Party in Britain titled “Small business, big future”. The foreword is headed “Right approach” and has this to say—

I think this is very true indeed and I think that we in South Africa should take heed of those words. The small businessman is, as has already been said, the foundation of the free enterprise system, and for this reason it is particularly necessary and extremely important that there is an increase in growth in the numbers of small businessmen in South Africa as we promote the concept of free enterprise among our non-White population.

It is for these reasons that we in the NRP support this legislation and we hope that its objectives will be achieved.

In conclusion there are two questions I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first one is along the same lines as the one mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he could give this House the assurance that the Indian and the Coloured communities will be treated with complete equality as far as the activities of the proposed merger are concerned. I ask him this, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will reassure me in this regard, which is what I should like him to do. I ask this because I believe that it would be totally self-defeating if this is not the case. Seeing that this has been raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I should only like to take the opportunity again of stating the policies of the NRP in this regard.

We believe that when it comes to the central business districts of our large cities, there should be an integrated economic and industrial activity. We believe that every person, regardless of race, should be completely free to compete in a common and integrated economy. I believe this is essential for the future well-being and harmony of all our people in this country.

Secondly, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has mentioned some of the figures regarding moneys that have been contributed to the Small Business Development Corporation, whether he is happy that there will be sufficient capital available to really get this whole project off the ground, because I firmly believe that this is urgent in the South Africa of today.

We take great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for their support for this legislation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked a whole series of questions, in which he asked me for certain guarantees. As far as most of his questions are concerned, I am prepared to give the hon. member all the assurances he has asked for. However, I want to elucidate only three of them—three which are important to me—in order to give an indication of the attention which will be given to them. This will also serve as a reply to one of the questions put to me by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. All applicants are treated on an equal basis. I can give the hon. members this assurance.

What is also involved is the transfer of part of the assets of the Economic Development Corporation and the Industrial Development Corporation. It is not necessary to transfer those assets of the Economic Development Corporation and the Industrial Development Corporation by means of legislation. They can be transferred by means of regulation and agreement, but this will in fact take place on the same easy basis as that on which the assets of the IIDC and the DFC are transferred.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to put one question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I was specifically referring to transfer duties and fees that are legislatively necessary in the transfer. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comment on this.

It will be done on exactly the same basis as in the other two cases. The hon. member also referred to the question of the backlog in the infrastructure for factories in Black urban areas. I have here a document from which I can reply to almost all the questions he put to me. This document contains details on the policy and standpoints of the SBDC in connection with the matters to which the hon. member referred. I want to outline two of them for him. I cannot do more than that, as there is too little time.

The first aspect regards the availability of buildings and factory premises in Black urban areas. In the very short time in which the SBDC has been operating, 43 factory premises at a total cost of R950 000 have been built in Soweto. At present two more premises are being planned. This gives an indication of the speed at which the SBDC is working, despite the fact that its full administrative mechanism is not yet in operation. This is also an indication of the approach of the management of the SBDC in connection with these applicants and their applications.

The second aspect the hon. member referred to was training. There is an entire paragraph in which the questions that the hon. member asked are answered, viz. that these people will be very well and very carefully looked after as regards their training and particularly as regards after-care services once they are established. This will be done in order to ensure that they do not deteriorate so that nothing comes of their enterprise.

Naturally I agree with the hon. member’s idea that the dividends should rather go into development than be paid out, but that is a matter for the management of the SBDC, about which they must themselves decide with great circumspection in future.

I want to thank the hon. member for Umlazi most sincerely for his support and the way in which he clearly set out the general aims of this legislation, which in my opinion is an extremely important piece of legislation.

I am also very grateful for the support of both sides of this House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Finance has asked me for an opportunity to make a personal explanation and I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to be called, please.

Why did you not give us notice?

You can call him. He cannot be far away.

Why did you not tell us?

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

This is a special privilege that you are getting.

Mr. Speaker, as I would like the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to be present, may I take this point of personal explanation after the next Order of the Day has been dealt with?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The independence of the Ciskei will have certain consequences as regards the implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The position will be as follows:

1. (1) From the date on which the Ciskei becomes independent, the Act will no longer apply there.
2. (2) Employers falling under the definition of employer in section 4, will be excluded and they and their employees will cease to be liable for contributions.
3. (3) In terms of section 34(9) of the Act, persons outside the Republic are not entitled to benefits and from the date the Ciskei becomes independent no benefits can be paid out there.
4. (4) Employees recruited in the Ciskei on contract for service in the Republic who must return to their country on termination of service will, as in the case of citizens of all foreign countries, be excluded from the definition of contributor in terms of section 2(2)(a).
5. (5) Residents of the Ciskei who are not employed under contract in the Republic and who are not to be repatriated on termination of service, will be contributors unless they are otherwise excluded from the definition of contributor, as is the case with all persons in the Republic.

The question arose as to the extent of the liability of the Fund in respect of contributors living in the Ciskei in respect of ordinary unemployment, maternity and illness benefits when the Ciskei becomes independent, and as to the steps to be taken. As hon. members know, the benefits from an unemployment insurance fund serve as a temporary source of income to assist the worker until he can find work again. With a view to a gradual transition stage the Government felt that the status quo should be maintained for a period in order to prevent disruption and dissatisfaction in respect of workers who were contributors and built up credits prior to the date of independence. During the transition period the Ciskeian Government can decide what its own wishes are in connection with the establishment of an unemployment insurance fund for its own territory.

Certain proposals regarding the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act after the date of independence were submitted earlier this year to the working committee established to undertake the necessary preparatory work relating to the independence of the Ciskei. These proposals were accepted by the Ciskeian Cabinet.

The proposals are incorporated in the Bill at present before this House.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary because of the passing of the Status of Ciskei Bill. We believe that the legislation the hon. the Minister is now introducing is reasonable and fair, that the time period is right, and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Pinelands said, this is consequential to the forthcoming independence of Ciskei. In order not to leave present employees in the lurch as far as their unemployment insurance is concerned, the period of continuity for three years is fully supported by this party, and we will subscribe to this Bill in its entirety.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Order! I now allow the hon. the Minister of Finance to take a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister of Finance has shown you a copy of the statement that he wishes to make?

No, he did not.

