Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment yesterday evening I had pointed out that we could under no circumstances ever hope to view our economic situation in isolation from the rest of the economic world. Now, it is a fact that the member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development expect to have an average growth rate of only approximately 1% this year. In assessing our own situation we must consequently accept that our trading partners are not going to be of much assistance in enabling us, by way of increased imports and increased gold exports from South Africa, to strengthen our economy this year.

Against this background we must therefore consider our own situation and simply make the best of it. I do not deny that we are faced with a high inflation rate. Nor do I deny that we are struggling with a troublesome balance of payments deficit. However, we have the potential to turn South Africa into an economic colossus by the end of this century, but then one must also realize that the road is a long one, and steep. Between now and the year 2000, for example, R73 milliard will have to be spent on housing, as well as R105 milliard on education, R441 milliard on capital formation, and these figures are of course calculated on the basis of present monetary values. Yet I believe that we have the human material, the land and the enterprise to accomplish this.

The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members of the official Opposition alleged that we had not utilized the gold bonanza—as they refer to it—correctly. I find it very interesting to take cognizance of the various possible ways in which one would be able to utilize such a gold bonanza in good years. I should like to present three of these to the hon. House.

The first possibility is the strengthening of our infrastructure; the second, the strengthening of the Stabilization Fund and the third, the repayment of loans.

Now I should like to know from members of the Opposition whether these things are not precisely what the hon. the Minister of Finance has been doing during the past few years—when there was a gold bonanza. A few years ago I had the dubious privilege of visiting Mozambique. What struck me about that country in particular was the lack of an infrastructure. The roads, railway lines and general development of that country were deplorable.

This is the second “miracle of reconciliation”.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to that we encounter precisely the opposite in South Africa. For many years work has been in progress on the development of an infrastructure in this country. Of course I do not wish to allege that no mistakes were ever made. However, I should like to ask on what and in which way a gold bonanza could have been better spent than on the development of an infrastructure, on undertakings such as Sishen-Saldanha and Richards Bay, on housing, on training, on Sasol, etc. The secret is, I think, to strike a healthy balance between these several possibilities. Which is precisely what the hon. the Minister did.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the 10% surcharge. In my opinion the budget is in fact an instrument with which the economic course of a country can be influenced. It implies that the present state of the economy and the economic prospects should be clinically analysed. What is clearly apparent from the present economic situation is that there was overspending in the consumer sectors, in regard to durable goods as well, and that it is in this respect that a surcharge of 10% can help to alleviate the situation. In regard to the general sales tax of 5% the hon. member for Yeoville raised the matter of the exemption of staple foodstuffs from this tax. There could appear to be some merit in such a statement. However, I wish to point out to the hon. member that subsidies have been promised, some of which have already been paid. I am referring for example to bread. The general sales tax of 5% on a loaf of white bread amounts to 2 cents, while the subsidy on a loaf of white bread amounts to 5,3 cents. Surely this is a very easy way of helping the public, by paying subsidies on certain items. In the case of brown bread the subsidy amounts to 13,3 cents per loaf.

Consequently when one considers this budget as a precursor to the main budget, there is to my mind no doubt that in this budget preference is being given to items such as defence, training, employment, housing, etc. Consequently I wish to tell the hon. the Minister at this early stage that if he requires additional funds in the main budget he should introduce a loan levy instead of raising taxes.

By way of survey I wish to place emphasis on seven times which, in coming decades, is going to a great extent to ensure the ecomomic success of South Africa. The first of these seven aspects is efficiency; the second adaptability; the third, training; the fourth, financial discipline; the fifth, the combating of inflation and the sixth, political stability. The seventh item is a more abstract one to which I shall refer later. I should like to deal briefly with each of these seven items. As far as efficiency and productivity is concerned, I believe that these aspects are equally applicable to the private sector as to the public sector. The greatest investment by the State, and in the same way the greatest investment by every private enterprise is its human material. While South Africa’s income per capita has risen approximately in line with the consumer index, our productivity rate has lagged far behind. We shall simply have to work harder, more efficiently and purposefully. Secondly, we shall have to be prepared to adapt ourselves to different and changing circumstances. It happens so easily that procedures become stereotyped. Because something worked in the past—so the argument goes—it can simply be allowed to continue in future. The easiest way out is to maintain the status quo. But in the meantime circumstances have changed. There have been technological improvements, in the midst of a population explosion, and we cannot deal with the changes in an ad hoc way. We must consider them in a meaningful way. This applies just as much to the private sector as the public sector.

In the third place there is the question of training. We have the anomalous situation that we have a shortage of 100 000 skilled labourers, and that we have a large surplus of unskilled labourers. We shall simply have to train these people, and in this connection the Department of Manpower is setting a wonderful example. We shall have to give serious consideration to increase industrialization based on our mineral wealth, in contrast to exporting it in unprocessed form, and in this way ensure greater employment. We shall have to train our people better, and we shall have to ensure that organizations and individuals become more involved in the creation of training facilities. In this connection I wish to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for the concession that donations to universities for bursaries will continue to qualify as a tax deduction.

I come in the fourth place to financial discipline, something which is equally applicable to the private sector as well as to the State. Frequently the State has no option, but has to spend more than it takes in respect of strategic items. The greatest problem in this country today lies with the private sector, and the individual. He will simply have to learn to live within his means. Last week we discussed our housing standards in this country which are hopelessly too high. Our young people wish to begin today where their parents ended after 30 years ago, and everything is regarded as being essential. The result is that subsequently everyone is living on credit, and if there is an increase in interest rates, this creates problems and then an accusing finger is pointed at the Government. The pressure in the private sector is extremely high.

If we could be more efficient and if we could apply financial discipline, we shall make progress in combating inflation. It is true that the high percentage of our inflation is imported. As a matter of fact, 25% of our gross domestic product is imported. But it is also true that many of our foreign partners have an inflation rate of less than 10% today, and consequently we shall have to examine our own conscience and ensure that we also reach this level. And then I am not even mentioning the old people, who were referred to here yesterday, and whose pensions are being eroded by inflation. I am referring to the man in the street who is more concerned today about the way inflation is affecting his pocket than he is about his employment. This is a syndrome which has developed in this country and it is not a good thing.

In the sixth place we must have political stability, otherwise all these things will be of no avail. This we can only achieve if we continue to uplift our underdeveloped and developing fellow citizens and grant them the opportunities we demand for ourselves. However, we may never allow our standards to fall. Consequently we must bring these people up to where we are. The colonial system did not work in Africa. It seems to me that as though the Africa system is not working in Africa either. It is the challenge facing this Government to develop a workable system—and this it is engaged in doing—which will afford every individual in this country the right and the opportunity to have a say over his own affairs.

Then I come to the final point, and with that I shall conclude. I am coming to the last component which is necessary to cope with the present troublesome economic and constitutional problems, so that we can share in the golden era which lies ahead of us, between now and the end of the century. I want to summarize this into three concepts: Daring, confidence and faithful dependence. In this country we have the task, the responsibility, of building up and maintaining a civilization here. I do not believe that we are simply here by chance, but the fact that we believe we have a task and a calling in this country is no guarantee of our survival. We shall have to be prepared, with daring and faith, to cope with altered circumstances. Ultimately we can only do this in believing dependence.

I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that we on this side of the House pray that they will continue along the course they have chosen with daring, faith and believing dependence.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl made an interesting and constructive speech. I hope the members of the Cabinet listened to it attentively because it could be of value to them.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in interesting times. Where in the history of South Africa has the country experienced the hon. the Prime Minister deciding a day before an important meeting in a city like Johannesburg that he was not going to address that meeting? The reason given for this was of course that the hon. the Prime Minister had to proceed at once to South West Africa to attend to important matters there. The question one may ask is this: Could not arrangements have been made for the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal to stand in for the hon. the Prime Minister? This would then have given him the opportunity to furnish replies to the questions that were the subject of such animated discussion in the Press. What about the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs? I want to assure him that it would not have been like the Feathermarket hall in Port Elizabeth. He would have had at least five or six people there, provided we had not succeeded in the mean time in bowling out a few more of the NP’s candidates for committing fraud on their nomination forms and their voters’ registration forms. However, I can understand the hon. the Prime Minister’s not wanting to appear on a public platform while his party is disintergrating behind him. It could have been embarrassing for him.

Recently I was in the company of a few young members of the NP. I was reminded of this because Gus Adams wrote in one of the recent editions of Rapport about the young MPs in the NP, these friendly men who invite Coloureds and Indians to dine with them. He says it is always for lunch to ensure that there are no women present. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, you must protect me today because this is my maiden speech in this session. I feel I deserve your protection. [Interjections.] To return to these MPs, they drink a glass of Roodeberg and they talk seriously about the country’s problems and then these young NPs say: “My friends, you must be patient”; after which they shake hands and nothing comes of it. [Interjections.] This is the new guard of young Turks in the ranks of the NP, the young MPs who have decided they are going to reform the NP from the inside. Sir, what nostalgic memories this brings to mind when I think back to the days when I followed the same path! [Interjections.] I just want to mention that during the last election I was in the company of a few of these young Turks of the NP. Then an eminent academic said: But you have no one in your caucus who understands the first thing about the economy. He went on to say: The hon. Minister Dawie has a very nice smile and he plays a fine game of rugby and he preaches well, but he knows very little about the economy. Can you not find someone who knows something about the economy? Then those young Turks told me: We now have someone who knows something about the economy. That man is sitting here today in this House, Sir. He is the hon. member Dr. Marais. Yesterday I listened to him very attentively. He made a speech here and he criticized the PFP because our economic policy was influenced by our political policy. I sat bolt upright when I heard a Nationalist criticizing an economic policy because it was based on a political policy. I was astounded to hear this from a Nationalist because the NP is the one government that, more than any other, has based its entire economic policy on its political policy. The economic policy of the NP is the instrument of its ideological policy of apartheid. Every aspect of the NP’s economic policy is determined by the requirements of apartheid and by nothing else. [Interjections.] Economic consideration always comes second, third, last, or are not taken into consideration at all when it comes to determining the economic policy of the NP.

Now I know of someone else who knows nothing about the economy. [Interjections.]

We have heard a great deal about the so-called free enterprise system. The hon. the Prime Minister addresses important meetings in the Carlton Hotel and in the Good Hope Centre, at which he advocates the free enterprise system. He promises to support the free enterprise system. In the first place, however, the free enterprise system requires free and equal education for all the people of the country while the NP has constantly neglected to provide all South Africans with free and equal education.

Yet it seems to me that equal education did nothing to you. [Interjections.]

If I look across the floor of this House at that poor, pitiful hon. member who at one time was in the United Party with me, I remember the way in which he became the victim of his own behaviour in that party.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bryanston refer to a poor, pitiful hon. member?

The hon. member for Bryanston must tone down his words.

I shall do so, Sir. The hon. member for De Kuilen will remember the days when he suffered one defeat after the other at the hands of the young Turks of those days.

However, I want to continue to discuss the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system also requires equal training of equal quality. This Government is the government that closed South Africa’s universities to the Black people of our country, which led directly to a tremendous and fatal shortage of trained people in South Africa. Then there is also the need for equal employment opportunities. Thank the Lord we have the hon. the Minister of Manpower who has introduced legislation to ensure equal employment opportunities.

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

No, Sir, I cannot reply to his questions. [Interjections.]

There must also be labour mobility, and equal opportunities in the business enterprises of South Africa are absolutely essential to the free enterprise system. However, the Group Areas Act runs directly counter to it. One cannot have a free enterprise system in a country in which legislation such as our Group Areas Act exists; it is impossible and it cannot be done. Labour mobility and land tenure are both absolutely essential to a free enterprise system.

I think the Government must understand clearly that the NP and its policy of apartheid are the greatest advantage that the system of communism ever had in South Africa, without the NP and apartheid communism could not have made the progress it has done in South Africa.

Mr.

Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if his party supports an absolutely free economic system?

I shall elaborate on that at a later stage.

Talk about it now.

Unfortunately I have very little time left.

I now come to the controversy over the concepts “healthy sharing of power” and “unhealthy or morbid sharing of power”. I assume that the “healthy sharing of power” is one in which there are no germs, viruses or snails. [Interjections.] I also remembered that the hon. the Prime Minister at one stage spoke about necessary and unnecessary discrimination. We constantly asked for a definition of necessary as well as unnecessary discrimination. So far no one has been able to explain it to us, not even Minister Koornhof. I undertook some research of my own on this matter and found out what it meant. “Necessary” discrimination is the discrimination needed to maintain apartheid, and “unnecessary” discrimination is the discrimination not needed to maintain apartheid. However, the hon. the Prime Minister has now been driven into a corner by the concept of power sharing. I wish I had the time to quote to hon. members everything there is to read on this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister must now explain to us and to the whole of South Africa what power sharing means. The hon. the Prime Minister then hit on the idea of referring to healthy power sharing, and therefore by implication un healthy power sharing as well. I feel that if one goes into this one will find the same answer that I found. “Healthy” power sharing is power sharing which means that one can retain apartheid, can retain White dominance, can consult and can create bodies at all levels to co-operate and deliberate, but ultimately, in one and the same form of government, the Whites will still retain the political power. The basis of apartheid will therefore be retained. This is healthy power sharing. “Unhealthy” power sharing on the other hand, is any form of power sharing in which real and honest power sharing can be maintained or determined on a basis of integrity. It is very difficult to ascertain what the Government’s intention is. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism recently expressed his opinion. However, we must bear in mind that that hon. Minister is on the verligte side of the NP. He said—

this is not before the altar of course … [Interjections.]

Surely that is healthy.

Yes, it is healthy power sharing. I am asking the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism: Is that your definition of healthy power sharing?

Do you find fault with it?

No, I do not find fault with it, but I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is not sitting on this side of the House because that is exactly the approach of our party. [Interjections.]

“Denis the Menace”—that is now Dr. Denis Worrall, who is giving the hon. Minister Heunis such a hard time—said—

He spoke of the same political rights and not of different rights. He did not speak of political rights divided vertically or horizontally or whichever other way you like. Dr. Worrall went on to say—

The question to which we on this side of the House, as well as the rest of South Africa, want a reply is: What exactly does the Government mean by its latest terminology? There is speculation, there is confusion and uncertainty because no one knows in what direction the Government is moving. Does the Government itself know in what direction it wants to move?

No.

Let us put it to the test. All the hon. members on the opposite side of the House who are moving with the hon. the Prime Minister put up your hands! [Interjections.] As can be seen, the situation is far worse than I thought. Recently the hon. the Prime Minister said that if he moved too fast he would stand alone. And sure enough the hon. the Prime Minister is standing alone today because he wants to apply “healthy” sharing of power in South Africa. There is not a single hon. member on that side who is prepared to put up his hand to indicate that he supports the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am worried about the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not think he should go to South West Africa, because I do not know what can happen here while he is away.

Do hon. members know what the truth is? Apartheid was a huge lollipop—and the NP licked at it, sucked at it and ate it so that nothing remains of that lollipop today except the stick. The inavertible progress of history is going to put a spoke in the wheel of the NP and haul it over the coals.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston tried his very best to chase up a whole lot of hares this afternoon. He began with the hon. the Prime Minister and tried to play him off against the hon. the leader of the party in the Transvaal. He also told us how nostalgic he became about the days when he and the Young Turks were still active.

Were scheming.

The hon. member for De Kuilen, who was at that stage still the Cape leader of the United Party, and his people always won against the Young Turks.

But you lost.

Yes, I lost because of the undermining tactics of that hon. member. [Interjections.] However, what has remained of the Young Turks?

Which of them are still united?

The hon. member for Sandton has left the hon. member for Yeoville and is now under the wing of the hon. member for Pinelands. He has now taken him under his protection. All that remain are the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston, and they have no say whatsoever in the PFP. [Interjections.] That hon. member said I always lost, but who fired him from the chairmanship of the federal council of that party? [Interjections.] What has become of his influence in the PFP? [Interjections.] However, the hon. member for Bryanston has quoted from an article by Gus Adams in Sunday’s Rapport. That hon. member should take a look at the leading article in Friday’s The Star and he will find that the English-language Press and the liberal establishment are now beginning to look for a second Tielman Roos in South Africa, but they are not looking for him in the ranks of the PFP or the NRP. They say he must come from the ranks of the NP.

There are more of us, you see.

That hon. member also attacked the hon. the Prime Minister on the term “power sharing”. I have an article here, but I do not wish to quote the whole of it. He should take the trouble to read this morning’s Burger, particularly the article under the headline “Premier stel stand-punt”. There he will see quite clearly what the Government means by the term “power sharing”. I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

Why was it necessary to issue a statement?

That hon. member wanted clarity, and if he will wait a moment he will get it. The hon. the Prime Minister said—

[Interjections.] Those hon. members should read that article. Then they may perhaps get to know more about it.

