Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members in this House will agree with me when I say that we are at the moment experiencing extraordinary political circumstances in South Africa, political circumstances so extraordinary that I believe I am justified in discussing them on the occasion of the Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill. Indeed, the circumstances have been interpreted in such a way that certain observers have written me right out of my own seat in this House. However, before that happens I believe it is important that I state, briefly and clearly, the standpoint of the PFP in regard to the recent events. [Interjections.] I believe that there is an element of finality in these events sufficient to justify our stating our position. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, this is not the time for petty politics. [Interjections.]

Order!

Everyone who is acquainted with White politics knows that last week’s events will have a profound and wide-ranging effect on South African politics. A dormant debate within the ranks of the NP has now been ripped open and is exposed to the spotlight of parliamentary politics. The hon. the Minister of State Administration, who is not in this House at present, has set foot on a lonely road, and although his political views and mine are diametrically opposed, I have always found him a dignified and impeccably courteous person in this House. However, I must say that I welcome him as a fellow political punchball of the NP in this House and I give him the assurance that the political landscape he is now entering is a pitiless and unyielding one. [Interjections.]

However, the hon. the Prime Minister, too, now finds himself in a unique situation, a situation unique in the extreme for a leader of the NP in the period after 1948. There is no doubt that the political debate is going to become more intense and that the time of vague generalities and ambiguities in this House is now finally past. The Government is going to be compelled on all sides to speak simply and clearly about fundamental problems. However, in my opinion one thing that has thus far been overlooked as a result of the split is that the split concerned differences in the interpretation of a concept which is central to the political philosophy of the PFP, viz. the concept of power-sharing. I could imagine no greater tribute to or recognition of the relevance of the official Opposition than the fact that events have occurred in the way they did. I have said repeatedly— and other hon. members of the PFP have also said this—that the concept of powersharing is going to force both the Opposition and the Government into a regrouping in White politics. This concept is not going to give White politics any peace, and all political parties will have to state clearly what they take it to mean and what they accept or do not accept in terms thereof.

As far as I am concerned, a definite shift in emphasis—that is the only phrase by which I can describe it—on the part of the Government can be detected with regard to the question of power-sharing. I put it in this way in order to obtain clarity with regard to this debate. The statement in this regard issued by the hon. the Prime Minister—a statement in which he says that too many spectres are being conjured up with regard to the concept of power-sharing—states that there can be only one central Governmental authority in a country, although there may be various instruments of government. He adds that this principle is also incorporated in the 1977 proposals of the NP. He then goes on to say—

These two concepts, consultation and co-responsibility, are then seen as a form of healthy power-sharing, while the same two principles in Pro Nat of November 1977 are described as not a form of healthy powersharing. That, really, is the only shift in emphasis that has taken place. Indeed, the question has been asked as to whether the constitutional plan does not amount to power-sharing. The answer is unequivocal—

Therefore these two concepts are now linked to the concept of power-sharing, whereas previously this was not the case. I believe that it is this shift in emphasis that led to the problems experienced by the hon. the Minister of State Administration and those who support him.

Although this shift in emphasis has taken place, I want to state very clearly that the shift in emphasis itself certainly does not mean that the concept of power-sharing is used in at all the same way as the PFP uses it. For the purposes of debate it is essential that this facet be clearly pointed out. The PFP states clearly that a constitutional solution must be sought for the public of South Africa on the basis of the principle of powersharing, but based on the following points of departure—

1. 1. The right to citizenship of all South Africans, regardless of race or ethnicity;
2. 2. No discrimination against South African citizens regardless of race or ethnicity;
3. 3. Voluntary group membership for all South African citizens;
4. 4. Full and equal political participation for all South African citizens regardless of race or ethnicity, and without domination of one group by another.

We have stated this clearly and repeatedly. This is the kind of power-sharing which the PFP advocates. The NP on the other hand advocates a limited form of power-sharing involving co-responsibility and consultation among Coloureds, Asians and Whites, in which the Whites will continue to occupy a dominant and overriding constitutional position. In essence, that is what the 1977 proposals amount to.

The PFP states that this flirtation with the concept of power-sharing only creates the impression of constitutional reform and that it is therefore unsatisfactory and also dangerous, in view of the challenges and problems facing us. However, one thing is certain and cannot be denied. The same obstacles and problems that crop up when one begins to consider power-sharing among all groups in South Africa, will occur when power-sharing among only certain groups is considered. I know that it is already being said by the Government that the PFP stands for powersharing within a unitary State. If one considers the 1977 proposals of the NP, they involve one Government, one State, and within that one State with one Government, efforts will be made to bring about healthy or limited power-sharing. The point I am making is that within that constitutional structure we have one Government and one State. In this regard the NP has now committed itself to a debate in which the issue is no longer whether there will or will not be power-sharing, but what form the powersharing will assume. In this debate the PFP will certainly exert unremitting pressure for consistent standpoints from the Government side.

The outcome on Saturday was also an indication of the position we have adopted since the no-confidence debate. I should like to quote to hon. members what is stated in my speech of Monday, 1 February 1982, column 35. At the time I said—

I referred to an “insignificant minority”. Those were the words I used, and there were hon. members who were extremely sceptical about that. However, I think that the result on Saturday confirmed that standpoint to a certain extent. But I was wrong, too. The hon. the Prime Minister did display the courage to break the unity of the NP. Now it is necessary to go through with it, because the hand has been put to the plough. I believe that history will pass a severe judgment on the NP, and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular, if hesitant and half-hearted action is taken now, for why, then, was the unity of the NP broken? Why did it happen?

In this regard the PFP also said that it wholeheartedly supported constructive reform and change. In this regard I again wish to quote from Hansard. On 1 February I said (col. 43)—

I want to end with a political toast to the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP. Now that they have split the NP and even entered the debate on power-sharing, I just want to tell them that we on this side of the House are acquainted with the road on which they have just set foot, and therefore we say to them: We wish you all of the best, and healthy power-sharing!

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a very mischievous speech here this afternoon. He actually informed us that as a result of the events in the NP during the past week, we are now suddenly required to say what form of power-sharing we advocate. What did he mean by this? In this way he was asking us to write off the President’s Council at once. He was using the events of the past week in the NP to find a way out of the dilemma of his non-participation in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Nothing has happened in the NP that has necessitated any change in the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister and the statements of the NP that there will now be deliberations on constitutional proposals in the President’s Council. Nothing has changed in regard to the fact that when those proposals are submitted they will be dealt with according to the procedure and in the way outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. consideration by the Cabinet, discussions of the proposals within the NP and submission to congresses. For that reason no one will reply in this debate to the question asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the form of co-responsibility—that is the term we prefer—we are going to apply and what that co-responsibility is going to look like. No decisions whatsoever have been taken in this connection.

In the second place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to create the impression that the NP had moved to the left. [Interjections.] I am glad he denies this because the NP has not moved towards the left. What happened is that the momentum of principle-orientated reform and the dynamic approach of the hon. the Prime Minister to essential reform became too much for some people. What happened was that the hon. the Prime Minister, supported by the overwhelming majority of the caucus and now also supported in the Transvaal by the overwhelming majority of the Transvaal head committee has spelled out quite clearly that this party is honest and sincere when it says it is seeking a fair political dispensation for every person in this country, for Whites as well as for Coloureds and for Indians.

What about the Blacks?

It is only to be expected that the official Opposition and their Press will attempt to make political capital out of the events of the past week and we do not begrudge them their enjoyment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke of White politics entering a new dispensation. Seen from a certain viewpoint that is probably true. He must also ask himself what the implications are for him and for his party because the difference between the NP and the PFP is quite clear and distinct again as it was before, and I am glad that he has conceded this. The sting in the accusation of the official Opposition and the sting in the gossip about the NP implying that we are dishonest and that we are advocates of continued, protracted White domination has been drawn. What has emerged from all this has been the genuineness of this party, and the courage of this party to implement its policy honestly.

During the events in the NP during the past week interest was focused on the NP of the Transvaal. For this reason I should like in the first place to state clearly where the Transvaal NP stands. On Saturday a resounding and clear and unambiguous answer was given in this connection. In the first place, we stand foursquare behind the hon. the Prime Minister and the chief leader of the NP.

Hear, hear!

In the second place, we fully endorse the firm intention of the Government to create a dispensation for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in which both the self-determination of the Whites as well as the co-responsibility of these three groups in respect of matters of common interest will be maintained. In the third place, the Transvaal accepts the hon. the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the concept of “co-responsibility”. This is spelled out quite clearly and graphically in that resolution.

As regards the question of exactly how these two simultaneous objectives—the one objective of self-determination and the other of co-responsibility in respect of matters of common interest—may be achieved in practice, in what way we are going to give substance to them, this will be decided when concrete proposals from the President’s Council begin to come before the Government. This will be done at the stage when the process of deliberation after receipt of the proposals of the President’s Council is being finalized. There will also be deliberation within the NP, as I have already indicated. A decision will then be reached after there has been ample opportunity for debate and discussion before any final decisions are taken. What I have said thus far the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could probably describe as ancient history.

Very ancient history.

But what is more important than what happened is the significance of what happened. I feel one is entitled to say the following in this regard. In the first place the NP is determined to tackle the problem of the constitutional lack of progress of the Coloureds in a dynamic …

Why the Coloureds only?

… in order to find a fair and just solution to the problem. The NP is not prepared to drag its feet or to prevaricate.

What about the Asians?

The Asians as well.

In the second place, in this attempt the NP adheres firmly to its premises concerning the right to self-determination of nations and groups, premises such as the preservation of identity and the recognition of national and group differences as a basic point of departure, and the assurance of the security of every minority group in the country. The underlying principles of the 1977 constitutional plan, as agreed to, still remain the policy of the NP.

In the third place the NP rejects any interpretation of its constitutional policy as implying that it is a smokescreen which in 1977, too, was intended as an attempt to perpetuate White rule over other nations and groups. This was never the intention of the NP, and those persons who interpret it in that way, have made a mistake.

In the fourth place the NP is seeking solutions which comply with the Biblical requirement of justice. We are prepared in what we want to do, to subject ourselves to that test. That is our principle guideline and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

In the fifth place the NP rejects powersharing in a unitary State. The NP also rejects power-sharing as proposed by the PFP. The NP still opposes, as strongly as ever, the concept of power-sharing in its traditional South African political context. However, from the point of departure of self-determining government bodies and structures of their own for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the NP foresees a healthy form of power-sharing in its literal sense by way of deliberation and a joint say in matters of common interest. However, we prefer to call this “co-responsibility” because the PFP by pre-empting the expression “power-sharing” has given it a specific content, connotation, flavour and odour that is totally unacceptable to us.

In the sixth place, there is a small minority in the NP that does not want to agree with this approach, and those people who feel this way do not really support the NP’s policy on this matter as it has been since 1977. For this reason they are reconsidering their position.

We in South Africa have reached a moment of truth. I do not want to pretend that the events of the past week were in any way insignificant. The moment of truth we have reached is that, in the face of the threats to our country, we must say to each other: “How can we find a way to stand together to overcome these threats?” In this connection I want to tell the official Opposition that they must not try too hard to take advantage of the events of the past week for petty political gain. They should rather try to use this moment of truth, along with everyone else in the country, as an opportunity to ask themselves whether the time has not come for them to put an end to their continued propounding of an ideology which has repeatedly been demonstrated to be unacceptable to the Whites. The Opposition must also ask themselves whether the time has not come for them, as it has for the NP, to clear up any uncertainties that may exist. Every member of that party must take advantage of this moment of truth to ask himself whether he should free himself from the ideological shackles of a plan which can never work.

You are trying to ingratiate yourself with the wrong people.

We have searched our own hearts. Every member of the NP in this House has gone through a week of deep reflection, but having done this we now feel invigorated. It does one good to hold oneself constantly and deeply accountable for what one wants and in what direction one wants the country to go. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who has such a broad smile on his face there in his back bench, has made only one good speech in this House, and that was his maiden speech. He, too, should ask whether the salvation of this country should be sought in the subjugation of the Whites in a political dispensation where the Whites will be relegated to a mere minority, and will have to surrender their established rights. That is after all the policy of the PFP. The NP’s standpoint on this fundamental question is quite clear. As I have tried to indicate, we want to create a fair dispensation for every nation and group. We want to create a situation for every nation and group where it can be said that they enjoy full political rights. However, we also wish to preserve the established rights of the Whites. If this is the point on which we differ with the Opposition and we have clarified the issue, our future debates with one another in this House can be conducted clearly and explicitly. But then the Opposition should not—as it and its Press did during the municipal elections—hide behind the determination of the NP to ensure the established rights of the Whites.

It is like the HNP in Pretoria.

The Opposition should not say that they are in favour of mixed residential areas, but that fortunately—they usually omit to say the word “fortunately”— this will not be possible because the Government will retain the Group Areas Act. “That is why,” they say, “you can vote for us in Johannesburg because you can rest assured that your residential areas will remain separate.” [Interjections.] Then they must say that they will agitate for the Government to issue permits for all residential areas and wards in Johannesburg where their candidates win to be open areas.

What about District Six? [Interjections.]

I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to issue a statement to the effect that they will apply for permits in terms of the Group Areas Act— because this is possible—and will recommend to the Government that it grant such a permit in every ward which they win.

We have already done it in respect of Constantia. [Interjections.]

I have already said we have reached a moment of truth. Owing to our population structure in this country we have one of the greatest and most complex problems that probably exists in any country.

Half of it you have created.

We expect childish remarks like that one from them. I suppose it is we who created multiracialism in South Africa. That is what that hon. member is now saying. [Interjections.] I suppose we are the cause of there being Zulus, Xhosas and Whites in this country. [Interjections.] How ridiculous can one get! [Interjections.] Then those hon. members should have listened to what I was saying. I said that multinationalism in this country, politically speaking, makes it the most complex country in the world. [Interjections.] At the end of an eventful week the NP says that it believes that in its policy and its principles, as they have stood on record since the establishment of the party, the following characteristics are present: Security, peace, prosperity and freedom for all the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. leader, the hon. member for Durban Point, is not present today, but I do believe that he put my party’s standpoint on recent developments within the NP very clearly when he spoke during the Second Reading debate, and I therefore do not intend to elaborate any further on what he said. I have, however, been most interested in listening to the debate thus far, and there was one thing the hon. the Minister said with which I agree wholeheartedly, and that is that South Africa has reached a moment of truth, and this applies especially to the NP. We have often spoken about talking past one another in this hon. House, and so I sincerely hope that the recent developments within the NP are going to go a long way towards removing this problem of talking past one another. I am quite sure that in future debates those hon. members in the NP who have decided to go their own way are going to engage in very meaningful debates with the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues about exactly what is meant by power-sharing and the old NP apartheid philosophy.

There has, however, been one term that has been bandied around a great deal, and I am referring to the term “power-sharing”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has claimed this term for his own party, but I do not believe that that is quite accurate. If one looks at the divisions in political philosophy in South Africa today, I think one sees that there are those in the NP who believe in the old Verwoerdian philosophy that says one can never share power. There are many past debates, to which we shall be referring in future, in which hon. members on that side stressed this emphatically. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister, however, have now said that there must be some form of power-sharing. I should like to suggest, however, that the only party whose constitutional philosophy has really accommodated power-sharing up to now is the NRP. [Interjections.] Now the NP has begun to see the light, and I am very interested to see that the NP is awaiting the recommendations of the President’s Council … [Interjections] … because we in these benches are quite sure that those recommendations are going to include a great deal of the philosophy that we can agree with, and we welcome this. [Interjections.] I should like to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues that they have rendered themselves totally irrelevant in the South African political scene of today … [Interjections] … by not having engaged in the debate in the President’s Council. They cannot, and could not, commit themselves to such a debate because, in essence, the PFP does not believe in power-sharing. If one studies their constitutional philosophy, one finds that it leads to a transfer of power and not a sharing of power. It will lead to a transfer of power from the White-nationalist-political party which presently is dominant in South Africa to a dominant Black-nationalist-political party. [Interjections.]