May I address you on this, Sir? I raised this question of hon. members making statements with the Deputy Chairman last week. He indicated that he had discussed the matter and that in future all statements by way of explanation would be dealt with through the Speaker, the senior presiding officer, who would scrutinize them from a point of view of brevity and also from the point of view of no criticism of any other hon. member of the House. That was a firm ruling that was given to me and, with great respect, I believe at this very stage this should be adhered to. We still have a fair amount of time to go and I would, with great respect, suggest that you ask the hon. the Minister of Finance again to defer this until you have had an opportunity of scrutinizing his statement.

The hon. the Minister of Finance explained to me what he wanted to say. I was not aware of the ruling referred to by the hon. the Chief Whip and that is why I gave the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make an explanation. I have to uphold my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of a debate in this House earlier today, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made certain allegations which, I submit, cast very serious reflections on myself as Minister of Finance, on the Director of the Mint, on the Chamber of Mines and, indeed, on the financial administration of the Government generally. I could not hear everything that the hon. member said and accordingly I requested a Hansard record of his speech. I have now been furnished with such copy of the Hansard record.

The allegations to which I refer, Sir, are, firstly where he said—

I submit that that statement is untrue. Secondly he said—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, I am making a statement. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking a point of order. Sir, have you, with great respect, satisfied yourself that this so-called matter of personal explanation is proper? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The second point the hon. member made was—

I submit that that statement is also untrue.

Thirdly he said—

On the basis of the facts I submit that that statement is also untrue. I submit to the House that no tax-payers’ money of any kind is involved.

In view of that, I now request that the hon. member unreservedly withdraw those serious allegations, allegations which I say are, on the basis of the facts, without foundation and untrue. If he does not do so, Mr. Speaker, I shall immediately seek an opportunity to speak to you to ask you to consider, as a matter of urgency, setting up a Select Committee of this House to investigate his allegations. [Interjections.]

That is not a personal explanation. It is an abuse of the rules.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the Chief Whip of the official Opposition entitled to allege that the hon. the Minister is abusing the rules? Surely that is a reflection on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister has made his personal explanation. That closes the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As in the past, copies of this draft Bill and the explanatory notes have been made available to certain hon. members on both sides of this House prior to the Bill being read a First Time, in order to enable them to study it.

Hon. members will recall that since 1978 all amendments to the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, during a specific year have no longer been incorporated in the Customs and Excise Amendment Act as Schedules as in the past. They have since been bound in the form of Government Notices in book form and tabled along with explanatory notes in the form of a White Paper in the House of Assembly. Since then, all amendments announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance during a budget speech, have of necessity been published by way of Government Notices, and these amendments are bound with the amendments to the Schedules to which I referred. This year, however, due to the extent of the amendments there has been a departure from the procedure, and the hon. the Minister has tabled the amendments as tax proposals.

The amendments published in the Government Gazette since 1 February 1980, have been bound in book form as in the past and were tabled on 28 September 1981. The amendments tabled as tax proposals after the budget speech must, however, be incorporated as a Schedule in the amending Act, and for that reason there is a Schedule to the amending Bill this year.

As time is very limited during the second session this year, it was decided that all proposed amendments to the text of the Act must stand over until next year. Accordingly, except for the Schedule for which provision is made in clause 3, the Bill contains only two other clauses this year.

Clause 1, as is customary, makes provision for the continuation of the amendments of the Schedules to the Act published by notice in the Gazette during the period 1 February 1980 to 31 July 1981 and on 12 August and 4 September 1981. The amendment published on 4 September 1981 makes provision for the exemption of toothpastes, powders and washes from the payment of ad valorem excise duty and countervailing duty with retrospective effect to 12 August 1981—the date of the budget. In this connection I can mention that section 48(6) of the principal Act provides as follows—

The provision of this section applies mutatis mutandis in respect of any amendment made in terms of the provisions of sections 56 and 75.

Clause 2 makes provision for certain Government Notices to come into operation with retrospective force.

In the cases involved here certain amendments of the Schedules to the principal Act had effects which were not foreseen or intended. In the first case, the Board of Trade and Industries had recommended that tariff heading 84.47 be rewritten. It was not, however, the intention to disturb the tax position. Nevertheless, as it happened, this amendment had the effect that the duty on certain machines was increased from free to 3%. The position is now being rectified with retrospective effect.

In the second case, the duty on assembled hearses increased from 20% to 100% with the introduction of phase V of the local contents programme in respect of motor vehicles. After representations had been received from undertakers, the board recommended that the duty be reduced to 20%. After further representations the board recommended that this reduction be made retrospective to 1 January 1980—the date when phase V was implemented.

In the final instance, retrospective effect is given to a rebate provision on foam rubber interlinings backed with textile fabric, for the manufacture of foundation garments. This amendment occurred due to the fact that the classification of foam rubber interlinings coated on one side with textile fabric was amended in Schedule 1 to the principal Act. This amendment led to the interlinings no longer being allowed under rebate of the duty. After representations had been received from the industry concerned, the rebate provision was introduced on the recommendation of the board and the board agreed that it be made of retrospective effect to 1 September 1977.

All the above retrospective clauses have been incorporated in the Bill after consultation with the Board of Trade and Industries and all three amounted to a reduction of the duty.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill ratifies a large number of past changes and also deals with some changes which were dealt with in the budget. As far as the past changes are concerned, where these are investigated by the Board of Trade, unless there are very exceptional circumstances, I think it is inappropriate to redebate them in the House. Quite obviously, a lot of technical evidence is led before the board, and it is extremely difficult for us to make a judgment on this. In the normal course of events therefore, unless there is something extraordinary, we accept those findings and regard them as being proper. The law has delegated the function of investigation, and therefore we accept that situation.

However, in regard to the matters which by law we have to deal with and which have already been raised in the budget, there is a slightly different approach. One is always grateful for small mercies, representations were made in regard to toothpaste during the budget debate—I specifically asked for that—and that has now been changed. Not only has it been changed for toothpaste but also for powders of a similar nature. All other types of articles which are used for the cleaning of teeth have now been put into the same category. For that we express our thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

There are some other matters which we raised in the budget debate and which now are pertinently before us. If one looks at the schedule one sees that the tariff for champagne has gone up, down and up again a bit more. It did not, however, go back to where it was. When, on the other hand, it comes to beer, the position is entirely different. Beer is the ordinary man’s drink. I am not a beer drinker so I do not fall in that category. I am not someone who is particularly concerned about drink at all. I am virtually an abstainer. If we consider what life is about, should the tariff for beer, which is the ordinary man’s drink, go up while that for champagne goes down? According to our approach, this does not make sense.