I now come to the municipal elections in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] Since I returned to this House last year—and now I must compliment the hon. members of the Opposition—they have succeeded admirably in steering clear of setting out their policy or in avoiding it like the plague. They are not prepared to adopt a standpoint, to set their policy against that of this side of the House and to argue about it. [Interjections.] Negative politics, disparaging politics, the casting and the sowing of suspicion are the order of the day, but we never get anywhere near constructive debate. No wonder the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following to his candidates in the municipal election in Rustenburg, and I quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 26 October 1981—

The report continued—

[Interjections.] According to my dictionary, “fudge” means “bedrieg” and “prevaricate” means “rondspring”, “uitvlugte soek” or “jakkalsdraaie maak”. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is telling his people in the PFP that they must state their policy to the electorate without telling lies. That is what he is saying to them. He is also saying they must not only set out their policy, but they must also spell out its consequences. In Rapport of 21 February there was a report in which, inter alia, the following was said—

Surely the municipal elections of Johannesburg afford the official Opposition a golden opportunity to set out their standpoints, but I want to say—and I say this with all the conviction at my disposal…

That isn’t much.

… that the PFP does not have the courage of its convictions to state its standpoint to the voters of Johannesburg.

You do not have the courage of your convictions to hold a public meeting. [Interjections.]

Today I want to deal with …

Why did you cancel that meeting? [Interjections.]

Today I want to deal with a pamphlet published by the NP which in my opinion has a bearing on the municipal election in Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston must please stop making so many interjections. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs must also please bear this in mind.

Thank you, Sir. I can tell the electorate of Johannesburg that the NP’s standpoint in the national political sphere is very simple. I quote from a pamphlet we published during the last election—

As against this standpoint we have the PFP philosophy of an “open society”. There are many hon. members opposite, for example, the hon. members for Pinelands, Houghton and Sea Point, who are honest. However, there are also a number of them who, when they are on a political platform, steer clear of the standpoint of an “open society”.

Just give me one example.

I shall give the hon. member one example. I am coming to that. The hon. member must just keep himself in check for a moment.

*What does the official Opposition say about the composition of Johannesburg, i.e. about the boundaries of the municipal area of Johannesburg? I am now going to quote the hon. member for Sea Point. I give him credit for being a true blue Prog. He is completely honest when he makes party-political speeches from a platform. On 26 October he told his party’s candidates in Rustenburg—

Now the hon. members opposite must help me. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to speak now, after having kicked up such a fuss a while ago, I am now giving him the opportunity to give me a direct reply. I want to ask him what the PFP policy is in respect of the boundaries of Johannesburg. Does it include Lenasia, Alexandra and Soweto? You see, Sir, if one confronts the hon. members, they do not utter a single word. The hon. members must tell us whether Soweto should be part of the city council of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] I shall reply to this. I have here the agenda of the city council of Johannesburg for 27 October of last year. In it there is a recommendation by the NP controlled city council of Johannesburg that a request be made to the Minister of Co-operation and Development to ensure, when he introduces the Local Authorities for Black Persons Bill, that a separate Black city council is created for Soweto. It was requested that Soweto be removed from the jurisdiction of the city council of Johannesburg as far as boundaries are concerned. What did the PFP do? The PFP members in the city council voted against it. We must therefore accept that according to PFP policy Johannesburg and Soweto fall within the same municipal boundaries. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston said they were going to hold two meetings. I challenge him to tell his leader that he must deal with this aspect when he speaks to the electorate of Johannesburg.

I now come to “fudge and prevaricate”, and I now want to quote what the PFP leader in the Johannesburg city council, Mr. Sam Moss, said. On 1 December 1981 Die Vaderland put the following question to him—

The answer was—

Now I ask: Which must it be? Mr. Moss went on to say—

However, we still do not know what the policy of that party on that side of the House is. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called “fudge and prevaricate”.

Now that we have dealt with the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg, we come to the Group Areas Act. This afternoon the hon. member for Bryanston again declaimed here that the Group Areas Act must be abolished. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? At Queenstown on 17 March 1981 he said—

This brings me to the question of the referendum held by the hon. member for Constantia. I do not want to go into the merits of that referendum, for according to the little information I have, it was one of the greatest political frauds imaginable. I think the hon. member for Constantia should at some or other stage come and show us here in this House the ballot paper he submitted to the voters, the question on which they had to decide. Referendum is an easy word. The hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Pinelands whether he would be prepared to hold a referendum in his constituency, and we are still waiting for his reaction. During the no-confidence debate the hon. the Minister of Community Development asked the PFP members from the Johannesburg area to make the throwing open of areas their main theme in the Johannesburg election campaign. However, we are still waiting for a reaction from that side of the House. “Fudge and prevaricate”, that is all one gets from the PFP. [Interjections.]

In the third place I want to refer to civic centres, municipal clubs and swimming pools. What does the PFP leader in the Johannesburg city council say? I quote from The Star of December 1981—

What did the hon. member for Sea Point say? He said—

If this is their standpoint, I am not going to argue with them about it, but I should just like to know when they are going to inform the voters of Johannesburg about this. Why do they not tell it to the voters of Johannesburg? [Interjections.] When they adopt these standpoints, they always keep a safety valve open somewhere. [Interjections.] They are always hiding behind the NP Government when it comes to the consequences of their policy.

You are thinking of the old UP days …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must please contain himself. He simply never stops interjecting. The hon. member has asked me to protect him, but it seems to me that I have to protect other hon. members from him.

Mr. Speaker, even the hon. member for Bryanston’s MPC finds it impossible to get on with him. So how can we get on with him? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point is hiding behind the NP Government and says the following to the voters of Johannesburg. I am quoting him as he was reported in the Rand Daily Mail of 26 October 1981:

Does it say so in that newspaper?

It says so in that newspaper.

Can the people of Johannesburg not read or write?

This is what the hon. member for Sea Point had to say …

Do you think the people of Johannesburg cannot read or write?

If the hon. member for Pinelands would just sit still and listen for a moment I wonder if he would still shout as loudly as he does now. I quote—

*In other words the PFP is hiding behind the Government when it comes to the implementation of its own policy. This reminds me of the old story of the voter who thinks Progressive, votes UP and prays that the NP will stay in power. [Interjections.] It is nothing but a swindle, Mr. Speaker. They say very clearly to the voters of South Africa that they need not worry, that they can vote for the PFP and that nothing will happen because the NP will not allow the PFP to carry out its policy. That is precisely what they are telling the electorate, Mr. Speaker. That is why the PFP is so miserly when it comes to expounding its policy. That is also why they are going to lose in Johannesburg on 3 March.

Are you not going to vote for us?

Put your money where your mouth is.

In the final instance, let us consider municipal transport services. Hon. members of the PFP must tell us if they are going to integrate all bus services in Johannesburg. I am now asking the hon. member for Yeoville whether the PFP is going to integrate all bus services in Johannesburg—Putco and all the other bus services in Johannesburg.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville. Now he tells me: “Put your money where your mouth is”. [Interjections.]

†I should rather put this question to the hon. member for Houghton because she is an honest Prog. After all, she is a blue-blooded Prog. She will tell us. [Interjections.] Can the hon. member for Houghton tell us, should the PFP take control of Johannesburg City Council, whether they will disintegrate the bus services there? [Interjections.] Not a single word from the hon. member for Houghton, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

She says “Yes”.

I do not know what the hon. granny Helen is saying. I cannot hear a word. [Interjections.]

She says “Yes”.

Oh, she says “Yes”?

How do you disintegrate a bus service? [Interjections.]

I am sorry; it was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say “desegregate”.

*What do the hon. members of the PFP say in connection with mixed schools? One can carry on in this manner underlining the integration policy of the PFP. However, I repeat that they do not have the courage of their convictions to put it clearly to the electorate. I have here in my hand a pamphlet from the PFP candidate in the Johannesburg constituency in which I have to vote on Wednesday. Hon. members will not be able to show me a single word on the PFP’s philosophy of an “open society”. In not a single document published by the PFP in Johannesburg will one see a single word about the “open society”. One does not read a word of this everything-open-to-all policy of the PFP anywhere.

We read it in Rapport. [Interjections.]

What does this PFP candidate say? I quote him—

Of course. Who is denying that Johannesburg is a multiracial city?

It is what you call a White area.

It is not called a White area. It includes Lenasia, Soweto and all the Coloured townships as well. Johannesburg is therefore a multiracial city. That is a fact which nobody disputes.

I am delighted to hear that you realize that.

This PFP candidate states this fact as though he has suddenly discovered something very strange. [Interjections.]

*He goes on to say—

However, this is already taking place. It is not only taking place in Johannesburg. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are involved every day of their lives in consultations with other race groups and other communities in South Africa.

Then there is a little afterthought on the last page of the pamphlet that reads “and there is a need for joint decision-making”. That is how carefully it has been phrased so that the voter will not know that it means what the hon. member for Sea Point said, namely “that all the citizens ordinarily resident within a local authority area should have the vote and be eligible for office”. However, they do not tell the electorate of South Africa that.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member indicate whether he is aware that the PFP in open council in Johannesburg—which was covered by the entire Press—moved a motion asking that all public amenities should be opened at this stage?

I am grateful to the hon. member for reminding me about that. I am quite happy to accept that. However, I say that if one fights an election and if one wants to state one’s policy one does not refer to a council meeting which was held months and months ago. One puts it in pamphlet form and one tells the voters from door to door what one’s policy is.

*There is another aspect I want to discuss with those hon. members. We are living in a time in South Africa when co-operation and sound relations between the races is of the utmost importance. South Africa cannot afford this aspect to be bedevilled. For example, there is the Rand Stadium in the southern part of Johannesburg. We know what happened there with professional soccer. The management committee of the Johannesburg city council said that the Rand Stadium would be closed and will not be thrown open for professional soccer again. That is why I am asking the hon. members opposite: Will they, the Johannesburg MPs, move that the city council of Johannesburg, under Prog control, should reopen the Rand Stadium to professional soccer? [Interjections.] That is the kind of thing those hon. members must tell us. [Interjections.]

Order!

Before I resume my seat, I should like to raise a matter here with regard to the hon. members of the NRP. [Interjections.] I should like to raise something pertaining to the NRP, if only the hon. member for Durban Point would wake up. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Yeoville makes another interjection I shall have to take steps in terms of the rules.

I should like to raise a matter with the hon. member for Durban Point. He is the leader of the NRP. By the way, I see in the newspaper that the Buthelezi Commission report is about to appear and it seems to me the NRP is not going to sign that report. I really think they should inform us about their standpoint on the Buthelezi Commission. This is just by the way, however. Those hon. members were described by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt as political squatters. They are amazing. Surely they know that the NP, together with the Oberholzer group, has controlled the Johannesburg municipality for the last five years. The Oberholzer group, with the exception of one man, were all members of the NRP. The hon. member for Durban Point kicked up a great fuss here the other day and said that his party is the only Opposition party in Africa that controls a second tier of Government. Apparently he forgot that his party had equal adjudication in a third tier of government on the executive committee of Johannesburg. There were three members from their side and three members from the NP side to control Johannesburg. But what did he do? He threw it out. He does not want it. He kicked the core of his party in the Transvaal out of the party. The hon. member must not think that the Alex Andersons and those young fellows who only came into politics recently will keep his party intact in Johannesburg. Mr. Oberholzer is an extremely dynamic person and there are few people who can teach him anything about local government. But he was kicked out. But the day of reckoning has come for this hon. member. I want to put a hypothetical question to him. There is a possibility that we shall have a position of 23:23 in Johannesburg. Say the NP wins 23 seats and the PFP also wins 23, while the hon. member for Durban Point’s party wins the seat from which Hennie Bekker had to withdraw. This is quite possible. My question to the hon. member is: If this happens, who is he going to side with? Will he let the NP or the PFP come into power in Johannesburg? [Interjections.] This is a very important question because it will decide who the people must vote for in cases where there are no NP candidates. Those hon. members will now have to decide on whose side they are. Will they support the Government or the official Opposition? This is a question on which we must have clarity.

I want to conclude by pointing out that Johannesburg, as one of the largest metropolises in South Africa, dare not be used as a test tube for PFP experiments. The NP is at the moment taking some of the most sensitive political initiatives in South Africa, and without detracting from the existing order, norms, values and conventions, I say it is of importance that orderly change takes place in this country. Neither Johannesburg nor South Africa needs deliberate provocation, deliberate creation of tense situations—and this is what will happen if the PFP gains control of Johannesburg.

In conclusion I want to recommend what Bill Irwine said. This is my warning to the PFP—

The NP is endeavouring to bring about peaceful relations and co-operation between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in the large metropolises of South Africa, and we cannot afford to have political opportunists like the hon. members opposite meddling in this situation. I believe this is Johannesburg’s message to the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Turffontein dealt exceptionally efficiently with the hon. member for Bryanston who seems to think that fudge and prevaricate is a new kind of sucker. When he and his party have eaten all the fudge they should ask themselves what they are left with. It is also with pleasure that I associate myself with the arguments of my hon. colleague, although in a somewhat broader sphere than the third tier of government.

†Since this is primarily a financial debate and only in the second place a political one, I had intended to discuss the question of devaluation, the rapid and dramatic devaluation of gold during the past year or so, the effect of the devaluation of the rand against the dollar and the devaluation of our spending power as a result of inflation and the other factors which I have already mentioned, but as the hon. the Minister of Finance already indicated that he would not only deal with the hon. member but with all of these issues, I decided to deal with the devaluation of a different kind which I consider to be as serious if not more serious than this devaluation. I want to discuss the devaluation of this Parliament and its institutions by the official Opposition.

Under the present constitutional dispensation this Parliament is constituted through regular elections during which the various political parties seek a mandate from the same electorate. This electorate is defined by the Constitution, and as in all democratic dispensations, the will of the majority of the electorate prevails and constitutes a mandate to the winning party to form a Government. In turn this mandate implies further that the Government will rule the country in accordance with the principles and policies which it presented to the electorate and which the majority of the electorate approves.

This is the first basic principle and convention which the official Opposition treats with utter disrespect. Soon after they had lost the election, they came to Parliament where they acted as though they had won it. Instead of fulfilling their true watchdog function of ensuring that the Government exercise its mandate and carries out its policies in accordance with the wishes of the electorate, they demand that the Government start implementing their policies which the electorate has rejected. When, for obvious reasons, the Government does not comply with this demand, they accuse it of being undemocratic and immoral. In doing so they are, of course, also accusing the majority of the electorate of being undemocratic and immoral. I wonder whether the official Opposition realize the extent to which they are constantly insulting White South Africans by behaving in this manner and making a mockery of democracy in this way. Needless to say, Sir, that is hardly the way to persuade any electorate to accept one’s policies and to give one a mandate. However, that hardly appears to be the objective of the Opposition. Under normal circumstances it is the function of the Opposition parties to present an alternative government in the event of winning an election the next time around. For decades, however, this has not been the case in South Africa. They have not aspired to present an alternative government but have aspired only to be what they call an effective Opposition. This circumstance undoubtedly leads South Africa to having the most irresponsible Opposition in the world. [Interjections.] I think one can make that statement without any qualifications whatsoever. In most countries the Opposition runs the risk of becoming the government at some stage or another. This means that they have to keep their promises and carry out their policies. In South Africa, however, the Opposition knows full well that this is very unlikely to happen. The Opposition can therefore safely indulge in saying the most irresponsible things and making the most outrageous and wildest accusations and promises in the sure knowledge that they will not be required to deliver the goods. One need only hark back to the budget debate of 1981 in which Opposition spokesman after Opposition spokesman spent the so-called gold bonanza many times over during the course of a single debate. In spite of the commendable restrain and discipline exercised by the Government, this country is at the moment experiencing an economic situation of some difficulty. However, Sir, can you imagine the parlous plight in which this country would have found itself if the hon. the Minister of Finance had done what the Opposition wanted him to do?

*No, Sir. Parliamentary democracy cannot operate in this way. Unless the Opposition is prepared to come forward with constructive alternative proposals the inevitable result will be a devaluation of the whole parliamentary process.

I listened attentively to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during the no-confidence debate—I am sorry that I do not see him here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I also listened to his fellow-speakers but I waited in vain for any constructive proposals from that side. Once again it was a mere recounting of problems, and destructive criticism, a list of what should not be done. But what should be done? Any 12-year-old child can identify South Africa’s problems but finding solutions to them requires considerably more than that. However, the Opposition has little or nothing to say about finding solutions. That is why they always blame everything on apartheid. The hon. member for Yeoville—I see that he, too, has now left the House—rises to his feet here and says: Remove apartheid and, hey presto, there will be enough schools, there will be adequate housing, there will be enough qualified teachers, enough qualified nurses and enough money for everything. Sir, do you really think it is possible that a person can be so naïve?