I do not intend going further with the political debate, because I have a very serious discussion in which I should like to engage the hon. the Minister of Finance. During his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance called for the replacement of the hon. member for Yeoville and myself as our respective parties’ financial spokesmen. In The Cape Times of 26 February under the heading “Call to replace Schwarz and Bartlett” the hon. the Minister is reported as having said that we discredited ourselves—

That was not what we said.

That is exactly what you said.

I criticized the hon. the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the Cabinet—not the Reserve Bank or the Treasury—for mismanaging the economy.

In my speech I attacked the hon. the Minister on two broad fronts. The first was that excessive deficit spending by the Government was creating considerable problems for the South African economy.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister mentioned during the debate that he did not understand the term “deficit spending”. I intend going into that in depth later on. My second attack was that the resultant trouble in which the economy found itself was due to the Minister gambling on the price of gold and in the process tailoring his budget to spend the expected high tax revenues which he had hoped to get from gold.

In his reply the hon. the Minister denied my allegations and made certain accusations about what I had to say. I shall not use up my time going into that. However, during the course of his speech he referred to letters he had received from Switzerland and also to speeches made by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in an effort to justify his position. The Minister went to great lengths to quote these. I am therefore now going to take the liberty of quoting in a similar manner from certain articles and reports which have been made available to me since I spoke last week in order to substantiate my point of view.

The first I want to quote from is the Information Digest—Weekly News for Commerce in Natal of Assocom. It is dated 20 February 1982. This was in response to the Minister’s increasing GST and import duty. I quote from it—

That is exactly what I said to the hon. the Minister in my Second Reading speech. The article goes further—

I go further. In the Financial Mail of 19 February—this I only read since the debate last week—there is an item on the budget with the heading “Horwood adrift”. That is on page 774. One reads there—

Then it goes further, referring to the import surcharge—

Further on in the article one reads, in reference to the money supply—

I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this because it refers to the senior officials whom he was referring to. In the final paragraph we read—

Who are they?

The hon. the Minister knows who they are. They are the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Director-General of the Treasury.

And who is the third one?

Probably Dr. Simon Brand. Mr. Speaker, if this does not convince the hon. the Minister, then I quote from Dr. Gerhard de Kock’s report in the Quarterly Bulletin of the Reserve Bank, on page 43. I believe this justifies my attack on the hon. the Minister. Referring to the easy money policy of the Government during the last six months of last year, Dr. De Kock says—

This is Dr. De Kock, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, speaking. He says further—

I believe this justifies my case. I believe that these gentlemen I have referred to have substantiated our views.

During the Second Reading, we in the NRP went to great lengths to accuse the Government of what I call deficit spending. We believe that this is wrong and that it is putting South Africa on a very dangerous road. The hon. the Minister said there was no such term as “deficit spending”.

I said it was not part of South Africa’s policy …

Deficit spending, is spending more than your income.

That is right.

One could define it as living beyond one’s means. The hon. the Minister said that as a result of deficits in the balance sheets of the Government, these had to be met by borrowing, and that Governments throughout the ages have borrowed money. This is correct, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really appreciates the situation that South Africa is in today. In the latest Statistics in brief—RSA 1982 it is clear that since I first came to this House, or in less time than I have been here, since 1975, the purchasing power of the rand has dropped in value in South Africa from 100 cents to 49 cents. This has been the effect of inflation. In the past year the rand’s buying power in the United States has dropped by about 30%. One must therefore ask: Where is South Africa heading?

Let us look at the national debt which is what the deficit before borrowing is all about. In 1974, when I first came to this House, the national debt was just on R8 000 million. By 1981 it was about R22 600 million. The estimate for the deficit before borrowing for the coming year is likely to be between R3 500 million and R5 000 million, which will raise the national debt to an amount approaching R27 000 million.

What has happened? This Government has been borrowing money in order to pay the interest on its national debt, which by now must be costing South Africa about R1 400 million a year to service.

This Government is syphoning off so much money in order to pay for its deficits that the economy is beginning to suffer. I wonder whether the people of South Africa realize that every time they buy Bonus Bonds they are actually taking out of the economy money which could be spent on the building of new homes and new factories. This is the dilemma in which South Africa now finds itself. We are really in a very dangerous position, an extremely dangerous position.

Are you against Bonus Bonds?

Mr. Speaker, to expand further on the question of deficit spending, I should recommend that the hon. the Minister read an article which appeared in the February 15 1982 issue of Time Magazine. The heading of this article is: “The great deficit dilemma”. On page 65 there appears a block in which the following quote by Ronald Reagan is published—

I should like to quote from this article because it is, I believe, indicative of the position in which South Africa finds itself today. I quote what is said by Mr. Otto Eckstein, chairman of Data Resources Inc. in America, an economics consulting firm—

He then goes on to say—

That is exactly what our own Reserve Bank did last year. I continue to quote—

This is exactly what this hon. Minister of Finance has done to South Africa during the last year. We are concerned about it because this excessive public spending is putting South Africa into great debt. At the local government level there are already some local authorities that are spending 50% of their rates money to finance the debt in which they have landed themselves.

The hon. member for Umbilo, when he was chairman of the finance committee of the Durban city council, had experience of this phenomenon. He will be able to tell us all about it. He will know that the city of Durban is probably the only municipality in South Africa that does not have a public debt. It finances its capital from its own sources. That is what we in these benches call a conservative financial policy. I might also add that a recent Press report said that Provincial Administration in Natal would end up with a surplus. I refer to a report in The Natal Mercury, of 23 February 1982, and I quote—

That is how the NRP runs the finances of Natal.

I launched a second attack on the hon. the Minister of Finance in which I accused him of gambling on gold. I want to ask the hon. the Minister exactly what price he budgeted for gold for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982.

You are like a parrot.

Mr. Speaker, I accuse this hon. Minister of being too optimistic with regard to the price of gold. I am going to quote his own words to him now. A report in The Rand Daily Mail of 10 July 1981 says: “Horwood sees gold price recovery at end of year”. I quote now what the hon. the Minister said himself—

That was in July, 1981.

It is surely not that hon. Minister?

It is the same Minister.

The deficit in our balance of payments is going to be of the order of R5 000 million not R1 000, or R2 000 million. It is also interesting to note that on the same page to which I have referred there is another article which says—“Gold price edges to 406 dollars.” Therefore the hon. the Minister must have been anticipating that the price of gold was going to reach at least 450 dollars or even 500 dollars an ounce. Instead, it is standing today at 361 dollars an ounce. The Government, however, has persisted in spending more money than it was earning and in the process it has thrown South Africa into tremendous debt which the people of South Africa will have to carry in the years to come. Thus, the problem with the South African economy today is that we have been forced into the tight money situation in which we presently find ourselves which is now causing a recession. For these reasons we criticize the hon. the Minister of Finance, not his officials and not his economists, because I am quite sure that in their heart of hearts they agree with us and disagree with the hon. the Minister and the Government. This hon. Minister alone is to blame, not them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti ended his speech by speaking of finances and the part played by gold in the present situation in which we find ourselves.

This is a financial debate.

Few foresaw what would happen to gold. It was not even foreseen by prominent Swiss bankers and financial experts that the price of gold would drop to its present low level. For the NRP to try to intimate now that they have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters and to seek to blame and accuse the hon. the Minister of Finance of over-optimism on the price of gold, is folly, in a form known as wisdom after the event.

We quoted the hon. the Minister himself.

We quoted him so you could call him “dwaas”.

I want to state very clearly that as far as South Africa’s basic financial situation is concerned, we are still on a sound financial basis and that world financiers have confidence in South Africa. Nor have we any reason to doubt the financial and economic future of South Africa in any way. South Africa is strong. The amount of money South Africa has spent during the past few years to expand its infrastructure, to place its economy on a firm foundation and develop its economic stability, is a vast sum. I am referring to the Saldanha-Sishen project. I am referring to the Richards Bay harbour. I am referring to the Sasol project. Then there is Koeberg, and many other projects. In this way South Africa has laid a very, very sound economic basis, one which will see us through for many years to come. The present economic recession is in any case not limited to South Africa. The whole of the Western World is suffering from it, and, of course, this has an effect on the situation in South Africa, on a temporary basis at least. I have every confidence that the situation in South Africa will recover within a reasonable period and that we have reason to look forward to an improvement in the economic position.

This debate is also about the events of the past few days and of the past week. The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti have referred to this, and one does not begrudge their efforts to derive a little pleasure from the events of the past few days. Let me make on thing very clear. In spite of the events and how they have affected the NP, the PFP, with its views and its standpoints, remains irrelevant in the politics of South Africa. The PFP has abdicated its total responsibility to take part in responsible talks on a future for South Africa. They are boycotting the President’s Council and they also split on the boycotting of the President’s Council. They must not forget that. They expelled some of their members because there were some members who were prepared to take positive and practical part in the responsible talks on future constitutional models. Because some of their members were prepared to take part responsibly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself—I believe that he boasted that he did not even consult other members—to expel those members.

Like a dictator.

Yes, like a dictator. I am saying that they have abdicated their responsibility with regard to responsible discourse in the South African situation. They are not so much concerned with power-sharing, be it healthy or unhealthy. With them and their policy it is indeed a case of surrendering of power, because their policy amounts to “one man, one vote”. They say that this will take place in a federal system, but I do not think they truly believe that it is a federal system, or else they are just trying to bluff the voters concerning the concept of a federal system. From time to time they have been challenged to indicate more or less what they see as the basis of their federation. They have been challenged to indicate what they see as a concept of unity in the federation. Would they, for instance, see Johannesburg, together with Soweto, as a unitary State within their federation? Do they foresee a geographic federation? I put this question because there is no single magisterial district in South Africa where the Whites are in the majority. If, therefore, they advocate a purely geographical federation, there will be a minority of Whites in each of the magisterial districts or any combination of them.

That is what they want.

They like to talk of equal opportunities, of equal citizenship, equality at all levels, and then they speak of political rights on that basis. What their policy amounts to, therefore, is surrender of power. The NP believes that we in South Africa are a multiplicity of communities with district differences in standards of living, norms and values. This is an historic fact. In the nature of the matter and in the course of history, as the economy changes, changes occur, but we are by no means prepared to indicate at this stage that we are willing to accept the concept of unitary State in South Africa. It is completely impractical, for we must also be realistic and take into consideration what the history of development has been in the rest of Africa, and not only in Africa, but also in every political community which consists of a variety of communities and has different outlooks, values and norms. Therefore this does not apply to Africa alone. The hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition will probably know what I am referring to when I refer to the dispute in progress in Ireland where people have started hunger strikes. I do not know whether the hon. the Chief Whip has ever considered taking part in a hunger strike.

Ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. [Interjections.]

I contend that in countries in which there are a diversity of nations—I refer to Cyprus, where there is a Turkish minority and a Greek majority, and also to the situation in Nigeria, but there are many other situations where there is a diversity of nations or communities and where essential differences exist—there is no salvation in the system advocated here by the PFP. There would be a similar total collapse of stability in South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who is not present at the moment, once intimated that Zimbabwe was an example of reconciliation among communities, and he has already had to swallow his words time and again. We in South Africa believe that there should be responsible consultation through a variety of Government institutions. I emphasize “responsible consultation”. “Responsible consultation” also means that people who are the official leaders or representatives of the various communities, will hold friendly talks with one another on matters of common concern.

I want to give the example of the European continent. In Europe there are numerous—let us call them—sovereign, independent States which have become so interdependent in a number of fields, that—I want to use the expression—a sharing of power has developed in Europe …

But you must talk about “co-responsibility”.

… as far as the defence of Western Europe is concerned. A sharing of power has also come about as far as its economic welfare is concerned. So doing, they have a deliberative institution such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They also have the European Common Market. Then there is the European Parliament. In this way, responsible deliberation concerning matters of common interest takes place. Inevitably, responsible deliberation take place, the various participants have to accept one another’s bona fides and status. It must be accepted that talks which take place in an atmosphere of responsibility will result in mutual understanding and will mean that no reckless, independent and sovereign action may be taken without consideration of the interests and feelings of other people. To this extent there is, in Europe, healthy power-sharing or co-responsibility—if I may put it that way—by a community of sovereign, independent countries. Thus we foresee that in South Africa too, consultation may take place through the Government institutions of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians and, if need be, at another level with the responsible elected leaders of the Black governments, and that there will be an acceptance of one another’s bona fides. To the degree that there can be responsible talks, and to the degree that there can be an acceptance of responsible co-responsibility, this can be interpreted as a measure of power-sharing. However power-sharing as such, means in the first instance that it is not a unitary authority, for in a unitary authority there is no power-sharing, but only one authority. The meaning which the PFP has attached to power-sharing, should be totally rejected by this House as well as by the voters at large.

I should like to come to the NRP and their standpoint. The NRP try to intimate that they have the basis of a healthy policy.

That is right.

That hon. member says that that is right. If their policy is so important or correct, I should like to know from them—their leader is not in the House today—why they have not been successful in selling their policy to the voters in all this time.

Tell us about the province of Natal.

Very well. If the policy of the NRP is so successful in Natal, why has the number of parliamentary representatives which they have been able to have elected, diminished from one election to the next? Of the 20 elected representatives, the NRP have only seven. [Interjections.] If the NRP is so positive and has such a good policy, they should surely have succeeded in doing better in Natal.

Wait until the next election!

The interesting situation now arises, after the events of last week, that there are members of the NRP who are trying to create the impression that there is a possibility that they and the NP will possibly move closer together. Interviews with a number of members of the provincial council appear in Saturday’s Natal Mercury. According to that, some intimated that they would favourably consider co-operating with the NP.

We would certainly not have you or your provincial leader.

The policy of the NRP and that of its predecessors has failed, and their numbers have diminished since the establishment of the original UP. Their numbers declined up to when the NRP was established, and the NRP in turn has also diminished in numbers and has lost support. The NRP is, practically speaking, totally irrelevant in our political situation.

We did not lose 20 members in one day.

You lost more than 20 in one day.

Which day?

I am referring to 24 April 1977.

No, that is not correct.

My apologies, it was in November, 1977.

*The NRP has no positive contribution to make to political thinking in the country. The NP, as it exists today, still has the only positive message and formula for the solution of the problems of South Africa and the problems of today, especially in the multinational situation in Southern Africa. I have already repeated that the NP and its leaders—and its responsible MPs—have a positive standpoint with regard to responsible negotiation with all the different population groups in South Africa. We mean well, but our premise is at all times that we shall take care to preserve and maintain the standards of living and the standards which we have traditionally built up in this country. We will not detract from them. This is our approach and it will continue to be our approach in future.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs spoke earlier he said we should not indulge in petty politics over the issue in which the NP has been involved, but on listening to the hon. member for Klip River, I find that he was not listening to the new Transvaal leader of the NP, because what he indulged in was exactly what the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was hoping hon. members in this House would not indulge in. [Interjections.]

Quite right, but he is petty.

The hon. member for Klip River, fell into what I consider to be the real trap, because in trying to come to grips with the issue of what is or is not “magsdeling”, without realizing it he was expressing the views of the hon. the Minister of State Administration.

