As is known, the Government of the Netherlands has decided to vote 100,000 guilders to assist the so-called “victims of the South African apartheid laws”.

The Government, just like the public throughout South Africa, is highly indignant at this action of the Netherlands Government. The only thing which in any way tempers the feeling of indignation in South Africa is the reaction, according to reports, of numbers of Hollanders, and in the Netherlands Press, against this decision, and even on the part of persons who do not approve of the policy of the South African Government, as well as the spontaneous protest on the part of Hollanders in South Africa, who have a first-hand knowledge of the true state of affairs here.

The general indignation is all the greater because of the announcement that this financial contribution by the Dutch Government will be made to the Defence and Aid Fund. As is generally known, this organization gives financial support, among others, towards defraying the court costs of persons, some of whom are self-professed communists or have admitted co-operating with communists, and who have been found guilty of murder and homicide; persons whose aim and object it is to overthrow the established and lawful Government of this friendly country, one of whose countries of origin is Holland. This organization has, therefore, associated itself, by means of this financial support, with the reckless actions of saboteurs who have no respect for law and order, and even for innocent human lives. Any form of encouragement to such saboteurs must of necessity, wittingly or unwittingly, promote the objects of Communism in Africa. It is, therefore, not surprising that registration of the Defence and Aid Fund as a welfare organization has been refused in the United Kingdom as well as in South Africa.

Yesterday, therefore, I instructed our Ambassador at The Hague to hand over to the Dutch Government an immediate note setting forth the unequivocal attitude of the Government of the Republic, objecting to this action, which is tantamount to interference in the affairs of South Africa, and expressing the displeasure of the Government and the people of South Africa. I feel it is my duty to inform the House without delay of these facts, because it is still in session.

I must also further inform the House that certain repercussions which flow from this unfortunate action on the part of the Dutch Government cannot be avoided. The proposed discussions between the South African authorities and Dutch bodies in regard to additional rights for the KLM Airline can, for example, because of the atmosphere which has now arisen, not be arranged as was intended. The visit of Admiral Biermann, who was shortly to have gone to Holland to visit shipyards and other industrial undertakings, has also been cancelled by the South African Government.

The South African Government is convinced that it is in the interests of the West—and this includes the Netherlands—that a stable, prosperous, Western-aligned State be maintained in Southern Africa, a state of affairs which is to the advantage of everyone in the Republic, as well as of everyone in Southern Africa. The aforementioned drastic interference in South Africa’s internal affairs is not consistent with this.

It is, therefore, South Africa’s unavoidable duty to emphasize in a forceful way the harm that will be caused, not only to general relationships, but also to common interests, if the Dutch Government continues to act in this, way.

This clause provides that, subject to the provisions of Sections 94 and 131 of the principal Act, any benefit payable under any provision of the principal Act shall be increased by 20 per cent. Section 131 excludes those people who live outside Southern Africa, and Southern Africa is defined as that area below the equator. I would like the Minister to explain to me, firstly, why it is necessary to include pensioners who live in, say, Northern Rhodesia, or in the Protectorates, and why they are being treated differently to those †people who live in countries which are, or have been, closely associated with South Africa in the past. Take, for instance, the question of people who are living in England to-day and who are receiving a pneumoconiosis pension. Why is this increase being denied to people living in England? I would also like the Minister to tell me whether students of South African origin living in England at the moment, and whose fathers died from pneumoconiosis, are going to be included in the 20 per cent increase, or whether they are going to be excluded. There is no guarantee in this Bill that these young people are going to receive this increase in pension if they are at present domiciled outside Southern Africa. I would like the Minister to tell me what the position is.

This clause provides for certain increased benefits to pneumoconiosis pensioners, and we, on this side of the House, have already expressed our gratitude that increased benefits are now being made available to pneumoconiosis sufferers. I would like, however, to exchange views with the hon. the Minister, and ask him whether he cannot assume some additional responsibility in regard to pneumoconiosis pensioners. I refer to the pensioner who has to stop working on the mines because of the fact that he is classified as a pneumoconiosis sufferer, and who then finds that he is unable to continue paying his subscription fees to his Benefit Society.

It may be that he is unable to do so for financial reasons, or the position may be, as we often find—and this is an unfortunate aspect—that the pneumoconiosis pensioner simply neglects to continue paying his subscription to his Benefit Society. On the pensioner’s death, his widow has to assume responsibility for all the medical costs incurred by the pensioner during his illness. We also have the case where a pensioner, who neglects to continue paying his subscription to the Benefit Society, incurs medical debts which his widow is unable to pay when he dies. I want to ask the hon. Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the question of assuming responsibility—through the Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation or some other body—for the payment of a pensioner’s subscriptions to carry on automatically when he ceases work, free of any financial liability to the pensioner or his widow. The same principle shall apply to his widow. This concession would not involve us in a great deal of additional liability, but I can tell the Minister, in the light of my personal experience in a large number of these cases, that we will be fulfilling a great need in these deserving cases. I would once again urge the hon. the Minister to indicate that he is prepared to find ways and means of giving effect to my suggestion.

It is not clear what the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) actually wants. Does he mean that the compensation fond must make provision for the continuance of the subscriptions to the friendly society? Is that what he means? It is not clear what he wants. The benefits for which provision is made in this Bill are based on actuarial figures and any additional expense must of necessity upset the actuarial estimate. I think that the hon. member must tell us more clearly what he wants. I do not know whether he wants those people to receive medical benefits without the payment of subscriptions. The hon. member knows that the pneumoconiosis pensioner can apply to pay his subscriptions, but perhaps the hon. member feels that as soon as a man has been classified as a pneumoconiosis sufferer, the friendly society will no longer allow him to retain his membership of the society. But if the man works for another industrialist he can immediately pay his subscriptions to the same friendly society and qualify again for benefits. I cannot understand what the hon. member actually wants. Does he want this compensation fund to make provision for the continuance of the subscriptions? I think he should clarify his question.

In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) I just want to point out that there is no new exclusion in this regard. The existing rights which people have under the principal Act will of course continue automatically. Neither is it clear to me what the hon. member means because this clause does not provide that they will be excluded. If they are not excluded under the principal Act, why does the hon. member want an assurance now that the students to whom he referred will not be excluded? They are not excluded under the principal Act and if they are not excluded under the principal Act what reason does the hon. member have for thinking that they will be excluded under this Bill?

Do you agree with my proposal?

We first want clarity in regard to what precisely the hon. member wants. He did not state specifically what he meant and so I in my turn want to put this question to him: Does he want this compensation fund to stand in for the subscriptions of those people to the friendly society?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause. The clause makes very clear provision for a 20 per cent increase in benefits and the hon. member must confine himself to this provision.

That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member for Springs is advocating additional benefits. I want him to clarify his question. If he wants these subscriptions to come from the compensation fund, then this cannot be done.

He cannot propose that.

Yes, but that is what he has done.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member for Springs that his proposal is out of order.

I take it then that I cannot reply to the question of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg)?

No. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Sir, may I put it this way then? I would like to see that this 20 per cent increase which is going to be given to the widows of pneumoconiosis sufferers is sufficient to cover the increased subscriptions which widows will have to pay from now onwards to the benefit society? Sir, that is very important. I doubt very much whether this increase of 20 per cent will enable the widow to meet her other commitments which are directly related to pneumoconiosis. In other words, if her husband was a miner who was suffering from pneumoconiosis . . .

Order! The hon. member is out of order. He must confine himself to the increase in the benefits. Whether the increase is sufficient is neither here nor there.

Sir, I think I have made my point that I am not altogether satisfied that this increase will be sufficient to enable widows to cover eventualities.

Representations have been made by hon. members in regard to the payment of pensions to persons outside the Republic. I just want to point out that this Bill does not change the existing definition at all. The definition contained in the principal Act remains unchanged. Those people are no longer domiciled in the Republic; they are living outside the Republic. We do not know what the cost of living there is because in some countries the cost of living has not risen to the same extent as it has here. The cost of living has remained relatively constant in some countries. Pensioners who are no longer domiciled in the Republic do not therefore receive this increase. As far as students are concerned, the position is that they will be paid this increase if they have only left the country temporarily with a view to study and intend returning. As far as Zambia is concerned, the position is that it is included in the definition of “Southern Africa”, there are reciprocal arrangements as far as Zambia is concerned. We have an agreement with Zambia in regard to mineworkers who were employed there and who left their employment and mineworkers who were employed here and who left their employment here. I just want to point out as far as this mine friendly society is concerned that this is a private arrangement between the mineworkers and the friendly society; it has nothing to do with the State and so I need not discuss the matter any further.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Clause 12 deals with the position of a pension accruing to a widow, and we on this side of the House feel that the Minister should amend this clause in such a way that the pension payable to a pneumoconiosis sufferer’s widow will not be taken into account as far as the means test is concerned, in determining her old-age pension. I would therefore like to move—

To add the following proviso at the end of the clause:

I feel that it is only fair and correct, since additional benefits are being granted in terms of this measure to all pneumoconiosis pensioners, that the widow should not be penalized and find herself in the position, that in actual fact, no additional sum whatsoever is now being made available to her. On the one hand she receives this increase of 20 per cent, but on the other hand it is taken away through an adjustment of her old-age pension. The maximum amount of Pneumoconiosis Pension and Old Age Pension jointly that she can get is R44. At present she is entitled to an old-age pension of R14 per month. The R30 which she is getting at the moment by way of Pneumoconiosis Pension is now being stepped up to R36: but she is still subject to a maximum of R44, so she will only be getting R8 as an old-age pension, instead of R14. In terms of the clause as it now stands the widow will therefore receive no additional benefit whatsoever. She will be in exactly the same position as in the past. I would plead with the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment in order to alleviate the very difficult conditions under which these widows of pneumoconiosis pensioners have to live. I raised the question of the high cost of living yesterday, and the increase which has been given is certainly not in proportion to the steep increase in the cost of living which these widows have to bear. We on this side of the House feel perfectly satisfied that it would be a sympathetic and justifiable manner in which the hon. the Minister could treat these particular pensioners. It is with those representations, and that plea that I have pleasure in submitting this amendment.

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment as it would involve increased expenditure requiring the State President’s recommendation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I hope you will permit me to say a few words in connection with the liquor provisions of this Bill. Hon. members will have noticed that the Report of the Secretary for Justice has been Tabled. Unfortunately, it appears to me that a certain attitude adopted by the Secretary in that report, in pursuance of the general policy attitude of the Malan Commission which envisaged a certain ideal position in regard to which we are all in agreement, is now being interpreted wrongly. I want to make it very clear that that ideal position to which the Secretary referred must, of course, always be seen, as it is seen in this Bill, against the background in the first instance of vested interests in regard to which we have stated our point of view from time to time, and secondly, against the background of a possible misuse of people who are not as educated as one would like people to be educated under ideal circumstances. I think it is necessary for me to make this fact very clear so that people do not become excited about this report and conclude from it that the traditional attitude which hon. members and I have adopted in this House in the past, no longer exists.

I welcome the assurance given by the hon. the Minister since, as he correctly says, all sorts of implications are being read into the report of the Secretary of his Department. Since I am sure that you would rule me out of Order, Sir, if I tried to debate that report I will not carry it further than merely to welcome the Minister’s assurance that he and the Government abide by the traditional policy which he as Minister has applied over the years and which is again reflected in the legislation we are discussing now.

It is precisely in that regard that I wish to raise one aspect of this Bill with the Minister. As I see it this measure which we are now in the process of passing will have the effect of creating a completely new field of liquor trade, a field which is not in keeping with the traditional pattern to which the Minister has just referred in his speech. The hon. the Minister has stated that he recognizes the importance of established interests, that he recognizes the pattern of existing trade. One of the matters on which the Minister has in the past expressed himself as having a clear policy is the question of direct public wholesaling. During the Committee Stage I suggested that Clause 10, which was in fact designed to meet the problem of one co-operative society, would create a new field in which public wholesaling could be practised. The Minister will remember that he has closed the door against public wholesaling except to existing firms. But this now opens a new door.

No, it falls within that category if you go into the history of that particular one.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the background to this clause is that a certain co-operative society applied for and obtained permission to run a wholesale liquor business. It was taken to court by other interests who had every right to do so. That is what our courts are there for. If a person feels that he is being wronged in the eyes of the law he has the right to go to the courts. The objections were upheld and the court ruled that this particular co-operative society could not acquire, through the formation of a company, control of a public wholesale liquor business.

Only on technical grounds.

Because the law did not allow it . . .

No, no.

The law did not allow it and, I submit, that the spirit of the Liquor Act did not allow it. The Minister is now amending the law, as I see it, in conflict with the whole spirit of the legislation. That is as I see it because here we have a field, that of public wholesaling, which the Minister has re-confirmed now he wishes to restrict. He wishes to restrict that particular type of dealing. But he is now introducing a proviso that any cooperative society can form a company or take over a company and therefore get transfer of a wholesale liquor licence. Any three farmers can now get together, form a co-operative society, and get a wholesale liquor licence or acquire a wholesale business. So you can have an innumerable number of new public wholesalers created.

No, that will not be the case.

Well, I hope the Minister can give us some more explanation on this point because that is the provision of this clause. The clause provides clearly and specifically that producers, who are not public wholesalers —that means co-operative societies or small individual producers—may acquire a controlling interest in a business which conducts public wholesaling. That is the clause. Am I correct?

That is right.

If that is the clause I cannot see how that clause does not in fact create a new channel of trading. Any co-operative society can now buy a wholesale licence from an existing business and enter into public wholesaling. Is this not an evasion of Section 88 of the Liquor Act?

Pertaining to wholesalers.

Yes. I hope the Minister will give us more clarity on this matter and that he will also reconsider the matter before taking it to the Other Place since I am sure he does not want to go contrary to his policy. In doing that I hope the hon. the Minister will re-state his attitude to this whole question.

Unfortunately I did not expect this matter to be raised now and so I do not have the documents arising from the court case with me. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that the attitude which I adopted throughout in the Liquor Act in regard to wholesalers remains unchanged in spite of this provision. I am dealing here with a specific case which has a long court history and which I thought to rectify by this means. As I say, it is unfortunate that I do not have all the facts and the documents with me. When I deal with the Bill in the Other Place I shall reiterate my point of view, which the hon. member has just asked me to do.

I also want to thank the hon. member for what he said in respect of the other matter. I want to give him the assurance that it is by no means an attempt to depart from the point of view which was adopted previously. The hon. member referred to the fact that any three farmers can get together in order to obtain a wholesale licence and I just want to tell him that it is not our policy to grant such licences. It is not my intention to grant such licences. I shall put the whole matter in its correct perspective as and when I deal with this matter in the Other Place.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

Throughout the course of the debate on this Bill we on this side of the House have stated our objection to various clauses. Clause 14 is still a matter of difference between us. As we have indicated during the Committee Stage it seems to us that it will not solve any problems at all. We said yesterday that the weight of evidence suggested that it would not solve any problems. I can only hope that the Minister will finally be able to say that it will solve problems. The position in regard to insolvent estates is very unsatisfactory to-day. It calls, not only for a sense of responsibility on the part of the Minister’s Department, but also on the part of creditors. If the commercial community is going to have any criticism of the administration of the Insolvency Act, it will be that the organization must display a greater sense of responsibility in seeing to it that estates are properly administered. If we do not want a new class of person, a professional agent, who is mainly concerned with touting for trusteeships, to develop then the creditors must see to it that they get trustees who are competent, not only to administer the estate and see to it that the estate is realized to the best advantage, but more important still, see to it that adequate investigation is done in insolvent estates. One of the reasons why our insolvency laws have come into a certain amount of disrepute it is very difficult indeed to get prosecutions. I hope that as a result of this legislation the Minister is going to get a better type of trustee appointed. I also hope that the trustees will in the future, not only get better results in the realization of estates, but that there will be more adequate investigation and that the Minister will do his part by ensuring that when the trustee reports to the Master in due course on the investigation done by him, the trustee, the Minister will see to it that he has competent officers on the Attorney-General’s staff who will ensure that the wrongdoers are brought to book. I am not criticizing the Attorney-General’s office as such or the Minister’s Department but those of us who have experience of insolvency work have frequently given up because it is most disheartening to find, after meticulous investigation and after having reported to the Master, that the case has been inadequately presented to the court. The insolvent, particularly the professional insolvent who frequently goes insolvent, employs eminent counsel, the insolvent gets off with a warning and in many cases with no conviction at all. If the Minister can assure us that he will have competent staff available to assist we can possibly reduce the incidence of insolvencies and ensure that we get, not only a better type of trustee and better investigation but, with the Minister’s co-operation, ensure that insolvency will not be a payable proposition; that wrongdoers will be brought to book and the commercial life of this country cleaned up.