What about the alternatives, however? The national convention which had previously always been presented as the alternative policy for this Government has not even been mentioned this year. I have heard very little about the national convention. Why? Is it perhaps because the Opposition finally realizes that the Algarvo conference which preceded the independence of Angola—the so-called independence of Angola—and the Lancaster House conference which preceded Zimbabwe’s independence, were nothing other than national conventions? Can they say today in all honesty that those exercises were successful? Can they say today—as they said two years ago—that Mr. Mugabe still holds out the prospect of a successful multiracial government in Zimbabwe while various White members of Parliament have been locked up, the coalition has broken down, Mr. Nkomo has been kicked out and the free Press has been taken over by the Government? Can the Opposition really hold that up to South Africa as an example of a successful multiracial Government?

There are other reasons as well for the Opposition’s disparaging conduct here in Parliament. Because the Opposition knows only too well that it has no chance of coming to power in the foreseeable future, it has long ago ceased to address themselves to their electorate. They instead to electorate outside the parliamentary system and even abroad in the shape of so-called world opinion which they then proceed to echo unthinkingly. Even in the municipal election in Johannesburg world opinion was advanced as the reason for their conduct. The leader of the PFP in the Johannesburg City Council, Mr. Sam Moss, stated plainly that the people of Johannesburg had to be willing to experiment in order to show the world that they seriously wanted to establish an open community. In whose interests are our country being governed? Is it in the interests of its inhabitants or in the interests of world opinion?

I sympathize with the Opposition at the end of the Carter era. To the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Pinelands it must be an absolute disaster that the McHenry’s and Andrew Young’s are no longer there to ask for advice so that their sickly humanism and unacceptable Black racialism can be echoed unthinkingly in this House.

†With the end of the Carter era, the Opposition now have very little to say. All they can do is to boycott. The PFP boycott the South African electoral majority and Parliament and its institutions, as they have done with the President’s Council. The President’s Council is a creation of Parliament, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate. However, the PFP boycott it, and that implies at least a partial boycott of this House. That is what it implies. Consequently it also implies a deliberate devaluation of Parliament and its processes.

There are, however, Opposition members who do try to fulful the role of a constructive Opposition. By and large that is true of the whole of the NRP. Occasionally it is also true of individual members of the PFP. For instance I think that the stance of the hon. member for Yeoville at his party’s congress on defence matters was both patriotic and praiseworthy, as opposed to the attitude of a great number of delegates at that congress. I also think that he did try to play a constructive part last month in declaring that the President’s Council could indeed play a vital role in solving the constitutional problems in South Africa. He did of course qualify it by saying that he was speaking in terms of Government policy, but as I indicated earlier that is exactly part of the watchdog function of an official Opposition. However, the Leader of the Opposition reacted in a quite different way to his hon. colleague. Asked by Beeld whether the remarks by Mr. Schwarz implied a change in PFP policy, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the PFP’s policy was quite clear. He said—

For the past 34 years the NP Government has been seeking separate solutions for the various nations of South Africa and will continue to do so as long as it remains in power. That being the case …

Are the Coloureds a separate nation?

… how then does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition justify his and his party’s presence in this House, and if he can justify it, how does he justify his boycotting of the President’s Council? Surely there must be some sort of consistency and not this constant opportunism from that side of the House.

Are the Coloureds a separate nation?

The hon. the Prime Minister has made this party’s standpoint on that issue quite clear, and I am not going to be deflected into repeating what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has set the scene for a total boycott of this House. Opening the congress of his party in November last year he cited three circumstances under which the PFP would have to reconsider its role in the Parliamentary process. Pre-empting the publication of the Steyn Commission’s report, he cited the first circumstance as being one in which the freedom of the Press was infringed upon in such a way that it would no longer be able to report on political, social and economic events to the extent that the public was kept reasonably informed. He expected this, he said, to take place piecemeal, always justified “by some kind of threat or onslaught, real or imagined”. Of course, if any steps were taken in the face of an imagined threat, I would agree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because then of course any such steps would be unjustified, but then it would still be his duty to come to this House and point to the unjustifiability of those steps, instead of boycotting Parliament as he has threatened to do.

Are you boycotting the Coloureds?

Those hon. members, not us, are boycotting the President’s Council which is trying to seek a dispensation for the Coloureds. After last year’s incredibly stupid denial that any form of total onslaught or threat existed, a denial issued by hon. members such as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, the hon. member for Greytown, the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Constantia, who did not even like the idea of smashing Swapo, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, which was a remarkable about-face in anybody’s language, the official Opposition admitted this year that there is indeed a real threat. All that is being debated now is the extent of its totality. That being the case, it is only reasonable to discuss ways and means of countering it best, including efforts made by the Opposition and the media, and to take concrete steps towards that end. Yet that is not what the hon. Leader of the Opposition did. In the no-confidence debate he repeated his threat by saying, of the Steyn Commission’s report, that it constituted such a grave threat that perhaps no speeches would be reported on in the future or receive the attention they deserved. Having read the Steyn Commission’s report, all three volumes and 1 600-odd pages of it, I can say without fear of contradiction that there was no excuse or justification for that extravagant statement by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who had obviously not read the report by the time he made that statement on 5 February.

Do you support the Steyn Commission’s report?

I do not support your leader’s statement. Of course I do not. Do not be ridiculous.

Well tell us what you think, man!

That is what I am doing. Then there was the behaviour of the hon. member for Sandton. He, too, failed to debate the contents or the thrust of the report, the nature and the degree of the threat or the role the media could play in either countering it or furthering it. Instead he resorted to the lowest form of wit by denigrating the chairman and the members of the judicial commission of inquiry. I think that the extravagant language was, in itself, a denigration of the dignity of this House. Judging by what the hon. Leader and other speakers on that side of the House had to say, judging by the utter nonsense they came to light with, one can only come to the conclusion that they debated the matter without having read or understood the report.

Nonsense! I would debate it with you in public any time.

I want to give my further attention to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He cited two other reasons for considering a boycott of this Parliament. The first would be if the current process of constitutional change led to a dictatorship or an autocracy and the second, he said, would be if the Defence Force were to become an extension of the NP.

Whatever the President’s Council does come up with, one thing is absolutely certain: It will not recommend an autocracy or a dictatorship as an answer to this country’s constitutional problems. Secondly, it is common knowledge that nobody has done more than the present hon. the Prime Minister, in his present and his past capacities, to depoliticize the Defence Force.

But to cap all this, there was the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. member for Houghton at the time of the debate on the Rabie Commission’s report, in which she resorted to subterfuge and, in fact, to a cheap and nasty confidence trick to thwart your ruling, Sir, on the sub judice rule. If ever there was disrespect shown for the parliamentary institution and a devaluation of that institution’s … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to refer to the conduct of the hon. member for Houghton as a cheap political confidence trick? [Interjections.]

Yes.

Order! The hon. member for Benoni must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words and say that she resorted by subterfuge to …

No, Mr. Speaker…

All right, I withdraw it unconditionally. My meaning is clear in any event, whichever way I say it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw it.

We will do the same for you.

Order! I have already condemned the hon. member for Houghton’s action in this House, and with that I regard the matter as settled.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that the official Opposition’s boycott of the President’s Council, its threatened boycott of the House and its debating reports which the hon. members have not read as it is their job to do are all actions tantamount to going on strike. Strikers do not get paid for the work they do not do. Therefore, I propose that the House consider reducing the salaries of the hon. members of the official Opposition accordingly just as, for very much the same reasons, we do not pay certain dues to the UNO.

Mr. Speaker, I am really not at all surprised that this hon. House provides one of the more popular shows around Cape Town. One gets quite a variety of performances at times from the various speakers. One gets comedy, tragedy and almost every other emotion that one can imagine.

What is your emotion going to be?

Ah! That is another story. The hon. member for Benoni raised the point that he believed that the depreciation in the standards of this House were of even greater significance than the financial depreciation of our money. Well, I am not going to enter into an argument with him on that issue, but I would make the point that, having served for nearly 20 years in another forum, I do find that the procedures here are considerably less formal and dignified than I have seen in other public venues. However, I would not like to say that they have depreciated to the extent the hon. member for Benoni has indicated because, if that were so, it would be a reflection on you, Sir.

We are discussing Part Appropriation Bill. As the hon. the Minister stated in his Second Reading speech, the amount provided cannot be related to the expenditure because a reasonably suitable safety margin for emergencies has been built in. That being the case, to criticize the Part Appropriation per se would serve no useful purpose because, as I have said, it does not really bear relation to specific financial expenditure. So, if one wishes to debate the subject which I feel we should be debating, one can only discuss matters relating to new fiscal measures and to the deficiencies of the 1981-’82 budget that has been administered by the hon. the Minister, and make suggestions for consideration before the main budget for this year is presented.

Before I proceed with the various debate options I have just mentioned, I would like to make a few observations that I consider to be both pertinent and relevant. I have considerable sympathy for the hon. the Minister of Finance. Every country has a Minister of Finance. They may be called by different names, but I do not believe that any other Minister of Finance anywhere in the world has quite as extraordinarily difficult a job as the hon. the Minister of Finance in South Africa. Let me explain. In a country where the Government changes fairly regularly, a Minister of Finance, when he gets into trouble, always has the possibility of pushing off some of the blame onto his predecessor in office. As the hon. the Minister of Finance’s party has, however, been in office for a third of a century now, it is a very difficult thing for him to do. To go back to 1948, I think even the hon. the Minister would admit would be a bit unreasonable. He has to carry the can for what goes on.

And he never gets the credit.

Secondly, I do not believe that any other person holding a similar sort of post, not only has to consider the budget for his own country but also for four independent States to which he has to make substantial subsidies. Apart from that he also has to consider the budgets of five self-governing States, States that are partially independent, and also the budget of a very substantial dependency, South West Africa, where he has to produce something of the order of R600 million by way of subsidies, apart from the money that is spent on defence.

A third problem the hon. the Minister of Finance has is a permanent war that has been waged on our borders now for several years, which not only diminishes the available manpower, of which the skilled variety is relatively short in South Africa, but also hugely increases our military expenses. In the fourth place the hon. the Minister also has to make appropriate allowances for a large number of Black workers in so-called White South Africa being able to transfer their wages and taxes to foreign countries.

These problems in themselves are most unusual problems of a Minister of Finance and I think are very difficult problems to overcome. These are, however, not the only problems that the hon. the Minister has to contend with. He still has a fantastically large number of boards and committees that one way or another he has to pay for. The grandiose and monumental building of hospitals and various other structures—I refer here particularly to performing arts buildings—throughout the country is probably running into hundreds of millions of rands. He has to contend with the administration of the South African Indian Council and possibly also with that of a re-instituted Coloured Representative Council. In addition he has to meet the cost of massive racial legislation and, again something that does not apply anywhere else, and of a multiplicity of educational systems. There are of course many more unique functions that the hon. the Minister of Finance has to meet in South Africa, but what I have already mentioned should, I think, be sufficient to illustrate the point I am making. Not only has the hon. the Minister a totally unique job that makes it impossible to please all South Africans, but—and this is the sad part for the hon. the Minister—he cannot even blame anybody else, because it is his own Government’s policy that has created this situation. The Government’s policies have created this situation, as I have said, and I regret to say that this Minister, or any future Minister, will have the same problems until such time as new policies are formulated. I believe in all sincerity that in the short term the hon. the Minister, with these problems he already has, can only effect cosmetic changes in the financial situation in the country. In the long term, however, the hon. the Minister will, I believe, have to give serious consideration to a massive change in direction. I believe it is vital to consider seriously this dramatic change and to get totally away from the Keynesian system of deficit budgeting, which came into being in the time of the depression and has been followed by most Western countries ever since; the general policy being borrowing and applying ad hoc taxes to square the books if it cannot be done in any other way. Frankly, this appalling fiscal policy has been followed, as I have said, by most Western countries for years, the result being that most of these Western countries are today in a terrible financial mess, which they are now trying to resolve. When one watches what is going on in America, Britain, Italy and in various other countries—and we have to a large extent been following a similar fiscal type of policy—it seems to me that the government of those countries are in fact no longer the governments. The banks are running their countries. The banks dictate what will happen. The government in those countries are really only the front for the banks. The banks call the tune and the government have to dance. I do not believe that South Africa is anywhere near the bad financial situation in which most of these foreign countries are—that of course, in spite of our amazing policies and our extravagance. Our gold, minerals and agricultural expertise, and also our manpower resources, have saved us from the worst effects of Western stupidity and duplicity in financial matters. I use the word “duplicity” advisedly, because for years governments have been borrowing money to fool the public into believing that one can spend what one has not earned.

Why have they been doing this? Purely and simply to butter up the vote so that they can remain in office. I believe it is quite appalling and although I do not believe altogether that that is the reason why the South African Government has been following the Keynesian theory, they have been following it for other ideological reasons. Nonetheless, I believe that it is a dangerous policy. Today, in most of those countries—and to some degree also in South Africa—these chickens are coming home to roost. Governments are having to tell the truth about finances and the people are having to tighten their belts. What is happening in most of these countries? Unemployment is rampant. In America there are 10 million unemployed, in Britain 3 million, and many other countries are also suffering under the burden of unemployment. In South Africa, however, we have an extraordinary situation of massive unemployment at a time when we can use all the labour we can get, but regrettably we do not have the skilled labour in the upper echelons to cope with the quantity of unskilled or less skilled labour which we have available.

As I said earlier, South Africa has not had to suffer the worst of these effects, but it will suffer if we continue this deficit financing. As hon. members already know, this system is highly inflationary. Most countries, including South Africa, have been working again into double digit figures, and some of the South American countries, I believe, have even been working with a four-figure inflation rate. Argentine, in particular, has had a 1 000% inflation rate recently, I believe. What is the effect of this? It is absolutely destroying the savings of the public, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said in his speech yesterday. It is also destroying the financial security of those people who have been saving for their old age. What has been the result of this? Even the most prudent of people are saying today: “Let us buy now because if we do not buy now things will become more expensive later on and we will not even be able to afford it. In any case, the value of our money is depreciating so fast; let us buy now.”

I believe that the time has now come for the rot to be stopped.

We must get back to the good old-fashioned way of living within our income. Businessmen must be encouraged to make reasonable profits, not the huge profits that they must make now to accommodate excessive taxation and inflation budgeting. This inflation budgeting is not only being handled by businessmen; it is also being handled by State departments. I read the other day that S.A. Airways is now indulging in inflation budgeting. They are writing off their equipment, not at what it cost, but on the basis of what its replacement cost will be, which is a very, very different story altogether. In the process the unscrupulous businessman is not only working in inflation budgeting and making provision for tax, but he also says that people can pay more; they will pay more and they have become bludgeoned into paying more. So they also make excessive profits to put in their pockets as well.

So taking it all in all, I believe that we must get away from this deficit, budgeting. That can only be done if the Government itself sets a lead by cutting out extravagance and having a real tight fiscal policy, not just merely talking about it. I know the first thing hon. members opposite will ask is: Well, what are you going to cut out? What are you going to reduce? There are a lot of things, and I shall come to them in a moment. But, as a consequence of the inflation that we have in this country, public servants, and everybody else for that matter, want, and in fact need, ever increasing salaries whilst massive inflation still keeps on following from behind. In fact their increases in salary never catch up with the inflation. Therefore high salary increases alone will never solve the problem. One is only feeding the tiger. What is now needed is a massive effort to reduce prices, to reduce the cost of living so that the same wages will buy and pay for more. The inflationary wage rise spiral never really helps the worker. He is always behind. But even a relatively small reduction in cost will help considerably, because then the wage earner, already having the money, will for once be ahead of the game. A fringe benefit of this will mean that the ordinary man can start saving again and have confidence in the monetary structure. Money will perhaps then be available to build the homes that we have spoken about so much in this hon. House at a reasonable rate of interest, with all the ancillary trades benefiting therefrom. Furthermore, businessmen will be remotivated either to develop new businesses or to expand their existing enterprises, thus creating a whole new range of job opportunities.

I think it must be quite obvious that I have not gone out of my way today to attack the budget proposals or the Government for that matter. I make a cry from the heart for the thousands who are fighting a desperate battle to retain their pride and security and who want peace and comfort in their old age. I believe that when I do this, I am speaking for Black, White, Brown, in fact all those whom the good Lord has seen fit to put into this beautiful country of ours. I believe that financial success will create the right atmosphere for a political solution. I believe that we must turn back from the destructive financial path we are following. We must get away from the attitude of “enjoy now and pay later”. The West is beginning to see the folly of its ways. We are not so far on that road of financial servitude. Our resources and the good old South African attitude that we are going to win anyway, can ensure a good free enterprise future.