*He said one could not have power-sharing if there was only one authority. Those were the words he used. That, of course, is the whole point which the hon. the Minister disputed. He does not want one power, one Government. It seems to me that that hon. member is actually sitting on the wrong side of the House. [Interjections.] I think he has made a big mistake. [Interjections.] His ideology is actually that of the hon. the Minister of State Administration. Therefore, he is now sitting on quite the wrong side. However, I can now understand his problem very well.

Now Tom is very interested. [Interjections.] One extra for you, Tom!

I think it might not be out of place to say I think that some congratulations are due in regard to the events that have just taken place. Firstly, when somebody has achieved some success, I think it is not inappropriate to congratulate the person concerned on that success. I think that the precision and efficiency with which the hon. the Prime Minister organized Saturday’s events deserve congratulations. [Interjections.] I think that his handling of that situation showed his organizing ability, and I think he deserves to be congratulated.

Secondly, speaking as one who has some experience of leaving a party, of deciding voluntarily to be expelled from a party, I can be excused for having a certain measure of sympathy for some of the people who are, in fact, in the process of leaving the NP.

Good experience!

However much I may disagree with some of them, I think one has to congratulate that kind of individual for being prepared to sacrifice his political standing, political status and political office for his beliefs. Whether one agrees with those beliefs or not is utterly irrelevant. The reality is that there are people in this House who are prepared to sacrifice their office for their beliefs.

Quite right, that takes guts.

I think that is a healthy sign in the South African political scene. Whether I agree with what they did or not, is an entirely different matter, and I think it is well known that I certainly do not agree. I think that is a factor we have to bear in mind.

There is actually a third aspect. I should like to pay tribute to the NP, and it is not often that one finds oneself doing that. I am referring to both factions involved in the recent combat. I think they have done this with a high degree of dignity. I think that it is quite remarkable that they have not indulged in scrapping like a bunch of kitty-cats, if that is the correct term for it, but have instead set about handling these differences with some degree of dignity. I think that that is the truth and that perhaps one should mention it.

However, we now enter a different field. When this thing originally started, one of the hon. gentlemen opposite said to me: “Jy weet, as die boere begin baklei, moet die Engelse hul neuse daaruit hou.” That was the advice I was given at that stage. Hon. members should remember, however, that I am not one of the English. Consequently it is not necessary for me to keep my nose out of that fight.

Harry, you have got a nose for it.

Yes, I have got the nose for it. I want to say that, even though this may be a family dispute, it affects everybody in South Africa. It does not only affect the members of the NP. It does not only affect Afrikaners in South Africa. It does not only affect Whites in South Africa. It affects everybody in South Africa. If solutions are to be found in South Africa, they can only be found, if they are to be found peacefully, if in fact the Whites are part of the solution-finding process; and if the Whites are to be part of the solution-finding process, then the Afrikaner is a part of that solution-finding process; and if the Afrikaner is a part of it, then the NP must be a part of it. Therefore, the reality of the political situation in South Africa is that, if a solution for the problem is found by peaceful means, we are all going to benefit from it, whether we are inside or outside the NP; and if there is no solution found, all of us are going to have to pay the price for that, whether we are part of the NP or not— and we who sit here are not part of the NP. So, even though some of us—I include myself in that category—are only spectators to that scene, we are in fact fundamentally affected by its outcome.

What is the dispute really about? One of the tragedies I find here is that we enter this political debate, the last real political debate before the budget in which this can be ventilated, with the opposing parties on the other side of the House not publicly debating the ideological issues involved. I assume that there are ideological issues involved and that this is not just a power play. I assume that there is more to it than just a power play between individuals. That is why, for instance, I regret that the hon. the Minister of State Administration and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training are not taking part in this debate. I think it is necessary for them to spell out for South Africa how they see the future of South Africa. I think they are obliged to do that. I think they have to tell us how they see the political expression of the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister of State Administration—I am pleased to see that he has entered the House—actually believe in self-determination; and, if he does, how are the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa going to give expression to that self-determination?

That is a very important question.

It is a most important question, one to which I hope the hon. the Minister will furnish us with an answer in the course of this debate. If there is to be no power-sharing between Coloured, Indian and White—I am talking now from the NP point of view—are we then in the eyes of the hon. the Minister of State Administration going to move to a territorial base for the expression of the political power and opinions of the Coloured and Indian people? Are we going to have this concept of a territorial base coming forward? I believe that we have to be told this today. We have to be told it by both sides to the dispute because that is what South Africa really is waiting to hear and that is what it needs to hear in this particular debate.

There is another question which I believe needs to be answered by the NP. One of the problems we have—I talk now as a spectator to the events of Saturday and before—is that certain NP speakers appear to be almost falling over backwards to show that they are not quite as progressive in their thinking as they are made out to be. One has a fear that in trying to draw some of the people who have left back into the NP and to make sure that some do not leave, we are getting a spirit of reaction setting in. I should like to hear whether, in fact, that spirit of reaction is or is not here, because one could not judge from the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs what he really was seeking to achieve with his references to generalities.

One never knows.

Hence there is the continuous stress on the part of almost every NP speaker for saying that the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP is not in favour of “die magsdelingkonsep soos dié van die PFP se eenheidstaat nie”. In other words, what is happening is that the NP is stressing what it is not, instead of saying what it actually is. That is what we really need to know today. It is no use the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Manpower—as he did in this morning’s paper— talking about what they are not and saying that they do not stand for what the PFP says it stands for. It is necessary for the NP to say what it really is. What is true is that the NP in its announced policy in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa is in fact in favour of “magsdeling in ’n unitêre Staat”.

*They stand for power-sharing among the Whites, the Coloured people and the Indians within one State. The Black people are in a separate State or States.

†Rather than saying that the PFP is, in fact, in favour of sharing power, of “magsdeling” in a unitary State, the reality is that the PFP is not in favour of sharing power in a unitary State, but is in favour of power-sharing in a federal State. It is the NP that is in favour of power-sharing in a unitary State.

[Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he concedes that there can only be sharing between more than one party? If his party’s policy is that there should be a federal system on a basis of “one man, one vote”—which I believe is the case— who then are the parties between whom power must be shared?

This is the whole point. What is happening is that whereas the PFP has been accused of wanting to share power in a unitary State, it is actually the NP that wants to share power in a unitary State. We want to share power in a federal State, and the people who share power in a federal State are all the groups, all the people who live in that State. In other words, it is a power-sharing between everybody who is in the federal State.

Is that your new policy?

No, it is not a new policy. The reality is that in the concept of the PFP there are actually greater safeguards for the minority in respect of a federal State than there are under the NP who wants power-sharing in a unitary State. That is the reality of the situation. [Interjections.] If it comes to power-sharing in a unitary State, I am in the unique situation that I agree with the hon. the Minister of State Administration, because I do not believe in power-sharing in a unitary State. I believe in power-sharing in a federal State. That is the fundamental difference. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with what is perhaps the latest statement on this subject, the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He quotes the hon. the Prime Minister when he says—

Well, Sir, that needs some “verduideliking”, if I may use that term. I should like to ask that somebody of responsibility in the NP answer the following questions this afternoon: Firstly, can there be, in fact, “mede-verantwoordelikheid”; can there be co-responsibility without co-authority? Because one cannot say that people only have responsibilities. The concept of power-sharing also involves co-authority.

That brings me to the second question. If there cannot be a sovereign Parliament for the Coloured people—and that is what it says here: “Daar kan nie ’n soewereine parlement vir Kleurlinge gevestig word nie”— and if there is to be a nondiscriminatory political expression, as the hon. Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs said this afternoon, how then can participation in a sovereign legislative body by Coloureds, Indians and Whites be avoided? In other words, if that is going to be the situation, if there cannot be a separate sovereign Parliament for Coloured people, then surely there is only one way out of it. That is participation in a sovereign legislative body by all the people who are involved.

Correct. That is what Andries said.

Thirdly, what in fact is power-sharing? What does the term “power-sharing” mean? So far every hon. member on the NP side has run away from that definition. It can mean—as I believe it means—seeking a form of consensus government which, I must assume, is what the hon. the Prime Minister means when he makes the reference to negotiation. However, we have not been told whether there is in fact going to be a form of consensus government. Alternatively, it can mean a participation by different groups in the assuming of responsibility, as he says, and also the exercise of power on an equitable basis. There can be no power without responsibility, and there can also not be responsibility without power. These two things must go together.

But that is what Andries says.

Fourthly, it can mean participation on an unequal basis. In that case it is baasskap. In that case it means that there is power-sharing on a one-horse-one-rabbit basis. This debate, which is fundamental to the whole future of South Africa, is I believe, a debate in which the hon. the Minister of State Administration has an obligation to take part. He should get up and tell us how he sees it. Similarly the Government has an obligation to tell us how they see it, because we on this side of the House, as our hon. leader has indicated today, has spelt out exactly how we see the concept of power-sharing.

The fundamental difference that I am trying to point out between the PFP and the NP is exactly in regard to the very concept of power-sharing. In our case power-sharing is not unitary, but federal. In our case it means that all races in South Africa will participate, and not merely one section of the community. That is in fact the most important thing for us.

There is another issue, however, which I believe needs to be raised here. That is that power-sharing is in essence, whichever way one looks at it, a compromise arrangement. It is a compromise arrangement in which people have to give up the particular power which they seek in order to join forces with others in an attempt to find a solution. The point I have to make here today is that those in South Africa who are conscious of the fact that a form of power-sharing should be negotiated, must now set about doing that timeously and must also demonstrate, as a result of the interaction among moderate people of all races and all colours in South Africa, that this type of co-operation can be fruitful. The radicals both on the left and the right are going to persuade people to reject power-sharing. If they do, however, reject power-sharing in South Africa, it will in the long term have the inevitable consequence of there being confrontation.

Somebody quoted Machiavelli over the weekend. There is also another quote from Machiavelli which should be read out here today. That is the following—

I ask that they do not wait until the medicine is too late.

There is one other matter that I should like to raise, and here I should specifically like to direct my words through you, Mr. Speaker, at the hon. the Minister of State Administration. The hon. the Minister has acquired a reputation—and I think correctly so—not only for conservatism, but also for intellect. A very important responsibility is going to rest upon him now. If he decides to start a new political movement— as some of us believe he is going to do and as has been indicated he is going to do—the question that is going to have to be asked is: Where does he intend to lead those who are to follow him? Secondly, whom will he seek to lead in South Africa? No-one will gainsay him his right of having a different point of view from ours or from the Government. Nobody gainsays him his right of starting a new political movement. But let it be said that there are some of us who perhaps represent minority views and are members of minority groups in South Africa who are a little concerned about some of those who are hailing his actions. Some of the badges and banners, whether at the airport or in Pretoria, of those who seem to be supporting him, who seem to be those on the ultra right, give us some degree of concern as to the people who want to be led by him. When one moves away from a political party—and I, as I have said, have some experience of it—the road sometimes seems very lonely and one does not readily reject help when offered. There is, furthermore, a need to establish a separate identity, a distinguishing political platform. In this regard the hon. the Minister of State Administration—I do not know for how long I shall be able to call him that—has a particular responsibility, the responsibility not to create a movement which will exploit prejudice and cause a backlash the consequence of which could be serious for all of us in South Africa. The danger of becoming a prisoner of unwelcome friends of the ultra right is a very real one, particularly if one is continuously being pointed to as belonging there yourself. If he has to go it alone, we hope that his inherent qualities— which I recognize and respect and of which I think he has many—will prevent him from taking a course which might in the long term harm all of South Africa. I hope that he will not take that course.

I have tried to deal with this matter because I think the real issue that confronts all of us today is whether the removal of the right is going to make any real difference to the NP. I believe that there is the danger that in order to keep supporters and to meet the attacks from the right, real meaningful change cannot be expected from the Government. I fear this, although I hope that I shall be proved wrong in that regard.

I should now like to devote just a few minutes to the hon. the Minister of Finance. This hon. gentleman, when he replied to the Second Reading, demonstrated three things. Firstly, he demonstrated bitterness when he approached any form of criticism directed at him.

You were the one who was abusive.

His approach was that as far as he was concerned he was calling for my removal and made the allegation that we were attacking the officials. This last statement is without foundation, and I challenge him to prove one word from my Hansard that that is so. Secondly, for the hon. the Minister to say that I should be removed from this office is the finest compliment that I could be paid in respect of the way I am doing my job in this House. Thirdly, if he wants to be bitter, it is his heart that will be troubled, not mine.

The second thing that I think is serious is that he did not actually reply to issues in this House, but adopted a procedure of issuing statements, in respect of speeches made by members of this House and by the Opposition, outside of the House where he did not have to face criticism. I think that technique is not one that should be allowed to pass, because the way to debate is in this House and to face one’s critics here, not by statements outside. Thirdly, in regard to the question of the GST he issued a statement outside of this House. But what the hon. the Minister did not do was to tell us how he was going to deal with an under-staffed department and how he was going to deal with people who were carrying an undue burden in a particular service, a service which is always being maligned by various people. When there is a problem, he has given us no indication as to how he will solve that problem for those overworked and underpaid people in that particular department. I took the trouble, as did the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, to look for a few comments by economists. I feel that I should like to range alongside them rather than to be overworried by the criticism of the hon. the Minister. Let us look, for example, at Senbank’s Economic Opinion. They say this—

I mentioned both of these but now comes the important part—

Nobody will say, Sir, that this document emanates from a PFP oriented organization. I should like to quote from another one. This one reads, inter alia—

What does that mean? I should also like to quote Die Burger quoting Volkskas, as follows—

If this is what they say, where do we go from here? Here is another report which states—

What did we say, Sir? I could quote again and again from reports such as these. Let me quote what Safto has to say, viz.—

That is what they say. Here is another one here in regard to the value of the rand. I can go on and on to quote from reports such as these. The last report to which I wish to refer raises a point to which the hon. the Minister of Finance has not replied and which he does not wish to reply to. I refer to a report in the Reserve Bank Bulletin. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance how what he says can be reconciled with this statement, viz.—

I should like the hon. the Minister please to explain to me how one regains effective control of something of which one has never lost control? I should like him to tell me that. That is the reality of the matter. The reality of the matter is—and we have to repeat it and keep on pointing it out—that there are economists in South Africa of the highest repute and people in business who have the same interests at heart as do hon. members in this House, namely, that this country should prosper, who are concerned at the policies of the hon. the Minister. When we have a political responsibility to attack the Government, to seek to shelter behind officials is to my mind something which we can only deprecate. One thing the hon. the Minister must know and that is that the task of the Opposition is to be constructive and not to be afraid to say it when there is something wrong. The hon. the Minister can expect no sycophantic praise from us. If he does his job well, we will recognize it. When he does his job badly, we shall attack him for it, as we are doing now.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have had the old pattern. When the hon. member for Yeoville addresses this House he asks so many questions that he could easily occupy this House for two or three days just replying to them. He really should not expect me or other speakers on this side of the House to reply even to half of the questions he has put. I want to give the hon. member a piece of advice. I think the hon. member was on very thin ice at the beginning of his speech. I want to advise him rather not to attempt to analyse the most subtle and fundamental aspects of NP policy and functioning or to comment on them.

First of all, the hon. member referred to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say that we appreciate congratulations conveyed to the Prime Minister from any quarter. The hon. member referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s organisational ability that was in evidence on Saturday. I want to tell him the following: The image of the hon. the Prime Minister that my colleagues and I formed on Saturday and that we shall bear in our hearts and memories for the rest of our lives, is that of a statesman … [Interjections.] … who did not take that opportunity to retreat an inch when the salvation of South Africa lay in moving ahead. He did not take the opportunity to tell us what we should not do in South Africa; he told us what must be done in South Africa. He gave us the norms by which we should measure his deeds and our own deeds. The last words he said before resuming his seat were: Test what you decide according to the requirements of justice. This was the image of the hon. the Prime Minister on Saturday; not the image of a man who, through organization behind the scenes, achieved the brilliant victory he so well deserved.