I am sure that this legislation, as it has been amended, is going to be an improvement on conditions as they were. Not only has Clause 14 been amended, but various other changes have been effected to the Act. Where previously there was a stigma attached to a curatorship, I am sure that decent attorneys will, in the future, want to administer more insolvent estates. The position in the past was that decisions were taken after the first meeting of creditors and the trustee then became, as it were, the owner of the estate. The creditors to whom the estate actually belonged showed no further interest in the estate because they knew that they no longer had a say. This position arose as a result of the powers of attorney given to the curator, and the result was that court cases were instituted without the creditors having any say in this regard, because the curator held the power of attorney.

The Master, who gave evidence before the Select Committee, had certain objections in regard to the amendment of Clause 14, but, as I have said, this is not the only clause that has been amended. Various changes have been made to the Act, each one of which makes it easier for the creditors to know what is happening in regard to the estate, which, after all, belongs to them. Because we have no alternative other than that which is before us, I think we can agree with the Master who gave evidence and who said that he was prepared to give this new system a chance to work. I am sure that it will work successfully, more successfully than it did in the past. I welcome the Bill as it is before us now.

I rise, firstly, in order to agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visser) has said. I also agree with the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), except in this respect, that I think Clause 14 will work. I think it will work better than the previous section did. I would go so far as to say that any change in this connection must be an improvement. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown and other hon. members, particularly those who have to deal with this matter from the nature of their profession as accountants or otherwise, if they have any doubts in regard to the application of these provisions in practice, to communicate immediately with my Department and with me, so that we can investigate the position. I want to assure the hon. member for Pinetown that I shall amend the Act again if his doubts materialize. But I do not think that this will happen.

I think that what the hon. members for Prinshof and Pinetown wanted to say—this has developed more and more in practice— was that an insolvent estate was a chicken ready for the plucking, but not by the creditors. We had to put a stop to this. A very thorough investigation is now being made into our Companies Act, and I hope that this will be completed by the end of the year. The Companies Act and this legislation go together. I do not think we can tolerate the fact any longer that men of straw establish a company and lead people up the garden path. Just consider all the malpractices which flowed from the Companies Act in the past. I think, therefore, that this legislation, together with the Companies Act which is now being investigated, will give us the authority we need.

As far as the other matter raised by the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, I may just tell him that the police and the Attorney-General were frustrated in the past as a result of the actions of certain curators, curators who allowed matters to slide and to slide and from whom no proper reports could be obtained, because the chicken still had a few feathers left to pluck. We make special prosecutors available to the Attorney-General, and we shall continue to do so to an increasing extent in the future. I also want to point out to the hon. member that Clause 25 (b) is aimed at making more information in regard to insolvent estates available.

In conclusion, I want to thank the hon. member for Prinshof, as chairman, and the other hon. gentlemen who served on the Select Committee, very heartily indeed for the work they did, and to congratulate them on this new Bill which they drew up.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset to express my appreciation to both sides of the House for the way in which this measure has been received. I have heard with appreciation that that reception was a very generous one. I want to ask hon. members to convey the spirit in which this measure has been received in this House, to the public outside. We are as it were the curators of the interests of the public in regard to this matter, and it is very necessary that the spirit of agreement which prevails here should be conveyed to the public outside. In this way the correct psychosis can be created on the part of the public in respect of what is being and has already been done here.

Hon. members referred to the fact that this measure had been introduced very late in the Session. I want to remind hon. members that the provisions contained in this measure are provisions which were brought to the attention of this House from time to time †during this Session, and even before that, and which have been thoroughly debated. These are not new provisions. Far-reaching changes are being effected by this Bill, changes which are being made to set up machinery to keep pace with changed and changing circumstances. As I said in my introductory speech, drastic amendments have been effected and they must of necessity result in a great deal of additional work for the Department. One would very much have liked these improved benefits to have been made available sooner. But the more one does, the wider becomes the scope of the implications in this regard. Because of these numerous changes, the scope of all the implications is so great, and affects so many other matters which have to be considered, that it is very difficult to have them transformed into legislation within a short time.

We have dealt with a great deal of legislation during this Session, legislation which has in most cases been passed unanimously by the House. All this new legislation results in a great deal of extra work for the officials concerned and requires a great deal of effort to be converted with as few implications as possible. From the nature of things, this legislation is very technical, and so a great deal of preparatory work is required to link up the various technical aspects in such a way as to ensure that what we do here will result in the greatest possible benefit to those in whose interests the legislation is passed.

This legislation will eliminate many existing bottlenecks. But the elimination of these bottlenecks is, of course, a protracted process and causes a great deal of additional work for the officials. I want to say that over the years the public outside, and hon. members in this House as well, have developed a sense of trust in the officials of the Department. We want naturally to retain that confidence. We will, of course, just as in the past, have to deal with all kinds of problems, and where new concessions are made, this does, of course, result in additional work and additional problems for the Department. I agree with hon. members who remarked on the staff difficulty in the Department. But, Mr. Speaker, the manpower shortage is not only being experienced in the Public Service; it is being experienced throughout the country. This legislation aims at simplifying the administrative work, and I am convinced that this simplification will lead to the elimination of a great deal of work which is at present still being done. This in its turn will result in the work being disposed of more easily. I do not want to pretend that the staff shortage is not being felt in my Department. But I do want to emphasize that my officials have over the years been prepared to work long hours overtime, to work even until late at night, when amendments to legislation have resulted in additional work in respect of grants and so forth. They have not hesitated to work paid overtime in order to make the adjustments as soon as possible. That is why I want to assure hon. members that the adjustments effected by this measure will be made as soon as possible. Hon. members will, however, realize that great adjustments will have to be made, adjustments which cannot be made within a very short space of time, because they require a great deal of administrative work and afterthought.

I want, therefore, to make an appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House not to create an atmosphere among the public. I ask hon. members not to tell the public that great concessions have been made, but that the persons concerned will have to wait and see when they receive the new benefits. I want to give hon. members the assurance that, just as in the past, the Department will do its best to dispose of the necessary adjustments as swiftly as possible. We shall do this work as soon as we can and, if at all possible, even sooner. Hon. members have over the years expressed confidence in the activities of this Department, and that confidence is a costly gem which must be preserved.

I have been asked about the application of certain concessions with effect from 1 April 1966. A consolidation such as this does, of course, require a tremendous amount of time and work, and this is also one of the reasons why this date was decided upon.

Mr. Speaker, I want now to say a few words in regard to the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite. There is a certain attitude on the part of the public of South Africa, an attitude which we must, in my opinion, retain at all costs, and that is the public-spiritedness of our South African society. Mr. Speaker, there is a healthy attitude towards those who are struggling. We must continually bear in mind the fact that what the State does for the less privileged persons can only be supplementary. I trust that we will retain this healthy spirit permanently, this healthy approach on the part of the public, because, Sir, this is something which we must not lose. If we do, we shall no longer be able to build on the foundations which have been laid in this respect.

I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to two particular matters. In the first place I want to thank him for his positive approach in respect of these matters. But I want once again to repeat that this is a matter in regard to which everything must not simply come from one side. This is a matter in which both sides have a part to play. The affection to which the hon. member referred is present in the actions of both myself and my Department in that, over the past years, we have continued to make more generous provision for cases in which the shoe has pinched most.

I want now to mention a few figures in respect of those members of our community who are the worst off—the neediest ones among us. We all know of these people, and we are very sympathetically disposed towards them. There were increases in 1959, and there will be increases in 1966 for this section of our community. There were no increases in 1961, but there were increases in 1962 and in 1964. We have had these increases, and we must not lose sight of this fact. In 1963 and 1964, for example, the increases amounted to R4,000,000.

In the second place the hon. member referred to war veterans who have already reached the age of 70 years. A considerably reduced means test already exists in their case. The free income which they are allowed already amounts to R500 per annum. This means that if such a person is married, the first R 1,000 is not considered. The free assets which they are allowed amount to as much as R8,000. This is, of course, a tremendous concession when one considers that the corresponding amounts for social pensioners are R180 and R2,400 respectively. The means plus pension limit for war veterans over the age of 70 years is now, as a result of the consolidation, being increased from R644 per annum to R840 per annum. The free income, which ensures the maximum pension, will now be R504; that is to say, Rl,008 per annum in the case of married persons. We must also remember -that the money which a person over the age of 70 years earns by his own labour is not taken into consideration.

Although he is not here now, I want to tell the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that he is, in my opinion, making a very great mistake in coming here and speaking about “contempt” in such strong language. I do not think that the expressions which he has used here are exactly promotive of good relationships between the non-Whites and the Whites, good relationships which I am sure we all desire. It is generally admitted in South Africa, and accepted, that the standard of living of the White man is higher than that of the Coloured. This holds good in all spheres, and also as far as the wage structure is concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we find the difference in the scales which are applicable to White and Coloured military pensioners. The ratio of 2 to 1 is the traditional basis which has been acknowledged and applied by all Governments over the years in South Africa. Where we have been able to do so, we have effected amendments here and there. But this basis is a traditional one. To come along now and to say that the pensions of the Coloureds should be placed on the same footing as those of the Whites—well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is impracticable; I do not think that it is practical, and it will result in too many difficulties, having regard to the position which has existed in South Africa over the years.

I have replied as briefly as possible to the various points that have been raised. The pensions for Coloureds, Indians and Bantu is an aspect which is still outstanding. I have been asked to reply to the second-reading debate now. I shall reply on behalf of hon. Ministers who are not here now in the Committee Stage.

I am sure that hon. members realize that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is a Department which is, to a large extent, of an administrative nature. The Department receives its information from other Departments, and its role is actually of an administrative nature. Any particular matter which the Department administers is not its exclusive responsibility.

Our aim with this measure—and I hope we shall succeed in this regard—is to eliminate bottlenecks existing in connection with our administrative work. I also have the fullest confidence that, once we have changed over to the electronic computer, the work will be greatly accelerated. Hon. members will also realize that changes effected in this legislation, the question of making estimates in a certain way, changing equivalents and the elimination of fractions of a cent, are all aimed at facilitating the work of the Department. The bottlenecks which exist include those people who fall just outside the generous means test, and we now want to bring them within the confines of the scheme, so that they will not be worse off than a person who does receive a pension. I have stated repeatedly that this situation is one of the bottlenecks. We have an outer circle and, persons who are worse off, fall outside the outer circle. The concessions contained in this measure will, however, eliminate bottlenecks of this nature. A far more generous basis for the assessment of assets has been arrived at

A further group of persons who will benefit from the concessions are persons with earnings. It may perhaps be a good thing for me to give a short résumé of the concessions that have been made. In the first place there is an increase of the means plus pension limit from R324 to R528. Hon. members will agree with me that this is a great concession. In the second place a person may own assets to the value of R5,600 and, provided he has no other income, qualify for the pension. This amount was previously R2,400. The hon. member for Umbilo will realize that this amount is considerably higher than even that for which he asked. In the third place the limit in respect of free income has been increased from R180 to R192 per annum. In the fourth place the maximum pension has been increased from R27 to R28 per month. There is also the increase in the attendant’s allowance from R4 per month to RIO per month, which is also automatically payable to all persons from the age of 90 years.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I may justly claim that over the years, and particularly this year, I have not closed my ears and my eyes and my heart to the interests of those whose welfare, whose existence and whose interests have been entrusted to my care. As I stated during my second-reading speech, the poor we shall always have with us. No matter what progress we make in this sphere, we shall always have them with us. There is still a healthy relationship between what is done for needy persons on the one hand and the increase in the cost-of-living structure on the other. But I also said during my second-reading speech—and I want to content myself with this remark—that we must always keep our eyes open and that we must always keep our door open for representations which are made both in this House and elsewhere. We must always see whether there are not perhaps further improvements which can be effected. Any Minister entrusted with this portfolio who thinks that everything can be disposed of in one fell swoop, will certainly realize his mistake. I thank hon. members heartily for their contributions to this debate. I want particularly to thank the officials of my Department for their willingness to accept these great undertakings under very difficult conditions. I appreciate their sacrifice most sincerely. I also trust that hon. members will all appreciate their work, and I hope that the public will also view their work with appreciation. We must be careful not to arouse suspicion on the part of the public. We must take care that we do not, for the sake of other advantages, cause the collapse of this wonderful structure which we have built up over the years with so much devotion. We do not want to do that; we must not do it, and I trust that we shall not do it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 6,

The White Paper on this Bill says in regard to this clause and. incidentally also in regard to Clause 7, the following—

Now, it may be true that for years no gratuities have been paid under these sections but the fact remains that this clause removes benefits which are in existence at the present time. I should like the hon. the Minister to know what happened not long after the First World War when demobilization benefits, as well as pension benefits, were available. I should like the hon. the Minister to know what happened when these benefits had to be paid out to the Bantu ex-servicemen, most of whom were originally recruited in their own areas, mostly from the Transvaal. We got to know that these benefits were not getting through to these ex-servicemen. They were not highly educated and, what is more, Native Commissioners had untold trouble in getting the necessary warrants and such things through to them. Eventually we approached General Brink, who was then head of the demobilization committee, and we told him that we were not satisfied with the way in which things were going. He asked us to prove our case. The South African Legion thereupon sent out several travelling committees, each consisting of a senior White officer who had had a lot to do with Native troops, and certain Native N.C.O.’s. These committees visited the various kraals and settlements and found many cases where the Bantu did not even know that they were entitled to any benefits. They were only then informed that they could obtain these benefits.

In any event, we proved our case to such a degree than General Brink himself officially appointed travelling demobilization committees to go to the Native areas in order to ensure that the benefits which ex-servicemen were entitled to, did in fact get to them. It was not a question of the Department not wanting to give them these benefits but they could not possibly track them down.

To my mind there is no question about it that these people may come back to the Department. I do not regard the reason for the removal of this benefit as a fair one. It should remain there. If no applications are received in future, no harm will be done. As I said, there is no doubt in my mind, knowing the history of pensioners of past wars, that in time to come there are going to come forward people who fall under these two clauses and apply for this gratuity. And what is more, they will be entitled to it, but then meanwhile it has been removed! I think to remove it will just be another peg for our enemies to hang something on. To let it remain does not affect the Department administratively because if there come forward no cases, no extra work will have been placed on the staff.

Consequently I ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter consideration between now and the time the measure comes before the Other Place. I repeat: to remove this, brings no benefit whatsoever to the Department and I, for one, do not like to be faced with the charge that I have assisted in the removal of this gratuity.

I listened attentively to the representations made by the hon. member but there is one aspect of this matter which I just want to mention. This is an aspect which was considered when this decision was made. This aspect is the question of whether it is better to give these Bantu a gratuity or to give them a monthly pension. This is one of the questions which was considered in regard to this matter.

I just want to mention that no complaints were received by the Department to the effect that these people were not being paid pensions. They received pensions where the pensions board was involved. But I promise the hon. member that I shall go into the matter again in the light of the representations which he has made here to-day.

May I just add to what I was saying about this matter that the pension these people are going to receive in terms of these clauses is not very large and consequently it might just be that there wih becases where the gratuity, which, to my mind, is a fair amount, will be of much more value than the small pension. That might be—I do not know. I am not in favour of the commutation of pensions. On the contrary, I am all against it because I have seen so many cases where the money received as a result of commutation has simply been squandered and the man is back on the hands of the Department of Social Welfare. However, I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will reconsider the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

There is only one question I should like to put to the Minister on this clause. In my second reading speech I asked the Minister a question on a letter I received from the South African Legion. I know I cannot now ask for more expenditure, but I should like to ask the Minister to consider the supplementary pension in this increase. I should not like, however, to be ruled out of order and therefore I should like to ask the Minister why he has not included the supplementary pensions under this 10 per cent increase.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that there was an increase in the bonus last year of 45 per cent. The hon. member will remember that this item has been increased from time to time over the years. As is stated in the White Paper in connection with Clause 14 [translation]—

There has therefore been this increase. The White Paper goes on to say—

The hon. member will see therefore that this is not lost sight of. I have previously given hon. members that assurance and I think that I can lay claim to the fact that when I have given assurances that certain things would be further investigated, I have always kept my word. What we are doing here to-day serves to prove this fact.