As far as last year’s budget is concerned, I do believe that there were errors of judgment. I believe that the revenue from gold sales was over-estimated and the effects of devaluation against the rand underestimated. Heavy expenditure was committed at a time when apparently everything was going well. I think it must be borne in mind that expenditure of the nature to which I am referring is not worked on a year-to-year basis, but over a long period. Once one starts it, one cannot easily stop it. But being somewhat conservative myself, I do not believe in over-commitment, and I believe the finances of the country were over-committed. It was a question of judgment. Here again I cannot necessarily condemn the hon. the Minister because of this judgment. The hon. the Minister is not omniscient but it is one of the more regrettable things in political life that politicians refuse ever to admit that they can make a mistake. I think that is rather unfortunate. However, any man can make a mistake. It is only God who is infallible and I do not think we have any gods here. As I say, even though I believe that mistakes were made, the magnitude of our budget is such that this would not have been serious had we not been engaged in deficit budgeting or had had more adequate reserves. The people I feel most sorry for, Sir, are the small people of all colours who are battling to make ends meet. I am aware that the hon. the Minister also has sympathy for these people but I must say that sorrow and regret do not put food in their stomachs or a roof over their heads. I hope that when the hon. the Minister prepares the main budget he will remember these people.

In so far as savings are concerned I should like to suggest that some consideration be given to reducing the incidence of expensive legislation that requires large staffs to administer. I am referring to certain Bills that appear on our Order Paper at the moment and have appeared since the opening of this Parliament. Bills Nos. 8, 10, 16, 19 and a number of the Bills dealing with professions are some that I want to mention. One could remove or amend much of the discriminatory legislation that requires heavy policing and, in fact, prisons to enforce. I am referring here to legislation dealing with, for example, Black servants living in the homes of White employers and the fact that Blacks are not permitted to move from one magisterial district to another to search for employment. The monumental building programme could also be cut back. There is a massive amount of money being wasted in the construction of these prestige buildings which we can ill afford at a time when we have massive and essential developments such as Richards Bay, Saldanha, Sasol and all the various developments which are so essential for the country. I do not say that we must cut back on those. However, I do believe that one must cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. I believe that we are trying to do too much too soon and that we are trying to do far too many of these things with borrowed money.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Umbilo. He made a reasoned contribution. I think that the hon. member raised a number of points here which deserve the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister.

The first point I found very interesting was that that hon. member and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti do not speak quite the same language. The amendment moved here by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is not entirely of a piece with the spirit of the speech by the hon. member for Umbilo.

It is exactly the same.

I cannot help it if the hon. member either did not listen or did not understand, but that is the impression I gained. I also wish to say that I do not really agree with everything he said. I do think that the spirit of what he said was basically 100% correct, but when he discussed important matters I could not really agree with him, and I want to mention a few examples in this connection.

In the first instance, the hon. member referred to the issue of prestige buildings. He spoke about the “cutting down on expenditure”. I do not know whether the hon. member is acquainted with the budget speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Finance over the past six or seven years, but this has been one of the cardinal points made by the hon. the Minister and has run like a golden thread through all the budget speeches made by the hon. the Minister during his period in office, viz. that the increase in State expenditure should at least be less than the rate of inflation and that State expenditure should be limited as far as possible. The question of prestige buildings is one of the specific points on which the hon. the Minister has taken a very strong stand right from the outset. He said that they should be limited to the cardinal and the essential while preserving the aesthetic. That is where we differ. It seems to me that both I and a number of hon. members in the hon. member’s party differ with that hon. member on this point. Since we are now in this situation and are discussing the Part Appropriation, I wish to make the categorical statement that in my opinion there are five points which we must take into account when considering the future. The first aspect we must take into account in order to deal with the future is the economic trends of the past. The second is the existing economic situation. The third is the phase the economy is in at present. The fourth comprises external factors such as the economic situation of our foreign partners and other factors that have a direct effect on the economy as we encounter it in the present situation. Fifthly, we must ascertain what the situation is as far as monetary and fiscal politics are concerned, with reference to what the hon. the Minister intends doing in the present situation and with a view to the future. Once we have considered those five points—I do not think we can differ with one another in this regard—then we can consider what economic politics we should pursue with a view to the future.

It is interesting that in these five points that we adopt as a basic point of departure, we are in fact faced with two alternatives as regards the present situation of South African politics. On the one hand we have the proven practical situation and the policy of the hon. the Minister which has been proven in practice, and as far as this is concerned I believe that the hon. the Minister can proudly and with acclamation say—

†Sir, to criticize any Government, and especially to criticize its Minister of Finance, is the easiest thing in the world; in fact, I would say hindsight is the lowest form of pseudo-intelligence.

*Let us look at the record of the hon. the Minister of Finance. We have an article on the fourth quarter of 1981 from the Chamber of Commerce and we can read what is said in this article about the hon. the Minister and his policy—

This is the present situation that we have in regard to the hon. the Minister and the Government. In contrast, we have what the hon. member for Yeoville has been challenging us about as much in the course of previous debates. I refer to The Report of the Economic Commission of the PFP and in it I read “A charter for social and economic progress”. The hon. member Dr. Marais has already referred to it, but I believe that for the purpose of the debate it is necessary that we go into this in more depth in order to determine what we have as an alternative for what have already been shown in practice as the successes of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member Dr. Marais has already pointed out that the Financial Mail describes it as “sitting between two stools”. That is by no means surprising, because we must note that the commission was appointed on 8 October 1979 by the leader of the PFP in such a way that the leftist and rightist elements are very strongly represented thereon. We find on this commission Mr. H. H. Schwarz, M.P., on the right hand side, and Dr. A. L. Boraine, M.P., on the left hand side. It took two years—from October 1979 to October 1981—for these two wings to get together and give us an actual report of some kind. I take it that the report is now final and constitutes the official policy of the official Opposition. It is very interesting to read everything contained therein. However, I cannot deal with the whole matter in detail in the time at my disposal and therefore I only want to quote a few extracts from it. I hope that other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pinelands, will react to them at a later stage. This piece of paper embodies three basic concepts, the three basic concepts endorsed by the Keynes theory. Article 1.3 of the report of the Charter of Social and Economic Progress states that everyone who is willing to work must have the right to work. This is exactly what Keynes said.

The second point is—

One could continue in that vein. The third point is that where something is wrong, the Government must step in and rectify matters by spending money. It is very interesting— and it is here that the danger lies—that nowhere in the report is mention made of a nation’s sense of thrift. We discussed this aspect yesterday. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville realizes what dangerous ideas he has set down here. I am not referring to him only. He is intelligent enough to conceal the mistakes he has made in the report. Yesterday we saw in this House that two of his colleagues did not know exactly what was at issue. The hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Bezuicenhout yesterday came forward with differing interpretations of this basic concept of the PFP. The hon. member for Edenvale discussed pensions yesterday and said, inter alia, that it did not pay to inculcate thrift in the South African nation because ultimately it was not worth the trouble. In contrast, let us see what the hon. the Minister has achieved in regard to pensions between 1972 and 1980. During that period, social pensions and allowances rose by an average of 18,42% per annum to a total of 165,85%. However, the hon. member omitted to mention this yesterday. He adopted a purely political approach to the matter in an effort to derive short-term advantage from it. He tried to foil the initiative of the hon. the Minister to inculcate thrift in the nation, and that is dangerous.

Yesterday we also had the hon. member for Bezuidenhout talking about “perks”. I do not want to level accusations of plagiarism now, but if one reads Dialogue of the final quarter of 1981 and the first quarter of 1982, it is clear where the hon. member’s speech comes from. I need only refer hon. members to page 58. One wonders to what extent the Charter for Social and Economic Progress was borrowed from this, too. The title of the article in Dialogue reads—

This is where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gets his opinions from. I therefore say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he has created a dangerous situation here in that he cannot control what his colleagues around him are doing.

In the past the hon. member has charged me with arguing in Keynesian terms and then ultimately summing up like Milton Friedman. However, what did the hon. member do here yesterday? His argument embraces the three concepts of Keynes’s theory, but he has to fight the left wing and accordingly he is unable to come into his own. However, he did manage to have one or two concepts included, and in article 3.16 he says—

The hon. member for Yeoville has said in the past that money should be spread around and the money supply supplemented. This is what he asked the hon. the Minister last year: What is happening to the superfluous money derived from higher gold earnings? Why is it not being used or spent? It is very interesting to peruse this document and it is also interesting to see that according to it the party itself is beginning to deviate from its previous policy. Under the leadership of the left wing, notably the hon. member for Pinelands, the old concept of the PFP was always “the rate for the job”. In paragraph 3.5.1(b) of the “Report of the Economic Commission of the Progressive Federal Party” the following is stated—

The commission therefore managed to have the phrase “of equal value” inserted. This of course represents a change of policy on the part of the PFP since the days of the old concept of “the rate for the job”. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville, but it seems to me that this is his only minor victory in this whole episode.

However, let us look at the picture for the population as a whole and see what this PFP document offers them. However, we must note that this is one of the most dangerous, sly and irresponsible political documents we have ever had in this country. I want to refer specifically to paragraph 3.5.1(c) in which is stated—

The same concept is used in paragraph 2.6 with reference to the elderly. Once again, reference is made to the “basic minimum living standards”. In contrast we have the hon. the Minister’s concept of reasonable living standards. I therefore ask myself whether the hon. member for Yeoville is not intelligent enough to know that “basic minimum living standards” are not the words he ought to have used. If he is sufficiently well acquainted with the English language—and I think he does indeed have a good command of it—he should have used the words “reasonable living standards for everybody concerned”. What is now being offered the population of South Africa, the elderly and other members of the electorate at large, is “minimum living standards”. I make the categorical statement that it is not the convictions of the hon. member for Yeoville that triumphed here, or else cognizance must be taken of these words, because they constitute one of the most dangerous proposals ever made by a political party in this country. However, the most dangerous statement in this entire document is 3.6, and hon. members must listen very carefully because the most dangerous statement I have ever heard is being made by implication. I quote—

But then the document continues—

If one reads this together with paragraph 3.5.2, in which profit-sharing schemes, inter alia, are discussed, one realizes that this is the first time in the history of South Africa that a political party is prepared to state by innuendo that it is a basic concept of its policy that if it were to come to power in this country it would nationalize certain institutions or industries or would be prepared to nationalize them. If any hon. members on that side are prepared to dispute this, I wish to ask them to take another look at their terminology, because this is the most dangerous statement ever made in South African politics. In this regard the NP is blameless. Even the old Labour Party never went that far. I want to level this charge at them, and I ask them to react to it.

Mr. Speaker, I have today been entrusted with the task of achieving a measure of relaxation in this Second Reading debate on the little budget, a debate which probably sometimes reminds the uninitiated of a cricket match of which the outcome is not always entirely clear, and in which the capacity not to be caught out has been developed into a fine art. One of the more lasting impressions politics has made on me in my short political career is that it is far easier to talk one’s way out of it than into it. This is so because one cannot evade the special responsibilities with which one is entrusted on the day that one is elected a member of this House. Accordingly I intend to say a few words today about those who elected me and about my constituency as such.

In my case that special responsibility perhaps assumed a somewhat different nature and character, since on 27 October 1981, when I was elected to this House, one hundred per cent of my voters supported my coming here. I thank those who sent me here for their support and confidence in my make-up. I wish to place on record today that False Bay is satisfied that my predecessor, Mr. Koos Albertyn, who represented this constituency for seven and a half years, did so with dedication, zeal and integrity. We thank him for that and congratulate him on his promotion to the post of member of the S.A. Transport Services Board.

False Bay is an attractive constituency which is shaped almost like a kidney bean, extending as it does along the sea from the Strand to D. F. Malan Airport, from there to the military base at Youngsfield and then back to the sea at Strandfontein. Within these borders it includes the agricultural region of Philippi and the residential areas of Ottery and part of Kenwyn. Apart from the natural assets of my constituency, about which I shall say more shortly, one of the greatest assets of the False Bay constituency is its people. From the Strand to Ottery and Kenwyn they are calm people, whose involvement in national affairs and interest in politics attests to their desire to see an orderly system in this country in which they can go about their daily affairs and earn their living.

I do not wish to say today that False Bay is the best or most beautiful constituency, because some of my good colleagues may say afterwards that this new member touched on a contentious subject in the course of his maiden speech. Accordingly, although we are very modest about our constituency and its natural assets, it is nevertheless true that after eleven months of hard work in their own constituencies, some of my good colleagues prefer to spend the 12th month in mine. This may be ascribed to our well-known and popular angling waters and also our beautiful town, the Strand, with its fine, clean, white-scoured and orderly beaches.

The Strand is a town of sun and sea, and on many days of wind as well. It is also a town which over the years has developed something of the character of a retirement town, probably because many people have regarded the town as a safe haven for retirement, for various reasons. The very fact that so many retired people live there brings one to a profound realization of, and focuses one’s attention on, the problems of that generation of voters. These are people who are no longer capable of doing a great deal every day to improve their own material position, people in the autumn of their lives who are dependent on a pension, or interest on an investment, which was once sufficient for their needs. These are people who have assisted in the development of this country, and in many cases their children and grandchildren are today helping to man the country’s borders. It is with compassion, therefore, that one notes their problems, and I wish to give notice today that during my term in this House I shall endeavour to improve the position of those people, because I believe it deserving of vigorous attention.

Reference has in the past been made in this House to the well-known agricultural region known as Philippi on the Cape Flats. We are told that in Greek, Philippi means “where the horses come from” or “where the horses live”. In our present-day South African usage it has, to me, come to mean “where the food comes from”, and today I wish to draw the attention of the House to this once again, since I regard it as a matter of real importance, a matter which in my opinion is important to all of us and of which we must take cognizance.

There is a growing tendency to cover that region, that precious gem which has achieved renown as the vegetable garden of Cape town, with stone, concrete and tar. There are developers who are looking with covetous eyes at the development potential of that region, and one would have expected the local authorities and other bodies concerned to offer greater resistance to these efforts than is in fact the case. It is also true that the large number of squatters who, for the most part, live on the land of non-farmers, are making life extremely difficult for the farmers, by creating real problems for them in the proper performance of their daily task and calling.

I just wish to mention to hon. members a few facts relating to that part of my constituency. More than 80% of the fresh vegetables for greater Cape Town are produced there. The subterranean water supply there is calculated to be greater than the joint potential of the Steenbras and Wemmershoek dams. Boreholes yielding 10 000 to 20 000 gallons at 120 to 150 feet are no unusual phenomenon. For the most part, the farmers of that region are descendants of the German settlers from previous centuries, and their capacity for hard work is well known. They possess technical knowledge which has been accumulated and passed on over many years and many generations. All these factors have in the course of time resulted in the agricultural region of Philippi becoming known as one of those with the highest yield per hectare in the Western Cape.

Moreover, virtually all the building sand of greater Cape Town comes from that region, and the reserve supply is regarded as sufficient for the next 100 years.

We are dealing here with a natural asset, an irrigation scheme which is already staffed, and provides a living for approximately 600 families, White and Coloured. At this stage only 50% of the land is under intensive cultivation. In view of the enormous pressure being exerted and the lack of aid experienced by the farmers’ association in my constituency in regard to the preservation of that region for agriculture, I ask myself whether we should permit this gift from the Creator to be destroyed, which would eventually mean that we should have to construct a new irrigation scheme artificially in a different area and at astronomical expense.

In 1975 the Director of the Winter Rainfall Region of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services published a very comprehensive report on this region containing a number of recommendations concerning methods which could be utilized to preserve that region for agriculture. All I ask today is that all the recommendations in that report be implemented: among others, the recommendation stipulating that land which comes on the market and is at present being snatched up by speculators from the cities, should rather be bought out by the State and reserved for later utilization as agricultural land. I regard this step as essential if we are really in earnest in wishing to preserve that exceptional natural asset of ours.

I am not making a direct request for money today. I only ask that we look at that region in the light of the internal and external strategic value of cheap food. I ask, too, that in considering that region we apply a little vision and a little imagination, and also a little faith and a little idealism, so that eventually we can make an investment in cheap food, which in turn will be an investment in agriculture and, in addition, an investment in our own future.

In conclusion I just wish to say this, Mr. Speaker. I stand here as the new member for False Bay. However, I also stand here as an Afrikaner. This is not the occasion to discuss my political connections. As far as my status as an Afrikaner is concerned, I did not come here to give expression to it at the expense of the group affiliations of others. However, I wish to state clearly that I regard it as my inalienable right to be allowed to be what I am and to remain what I am, and that my involvement in the affairs of this House and outside it will largely be motivated and inspired by this standpoint of mine. As a new member it is my sincere wish that my term in this House will serve to enable me to make a modest contribution to the general prosperity, welfare and progress of our entire country and all our people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for False Bay on his maiden speech here this afternoon, a speech which he delivered in a very competent manner. False Bay is truly a very interesting place, and has also made a definite contribution to the economy of South Africa. In addition, it is a place where one can relax, do some angling, or just lie basking in the sun, etc. However, as the hon. member has indicated, False Bay is an area where the wind can really blow. It is, therefore, perhaps the reason why the hon. member came to this House, i.e. to escape for a while from the strong winds that blow in False Bay. Perhaps it is also the case that he feels the need for a wind of change. However, I wish the hon. member a very fruitful term of office in this House. We are confident that the hon. member will make a valuable contribution here.