It suits you.

It does not. I do not like the damn stuff; so the hon. member must not come with that story. He must not talk nonsense. There is a case to be made out for the tariff for champagne to go up and there is an equally strong case to be made out for that for beer to go down. I propose to move these amendments, but there is a problem in the sense that I cannot move an amendment to put champagne up. In this Second Reading stage I want to ask that the hon. the Minister should move my first amendment for me, so that he can show that he too is not on the side of the “fat cats” but is actually concerned about the working man as well. The amendment relating to beer I can move. I shall indeed move it. I believe that the tariff for beer should not go up.

At the same time that we dealt with toothpaste and similar matters I also raised the issue of cleansing creams and pastes which are used by women. Those materials are used for ordinary purposes of hygiene. They are not perfumes. They are not luxury items. I think that cleansing creams are generally used by women and do not fall into the luxury category.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, I propose in the Committee Stage to move that cleansing creams and pastes should be treated in the same way as toothpaste. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will support us on that.

I also raised in the budget debate the question of wedding-rings and engagement-rings. I for one do not believe that a wedding-ring which does not contain any precious stones is a luxury. Does the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism think it is a luxury? Let him tell me what he thinks. [Interjections.]

It is no more a luxury than handcuffs.

A wedding-ring is not a luxury. I am prepared to concede that a wedding-ring studded with diamonds and goodness knows what other precious stones falls into a different category, but that an ordinary gold band should be taxed is in my opinion absolutely out of the question. In my amendment I distinguish between a wedding-ring which has precious stones set in it and an ordinary wedding-ring.

The Minister is encouraging people to live in sin.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this amendment in the spirit in which I shall move it. Certainly, this is not an article that should be taxed. As regards other wedding-rings and engagement-rings, I believe they should remain on the basis on which they are at present and that the tax on them should not be increased.

If one looks at my amendments, one sees a vast number of figures which are virtually unintelligible. That is, however, how it has to be done in order to give effect to these particular amendments. As the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, his department also says that that is the way in which it has to be done. Therefore I give notice now—and I do not intend to debate it again at length in the Committee Stage—that that is the approach we shall adopt to this. We shall support the Second Reading, but we ask in return that consideration be given to the matters I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall be supporting this legislation. I should just like to tell him that the imposition of customs and excise duties, as indicated in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance during the budget debate, can be used to raise revenue for the State. Therefore, we are pleased that in as much as the hon. the Minister of Finance felt it was necessary to raise revenue for the State this year, he has made provision to do so in the way in which he has, namely by raising excise duties on certain items. The hon. the Minister could have raised income tax or even general sales tax, which I think would have been a disaster for South Africa at the present time. Therefore, as he had to increase revenue …

But I thought that you were in favour of increased sales tax? What made you change your mind?

If he had to do this, Sir, I think he has done it in the best way he could.

I should also like to say that customs and excise duties can also be used for other reasons. As we know, customs duties are used to protect South African industry. The reason is often put forward that this is necessary to protect employment as far as our workers are concerned. I should just like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister in conclusion that I do believe that we have to beware of too many appeals in respect of increased duties on imports because imports can serve as added competition to our South African industries. Where we do have a lack of competition in South Africa I believe that by allowing certain goods to be imported this competition is provided and this fact does assist in combating the inflationary spiral we have been experiencing over recent years.

Having said that, Sir, we shall be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Yeoville for their support of this legislation. I can just tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti briefly that when we are dealing with the import of certain commodities in order to protect our local industries, the factors that he mentioned are taken into account. A very thorough investigation is carried out by the Board of Trade and Industries. This is a technical and an economic investigation and these matters are accepted only on the recommendation of that board and in certain cases, are even referred back to the board and the duties are then either increased or decreased. This matter receives very thorough attention.

As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I want to say that the hon. member has now raised exactly the same arguments and points as he did during the Second Reading debate. I do not want to go into them at this stage. When the hon. member moves his amendments during the Committee Stage, I shall react to them briefly.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

1. (1) On pages 6 and 8, in columns III and IV of tariff item 104.10, to omit “2 727c”, “2 726c”, “3 002c”, “3 134c”, “3 266c”, “3 398c”, “3 530c”, “3 662c”, “2 980c”, “3 761c” and “3 200c” wherever they occur, and to substitute “2 247c”, “2 246c”, “2 522c”, “2 654c”, “2 786c”, “2 918c”, “3 050c”, “3 182c”, “2 500c”, “3 281c” and “2 720c”, respectively;
2. (2) on page 10, in column II, in tariff item 118.10, after “baby powders” to insert “cleansing creams and pastes”;
3. (3) on page 12, before tariff item 122.20, to insert:

1. (4) on page 12, in column II, in tariff item 122.20, after the second “metal”, to insert:

I am waiting for the hon. the Deputy Minister to move my first amendment on the Order Paper on my behalf!

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to move that amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

*I am going to react very briefly to the amendments that the hon. member for Yeoville did in fact move, but before I do so I first want to make the general remark that when customs and excise duties are increased or decreased, it is not done on an ad hoc basis. It is done for a specific purpose for a specific budgeting objective or framework, particularly in these cases.

I now want to deal with the first amendment and this deals with decreasing the duty on beer. If we agree to the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment that the duty on beer should be decreased to the level at which it was prior to 12 August 1981, the loss of revenue would be R21,6 million and for a full financial year the loss of revenue would be approximately R42 million. As a result of the extensive, large sums I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I now come to the amendment that deals with the customs and excise duty on cleansing creams and pastes. I think the hon. member for Yeoville is really being a little hasty with us now. We were so accommodating towards him that we conceded with regard to toothpastes and all these things. If I were now to agree that the duty on cleansing creams and pastes could also be decreased, I would be faced with the problem that in due course we would receive further representations—perhaps not from him, but from one of his colleagues or from outside—and where are we ultimately going to draw the line? The hon. member for Yeoville is now proposing that cleansing creams and pastes should be exempted from the payment of ad valorem customs and excise duty. If we were to give our favourable consideration to the amendment, it could be expected, as has now been proved by the proposal of the hon. member, that representations would be made for lifting the duty on other related products which could then not always be refused because precedents are now being created. Each concession would mean a loss of revenue which would then in turn have to be recovered from another source. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to accept that amendment either.