We appreciate the reply of the hon. the Minister to the query raised by the hon. member for Benoni. There is, however, one other aspect involved and that is the concern which has been expressed that where the basic pension is increased, an equal amount is subsequently lost in terms of the supplementation of their pension. I should like to have some clarification from the Minister of this aspect. These fears have been expressed by people who have been concerned with this type of pension. The Minister could perhaps give us some indication whether the effect of the provisions of these new schedules will mean that in some instances the people concerned will in the long run not benefit at all from any increase granted to their basic pension.

I should also like the Minister to give us an explanation why these new schedules will become effective from 1 April 1966, and why they are not taken into account from 1 October 1965, as is the case under Clause 14 where the effective date is 1 October 1965. In terms of this clause, however, i.e. Clause 15, these schedules will come into effect only on 1 April 1966.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22.

Before I address the Committee, may I apologize to the Minister for my absence when he replied? This clause is very good evidence of the point I raised last night about the discrimination between White and Coloured pensioners. Unfortunately I did not hear the Minister’s reply, but I did hear that it would be impracticable to give effect to the equalization of pensions between Whites and Coloureds. I cannot discuss that now, but I want to say that if a volunteer to whom a pension has been awarded in respect of 80 per cent disablement needs the constant attendance of any person, the Minister may award to him an allowance not exceeding R20 per month for a White man and only RIO for a Coloured man. Surely when a man is disabled and requires this help, how can he be expected to come out on RIO a month when the Minister himself admits that the White man needs R20 a month for that purpose? I am not dealing with the other clauses which contain discrimination, but surely this is a blatant case of discrimination against the man who has fought for his country.

Order! The principle of discrimination has been established.

May I move that it be increased to R20?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

This is another case where the Minister did not reply to the points raised in the second reading, and I am not asking for additional expenditure. The Minister has made certain amendments which are acceptable, but I think he should take the matter further in his mind. I want to explain again that Bantu who served in the First War are not regarded as ex-volunteers, whereas those who served in the last war are, and they get military pensions. The war veteran’s pension is only the old-age pension plus an extra allowance per month. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not consider it is time that he gave thought to those Bantu who served in the First War, to bring them in under the War Pensions Act? We have made many an amendment in regard to the men of the First War to treat them equally with the men of the Second War and I wonder whether the Minister could not during the recess give some thought to the possibility of giving benefits to the men of the First War.

The hon. member is now making representations for the inclusion of people who have not been included. But this has nothing to do with the provisions of the clause. I shall however make a note of what the hon. member has said and I shall give my attention to the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

This is a very important clause in that it not only makes provision for increased rates of pension for the various racial groups, but it also alters the present means plus pension limitation and therefore brings about an important concession for the White social pensioners in particular. There are certain aspects which require further clarification from the Minister. If we look at the first portion of the clause, we find that the allowance for the White social pensioner has been consolidated with the basic pension bringing it to R336 per annum. The basic pension paid to the Coloured and Indian pensioners, whereas in the past it was based on a ratio of 4 to 2, is now to be R72 per annum and the basic pension for the Bantu is to be R21 per annum. The effect of this consolidation is borne out in the second portion of the clause which provides for an additional allowance of R96 per annum in the case of the Coloured and the Indian and R23.40 for the Bantu. When we consider these figures, we find that the maximum pensions payable for each racial group will amount to R28 a month or R336 per annum for the White pensioner, and R168 per annum for the Coloured and R41.40 per annum for the Bantu. That is the basis upon which the maximum pensions appear in terms of this clause. The effect of this consolidation brings into account a further portion of the clause which deals with the means plus pension limitation. That amount is raised considerably for the White pensioners to R528 per annum. For the Coloured and Indian pensioners it is R168 and it is R42 for the Bantu. I mention these figures as I want to draw a comparison with the position as it exists now and prior to the introduction of this clause. If you look at the present position, you find that the means plus pension limitation which has been considerably raised for the White pensioner, is in the same ratio, due to the fact that the basic pension was not consolidated with the allowance. It now means that the ratio which existed previously, is no longer being maintained. The maximum pension for the Whites is now R28 a month and the new rate of pension for Coloureds and Indians will be R14 a month. So in that respect the maximum pension which in the case of the Coloured includes the allowance, remains half of the total pension paid to the Whites. But when we consider the other portion of the clause, the means plus pension limitation, we find that whereas in the past it was accepted that the position of the Coloured and Indian social pensioners would be that this means plus pension limitation would also be half that of the Whites, that has now been altered. Prior to the provisions of this clause, the existing position was that the means plus pension limitation of the Whites was R324 per annum and for the Coloured it was R162, which is half, in terms of the ratio. Now this increase that has come about shows that the increase to the White pensioner is from R324 to R528, whereas the means plus pension limitation for the Coloured has merely increased from R162 to R168. Consequently the new position is that for the White pensioner it is now R528 and for the Coloureds and the Indians it is R168 per annum. So we can see that the position of the Coloured pensioners has changed due to the fact that the allowance is still regarded as a separate amount. It has had the effect of increasing the means plus limitation only for the White pensioners, and naturally we very much welcome it, but perhaps the Minister will indicate whether these figures reflect the correct position, and perhaps he will state the reasons why the allowance was not consolidated for the Coloureds and why there is now this large disparity between the Coloureds and the Whites.

Another portion of the clause deals with the position of the Bantu and consolidates what was previously three separate amounts into one amount, giving a maximum of R44.40 for all Bantu and then provision is made in (3)bis (i) that the Bantu who presently receives the higher rate of pension of R47.40 will continue to do so provided he continues to reside in the city in which he lived immediately prior to that date. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some indication as to whether in the case of the Bantu who is presently drawing R47.40, if he should leave the city area and move to a rural area, where he will then receive a reduced pension of R44.40, this deduction will be there for all time, and whether if he finds that he cannot stay in the rural area and returns to the city he will not be entitled again to receive the higher pension. I think that requires some clarification and I hope the Minister will be able to give us an explanation as to why it was deemed necessary to consolidate these amounts into one uniform amount and why it was decided that the maximum rate should be less than the existing rate.

I would like to join in criticism with the hon. member for Umbilo, as I feel that this is the most important clause in the Bill. It is perhaps the crux of the whole Bill. I wonder whether the Minister can explain more fully why he feels that the urban Bantu’s pension should be reduced. I have already asked the Minister in my second-reading speech to reconsider this reduction and I would like to hear his explanation regarding the consolidation of allowances, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo. I would like the Minister to explain about the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension, which amounts to an increase in the means test limitation for the White pensioner, and why the same consolidation has not been granted for the non-Whites and the Bantu, and therefore the means test for the non-Whites remains unchanged? I feel we must ask the Minister to consider changing this in the Other Place, or making adjustments later, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider granting the Bantu the consolidation of allowance with basic pension which will bring about a relaxation of the means test for the Bantu and which will result in raising Bantu pensions. I look forward to his answer.

The principle has been established that there shall be discrimination. Although I do not agree with it, I cannot do anything about it now. But, I would like the Minister to explain the reason behind the recommendation to this Committee, that there will be no consolidation of allowances with the basic pensions, in the case of the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu. I say that, because the ratio is now very much wider, as the hon. member for Umbilo pointed out. Coloured, Indian and Bantu pensioners have been expecting that as we went along, these ratios would be reduced, instead of being increased, and that we would get to the stage where they would get increased pensions. In many cases their standard of living is very much higher than it used to be. I put that to the Minister, because in the course of investigating pensions, I find, that under the old system, although the ratio is two to one in regard to Coloured pensioners, there are cases where they get considerably less because of a scale which is operated by the Coloured Affairs Department. According to that scale, the Coloured pensioner on the platteland gets considerably less. Will these amendments do away with that system and will these amounts be fixed amounts? I notice that the Minister has done away with the differentiation in the Bantu pension. These are matters which concern the Coloured community very seriously, because they are living to-day on an income on which it is very difficult to make ends meet. I do not understand, also, why the means test is now going to be worked on the basic pension only. The White pensioner will be considerably better off than the Coloured pensioner who will have his allowance deducted when they deal with the amount of pension he should receive. There are people who are receiving a little bit of extra money. I think it is a mistake, in view of the fact that we have this tremendous surplus of money, that the means test should have been changed in this way. Although we accepted discrimination, the fact remains that I do not think it was ever intended that the disparity between the Whites and the Coloureds and the Bantu should be increased. I am sure the Minister will be very complimentary about the way in which this Bill has been received and these increases are greatly welcomed, but I think the Coloured pensioners will ask questions and I will have to answer them. What do I tell them? Must I tell them that because their skin is Coloured they cannot be treated on the same basis, which was in the ratio of 2 to 1? I hope the Minister will give us the reasons. I am sure it could not be merely financial, because we have plenty of money. I cannot even ask that it be abandoned because that would lead to increased expenditure. I know these difficulties exist, but the fact remains that here is a Bill which is intended to improve social pensions and it is difficult to understand why, with the country bursting at the seams with money, there should be this difference in the method of calculating the means test in regard to non-Whites. Speaking about the Bantu pensioner, these people are in a very parlous state. We know that the price of food costs exactly the same to them as to the Whites and their appetite is possibly the same. I do not think because a man is black, he eats less. I make the plea that the Minister should seriously reconsider the position, close that gap and include those allowances, so that the means test will apply to the non-Whites in the same ratio as for white pensioners.

The matter has been fully canvassed, but I would like to refer to the proviso which only gives the White pensioner the right, as I read it, to get payment if he has a child over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 who is a full-time student at an educational institution. Why should not the Coloured man get some benefit, too? I should like the Minister to give us an explanation before I take the matter further.

Hon. members will appreciate that these are matters which mainly affect other Departments. I want to reply in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians and then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will reply in respect of the Bantu. I have been informed that the position is as follows—that all increases as far as the Whites are concerned are in the ratio of 2 to 1 in respect of Coloureds and Indians, except the means plus pension limit which is not being raised to the same extent as that in the case of the Whites. In this regard this ratio has been disturbed. The Whites receive R528 and the non-Whites R168. This springs from the fact that the maximum assets for minimum grant is R 10,800 for the Whites and R3,900 for the Coloureds and the Indians. The reasons which have been given to me are that the average monthly income of the male Coloured is plus/minus R21. We have to consider the Coloureds throughout the country. The female Coloured’s average monthly income is about R13. Consolidation for the Coloureds will have the following implications, if this consolidation takes place in the same way as that of the Whites. This will mean an increase in the means plus pension limit from R168 to R264 per annum; that is to say, a minimum of R1 per month will have to be granted to persons earning R21 per month. Hon. members will agree that this will bring about a difficult situation. If the average income of the Coloured is R21 per month, and he receives this in addition, it will be virtually the same as he is earning now. A further result will be that the average income of the group qualifying for a pension or allowance will be out of proportion to that of the Whites. As far as the Whites are concerned those who have an average income do not qualify for a pension. This will also have another result. The aim of these grants-in-aid is not to entice people who can still work, away from the labour market in that the pension offered them is so high. I am informed that consolidation is regarded as being unacceptable in respect of the Coloureds because such a step will lead to the withdrawal of a further 19,300 from the existing Coloured labour corps who are making a productive living at present. It will give rise to work-shyness and the labour market will be detrimentally affected. Many wage-earners will fall within the increased means plus pension of R264 per annum and the existing number of Coloured pensioners will be considerably increased, to a very much greater extent than in the case of the Whites. I have given the reasons as they have been given to me. I may just tell hon. members that I shall bring the objections they raised to the notice of the Ministers concerned, the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and of Indian Affairs.

Did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that if the average earnings or income of pensionable groups was increased because of a correct approach to the means test it would reduce the Coloured labour force by a large number and that they would be work-shy or that they are work-shy? Did I understand him correctly? Surely, Sir, in this age, that is a shocking statement for the Minister to give as a reply across the floor of the House. These people receive a pension because they have reached an age, when they simply cannot work. Sir, I often wonder if the officials who handle pensions ever realize that there are people who have their pensions reduced because there are sons and daughters in the family who are working, and who are told that unless children go to work they will not get a pension. When the hon. the Minister tells me to-day that Coloured pensioners have to be paid as little as possible so that they can be kept at the grindstone until they literally drop down dead. I think it is the most shameful admission that I have ever heard in this House. I would like to hear the Minister say that he dissociates himself from that statement. [Interjection.] I know he said it; the point is that that information was given to him. because pensions paid to Coloured persons do not fall under his Department; they fall under the Department of Coloured Affairs. Sir, it strikes me as a shameful state of affairs that people who have reached old age should not be entitled to a pension on the same basis as their White fellow citizens. Here we are faced with a statement by the Minister that the average income of the Coloured group will be very much higher and that these people would get more money. Surely the Minister cannot be serious. Sir, we wonder why we are criticized by people who are not acquainted with the conditions in this country, but look what is happening. Here we sit at a time when people feel well-disposed . . .

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am. Sir. I am trying to make an appeal and I must put my appeal across in the best words that I can use, because I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this position in the light of what he has just said. Words fail me when I try to express what I really want to say, because this was the wrong time to say it; it is the wrong stage. Had I known this, at the second reading, we might have taken up quite a different attitude. I do hope that the Minister is going to reconsider this matter and that he will agree to have the allowance added to the basic pension so that the means test can be conducted on a fair and equitable basis.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for being honest enough to give us that reply but it is, as the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has said, a shocking reply and one which has taken us by surprise. We are disappointed, but we will try to use language that is as moderate as possible. The hon. the Minister in reply to the debate on this Clause spoke rather softly and he must correct me if I am wrong, but I think he indicated that it would increase the number of Coloured people affected by about 19,000, but the most terrible part of the statement was that it would be an encouragement to these 19,000 people not to go and work; that they would be living on the State. Sir, I say that the hon. the Minister is out of touch with the Coloured people. Almost every day —and I am sure it applies to my colleagues on these benches—Coloured men over the age of 60 come to me and appeal to me to try to help them to get work. They are simply not wanted because they are considered to be incapable of working. They cannot get work because they are over 60 or 65 years of age and they cannot get pensions because the Minister says that they must go and work. Sir, this is a new approach. The first approach was that they do not live on the same economic level as the Whites and that that is the reason for drawing a distinction between their pensions and the pensions of Whites, and now we have the excuse that they are excluded because they will be work-shy. The Minister mentioned the figure of 19,000. what the percentage is of the total number I do not know; I think the Minister should tell us. I want to-day as a representative of the Coloured people to lodge my strongest protest, in the name of the old Coloured people at the approach of the Government to these people who are entitled to a pension but are not going to get it because they have to go and work. What is wrong with the White man at 65; why cannot he go and work? He is getting an increased pension under this clause: he will be getting R500 odd and the Coloured man’s pension is being reduced. Is this another way to force the Coloured man to go and work? If the old Coloured man has a little home and he reaches the age of 65 he is also penalized because of the fact that he has a home. Sir. this has been a revelation to me, a shocking revelation. I am disappointed and I am going to make an appeal to the Government, through this hon. Minister who has been fair and honest in this matter—I am not attacking him personally; I am attacking the Government for allowing such a state of affairs to exist. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to the take this message from us to the Cabinet that we reject the Government’s approach to these old Coloured people who deserve better treatment than they are receiving at the moment.