†Mr. Speaker, a year ago the PFP voiced the warning here in this House: “Vote now, pay later.” Little did we realize then that the time of reckoning would be upon us so soon.

What is the situation facing us at the moment? We have a severe deficit on our balance of payments, a deficit of approximately R4 billion. Interest rates have soared. The prime bank rate has gone up to about 18%, without any restriction being placed on further increases by the banks. Mortgage bond rates have gone up by 2%, from 12,25% to 14,25%. Inflation is running at about 13,9% at the moment. The growth rate has dropped to somewhere between 1% and 2%. Moreover, the public are warned now to tighten their belts. This is really a slightly different picture from that one painted here by the hon. the Minister of Finance a year ago. As recently as 12 August 1981 the hon. the Minister of Finance said here in the House (Hansard, 12 August 1981, col. 636)—

Could the hon. the Minister have misjudged the situation so gravely? Is it possible that the situation could have changed so drastically within these brief few months since August 1981? Not even able to wait for the main budget the hon. the Minister announces a snap 10% surcharge on imports. Worst of all, he increases general sales tax by 25% to 5%. Who has to pay for this? John Citizen must of course pay for this. The result is of course a spiralling increase in the cost of living. Can the Government not stop to think about the salaried man who lives on a fixed income, and in particular pensioners? With increases in the price of food, rent, fuel etc. how can he possibly keep up? The reduction in PAYE from 1 March for the lower income category of person will not assist the pensioner, and I say this with due respect. How will the pensioner survive? I ask the hon. the Minister: Will there be a bonus or will there be a substantial increase in the allowance? It is imperative that the means test be removed. I now call upon the hon. the Minister as an interim measure to make provision for a minimum increase of at least 25% for all pensioners from 1 April and, please, not from 1 October. The hon. the Minister will ask us: Where will the money come from? With all due respects, that is not a difficult question to answer. There is, for example, the R248 million that was not collected in the form of general sales tax and the R800 million that has been missing over the past three years. It has been alleged that this money has either gone astray or has been stolen. The hon. the Minister can ask the hon. member Mr. Aronson. He has no problem in regard to this matter. He says the money is not missing. Well, let him collect it. Let him collect that money and it can be utilized to pay the pensioners. The hon. the Minister has admitted that there have been 34 969 irregularities and that these involved R22,4 million. Surely an unanswerable case has been made out in so far as general sales tax is concerned for the hon. the Minister to exempt essential commodities such as milk and bread which form the basis of a staple diet? Surely there should be exemption of these commodities? Incidentally, too, as the hon. the Minister knows, there are hidden benefits to the businessman in the collection of general sales tax. There are firms with large turnovers that only pay general sales tax once a month. For example, a firm with a turnover of R400 000 will, by investing that money on call at a rate of 5%, make at least R1 000 clear per month. There are hypermarkets that turn over something like R2 million per month. If that money is invested at a daily rate it will yield something like R5 000 per month. Where is the benefit to the customers? Where is the benefit to the consumers? Surely something must be done to rectify this position?

What is your suggestion?

I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is also necessary to levy the general sales tax on local authorities as well. Local authorities are struggling to balance their budgets. At a time like this, bearing in mind the elections next week, can our thoughts be far away as far as local authorities are concerned? Surely local authorities are an integral part of the economy of South Africa? One need only look at the employees alone that they have to pay. For example, in the Cape there are 57 000 people employed in local government. In Natal there are 40 000, in the Transvaal 116 000 and in the Orange Free State 14 800, making a total of 228 300 people employed in local government and who have got to be paid. And what about capital expenditure? From the figures that I have available for 1979, it can be seen that the Cape had R900 million available for expenditure, Natal had R558 million, the Transvaal R1 202 million and the Orange Free State R126 million, making a total expenditure for local authorities in South Africa of R2 787 225 000. I think hon. members will agree that that is a very, very substantial amount and it certainly has a very direct effect on the economy. And where does the money come from? About 50% comes from rates and taxes. And who has to pay? John Citizen. He is taxed twice insofar as the Government and local government are concerned. He is taxed for a third time when it comes to the question of tariffs to the provincial administration as well. Is it any wonder then that local authorities have been slaveling desperately for additional adequate sources of revenue? Amenities such as parks, sports fields, art galleries, swimming pools, libraries, health services and fire brigades are not productive. They do not show a profit. Neither can transport, especially when one has to pay for apartheid on buses, show a profit. Losses in 1978, according to a report, amounted to about R14,4 million. In Johannesburg alone the loss on the buses is R12 million per year. It costs a lot of money to build roads. Local authorities cannot afford to build roads on their own. Appeals for relief have been made to the hon. the Minister of Finance repeatedly, but what do we get? We get commissions and we get committees. We get committees on commissions and commissions on committees. The Borckenhagen Committee sat for about eight years—a small contribution towards rates—and it submitted its first report in 1959. It submitted its eighth report in 1964 and its final report in 1966. Then we had the Driessen Commission on transportation. A White Paper was issued in 1975 after a report in 1974.

Then we had the Gerald Browne Committee appointed on 12 March 1980. That report consisted of three volumes. Do we have a White Paper on it? No, we do not. Why is there no White Paper? However, we do have a Croeser Committee that was appointed to go into the Browne Committee.

Now you are really being childish.

It is now February 1982 …

What has the Croeser Committee done about finances?

… it is two years and many rates of inflation later.

You do not know.

Have you told us?

You do not know.

I am giving the hon. the Minister the opportunity to tell us what is being done about the finances of local authorities. Local authorities must keep the wheels of commerce and industry turning so as to provide essential services for them. This is intimate government, Sir.

Talking about intimate government, I want to address a few remarks to the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. member stood up in this House today and made the most disgraceful and scurrilous speech that we have heard here for a very long time. [Interjections.] The hon. member made a speech here that was calculated to fan the flames of fear, to fan the flames of prejudice and to fan the flames of race hatred. That hon. member has set this country and any steps which the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to take for the good of the country back at least 25 years. Is the NP so desperate that they have to stand up in this House and make speeches of this nature? The policies of the PFP are well known. We fought the NP on those policies in 1977 and also in 1980. We have also fought by-elections on those policies. [Interjections.] They are in print for anybody to read. Motions have been put before the council repeatedly in regard to the policy of the PFP and what the PFP will do in regard to the question of accounts. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein quoted from newspapers. That is where he got his information—from the newspapers.

Order! Did the hon. member for Hillbrow say that the hon. member for Turffontein had made a scurrilous speech?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “scurrilous”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to prove just how shallow the arguments of the hon. member for Turffontein are. He sits just behind the hon. the Minister of Community Development in this House. The hon. the Minister of Community Development refused the Cape Town City Council the right to make their amenities available to all races. When the hon. the Minister was challenged by my leader in this House during the no-confidence debate to tell us what he would do if the Johannesburg City Council applied to him to have their amenities made available to all, he was silent. Would the hon. member for Turffontein support the making available of those amenities to all?

No.

Of course he would not support it. [Interjections.] That just proves the hollowness of their argument.

I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Who established the President’s Council? Was it the NP? Did that hon. member agree to the establishment of the President’s Council?

Do not talk about the President’s Council. You are boycotting it.

Never mind the boycott. [Interjections.] Did that hon. member agree with the establishment of the President’s Council? Does he support the President’s Council? I want to put this question to any other hon. member. Do they support the President’s Council? [Interjections.] Who appointed Coloureds and Asians to the President’s Council? I want to put this question to the hon. member for Turffontein: Is he prepared to have a Coloured or Asian who is on the President’s Council swim in his swimming pool? [Interjections.] Will he invite him to swim in his swimming pool? The hon. member must tell this country why that party entrusts the future constitution of South Africa to the Coloureds and the Asians when he is not even prepared to allow one of them to swim in his swimming pool. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hypocrites!

They are so desperate, Mr. Speaker, because they can see things slipping away from them. They come in the back-door through the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston allowed to refer to hon. members on this side of the House as hypocrites?

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, but hon. members opposite said I was a hypocrite.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, my leader will be addressing two public meetings in Johannesburg.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Sit down!

“Shut up”, you! Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston allowed to remain sitting on his backside when he reacts to a ruling of the Chair?

Order! The hon. member stood up when he apologized.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the second time you called him to order.

Order! No, he did not apologize then.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side of the House permitted to say “shut up” to an hon. member on this side of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Chief Whip must please remember that in terms of the rules there is only one way of addressing another member. The hon. member for Hillbrow may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. leader will be addressing two meetings in Johannesburg during the municipal elections, one on Wednesday night and one on Thursday night. [Interjections.] There he will answer all the questions those hon. members would like to have answered. Not one hon. member of the PFP has “fudged” or “prevaricated” about any of the issues involved, not here or in Johannesburg. Where is their leader in Johannesburg? [Interjections.] Where are their Cabinet Ministers in Johannesburg? [Interjections.] If the hon. the Prime Minister has to go to South West Africa, why does someone else not go? Why do they not put any other of their hon. members onto the platform there. What about the Transvaal leader? Why does he not go? [Interjections.]

Order!

I am sorry about this diversion, but I think the hon. member for Turffontein must be put in his place. [Interjections.]

Throw him in the swimming-pool.

At the deep end.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that what he is doing is giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. With the one hand he gives rate increases to the local authorities, but he takes it away with an increase of 1% in the GST. For Johannesburg alone the extra 1% added to the GST is going to entail an amount of R1 million. The extra import surcharge of 10% is going to mean an additional R900 000. So what he is giving with the one hand, he is taking away with the other, and the local authorities, the governmental poor relations in South Africa, the orphans who have been neglected by this Government, are the ones to suffer. [Interjections.] It is quite clear that the NP cannot manage the economy. Martin Spring says the following—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister would deal with that. I submit that the NP cannot meet the challenges of the eighties and cannot seem to realize that politics and economics are inextricably interwoven. The NP is shackled to its right-wing. It is bogged down in the mire of conservatism. Like Nero the NP is fiddling whilst the hopes, passions and aspirations of millions are burning away. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to break those shackles, to put South Africa above the interests of the NP. It is clear now that the interests of South Africa and the interests of the NP are mutually exclusive, mutually conflicting. We are standing at the crossroads. The moment of decision has arrived. Does the hon. the Prime Minister want six months to put things right? How much time does the hon. the Prime Minister actually want? The hon. the Prime Minister must say whether he does not have enough to persuade his caucus and his congresses and enough time to have a referendum to introduce such policies as are put to him. In Nat 80 the hon. member for Brits clearly stated that it is one of the realities of South Africa that the country should have only one Government. The hon. the Prime Minister states that there can be various instruments of government. Surely the essence of this is the sharing power, particularly with the Coloureds and the Asians? The hon. the Prime Minister has the reins of power in his hands. He must crack the whip now if he wants the NP to continue governing South Africa. I want to put one simple question to the hon. the Prime Minister. What will he do if his caucus were to turn down a constitutional proposal involving the sharing of power as an instrument of government? Would that be the end of the line? Would he then go to his congresses? Would he then have recourse to a referendum? Quo Vadis!

Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time, I am not going to reply to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. I think I am going to refrain from doing so.

But he did not say anything.

We have one problem in South Africa today, and that is a consumer problem. The consumer in South Africa has a very serious problem, and that is that the man who sells him products does not give enough information. I have been making thorough study lately to find out to what extend one can help consumers. The aged, the poor and the young people are having a hard time financially, but let us examine the situation of a lady who buys at an ordinary chain store.

Helen.

I want to illustrate to hon. members how, on the same shelf in a chain store, for example …

The price of chains is going up every day!

… I found two cups bearing the code number 396083, but with different prices, namely R1-29 and R1-19. They had the same code, they were the same make of cup with the same marking, and yet there was a price difference of 10 cents. A little further down the same shelf there was another cup for sale under the code number 393003 at 79 cents, and another with the same code number at 69 cents.

To illustrate my point more clearly, I bought a few tins of pears in the same shop and brought them along. There were four different prices on four tins of the same kind.

There are only three tins on your bench.

Yes, Harry, I see you are my top pupil. I shall tell you in a minute why I do not have four tins with me: I did not have enough money for the other tin! The first tin costs 26 cents, the second one 69 cents and the third one 62 cents. The tins were all taken from the same shelf. The fourth tin cost 55 cents. Unfortunately, I got rather annoyed and dropped the tin. I did not want to bring a dented tin into the House, because hon. members could then say that that was the reason why it cost 55 cents.

I think it is high time dealers thought for themselves for a change and made a price list available of all the products in a specific shop. A lady has to have a price list available to be able to see exactly what the prices of the goods are. This is a matter to which we must give attention. I am completely opposed to price control, but I say that the buyer has the right to know exactly what he is buying and what he is paying for it. If a buyer has bought goods to the value of R20, he must know that he is going to pay R20 at the till. However, what is the situation today? When one gets to the till, one is told that this 26 cents should actually be 62 cents. And when one asks why one of the articles costs 69 cents, one is told that it is the fault of the person who marked it. I have thoroughly investigated this situation.

As far as toys are concerned, I found a difference of R6 between two shops that were four blocks apart. All I am asking for is a price list so that a buyer can go into the shop, obtain the price list and see exactly what he is buying. There will certainly be people who will say that such a system could cause problems. If one can remark articles every day, issuing a price lists every day will present no problem. We talk about inflation and about poor production, but what is our greatest problem? Our problem is that we must indicate the production price of an item on the tin in which it is contained. We must also indicate the grade of the product on the tin. If we do that, the buyer will be able to see what the production price is. Only then will we be in a position to say whether our production in the country is adequate. What happens when there is a difference of 10 cents, 15 cents or even 20 cents between tins containing one and the same product? Surely that is inflation! These are methods we must put a stop to.

†Then there is something else—the scanning machine. I know this type of machine very well. In a year’s time we shall have the scanning machine in South Africa in some of our chain stores. How does this machine work? No single tin will have a price on it; it will have a marking which nobody will be able to read in the shop. Only the scanner will be able to read it. After one has bought the tin, the scanner will tell one what the price of that tin is, say 25 cents.

What is in the tin, Barnie?

It is not important what is in that tin. What is important is that we are dealing with a public who are completely skinned by some unscrupulous people. On a scanning machine one can change one’s prices daily. I know what I am talking about because I have studied these machines in America. One can change one’s prices every day. One can programme every little item. When one walks up to a counter and one wants to buy a tin, one does not know whether the price of that tin is 25 cents or 16 cents. The tin has a little marking at its bottom and only the scanner can tell one what the price is. We should think of the many Coloureds and Blacks and other people who buy at these chain stores. Some of them cannot read and there are also blind persons. There are also people who do not understand the mechanics of the scanning machine. I do not think it is sound business practice to change daily the price of a commodity; in fact, I think it is wrong. If one brings about these daily changes, one’s competitor next door can never compete with one; it is impossible, because he can never-see one’s prices. You do not have a price, and the price you have, is only for the moment in accordance with what you need.

You are priceless!

Yes, I agree. One can have a blind man marking these things. When I say a blind man, I have in mind a man who walks along with these stickers. Let me tell hon. members that I have not thought this out today; I have watched this whole procedure for months and months. I sometimes noticed three or four stickers on the very same item. That is why I say a blind man can do the markings. If one takes the trouble to talk to the managers, one will soon find out that there is a difference.

The whole point of my argument is that we must let the owners of chain stores and other shops know that we are not happy with the situation, that we are not going to stand for it and that, if need be, we shall have to appoint a committee to go into the scanning machine when it is introduced into our shops. Perhaps we can even appoint such a committee at this stage to go into the practices followed at many of these shops. There is no competition whatsoever in this type of chain store. The one is really only the mover of the product of the other.

*That is all I want to say about the subject. I do not want to elaborate on this any further. I am just suggesting that instead of the State being asked to do this or that for the poor, we should use a practical method of ensuring that exploitation does not take place. I believe this is really one of those things which, as a method of sale, lends itself to large-scale exploitation.

In his speech a short while ago the hon. member for Hillbrow made some very curious remarks. He told us how open they were politically in Johannesburg and how they told the people what they stood for. Now I want to ask him a question—he and I have been good friends for years, of course. He represents Hillbrow, but he is a stranger in Hillbrow, since he lives in Houghton.

I do not live in Houghton.

Does the hon. member deny that he stays in Houghton?

Yes, I do.

Does he live in Hillbrow?

I live in Highlands North.

I see. Now we have got him! I thought it was a bit upper class there with Helen. Anyway, let us come back to the facts. [Interjections.] When I wanted the Group Areas Act to be applied to Hillbrow, he challenged me to ask the Government to declare it an open area. Does he still say that?

It must be an open area. All areas must be open.

No, no. The hon. member must only talk about Hillbrow.