Furthermore, he triumphed on Saturday not because he perhaps had a weak opponent or opponents, not necessarily because he had strong men around him who held his arms aloft; he could have won alone, too, on Saturday. Therefore the day belongs to him for his ability, his statesmanship and his image; not for his organizational ability for which, too, we all have due respect.

The hon. member for Yeoville made a tremendous fuss about our constitutional plan and gave us a great deal of advice. No matter how good his advice might have been, what a pity it is that his party denied itself that forum in which to make a real contribution! What happened on Saturday? On Saturday the voters of the country realized that the Government was going to listen to, take note of, and do its best to implement the advice and proposals it receives from the President’s Council, in such a way as to bring us peace, prosperity and progress in South Africa, that will be based on justice and will afford everyone in South Africa a rightful place in politics.

And when that happens, the PFP will not have had a share in it.

Yes, they will not have had a share in it. They see the danger lying ahead: If the NP goes to the voters of South Africa with the plans of the President’s Council and the voters accept those plans, then the PFP has effectively been eliminated from the political process of constructiveness in South Africa. This is the truth.

I do not intend to anticipate the proposals of the President’s Council, but I do just want to remind hon. members, as all of us on this side know and believe, that the proposals before the President’s Council to date are the proposals of the NP that enjoy the support of the congress and the support in principle of the people, because those proposals are the banner under which the NP has fought two elections.

If there are people who still after almost five years, do not understand what is stated in that draft Bill, or if there are people who cannot understand Afrikaans as it was used in the wording of the draft Bill that was submitted to the President’s Council, then those people should not lay the blame at the door of the hon. the Prime Minister for his formulation of how he views the status quo. Days, months and years have passed while that information was there for everyone, inside or outside the House, to see if they had phrased it and acquired themselves with the facts contained therein irrespective of which words they used—if they prefer not to call an elephant “elephant”, but rather “something with two tails”, then let them do so; but this makes not the slightest difference to the fact that is before us and that is an elephant—they would have been aware that we were speaking either about “power-sharing” or “co-responsibility”—it does not matter how one wants to play with the words—the draft Bill is clear. What does the draft Bill say? I am not a lawyer and my “legalese” is therefore not so good, but I can at least understand Afrikaans.

Shame.

It is not a “shame”; it is the truth. I think the hon. the Minister should brush up on his own Afrikaans before rereading the draft Bill. Afrikaans as I understand it, is not a shame-Afrikaans.

I have learned Afrikaans.

That Afrikaans says that the legislative authority of the Republic is vested in the House of Assembly, provided that… and then a number of provisions follow in which it is provided inter alia that the Council of Cabinets, which is to consist of the three different population groups in a specific fixed ratio, will make the final decision on certain matters. It is stated there. If the Council of Cabinets cannot reach consensus—this also answers the question of the hon. member for Yeoville—it has the right to refer the matter in question to a joint advisory council, or something of that nature. The term eludes me for the moment.

Get your facts straight.

What I am saying is factually correct. That body is also going to consist of the three population groups, and if they do not reach consensus there, they can refer it back to the Council of Cabinets. Am I still on the right track?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister agrees with my interpretation. If the Council of Cabinets, under the chairmanship of the executive State President, cannot reach consensus at all, the latter, who will be appointed by an electoral college comprising all three population groups, will make the final decision.

I recall very clearly that we were told at the time that a Coloured or Asian Minister, whatever the case may be, would be able to state his case in this Parliament. With regard to what type of matter would he be able to state his case in this Parliament? On Coloured education? No, because he himself will have the say over Coloured education. On Coloured welfare? No. He does not have to bring that to this Parliament because he can sort it out in his own Parliament and make laws in this regard, and, with the signature of his Prime Minister and State President it will become law for him. The implication is very clear in that Bill that the door is not closed to a Coloured or Asian Minister to exercise control over a department with common interests. Just as the draft Bill does not emphatically say—Afrikaans still remains Afrikaans—that a Coloured or Asian can never become State President, nor does it say that a Coloured or Asian can never become Minister of Finance or Minister of Defence. If this is so—I say it is so, because my knowledge of Afrikaans tells me that it is so, otherwise the arguments used at the time, with regard to which I assisted in drawing up information pamphlets, have no meaning— then co-responsibility for the execution thereof is also at issue. This answers the hon. member for Yeoville’s question.

You are the first one who is saying it in so many words.

It is not I who am saying this in so many words for the first time. I read it in the Bill, which has already gathered dust. The difference lies in the fact that sometimes one cannot understand something despite the fact that it has been on one’s desk for four and a half years, and at other times one does not want to understand it as it stands in Afrikaans. People who differ in this regard, must judge the facts for themselves.

I want to deal briefly with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and issue a challenge to him. I want to challenge the hon. member to tell us before the end of this session what he predicts the average gold price will be over the next 12 months. After all, he has many advisers who help him with his fancy speeches. Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister of Finance so that we can know on what basis, with regard to the gold price, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti would draw up a budget if he were ever called upon to do so.

He will give reply to you on that.

Thank you, I have an undertaking that the hon. member will reply to us.

I now want to turn to another matter. In the few minutes that he devoted to financial aspects, the hon. member for Yeoville saw fit to devote half of the time to a personal matter. He also spoke about the general sales tax and wanted to know what the hon. the Minister was going to do about the “understaffed department”. He also spoke about “overworked and underpaid officials”. Surely he knows that there is going to be a considerable drop in the workload of that department because the submission of income tax returns for people earning less than R7 000 per annum is to be done away with. He also knows that salary increases have been announced that are going to contribute towards attracting more people and possibly recovering qualified people again.

You think that is a solution?

I am not saying it is a complete solution, but the fact is—and we have already debated this in this House— that a higher salary alone is not going to solve the problem of staff shortages in the Public Service, because if that small pool of qualified people in South Africa are torn apart by higher salaries, which go up in a never ending spiral, surely the State cannot compete effectively. However, the State can at least attempt to deal with the problem effectively.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti had a great deal to say about the money supply. Right at the beginning of my reply to him, I should like to remind him of the fact that the word “money supply” as an economic instrument scarcely formed part of our vocabulary a few years ago—indeed, a little more than a decade ago. Will that hon. member concede that? He is dead quiet now. Apparently he is not interested in the debate.

Since Keynes, and Keynes was before your time.

I said the words “money supply” were not as prominent in the vocabulary of economic and financial policy-makers. That is what I meant. Robert Burns said the following … I beg your pardon, I meant Arthur Burns …

It is Robert Burns.

Is it Robert Burns? I am sorry, but I had written it down in pencil. He was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the USA, or whatever they call it. He said the following—

Therefore, when an explosion in the money supply occurred practically overnight in our country—it was an increase of approximately 50%—the hon. the Minister experienced problems with the instruments at his disposal wherewith to combat such a tremendous problem in the short term, and the hon. the Minister has conceded this. However, let us look at the development of the instruments over a period of time. I think Dr. Gerhard De Kock put the matter very neatly in a speech he delivered in September last year. He analysed the situation into four phases and indicated how monetary policy had changed from the idea of control of credit to the private sector by the commercial banks, and then to involving monetary financial institutions as well, i.e. the phase of direct control measures, to today’s situation where one needs an integrated package of monetary aspects and interest rate aspects in order to harness the market mechanism and remedy the money supply situation. Surely he will concede that over the years the best people in South Africa have been involved in assisting the Government in formulating effective monetary policy. After all, mere control of the money supply is not the ultimate remedy for all the ills either. If there is a large money supply in South Africa, or in any country of the world, and the circulation of the money supply is not what it should be, the large money supply as such does not necessarily mean that the economy has been stimulated. If there is a large money supply, and the circulation is, perhaps, relatively slow at a certain stage, this may lay in the foundation for an extremely explosive inflationary situation if the rate of circulation begins to increase. However, simply to say that control of the money supply as such will immediately overcome monetary problems is, to my mind, a one-sided statement of the case. It definitely does not give the full picture of all the concomitant policies. In 1980 there was a crystal clear message from the IMF, and that message was: If real interest rates are not positive, inflation can never be combated effectively. In the nature of things, surely this is to the benefit of the people who control the capital too. Surely they, too, want to implement that capital as best they can. Surely they are not going to allow their capital assets to be eroded by artificial interest rates imposed on them so that they receive a lower return as well as having to see their assets in the capital market dwindling.

This is an extremely important statement of policy towards which we in South Africa, too, are indisputably gradually moving. We are also moving towards the situation where the pattern of interest rates is determined by the market and where our real interest rate is positive. What does this mean? If that interest rate is positive in real terms, i.e. if it is higher than the rate of inflation, it means that some investments become a risky matter and that the cost of money as a whole is going to curtail the creation of employment opportunities, etc. However, then the ball is back in our court. If, then there are problems in the economy in that an excessively high interest rate gives one a real positive interest rate after one has deducted the rate of inflation, the first remedial method that one should employ is first of all to force down the rate of inflation, because if the rate of inflation comes down, a lower rate of interest can still be a positive real rate of interest in the country.

According to the Minister inflation is coming down, but interest rates are going up.

If we look at the latest figures, we see that inflation is dropping moderately. I have the figures before me, but unfortunately I do not have the time to discuss them in detail. Inflation is undoubtedly dropping marginally. If we look at the figure for last year until the end of December and we compare it with the figure for the year ending in January, we see a moderate tendency to drop, but without doubt inflation in South Africa is still unacceptably high at the moment. [Interjections.] Surely this is not a terrible concession. After all, all of us realize that.

Looking at one of the fundamental reasons for the high rate of inflation, which in turn results in our experiencing problems in other spheres due to our moving towards a positive real interest rate, we see that one of the cost aspects of inflation, the labour aspect of inflation, is still extremely high. This is not something we can solve overnight. Then, if we look at our production factors and analyse what the Government has done with regard to manpower utilization over the past number of years, we see—it is a long-term problem—that effective measures are at present being implemented in order to bring down the cost input of labour, or at least to link it more effectively to productivity. But now we straightaway have a social problem as well. We are also committed to narrowing the wage gap. We are often obliged to narrow the wage gap at the cost of productivity. Therefore, we are involved in a long-term investment in stability and security, but the partnership between the Government, employer and employee must remedy the cost input of inflation effectively. Let us make no mistake; if the worker does not make use of the opportunities for increasing his productivity that both the Government and the employer are creating for him, we shall have trouble in the future. We shall also have trouble if he wants to hide behind a trade union to negotiate a better dispensation for himself without being prepared to do his share.

Therefore I associate myself with the budget of the hon. the Minister. I believe that the measures it envisages, will make an effective contribution towards placing our economy on the road to consolidation and recovery.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to follow on from the hon. member for Florida, and I want to congratulate him on his speech. In my opinion he replied to the questions that the hon. member for Yeoville asked, and I therefore do not want to go into this any further at this stage. However, I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that since I have been in this House, there have been few occasions on which I have been in agreement with him. However, there is one matter with regard to which I might agree with him today, and I should like to refer to it. The hon. member said he wanted to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP on the way they had dealt with the disturbances in their midst. I am in agreement with him with regard to this. After that he said that what has happened in the NP, has affected not only the NP, but the whole of South Africa. This is true, and there too I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. Later on in my speech I shall come back to him. First of all I now want to deal with this matter, which he says affects South Africa as a whole.

Not only are the current political disturbances the subject of a far-ranging debate in this country of ours at the moment, but in countries abroad as well. In some cases there is celebration and jubilation, whilst in other cases pessimism, dismay can be detected. However, whatever the emotional reactions may be, the reality is that we in South Africa have to live with it. South Africa has to live with the reality of what has happened to us and with all the implications that it may hold for us. But I hope and trust that unity and stability will be achieved. Although one cherishes this hope, one must not, however, try to allege that there are not going to be further problems. However, we proceed in faith and trust, with the prayer that what the future holds for us in this country, will be to the benefit of the Whites and all other peoples within the borders of our country. So much for that matter.

I now want to turn to what has been so freely said by the hon. members of the official Opposition in the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched on this once again this afternoon. He said that the NP stands for a restricted form of powersharing. I immediately want to put the question: Does the official Opposition stand for general power-sharing, and therefore for integration? I want to put a few questions to the hon. member for Yeoville.

The PFP did not want to answer the hon. the Minister’s question this afternoon, with regard to the throwing open of facilities. Certain questions were also put to a serving member of the PFP on the Johannesburg City Council, and he too refused to answer them. I want to record the questions in this House and I hope one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House will give us the answers.

They will not.

The first question is—

The second is—

I am asking hon. members of the Opposition to provide answers to these questions, not now, but later on.

They will not reply.

The next question is:

Are you quoting from The Citizen?

It does not matter where I am quoting from.

You should formulate your own questions. Do not read questions from newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, these are questions that we have put to the PFP across the floor of this House. However, they have never replied to them.

They will never reply to them.

I now insist that they provide answers to these questions.

You have lost your way completely. Rather formulate your own questions and put those to us.

The hon. member for Yeoville must just try to listen to me patiently now. He can furnish the reply to this later. These are questions that must be asked. That is why I am asking them. I do not know why the hon. member for Yeoville is suddenly saying that they come from The Citizen now. It is correct, they do in fact come from The Citizen. However, these are questions that I have also been asking over the years. These are questions that I have asked in this House. I am asking the same questions of the PFP once again now. I am asking them again because we have not been furnished with replies to these questions yet, Mr. Speaker. Do the hon. members of the PFP now want to attempt to impose silence on me so that I do not ask those questions? Must I not ask these questions simply because quite by chance the Citizen is also asking the same questions that I have already asked before? I am simply not going to be stopped when I want to ask my questions, Mr. Speaker. The following question reads as follows—

This is a question that I have already put here before. However, I am still waiting for an answer today. However, I continue and quote another question—

These are also questions that have been asked here before. Then I want to quote the following question—

Then I come to another matter that has been bothering me for quite some time now. This is a question that was put here, to which we have been attempting to obtain a reply for a long time already, but to which we have not yet received a single reply thus far. It is the following question—

Now I want to know where we stand with hon. members of the PFP with regard to this question. Then I ask another question that I have already asked before—

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Albany is laughing. However, I should like to have answers to these questions of mine. The hon. member should simply answer yes or no. Of course, now the hon. member will start up with his stories of Black peril again. However, this is not necessary, but it is of course the problem that we have with hon. members of the PFP. When one points out certain things and asks for answers, they run away with stories of Black peril. This is the problem.

May I ask you a question?

No, you must first answer my questions.

Yes, rather answer his questions first, Harry. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville wants to begin putting questions to me again now. However, he has already had his chance. He too asked certain questions. I shall refer to them in a moment. However, here is my next question—

This is another question to which we should like to have a reply.

Come on Harry, that is a fair question. Please answer it now.

These are things that we on this side of the House would like to know. These are questions that we have already asked, but which have come up again now. However, now I am being told that I do not have the right to ask those questions. We are asking these questions because we have the right to do so.

However, it does not look as if you want answers.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the hon. member for Yeoville said the following, and I should like to quote it here—(Hansard, 6 March 1980, col. 2146)—

Then the hon. member gave ten different points, and I do not hold this against him.

Good points.