I should like to add a few remarks to what the hon. the Minister has just said in regard to pensions, to which hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), referred. In regard to the changes which are being effected here in regard to the question of pensions, hon. members must see this question of Bantu pensions in its true perspective, in its full perspective. Hon. members must remember that, up to the present, the Bantu have been paid pensions on three scales. I want to mention the figure per annum. In the case of urban pensioners, the amount was R47.40 per annum; in the case of what are called “town Natives”, that is to say, the Bantu at smaller places, it was R41.40 per annum and, in the rural areas proper, within the homelands of the Bantu as well, the amount was R35.40 per annum. Hon. members will remember that in the past the Whites also received pensions according to three scales. This system was then simplified by making it uniform. The first step in the case of the Whites was that the two lower grades were combined with one another at the level of the second highest grade. This happened in 1959 when the peri-urban tariff and the rural tariff were made uniform, and I think that, a year later, the new peri-urban scale, which also made provision for rural pensioners, was combined with the city scale, and everyone was eventually placed on a uniform scale. In other words, the question of uniformity in the case of the Whites took place in two phases. This could not be done this year in the case of the Bantu, and I shall tell hon. members why. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will permit me in this connection to refer very briefly to the Bantu of South West Africa and of the Eastern Caprivi. It was decided to pay pensions to them as well, something which they had not had in the past. Hon. members will, I am sure, agree that, in these times in which we live, we simply could not allow the position to continue—that the Bantu in South West Africa and in the Eastern Caprivi should continue to go without pensions. They also had to receive pensions. This is a requirement of the times, and we had simply to comply with it. If we had now provided for uniform pensions for the Bantu in the Republic on two levels as a first step, just as in the case of the Whites, we would have had two tariffs and, if we had at the same time included South West Africa, we would, from the nature of the case, have had to introduce two tariffs there, because I am sure that hon. members will agree that it would be very difficult to differentiate between the pensions paid here and those paid in South West Africa and in the Eastern Caprivi. It was decided in principle to pay the Bantu there the same pensions as those received by the Bantu here. To place pensions here on two levels instead of three and to place pensions there on two levels and then, after a period of a year or whatever the case might have been, to have reviewed the system once again and have placed all the Bantu on one scale would have made the matter very involved for the Bantu who do not understand these things as easily as the Whites may perhaps understand them. I think that even the Whites found it difficult initially to understand why their pensions were not immediately brought on to the same level. That was why it was decided to do everything in one fell swoop and to change the three scales of the Bantu to one, and to make the position in South West Africa the same as that in the Republic. The question which now remains is what the level should be. It is obvious that we could not use the lowest notch, and if hon. members will look at the figures they will see that we did not use the middle notch. In other words, because of the uniform tariff which was decided upon for the Bantu, namely, R44.40, a level was reached above the middle tariff of R41.40. We went as close as we possibly could to the highest tariff prevailing, namely R47.40, the tariff which is of application to the city pensioners. An amount of R44.40 was decided upon; in other words, R3 lower.

Hon. members like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) now want to know why the tariffs for the urban Bantu have been reduced. That is actually a half-truth. The hon. member nods her head in assent; she agrees with me that it is actually a half-truth to say that the pension has been reduced. It has not been reduced in the case of those who do not have it. Those who are receiving R47.40 are going to continue to receive that amount, in the urban complex, of course. But people who are not as yet receiving pensions, people living in the cities, will receive the pension on the new scale. In other words, the pension has been reduced as far as potential pensioners are concerned; that is the half-truth. Now, why cannot everyone—those on the platteland, in the homelands, in the towns and in the cities— start on R47.40 now that this uniformity has been introduced? Here, too, we must consider the position as a whole. Hon. members may perhaps know that in the three categories which have been assisted thus far there are altogether 280,000 pensioners. In the cities and the towns there are about 42,000 in each of the first two groups, while there are about 196,000 in the third category, the rural category, which brings the total up to about 280,000. Just this increase, in the Republic alone, for the lower two groups, the increase to R44.40, is going to cost nearly R 1,000,000. If the new level had not been R44.40 per annum, but R47.40, a further R3, hon. members will realize that this amount would have been far higher still. I do not have this figure available, but it can perhaps be worked out. Hon. members must see the matter in its broad perspective, and they must remember that the principle of pensions has also been extended now to include South West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi. In other words, there, too, an increased amount would have had to have been taken into consideration. It is very difficult to estimate in advance what the increase in South West Africa will be, but the additional expenditure is estimated at R140,000. So, in their case, too, the expenditure would have been far higher. Hon. members must also realize that Rome was not built in a day and, in this case, too, everything cannot be achieved at once. I think that the whole scheme would have been upset if we had decided to give everyone the maximum of the present three tariffs, namely R47.40. Hon. members will, I am sure, not argue with us in regard to the advantage derived from the fact that the Bantu tariffs have now been simplified and made uniform. The advantages of one tariff are so obvious that I do not think it is necessary to say anything more in this regard. I think that, in the light of what I have just said, hon members will realize that there were financial, practical and also policy and administrative reasons, having regard to the whole picture, not only of the Bantu in the Republic, but the Bantu of South West Africa as well, why we had to hasten slowly in this case, although we hastened more quickly than in the case of the Whites a few years ago, because we had two stages in their regard. The pensions of the third and second groups were consolidated at the tariff of the second group at the time, while a year later the tariffs of the second and first groups were consolidated at the tariff of the first group. In our case we immediately consolidated the tariffs of the third and second groups at a tariff which was higher than that of the second group. In other words, our second and third groups derived more benefit immediately as a result of consolidation than was the case of the Whites a few years ago.

We appreciate the reply that has been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. However, there are still certain questions which remain unanswered. As far as the Bantu pensioner living in the city is concerned, and who now receives R47.40 per annum, there is a proviso in this clause to the effect that he will continue to receive that amount provided he continues to reside in the city. What I should like to know is whether, if that Bantu pensioner leaves the city for a period of time and then returns to the city later on, he will continue to receive the new reduced amount of R44.40 or whether he will receive the R47.40 which he received before? The answer possibly is that once the aged Bantu pensioner has left the city, he will not be permitted to return, in terms of other laws, to reside in the city. That might be the answer, but I would be interested to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, once the Bantu pensioner no longer resides in the city, he will be paid the reduced rate of pension even if he subsequently returns to the city.

Sir, what has just been said by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development makes us realize the unfortunate position in which the urban Bantu old-age pensioner finds himself because he is the only person who will actually receive a reduced rate of pension. We realize, of course, that the Bantu pensioner who at present receives R47.40 will continue to receive it, but potential Bantu pensioners living in the city will in future receive the reduced rate of R44.40. We are still going to continue to have two different categories. Within the cities we are going to have Bantu old-age pensioners receiving the new consolidated amount of R44.40 and we are going to have the older Bantu pensioner, who resided in the city before the passing of this measure, receiving the higher rate of R47.40. I think it is unfortunate that it has not been possible for the Government to consolidate the pension scales applicable to the rural and the town Bantu, the third and second groups. They could then at a later stage have been brought into line with the city Bantu, so that the rate for the city Bantu would have remained unaltered at R47.40. We think that that would have been preferable to the course which is now being followed of reducing the rate of pension payable to urban Bantu.

Then there is another aspect in dealing with the means test for the Coloured pensioner. Here, too, we are indebted to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions who. we realize, does not administer the social pensions for the Coloured and the Indian people, for giving the reply which he did. Sir, I would like to state the attitude of this side of the House as concisely as possible. The existing position is that the Coloured pensioner receives half the amount that the White social pensioner receives. In terms of this Bill the Coloured social pensioner will continue to receive half the amount which the White social pensioner receives, but when we come to deal with the means plus pension limitation we find that there is a very marked difference between the present position and the position as it will be after the passing of this measure. The means plus pension limitation for the White social pensioner is R27 per month; for the Coloured pensioner the limitation is R162 per annum, which is R 13.50 per month, in other words, half the figure applicable to White social pensioners. In terms of this clause the means plus pension limitation for the White pensioner will be R44 per month, in other words, a ceiling of R42 per month plus an old-age pension of R2 per month. The means plus pension limitation in the case of the Coloured pensioner is being increased by only R6 per annum, which brings it up to R14 per month. If the existing ratio between pensions for Whites and pensions for Coloured persons had been maintained, however, the limitation in the case of the Coloured social pensioner would be R22 per month, in other words, one half of the amount which is the limitation applicable to White social pensioners. The hon. the Minister has stated that if the limitation were increased to this figure it would encourage Coloured persons to give up their employment and to live on the State. Sir, a figure of R22 per month is still an exceedingly low figure. I find it difficult to comprehend the statement that 19,000 Coloured workers would give up their employment if the limitation were raised to R22 per month. If we are going to pay the Coloured social pensioner half the pension which the White social pensioner receives, then we should be consistent and we should say that the means plus pension limitation in the case of Coloured social pensioners should be one-half of the figure applicable to White social pensioners.

I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not reply to the point I made with regard to the provision concerning a White pensioner who maintains a child at an educational institution. I wanted to know why the same privilege was not being extended to the Coloured man. and the hon. the Minister has not answered my question. This clause specifically provides that only a White pensioner shall have this privilege. Secondly, I notice that adopted children are excluded. A pensioner may have an adopted child whom he wishes to educate, but unless the pensioner is the natural father of the child, the child is excluded. It does seem a pity that an adopted child should be excluded, especially where the child has been legally adopted. I should like to know why this is being limited to children whose father happens to be their natural father, but in particular I should like to know why the Coloured social pensioner is not enjoying the same rights in this respect as the White social pensioner.

I just want to tell the hon. member, in regard to the question he has just asked, that it was never applicable to Coloureds.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 33,

This clause, in terms of which the attendance allowance is being increased considerably, is one which we welcome on this side of the House. The clause provides that the attendance allowance in the case of the White pensioner will be R120 per annum. R60 per annum in the case of Coloured and Indian pensioners and R48 per annum in the case of Bantu pensioners. These figures represent a considerable increase over the previous attendance allowances. The only question which I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in this regard is this; The Bill provides that Sections 19 to 42 inclusive shall come into operation on the first day of October 1965. Provision is also made in this clause for an attendance allowance to be paid to persons who attain the age of 90 years, and the clause goes on to say that that section will also come into operation as from 1 October 1965. I want to point out that the increased pensions will come into operation as from 1 April 1965, and I would like to know whether the increased attendance allowances will come into operation only from 1 October 1965, or whether these increased amounts will be paid retrospectively from 1 April 1965.

The reply is that it will become operative from 1 October. I have already explained that it will be very difficult, from an administrative point of view, to put all the changes which have been effected into operation simultaneously. The increase in this case will come into operation with effect from 1 October 1965.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

May I ask under this particular clause—the blind—whether the same thing applies in regard to the means test. In terms of the Blind Persons Act, Coloured pensioners are limited to R168 and White pensioners to R538. I should like to know whether in assessing the pension of the Coloured blind person the allowance is included or not. I ask this question for a specific reason, because I happen to be interested in a school for the blind, and I have found that if a blind person is taught to do something useful and then earns a certain amount of money, that amount is deducted from his pension. I may say, in passing, that this particular school is required by the Department to enforce apartheid, between the Bantu and the Indians and between the Indians and the Coloureds, by means of a wire-netting partition. However, I will not pursue that matter any further. What I want to ask the Minister is, whether the blind are expected to stay at work? Are these aged Coloured blind persons expected to work? Is the reason in this case too, that their pension cannot be increased further because it is feared that they will become work-shy. I notice a little further on in the Bill that there is another clause which deals with a different group of pensioners— disability—and I intend to ask the same question at that stage. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us for the sake of the record, whether or not it is correct to say that the limit in regard to the means test is going to be the basic figure, whereas the White person by contrast is going to be allowed this higher figure which has been given to us here to-day, and whether the blind Bantu is also going to be in the same position, that is to say, that his means test is going to be based on the low figure provided for here. If my assumption is correct, I want to appeal once more to the Minister that he should treat blind people more than generously and that the ratio between the different races should be reduced. I do not think anybody would wish to make the lives of those people more difficult than they are. In this instance the Minister is responsible himself; the responsibility for the blind rests with him. Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether the same reasoning is behind the differentiation in the scale in regard to the Coloured, Indian and Bantu blind as in the case of the Old Age pension with which we dealt earlier. If the Minister will give me the information on this point I shall indeed be grateful.

The hon. member will appreciate the fact that I am only responsible for the Whites. Hon. members will have a further opportunity to raise matters which fall beyond my province. I may just say that I shall convey the representations made by hon. members to the authorities concerned as soon as possible.

The hon. the Minister has stated quite correctly that he is only responsible for the Whites. If this is so, why are the hon. the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and of Bantu Administration and Development not here? This Minister is restricted in his replies and his colleagues ought to be here to give attention to this Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 38,

We now find ourselves in a rather difficult position. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is present. These are improvements brought about by the hon. member of Social Welfare and I must therefore have thanked the wrong Minister during the second reading. I thanked this Minister for these war veteran allowances to the Coloureds and Indians. I won’t withdraw it because I think his Department must have had something to do with it. I hope they will so use their influence in connection with the next matter I want to raise, which now apparently affects the Minister of Bantu Administration, in such a way that the same results are obtained.

The position up to date in regard to this clause has been that White war veterans got an extra allowance of R8 per month over and above their old age pension. For years we have been asking for some sort of allowance to be paid to the Coloured and Indian ex-servicemen and the Bantu. This year this Minister—apparently with the other Ministers— has arranged for Coloured and Indian war veterans to get a monthly allowance of R4 additional. In his second reading speech the hon. Minister referred to “all groups”. I can only draw the attention of the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to this matter because I think it is of considerable importance. Many Bantu have served in the forces and if we extend the war veterans benefit to the Coloured and Indians I cannot, for the life of me, see why some sort of benefit cannot also be extended to the Bantu ex-servicemen. We must try to make friends with them; we must try to keep them on our side. I remember being told after the First World War that the fact that the Blacks who went over to Europe were not regarded as volunteers but just as labourers, meant that at the end of the war they did not get a certain medal. I have also been told—and I believe my information is correct—that the fact that they were not given that medal affected our recruiting of Zulus considerably during the last war. So I do commend to whichever Minister is really in charge of this war veterans’ pensions for Bantu to give this matter consideration during the recess because I assure whoever is in charge of it that if such an allowance is made to these Bantu ex-servicemen it will bring results, good results, which will surprise this Government and the Minister in question. I hope this will be considered.

Clause 38 (d) introduces a new sub-section (9) to the War Veterans Pensions Act of 1962. During the second reading the question of raising the means plus pension limitation, as affecting the war veteran over 70, was discussed. This now increases that amount from R324 per annum to R528 in regard to the Old Age Pensions Act, and shall be increased to a new ceiling of means plus pension limitation of R840 per annum for war veterans over 70 years of age.

From the figures provided and from the provisions of this particular section of the clause it is clear that a person can have an income up to R816 per annum, or R68 per month, and still qualify for the minimum war veteran’s pension which with the old-age pension plus the extra R8 gives a total of RIO per month. This means test limitation of R840 is clear as far as the income is concerned. But in regard to the means test applicable to this particular type of war veteran who has attained the age 70 years one has to take into account property and assets. Those property and assets are given an income value. In terms of a previous clause that was passed dealing with the old age pensioner, we know that by taking into account the income value of such assets it will be possible for a person to have assets up to R 10,800, which gives an income value of R504 per annum, and still qualify for a minimum pension of R2 per month. That is to be the new ceiling which is allowed in terms of the Bill. The difficulty appears to be to find the application of the income value of the assets permitted for the war veteran over 70 years of age so as to calculate what it will mean in terms of a ceiling figure for assets permitted. In terms of our present provisions the ceiling is R 13,280 and over that figure a married war veteran over 70 years does not qualify for the minimum pension. The hon. the Minister has indicated during the second reading that the free assets permitted to a married war veteran over 70 years of age shall remain at R8,000. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he could indicate how this will affect the ceiling figure that is permitted in regard to the assets in relation to the raising of the means plus pension figure to R840 per annum. I have indicated that it meant a relaxation of the assets permitted for the old age pensioner. I would now like to know whether the Minister could give us an indication of the practical application of this figure as affecting the assets permitted of a war veteran over 70 years of age.

Is the hon. Minister not going to reply?

Hon. members will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to reply to the point at issue. As I said before any outstanding matters will be considered during the recess.

May I ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is going to reply to the queries raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross)?

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 39,

Clause 39 provides for the supplementing of certain veterans’ pensions and Clause 34 made a similar provision in respect of old age pensioners. Certain supplementary pensions become payable when a person delays his application for a pension. This clause makes a similar provision applicable to the war veteran, with certain exceptions. These exceptions are contained in subsection (3) which reads—

The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply in respect of a war veteran—

1. (a) to whom a veteran’s pension is granted but who. but for the provisions of subsection (9) of section three, would not be entitled to such a pension; or
2. (b) to whom, by virtue of the provisions of section fifty-one of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1962, such a pension is granted.

Paragraph (b) is consistent with the clause dealing with the old-age pensioner and that evidently applies to those persons who have been given special exemption in terms of the residential qualifications as laid down in that particular section.