I now come to the question of wedding- and engagement-rings. If I remember correctly, on the occasion of the Second Reading the hon. member said that the reason why he was asking for a decrease with regard to wedding- and engagement-rings, was that the soldiers returning from duty want to get married, but cannot afford an engagement- and wedding-ring, because they are so expensive as a result of the customs and excise duty. The amendment of the hon. member amounts to certain articles of jewelry being exempted from the payment of ad valorem duty and being subjected to a lower scale of duty. Therefore, it is not uniform, but two scales once again. This would complicate the administration of the particular tariff item 122.10 and 71.12 a great deal, because as hon. members know, it is not always easy to distinguish between wedding- and engagement-rings on the one hand and other rings on the other. I think the hon. member has simplified it a great deal now by referring to a golden wedding-ring only. If one looks in a jeweller’s shop, one notices that the variety of engagement- and wedding-rings is so vast these days that someone will have to decide where the line has to be drawn, and such a line is not easy to draw. The duty gathered under the items for jewelry of precious metals or rolled precious metals amounted to R14,2 million for the 1980-’81 financial year, and although no separate statistics are available for the different types of jewelry, we are convinced that the amounts gained from wedding- and engagement-rings were considerable. Any loss of duty will simply have to be obtained from other sources. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment moved by him either.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I must express my disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister prefers the champagne drinkers to the beer drinkers of South Africa. I think that that point has been made.

Secondly, with regard to the other amendment, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has a difficulty as to where the line should be drawn. The line is actually very simply drawn. I have tried to draw it on the basis of distinguishing between what is a luxury and what is not a luxury. The hon. the Deputy Minister was convinced that toothpaste was not a luxury, but he is not convinced that cleansing cream is not a luxury. So, I think he should ask his wife; I think he should ask the hon. member for Germiston District whether she thinks that using cleansing cream and being clean is in fact a luxury. I am sure that she will agree with us. That is the problem, Sir; it is not a luxury, and she will be the first to confirm it. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a very simple question. If he does not think that cleansing creams are not a luxury, how does he see his way clear to dealing with incense, because the burning of incense is excluded. He regards the burning of incense as being on one side of the line, and the use of cleansing cream by women as being on the other side of the line. I must tell you, Sir, that that logic escapes me.

What about all the Indians that burn incense?

Yes, but why exclude cleansing cream? I just do not understand the argument.

Another point, Sir, relates to the question of wedding-rings. Everybody knows what a wedding-ring is. It is a small article, and it cannot possibly represent any meaningful proportion of the R14,2 million, which is the amount involved, before the increases. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to show consideration in the case of wedding-rings and cleansing cream, to those who get married and those who like to be clean.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to agree. I just want to say briefly that the other day I saw a beautiful television advertisement in which Sophia Loren said that the best way of cleansing is with Lux soap and Italian water.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions and as hon. members know, these recommendations have already been approved by this House.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party also support this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, for the hon. Minister of Justice—

The Bill is aimed at the retention by attorneys in Ciskei, after independence, of certain ties with the attorneys’ profession in the Republic of South Africa.

In terms of section 57 of the Attorneys Act, 1979 (Act 53 of 1979), the more or less 12 attorneys practising in Ciskei are currently members of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope. The provisions of chapter II of the Act regarding the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund are, of course, also applicable to them. Hon. members will appreciate that their small number makes it inexpedient, although not altogether impossible, for them to establish and maintain their own law society and fidelity guarantee fund. A request has recently been received from the Ciskeian Government for the retention by attorneys in that area after independence of their membership of the Cape Law Society as well as for continued coverage by the fund. The council of the Cape Law Society and the board of control of the fund were approached and agreed to such an arrangement.

Accedence to the Ciskeian request is to my mind in the interest of the attorneys’ profession as well as in the public interest. Not only will Ciskeian attorneys retain the benefit of continued guidance and protection by the law society of which they are members at present, but the public will continue to enjoy the existing indemnification against financial losses resulting from possible misconduct by the attorneys concerned.

*Mr. Speaker, accedence to the Ciskeian request requires two steps. In the first place an agreement will have to be entered into between the Governments of Ciskei and South Africa on the day that the country becomes independence. Secondly it is necessary to introduce a reference to Ciskei in sections 55, 77 and 84 of the Attorneys Act, 1969. The latter step is being proposed in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill now before this House. The acceptance of clause 1 will result in the provisions of chapter 2 of the Act regulating the liability and functioning of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund being mutatis mutandis applicable to persons practising certain legal professions in the Ciskei after independence. Clause 2 seeks to regulate the continued membership of the Law Society of the Cape Province. By means of clause 3 it has been provided that this law society, its council, president and secretary will be able to perform their normal activities in respect of those persons. The operation of all three measures are being made subject to the enactment of corresponding Ciskeian legislation.

I should like to thank the Council of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and the Control Board of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund for their concurrence with the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill is aimed at providing protection for both the public and the profession of attorney in an independent Ciskei in the future, and this side of the House will therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP also supports the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this particular clause has generated a good deal of interest amongst the public, and particularly amongst sportsmen and sports administrators. It is understandable why, because this particular provision as it is contained in section 72 of the principal Act, is of great import to this sector of the population.

In order to assist sports administrators we have in fact been asked to raise three questions with the hon. the Minister. I should request the hon. the Minister to place on record answers to a few questions relating to the amendment of this particular section of the Act. The first question relates to the fact that several clubs are already in possession of an international licence, which, I think, was obtained in terms of section 72 of the Act. These licences have to be renewed annually at a statutory fee of R200 a year plus a concomitant legal charge. Is it therefore correct to say that if a club applies for a licence stringent observations of restrictions otherwise incorporated in the Act at the retention of an international licence under section 72(3) becomes unnecessary? It is my view that once the amendment now before us becomes effective there will no longer be any need for clubs who want to admit Black guests or members to use this mechanism at all. It would, however, be helpful if the hon. the Minister would give an unequivocal authority to this view. The second question is the following. I should like to refer in this respect to the existing section 72(3) and (4) of the Act in relation to the new proposed subsection (1). Section 72(3) deals with the question of international licences, and section 72(4) of the principal Act allows the Minister to give permission to on-consumption licensees to serve Blacks on an ad hoc-basis. The new subsection 3A gives the Minister the power to grant an on-consumption licensee a licence which, under certain conditions, will entitle such licensee to use his own discretion in respect of who might be admitted to his premises. All these stipulations provide only for the serving of liquor as a dispensation to people of colour. On the other hand there appears to be no provision for serving liquor to Whites who may find themselves in a club, restaurant or hotel which is situated in an area designated for Blacks, Coloureds or Indians. Surely, this advantage should be extended to those clubs, restaurants and hotels as well. If the hon. the Minister already has the tools to deal with this aspect to which I am referring, I should be grateful if he would enlighten the House. If not, I should like the assurance that this possible gap in the law will be rectified at the earliest opportunity. We in these benches find it difficult to understand why different and confusing proclamations have to be adopted in regard to what are essentially identical sets of circumstances.