There were good points among them; I admit that. But in reply to what the hon. member for Yeoville said here, I want to state this afternoon that most of these points have already been carried out by the Government. Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree with me? Most of them have already been implemented. Does the hon. member agree with this? Now the hon. member is dead quiet. I want to take the hon. member back to the Carlton conference as well as to the Good Hope conference. After those two conferences, did any hon. member on that side of the House come along and say that the hon. Prime Minister had achieved a great deal in this country by holding those conferences? No, not a single one of those hon. members admitted it. I want to state here frankly this afternoon that the hon. the Prime Minister achieved a great deal through those conferences, and this must be recognized. I thought that when the hon. member for Yeoville was dispensing congratulations today, he was going to mention that too, but silence is being maintained on the subject. This is the problem that we are faced with when we have to conduct a debate with those hon. members. One does not receive a reply from them. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of the hon. members on that side of the House who said that the Government did certain things and achieved success in certain directions because that hon. member and other hon. members on that side of the House had asked for it. This is what they said instead of giving the Government its due. Now, however, they say that because they asked for it, the Government did certain things and was successful in doing so. The Government has been successful—let me be honest about this—but it has achieved success on its own and not because it was asked to do so by anyone.

I want to say straightforwardly today that the hon. member for Yeoville, just like the hon. member behind him, also raised the “Swart gevaar” cry in 1981 when an election was announced. He cannot deny it. It is in Hansard, and I am going to quote him. On 20 February 1981, column 2014, he said—

This is what those hon. members came up with.

I was quite right.

Since my time has expired, I want to conclude by repeating what I said in the beginning because it affects South Africa. If we do not have the co-operation of those hon. members, if they are not prepared to co-operate in order to help us in the expansion and building up of this country, we may as well write them off for good.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start off this afternoon by answering some of the questions addressed to this side of the House by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Please do so clearly and unequivocally.

If the hon. member will listen for a moment, I shall try to do so. I sincerely hope he will be able to understand it. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned the question of public facilities. In this connection I should just like to make one point. Up to now, public facilities in most of our cities have been established for White people. In fact, the Government has not even acknowledged the fact that there are other population groups who would like to have swimming pools, parks and tennis courts. When these people stop work, they are just supposed to disappear from sight and come back when it suits us. It is our duty and our responsibility to make sufficient facilities available for all. When public facilities are established for only one group it is only be to expected that if those facilities are made available to all groups, they are going to become overcrowded. Therefore, more facilities must be established.I should also like to make one thing very clear. Please do not misunderstand me. We are not in favour in any way of any type of separate public facilities for anybody. Do hon. members understand that? We are not in favour in any way of segregated halls for anyone. That is absolutely clear.

So you stand for a common society?

You’ve got it!

Dead right.

I believe that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana should be absolutely ashamed of himself for bringing racialism of this nature into the debate this afternoon. [Interjections.] In regard to his question about Hillbrow, we do not believe that only the facilities in Hillbrow should be open to all. We believe that the facilities in the whole of Johannesburg should be made available to all. If one makes only the facilities in one area available to all, obviously there will be a problem, obviously those facilities will become overcrowded. What do those hon. members expect? Here we have an artificial situation that has been created by their policy and they expect us to sort it out in one night.

I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs as well as to the hon. members for Klip River and Florida but I really and truly still do not know what that side of the House means by power-sharing.

May I ask a question?

No, because I have not yet even started to discuss what I want to discuss. What does that side of the House mean by power-sharing? I believe in my heart of hearts, and I believe every hon. member on that side of the House does, that the NP or, for that matter, the NRP, do not believe in power-sharing at all.

Trash!

What they believe in is some form of White domination and they are trying to confuse the whole issue by means of words and more words.

You believe in Black domination.

I should like those hon. members to tell us exactly where they stand in this regard. [Interjections.] I think that hon. members on that side owe it to South Africa and to the public to spell out clearly what they mean because, quite frankly, I do not know and I do not think anybody else does either.

Could you explain how you share power?

Our policy has been available to you for years.

I have read it. Please explain it.

I do not have time to waste on that sort of thing.

No, you never have time to explain your policies. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of talk about reforms. The public of South Africa are looking forward to signs of reform from the hon. the Prime Minister. I sincerely hope that we are not disappointed. We are on record as saying that we as a party will support the hon. the Prime Minister in any real reform he undertakes. However, Sir, I am not confident that we will see any reforms at all. To illustrate my point I should like to mention three small incidents that have occupied my attention over the past few weeks. These are incidents that bring the whole issue down to personal levels which perhaps some hon. members on the other side may be able to understand. It is the Government’s attitude towards these small issues that makes me and thousands of other South Africans totally despair when it comes to any question of real reform.

The first incident I wish to mention relates to a student organization in Pietermaritzburg called Spase c. Over the past 20 years these students have coached Black matriculants in their spare time between lectures so as to enable these students to pass their matric.

There is no question of establishing a school and there has been no question of registering pupils. Many of these Black people have worked locally, have worked on the campus, and some have actually fitted in time during their jobs to attend lessons. This has taken place in a single common-room of the university. Therefore, there has been no danger of a school or something like that proliferating. Our local newspaper ran an article on this and the Department of Education and Training heard of it. They said that this had to stop forthwith. In spite of all my efforts, this is still the decision of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

This is really disgusting!

I find it a most incredible decision. We need skilled manpower. Here are people building bridges between races and, heaven knows, we have few enough bridges as it is, but here the Government only creates more enemies for itself. We do not even have sufficient matric places at schools in Pietermaritzburg, and here some people are trying to help out. This decision was made by the—perhaps shortly to be ex—hon. the Minister of Education and Training; maybe one can understand it. It nevertheless shows the Government’s total commitment to total separation and avoiding all contact at any cost.

The second issue I want to raise is also another everyday human issue which comes from my constituency. I am sure that this is only the tip of the iceberg; there must be dozens of other cases like this. This concerns the hon. the Minister of Community Development who is leaving the Chamber right now.

If you want to deal with something which concerns me, I shall stay.

This issue relates to the establishment of a free-trade area in a certain section of the town. This area has had Indian traders since the 1930s. They have always been there. In 1977 at the request of the Indian local affairs committee the town council was asked to investigate the establishment of a free-trade area in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act. A detailed report was drawn up as to ownership of properties, actual employment and usage of land in the area. This showed that a large proportion of the properties was in fact owned by Indians and a large proportion of the actual businesses was entirely staffed by non-Whites. On the strength of this report the town council recommended the establishment of a free-trade area.

The hon. the Minister’s department was not in favour of this and suggested that an urban renewal area be rather established. The town council then went into the pros and cons of such an urban renewal area. The main disadvantage of the establishment of an urban renewal area was that it meant that most of the Indian traders would in due course have to leave. In the second place the actual pattern of trade in the whole area would be disrupted while in fact the area served as a large non-White trade area.

Then there is of course past experience of urban renewal areas. I can quote one example in Durban, that of a block known as AK. Hon. members who represent constituencies in Durban will know of this. That particular urban renewal area was declared in 1966. In 1968 the area was frozen, and to date very little has happened in it except that properties have been bought with taxpayers’ money. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance could use this as an additional source of finance.

You will not get very far with that. They should rather be referred to my department.

I have referred them to the hon. the Minister.

They have received my reply.

I am coming to that. In the reply it is stated that the city council recommended a free-trade area in 1980, but this was turned down in October 1981. There seems to be confusion in the hon. the Minister’s own department, because the Director-General of his department in 1980, when he interviewed people in regard to what was happening in Johannesburg, said that in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act a free-trade area could be established, but the request to which I am referring was turned down shortly after that. The Riekert Commission also recommended that where local authorities concurred, we should in fact permit free-trade areas. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that this was under consideration by the Strydom Committee. In all honesty, the Riekert Commission considered it. The town council who have extremely competent people have also considered it. Why must it therefore be considered again? Why must these people be left with uncertainty surrounding their lives and their businesses? I think it is just another way of delaying the whole issue in the aims of, perhaps, total separation. I just cannot understand this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will reach some finality on this issue soon.

I want to raise a final point that relates to the Government’s total lack of regard for the small man and the person in the street. This matter does not actually concern any particular Minister’s portfolio, but when I tell hon. members about it I am sure every person on the other side of the House will be ashamed. I was recently approached by a young lady who came to this country just before 20 May 1980. She applied for a permanent residence permit and shortly afterwards married a person who already was in South Africa.

Do you have her permission to state this case?

Just listen, and tell me what you think afterwards. She married on 13 August 1980 and on 27 July 1981 her application for a permanent residence permit was in fact turned down. By virtue of the fact that she had been married for a year, she asked the department to reconsider, but they were not prepared to reconsider their decision at all. I interceded on her behalf and I received exactly the same reply. Her husband has been in this country for seven years. His family are all here, he was educated in this country and he holds a responsible position. I was first brought into the case by her husband’s employers. This young couple have purchased their own home and their own furniture and are well settled into jobs just like thousands of other decent young couples. On taking up the case on their behalf, I did not merely recommend it but I made a point of going to see and interview the people concerned. I honestly cannot see any reason why they are being treated differently from, let us say, the Polish sailors who came to this country. These sailors do not even speak English or Afrikaans, they come from a communist country and it is difficult to investigate their backgrounds. The only thing that I can find that might be the reason for her application being turned down is the fact that she is a Jehovah’s Witness. I should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that immigrants are not turned down on this basis. Perhaps an hon. member on the other side of the House can tell me what this couple must do. He is in South Africa and is not sure that he will be accepted in any other country of the world. What must he do? Must his wife leave him? Is that what that side of the House wants? These are the sort of uncaring decisions that we get all the time from the Government. That is why ordinary people in the street, like myself, despair of seeing any real change whatsoever and that is why we cannot support the Bill before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of the case which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised here, but clearly it is a case which will be better dealt with departmentally.

I have tried that. I have done my best.

Your best obviously is not good enough. [Interjections.]

The basis of the financial attack which has been conducted over the past few days by the hon. member for Yeoville and the chief spokesman for the NRP, as well as the other hon. members, basically revolved around the fact that the Ministry in particular and the Government in general have mismanaged the economy and the finances of the country and that this has led to the fact that the State has had to compensate by finding additional forms of revenue. Opposition spokesmen have held that in doing so the Government has in fact fanned the flames of inflation and that the new legislation which it is sought to levy is going to hurt poor people. Furthermore, the hon. member for Yeoville said that the problem was that, unlike Joseph, this Government had not in fact stored or planned in the fat years for the lean years that might lie ahead for South Africa.

I should just like to deal with that argument first, because we know that it is simply not true and can be demonstrated to be completely untrue, the reason being that we all know that in 1981 the average gold price was $460 per ounce, whilst to date this year the average—although the average is falling— has been $362 per fine ounce. So the $100 difference has, in fact, meant that the decrease in the revenue from the goldmines to the Exchequer will be something like R1 100 million, and that is not taking into account the fact that the goldmines have had increased costs and will also be having substantially increased costs to deal with in the future. We know that the additional amount that will be raised by the various forms of taxation the hon. the Minister has suggested will raise an amount of R1 150 million, which is simply compensation for lost revenue. The State, of course, needs to levy taxes for the revenue it requires and cannot substantially cut expenditure any further. [Interjections.] If that hon. member had read the Sunday Times of yesterday he would have seen this fact demonstrated again. There was yet another survey—I forgot whose survey it was—demonstrating that whose survey it was—demonstrating that the Government’s expenditure as a percentage of the GNP over the past few years had, in fact, declined substantially. The fact is that the Government did exactly the opposite of what the hon. member for Yeoville claimed, because it did act in a Joseph-like fashion. I say this because the marketable short-term Government debt dropped from R3,5 billion in 1981 by about R1 billion up to now. Long-term debts have also been significantly repaid and foreign debt have also been significantly reduced. I think it was the hon. member for Malmesbury who mentioned, in the Second Reading debate, that the windfall-increase in revenue of R1 240 million in 1980-’81 was transferred to the Stabilization Account and is available to be used—in fact is being used—by the National Procurement Fund to lay in strategic stocks, in other words for stockpiling. All of these actions have therefore given us more leeway for borrowing—at the moment we are underborrowed—improves our attractiveness as an investment opportunity and helps us to negotiate better loans from a position of strength. I do not want to be sacrilegious, but I think that if Joseph were here— in the gallery perhaps—he would have been nodding his head in approval of this budget and the Government’s actions over the past year.

If Joseph were here, he would be voting PFP.

No, I do not think Joseph would be sitting in the Opposition benches.

That is for sure.

He understood finance. The allegation that the Government has mismanaged the economy, which is an allegation we heard from the NRP in particular, can be incontrovertibly disproved, and very easily too. If the Government had consistently mismanaged the economy—and this includes the past year—clearly that would have resulted in a lack of confidence. [Interjections.] Yes, clearly it would. If there had been bad management or mismanagement one could have expected a lack of confidence, but we know, in fact, that the very opposite is true. We know, for example …

So are all the economists I mentioned are talking nonsense?

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister mentioned the BERI rating. According to that rating, South Africa has moved up from the 13th position to the 11th position.

That is no consolation.

Let us look at the company we are in. Just ahead of us are Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Australia and Saudi-Arabia, whilst behind us in that index we find such countries as Nationalist China, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Israel and so on. So we find that in fact our credit rating is good. There is increasing confidence in South Africa and that is a demonstration of the fact that there has been a good management of the economy. We know that the planning of the major capital projects, for example Richards Bay, the Sishen-Saldanha project and Sasol, planning in which the Treasury has also played a vital role, has been very good indeed. We know, for example, that when we ran into a balance of payments problem a couple of years ago, Richards Bay had just come on stream and we could in fact increase our coal exports which then offset the balance of payments problem we had run into. The Sishen-Saldanha scheme has unlocked the whole great western and northern part of our country for development. We know that soon after the oil crisis came upon us we were able, because of the foresight of the Government, to translate our technological advances into energy production. In a few short years Sasol 2 and 3 will be producing a substantial part of our own energy requirements. We know that through its financial policy the Government has kept marginal farmers on the land and farmers on marginal land. We know how that decision was criticized. It was, however, a good thing because we know how important food has become as a strategic weapon in South Africa and the subcontinent in the field of politics. We also know what its consequences have been. We know, too, the social consequences of keeping farmers on the land. We know, for example, that some 30% of all Blacks living outside the homelands are housed on the farms of South Africa.

The one question that was raised by successive speakers this afternoon was, of course, the whole question of power-sharing. I think the hon. member for Yeoville asked what the term “power-sharing” means.

In the NP context.

He said that in his terminology it meant seeking a form of consensus Government. I would recommend to the hon. member for Yeoville that he simply look at the Oxford Dictionary, because it defines “share” as follows—

It defines “power” as—

If I could refer the hon. member to the twelve-point plan, one of the points reads as follows—

So we see it means an equitable division with others.

I want to say that, whatever the President’s Council may or may not recommend, the fact is that, if one has an equitable division of power, which is the dictionary definition of “sharing”, and if certain structures are created for dealing with matters of common concern and people from the various population groups serve in those particular structures in order to give effect to particular services or whatever, then the powers relating to that joint decision making are obviously the powers that are shared. Therefore there is power-sharing. It is perfectly simple.

“One horse, one rabbit.”

No, not “one horse, one rabbit”. What has happened is that the hon. members of the PFP have suddenly found themselves confronted by the reality that their policy is in fact not power-sharing. The policy of the PFP is the policy of the melting-pot, it is the policy of “simple majorityism.” It is not a policy of groups competing or co-operating, but it is for individuals.

It is a policy of voluntary groups.

Implicit in the word “sharing” is that one retains something of one’s own. If one shares, one in fact shares something of one’s own. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House believe that there must be that element of community life, community privacy, cultural security for all the various groups in our country. It is clear that the PFP policy is and always has been a policy of the melting pot. They tumble all the ingredients of the South African political life into a crucible where it is integrated. They believe in an integrated power structure, an integrated political structure, and that is simply majority rule. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville always runs away from this fact by saying that there policy is one of federalism. The fact is that if one simply recreates within every federal unit the same factors …

One does not.