However, the position of the war veteran in terms of paragraph (2) of this clause seems to be the following: It would appear that the object of this proviso is to exclude those war veterans who will only qualify for a war veteran’s pension due to the fact that their cases have received favourable consideration in terms of the relaxed means test for war veterans over 70 years of age. In terms of the existing legislation a war veteran becomes entitled to apply for a pension after the age of 60. It would appear that in terms of the provisions here a person who delays his application for a war veteran’s pension will not receive a similar concession as the person who applies for an old-age pension. To illustrate this point I have calculated how a war veteran would be affected in practice and I shall be pleased if the Minister would indicate whether this interpretation of mine of this clause is correct. A war veteran of 60 years does not apply for a pension for a period of four years and applies at the age of 64 and receives a pension of R28 per month plus a R8 per month war veteran’s allowance, i.e. a total of R36 per month. This is, of course, provided he complies with the requirements of the means test. He does not receive any benefit because he has delayed his application. In the case of an old-age pensioner, however, he qualifies for a pension at the age of 65. If he delays his application for a pension for four years and applies at the age of 69 he will receive, in terms of this clause, an extra supplementary allowance of R120 per annum, i.e. RIO per month. Provided he complies with the requirements of the means test he will qualify for a maximum old-age pension of R28 per month plus the supplementary allowance of RIO per month, i.e. R38 per month. So in actual fact the old-age pensioner who delays his application for four years is R2 better off per month than the war veteran who also delays his application for four years. The point is that in some instances the war veteran, by delaying his pension, will not receive any benefit in terms of the supplementary pension as provided foi* in this clause. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether that interpretation of this clause is correct.

Then there is the question of the person who delays his application for a pension because he is self-employed. I raised this question during the second reading but the hon. Minister did not reply to it. In terms of this clause, read in conjunction with the White Paper, it would appear that the ground for delaying the application for a pension is to encourage a person to continue working. Many of these people who are self-employed are unable to qualify for a pension because they are self-employed and because of the means test. I particularly think of the person who operates a taxi business or who acts as an agent.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Just before business was suspended we were dealing with Clause 39 which is before the Committee and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to some of the points that have been made in regard to the application of this clause. There is the self-employed person who also delays his application for a pension. Will he also be entitled to claim the supplementary allowance that is provided for in this clause? The question of the self-employed person is one which has caused some concern in the past particularly as far as their income is concerned, in that the income of persons of 70 years of age who are employed is disregarded for the purposes of the means test. I would therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the self-employed person will also be permitted to enjoy the additional benefits that are provided for in this particular clause.

The position is this. If a self-employed person postpones his application, he will also fall within the limits of the scheme because the reason for postponement is not considered. The hon. member will know that we make the schemes as simple as possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

This clause provides for social pensions and grants to be payable to Natives in the Territory of South West Africa on the same basis as those pensions and grants are payable to Bantu persons in the Republic. The position seems to be that all persons born in South Africa after 1926 are Union nationals in terms of the Citizenship Act of 1949. I have no objection to these Natives being included but I would like some explanation on this particular angle: South West African citizens do not pay tax to us on their income in that territory and I want to know whether it is not really their responsibility to some extent to see that these social pensions are brought into existence. I would like to know whether the South West African Administration is going to bear a portion of this cost or whether they have been asked to bear a portion of it. It does seem a little bit unfair to me that we as South African taxpayers should bear the whole expense.

I want to return to the question of the war veterans. As I said before I cannot ask at this stage for any additional expenditure but I want the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to consider this angle during the recess. When he goes down to deal with these people he will find that a large number of Bantu were recruited in South West Africa for the forces during the last war, a very large number indeed. I will tell him an amusing story, if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Chairman, which might soften his heart in this regard. One of the most famous men in Native Administration was Kokkie Hahn, as the Minister may remember. Well, Kokkie Hahn and a man named Trollip were recruiting Natives for the South African Forces in the Caprivi Strip. They found it was rather hot so they decided to signal to Pretoria for a refrigerator. In due course they were advised that the refrigerator had arrived at railhead—which was Livingstone—and off they went to Livingstone with an expedition of carriers, canoes and the rest. When they got there they found there were nine big packing cases. With the resources at their command they decided not to open the cases but to take them back as they were to their camp. That meant more carriers, more canoes and more of everything. When they got to their camp they opened the nine cases and found that they contained nine refrigerators. They sent a signal down to Pretoria saying: “You have sent us nine refrigerators, why?” The reply came back: “That is all you are entitled to.” I told that story, Sir, to convince the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will have to consider this question of war veterans’ pensions as far as South West Africa is concerned. He will find that those fellows who did serve in the forces consider themselves a cut above the others and if he wants to get them on our side it would be a good idea if he would give the Native ex-servicemen in South West Africa some benefit in the form of a war veterans’ allowance. And then, of course, we will have to give it to our own men as well.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

We, on this side of the House, have no objection to the third reading of the Bill. We think this stage of the Bill is, perhaps, an opportune moment to make certain brief comments concerning the contents and the effects of this Bill. We realize that the contents of this Bill are mainly giving legislative effect to the proposals outlined in the Budget speech on 24 March. It is hoped that, whenever any Pension Laws Amendment Bill is introduced in future, it will be possible to introduce it at an earlier stage of the Session than this one has been. That will give hon. members of this House greater opportunity of studying the implications of such a Bill. The main principles of this Bill are, however, in conformity with the policy of this side of the House which believes that there should be a general relaxation of the existing means test, so that the position of those persons who have made some provision for their age will be somewhat relieved. Today they find that they are discriminated against when they apply for a social pension.

I think we can also stress the point that we, on this side of the House, have never suggested that a welfare state should be created in South Africa. We believe that the principle of caring for the aged and those who cannot care for themselves should be accepted as a corner-stone in any programme of social security. We, consequently, look upon the contents of this Bill as moving along the road of alleviating the position of those persons who require .assistance from the State. This Bill provides for the relaxation, to some extent, of the means test, and that will go a long way towards meeting that position and that problem which was more acute under the existing means test.

We believe that the other provisions of this Bill will bring about a general improvement, although we stated at the second reading that we were a little disappointed in regard to certain facets of the Bill. We had also hoped that it might be possible for the Government to reconsider the position and to incorporate a greater sum as financial relief to social pensioners. The position of altering the merits test naturally causes a great deal of difficulty for many of these aged persons who already have a difficult task trying to comprehend the position as far as the means test is concerned. The hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said on an earlier occasion in the course of this Session that people must regard these social pensions as a right and not merely as a privilege. Taking that a step further, I think it is right and justified that these people should be able to realize that they can claim these pensions as a right. Where we have vast alterations in terms of the means test and in the pensions themselves, and where a portion of people are brought in, the number of which we will be unable to assess accurately, perhaps the hon. the Minister will give consideration to making available at the various regional offices a booklet or pamphlet setting out what the position is in regard to the means test concerning social pensions. As the Minister himself has admitted, even he cannot say how many people will now qualify for such pension. It is going to be an enormous task that is going to face the Department in re-assessing the existing cases and then having to cope with a tremendous influx of new cases from 1 October 1965. Therefore, it will be of invaluable assistance to potential social pensioners if they are able to receive a guide which will indicate to them exactly what their rights are in terms of the means test, as amended in terms of this Bill. It will also obviate some persons applying for pensions when they are obviously not qualified, as they will be able to see the means test as laid down. Similarly it would help people to complete their forms. Many of them are aged persons, and they experience a great deal of difficulty completing the necessary forms. They have to go to a great deal of trouble to produce documentary evidence to support their applications for social pensions. For the older person who often struggles to read all the questions that have to be answered in the application for the social pension, in terms of the amendments which have been brought about in this Bill, it will be still more complicated and confuse these people to an even greater extent. Therefore, I make this plea at this third-reading stage of the Bill, and perhaps the hon. Minister can give consideration to making available a booklet or a leaflet as a guide to pensioners, so as to assist them and to enable them to claim what is their right under the Act. We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill at the third reading.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) with regard to the improvements in the grants made to our war veterans and to our social pensioners. They are very welcome. But, Mr. Chairman, these benefits have not come overnight. It has taken years of negotiation and as a result are out of date already. We welcome the hon. Minister’s statement that as far as he is concerned, that he will always be ready to give further consideration to these matters and to review them. We are very glad to hear that. Now the hon. member for Heilbron last night, took up the attitude, that pensions were a kind of charity, poor relief . . .

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the contents of the Bill and not revert back to the second-reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, a sound pension structure as far as this country is concerned should be the corner-stone of social security and we are a little disappointed, in view of the terrific surplus declared by this Government of R 140,000,000, that the hon. the Minister of Pensions was not able to coax out of the hon. Minister of Finance a little more relief. It is remarkable how exacting we are when it comes to discussing pensions, but when it comes to the position of providing the country with war machines and preparing for war, millions of rands are so readily available. I ask the hon. Minister not to forget the people who suffer the ill-effects of war, and I want him to draw the attention of his Government to that fact and to put a nest-egg away for those people. Our social pensioners to-day suffer like all of us as a result of the rising cost of living, which is going up every day, and they find great difficulty in making ends meet. Rates are going up, transport is going up, food goes up, clothing goes up and on top of that our social pensioners who are in a group where often they have to attend hospital have to pay an attendance fee. They are very hard put to it to find this money, and I want to prevail upon the hon. Minister of Pensions to give consideration to some form of relief to pensioners in that direction, so that they can attend hospitals free on production of a card showing that they are pensioners, they should get some facilities on our transport system as well. Because a social pensioner in Cape Town having to attend at the Groote Schuur Hospital will have to pay a minimum of 20c and then he has to find his bus fare to and from the hospital. With the very, very small pension they get, these people find it difficult to come out. There is no relief in this particular direction and I would urge the hon. Minister to give some consideration to this aspect.

To come back to the cost-of-living allowance: It takes a long time to redraft the pension scales for our various citizens, and I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he again should prevail upon the hon. Minister of Finance, sitting next to him to introduce some form of cost-of-living allowance for pensioners in conformity with the rising cost of living over the years. I think the hon. Minister of Finance can afford it. He has this considerable surplus of money and he could already have done something about it this year. It is very, very disappointing. The hon. Minister of Finance shrugs his shoulders, but I think he could do a little bit more for our pensioners who, after all, are entitled to something from this prosperous Government and this prosperous country of ours.

I won’t detain the House long, but ther are two things I would like to place on record. I want to express the profound disappointment of the Coloured community at the improvements in the pension scales which have been accorded to them. From the discussions it is clear, that Coloured persons will get little or nothing by way of an improvement on the existing allowances and pensions. The second point I wish to make is, that I was deeply shocked to hear the hon. Minister of Social Welfare tell the House that the reason why the means test has not been increased for Coloured persons was that old Coloured people should get on with their job and see whether they can’t find some suitable work, because the experience was that they lay about and are unwilling to do a day’s work. I raise this again, Mr. Speaker, because I want to draw a parallel and say that where the White pensioner is concerned, he does not have to work, but if does choose to work, he will get a special allowance, which increases until he gets to the age of 70, when he will get no less a sum than R10 per month added to his pension. The old ratio of pensions as far as the Whites and the Coloureds are concerned was 2: 1. I believe that that is a wrong principle, but it has been accepted, and let us leave it at that. I want to protest against the increase in the disparity in the ratio between the White and the Coloured pensioner. I think it is a mistake and I think the Coloured community will be deeply distressed that once more the Government has discriminated against them, in terms of the basic pensions which will be paid to them and the allowances which they will not receive.

I have already dealt with and replied to most of the questions put to me. I told the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) and this House that there was a difference in standard of living between the Whites, the Coloured people, the Indians and the Bantu.

Don’t come along with that again.

We even have differences of opinion amongst the Coloured representatives now. The one says that all pensions should be made equal and should be made the same as those of the Whites, but the hon. member who has just spoken said that in his opinion there was something to be said for changing the ratio. I pointed out that the ratio had been changed from time to time and had also been improved from time to time during the period of office of this Government, but I also pointed out that we had to keep it in proportion to the ratio in respect of the standard of living. South Africa cannot afford introducing a uniform standard of living, and this Government will definitely not be agreeable to introducing such a standard. We have enough examples which show what position arises when uniform standards are introduced. The only point I made on behalf of my colleague behind me was that the case of the Coloured people differed from that of the Whites. I said that if the average income of, say, a Coloured male was R21 per month and one accepted R21 per month as being the standard for the pensions too, we could realize what the consequences would be. Many of us here are over 65 and are still doing a good job of work. That is one of the tendencies in the modern world: People live longer and remain active longer, and while they remain active it is essential that they should continue with their work if they can. No one has said that they should continue if they cannot, but I said that the difference was that the position of the Coloured people was such that if one placed their pensions on a uniform basis with their average income it would not be in conformity with the present position of the Whites, and that in that case one would again get what the hon. member calls a “disparity”. And, of course, the extra cost involved would be tremendous.

One of our objects in introducing this Bill is in fact to encourage people to carry on working longer, and I think every hon. member in this House would agree with me that it would be a good thing to encourage people who are still able to work to carry on working for a longer period. We are faced with a shortage of manpower, and in view of that we should not encourage people to stop working if they are still capable of working. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) had a complaint against the hon. the Minister of Finance here. I want to say to the hon. member that he should have made that complaint against the Minister of Finance in the course of the Session. He had ample opportunity to do so. As a matter of fact, I think that case has been stated here ad nauseam and that my colleague has replied to it. The hon. member also spoke about the cost-of-living allowance. In that regard, too, he submitted a request to my colleague, but I just want to say that increases in pensions have more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living—to the extent of almost twice as much. The increase in pensions over a number of years is virtually twice as much as the increase in the cost-of-living index.

To the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) I want to say that I noted down what he said. As a matter of fact, I already dealt with his points in my second-reading speech. We have given our reasons for not having been able to introduce this measure at an early stage. We did our utmost. It was a question of pressure of work and I have explained the circumstances. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I myself, and I think all of us, would have liked to have had the opportunity to get this measure at an earlier stage, to study it and to discuss it in more detail. The hon. member for Umbilo added that he was disappointed in a few respects. I want to say to the hon. member that whenever we obtain anything, it is obtained as a result of a spirit of goodwill on all sides. And I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that goodwill should not come from one side only. It would be of no use to him if he loved his wife and she did not love him. Love is a spiritual gift which has to come from two sides, and if it does not come from both sides it has no value. The same applies to goodwill, and any goodwill that has been shown, has come equally, if not more, from this side of the House. I have claimed that I have by means of this measure carried out undertakings which I gave. I have said all along that the assistance being granted here is supplementary assistance, not total assistance. We are not a welfare state, and I do not think it will be in our interest to be one. I have stated my attitude in that regard explicitly. But I say that the scheme we have is a sound one. Many countries in Europe, those which have contributory schemes and even those which are welfare states, make use of those auxiliary services in the private sector, and if they could not make use of them their position would be much more difficult. The hon. member speaks of “alleviation”. I appreciate the fact that hon. members on all sides of the House approve and acknowledge that we are providing a considerable measure of relief. I have said, and I want to repeat, that the less well-to-do section of our population is the responsibility of all of us, on whichever side of the House we may be sitting, and if we are not prepared to accept that responsibility and to carry it out in practice and to stimulate the population of the country by doing so, we shall not achieve much success with our measures either. We are therefore retaining the basic system, which I want to say no more about; it is the triangular system which I have always mentioned and the two-point system, namely, the responsibility of the State and of society. As far as the triangular system is concerned, it includes the church organizations, whose task it is to look after their people and to care for them and guide them in every sphere of life, in order to make them self-supporting as far as possible. We are going to retain that scheme. I have devoted a great deal of attention to the matter and I have not found any other scheme which can take the place thereof. As the hon. member said, we have difficult problems to deal with. It is very difficult to work out schemes in detail. It takes weeks and weeks of labour to work out the details. It is difficult for the Department, it is difficult for me too, as it is difficult for hon. members, to understand complicated machinery such as this in all its ramifications. That is why I said previously that we would do out utmost to issue a brochure as soon as we had straightened out the position and were able to set out the scheme in such a way that everybody could understand it, so that we could bring it to the notice of all concerned. I should say that if we submitted the Bill in its present form to people outside, it would be very difficult for any of them to say what it contained and what it did not contain. But that is the way of the law. It is essential for us to bring our people to a full realization of the position in this regard.