The third question relates to the time factor, because clubs have to renew licences. Some of them have international status and they therefore will have to pay that licence fee of R100 for it. There is also a good deal of confusion, as has been evidenced by the recent controversy in connection with the Royal Cape Golf Club. I believe it is the public interest to clarify matters at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister when he anticipates or intends these amendments to section 72 to take effect. His indication would help clubs, restaurants and hotels to organize their affairs with greater certainty and convenience.

Finally, I want to ask why this new dispensation has not been extended to licensees beyond a club liquor licence. I should like to urge that the dispensation should be extended to at least hotels, restaurants, theatres and the like. These are areas where incidents have happened not because of friction caused by mixing, but rather by people being insulted through having been refused admittance. Already we have holders of international licences, such as hotels and restaurants, where people of race mix freely and without incident. The hon. the Minister admits that they have, as he put it in his Second Reading speech, acted responsibly. Surely therefore the dispensation afforded to clubs should be extended to others. The hon. the Minister can rest assured that the sooner hotels, restaurants, theatres, etc., are normalized, the greater the goodwill that will be generated.

As a result of our feelings on this matter I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Sandton on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply briefly to the few questions that the hon. member for Edenvale put with regard to section 72. The hon. member’s interpretation of the need for a club to obtain an international licence, is correct. The fact is that section 72 is a prohibitory section. It places a prohibition on a licence holder whose premises are reserved for the use of Whites to sell liquor, refreshments, meals and accommodation to non-Whites. However, it is not an absolute prohibition and that prohibition can be lifted by applying for an international authorization in terms of subsection (3) of section 72, or subsection (4), the existing ad hoc rule. The fact that the club liquor licence is excluded from section 72, means that the prohibition in section 72 does not apply to club liquor licences. That is why it is not necessary for a club with a liquor licence to apply for the prohibition to be lifted either. Therefore, the hon. member is quite correct in saying that in future it will no longer be necessary for clubs to apply for international status.

The second question of the hon. member concerns premises that are intended for occupation by non-Whites under the Group Areas Act and fall under Group Areas reserved for non-Whites. Licence holders in the abovementioned areas receive their licences in terms of section 23 of the Act in most cases. This is an authorization which makes it easier for a licence to be obtained since in many of these cases the application cannot comply with the strict requirements of the Act. That is why section 23 has been introduced for the very reason of making it possible in such cases for there to be licence holders in the abovementioned areas too. The conditions of section 23 licence holders are prescribed by the Minister, and the Minister’s authorization in this regard is so wide that should any licence holder that falls into that category wish to obtain status equal to international status, they can apply to do so, and if the application is deserving, their conditions will be amended in terms of the Minister’s powers in order to grant a status equal to international institutions. The condition that is imposed on international licence holders at the moment, viz. that they must display an emblem that indicates that they have obtained international status, can also be applied to licence holders in terms of section 23.

With regard to the time aspect it is also being envisaged to put this amendment into operation as soon as all administrative arrangements have been made. Unfortunately, I cannot hold out a specific period of time in prospect. This amendment will in any event be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, you have ruled that the amendment is out of order and that is why I am not replying to it, because it actually means that this clause should be deleted completely. However, I am prepared to reply to the three questions.

In the first place I believe that it will bring about clarity for clubs that are somewhat uncertain as to their specific position with regard to the Liquor Act at the moment. As soon as the Bill has been passed and the clause has been implemented, clubs will therefore be totally excluded from the restrictions of section 72.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with one aspect that the hon. the Minister referred to. He said that in terms of section 72, non-Whites are unable to obtain international status for their clubs. In terms of section 72 international status is given to clubs, hotels and restaurants that fall within a White area and that wish to serve people who are not White. However, that same provision does not actually apply in reverse in that clubs that fall within a Black, Coloured or Indian area cannot obtain that same status in terms of section 72. However, the hon. the Minister has pointed out that these are special provisions contained in section 23, in terms of which these clubs can obtain an equivalent status. While we will not argue the matter at any great length now, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that that provision whereby Black, Coloured and Indian clubs can obtain a sort of equivalent status by way of the backdoor, is really not sufficient. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider amending section 72 so that White and Black clubs, hotels and restaurants can be treated in the same way in terms of the same section so that there is no discrimination or difference on that basis. It does not mean that he has to do away with the provisions of section 23; he may well retain those in order to deal with those clubs that cannot meet certain standards. However, I do feel that the international status should be available to all clubs, hotels and restaurants no matter into which groups area they fall.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member does not understand that all club liquor licences will now be dealt with on the same basis. He is not referring to club liquor licences, but merely to other licences. Of course, it depends on under which section the licence concerned has been granted. There is no reason why any licence holder, i.e. hotel, restaurant or on-consumption, cannot apply for status equal to international status. The fact is that international status is an authorization that is granted in terms of section 72 to a licence holder whose premises are reserved for the exclusive use of Whites. In other words, a licence holder in a Coloured or other group area who has obtained his licence in terms of section 23, has not obtained it in terms of section 37 and consequently section 72 is not applicable to him. However, the conditions attached to that licence, are such that the Minister can amend it in any way. Therefore, it will give such licence holder equal status as regards the international authorization that is granted to a licence holder in terms of section 72. If there are such deserving cases, they can apply to the Liquor Board and favourable consideration will be given to them.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

According to recent calculations by Benbo, the revenue of the Ciskei has increased by approximately 202% per annum between 1970 and 1977. This figure is considerably higher than the rate of inflation over the same period. According to Benbo’s calculations, over the same period the production by the industrial and construction sector increased by more than fourfold. In this regard I should also like to point out that since its inception in 1976, the Ciskei National Development Corporation has been instrumental in attracting investment to the tune of R99,4 million to the Ciskei and creating 10 110 employment opportunities for Ciskeian citizens.