How are you then discriminating? [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Sea Point then tell us how they are going to discriminate? [Interjections.]

But we do not want to discriminate.

How do you distinguish then?

You do not know the difference between discriminate and distinguish.

An attack was made upon the department, and the hon. member for Yeoville said that the hon. the Minister must not wince when he is dealt blows. He separated the Minister from his department.

Show me one word in my Hansard where I said that.

The hon. the Minister acts on the advice of his department.

Show me one word in my Hansard where I attacked the department.

The fact is that one cannot separate the actions of the Minister from those of the department because obviously the Minister is acting in concert with and on the advice of his department.

I should like to conclude my support of the Third Reading of this Bill by saying that it was my privilege less than a year ago to receive a group of very prominent European industrialists and bankers here at Parliament. As usual they were taken to lunch and on a tour of the building, and when they left the chairman of the group, a very prominent banker, said to me: “Thank you very much for the hospitality, Mr. Durr, shown to us today. There is much we envy in this great country of yours, but there is one thing in particular that we envy that we should like to tell you about today, and that is your Minister of Finance”. That comment drew applause from the other prominent members of this mission to South Africa. That is also the kind of remark one has the pleasure of hearing wherever one goes, and South Africa is indeed very fortunate in having the steadying hand of the hon. the Minister at the financial helm of our country, particularly in these difficult times. We are living in difficult times. World finances and trade are in a difficult position and it is very hard to predict where we are heading. The parameters are changing almost daily. We are dealing with a very fluid situation as far as our major exports are concerned, but in spite of all the difficult circumstances that we have to contend with, I have absolute confidence that this Minister will, as he has over the past years, act in a way that will redound to the credit and to the future prosperity of this great country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I should like to turn to the hon. member with the crystal ball, that is, the hon. member for Yeoville. During the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill last year the hon. member looked into his crystal ball and predicted: “Vote now, pay later”. This year he came to remind us of that and pointed out to us that he had been correct in his prediction and that we would simply have to pay now. He said this in the light of the fact that the general sales tax has been increased by 1% to 5%. The hon. member made this prediction at a time when the gold price had begun to drop and when our trading partners abroad had moved into a recessionary phase. It was when the South African rand had declined in value relative to the American dollar, and when South Africa was riding the crest of the economic cycle.

At the moment we are in an economic cooling-down phase, but the positive indications are already there. Consequently I think that the hon. member for Yeoville owes it to this House to make his future predictions with greater care. He should go and gaze into his crystal ball again and try to tell us what will happen next year and the year after that. However, he will have to be careful, because if he does not do so, he may be guilty of the kind of opportunism which is definitely beginning to shake his credibility.

The hon. member for Yeoville, and other speakers on the Opposition side, reacted fairly sharply to the high inflation rate prevailing in South Africa at present. Of course I must concede that a double-figure inflation rate is not acceptable to anyone. Certain measures will therefore have to be taken against it. Consequently the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated to us that his policy of financial discipline contains measures that the Government must definitely implement to keep the inflation rate as low as possible. We can ask every departmental head and every Minister to what extent that specific department’s budget must be reduced in practice to the absolute minimum amount necessary for the provision of essential services to the country. However, there ought to be other solutions as well for this high inflation rate, and I therefore took it upon myself to look at the PFP’s economic policy in order to ascertain what measures they suggest to reduce the inflation rate in South Africa slightly. There I read that they were indeed trying to find a slogan for their economic policy. I should like to quote from their economic policy, from point 5.1, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, the phrase “economic democracy” when I translate it into Afrikaans, means “spaarsamige demokrasie”. Of course, I do not know exactly what they mean by economic democracy. Economic for whom? How economic will their democracy actually be? What is more, of course, is that I believe the hon. member for Yeoville realizes that the name he has attached to the economic policy of his party is going to give him problems. Consequently he promptly decided to change it to social democracy. Of course I do not know if this took place with the approval of the other members of that specific commission of his party by whom the policy was drawn up. I see that the hon. member for Pinelands was also a member of that commission. Suddenly the term has been changed to “social democracy”.

Neither of them are in the House at the moment.

Yes, I see that both of them are absent from the House at the moment. However, I hope they will tell us at some or other stage what they mean by this. I have an idea though, as we have come to know the hon. member for Yeoville, that he did this on his own. Absolute individualist that he is of course, he decided on this basis that social democracy was more suitable. It is clear that he would like to include something more of socialism in this concept. However, I do not want to be unfair. In this policy of social democracy I found that the official Opposition would like to reduce the inflation rate by raising productivity by means of improved training. This is indeed one of the ways of fighting inflation. In this regard the commission is quite right. In this entire policy of social democracy, one aspect, however, was conspicuous by its absence. This was the question of working harder, of diligence, of taking pleasure in one’s work as an ennobling experience. These are concepts that are not strange to us in this country. They are concepts that are not at all strange to the Afrikaner in particular, who had to go through a period of poverty in his history. Yet it bothers me that the official Opposition make no mention of this at all in their official economic policy. Do they wish to imply now that less work and higher salaries will help to bring down the inflation rate? No, I think it is absolutely essential that we in this country should realize that whatever the Government does, if every worker in South Africa does not work harder, even if he has the technical inputs of improved techniques to increase his productivity, we shall not be able to bring the inflation rate down.

Mr. Speaker, you will also allow me to say something about the state of mind of those people who say you must not begrudge others what you demand for yourself. Self-determination is one of the non-negotiable rights the White man demands for himself, but he states that he does not begrudge the other population groups in South Africa the same right. The White man gained his self-determination when this country became a Republic, after decades of hard work, and we have made great progress in bringing about self-determination for all the Black nations of South Africa. However, the hour has now come to grant real self-determination to the Coloureds and the Asians, who have to share the same territory as the Whites. Those people who only pay lip-service to the right to self-determination of the Coloureds and Asians and do not have the courage to put their words into action because they are afraid of the consequences of the liaison structures by means of which deliberation and co-responsibility must be implemented, have no positive contribution to make in this constitutional development process. We as Nationalists may not make the same mistake as British imperialism made towards Afrikaner nationalism by deluding itself that it could keep them in submission forever by means of cosmetic gestures. What is needed now is for everyone who is honest about the right to self-determination of both the Whites and the Coloureds and the Asians, to divest himself completely of selfish imperialism and face up to the challenge awaiting us.

Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, understandable that the political turn of events during the past few days would also come into prominence in this debate, and we listened with interest to the speeches dealing with those events. I think that from the Government side the hon. members for Klip River, Umhlatuzana and Maitland in particular, who referred to aspects of these events, acquitted them very well of their task. For my part, however, I do not wish to elaborate on them any further. My opinion on such matters has been very clearly stated. Hon. members will recall that when I moved the adjournment of the debate on Thursday evening I said that although it was a great pity that all these developments had had to take place in the party, there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there was nothing wrong with the spirit in this party. Its morale was and is still very high. I also said that the party stood strong and firm, and what happened on Saturday in Pretoria proved my standpoint to the hilt. We shall continue under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. We shall move from strength to strength. We shall carry out our policy step by step. I do not want to elaborate on that any further now, because the hon. the Prime Minister said on Saturday night that he himself would be in a position on Wednesday to say something further about these matters.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti continued to talk about deficit spending. He was confusing the concept entirely with what we call the deficit before borrowing in the budget. That is something quite different. If the hon. member wishes to read 100 books on the subject of deficit spending, he can do so and he will not find any difference between what he finds there and what I have already told him. I told him that deficit spending is when a government deliberately sets out so to order its total expenditures and its total incomes that its total expenditures exceed its total incomes from all sources and it then has to make that deficit good by means of inflationary finance. That is something, as I said in my speech of a few days ago, which plays absolutely no part in our budgetary philosophy whatsoever. I want to say again—the hon. member has once again completely ignored this fact—that we had to consider our tight financial position against the background of its root causes. It came about largely from external sources. There was a considerable drop in the gold price over which we had no control. There was the economic weakening of one country after the other in the Western World with which we trade. The poor state of the world economy is a very big factor. There were also, of course, the substantial purchases of strategic materials that we made which cost us a great deal of money and there is also the record maize crop that we have had to finance. All these matters have placed a very great strain upon our finances as they would in regard to any country, no matter which country it was. One cannot discuss the position today without mentioning all these factors and realizing too that as far as the gold mines are concerned—as I think my friend the hon. member for Florida also stated—we have also had to contend with increasing costs on the part of the goldmines themselves. I want to leave the matter at that because there is nothing more I can say in this regard. I do not wish to repeat my speech of last week because it is already on record.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a rather interesting statement when he said that every time the public buy a bonus bond they take money out of the economy. That is a very remarkable way to look at the position. What does happen, of course, is that every time somebody buys a bonus bond he is contributing directly towards the maintenance of the safety of the State. That is what is happening. The hon. member knows that our defence spending has risen each year from 1974-’75 when it was R650 million and that one of these days it will amount to about R3 000 million. While all this is going on, we are continuing to establish all the constructive development schemes and promote all the huge social advancements which each budget in succession proves to the whole world. Because of the things that I have just mentioned and the circumstances that are beyond our control, in order to help finance these huge strategic purchases from abroad as well as the other matters I have mentioned, the Treasury has had to make limited use—the hon. member referred to this matter again—of Reserve Bank credit. This is purely bridging finance, it is a temporary measure and we are well on the way to wiping it out as I think the hon. member should realize when he looks at the success of our Government issues and tender issues lately. There are also of course, the deliberate steps that we took earlier to levy the surcharge on imports and to increase general sales tax by 1 cent in the rand. Those were deliberate measures that we took to clear the economy of that Reserve Bank credit which, as I say, is a very temporary phenomenon.

There was one other point raised by the hon. member that interested me. He said in referring to the article in The Financial Mail that they had mentioned two economists who were disappointed men. Of course, there were three. I asked the hon. member who the third economist was and he said that he thought that it was Dr. Brand. The hon. member must read that article again. I thought the third was myself! The hon. member must read that article again. He must be a little more subtle. If he does so, the hon. member may see what they mean because, obviously, I too would be disappointed if we had to make any use, however temporary, of Reserve Bank credit because of factors completely beyond our control. In fact, that article was not an attack upon me. If one reads it carefully one will see that it was nothing of the kind. It was in actual fact commiserating with the Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance. That is what it was doing.

The hon. member for Yeoville said he thought it was time that the hon. the Prime Minister said exactly where he stands. Goodness me, if there is anybody in this country who ever since he has been Prime Minister has stated unequivocally and specifically where he stands, it is the hon. the Prime Minister. So what is the use of making a statement of that kind? Where does it get anybody?

But he keeps on changing.

The hon. member for Yeoville also talked about power-sharing, but I want to come back to essentials with the Opposition. When all is said and done, power-sharing is something with which they are dealing every day in their minds, but the real issue with their policy is that they are moving straight to Black majority rule. That is the issue. [Interjections.] Now they are, as it were, trying to confuse the whole issue with power-sharing, but the real issue is the sort of government that will come. I say that it will be Black majority rule if they get half a chance. That is the position. [Interjections.] I was in the Senate at the time this was said. Where is the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition who said it then? He spelt it out with pride, and it appeared all over the country.

I should like to refer briefly to the rather unfortunate references the hon. member for Yeoville made to me personally. He said I was bitter. I started my speech, as the whole House heard, the other day by saying that I thought that his speech and that of the other hon. chief spokesman on finance were two of the worst I had heard in financial debates. I intended giving my reasons, but before I could give a single reason, he shouted at me in great anger that I was despicable. He lost his temper completely. Now, who was bitter—he or I? I was talking calmly and I had scarcely started. I was talking quite calmly as I am talking now; I am not bitter.

Order! The hon. the Minister is not allowed to refer to that interjection since the hon. member for Yeoville withdrew his remark.

Sir, I shall leave that particular remark there.

The point, however, is that he said I was bitter because I was criticized. Not at all! He was in fact rather abusive and he is of course extremely quick to get hot under the collar. My whole point to him was that he should not be so hypersensitive; we should discuss things. If he had given reasons for his statements, then we could have debated the issue, and that was what I tried to do, because my statement is there.

But you issued statements outside.

Let me come to his remark that I issued statements outside the House while the debate was on. What did I do? I said specifically that I was referring to certain things like pension increases and tax concessions. I mentioned them and said that because I could not refer in detail to these matters in the time allotted, I thought it would be of interest to many people if I issued those statements outside. The hon. member would be surprised to see the reaction I have had, both from the Press and the public who took the trouble to study some of those documents. Now he says to me that I must not do that! What was wrong with that? The hon. member himself, however, is a past master in this House at issuing statements outside while Parliament is in session, and I do not know anybody who can beat him at that. Sometimes he does so even in advance of a debate.

Perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands.

I do not know; I have not been watching him so carefully.

You had better watch him!

He took me up on a third point when he said I was responsible for financial mismanagement. Every day I work in the closest concert with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the heads of the Treasury—that is to say in the generic sense, i.e. the Director-General and the Secretary of the Treasury—and we absolutely agree 100% on our policy all along the line. I cannot remember a single policy decision on which we have not seen absolutely eye to eye. I obviously take full responsibility for that. However, if you criticize the Minister of Finance for allegedly bad financial management and maintain you are not in the process criticizing the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, then I do not understand English. He cannot possibly get away with a statement like that. Let us understand plain English when we are using it.

I want to go further and say something about inflation, a point which came up again.

Why do you not comment on what economists say?

What economists? For every one economist who is critical, in my reading, I think 25 are completely on our side and they are some of the best in the whole world. I read far more about what economists say than the hon. member for Amanzimtoti or he would not talk that way about deficit financing.

So you reject the views of Senbank, Volkskas and Barclays? You reject them all? [Interjections.]

The hon. member talks as if he knows what the consensus of authoritative economic and financial opinion is. I know a little bit about that myself.

I have with me a very interesting graph, issued by the Department of Statistics. This is an official graph. Unfortunately it is a little small, but hon. members will see that ever since the end of June 1981 the graph has been coming down very well This is the graph of the cost of living index. The hon. member for Florida also referred to it. There is a very consistent fall in the graph of the cost of living index. Nobody can tell what the graph will do in future. I cannot see into the future, but I say that if it has come down for seven or eight months that is an extremely good portent for the future.

Are you saying the cost of living index has dropped?

Yes, the cost of living index. Are you now going to query that as well?

It is the rate of the cost of living that has dropped.

The cost of living has also dropped.

Have a good look at this graph and tell me if it does not mean that it is declining. [Interjections.]

Last week the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is not in the House at the moment, had a lot to say about the finances of local authorities and he criticized us because, as he said, we had done virtually nothing about the Browne and, subsequently, the Croeser Committees in practice. This was said after the hon. the Deputy Minister had made it clear in a statement across the floor of the House in reply to a question that the great majority of those recommendations of the Browne Committee had already been accepted and put into practice. Let us take two examples, two of the big municipalities. Johannesburg, as a result of the complete policy change we made—I think we have taken a very big step forward in providing that the exemption which Government buildings enjoyed on property rates be lifted and that they should now be taxed—has received an amount of R3,6 million in respect of the rate on Government property. Pretoria has received R4,3 million. One can go right through and do the same exercise for other municipalities. How can anybody then say that we are not taking extremely far-reaching steps to improve the finances of local government? This is only one of many measures which have been taken.

I want to say something about the little slogan that was banded about during the debate last week and again today to the effect that the budget of 1980 was a case of “vote now, pay later”. The budget was in March 1980 and the election was in April 1981. I defy any member in the House to say that when I delivered the budget in March 1980 I had the faintest conception that there would be …

We are talking about the Part Appropriation when you came here and dished out all the largesse.