I once again want to express my gratitude for the appreciation there has been for this measure, and I just want to express the hope that, while appreciating the good things, hon. members will not always place so much emphasis on things which have not been worked out as perfectly as they would wish. Working out all the various aspects is the responsibility of this Government; it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my Department. We have our limits, as everybody has his limits, but what is essential is that we continue to approach the matter in a healthy spirit.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I referred, in my Budget speech, to the measure of demand inflation which already existed, and to the accompanynig deterioration in our balance of payments position. As a matter of fact, that formed the basis of my budgetary policy as well as of the monetary measures we took to curb credit expansion.

There are clear indications that there has been a slight decline in the rate of growth of certain sectors of our economy—as, indeed, was necessary. The rate of development in other sectors, however, is still a rapid one— Still too rapid perhaps—and there is no question of any general recession in the economy.

There has been a further decrease in the foreign reserves of the Reserve Bank and, as at 11 June, they stood at R346,200,000— R 80,000,000, lower than when I delivered my Budget speech about 12 weeks ago. That is a large decrease, particularly when one takes into account the fact that we recently drew a further $10,000,000—R7,000,000—on our supplementary credit with the American banks. It is unfortunate that our reserves stood at such a high level at the beginning of the year, because that gives us time to straighten out the balance of payments position.

Under the circumstances the Reserve Bank deemed it advisable further to increase the minimum liquid asset requirements of the commercail banks step by step to their maximum of 40 per cent and 30 per cent of the banks’ short-term and medium-term liabilities, respectively.

When the minimum requirements were increased for the first time in March, i.e. from 30 per cent and 20 per cent to 34 per cent and 24 per cent, respectively, the amounts which some of the commercial banks held in liquid assets were considerably higher than the prescribed level. That enabled them to expand credit further, in spite of the increased minimum requirements. The total discounts, loans and advances of the banks increased by R26,000,000 in March and, after all our warnings, by a further R30,000,000 in April. Although the banks still complied with the requirements of the Act, and although I fully realize that it is not easy to stop credit expansion immediately, it is, nevertheless, disappointing that some of the banks—not all of them—did not co-operate better with the authorities in order to control this source of inflation.

On 30 April the total liquid assets held by the commercial banks amounted to R60,000,000 more than the minimum as prescribed as from the date on which they signed the returns for that month. The increase in the minimum assets by an additional 4 per cent since that time was expected to absorb £58 of that amount. If one takes this account, together with the outflow of funds, then the position should now be under control, and it is unlikely that there will be a further extensive increase in credit.

I want to emphasize that it is not the intention to withdraw existing credits, nor is it the intention to curtail normal production credit, particularly for the financing of agriculture or other industries which produce essential commodities or which make a direct contribution to our export trade. However, credit for purposes of consumption or speculation must be strictly controlled. Under present circumstances we even have to act on a selective basis as far as industrial expansion is concerned; we simply cannot afford to encourage development at the rate for the past year where such development requires scarce foreign exchange and labour without making a comparable contribution as far as our balance of payments position is concerned. In other words, as regards credit provision for industrial development, we will have to fix priorities in such a way that industries which produce for the export trade or which replace imported articles directly, and which do not require too much imported machinery or raw materials, receive first priority.

We cannot expect the credit and fiscal measures we have mentioned to check the decline in our reserves immediately. On the contrary, I anticipate that our reserves will continue to decline for quite some time yet, although it is hoped, not at the same rate as it has declined during the past months. But if we adhere to our conservative credit policy it must eventually lead to a decrease in the demand for imported goods and, consequently, to an improvement in our balance of payments position.

The necessity for a higher level of saving is as great to-day as it was when I delivered my Budget speech. I know that some critics maintain that it is inconsistent to encourage saving and, at the same time, to lay down maximum rates of interest on deposits with financial institutions. However, the rates which have been laid down by the Reserve Bank with my approval are already higher than the current rates have been for many years, and I doubt whether in the sum total still higher rates would attract any large amount of additional savings. The pegging of rates—although I do not like it in principle—has put an end to the unhealthy interest rate war between financial institutions and, with a few exceptions, has already brought about a more normal flow of funds to the various categories of institutions. There are still a few snags, but they are receiving attention at present.

I hope that the public, by saving more, will provide sufficient savings funds to all types of financial institutions, and will, by so doing, make it unnecessary to continue exercising control over rates of interest.

I wish to move the following amendment—

The Minister has just issued a statement reviewing the position since he introduced his Budget, and he has told us that he has had to put the screw on to the maximum as far as the curtailment of liquid funds in the banks is concerned and the curtailment of credit, and that he hopes that he has put a stop to what he regarded as undue credit expansion. He made the point that he does not intend to curtail existing credit or to stop further credit on a selective basis for export purposes—I shall have more to say about exports later— or where industries are taking part in what one might call the self-sufficiency campaign of the hon. the Minister. I had hoped that the Minister might be able to tell us what the final figures of his surplus were for the year, and that he might have been able to give us a slightly brighter review of the position. I would like, if I may, to quote from a speech made by President Johnson recently, because it seems to me that it bears some resemblance to our state of affairs in this country. I think the Minister will agree with me that up to a point it does. President Johnson referred to his confidence in the U.S.A. economy. He referred to an unprecedented 31-month boom; he referred to the fact that federal revenues were exceeding expectations, and he referred to the inherent strength of the economy. I think the Minister will agree with me that in regard to those points the President might have been quoting from a Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the extent that those features are all present in our own country. But there unfortunately the resemblance ends, because the effect of those conditions on the President was that he then announced that he was reducing indirect taxation by no less than $4,000,000,000, and added to the $11,000,000,000 by which he had reduced income tax earlier in the year it meant that the American taxpayer over the last five years has had his taxes reduced by $15,000,000,000. Sir, that makes your mouth water, does it not?

And what is their unemployment?

It is a comparatively small percentage of their population. What is more, if unemployment was high, the whole object of reducing taxation is, as President Johnson pointed out, to stimulate business even more; it would erase tax inequities and it would cut out a lot of Government tax collection and administrative expenses. In other words, the tax reduction was not just a benefit to the taxpayer, but it was a positive move to further expand and increase the economic activities and to reduce unemployment. [Interjection.] But I have not come here to discuss the economic affairs of the U.S.A. I am discussing the entirely different attitude adopted by the Government there under circumstances which according to his figures are very much the same as ours. If you look at our affairs, the President is worrying about the burden of taxation there . . .

He has no reason to worry; it is the American people who have reason to worry.

I will let the President know what the hon. the Minister of Finance says. [Laughter.] But I would be much happier if the Minister of Finance would concern himself constructively with the affairs of this country and not worry about the U.S.A. I am quoting a good example.

It is not even a good example. What is the gold production of America?

The fact is, referring to our amendment, that there is no sector of the Government where its inability or its unwillingness to look ahead is more apparent than in its handling of the country’s finances, both fiscal and otherwise. For years we in this House and elsewhere have criticized the haphazard and hopelessly inaccurate methods of the Minister in drafting his Budget, without any thought of to-morrow or anything further than the current year, and this year’s Budget was no exception. The position in the country to-day is inevitably the result of the Government’s actions during the past three or four years, and what an extraordinary position it is for a country which is supposed to be in a flourishing condition? After some years of almost feverish activity—I would not suggest that the hon. the Minister was feverishly active—we find ourselves with what is at the moment an unbalanced economy. We had record surpluses accompanied, if you please, with substantial increased taxation. We find a rising cost of living quite unaccompanied by any extra productivity. We find ourselves with increased restrictions on economic activities. The Minister has announced another one this afternoon. We find uncertainty as to the future and a growing discontent among that very large section of the people whom we may refer to as the family man.

Why do we find ourselves in this position? Because what I have stated are facts. Why is this so? The reasons have been widely discussed by experts all over the country, and I think they can be summed up in a few words by simply saying that the country as a whole is spending too much in the wrong direction. It all started with the Government’s campaign in 1961, in its appeal to the people to spend more for prosperity and to borrow if necessary in order to spend and so to help industry, and particularly the building industry. That is where it started, and surely the Government is to blame for not foreseeing the obvious dangers to the economy which would arise or might arise if its advice was taken too literally, and to act in good time. Money was available, there were liquid resources, and there was spare productive capacity in the factories. The result was that we had an over-rapid expansion of credit and over-employment and a shortage of White manpower. We had an increased demand for consumer goods, accompanied naturally by increased imports to meet that demand. The effects have been in recent months this very heavy fall in the reserves to which the Minister referred this afternoon, increased imports to meet the consumer demand. Import control was difficult to impose because of its inflationary effects. We had a rise in the cost of living, particularly in essentials and not so much in luxury goods, and we have had this shortage of labour.

What has the Government done about it? These symptoms were fairly obvious in the beginning of 1964 at the latest. The Government was very late in doing anything about it. It was only towards the end of last year that the credit restrictions to which the Minister referred were put into effect, the raising of interest rates and the increasing of the liquid deposits, etc. The Minister has said that in certain directions these credit restrictions are showing an effect, but it would appear that so far the effects of this credit squeeze are first of all and chiefly hitting the small man, the family man, the man who has a bond on his house, the man who, acting on the Government’s advice, entered into hire-purchase agreements; the man who has a family and children to feed and clothe and educate; the man who of all people in the country has benefited least since the boom began is now going to be the first to suffer when the Government tries to take steps to extricate the country from its dilemma. I think it is quite clear that the credit squeeze must sooner or later cut down expenditure, including capital expenditure, in the private sector. The question is whether it will not cut it down too much, because if it does it will certainly reduce production, which it should be one of the Government’s main objects to increase as much as possible. We shall quote figures in the course of this debate to indicate the general uneasiness in responsible circles in this country as to what the effects of this squeeze may be if we are not very careful and if the Government does not watch the position more carefully than it has done in the last four years.

I have said that the country as a whole was spending too much. I referred to the private sector and to the steps the Government has taken to curb it, but what about the public sector? Here I do believe that the Government at the outset made a cardinal mistake in its policy. In 1961, when it was urging all and sundry to go ahead, the Government itself joined in the race, and when it comes to curbing expenditure the public sector is the one sector which is still racing for all it is worth. From 1961 to 1964 Government agencies and Government corporations increased their gross investment by 45 per cent. The private sector increased by 56 per cent, but the majority of Government investments were unproductive, consisting of building and construction, and did nothing to increase the productivity of the country. At the same time they embarked on these very large schemes. They undertook a very large defence programme, which made great inroads on the manpower and the materials available. They went straight ahead with their border industry policy, which is a socio-political matter and not an economic one. In fact, it seems to us that the border development programme is absolutely contrary to all modern ideas of economic development. The idea of border industries is always talked about by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in terms of how many Bantu he is finding employment for.

Sir, that is not the way to judge the efficiency of industries. Modern industry is judged by its efficiency and not by the number of people employed, but by how highly mechanized the industry can be without employing too much labour. To a large extent these border industries are not economic propositions in terms of modern developments. At the same time the Government encouraged the self-sufficiency programme, with the idea that we should be self-sufficient in nearly everything as soon as possible. Again that led to large development schemes which would normally not have been undertaken so soon. Then, of course, they embarked on the Orange River scheme and a very big scheme in South West Africa and big schemes in terms of their Bantustan policy. I am not criticizing the nature of any of these schemes or their merits, but I am saying that surely with all these major schemes it must have been obvious to the Government that either some of these big schemes would have to be delayed or the private sector would have to wait; and to encourage the private sector to go ahead full steam and to employ every available man they could lay hands on, and at the same time for the Government to do exactly the same thing was bound to over-strain the economy of the country. But apparently that did not occur to anybody. The Government took all the brakes off, and off itself as well. Now they are putting the brakes on the private sector, but the skids are still under the Government. There is no doubt that the Government, having taken the brakes off, has made the major contribution to the problems which face it and the country to-day.

What about this manpower we hear so much about? How has the Government handled it? The Government has conceded that there is a problem, but what have they done? As far as I can see, they have done nothing. Here again, I should like to differentiate between the private and the public sectors. There is an overall shortage of White manpower, but as far as the private sector is concerned, partly under pressure of demand especially in the building industry and the engineering industry and partly because of the increased cost of living, I think it is fair to say that there has been a fairly general rise in wages in the private sector in the last couple of years. I think there was probably a rise of about 10 per cent overall in the last 18 months. If the Minister cares to make inquiries from large employers of labour he will find that that has been done because it was necessary. But in the public sector—and after all it is calculated that one family out of four or five depends on the Government and the Railways for its living— the position is quite different. There wages are frozen.

Where? Who says so?

Perhaps I should say that the Government states emphatically that wages are not frozen but that there will be no increases in wages. [Laughter.] Since 1958 there have been certain increases, amounting to about 5i per cent, but the cost of living has gone up by about 10 per cent. In other words, the one family out of four or five which depends on the Government for a living is worse off to-day than in 1958. The Minister and his colleagues complain about losing men. Of course, they are losing men, and they will continue losing men. We have heard about 1,000 people a month leaving the postal services, and about 1,200 a month leaving the Railways. It is a very serious matter for the whole country, and how is it going to be stopped? It will go on as long as men are offered better-paid jobs where they do not have to kill themselves to do overtime. It is no good for the Government just to complain that people are leaving and saying that they cannot compete with private enterprise. They have to compete. They do not necessarily have to compete by paying completely equal wages, but they have to consider the matter very seriously and make conditions sufficiently attractive to hold their employees. It affects the whole country. At present I personally do not know how the Railways can keep going. As far as I can see they can only keep going by doing a tremendous amount of overtime and there are limits to what any man can do, and when that breaks down, what happens? The whole system will break down. What is the Government going to do about it? A breakdown in the transport system or the communications system will cause the whole economy to break down.

I have a surprise for you. There will be no breakdown.

Heaven help us if the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) guarantees anything! One can elaborate and go on at great length about the problems facing this country and the Government. It seems to me that they have four immediate problems and they all flow from the Government’s miscalculations as to the potential of the country; and having miscalculated the potential, and its failure and lack of foresight in guiding that potential in the best directions by timely fiscal and other measures, the problems have become worse. It is quite clear that with the limited means at our disposal, human, financial and material, with the enormous upsurge that took place, there should have been a very wise and careful use made of all those assets if we were not going to land in the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day.

The first problem of the Government, and it is a vital one, is the Public Service. This drain on the Public Service must be stopped. It is no good getting reports month after month that the best people in the service are leaving, and just waiting for something to happen. It has to be stopped. The hon. member for Vereeniging apparently says there is no drain. We have seen something very near a breakdown already in the postal services, and the present working conditions for thousands of people in these Departments are quite intolerable. They are conditions under which no man should be asked to work.

The second problem of the Government, I think, is that public expenditure must be severely pruned to ease the burden on the Exchequer, to release manpower and capital for productive purposes, for preventing inflation and to make some kind of export possible. We have heard a lot about exports, but, Sir, what are we going to export and who is going to make the exports? There is no surplus of goods in the country. It is no good just saying: “We are going to take this particular thing and export it.” You have to cater for a particular market if you are going to export, and who is going to make it? Unless we can make the manpower and the machinery available, neither of which we can do at the present moment to any extent, it is no good talking about building up a very big export trade, unless public expenditure can be curbed in one of many ways, even the defence programme. I do not know what proportions stockpiling in the Defence Department has reached; it may well be that in some directions they have reached the point where they can stop stockpiling and release the factory or the manpower for other purposes. Unless we can redirect some of the manpower now employed in Government works, I do not see much hope either of easing the manpower shortage or of increasing productive activity and still less of building up an export trade.

The third great point, of course, is this question of easing the manpower position, which this Government has not even begun to face up to. They know very well that unless we can make better use of our enormous non-White labour reservoir, the manpower position will not cease to be a major problem in this country unless the whole economy of the country slows down to an unbearable extent. On top of all that. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Finance has to bear in mind that at all costs the productivity of the country has to be maintained. A larger section of the country’s activities must be made available for the production of capital goods and consumer goods. Too much at the moment is being used unproductively. A great deal of it is being used on schemes which in the long term may be productive and probably will be productive but we cannot afford it at the present moment to spend too much of our manpower and money on very long-term projects. They will have to wait until we can get our present economy properly balanced. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister this; Has he any answer to these four main questions? It is no good any member on the other side of the House—and I am looking very hard at one in particular—getting up and shouting at me and saying that these questions do not exist, because they do. I want to know what the Government’s answer is to these questions. Has the Minister any answer? Has any of his colleagues an answer to any of these questions? I will go further, Sir, and I will ask the Prime Minister whether he has any answer to these questions. After all, the Prime Minister is the head of the Government. He is ultimately responsible for the results of what his colleagues do or do not do. I must say that his one or two incursions into economic and financial debates in the House have not been very encouraging so far, but nevertheless if his colleagues and the hon. the Minister of Finance cannot give the answer to these questions I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the present state of the country? Has he no thought at all for the plight of the family man in government services at the present time? Does he not worry about their position? I want to suggest that before this House adjourns, before we go into recess, the whole country has the right to expect from the hon. the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government at a time when the whole country—the different sections for different reasons—is in a state of growing uncertainty, an overall picture of how he and his Government propose to deal with these urgent problems during the recess. We look forward to having that statement and we hope for the sake of the country that it will be more satisfactory than the statements we have been able to get from any of his colleagues during this Session, in spite of our repeated attempts to get replies to these questions.