No, I said all areas must be open.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we can get the hon. member closer to the area he represents, even if he lives in Highland North. Will the hon. member tell me whether he wants Hillbrow to be an open area?

I want the whole of Johannesburg and all other cities to be open.

He says he wants the whole of Johannesburg open. He is afraid to be more specific. I can tell the House that at this moment he is busy getting a lot of Indians and Coloureds into Hillbrow. He even requested the hon. the Minister of Community Development with regard to a certain building to get the people out …

Old people and pensioners.

Yes, he requested the Minister to get out the old people and pensioners who were paying R45 per month …

Nonsense.

… and to allow Indians and Coloureds to move in. [Interjections.] That is the way the PFP look after the old people. Then they make statements such as the one the hon. member has jut made. He said that R1 million will be taken off the 5c levy for Johannesburg—he did not say that this applied to the business people of Johannesburg …

No, I said for the city council. I was talking about the local authorities.

All right, then he spoke of R99 million for the local authorities.

No, you do not understand.

The hon. member must get his figures right.

Can I explain it to you?

I do not want the hon. member to explain it again, because he confuses me more everytime he does. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. Question time is past. [Interjections.] That hon. member allows Indians and Coloureds to move into Hillbrow and he does not oppose it.

What is wrong with Indians and Coloureds?

Why are you so worried about it?

Harry, stay out of it. [Interjections.] I know that you sometimes chair his meetings and so on, but leave him alone at the moment. He has to answer.

Why are you so worried about the municipal election?

I want to know, and I want to tell him that there is no such thing in the entire world as a grey area. It is not to be found in New York or anywhere else. When one starts with Indians and Coloureds, eventually one will have, in this city of ours or anywhere else, a Black area and no longer a grey area. One can forget about it. One will just have to accept that.

May I ask my question now?

Sit! [Interjections.] Sir, I want to point out that these people are “fudging.”

How do you spell that word? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member does not know how to speel it, why did his leader tell the PFP members to do it? [Interjections.]

He told us not to do it.

In the city council of Johannesburg there were 16 Progs and with bravado they all said: “We will throw open the city”.

Then Danie Malan on the other side said: “Very well, because you know there is no-one in the gallery and that the newspapers are not going to publish it … ”—we do not have the Argus group there, nor The Daily Mail—“… we have prepared the questions and now you guys must sign it”. But not a single member wanted to sign what they had voted for.

Signing what?

Signing the paper. Signing the statement. They were not prepared to sign it. They realized that one could take these questions, show it to their opponents and say: “Your man wants these open facilities”. I do not know why the hon. member for Hillbrow worries so much about swimming baths.

I am not worried about swimming baths.

He was performing about swimming baths, but how many times does he swim while he is in Cape Town?

I swim every day.

The fact is that it is not only the question of swimming baths. It is also the hon. member’s destiny that is going to change.

My destiny?

It is his destiny that is going to change.

My destiny is well covered.

If the city council of Johannesburg is to be run by Progs that is a serious situation. When some of the Progs say that they are going to change this, that and the other, The Daily Mail says they must come clear. The Progs say they want to retain the way of life in Johannesburg, but The Daily Mail says they must come clear and tell the people that it is not only the playgrounds that will be changed, but that their destiny is also at stake. This admonition was directed by The Daily Mail to a party which, according to this newspaper, is at the moment to the left of their viewpoint. It is a very serious statement, Sir, and we who live in the City of Johannesburg appeal today to the PFP please to get out of that muddled situation and tell the people what they are standing for. Remember the old UP? That was a party for the platteland, for the cities and the towns. The PFP must get away from that situation and tell us that on a Sunday there are something like 20 000 Blacks at Zoo Lake.

Does that worry you?

Certainly it worries me.

Why?

Please! Is that hon. member a little birdie in the bush?

Why does it worry you?

I will tell that hon. member why it worries me. On New Year’s day …

Do not worry about that.

Please, Digger Barnes! On New Year’s day more than 20 000 Blacks and Indians made use of the grounds around Zoo Lake.

So what?

Yes, so what? That hon. member does not work there on Sundays. Employees of the city council have to work there, and I was present when some of them telephoned Karel Venter’s house, telling him that they were quitting as the two groups were opposing each other and were on the verge of fighting. There are more than 111 city council employees who have to work there and try to save the situation, while the hon. member for Groote Schuur sits looking at the mountain.

Were there any prosecutions?

Oh no, this is the sort of situation about which the hon. member knows nothing. I think he should stay out of it.

What is your policy in connection with those facilities?

The hon. member speaks about facilities now. I agree with him that facilities are necessary. When one does not have facilities, however, it is absolutely stupid to open the few facilities one has to all people.

Whose fault is it that there is a lack of facilities there?

You know, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind to answer questions put by hon. members of the Opposition who sit in the two front rows. When I have to listen, however, to little cheeps from the backbenchers, it really annoys me. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to answer any questions by the hon. member for Constantia.

*Mr. Mayor … [Interjections]. Just see how the hon. member for Constantia is confusing me now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Johannesburg is one of the cities with the biggest budgets in the whole of South Africa. It is a city with a budget which is bigger than that of the province of Natal, and even bigger than that of the Free State.

[Inaudible.]

Helen, sit still. [Interjections.] Johannesburg is a city with a budget which exceeds that of Natal. That is a fact. There was even a time, when I was still a member of the Johannesburg city council, when the budget of that city was bigger than those of Natal and the Free State together. Harry, you should know.

What is it that I should know?

Now I want to ask whether one dare take chances, whether one dare put the future of a city like Johannesburg at risk. Does one utilize one’s opportunities of administering a city, of serving the interests of all people on the level of local government, or does one do what the PFP is now trying to do, i.e. to make a big political mess and to throw open all facilities to everyone? There has been talk of bus services being thrown open. This reminds me of another incident. I once wanted the hon. member for Houghton to make use of the Putco bus service. She refused to do so. [Interjections.] She would not get on Putco’s buses.

Will you come to Johannesburg and address a meeting using the same arguments you are using now?

Does the hon. member for Yeoville want me to address meetings for him in Johannesburg? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I should think it is about time that the hon. member for Yeoville gets someone to address him on the very topic to which I am addressing myself now.

[Inaudible.]

You are telling me. I shall be a very good speaker. [Interjections.]

*I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to leave us Nationalists alone. We do our thing in our own way. We also win our elections in our own way. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that the …

You also plot and scheme in your caucus in your own way. [Interjections.]

The United Progressive Party, as they are now calling themselves in the Johannesburg Municipal election, must come forward and put their policy to us. They must not run away. Harry now wants to drag all kinds of herrings across the floor of this House. [Interjections.] It is because he knows that he is faced with a problem himself. His problem is the hon. member for Houghton. He and the hon. member for Houghton are not approaching the forthcoming municipal election in Johannesburg in the same way. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that he has told his people to stay away from the opening of swimming baths and such things.

When did I say that?

You know that you said it. [Interjections.]

Tell me when did I say that?

Well, certainly in confidence. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, earlier on the hon. member for Hillbrow delivered a real “bitterbek” speech here.

But he is one himself.

The hon. member for Hillbrow …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, according to an earlier ruling by the Chair the word “bitterbek” is unparliamentary. Could we have your ruling on the interjection which has been made?

Order! The word “bitterbek” is once again considered parliamentary. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Gezina to moderate his language.

The hon. member delivered a speech here a moment ago that one could consider as a speech that was not very sweet. It was a speech in which he vented his spleen on the activities of the Croeser work committee. In the first place he revealed his ignorance with regard to these important activities that are being undertaken for the proper funding of local authorities. He expressed his misgivings on the composition of that committee, on which the United Municipal Executive is also represented. The voters of Johannesburg and Pretoria will have to take note of the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow, as the representative of the PFP in this House, attacked the United Municipal Executive through the Croeser work committee here today. I want to allege that hon. members opposite have no conception of the difficult situation which prevails with regard to the funding of and the formulation of a proper formula for the financing of local authorities.

You are just showing your ignorance now.

I leave the hon. member at that. His voters and the voters of Johannesburg and Pretoria will deal with them in this regard.

Tell us what has happened.

I now want to come to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Yeoville said in this debate. They made irresponsible statements. In the first place the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about mismanagement and alleged that the hon. the Minister had totally lost control of the economy over the past 24 months. It is scandalous to make such a statement as a South African in this House. I shall come back to this later and to what the hon. member for Yeoville said as well.

The economic decline of which our economy is showing signs at the moment, is not an unexpected or sudden phenomenon. For the past two, three years we have had the privilege of riding the crest of the wave of economic prosperity. Everyone is aware of the prosperous economic period that we experienced recently. An average growth rate of over 5% for the past two years is definitely something for which one should be grateful, particularly in view of the economic position in countries that are known as our trading partners. But the two years of prosperity and growth should have held a warning for each of us, too. Surely it is an economic fact, as sure as we are sitting in this House today, that after a period of growth and prosperity, a levelling off will inevitably occur in the economy, particularly with regard to our financial position. Economic upswings and downswings and economic fluctuations, i.e. a depression after a period of prosperity and growth after a levelling off, will regularly take place with predictable certainty. The only thing that it might not always be possible to predict, is the intensity of the cycles. The peaks and the troughs cannot always be predicted. The duration of such a cycle cannot always be established either. When we debated the 1980 budget here, in spite of the overwhelming economic prosperity at that stage, the hon. the Minister warned that we should continue to handle our finances with careful discipline and that we would continually have to display a great deal of responsibility. Even when the Exchequer was literally overflowing at the beginning of 1981, the hon. the Minister continued to maintain considerable financial conservatism in this House. This policy of careful optimism has resulted in our not experiencing the misery of the serious recession that is prevailing in most Western countries today. That is why I reject with contempt the reaction of the Opposition parties that the hon. the Minister is mismanaging the finances of the country.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is so childishly naive that it would be almost ludicrous if it were not such an important matter. He says that the hon. the Minister has mismanaged the economy because he did not pick up the danger signals early enough and because he ignored the warnings. The hon. member does not have a memory. He cannot remember. He has conveniently forgotten what the hon. the Minister has said over the past two years during the period of prosperity when we were experiencing an upswing in the economy with regard to our financial activities. That is why it is necessary for us to place on record what the hon. the Minister said in this regard according to Hansard. I quote from Hansard of 26 March 1980, col. 3520, where the hon. the Minister said the following, inter alia—

And this was in a period when our economy was riding the crest of the wave. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

The fiscal policy that emanated from this, was aimed at the promotion of rapid economic growth in the private sector. With that objective in mind, the hon. the Minister curtailed Government spending.

The hon. the Minister went on and he said the following, inter alia, in col. 3522—

I now want to put this question to the Opposition: Where is there evidence of mismanagement when in a period of prosperity the Minister of Finance keeps a tight hold on the reins and keeps the country in order with regard to finances? Where is the mismanagement? Surely it is reprehensible to make such a statement.

I want to go further. In Hansard of 16 February 1981, column 1407—this was during the discussion of the part appropriation when the economy was at its height—the hon. the Minister said the following, inter alia—

He went on to say—

Surely this is discipline. Surely this is not mismanagement. Surely it is judicious financial control that has been applied. I think that the Opposition parties, both the NRP and the PFP, did the country a disservice by the statement that they broadcast to the world, that the Government and the hon. the Minister have mismanaged the finances of the country.

I want to come to another matter in connection with which I should like to address the hon. the Minister in the short time at my disposal. I want to refer briefly to the financial position of our provincial administrations. I want to refer chiefly to the Transvaal here. The Transvaal has been very much in the spotlight in recent times. First of all we must accept two things as premises.

The first is that over the past two decades the Transvaal has experienced a practically unmanageable growth in its population; one can almost call is a shift of population that took place. The school population in the centralized areas, chiefly the PWV area, has increased by 12 000 pupils since the middle of last year until the tenth school day of this year. Furthermore, within these growth points a shift of 11 000 pupils took place in the school population. This means that 23 000 school children have moved from one place to another within the space of six months.

The second premise that must be accepted, is that the current formula for subsidization is definitely no longer an effective instrument for measuring funding, particularly with regard to the Transvaal.

In my opinion, what creates another problem, is the fact that a levelling-off period inevitably must take place, together with acceptable cut-backs. However, it appears to me that this decrease or cutting down on the funds took place on a fairly ad hoc basis. Furthermore it appears that with regard to the funding of the capital programme, there is no fixed formula and that we shall have to give attention to that as well.

In the meantime building costs are escalating at a tremendous rate. Unfortunately the allocation with regard to capital expenditure has not kept pace with the impossible increase that we are experiencing in building costs. The result is that projects that are already under way or have already been planned, have had to be discontinued. This is an unfortunate position that has definitely placed all bodies and persons in an extremely embarrassing position. An example of this is the postponement of the building programme for the Teacher’s College in Pretoria. However, I have been informed that if we were to go ahead with this project, 26 other projects would have to be dropped.

Having identified these problems, looked at them and discussed them, the question arises as to what should be done in order to rectify the situation. I feel that one fact is true and there can be no more arguments about it: We cannot continue with the status quo and we shall have to look at alternatives. I am of the opinion that we shall have to pause for a moment at the various levels in order to make a proper evaluation. A new philosophy, a positive philosophy with regard to determining not only the priorities, but the necessities too, will have to be displayed. Amongst other things, there will have to be consultation with regard to standardized building programmes for schools, hospitals and other projects. There will have to be consultation about how many beds can be accommodated in a hospital. What should the number of patients be per nurse? It will have to be determined, for instance, how much space can be sacrificed by schools for covered stoeps. It will also have to be established whether it is still possible to implement the present staffing levels. Are they still realistic; are they still practicable? Of course, it will have to be a national effort and a joint strategy will be required in this regard. All bodies and persons throughout the country will have to consult together and reach a decision. It will have to be a national approach. In this regard I want to point out the standpoint of the Administrator of the Transvaal—

I believe the time has past when we could merely call for savings and cut-backs in order to solve the problem of the scarcity of funds. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to order an in-depth investigation into the financing of provincial authorities, particularly in the Transvaal, which with its population explosion is experiencing greater problems than the other provinces. A requirement-orientated strategy must be decided upon in advance and budgeting must take place according to this strategy, after all the inessentials to which I have referred previously, have been eliminated. However, it is also essential that provision be made in such planning for an inherent growth. The growth formula must be realistic so that it can also provide for the population flow into and out of provinces. We are now at a stage where the allocations to the provinces have been cut to the bone. This creates the opportunity to use this year as the foundation year and to plan ahead from now on, as well as to eliminate inessentials and luxuries and to build ahead according to a formula that will put the provinces in a position to plan with a fair amount of certainty. We must avoid the danger of projects having to be postponed in a degrading fashion or being put off indefinitely.

I know the hon. the Minister understands the problems of the provinces. I also know that the hon. the Minister understands the financial dilemma of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Therefore I have no hesitation in asking for a thorough, new approach with regard to provincial funding.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina has spoken on two subjects this afternoon. Firstly he made a plea for more funds for provincial authorities, and in particular for the Transvaal. While I can fully understand his plea for more funds for the Transvaal, what he has said applies equally to the other provinces. In the first part of his speech the hon. member referred to the speeches made by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in which they attacked the hon. the Minister of Finance on financial matters. The hon. member for Gezina leaped to the hon. the Minister’s defence and quoted him at length. I want to ask the hon. member one simple question: Does he truly believe that we in South Africa have successfully combated inflation and acted as we should have done properly to fight what is a great evil in our society today? [Interjections.] Yes, I think it is to a large extent the fault of the Government. Let us look at what happened recently in this particular Part Appropriation debate. The hon. the Minister has not been satisfied with a simple 15% increase in sales tax. Because of inflation prices have, on average, gone up 15%, and as a result sales tax has risen by 15%. If an article cost R100 a year ago, today it costs R115, so the hon. the Minister got his 4% on R115 rather than on R100. Not satisfied with the simple 15% increase, however, he has tacked on another 25% to the GST. If one therefore takes the inflation rate into consideration one finds that sales tax has gone up by 40%.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. It is perfectly simple.

What sort of arithmetic is that?

I shall be coming back to matters of a financial nature, but first I do want to mention the laughable speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] He said quite a number of things, and we realize of course, that the whole Johannesburg municipal election is being played out in this Part Appropriation debate. The whole ploy of hon. members on that side seems to be attack the PFP, firstly for not spelling out properly what it stands for, when in actual fact that has been done repeatedly. The second big thrust of their attack is based on “Swart gevaar”. They have harped on the horrors of 20 000 Blacks and Indians arriving at Zoo Lake on New Year’s day. There is also constant reference to open swimming-pools and open areas. Despite all this, however, does one hear one hon. member on that side of the House saying they did exactly the same thing in South West Africa? Does one hear one of them saying they did exactly the same thing in Windhoek? The apartheid regulations were taken away in Windhoek. There are now open areas in Windhoek. Public facilities are also open in Windhoek. Funnily enough, this has not led to the demise of Windhoek. It has not led to worse race relations in Windhoek either. On the contrary, it has done precisely the opposite. It has led to better race relations. It has led to people being able to communicate more with each other and has therefore also led to a better understanding amongst people. I believe that ultimately the NP is going to have to do, in Johannesburg, Durban and throughout South Africa, precisely what it has done in the last year or two in South West Africa about the apartheid situation.