When was this?

In February, before the election in April. [Interjections.]

One minute they are criticizing the budget of 1980 and the next minute they are criticizing the Part Appropriation. They must be clear about what they mean.

You were dishing out largess.

I was not dishing out largesse to anybody. [Interjections.] Had there been no election of any kind, that would have been precisely what I would have done.

Order!

In February, before the election in April. It is a fact.

Anyway, I should like to thank the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Florida for having made some excellent contributions to the financial side of this debate this afternoon. I should also like to thank them for their very kind personal remarks.

In conclusion I should like to ask the House’s indulgence in order to refer to a matter involving a personal allusion. I am referring to recurring Press reports of late which, if they were true, would in my opinion be the most callous and hard-hearted I could think of and which, if they were untrue, would be the most irresponsible and scandalous I could think of. I am referring to the recurring reports stating that my health is bad and has been bad for a long time. If anybody thinks that is a joke, let me just point out that I think it is a very serious matter. It is true that when Mark Twain read a report of his death he did say that the report was greatly exaggerated, but there is a more serious side to this. I am very sorry to see that the Argus group and Saan have indulged in this. What I think is serious about the Saan group—particularly the Sunday Times of yesterday—is that I issued a rebuttal of this report because of the tremendous concern and the tremendous repercussions coming my way, which I shall elaborate on in a minute. As I have said, I issued a rebuttal to The Argus shortly after lunch on Friday. I understand that it appeared in The Star on Saturday. I am not quite sure when The Star comes out, but I do not think that The Star in Johannesburg is an evening paper, as the Weekend Argus is, but actually an afternoon paper.

It is to become a morning paper quite soon too.

Well! Despite that, however, on Sunday the Sunday Times repeated that absolutely untrue and extremely mischievous report that I have been in bad health for a long time. I can only be thankful that my health is exceptionally good. I happen to lead a very active life and I also happen to have an exceptionally heavy schedule, day in and day out, also involving a tremendous amount of travel. There is, however, not a grain of truth in that report. It has caused very considerable anxiety to my family, especially those who are far away, and has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the business world. It has meant that my wife has had to answer scores of telephone calls in the last few days, late at night and early in the morning—in fact, even at midnight—and I think that is shocking. I think it is absolutely shocking that those newspapers can do that without first referring the matter to me. Had they referred the matter to me, I would have told them the truth and the story would have been scotched. That is, of course, why it was not referred to me.

The report does, however, go even further—and this is a little bit laughable—by saying that I am about to be retired because my health is so bad. That is what the newspapers said. I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is present here, because the hon. the Prime Minister has authorized me to say that he knows as little as I do about my impending retirement and my bad health. I am making this statement now, and I should like to add that I think that this is an exceptionally serious matter in view of the fact that the Press is so palpably under the spotlight today. Even though we have not even come forward yet with any proposals, parts of the Press are already becoming hysterical and telling everybody how they are bent on telling the truth and are prepared to maintain the highest standards. Then they do this sort of thing, which one can only call absolutely cowardly. I am glad to have this opportunity, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make this statement. I regret that the necessity arose. It is something I would never have touched if I could have avoided it, but hon. members cannot know the sort of reaction I am getting from all over, including a telephone call on Saturday morning from the head of one of the German banks with which we are, at the moment, involved in a big transaction. He telephoned to express his grave concern. That is the sort of thing I am putting up with at the moment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 33, after “party” to insert:
   • to act or refrain from acting in some way or
2. (2) on page 5, in line 40, after “of” to insert:
   • acting or refraining from acting in some way or of
3. (3) on page 5, in line 55, after “of” to insert:
   • acting or refraining from acting in some way or of

The Bar Council has pointed out to us that the amending Bill, as published, only provides that when a third party acts as a result of incorrect information furnished by an auditor, he shall have a right of recovery. However, it may also happen that the third party does not act and suffers a loss as a result. The legislation should make provision for this as well. The department has gone over this matter very carefully with the Director of Financial Institutions, and the law adviser has also considered it. They are of the opinion that we should also make provision for the case where the third party does not act as a result of information with which he has been furnished. Hence the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill we on this side of the House indicated that we were opposed to the Second Reading, not on the basis that the object of the Bill was undesirable or inadequate, but on the basis that we were of the opinion that codification of this aspect was not desirable. The amendment the hon. the Deputy Minister has now proposed has the effect of clarifying the intention behind the Bill. The actual provisions of the Bill are in accordance with the law, as I see it, in other countries which are dealing with this problem, and therefore we can only support the amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1958, provides that certain acts specified therein are offences and prescribes a maximum sentence of a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment for five years or both such fine and imprisonment. In view of the decrease in the value of money the maximum fine is no longer realistic.

*In the case of The State vs. Ahmed Rafi and Others (unreported), the judge remarked that he would have imposed a very high fine if he had not been bound by the maximum prescribed fine. If we simply prescribe a more realistic fine, it will probably have to be amended again in due course.

The crimes defined in section 2 of the Act correspond for the most part to the common law offence of bribery, or are in many cases at least equally serious. In the case of bribery, any penalty within the jurisdiction of the court concerned can be imposed. Because of the nature of the offences, it is desirable rather to give the court an open discretion by making the penalty the same as that which can be imposed for bribery.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this Bill because of the beneficial development it introduces. The common law as it exists at the moment is designed to deal with State officials only as far as the crime of bribery is concerned, whereas the statutory form of bribery dealt with by this particular Act—although it is also wide enough to include State officials—affects employees and employers in the private sector. The hon. the Minister has referred to a case in which the problem of a statutory fine was dealt with. There have been cases in the past where the Act that lays down the penalty has come under discussion, and the problem that has arisen has been that, because under the statutory form of bribery there is a maximum prescribed penalty, it has often happened that where someone has been accused of the statutory form of bribery, it has been argued that because a fine is provided for, that form of bribery is not a serious one and that a penalty of imprisonment should therefore only be imposed in very serious circumstances. It has often been argued that people charged under that Act should pay a fine as a sentence rather than go to prison.

In the second place it has often been argued that the common law crime of bribery is a more serious one than the statutory one, and that therefore people accused under the Act should not be dealt with as severely as those who commit the crime of bribery under the common law. Again there have been Appellate Division decisions that refute these suggestions, for example the case of The State v Young which was decided in 1976 where the court specifically said that the fact that the penalty was provided for in the Act did not mean that an accused under the Act should be dealt with more leniently. This Bill does away with the arguments that have been used to suggest that the common law form of bribery is more serious than the statutory form of bribery.

The Act deals specifically with employees and employers in the private sector, and it will now be quite clear to these people that the statutory form of bribery can be dealt with as severely, depending on the circumstances, as would be the case under common law. It is a welcome development, the discretion rests with the court, as it should in the case of an offence of this nature, and we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for supporting this measure.

The purpose of this statutory amendment is obviously to give the magistrate and the judge an unlimited discretion with regard to the penalty to be imposed in the case of the statutory offence of bribery. Of course, both the judge and the magistrate are still limited with regard to the jurisdiction of the court concerned, but apart from that, the presiding officer has an unlimited discretion. This in itself is a very commendable principle, i.e. that there should be the minimum interference with the discretion of the magistrate and the judge in this respect. He is the one who really knows all the circumstances. He is the one who is really the best qualified to impose a penalty.

In this case in particular, this principle is very valuable. The present maximum penalty is obviously unrealistic—only a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. There may well be many cases involving thousands of rands, in which a heavy fine, and perhaps also a long period of imprisonment, are indicated.

For this reason I gladly support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no problem in supporting this piece of amending legislation. Most of the important points have already been made by the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member, Mr. Schutte. There is nothing I should like to add at this stage, except to say that we have no problem in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member Mr. Schutte and the hon. member for King William’s Town for their support of this measure.

Of course, this development—what this statutory amendment is all about—also underlines another very important point which has often been made in this House. That is that the imposing of a penalty should be left to the discretion of our courts. I believe hon. member will also strongly support this approach. Therefore I do not wish to elaborate on the matter any further. The hon. member for Durban Central has given a very acceptable explanation of the background to this measure. I fully agree with what he said. I have with me a copy of the ruling to which he referred. However, it is not necessary to argue about the details of the case. Since there is such unanimity, I shall leave the matter at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The only purpose of this Bill is to increase the amount of R10 000 to R50 000, where it occurs in section 1(a), (b) and (c) of the Succession Act, 1934, in order to increase the intestate inheritance of a surviving spouse.

Underlying these provisions is the idea that the surviving spouse—in most cases it is the wife—will be able to retain the house and furniture in order to ensure accommodation for herself and her minor children. For this reason, section 38(1) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965, also provides that the Master may—if no interested person would be prejudiced thereby, and if the major heirs and any claimants consent—have the property in the estate made over to the surviving spouse at a valuation and subject to certain further requirements. The authority granted by the Master is also subject to the giving of security.

†It frequently happens now that the surviving spouse’s share of the estate is too small to enable such spouse to make use of section 38 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965, to take over the minors’ share of the estate and secure their inheritance. This leads to unnecessary hardship as the family house has to be sold.

The amount of R10 000 was fixed in 1962, and since then the value of money has decreased considerably. The value of fixed property has increased out of proportion with the change in money value. The Chief Master of the Supreme Court, who experiences the effect of the relevant enactments in practice, is of the opinion that an increase to the amount of R50 000 would be in accordance with present circumstances and, taking the already mentioned factors into consideration, an increase to R50 000 would be reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister has very briefly set out the motivation and reasoning behind it and I agree with what he has said. It provides basically for the ravaging effects of inflation as well as the effects of increased prices of immovable property and also increased costs and prices in all other spheres. The amount of R50 000 which is provided for in the Bill will, I assume, more or less provide for what could be provided for in 1962 with an amount of R10 000. It is only a logical amendment which keeps pace with the rise in costs and therefore we support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me too to support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. As the hon. the Minister explained, to my mind the increase of the figure from R10 000 that was determined in 1962, to the current R50 000 is practically only making provision for the decrease in the value of money since 1962.

A side effect of the legislation is that the position of the woman who was married in community of property would in actual fact be the same on the occasion of the decease of her husband, in the vast majority of cases, as that of a woman who was married by antenuptial contract. One must bear in mind that under normal circumstances a woman who married by antenuptial contract does not have the opportunity to bring about a considerable increase in those assets that she owned at the time of her marriage. Usually she has other obligations while on the other hand the husband does in fact have the opportunity to increase his assets considerably. This brings me to the question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Are we going far enough with this legislation? In these days of equal rights for man and woman we find that this legislation does in fact favour the man in practice. If I were to illustrate this by way of an example, I could for instance refer to two parties who were married by antenuptial contract, both parties with assets of R50 000. The man is in a position to increase his assets. Suppose that on the death of his wife he has already increased his assets from R50 000 to R200 000. There are four children in the family. In that case he then inherits the R50 000 from his wife should she die intestate. If the man should die first, the position is that because there are four children, the wife is entitled to a child’s portion only, which would be R50 000 in this case. Therefore, after the death of her husband she would be left with an estate of R100 000 whilst after her death he would be left with an estate of R250 000. I ask whether this is fair with a view to equal rights for men and women.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem whatsoever in supporting this amendment. In fact, we welcome it. The only query we have is whether the hon. the Minister will in future review this regularly in view of the tremendous rate at which money devalues these days. We should just like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to that. We in these benches feel that there should be a shorter period of review of this amount, because it does bring about tremendous hardships in the event of estates. We support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the problem raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town I should like to point out that the provisions of section 38 were not easily applied on account of the relatively small portion of the estate that was previously allocated to the surviving spouse, because of intestate succession. It will now be possible to make use of section 38 more often. In other words, it will now be possible to allow for the takeover of a property to the value of R50 000 and I would say that this will have the effect of curtailing the procedure enormously. We shall have to see how it operates in practice and we can then review the situation at some future stage. I also want to thank the hon. member for his support of the police in the Durban Central area.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North also asked me a question. I was afraid that he would come up with a trick question such as what the situation would be if the surviving spouse died first. However, the hon. member did not ask such a complicated question and concentrated more on situations which could arise and which are not being dealt with directly by the legislation today. The whole question of appreciation and equitability in this connection is perhaps more material to the inquiry by the Law commission into marital property law, which has just been concluded. I may perhaps mention that these and related facets are dealt with in that report. I just want to announce that that report has already been submitted to me. It is being studied at the moment and we shall decide in due course what our response to it will be. It affects a small facet of the question put to me by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. I think he will be satisfied when I tell him that I think we should accept at this stage that the present position is an enormous step forward which will ensure that in the case of intestate succession, the matter will be dealt with as is being proposed. We still have the problem of a husband who disinherits his wife. That problem remains, and we are not trying in this legislation to regulate the personal relationship between the parties or to lay down under what circumstances a man should allow his wife to inherit or should disinherit her. At this stage we are dealing with the situation of intestate succession, and I just want to tell the hon. member I think we should deal with the facets he raised at some other time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill envisages granting the Minister of Police the power to temporarily promote in rank an officer in the South African Police from time to time, depending on the circumstances.

The circumstances under which this power can be made use of, may be summarized briefly as follows: When the national States established their own police forces—here I am including Black States that have already accepted their independence—it was and is in the interests of the above-mentioned States as well as the Republic that the South African Police should second skilled officers to those police forces in order to provide training for the management cadre and to act as advisers.

During secondment these officers held a position of seniority in rank with regard to the members of those forces, but in the process of the development of their own systems of promotion, it happened that the seconded officers that continued to hold advisory positions of authority, were overtaken in rank, which gave rise to disciplinary problems and an antipathy towards secondment.

In order to solve this problem, under given circumstances a seconded officer, as it is envisaged in the Bill, will be able to be promoted in rank by the Minister. As soon as the necessity for the higher temporary rank falls away later on, for instance when such a seconded officer returns to his normal duties in the Republic, he is divested of the temporary higher rank and he accepts his previous rank, or the rank that he would normally have occupied in the Force at that stage.

It can also be foreseen that the principle of temporary promotion in rank could be implemented where a senior position has to be filled by a person of a lower rank for a long or unspecified period, whilst he has to accept the responsibilities related to the senior position. As is also clear from the provision, temporary promotion in rank does not detract from the State President’s authority with regard to such an officer in any respect.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given a brief explanation in regard to the purpose of the fairly simply Bill which we have before us. We on this side of the House are going to support the Bill. Our support is based on the reasons which the hon. the Minister has given us, viz. that this really is a Bill of convenience relating primarily to our responsibilities in regard to the national States and the need for providing police officers in order to assist with police training in those States.

The Bill does, however, give the Minister the power to—

It gives him this power perhaps beyond the specific reasons which the hon. the Minister has given this afternoon, but we shall accept the reasons which he has given.

I should, however, like to draw the attention of the House to one reservation which we do have and which could be a serious reservation. I therefore seek the assurance of the hon. the Minister on this point. We are concerned that the temporarily promoted police officer should not exercise powers in terms of the security laws in South Africa. I refer specifically to section 6 of the Terrorism Act and section 20 of the General Laws Amendment Act which prescribe that a person of the rank of lieutenant-colonel shall be responsible for issuing a warrant to detain an individual in terms of those security laws. I seek an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will not allow an officer, promoted in terms of this provision to occupy temporary rank, to assume those powers in terms of the security legislation, because if that were the case, we would view the Bill in an entirely different light. If the reasons given by the hon. the Minister are the only reasons for which he wants this authority, we are prepared to support the Second Reading, but I should like to have his assurance on the point I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House it is a pleasure for me to express our support of the Second Reading of the Bill. I am also expressing our appreciation towards the official Opposition for supporting the legislation as the hon. member for Berea has indicated.