Let me say at the outset that I expected that the hon. member, as the United Party’s principal speaker, on foreign affairs as well, would at least comment on the statement which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made here this morning. I am sorry that he did not do so, because I think that is a matter in regard to which we must present a very strong united front.

Sir, let me come now to the hon. member’s speech and analyse it for a moment. The amendment which he moved is neither here nor there; his amendment is like an eel; one cannot get a grip on it, because it is absolutely meaningless. We have now reached the end of the Session; this debate is the last major debate of the Session, and when we look back at what happened during this Session we find that we again had the usual phenomenon which we have had over the past 17 years, and that is the systematic retrogression of the United Party. In the provincial election they saw the physical result of their retrogression, but when we look at the debates in this House over the past few months, we see the spiritual retrogression of the United Party. They are played out, and that is why they come along here with an amendment of this nature. The reason for that is this: For a period of 16 to 17 years the United Party has clung to the idea that South Africa cannot progress in the economic field and virtually cannot exist unless we abandon our apartheid policy. This is the second major debate in which the United Party has moved an amendment this Session; as far as I can remember this Session is the only one in which they have not blamed our apartheid policy as such for our so-called poor economic position. It is very obvious this afternoon that the hon. member’s complaint is not that we are in a poor economic position; his complaint is that we are developing too rapidly in the economic sphere. Now that the world is beginning to understand what our apartheid policy means, our economy is developing so rapidly that bottle-necks must necessarily arise. The hon. member wants to create the impression that those bottlenecks are fundamental problems. Sir, they are not fundamental problems, they are problems which result from this extremely rapid rate of economic growth, a rate which is a considerably more rapid one than our economy can normally sustain. The rate of growth during the past few years had definitely been a more rapid one, and here I want to refer the hon. member to the brochure published by the Department of Planning in regard to the way in which our economic planning should be undertaken. The statement is made in that brochure that we can sustain a rate of growth of 5 per cent or per cent per annum, but that we cannot sustain a rate of growth of 10 per cent per annum, which is the rate that we have had to sustain in the past few years. It is self-evident that the more rapidly our economy develops, the more we have to import, and that is due to the following: In the older countries, in the Western European countries and so forth, it does not follow automatically that if they have more rapid economic expansion, more goods have to be imported, because those countries themselves manufacture the capital goods which are required for that new growth; those goods are manufactured within those countries themselves. If we want to establish new factories in South Africa, however, we have to import the machinery required. We have not yet reached the stage where we can manufacture all that machinery locally. The importation of machinery is a tremendous factor as far as the exchange position is concerned. In order to be able to achieve rapid growth in the economic sphere, one must necessarily import on a large scale. Our rate of economic growth during the past few years has been a little excessive, and therefore I am glad that the hon. the Minister has again declared here this afternoon that it is a good thing that the rate of growth has decreased to a certain extent. I was glad to hear that. Sir, let us examine the exchange position over the past few months. From March up to the present time our reserves have decreased by R80,000,000, but we find that the decrease in the past few weeks has been considerably less than it was a month or two ago, and that is because the process of contraction has now begun. It is essential that there must be some contraction, and I predict that before the end of this year we shall have credit balances from week to week as far as our exchange position is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, when we examine the hon. member’s amendment we find that he complains that the family man is in an unhappy plight, and he also states that the Government is incapable of adapting itself to realities. The hon. member and his colleagues have debated this matter ad nauseam this Session. I do not think there is much more to be said about this matter, except that the position is being very greatly exaggerated by the United Party. The hon. member contradicted himself here to-day. He said that we must pay the public servants better; that we must ensure that they do not go over to the private sector, and in the same breath he said that the public sector must curtail its activities so that the private sector will have more manpower at its disposal. If what the hon. member said is true, then surely the State is losing employees to the private sector, which should meet the requirements laid down by the hon. member.

The hon. member referred to America’s position, but surely South Africa and America cannot be compared. America is a country in which there is large-scale unemployment; America is a country which must have tremendous expansion. The hon. member says that in this country we should also expand as rapidly as we possibly can, but no one who takes an objective view of the matter will dispute the fact that we have expanded a little too rapidly during the past few years, and it is that fact which has caused the bottle-necks we are now faced with. I do not think the hon. member will get very far in politics with that statement, because it is an unfounded statement. Our economy simply does not enable us to sustain a more rapid rate of growth than we are sustaining at the moment. The hon. member speaks of an unbalanced economy. It is not a question of an unbalanced economy; our problem is the bottle-necks to which I referred a moment ago.

Then the hon. member comes along here with the story that there is growing dissatisfaction on the part of the family man.

Are you not a family man and are you not dissatisfied?

I am a family man, but I do not labour under imaginary grievances. That hon. member wants to bring the public under the impression that great dissatisfaction exists. The hon. member speaks of the family man who is supposed to be so dissatisfied. One will always find, as soon as there is an increase in the cost of living—and the increase in the cost of living in South Africa is reasonably small—that the worker will want higher wages. Mr. Speaker, we do not begrudge the worker higher pay but we cannot give him a disproportionate increase. The hon. member knows as well as I do that if one opened the economic tap and granted wage increases whenever the workers asked for higher wages, the industries out of which his constituents make this living would all go to the dogs, as all the gold mines on the Rand would go bankrupt. [Interjection.] I shall be glad if the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) will make his own speech later; he is just a nuisance with his interjections and he is only talking nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, our political divisions in South Africa are based on fundamental issues. Our people are not pocket patriots, and if hon. members on the other side think they will have any success with this story that the workers are dissatisfied, they are making a mistake. It is a figment of the imagination, and if hon. members want to use this story in an attempt to make some political capital during the recess, they are welcome to do so. We cannot act irresponsibly and say that we are going to increase wages left, right and centre and that everybody who asks for an increase will get it. We cannot, through granting wage increases, create a state of affairs in this country which would lead to the collapse of the whole of our economy. Perhaps that is what the United Party would like to see.

The hon. member says, inter alia, that the Government has taken its foot right off the brake, with the result that our economy has developed too rapidly, and that the Government is applying the brake only in the private sector now. He says that the Government must curtail its own expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I have the two Estimates here, those for the current account and those for the loan account. Is there one single item in the Estimates of Expenditure for this financial year which was opposed by hon. members of the United Party? No, not one single item, except that they wanted one of the Ministers to lose a few thousand rand per annum. The hon. members come along here with the general statement that the Government must curtail its own expenditure. We are concerned here with expenditure totalling R 1,500,000,000. The United Party did not propose that one single cent of that amount should not be spent.

But the surplus was such a large one.

Last year’s surplus has nothing to do with this years’ expenditure. Let me again ask hon. members of the Opposition: What specific item on our Expenditure Account did they want to reduce? It is no use coming here with the general statement that the Government is spending too much. They should tell us what item should be reduced. This question has been put to the United Party repeatedly on previous occasions, but not one of them has been prepared to say which items should be reduced. On the contrary, every member of the United Party who gets up here always asks for increased expenditure. We had the same thing here again to-day in the debate on Social Welfare. Throughout the Session they have created the impression that they are dissatisfied because the public has been given too little, and now they come along at the end of the Session and say that the expenditure is too heavy. Funnily enough, the same man who says that Government expenditure is too heavy says that we should pay our officials higher salaries. How much more should we pay them? No, the hon. member would do well to leave the officials to the care of the Government. The Government knows very well how to treat its officials. It has already met them on many occasions and it will continue to do so when changing circumstances necessitate it.

The hon. member also touched upon the question of the manpower position, and in that connection he referred to salaries and pensions. The only point which he made in that connection and which one can say anything about is that the non-Whites should be drawn into the economy to a larger extent in order to improve the manpower position. The hon. member knows what the accepted policy of the country is. He knows that we apply apartheid. He knows that we apply work reservation, and that if bottle-necks are caused by work reservation, temporary permits are issued to enable employers to make use of non-White labour; but the position in that regard is being totally exaggerated. The demand for permits is much smaller and indicates a much smaller problem than hon. members on the Opposition side try to suggest.

Mr. Speaker, I must hurry. The hon. member’s whole argument amounts to this: The United Party do not really know what to say; they have moved a general amendment, which also says nothing, in which they ask the Government to see to it during the recess that things go well with the country. Sir, that is really tantamount to a positive argument that things are in fact going well with the country.

I now come to a final point about which I should like to say something, and that is the financial measures which have been taken by the Government, and more particularly the control over credit. To all intents and purposes these measures can be divided into two categories. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has said that there are certain snags which arise from these measures, because I want to point out a few of the snags and to inquire whether something cannot be done about them. In the first place there are the financial control measures for combating inflation, and in the second place there are the measures which are intended to check the interest war. In the first place we have the increase in the bank rate to 5 per cent and the larger deposit which commercial banks have to make with the Reserve Bank. Those are the control measures which have been taken to combat inflation. In the second place we have the fixed rate of interest on deposits in order to check the interest war. It is perfectly obvious to me that the measures for restricting credit in order to prevent inflation and to remedy the exchange position are yielding good results. We are glad to see that there is a gradual improvement as far as the balance of payments position is concerned. I do want to say that it is a pity—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that our Banking Act is not yet applicable to all the institutions for which it was designed; it will only be made applicable to them in January next year. Had it not been for that fact, the effect of these measures would have been felt sooner and more effective results would have been achieved by this time. All of us probably regret the fact that the bank rate had to be increased; we know it was unavoidable, but it is a pity that it had to be increased, because it affects the mortgagees. It affects those people in particular who find it hard to make ends meet and who have mortgages on their houses. It affects many farmers who are financed by banks to tide them over the drought. All of them have to pay a higher rate of interest now. When the time comes that the Minister is able to relax these measures, I hope he will reduce the bank rate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, rather than reduce the 40 per cent deposit with the Reserve Bank. In my opinion 5 per cent is a very high bank rate in South Africa; it is a rate which we normally have in times of crisis and near-crisis such as in 1961, and I hope that this control measure will be the first to be withdrawn.

As far as the interest war is concerned, three types of undertakings are affected. There are the deposit-receiving institutions which hold assets of less than R30,000,000. They are allowed to pay up to 5f per cent on deposits. Then there are the deposit-receiving institutions and commercial banks which hold assets in excess of R30,000,000: they are allowed to pay 54-per cent; and the building societies are allowed to pay up to 6 per cent on their shares. We now get the complaint from these institutions that the different rates are causing unhealthy competition between them. I believe what happens is that money is withdrawn from the larger institutions and invested with the smaller ones. One wonders, Sir, whether this discrimination between the various institutions should continue. I want to say with due deference that in my opinion there is no reason for the difference in the rates of interest which the various deposit receiving institutions are allowed to pay, at any rate not in so far as institutions holding assets of nearly R30,000,000 are concerned. I would say that one could perhaps give an institution holding assets of R5,000,000, or at most R 10,000,000, some advantage as far as rates of interest are concerned, but an institution holding assets of R30,000,000 is a very large institution; it already controls a great deal of money and it now receives even much more. I hope the hon. the Minister will introduce some sort of equalization process in this connection as soon as possible.

I submitted earlier on in the Session that control over deposit rates alone would not solve our problem; that there should also be a maximum rate on loans. We have the Usury Act in this connection. I pointed out that the Usury Act provided for a maximum rate of interest of 12 per cent on a loan of R100 but the Usury Act does not define “interest”, and that is where the big difficulty lies. An effective rate of interest of up to more than 20 per cent is being paid to-day on money which is put out on loan, and the argument is advanced that the rate of interest is still within the provisions of the Usury Act because the people concerned are paying 12 per cent interest on money which has already been repaid.

Then you also have the problem that the Usury Act does not apply to hire purchases. When his Vote was under discussion, the hon. the Minister replied to my representations in this regard. He said that the undertakings concerned would in any case evade any regulation which might be issued. But I feel that one can draft a regulation in this connection in which it is provided that the effective rate of interest includes all finance charges, all raising fees and all introduction fees, etc. The regulation could be drafted in such a way that it would not be possible to evade it. If we are not going to make regulations because people are going to evade them in any case, what is the use of passing any legislation in this connection? When I look at the money market it is clear to me that a black market is developing in connection with deposits, a black market outside of our financial institutions. As I pointed out in this House a few years ago, there are large firms—firms of attorneys, firms of auditors and others and even people who form investment pools who pay 8 per cent, 9 per cent and 10 per cent on money deposited with them by people, and they then purhcase hire-purchse contracts with that money. They go further; they also invest some of that money in the form of personal loans to their clients, and if they do not have enough clients, they look for more clients. Those people receive a very high rate of interest on money which they put out on loan in that way. My information is that this black market has expanded rapidly since the imposition of restrictions on interest rates in the case of financial institutions. I know of one firm of attorneys, a rural firm in a Karoo town, which controls more than R3,000,000 which it invests in this way in hire purchases. I have heard of other cases which I do not even want to talk about. In this way many millions of rand by-pass our legitimate deposit-receiving institutions. There was an advertisement in the newspaper the other day—I understand it appears fairly regularly—in which persons who specialize more particularly in hire purchases and personal loans offered 8| per cent on short-term investments and 10 per cent on long-term investments. To me that looks like circumvention of our legislation. I do not know how one can prevent this. I think there is only one way, and that is impose restrictions on the lending rate. If we did that, we would catch those people. No person can pay 10 per cent for money and then put it out on loan for hire-purchase contracts, with all the attendant risks, at a maximum of 12 per cent.

We even find the phenomenon in the motor trade. Motor dealers conclude hire-purchase contracts with buyers in terms of which the buyers have to pay such a high rate that both the dealer and the discounting institution, after each taking half of the difference above the purchase price, still get a usurious profit on their investment. A short while ago a letter written by a person who had bought a motorcar appeared in The Argus, I think. When he wanted to pay for the motor-car the next morning, they told him: “No, we have already forwarded your papers for discounting at a hire-purchase institution.” It took him eight months to pay, and by this time the original R800 which he had to pay had become R 1,080—R280 more. That looks like a tremendously high interest payment to me. The person concerned wanted to pay cash but he was simply prevented from doing so. I want to ask that the lending rates be pegged. I can give the Minister the assurance that I have had discussions with the managers and senior officials of virtually all our commercial banks and with managers and heads of other deposit-receiving institutions and they all agreed that that would be the only solution. They said that potential deposits were by-passing them to-day to people who make these usurious profits, not only by way of hire purchases but also by way of personal loans. Those people are black marketeers and these transactions involve many millions of rand. People openly go to the large deposit-receiving institutions and say that they want to withdraw their money because they are only getting 5 per cent there and they can do much better elsewhere. When asked what they want to do, they say, “We want to buy papers—hire-purchase papers.” That is the type of thing that happens. People come to the towns, take a mortgage on their farms and buy “papers” with the money which they obtain in that way, or they hand the money to a firm of attorneys at 8½ per cent, and that firm buys the “papers”. I say that a black market is developing which we can no longer allow, and I hope that active steps will be taken in this connection.

I do not know whether the Minister also has the right in terms of his financial measures to promulgate regulations in this regard. I think he does have that right, and I hope this matter will receive urgent attention during the recess and that the Minister in consultation with the Reserve Bank, will promulgate necessary regulations so that this matter can be put right.

Then I just want to say once again that I hope that one of the first things we are going to do next year will be to make the Usury Act effective by defining what we mean by “interest” and by including finance and other charges, such as administrative charges, etc., in that term, so that there will be a fixed amount. Any person receiving more than that rate for money put out on loan by him, would then be receiving usurious profit and would be liable to prosecution. We should also include hire-purchase contracts under usurious transactions.