In terms of the accepted principle, the independent Ciskei, as in the case of the other independent national States, will obtain its own sources of revenue. The most important of these is the participation of Ciskei in the joint pool of revenue of the Southern African customs territory. Ciskei’s portion of the joint pool of revenue is calculated on the same basis as that of the other countries that are linked to the Republic of South Africa by way of customs union arrangements. Unfortunately it is not possible for me to give an indication at this stage of the sum that will accrue to the Ciskei from this source, following independence, and from other sources of revenue that are under discussion. However, I should like to point out that a growth potential has been built into these sources, so that it will be possible for the Ciskei to plan its public finances with the certainty of continuity.

The question of financial relations between the RSA and the national States is a matter that is continually enjoying the attention of the Government of the RSA, and an RSA study group has been appointed to give special attention to this. Of course, all proposals for amending the existing regulations will be negotiated with the national States before they are put into effect. The approach of the RSA throughout is that the national States should have a financial dispensation in accordance with their political status.

†The proposed financial arrangements for independent Ciskei do not differ in any substantive way from those concluded at the attainment of independence by Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. For the benefit of hon. members, however, I wish to deal briefly with the various clauses.

Before doing so I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to clauses 1(3) and 2(1)(a) of the Bill, which deal with the transfer of funds equal to the amounts of taxation and other moneys collected from Ciskei citizens in the Republic in terms of the Black Taxation Act, 1969. Hon. members will recall that I stated in my budget speech in the House earlier this session that it was my intention to effect, as from 1 March 1982, the final phasing out of the taxation of Blacks in terms of the Black Taxation Act of 1969. I also mentioned that this step would be taken after consultation with, and subject to the approval of, the Governments of the various national States. At this point in time details regarding the practical execution of my proposal have not yet been finalized and, of course, neither have the envisaged consultations with the Governments of the national States taken place. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of these consultations by amending the two clauses of the Bill I have mentioned, particularly clause 2(1)(a) which deals with the financial arrangements after 31 March 1982. For this reason the Bill before the House is, as I have stated, similar to those relating to the States which have already attained independence.

Clause 1(1):

The National States Constitution Act, 1971, which at present provides for the transfer of funds to Ciskei, will cease to apply to that country when it attains independence. The total amount made available for Ciskei in respect of the 1981-’82 financial year, will not yet have been transferred at that stage. Clause 1(1) therefore envisages, firstly, the transfer of the balance of such funds to Ciskei.

Services, which at present are carried out on behalf of Ciskei by Government departments in the Republic, will become the responsibility of Ciskei on the date of independence. The relevant departments have budgeted for the full 1981-’82 financial year and will accordingly experience a surplus in respect of the period from the attainment of independence by Ciskei to 31 March 1982. It is intended to transfer such funds to Ciskei as well.

Clause 1(1) also provides for the transfer to Ciskei of any further amounts that may be made available in the Additional Appropriation Bill by way of ministerial authorization.

Clause 1(2):

As in the case of certain Government departments which have budgeted for a full financial year in respect of services in Ciskei, and will stop incurring expenditure in this connection at the time of independence, there may also be other bodies that will have unutilized funds that can be transferred to Ciskei. Clause 1(2) aims at authorizing the transfer of such funds.

Clause 1(3):

Taxes paid by citizens of Ciskei in the Republic, in terms of the Black Taxation Act, 1969, are transferred to Ciskei in terms of the provisions of the National States Constitution Act. As has been mentioned, when Ciskei becomes independent these provisions will cease to be applicable to that country. Clause 1(3) authorizes the transfer to Ciskei of that portion of such taxes for the 1981-’82 financial year which has not been transferred when Ciskei becomes independent.

Clause 1(4):

Section 7(1) of the Exechequer and Audit Act, 1975, in terms of which additional funds—hence funds not included in the budget—can be made available by the Minister of Finance for the defraying of expenses does, however, also place a limit on the total amount that can thus be made available. Section 7(2) of the Exechequer and Audit Act also provides that steps should be taken for the voting of such additional funds during the parliamentary session following upon the date on which the funds are made available by the Minister.

Clause 1(4) provides that any additional funds made available for Ciskei by the Minister of Finance in terms of clause 1(1)(d) will also be subject to the abovementioned provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. This means that such additional funds for Ciskei will be included in the total amount which the Minister can make available in terms of section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act—2% of the relevant budget at the time. Such funds must also then be voted.

Clause 2:

Clause 2 relates to financial years after 1981-’82. In terms of this clause the necessary sanction is obtained for an agreement with Ciskei in terms of which the following amounts can be transferred to Ciskei every year, subject to such conditions and for such periods as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information may determine:

1. (a) An amount equal to the taxes paid every year by Ciskei citizens in the Republic in terms of the Black Taxation Act.
2. (b) An amount determined by the Minister of Finance, but not exceeding the total expenditure of the RSA in, or on behalf of Ciskei in the 1981-’82 financial year—i.e. expenditure by Government departments and other bodies, for example the South African Railways and the Post Office—plus an additional amount which Ciskei will need, in particular to continue with its new services in the 1982-’83 financial year, i.e. a full financial year, minus the additional revenue which Ciskei will receive in the 1982-’83 financial year. Once the total amount at issue here has been determined, it shall remain constant. It shall also represent a statutory amount in future estimates.

Clause 2 also provides for the transfer to Ciskei of any additional amount that may be voted for Ciskei by Parliament in any specific year.

Clause 3:

In this clause provision is made for the transfer of certain assets to Ciskei.

Clause 4:

It is an accepted principle that assets in connection with services that become the responsibility of a national state, are transferred free of charge to the government of such a state. In the case of assets of the Post Office and the Railways and Harbours Administration the intention, however, is to compensate the relevant bodies for assets which are transferred, by reducing the relevant bodies’ loan debt to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, it has been traditional when this type of measure was moved when the other three homelands became independent, we on this side of the House supported the measure. We supported it on the basis that we wished the people who are living in the territory concerned well, that we hoped that they would prosper and that their association with South Africa would continue in one form or another, and that perhaps one day they would return to South Africa, either to a federation or at least to a meaningful confederation of States in Southern Africa. In reality our connections with Ciskei are very close. Some two-thirds of the people of Ciskei who are economically active will continue to work in the Republic of South Africa. For that reason alone the connection is very important.