Leave Durban out of it. We like it the way it is.

The only time the hon. member for Langlaagte made any sense at all was when he said that none of us in this House agreed with exploitation. I am not entirely certain, however, whether all the instances he mentioned were actually exploitation, because they might just have been simple mistakes. Whether in the field of chain stores, about which the hon. member spoke, or whether in the field of property, we must not have exploitation. The public must not be taken for a ride.

The big discussion that appears to be taking place in South Africa today is the discussion about power-sharing. I should like to repeat something I said in this House two years ago because I think it is as true today as it was then. I want to welcome the debate on power-sharing because I believe it to be a very important debate indeed. It is actually the crux of the political debate in South Africa. In 1980 I said (Hansard, Vol. 85, col. 193)—

Power-sharing is a very important concept, and the sooner the political debates on that side of the House indicate which way the power-sharing must go, the better it will be for the South African situation. Our debates, inside and outside our parties, should be about political matters and not simply racialistic matters.

I now want to turn my attention to the Part Appropriation. This mini-budget presented by the hon. the Minister is a budget that has had a maxi-effect and will continue to have a maxi-effect. As the hon. member for Hillbrow has said, it is a reflection of the “vote now, pay later” syndrome, the only difference being that the “later” is a little bit earlier than we thought it would be.

This is the first point I want to make. Obviously, the situation was so serious that the hon. the Minister could not wait one month to introduce the increase of 25% in the GST and the extra 10% surcharge on imports. He has had to do it in the Part Appropriation and I think that that is an indication of the seriousness of the situation. The effect on inflation, as I have said, particularly with regard to basic foodstuffs, is going to be drastic.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned many factors which have helped to create the problem we have. He mentioned the dropping gold price and the financing of the maize crop. In passing, let me say that I think it is actually very worrying that one section of the farming community can create a problem that the rest of South Africa is going to have to help to sort out. He also mentioned the economic situation in Europe and America, but as far as I am aware he did not mention what I believe to be a very material offsetting factor, viz. the number of vacancies in the Public Service.

Before taking this thought further, I believe we should set the scene. In 1978 South Africa was presented with a brand new out-of-the-box Prime Minister. Beaming from ear to ear, he made a number of promises. Amongst those—and I quote from an article by Kit Katzin in the Evening Post of 21 January 1982—he promised “to streamline the country’s Civil Service”. In the same article Katzin points out that—

Katzin goes on to state—

In reply to a question put on the Question Paper by the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. the Minister of State Administration has more or less confirmed this by stating that there were 19 273 posts vacant on 30 June 1981. That is nearly a year ago. By now the figure is probably in excess of 20 000. For the purpose of my argument therefore, I want to use the round figure of 20 000 vacancies. I do not think there can be too much argument about that.

The question which now needs to be answered is how much more money we would have needed to pay for full employment. If we arbitrarily take a figure of R7 500 per annum for each of those vacant posts, we are talking of a saving of R150 million, a very material sum of money. One must also ask whether the Government is less efficient or, indeed, less officious because of the existence of 20 000 vacancies. Certainly, the Customs Department in Port Elizabeth does not appear to be. We had an instance there where a man picked up a buoy on the beach. On opening it a month or so later, having discovered that it opend, he found a bottle of whisky and some cigarettes in the buoy. This was reported in the Press and within a few hours he had the customs officials at his front door asking for tax.

They have no option under the law. They must do it.

My point is that, whenever we are short of funds, be it with regard to the balance of payments or with regard to balancing the State’s own books, the easy way out is taken every time, viz. to push up taxes and consequently inflation. The hon. the Minister talks about financial discipline and then tells us that he has increased the money supply in the last quarter of last year by 28%.

21%.

I beg his pardon. I think that 21% is still an excessive figure. The man in the street has to cut his cloth according to his income, but the State does the opposite. It works out what it wants to spend and then it taxes accordingly. It has been run for the past year with some 20 000 posts unfilled. I believe we should start by writing off those posts in the establishment. Obviously, this is more easily said than done, but it is not impossible. Of course it is not. Our problem in this country, which we have in common with many countries of the Western World, is that we have too many pushers of pens and shufflers of paper by comparison with those who actually produce goods or provide services in the market place. I have no figures for South Africa in this regard, but I am sure that there has been a material alteration in the ratio between white and blue collar workers in the past five years, and I believe this is dangerous for any economy. White collar workers are, of course, important and necessary. They can have tremendous beneficial impact on productivity and efficiency, but if they exist in excess then that company in which such a situation occurs has a serious financial problem.

What I ask is whether the public sector can be any different. In America people with Masters’ degrees in, shall we say, social sciences, are actually earning money by pushing a lawnmower because they find that in that way they can be more effective in the money market. It is a world-wide problem and not peculiar to South Africa, but I believe that we have to learn from the rest of the world’s problems.

There are many factors that have caused this, for example classical education versus technical education. A shortage of technically qualified people means an increase in wages and consequent inflation. I believe that we as a country must learn the lessons from overseas, and what better place to start than in the public sector? This Government, as I have said, has saved about R150 million because of the 20 000 vacancies currently in the Public Service, and I believe that we as taxpayers must hope that the Government is able to use this opportunity to streamline and modernize the whole structure, and thus accomplish a real reduction in the number of posts which will, of course, not affect current employment. I believe that there should be not only a productivity evaluation in each department—and I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to this—but also a streamlining of regulations and even of legislation in order to lessen the load on the public sector. The hon. the Minister of Finance has started on this road by not requiring the lower echelons of taxpayers to submit returns, but I am convinced that there are many regulations requiring staff work which serve either a negative or a minimal purpose. The collection and correlation of this mountain of paper is not worth the manpower and the financial effort required. I believe there should be a serious attempt to get rid of many of these pettifogging regulations. Is the game seriously worth the candle? Is it worthwhile to have companies submitting all sorts of returns; to have regulations being enforced throughout the length and breadth of South Africa and in every sector of the economy? This all means work for the public sector, because people have to study, correlate and file those returns. I believe that if we started on the road of trying to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that exists throughout—and I do not say that it is only in the public sector; I know it is in the private sector as well—then we could go a long way towards reducing the sort of taxes we are having to pay at the moment. Therefore without any further shadow of doubt, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to certain aspects with which I think the hon. the Minister will deal. I just want to say in passing that it is very striking that hon. members on the other side of the House are continually referring to the inflation issue. One has the impression that they are the only ones who are aware of the issue and that we on this side are unaware of it. I feel that all the hon. members on this side of the House are very much aware of the problems that inflation creates for all of us, for the private and public sectors as well. However, we should like to have really constructive proposals from the Opposition as to how to combat this worldwide problem. We do not want criticism only from that side of the House, because I believe that in this case a joint effort is required to solve the problem of inflation—and we admit that it is a problem. Certain proposals have indeed been made, but one would first have to establish whether they are practicable.

I should like to refer briefly to the necessity of a stable Government for a growing economy. In the first place every investor must acquaint himself with his environment before he makes an investment. P. W. Hoek writes the following in his book Southern Africa now and in the Future—

Therefore, when an investor or an entrepreneur has funds at his disposal, there are a few matters with which he must acquaint himself with regard to the environment, matters of which he must take note and which are important to him. One of these is the availability of raw materials and natural resources. This is one of South Africa’s strong points. Then he must also take note of the availability and the quality of the labour market. I shall refer to this once again later on. He must also take note of the stability of the labour market, that can be affected by strikes and regulations concerning trade unions. The quality and the development of the infrastructure are also important to him. In this respect I can refer to energy, transport, harbours, etc. for instance. The market place itself is also important to him. This entails the outlet, the buying power of people as well as developing new outlets. Then there is the nationalization of the investment, which could possibly mean the loss of the entire investment, which is also very important. The final all-embracing factor is that of a stable Government.

Domestic and international investors would never invest anything if they were to invest only at a stage when they were in full agreement with the policy of the Government. All that investors are looking for, is stability.

I quote again from Hoek’s book. He says—

Investors do not judge the economy only. Investors must also anticipate politics. They must not take the politics of the day alone into account, but must also anticipate future political developments. It is true that Africa has a very poor reputation amongst investors. Investors have not fared well in Africa because they have not always had a feeling for the politics in Africa. In this process we have found that investors are hesitant to invest in Africa. This situation has been caused by conflict between the super powers and States in Africa, that have very often been striving for conflicting interests and ideologies. Marxism and socialism have clashed with the free market mechanisms, and economic disorder and often political disorder as well, has emanated from this. Political unrest is one of the major factors that contributes towards a risky economic climate.

In Africa, and in South Africa, the Kremlin is striving for the destruction of the existing order. They are striving for world domination, and in the process the overthrow of the existing economic order in South Africa is of tremendous importants to them. This onslaught by the Kremlin is no longer in the form of a Cold War only. We are already feeling the effect of it in the form of full-scale terrorist activities. The Government must consider economic stability and progress as a very high priority. It is also the duty of the Government—every Government—to ensure that economic operations can be carried out properly within the existing order.

I should like to attempt to give a very brief indication of whether South Africa is succeeding in creating this climate. In the first place I want to refer to our defence situation. It is also the duty of the Government to maintain order. The assets of the Government and of individual investors must be protected, and in this process a country’s Defence Force must be effective. In South Africa we have a Defence Force that, I feel, has given a good account of itself. In their book South Africa; War, Revolution, Peace? Gann and Duigan state—

Now we may ask why we in South Africa should have such a strong Defence Force. In South Africa we have a situation where we have to protect ourselves against aggression. Our Defence Force is in fact doing this very effectively. In the process we can experience economic growth in South Africa, whilst we are also involved in very important processes of constitutional development.

The Defence Force is not a military fist only; it is also a very important factor in the system within which political, economic and social growth and development must take place. We encounter this as a positive factor in South Africa. As far as this is concerned, I believe that the Government very definitely succeeds in creating the atmosphere within which economic operations can take place.

Another factor that I want to look at is political stability. Having looked at the atmosphere in which change can take place, one can also ask whether the Government is succeeding in allowing the stable development of a political pattern to take place. Positive political development under the NP rule is a fact. We have an acceptable policy with regard to constitutional, social and economic programmes that will ensure all our people in South Africa of a livelihood. It is a dynamic process of self-determination and the gaining of independence by nations. However, our policy also keeps pace with the practical aspects and in the process we have the policy of economic interdependence. We do not believe, as hon. members on the other side of the House try to allege, that a specific group can live in economic vacuums or in economically watertight compartments. The economy is a living organism that links countries to one another, across borders and across continents. We believe that we in South Africa should maintain the same principles. I just want to mention that there is very little evidence that the democracies in mixed communities, mixed populations and mixed cultural communities, really do succeed. Therefore, as far as the constitutional development of South Africa is concerned, I should like to quote General J. C. Smuts, and I do not want hon. members on the other side of the House to become too boisterous about it. In 1917 he said in London—

This might have been the start of a phase from which developed a policy which is not peculiar to the NP in South Africa, but to the entire community of South Africa, a policy in which we have always recognized the diversity of cultural communities and the diversity of peoples. Democracies and the emancipation of the Black peoples in Southern Africa assures us and them of economic and political freedoms, because political freedoms lead to economic freedoms too. In contrast to the Opposition’s policy of wanting to throw everyone together, we on this side of the House are aware of the various elements and of the fact that various elements in a cultural community could lead to conflict.

A last matter to which I should like to refer, is labour. I believe that the NP has established a stable workers’ force through the labour legislation of recent times. The Government has exceeded itself in this matter. I want to mention a few of these steps that have already been taken. In the first place job reservation has been phased out. Equal pay for equal work and production has been accepted in principle. Training and retraining as well as the training of semi-skilled workers enjoys a high priority. We also have the increased mobility of our labour force, as well as apprenticeship for all.

There are a large number of factors that can be referred to. However, time is not on my side. Therefore, I nevertheless just want to say that the NP is very definitely succeeding in one thing, and this is to create an atmosphere, a climate in South Africa in which any entrepreneur or investor can feel free to invest his money in the country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Springs raised quite a number of interesting issues here this afternoon and if he will bear with us, we shall be replying to them fairly shortly.

In the first instance, however, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. member made quite a speech here this afternoon, he made quite a lot of noise and, inter alia, he asked the leader of the NRP what would happen if there was an even division in the Johannesburg municipal election and if there was only one NRP candidate who had been successful. He wanted to know on which side we would cast our vote. I want to say to that hon. member that we shall answer that question when he tells us what he will do if there is an even split in the NP and he is the only odd man out. Where would he cast his vote? Would he cast the vote for the hon. leader of his party in the Transvaal or would he cast it for the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

You never reply to questions. You are too scared. That is why your party is going down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, when that hon. member is prepared to answer my question I guarantee that we shall give him an answer to his.

We know the answer.

The hon. member for Turffontein made a number of other remarks but I think we shall leave it at that for the time being.

I should like now to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Springs and I want to start with his last remark and work up to what he said at the start. The hon. member said that a great deal of good had been done in the labour field in South Africa and, of course, we agree with that. There is no question about that. However, there is one question in regard to labour and labour stability which the hon. member did not raise and that is the tendency which there will be in South Africa for the foreseeable future for political activity to make use of labour organizations. That political participation and agitation within labour unions will continue to be there until such time as members of all race groups are given the opportunity and facilities to participate in legitimate political institutions. I believe that therein lies the threat to labour and entrepreneurial stability in South Africa. It is not so much the laws that apply to labour specifically but more the denial of political rights and meaningful political participation that will jeopardize the labour scene.

I should also like to deal with the quotation made by the hon. member of what was said by Gen. J. C. Smuts. We all know the speech from which he quoted because it is a very well-known one. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that what was recognized by Gen. Smuts in 1917 was the plural nature of South African society. He spoke about self-government and if the hon. member will look at our policy up to this very day he will see that it includes the facility for self-government. However, never ever did Gen. Smuts say that those parts of South Africa that were going to be self-governing would have to become independent sovereign States. That is the difference. I think that hon. members on all sides of the House will agree that the differential nature of South African society, the plural nature of our society makes it imperative that there should be self-governing areas in South Africa. However, this must be within the framework of one South Africa.

The hon. member also mentioned that this Government has been able to ensure political stability in South Africa. I do not think we question that on the macro scale. However, what we must look at is the potential for conflict and increasing conflict in South Africa. What this country does not need is a Government that is immobile in its political strategies. Once a Government becomes immobilized and there is a lack of forward movement to accommodate the aspirations of a growing and increasingly sophisticated population then that very political stability will be jeopardized. What is called for here is flexibility in political strategy.

The hon. member started off by issuing a challenge to this side to produce some solutions to the question of inflation and not constantly simply to accuse the Government of responsibility for the increasing inflation rate. We will be the first to admit that a large percentage of our inflation is imported but it is aggravated and increased by fiscal policy in this country. I should like to give the hon. member some idea of what this party has advocated for many years now. Let me firstly give one example, and add that we have offered the solution to the hon. the Minister of Finance over a number of years now, certainly since 1978 when I came to Parliament. Many hon. members will remember the speeches of the then hon. member for Mooi River who pointed out, to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the folly of administered costs and of raising a duty on the input variables of farmers. To this very day there is a 15% surcharge on tractors, and that is administered by the hon. the Minister’s department. Why charge the farmers a 15% duty on input costs for so essential a commodity as a tractor? Why does the Government constantly bring into being additional administered costs which are used only in the interests of political ideology? Why waste the country’s assets by investment in schemes which are not, in the long term, really viable? That is only one example of where this Government could contribute towards reducing the inflation costs, and I am referring to the sphere of ideologically administered costs and the administering of different input costs by way of duties and taxes which are so unnecessary.

Ideological costs?

Yes, investments in trying to make the homelands viable independent States when, in fact, they should be included in one South Africa and one South African economy. The duplication of the infrastructure that is required to try to make these countries independent…

The electorate has rejected that.

Which electorate? [Interjections.]

The South African electorate.

I find that quite interesting. [Interjections.] I find it really interesting that the hon. the Minister of Finance believes that the future destiny of other people should be determined by the White electorate. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. the Minister is saying.

No, we do it in consultation.

The hon. the Minister says they do it in consultation. Could the hon. the Minister tell me what happened to the Opposition in the election in Venda? Whose will was expressed with the independence of Venda? [Interjections.]

What happened to the opposition in the election in Transkei?

Yes … [Interjections.]

Let us talk about Venda.

What happened to the opposition? Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister could tell us.

It lost the election.