The hon. member did in fact qualify and hold back his party’s support, but I think that he will definitely obtain the assurance that he has asked from the hon. the Minister with regard to specific circumstances.

There is one important aspect with regard to the legislation that should not simply be passed over. I am referring to the important role that the South African Police play in granting assistance in the training of and giving advice to police forces in the various national States. It is with appreciation that we take note of the fact that with regard to this single aspect, we are in agreement that the measure will go through unopposed.

Mr. Speaker, like the official Opposition, we on these benches support the Bill because we see the need for it. We thank the hon. the Minister for the motivation he has given for the introduction of the Bill. However, I would like to join the hon. member for Berea in his concern in respect of the fact that temporary officers will be allowed to exercise authority in terms of certain legislation on our statute book. I think we should—and it is correct to do so—ask the hon. the Minister for a reply to this rather nettlesome question. I am also sure the hon. the Minister will indicate to us that it is not his intention to use these people in this regard in any way whatsoever. We do, however, see the need for this assistance, particularly in respect of the national States, and we have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition speakers as well as the other two gentlemen for their support of the Bill.

†I want to give the hon. member for Berea the assurance that we have no intention whatsoever of using this provision otherwise than explained in my Second Reading speech. However, we must also remember that whenever such an officer is appointed in a temporary rank he fills that position in all respects and he must apply the law as a policeman. He cannot then say that because he holds a temporary rank he cannot do this or that. Let me give hon. members an example. This provision will normally be applied in respect of quite senior officers. We do not normally have this problem among junior officers. The problem does however arise among senior officers in a command situation. If one were temporarily to promote a colonel to a brigadier in a specific command post then one could not bind him legally in terms of the Police Act or the Standing Orders by saying that he could then only apply some laws and not others. That is a practical difficulty for which one cannot make any provision in any law and one cannot provide for that in any particular regulation. I am sure the hon. member shares my problem in this regard. However, I am quite prepared to give the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Umhlanga the assurance that we have no intention whatsoever of making use of this provision just to suit our own purposes. I have never given that any thought whatsoever. However, if we have an officer of a specific rank appointed in the way for which the Bill provides, then I am very sorry but I cannot provide in either the regulations or the Act that he cannot apply certain laws. However, I do give hon. members the assurance that the Commissioner of Police will also see to it that my assurance is complied with. As I have said, neither the Commissioner of Police nor I has ever given this particular matter any thought at all in this specific direction. Hon. members can accept my assurance on that score.

*We have no intention whatsoever of abusing this provision. It is only there, as I have explained to you, in order to solve a practical problem. If it had been possible to provide for this by way of a regulation which would have fallen under the Public Service regulations, we would have done so without coming to this House with specific legislation. However, we could not do so, and for that reason I had to introduce this amending Bill to enable us to overcome the problem. Hon. members may rest assured that we have no intention of using it for any other purpose and that it is purely a departmental, administrative matter. It merely enables us, when an officer is not the man who should be promoted to a specific post at any given stage, to appoint him to such a post temporarily until other arrangements can be made.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us whether the temporary promotion envisaged here would be a promotion of one notch or two notches or how it would in fact work within the Force. Will it for example be possible for a lieutenant suddenly to be appointed a temporary lieutenant-colonel or would a major be temporarily promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel? Would the promotion therefore cover more than one notch?

The position is that one only appoints an officer to the next highest rank. One cannot suddenly make a lieutenant a colonel. Things do not happen that way. One might, for example, have a colonel who is exactly the right man for the job, but the specific job one wants him to do may warrant the rank of brigadier. It is not in our interests, however, to promote the colonel to the rank of brigadier, but we nevertheless want him to do that particular job under prevailing circumstances. One can then have the provision enabling one to promote him to the temporary rank of brigadier, he fills the post and does the job in the temporary rank of brigadier, but when he rejoins the SAP in another capacity, or returns to his substantive rank, he is once more a colonel. That is how it works in practice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is apparent from the long title, the Bill now under consideration seeks to amend and adjust a great many of the provisions of the principal Act. I immediately want to make it clear that these amendments, with the exception of a few less important amendments, which are mainly of a consequential nature, are being effected at the request of the S.A. Council for Architects, and that they therefore have the wholehearted support of the architect profession.

As most of the proposed amendments entail technical rectifications, I shall only refer to the most important provisions. The Act at present provides that the council, i.e. the S.A. Council for Architects, may recommend to the Minister what the minimum tariff to which an architect is entitled for his services, shall be. A minimum tariff serves the important purpose of affording the profession protection in the sense that in the case of keen competition, competitors are prevented from undercutting one another past a certain point. However, the council also aims at merely laying down a tariff of fees in future, on the basis of which an architect may then calculate the fee which he is entitled to charge for his services. The determination of a tariff of fees, in contrast to a minimum tariff, is nothing new and is to be welcomed.

According to the present provision in the principal Act, an architect shall be resident in the Republic of South Africa before he may be registered as an architect. If he is not resident in the Republic he may only be registered temporarily as an architect. There is no sense in retaining this restriction, and it only creates problems for architects who reside in independent national States which previously formed part of the Republic. Similar restrictions have already been removed from the legislation governing other professions, e.g. the Surveyors’ Registration Act, 1950. It is now being proposed that the restrictions with regard to architects be removed as well.

†It is also proposed to increase the fine which may be imposed in cases of an unregistered person practising as an architect. At present any person who is not registered as an architect but who, for reward, performs work reserved for architects or pretends to be an architect, is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R1 000. The council has requested that the fine be increased to R10 000, as the existing provision is not sufficient to deter persistent offenders.

There are many architects’ firms, and their particular position in relation to the Act has thus far been dealt with in terms of regulations under the Act. In terms of legal opinion, which has now been obtained, it is advisable to incorporate the relevant provisions in the Act rather than in regulations, as there are doubts about whether the matter may be regulated by regulation. The proposed new section 22A deals with this matter. I may just mention that the Registrar of Companies has been consulted in the matter and is satisfied that the proposed measure is consistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.

In closing I wish to refer to the adjustments which are now being made in regard to the provisions in the Act pertaining to the prescribed examinations which a prospective architect must pass before he can apply for registration.

In terms of the existing Act such examinations are to be prescribed by the Minister by regulation. This arrangement is unsatisfactory and the council has requested that it be made clear in the Act which examinations may be prescribed. Although the proposed new section 20 provides that it must be an examination for a degree in architecture at a university in the Republic, this does not mean that architects who have qualified overseas are debarred from registration. Section 19(2)(b), which is not being amended, makes it quite clear that a person can also qualify for registration if he has passed any examination recognized by the council.

*As I have already mentioned, the proposed amendments are being effected at the request of the S.A. Council for Architects, and because they are deemed to be in the interests of the architect profession, I trust that the hon. members will give them their wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support this measure. We realize that it is a measure which has flowed from the natural development within the architectural profession and from certain representations which the S.A. Council for Architects has made to the Minister. It is interesting to note that the architectural profession was originally officially founded by the Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act of 1927, which lasted right through until 1970. So it is quite understandable that, with the new Act dealing with the architectural profession and the significant changes taking place in the structure of that profession, there should from time to time be changes introduced of the nature contemplated in this Bill.

In clause 2 it is suggested that the period of service should be three years and not two years. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Two years is a very short period of service on a council of this importance.

Then there is the problem which, in a sense has arisen as a result of the independence of the new national States. There may well be people practising the profession not in South Africa but in the States and living there, and therefore the deletion of the reference “ordinarily resident in South Africa” seems to be very reasonable.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned the need for the deterrent to be raised from a maximum fine of R1 000 to R10 000. It is a very steep rise in the deterrent, but taking into account that sophisticated nature of the service provided by the architect, the increasing sophistication of building projects and the tremendous rise in building costs since the Act was first promulgated in 1970, it does not seem to be an unreasonable provision.

Then there is the transfer to the Act of the regulation dealing with companies. Here, once again, I think an important change has taken place in the last few years. By his very nature the architect has traditionally been seen as an artist or a craftsman rather than just a businessman. In those circumstances the architect usually signed his own plans. He was seen to be an artist. However, as the profession became more complicated and included not only the creative work of the architect but also the financial structure and the engineering aspect of it, so it became necessary for architects to work in collaboration with others. Out of this was born the concept of the company. It would be quite wrong in terms of our South African practice to have a company providing an architectural service which did not consist of people who are an integral part of the architectural profession. We are therefore pleased that the regulations make it quite clear that, although one can have a registered company acting as an architect, the company has to consist of shareholders who themselves are registered architects or members of kindred professions so that one will not lose the architectural character of the particular firm which is doing the architectural work.

There are two provisions, one of which is in regard to a change in the fees. In the past the concept was that one should always have prescribed fees for work which had been reserved for the architectural profession. The Bill now contemplates a change in the structure of fees. There will be a minimum scale of fees for certain prescribed work that has to be done by architects. On the other hand, architects will be free to charge a reasonable fee, as laid down in the Act, for certain other architectural or professional work which they may do and which is not prescribed as being reserved for architects.

With regard to examinations, in our view it is a good thing that there should be a direct link with the examinations of South African universities as a basic entry to the architectural profession. In the past it was done by way of regulation, but we believe that it is a sound provision to have in the Act that the standard examination laid down by the universities—and there is a very close link between the architectural profession and the various departments and faculties of architecture—is the basic examination although, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, it will still be possible for a qualified man from another country to qualify in terms of section 19.

We believe that this Bill is an improvement. It was introduced at the request of the architectural profession and we believe that it will add to the general efficiency and to the effectiveness of the profession in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sea Point for his support, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to associate myself with him. As the hon. the Minister said, the proposed legislation entails three important aspects, including the change of domicile by the architect inside or outside the borders of the Republic, and I think this is a good aspect. Two or three years ago the building rate in this country was so high that we could not train enough architects within the country in order to comply with the professional demand and with the requirements of the time. At that stage we had a real problem which will now be ironed out with this new legislation.

When we come to the question of the fine, which is now being increased from R1 000 to R10 000, it is perhaps interesting to note the experience that we have had in the legal profession. We have discovered that damages cases that were calculated at plus-minus R500 ten years ago, are now being actuarially calculated at plus-minus R10 000. Therefore, this increase from R1 000 to R10 000 is quite within the limits of inflation and other factors. Indeed, it is only 50% of the other actuarial calculation that is allowed on that type of claim. If one thinks of people who posed as architects in the past, of the money and remuneration that they received and one looks at the problems that emanated from this, it is easy to understand that today R1 000 is no longer the deterrent that was envisaged at the time that this legislation was introduced, and that is why R10 000 is a completely basis foundation for the current situation.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, viz. that the founding of companies is now being laid down by regulation and being included in legislation, this of course just puts it on a par with other financial institutions, for instance lawyers and other professions. Previously it was laid down by regulation and there was no longer absolute certainty in this regard. Therefore, it is a good thing that it is now being changed and incorporated in the Act so that this profession can have certainty with regard to the situation that it can deal with, what it can and what it cannot do.

I welcome these changes because I feel they bring a greater degree of suppleness to the existing legislation, particularly with a view to clause 3(a), (b) and (c) in which exemption from certain fees is being granted. As the hon. member for Sea Point said, minimum fees for certain work can now be levied on an ad hoc or ad valorem basis. I think that a much greater degree of suppleness is being brought about here, and architects now have more mobility within which they can establish their own fees when they do work of this nature. One thinks of the work that may be done by non-profit-making institutions, as well as by other institutions in which architects might want to work for a nominal fee. However, this was excluded in the past. In this respect one can also think, for instance, of people who would like to act pro amico. I am particularly pleased with the wording of the proposed new section 7(3)(b)(ii), in which we find the following provision—

In this way the public is once again being put in a position to establish whether sums paid for professional architect’s services have been calculated in accordance with the prescribed tariff.

Circumstances these days are such that, in view of the action of the media, people often ask whether they still dare to demand their rights. We also accept this in professional circles. That is why I believe an amendment of this nature will not only mean greater certainty and security, but that it will also create the opportunity for a general facilitation and a new suppleness in the way in which the Act is being applied. That is why I support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP support the generality of this measure because it is merely a question of up-dating and modernizing legislation in the light of experience. Through the effluxion of time it has been found that certain aspects of this legislation do require being modernized and up-dated. There are, however, a couple of aspects with which we are not at all happy. The one is a point very lightly touched upon by the hon. member for Sea Point. That is in respect of the fine of R10 000 in respect of work performed and certified to have been done by an architect.

I am particularly surprised at the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point did not raise any objection to this stipulation because 1 can remember another occasion—that was during the discussion of legislation pertaining to the insulting of the Flag or national symbols—when the hon. member for Sea Point said he considered a fine of R10 000 to be outrageously excessive. On that occasion he objected very seriously indeed to such a particularly heavy fine. It does seem therefore that it has a greater consequence when one does an architect out of a contract than when one insults the State President or national symbols. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned—apart from, shall we say, having a little political side-swipe—I do believe most sincerely that this is an excessive amount. I cannot help but feel that professional people can and should be protected, but to go to the extent of a fine of R10 000 is a measure which we in these benches cannot possibly accept.

There is still another aspect which I find disconcerting. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give a reassuring answer in this respect. This is the question of what the situation is in respect of a draftsman who does certain types of minor work. Is he also going to be in some form of trouble to the extent where he could also expose himself to a fine of R10 000? If this is indeed so, I believe, this could be to the detriment of the public in general because many of the small alteration and addition jobs—if I may refer to them as such—are not really of a great deal of interest to architects. In any case, however, if they were they would excessively increase the cost to the individual who wanted perhaps just an odd room added to his house, or something else of that nature. I should therefore appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister giving the House an indication of what the position is going to be in this respect.

Another point of which I am not quite sure is the aspect relating to the architectural work for which an architect may, shall we say, negotiate his fees.

It is accepted that architects work for a flat rate that is laid down for certain straight types of architecture, but outside of certain types of work they may negotiate fees. I am not quite sure what is meant by that, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could enlighten me.

In general we accept the recommendations before us with the positive exception of the question of the R10 000 fine. This we cannot accept. We find it grossly unreasonable and excessive. As I have said, I should also like to answer to the other questions that I have put.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. They were brief and to the point by stating that they thought it was a good Bill and that it would enhance the efficiency of the architect. Although they were not over-garrulous in praising the Bill, they admitted that it was a good Bill, and I thank them for that.

*The hon. member for Sea Point is at his very best when he talks about a subject like this one, something with which he is familiar. He spoke with a great deal of authority; he spoke from experience and I thank him for his contribution, for his statement that these amendments are an improvement of the law and are going to bring about greater efficiency.

It is just a pity that he knows nothing about politics.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Vasco. He also spoke with authority. He raised the point of people who live outside the Republic and who can still be registered as architects. I also want to point out to the hon. member that they may be registered as architects, but the people who may be appointed to the Council for Architects, will be restricted to South African citizens. The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the fact that their term is now being increased from two years to three years. This is in order to bring about greater continuity. There must be healthy alternation. I personally thought that three years was too short, but they want healthy alternation together with continuity.

The hon. member for Umbilo posed certain questions. He had a problem with regard to the fine. He said it was too high. However, it is true that architects can make so much money with one project that a fine of R10 000 is not a deterrent. It has been proved in practice that people repeatedly committed the same crime. At the request of the Council for Architects that fine has now been increased to R10 000.

The hon. member also asked whether a draughtsman could continue with his work. Yes, he can definitely continue with his work, but he must simply not pose as an architect. As long as he states that he is a draughtsman, he can continue with his work as has been the case up till now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.