It is actually very interesting that one of the major provisions in this Bill, which also exists in respect of the other territories, is that taxes that are paid in the Republic of South Africa by persons from those States who are employed here, are actually transferred to the new independent States. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that that is a relatively new concept in the world. The “gastarbeiter” who works in one of the European States pays his taxes in that State, and none of those European States actually transfer that taxation to the State from which the worker comes. This concept is therefore unique, because in fact those people who work in South Africa also utilize the services that are provided by the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

What is therefore happening here to some extent is that there is a double subsidization. On the one hand, the man who works here pays his taxes here and those taxes are then transferred to the independent State while he actually uses the services that are provided by the taxpayers in the Republic of South Africa. I think that that is a unique situation as well. I am not actually aware of any other country in the world which does that in respect of people who are working in that country but who are not citizens of that country.

When the new system of taxation is introduced, I think that that is something we are going to have to look at. The way I should like to see aid granted and financial assistance given to the independent States in Southern Africa, is based upon the following principles. In the first case, quite obviously, we should like to see that their machinery of Government is able to function. In the case of Ciskei, only about one-fifth of the income which is needed in order to run the machinery of Government is actually raised in Ciskei itself. The first essential is therefore that the Government of Ciskei must be able to function in its normal fashion. The second aspect is that I think assistance should be given to the independent States in Southern Africa more on a project basis than on a general transfer basis. In other words, once the machinery of government is functioning, we should look at projects in those States, we should look at the development of industries in those States, and we should look at the development of agriculture in those States. We should look at it in that context.

If, with that in mind, we look at the picture in Transkei and we break up the present GDP of Transkei, we see that some 15,6% of the GDP of Transkei relates to public administration, only some 7,1% relates to manufacturing activities and 22,8% relates to education. Those figures indicate that the need for project finance is far greater than the need simply to write out a cheque and say: “Here you are. Here is the money. Do with it what you like.” I should like to see the whole concept of financial assistance in this regard treated in this fashion.

I think experience has shown—we have debated this before and we shall debate it again—that when one gives aid on a broad basis, saying that the recipient can do what he likes with that aid, very often that aid does not provide the same kind of return as when it is related to a particular project. We would like to see that the gross domestic product, as opposed to the gross national product, should in fact increase in Ciskei and that the per capita gross domestic product of the individuals in that State should increase. One of the serious things we are all aware of is that the gross domestic product per capita in Ciskei is only about R120 per year, whereas the gross national product per capita is approximately R270 to R280 per year. That means that the revenue comes from the commuters, from the mineworkers, and so we should see to it that the development itself, the gross domestic product per capita in Ciskei should be increased. That is as we see it. I do not think that the size of the country is all that material. It may be significant that Belize received its independence the other day and was recognized at the United Nations and it only has a population of 140 000 people. Therefore, as I say, size in this context is not all that important. What is important is the economic viability of the country and the economic viability of Ciskei clearly demonstrates that it is going to need financial assistance from us. We support financial assistance for this country on that basis, and that is why we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I think this is the last measure that we shall be debating in this House during this session. With that in mind, I should like at this juncture to wish hon. members of this House a happy and contented recess, as well as good wishes for the festive season. I want to say that I do not believe that this has been a particularly pleasant session. I think that in actual fact this session has been hallmarked by a great degree of bitterness that crept into the debates in this House. I regret that fact, Sir, and I think it is necessary for hon. members in this House to understand that there can be different views on and different approaches to a problem, but that actually all those involved can be truly bona fide in trying to do their best for what they think the country requires. If during the recess hon. members will give some thought to this fact, then perhaps when we return next year there will be a little less bitterness and a little more understanding when we debate these matters in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to make a full follow-on speech when the hon. member for Yeoville resumed his seat, because I agree with virtually everything he said. However, sensing the buzzing anticipation of hon. members while the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I shall content myself with making just two points.

In the first instance, I want to say that this measure is not what was asked for by Ciskei, which was a proportional share of the total revenue of South Africa. Therefore, Ciskei has been disappointed in regard to the final arrangements, but has had no option but to accept it. The second point is that obviously we support this measure in the belief that we will yet persuade the Government to establish the sort of confederation where financial co-operation and interaction will also be part of the structure of working together. We will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point for their support of this measure. I think that is only right. I think that this measure seeks to do as much as I believe the Government can do financially for this embryo state on our borders. I think, too, that the Government has in fact done this in a rather well-tried way. The hon. member for Durban Point said that Ciskei would be disappointed because it wanted a proportional share of the revenue of the Republic. I might point out that they are in fact getting a fairly substantial share. Take the question of the Customs Union. This country took the initiative of setting up a Customs Union in Southern Africa many years ago, and in my opinion this Union is most generous in its effect upon its constituent member countries. Ciskei will certainly benefit from this. I think the hon. member for Yeoville was correct in asking that more emphasis be placed on development finance or project finance. This is exactly what we aim at all the time. However, it is a long process and requires a good deal of persistence on both sides as far as the country providing finance and the country receiving it and using it to best advantage are concerned. This is a matter which requires constant consultation and I think it also requires the very best relationships between the countries concerned, and I believe that this relationship does exist between Ciskei and South Africa. I had the pleasure to visit Ciskei not long ago and I think I travelled right across the country from one end to the other and saw a great deal of it. I was impressed …

We accept that.

… by the attitude of the people I met. I met many hundreds of people in many parts and the Government. I believe along these lines and indeed in gaining experience and gaining expertise from such further instruments as the Small Business Development Corporation and the Development Bank—we are giving a great deal of attention to both—we can improve the whole mechanism of the granting of the most effective kind of development aid to a country such as this.

I should merely like to thank hon. members on both sides for their support and I should like to wish the Chief Minister, as he is now, and the people of Ciskei great success and happiness in the future when they achieve their independence.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I move without notice—

I put the question.

Mr. Speaker, may I have an indication from you at this stage, in order to prevent a great deal of unnecessary debate because there will be debate, as to whether you are prepared to accept this motion or not? It is a matter for your discretion and if you are of the view that at this stage it ought not to be proceeded with and you inform me as such, then we need not debate it any further. If, however, it is your intention to proceed with the Select Committee, then, with great respect—this is a motion without notice—we shall have to have a full debate.