Well, we are going to have a lengthy argument about this, but the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree that it is costing South Africa hundreds of millions of rand to duplicate the infrastructure to give the appearance of independence and total economic viability to these States. [Interjections.] Of course it is. If the hon. the Minister of Finance were to look at the latest statistics he would see that administrative costs and grants from this Parliament amounted to more than R900 million last year. That was the figure for the so-called independent States, and solely for administrative costs.

But must we simply let them go to pieces?

Not at all. We are trying to convince the hon. the Minister that they are part of South Africa. There is no necessity to duplicate the bureaucracy. [Interjections.] In fact, they would probably do very much better if they were part of one South Africa.

So if they were part of South Africa they would not need the money!

Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister could tell me how many overseas investors are prepared to invest in the independent homeland States.

Quite a number.

That hon. Minister says quite a number, but is it enough? [Interjections.] Of course it is not enough. If those areas were part of South Africa there would be no hesitation in producing sufficient investment capital to allow them to run their affairs without subsidies from this Parliament.

That is a most irresponsible remark.

Well, I am commenting on what I can then only call an irresponsible practice on the part of the Government, because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the heavy subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether we must then assume that for the self-governing States, which are not independent, there is unlimited foreign investment available?

I did not say one could assume that, but as they are part of South Africa, there is not the same risk factor involved. Could the hon. the Minister of Finance tell me what the reservations were that the industrialists, entrepreneurs and capitalists of South Africa had after the Carlton Conference about investment in the homelands? What did they tell the hon. the Prime Minister? What was their greatest reservation? What was the prime reason why South African entrepreneurs were not prepared to invest in those areas on a large scale? It was because of a fear of nationalization. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows that the entrepreneurs and capitalists of South Africa wanted guarantees from the Government before they were prepared to invest on a great scale in those States.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says that is irresponsible. I want the hon. member to tell me: Was an approach made to this Government to give guarantees? Now the hon. member has nothing to say. All he was able to do was to mimic what the hon. the Prime Minister said. I believe it is highly irresponsible to continue to believe that we can make independent homelands economically viable. The time has come for the Government to take a realistic look at the ideological direction which it is following.

[Inaudible.]

In answer to the hon. member for Springs, I say that we have made suggestions repeatedly year after year in the House which will contribute to a reduction in inflation.

The hon. the Minister of Finance finds himself in a predicament because, although he has preached financial discipline to all and sundry for the past few years, he himself has not exercised financial discipline. The hon. the Minister went to a party, he let his hair down a little too much and the end result was that the cost to the country was greater than anticipated. It is common knowledge that one of the main reasons why the hon. the Minister of Finance finds himself in financial difficulties today is that he overestimated the average price of gold.

That is complete rubbish.

When my hon. colleague from Amanzimtoti told the hon. the Minister this the other day, the hon. the Minister became just as ruffled.

You do not even know what my figure was. How then can you make that statement?

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what his figure was?

No. All I can say is that you are telling an untruth.

Is the hon. the Minister in fiscal trouble or not?

No, we are not in financial trouble.

Why was it necessary then to add a 10% surcharge on imports?

That was done to prevent any trouble emerging in a difficult world. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I shall deal with that. Do not laugh, my friend. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made statements in the House which he will regret.

The hon. the Minister is right. The surcharge was imposed to prevent more trouble developing. [Interjections.] We look forward with great anticipation to the hon. the Minister telling us what price of gold he actually anticipated. I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance overestimated the average gold price.

I did not make that statement here.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that if in fact he had correctly forecast or estimated what the price would be I believe we would not have been in the difficulty in which we are today. [Interjections.] Not only are we now starting to see the beginning of the problem, but the problem is in fact bigger than we imagine. The man in the street will once again be called upon to foot the bill. The hon. the Minister found himself in the position of a driver on a three-lane freeway. Because of poor route planning he found himself in the fast lane and then he could not move out into the slow lane. So what did he do? He did what every motorist does: He stepped on the gas to try to get away from the traffic and, in doing so, he used up extra precious fuel. Now the man in the street has to pay for that.

Here comes the California Highway Patrol—Chips!

On the face of it it looks as if South Africa had a very good year in 1980-’81. The indications are that the growth rate was 8%.

To what period are you referring?

I am referring to the fiscal year of 1980-’81. Does the hon. the Minister of Finance disagree with that figure?

No, we work it on the basis of a calendar year and the figure was 8% in 1980.

The hon. the Minister is very sensitive.

The hon. the Minister will also agree that we had a massive growth in job opportunities in 1980 and that there was a massive increase in consumer goods spending and in credit available to the public.

Consumer spending is still high.

I think everybody will agree that on the face of it 1980 looked like a very good year. However, wealth, like beauty, is often only in the eye of the beholder. Very often on examination it is found to be only skin deep.

What are the consequences of that so called good economic year? We must not forget that the man in the street is going to pick up the tab at the end of the party at which the hon. the Minister of Finance let down his hair. What do we find on that bill? We find, firstly, that mortgage bond rates are at a record height in South Africa. We find that the price of housing has escalated …

[Inaudible.]

We are coming to that. Mortgage bond rates are at a record height, unprecedented in South Africa’s history. The price of houses shows an increase of at least 30% per annum.

That has nothing to do with the Government at all.

I shall come to that. Building costs have also gone up by 30%. Motor vehicle costs have gone up by 30%. Yet the salary of the average worker has gone up by only 11%. Then, of course, all these commodities were bought on credit.

What is the problem today? Why must the man in the street pay? He must do so simply because the Government has run out of revenue. The Government has to raise additional revenue and it is going to do so from the man in the street.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he can give us a commitment, firstly, that there will be no necessity to increase income tax in the main budget.

Do you think I can possibly divulge the main budget to you now?

I just want a guarantee from the hon. the Minister that there will be no increase in income tax rates. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. the Minister why. The man in the street is already suffering a massive fiscal burden because of the price escalation, the increase in GST and the credit the Government made available. Therefore we believe that the hon. the Minister should give an undertaking to the public that he will not further overburden them with massive increases in taxation. We are already committed to an extra 2% on GST, which is an indirect form of taxing the public, a system with which we agree.

It is 1% up.

It is 25% of the GST.

Yes, it is 25%. We believe that the policy is correct—though not necessarily the size of the GST—that one should spread the tax load. We can anticipate that the price of fuel will increase this year. We can also anticipate a number of other price rises. Because of the import surcharge, motor vehicles must go up in price as well. There are many commodities which are an integral part of South Africa’s manufacturing structure which will be affected by the hon. the Minister’s surcharge of 10%.

Looking at the financial structure of South Africa, I also believe that urgent attention will have to be given to salaries in the Public Service. I believe that, as regards salaries in the Public Service, the Government has again taken a totally incorrect decision. In order to keep pace with inflation alone the minimum increase the Government can grant public servants is 15%. If one takes into account the experience every public servant gains from a year’s extra service, I believe it is imperative that the Government will have to look at increases of between 20% and 25% for public servants.

Finally, let me just say that, as far as the discus is concerned, what the Government has done the ordinary man in the street cannot do. When the Government ran into trouble after having over-committed itself and having borrowed to the hilt, as we heard earlier on—bank loans went up from 10% to 21% in favour of the Government—what did the Government do? It simply created and printed more money.

What are you talking about?

More credit was created for the Government. It is as simple as that. The hon. the Minister was creating new money, he was printing money, with which he tried to pay off his debts. How is he now going to convert that created money into hard cash? He is going to do it by putting his hand deeper and deeper into the pocket of the man in the street. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to re-examine very closely the whole approach to income tax. The hon. the Minister and I have discussed this many times before and I hope he will find his way clear this year to take a reasonable look at the income tax structure of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North promised that he, unlike previous speakers, would tell us where the Government had squandered money. He said that ideological expenses had been incurred and that this caused a duplication of the infrastructure. How he makes this sound plausible I do not know, because in the same speech he said that it was general knowledge that his party acknowledges that there must be self-governing areas. How he can visualize this without an infrastructure, I cannot understand, and it is a pity that the hon. member did not explain this to us. After that, the hon. member expected the hon. Minister not only to predict the gold price, but also to announce the details of the Main Budget.

No, I just asked him for a commitment.

I leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to him on that.

At a time when considerable pressure has been exerted and still more will be exerted on the finances of the State, one hesitates to plead if one is responsible for concessions. Particularly at a time like this one would be inclined to look at methods which could be beneficial without placing further pressure on the finances of the State. I am now referring to national parks. During the past few years, these parks have earned a great deal in foreign exchange, they have made an important contribution to our inland tourist traffic and have played a major role in the inland distribution of tourists. Since our national parks are cheaper holiday resorts than some other places in the country, they also contribute towards cutting down the holiday expenses of the man in the street; that is to say, if he can obtain a booking. Nowadays our parks are so popular that it is very difficult to obtain a booking. There are, of course, many other advantages which I could expand on, but I shall conclude by saying that our national parks are public property and they therefore rightly belong to the State and are managed exclusively by the Parks Board and—I wish to add—managed extremely well; from the tourist department to nature conservation and veterinary sciences, etc.

Because the parks are the property of the nation, I believe that the public would also be prepared to make a contribution. The Act in question also provides that the public may contribute to the major national asset, and that is why there are provisions in the Act concerning the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund. The Fund may receive contributions and administer them. A donation to this Fund is, in reality, a donation to the State. The Fund merely keeps it in trust for the State, and, therefore, for the people of the country.

Tax concessions should therefore be possible in the case of donations to the Fund. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider giving consideration to exempting donations to the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund as donations to universities, colleges and bursary funds are exempted, in terms of section 18(a) of the Income Tax Act. I believe that if we were to make this concession to donors, they, in turn, would make contributions. It is, of course, very difficult to expect people to make donations if in addition they have to pay tax on the money which they donate. If my request is favourably considered, this asset will be strengthened and the advantages will be increased.

I am not, of course, speaking of donations for which a quid pro quo may be expected, as in the case of donations for the erection of guest-houses. In such a case, the donor concludes an agreement with the Parks Board and is allowed to spend a certain number of days in such a guest-house every year.

As I said at the outset, I see this request as an investment and not as an added burden on the State. Therefore, even at this stage I venture to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would see his way clear to exempt such donations from tax as is done in other cases.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nelspruit has made some constructive suggestions. He has advanced the idea of tax-free donations of property being made to the State, rather after the fashion of the National Trust in England. This is an organization which functions extremely well. I am sure the hon. member for Nelspruit would receive support from this side of the House should he pursue these ideas further.

I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that were raised in the debate earlier this afternoon, particularly with regard to a point raised by the hon. member for Langlaagte. In regard to residential areas he said that there were no “grey” areas. He stated further that if Coloureds and Indians were allowed to live in a certain area, such an area would before long be Black. I believe he gave as an example the United States of America. I assume that he was referring to places like the ghettos of Harlem, Chinatown and Hispanic areas such as Spanish Harlem. What I find fascinating about this contention is that if it in fact does happen, then why does the Government find it necessary to pass laws to enforce group areas, particularly when it is known that these laws are seen as discriminatory, and are the cause of friction, bitterness and hate?

We have had a boisterous debate this afternoon, and I should like to attempt to introduce an atmosphere of pastoral tranquillity by referring to the agricultural sector. Very little has been said about the agricultural sector in this debate, and there are one or two points that I should like to raise.

Those of us who are directly concerned with agriculture and agricultural matters, are no less concerned about the budget than any other sector in the South African economy. We watch all aspects of the budget with great interest but the aspect about which I should like to jostle the hon. the Minister’s elbow, has been referred to on more than one occasion in this House in the past. I refer to the vexed question of homeland consolidation and the financial provisions that have been made for it. This involves many hundreds if not thousands of farmers, and certainly many millions of rands. It is therefore a matter of great importance both politically and financially.

From a political standpoint, the hon. the Prime Minister has told the country that the future of the country, in fact, depends on the successful implementation of meaningful consolidation. This means that provision will no doublt again be made in the forthcoming year for the purchase of further large tracts of land and for the expenditure of even larger amounts of money. Any impediment to this policy would, in the Government’s terms, be injurious to the country.

This consolidation policy can be debated at various levels. We can debate whether or not consolidation is going to take place and we can debate where and how consolidation is going to take place. We can refer to the “if”, the “where” and the “how” of the consolidation policy.

The “if” of consolidation concerns, of course, the ideological debate. This concerns the principle of separate ethnic homelands— whether or not we should have these separate ethnic homelands. I do not at this stage want to debate this aspect of consolidation, neither do I want to go into the question of where consolidation is to take place because I feel that better opportunities to do so will present themselves later in the session.

I do want to talk, however, about how consolidation has been effected, about how the financing has been done, and about the problems concerning this particular area. What is of great concern to me at this stage is that the Government is ploughing ahead with new purchases and with new payments without first having met its past obligations. Here I refer specifically to that unfortunate Cinderella group of farmers—if I may term them that—of whom there are hundreds—I know because I have a bulky file of correspondence dealing with this specific issue— who were not fully paid out in cash but were paid out partly in cash and partly in Government stock. They received Government stock to the value of 60% of their properties and the other 40% in cash.

During the last session of Parliament certain assurances were given by hon. members opposite in connection with the position of these farmers. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, for example, had the following to say (Hansard, 31 August 1981, column 2490)—

Mr. Speaker, here the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt was showing a very commendable awareness of the Government’s solemn undertaking to farmers affected by consolidation. This undertaking was that no-one should be worse off after being bought out than he was before.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt went on to say (column 2491)—

He then went on to refer to evidence which I had already submitted to him and he concluded by saying—

Well, that is how I know the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. He is a realist. He is not afraid to speak up for what he believes to be the truth. He demonstrated that recently by the stand he took in connection with Black freehold rights. We in these benches believe that it is a great pity that the verkrampte element in that party defeated the hon. member on that particular issue.

I should like to say that we support the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt when he speaks up for the farmer who is affected by consolidation. These words of the hon. member generated a great deal of hope among a great many people. It was therefore something of a let-down when we were told by the hon. the Minister that assistance would take the form of simply making Government stock acceptable as security by the Land Bank.

This meant that only those farmers who intended to re-invest that money in land could really benefit. Many farmers were too old, too disheartened or too dejected to start all over again. In any case, those who re-invested in land were having to buy back their money, as it were. They had to buy back their money at a loss because Government stock is paying an average of less than 10% whereas Land Bank loans vary between 10% and 12%. On the other hand, farmers who have, since 1976, been paid out in cash are now able to invest their money at rates exceeding 16% which means that, in some cases, the loss suffered by one group in comparison with the other amounts to as much as 7%.

I regard these losses as being bona fide losses which those farmers are suffering, and I call upon the Government again to at least redeem the Government stock at face value. What is the response of the Government now, however? Allow me to quote from a letter from the Department of Co-operation and Development, dated 1 February 1982. I quote—

So there you have it. Evidently the Treasury has now turned its back on the farmers whom it had undertaken to assist during the last session.

That is the legal position.

But the plot appears to thicken because here I have another letter, and this is from the Department of Finance itself. It is also dated 1 February 1982. It reads as follows—

This is a letter that appears to contradict the first one. First of all the Department of Finance disclaims any responsibility at all and in the second case, it claims that the matter is still under investigation. Now who is to be believed, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt who says that the Government is going to help the farmers, or the Treasury which says in the first letter that the farmers have no further claim on it, and which says in the second letter that the matter is still under review? I should like to know whether the right hand really does know what the left hand is doing in this case.

If this matter is not clarified and if no provision is made in this year’s budget for righting the wrong that was done to the farmers in 1976 and before, then I believe that this will constitute a breach of faith with the farmers of South Africa. I should like the hon. the Minister to prove me wrong in this regard. He can prove me wrong by simply disclaiming what was quoted in the letter which I quoted earlier.

Mr. Speaker, certain hon. members of the official Opposition touched on the subject of the Public Service in this debate, and I should like to cross swords with the Opposition in the half minute which still remains this evening, and later during the few minutes I have left at my disposal. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a few remarks here yesterday and said that he had been in the Public Service for three years. Actually I was surprised at that, for I concluded from all the emotional statements he made that he had never even been inside a Government building. [Interjections.] It is of vital importance to us all in this House—on this side as well as that—that we in South Africa, have a well-equipped and smooth-functioning State machinery, in view of all the problems we must cope with in the economic field, in the political field and in every sphere of social life. It is just as important that we all co-operate in building up the image of that State machinery; after all, the Public Service does not belong to the NP nor the PFP, but is, as it were, an instrument of the State, an instrument of this Parliament, with which we must govern this country well, to the benefit of all the inhabitants of this beautiful country. I therefore find it ironic that so many hon. members of the Opposition saw fit to politicize the Public Service and, what is even worse, to cast the position of the officials in such a poor light that at times, when I read about these things in the newspapers, I had to ask myself whether people who were available to the labour market would still want to work in such a place, as it was represented by the hon. members of the Opposition.