I support the motion. Since doubt exists about the whole matter, I believe that a Select Committee may be best able to clear it up.

May I then assume the matter is open for debate?

The hon. member may proceed.

As I understand the position, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put a question on the Order Paper in regard to a certain function that was held in regard to the minting of proof sets of Kruger Rands in 1980. I understand furthermore that the minting of proof sets and the collection of them, the sale of them and the resale of them is in fact a major industry in this country. I understand further that there are many thousands of what are called subscribers. I am using layman’s language; I am not sure what the position is, but many, many people in South Africa are subscribers to proof sets of Kruger Rands. It is important to many of these collectors that they have sets which are as full as possible.

Mr. Speaker, having given that background, let me say that these proof sets of Kruger Rands are extremely valuable. They are collectors’ pieces.

Now, what happened was this: The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, I understand, received information that a new proof set of Kruger Rands was planned for 1980. There was no way in which this kind of Kruger Rand should not have been placed at the disposal of the public of South Africa—if not the public, then at least the subscribers, who were known to the Mint. But, instead of doing that, the hon. the Minister, under his own name, has 60 persons to a function at which this particular proof set for 1980 is then made available on an exclusive basis. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put a question on the Order Paper. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, for you to refer to that question, and the reply, and with great respect I do not believe that you can properly direct your attention to the question of the appointment of a Select Committee until you have carefully considered the question and the reply. [Interjections.] I shall tell you why, Sir, with great respect. The reply to the question quite clearly, in so many words, indicated that the 60 persons who were at the function and who were given the exclusive right to purchase these proof sets of Kruger Rands, were the guests of the Minister of Finance. He referred to them as “my guests”. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you refer then to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, it is perfectly understandable—in fact it is the only reasonable inference that the hon. member could have taken—that those persons were selected by the hon. the Minister of Finance to attend (a) a function, and (b) an occasion when the proof sets of Kruger Rands could be exclusively purchased. That is all that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens did.

What transpired later was that, according to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the actual guests, the 60 guests, while they were invited under his name, were in fact chosen by the Director of the Mint, and apparently by an official or an office-bearer of the Chamber of Mines.

Obviously, we on this side of the House—and I am quite sure that this goes also for the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, although he may want to reserve his position—prima facie accept the hon. the Minister’s word that the guests …

Oh no! [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown was not listening when I referred to the reply of the hon. the Minister. He does not have the intelligence to realize what the hon. the Minister implied—not in fact implied, but expressed, when he said that these guests were his guests.

Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s word that that list of guests was prepared by persons other than himself, but that did not flow from his reply. His objection now is in regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, which was made pursuant to a reply to a question, before the full facts were known. So, Mr. Speaker, really this is a storm in a tea-cup. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to reconsider his motion. I think if he refers to the question and the reply thereto and if he refers to the Hansard of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, in all reasonableness he will accept that it was in fact a valid inference which the hon. member drew, that those 60 people were the personal guests of the hon. the Minister. If they were, a new ball game has opened up, because if they were the guests of the hon. the Minister I think the hon. the Minister would be the first to realize that the public have real cause for concern. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he does not believe that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens ought to apologize?

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has any cause to tender any apology. [Interjections.] The speech he made was pursuant to a reply given by the hon. the Minister of Finance in which he referred to “my guests”.

Let us investigate it then.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister can point his finger at me …

No, I did not point a finger.

Let us test this. What precisely is going to be investigated? We know which words were used by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. They are in Hansard. We know what they are. What are we going to investigate? Are we now solemnly in this House going to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances in which 60 prominent South Africans were invited to a party? [Interjections.] I will tell you something with great respect, Mr. Speaker, if this Select Committee is proceeded with, that is the crucial question. That will be the crucial question. It will be made the crucial question …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if his account of the matter is correct, why he does not want a Select Committee to be appointed?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Finance moved without notice a motion for a Select Committee to be appointed. That requires the unanimous consent of the House. We have not agreed to a notice of this nature. I wish to refer you to the interpretation of Standing Order No. 28 on page 95 of the manual. It reads as follows—

We have not concurred. We want notice to be given in the normal way.

Mr. Speaker, was that a point of order? Must you first give your ruling, or may I speak?

Is there any objection to the motion being moved without notice?

Yes.

Yes.

Order! In the circumstances the hon. the Minister must give notice of the motion. It lapses in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, since the Opposition is now refusing to allow this motion to be moved without notice, the Government will have to review this matter next session and take the necessary steps in this regard.

We will have found out some facts by then, too. Don’t worry.

And in the meantime you will spread rumours about the hon. the Minister instead of accepting the hon. member for Yeoville’s recommendations. What has become of your party with all this hypocrisy?

Order!

Come on, Harry, how do matters look to you now?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on this motion thus far certain statements have been made with regard to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Order! There is nothing before the House at the moment that the hon. the Minister can discuss.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is my submission that the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition has abused the procedure of the House, because he discussed the merits of the case by way of this motion. Now there are a number of statements in Hansard that are refutable. Should we now go our separate ways in this spirit without having replied to them? [Interjections.]

Any member can object to the motion.

Order! Objection has been made to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. Chief Whip spoke for who knows how long without objecting to the motion. He did not object. Only when there was a reaction, was an objection lodged. I do not think it is fair.

He is a “skelm” (cheat).

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: An hon. member sitting at that end of the House said: “He is a ‘skelm’ ”.

What did he say about the Minister of Finance?

Not that he is a “skelm”.

Why do you not support an inquiry?

He did not say the Minister was a “skelm”.

Order! Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member, the hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition, is a “skelm”. However, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Order! I think the hon. the Chief Whip definitely abused his privilege to speak on this motion. If the hon. member was unable to accept the motion, he should have said so. But he continued and spoke about it for half an hour whilst I was under the impression that he did in fact support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, if it is your impression that I have abused the rules, I apologize. I certainly did not intend that.

He is a “skelm”.

Order! Which hon. member said: “He is a ‘skelm’ ”?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, personally, on behalf of the House, I should like to wish you everything of the best and hope that you will make a complete recovery. We are pleased that you were able to be with us today.

I also want to inform hon. members that a proclamation will be issued to prorogue the House of Assembly on 28 January 1982 and to summon it to meet on 29 January 1982 for the dispatch of business.

Agreed to.