Those are the things which I wanted to put to the Minister. This is a measure which I thought should have been passed by Parliament this Session, but we have not had the opportunity to do so and possibly the matter has not yet been investigated sufficiently. But I know that if we entrust the matter to the Minister, he will devote his attention to it during the recess, and that the Government will devote its attention to it. We confidently leave it to them to take the necessary steps to stamp out this black market. [Time limit.]

We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). More than half of his speech was devoted to criticism of the Government. He was on his old hobby horse of criticizing high hire-purchase finance charges and other matters. This hon. member has been in this House for 17 years; this Government has been ruling the country for 17 years. What have he and the Government been doing about this? The Government has done nothing about it and it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has not had sufficient influence on the Government to make them take the necessary measures. It is quite healthy to find a leading speaker on financial aspects addressing us from that side of the House and criticizing the Government.

But he made one or two other very interesting remarks as well. He referred to the bank interest rate of 5 per cent or 5½ per cent and said this was a crisis or an almost crisis rate of interest. The hon. member is not one of those backbenchers who use words loosely. When he said this was a crisis rate of interest does he want me to accept that? In which case does he accept that we are in a financial crisis? Because those are the words he used.

Do not be silly.

No, no. I am not being silly; it is the hon. member who is silly; he used those words. He said the rate of 5 per cent was a crisis rate of interest or almost a crisis rate of interest.

I said it was as high as . . .

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member says it was as high as when there was a crisis here he allies it to a crisis rate. We want to know whether there is a crisis. The hon. member went on further and referred to the credit squeeze. He said he was very sorry to hear the hon. the Minister had increased the amount which the commercial banks had to deposit with the central bank and that he hoped that when the Minister was able to relieve the position and reduced the amount the commercial banks had to deposit with the central bank he would first give consideration to reducing the interest rates. He then went on to prophesy that the position will have improved before the end of the year. I hope the hon. member is right. The hon. member is a leading member, he is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the senior Committee of this House, he tells us in one breath that the rates are equal to those which apply in crisis times—to use his own interjection—and he also complains about the high hire-purchase finance charges which he regards as unhealthy and unsound when he has been in this House as long as I have been here—17 years. It is quite clear, Sir, that this Government is responsible or, alternatively, that that member has not used his influence.

The hon. member made one or two other interesting observations. He said the more you grow the more you must import. I agree with that. He said we must import capital goods. He says they are essential for the development of our country. But the hon. member must realize that the present position was planned by this Government. We were told during this Session that this Government planned the present position. Here we have the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), a leading financial figure, telling us that the present position is largely due to the importation of capital goods and that we are not yet in a position to manufacture capital goods. But they have had 17 years! If the hon. member would compare the development in the manufacture of capital goods in a country like Japan over the last 17 years with the development in South Africa in that respect over the last 17 years what would he find? Over a period of 17 years we have got to the stage where we ship our ore over to Japan to make capital goods to send it back to this country as such. That is the achievement of this Government after 17 years of rule.

That is weak argument.

That interjection shows how little that hon. member knows of our economic development. Surely the hon. member will be the first to concede that, if South Africa is going to become one of the leading industrial nations of the world, it is essential that it manufactures capital goods. The evidence of that was given during this Session. If that is a bad argument then that hon. member must condemn the establishment of an aircraft industry in this country. You see, Sir, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. When the Government announced the plan to have an aircraft industry during this Session one of the biggest cheers came from that hon. member which meant that he supported the manufacture of capital goods in this country.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can make his speech at the right time and in the right way.

What the country is concerned about to-day is the erosion in the value of money. We have heard nothing for our comfort either from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) or from the hon. the Minister during the course of his speech. I am sorry that the Minister did not indicate what the final surplus is. It is customary, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Session when we come to this omnibus Bill, this Appropriation Bill, for the Minister to indicate what his final figure is. As somebody suggests, he is probably ashamed of it. The Minister has already given us two guesses and we would like to know what the third guess is going to be. If he cannot give us a final figure we would like to have an estimate so that we can have some indication as to what the final surplus is. I expect it will be greater than we have heard already. The business world and the householder are both concerned with the erosion of money and the financial position in this country. The businessman is concerned with the credit squeeze. I appreciate the reasons for the credit squeeze and I shall come to that in due course. The severity of the credit squeeze, in my opinion, is due to the fact that the Minister was hesitant and dilatory. He took too long to apply it. The signs were there.

The Minister knows that even last year the amount of commercial credit that was created showed an increase of some 40 per cent or 50 per cent. The hon. Minister knows that the Economic Planning Council recommended a growth of approximately 51 per cent per annum. How can a country absorb an increase of credit to the tune of 40 per cent or 50 per cent? The extent to which the supply of credit has increased beyond the capacity of the country to absorb it is an indication of the extent to which the Minister of Finance has not exercised adequate control. The Minister of Finance should be exercising control, he has not, and that is one of the reasons why the credit squeeze has had to be more severe than it has been up to the present moment. The effects of that are being felt throughout the Republic. Building societies are not able to lend either as much money to as many people as they did before. There are young couples and couples who have been transferred elsewhere who wish to own their own homes affected by this credit squeeze. We are all agreed that the basis of a happy community depends on the extent to which people are able to own their own houses. If we are going to encourage the growth of the family and the maintenance of the family as a community then they must be able to have their own homes.

The extent to which building societies are not able to provide money to the ordinary family man to acquire his own home and the extent to which loans have to be curtailed delays the opportunity of people setting up their own households. Then again the business community are circumscribed to the extent to which they have to curtail further buildings. Further buildings are curtailed on the grounds of necessity and I agree that conditions may demand their curtailment but that curtailment has become due to the fact that the planning has gone astray. Because of the credit squeeze not so much money is available so businesses will, in turn, of necessity have to curtail their dividends. They will have to curtail their dividends because they will have to use their own resources for their own capital development. They will have to take a bigger portion out of their profits for capital development and they will have to curtail their dividends. It is interesting to note that there was a reference in the Press yesterday to this effect—

When you get this drop in the value of shares you reduce the amount of security which a borrower may wish to pledge to a bank to get credit. Not only that, Sir, when shares drop it is generally an indication that the rate of dividend has dropped and in many cases, as a matter of fact in probably more cases than the Minister imagines, the fall in the rate of the dividend has reduced the income of many people who are depending on the dividends which are their life savings, dividends which are now being cut. Many members of the public have been induced to invest in South African securities. They have been induced to invest in our share market as a result of a special request made at Government level. I remember the Minister making a very important speech and in his pontifical manner urging the South African to invest in South African shares; telling them to invest in South Africa, to invest in our industrials and telling them that South Africa had a great future. And they accepted his advice. To-day they see that the value of their shares has fallen, they see that the value of their dividends has fallen and they know only too well that the credit squeeze has arrived at their door. The reason for this is that earlier in the year we talked of a boom and that boom has been halted to-day, the progress has been arrested. With the drop in the profits there has also been a drop in expansion. As far as the ordinary man is concerned he is also affected by this credit squeeze the Minister has introduced. I am not so sanguine as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that the position is going to be right by the end of this year. I will be interested to learn from the Minister whether he is going to give us the same assurance, namely, that the position will have improved by the end of the year and that instead of the reserves dropping there will have been an increase. The ordinary man has found that his rand will not purchase as much as it did a year ago; it will not purchase as much as it did at the beginning of this year. There are no efforts on the part of the Government to fix the cost of living. The civil servants—and there are many hundreds of them—find that their salaries are frozen. Some Government members deny that they are frozen; there is certainly very little indication of an increase. Speak to any civil servant and he will tell you, Sir, that his rand buys less. Our Press regularly reports demands from the Post Office workers, the demands from the Railway workers and demands from other workers . . .

Must all demands be met?

There is a very intelligent remark from the hon. member for Somerset (East) (Mr. Vosloo)—“All demands have been met” ! That is the kind of news we get from the hon. Minister of Information—“All demands have been met”.

He did not say that.

The hon. member says “all demands have been met”. [Interjections.]

No, he did not; he asked you a question.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Must every demand for higher salaries or for higher wages be met? Must all the demands be complied with?

I did not say that all demands must be met. The hon. member made an interjection and said that all demands had been met. [Interjections.] He was heard quite clearly. The hon. member has every opportunity of going to listen to the tape recording. He may not know what he said. That hon. member quite often makes remarks without realizing what he is saying.

Why don’t you answer my question?

I have answered your question. [Interjections.]

We can go to the tape recorder again.

Order!

The working man, particularly the housewife, is well aware that the demands made by various heads of civil services for increased salaries have not been met. It is certainly not possible to meet every demand nor, on the other hand, should those demands be ignored. [Interjections.] No, no, some may make extravagant demands. Will the hon. member answer this: Will he say that all the demands made by the civil servants are extravagant demands? No, Sir, the hard facts are these that this Government has, throughout the Session, shown a deaf ear to the demands of the civil servants. The civil servant who has asked for consideration did so in view of the fact that the value of the rand has diminished, that the purchasing power of the rand has diminished, as the cost of living has gone up and that their salaries will not meet those increased costs. The Minister can smile and gesticulate as much as he likes but he cannot get away from the hard fact that the public of this country are fed-up and sick and tired of the efforts of this Government to lay the whole of the burden on the lower income group. It is all right for the Minister. The Minister knows of friends of his who have imported Masserati motor-cars, de luxe cars—in spite of the balance of payments position—the cost of which runs into five figures. Those are the people who got the concessions, the diamond concessions, the fishery concessions, the liquor concessions and so on. They are very wealthy; they feel no hardship at all. But the ordinary housewife has felt the impact of increased clothing costs due to increased duties in order to protect organizations like Cyril Lord and other manufacturers who have been dealt with during this Session. All those imposts have increased the cost of living and have laid a burden on the ordinary man and the ordinary man has been ignored throughout this Session by the Government. Whenever this matter is raised in the House it is treated in a jocular manner and not seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a constituency where there are not only urban dwellers but rural dwellers. There are white-collar workers, railway artisans, civil servants and farmers in the countryside.

Border area.

And a border area too. The border areas are best looked after; there you have de luxe conditions for the people but not for the people who are housed in the slums outside. As far as the farming community in my constituency is concerned, they too, are feeling the impact of the credit squeeze. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has referred to it. He referred to the fact that there were farmers who were concerned about the credit squeeze; they have been hit by the credit squeeze. All along the line throughout my constituency I have not once had any assurance that all is well as far as this Government is concerned and the relief they have given as far as the cost of living is concerned.

The solution is in increased productivity. The Government has suggested, as a solution, border industries. I have a border industry in my constituency and what is the determining factor for the establishment of a border industry? One of the prime requirements is the number of Bantu who will be employed. Later it is going to be the number of Indians in the Indian area and the number of Coloureds in the Coloured area. I was interested yesterday to hear the hon. the Minister making the remark that certain border industries were in distressed or depressed areas. I was very interested in that interjection, because are these really distressed areas or are they only distressed areas because of the Government’s policy? Because people are not allowed to move from A to B.

The whole country is a distressed area.

Somebody suggests that the whole country is a distressed area. Mr. Speaker, the determining factor in the establishment of a border industry is the number of Bantu who must be employed in the area. That is the determining factor. Before the Minister of Economic Affairs starts his development schemes he contacts the Minister of Bantu Administration to ascertain from him whether he regards it as a suitable area. And the Minister of Bantu Administration asks how many Bantu will be employed. Here we have the failure on the part of the Minister of Bantu Administration to appreciate the technique of a modern invention. The technique of modern invention demands, not manpower, but manpower coupled with horsepower. If you go to any organization overseas, either on the Continent or in the States or in Japan, and you ask industrialists what their manhour output is they will tell you that they don’t regard manpower output seriously but that they want to know how much horsepower each man is using; how much assistance in the form of electric power is being given to the man at the bench in order to increase productivity. In some of our industries we are relying too much on manpower; we are depending too much on manual work. The results is that the cost spiral is going up. This is one of the factors inflating the cost spiral. It is all very well for the hon. members to talk about the cost of living not increasing and to throw interjections across the floor of the House. But one of the main contributing factors to increased costs is that, on the one hand, men in industry are accepting the Government’s injunction to pay Bantu higher rates of wages—and quite rightly so—but, on the other hand insufficient attention is paid to increased productivity. If you pay the Bantu a much higher wage rate and couple him to horsepower then you get increased productivity. But if you pay the Bantu a much higher wage and then you establish him in a border industry, where he lives in his so-called homeland, and in addition to that you have a high capital cost in your border area, and moreover, you demand that the white workers must come to and from that border industry over long distances (I know that most of the White people in the Hammarsdale area are travelling 25 to 30 miles every day to and from their work), you increase the cost structure, you increase the cost of the article produced by that factory and you contribute to the cost spiral, and when you contribute to the cost spiral, then you get the criticism which you get in this House that the Government by its so-called planning attempts to use border industries to solve a social problem, but is not solving the industrial cost problem. That is where this Government is breaking down, and that is where the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration needs to employ in his department people who are competent and who know the requirements of modern industrial techniques. There are many examples. There is one example in the Hammarsdale area where a factory is making canvas. There is a case in point where they use a minimum of Bantu labour. The whole factory is practically automatic. But the interesting thing about that factory is that they have got the cost factor right down, they are using a minimum of Bantu labour. They have got a much smaller staff to-day than they had formerly, but the factory is almost completely automatic. And here is the interesting thing: Most of the Bantu come up to that factory at Hammarsdale, 30 miles from Durban, they are not the homeland people at all. They come from Durban, they stay up there for the week and at the week-end they go back to Kwa Mashu and Umlazi, 35 miles away. But the Minister throws out his chest and congratulates himself that he has established a border industry near the Bantu homelands. But there is a factory which has reduced Bantu labour to a minimum.

That is nonsense !

The hon. member must not say that is nonsense ! He does not know anything about that area.

You said on the border and not in the homeland.

The difference between the border and the homeland are two railway lines. That is the difference between the border and the homeland, 100 ft. between the factory and the homeland. That is all. So if the hon. member wants to make an interjection of that kind he should know what he is talking about. You see, Mr. Speaker, all this planning, all these schemes, all these dreams of the Government which they suggest will reduce the cost of living, which they suggest will solve our racial problems, which are going to solve all our problems in this county, are nothing else but pipe-dreams, because in spite of all the talk and all the publicity, all we are doing is increasing the cost spiral and not using the labour, which we pay little enough and which we should pay more, to the best advantage.

This Government over 17 years has allowed creeping inflation to take charge of our money and erode its value, and not only members on this side of the House are criticizing the Government, but members like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) are also realizing this. The Government has delayed the progress of our development by a stop-start basis: We think we are in a boom, and then we are not; one day the Minister tells us to spend for prosperity, a year or two later he comes and says “Save for prosperity”. What the people can save from, I do not know. The cost of living is so high that many of them cannot save anything. Yet the hon. Minister is asking them to save for prosperity. We have this increased cost of living. But the burden of the ordinary man is ignored and the interest of thousands of people in the Republic, old-age pensioners, people with fixed incomes and others are ignored. I want to ask the hon. Minister in conclusion one or two questions which I hope he will answer in the course of his reply: (1) What does he estimate the final surplus to be, if he cannot give us the exact figure? In the provinces we are concerned about the question of financial relations, and therefore I ask the hon. Minister: When will the Schumann Commission report on provincial finances? When will it present its report? How much further will our reserves fall? Does the hon. Minister think they will fall below R 100,000,000 by the end of the year? [Time limit.]

It is perfectly obvious to me that the two hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate prepared their speeches with a view to the possibility of an election this year. That is the key to those speeches. I want to pay the the compliment to-day of taking their speeches at their face value and comparing their statements with the facts.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said that taxes were too .high, and that in spite of that the Government was still increasing taxes. The hon. member for Pine-town (Mr. Hopewell) spoke on the same lines and said that he was “deeply concerned about the erosion of the value of money”, that, in spite of the heavy taxation and in spite of the erosion (that is to say, the decrease in the value of money), there were these restrictions on the economy, and that the burdens which the family man had to bear were being forgotten. Those were the charges they made. I just want to remind this hon. House of the fact that the hon. member for Constantia said at the beginning of this year, “This is the Budget of the forgotten man”. We had precisely the same refrain from him to-day. But, Mr. Speaker, when we test that statement that the tax burden is too heavy, the question I ask myself is this: What proofs have been advanced by the hon. member for Constantia? He did not have much to say in that regard, but the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said by way of interjection, “What about the many surpluses?”

The large surpluses.

Yes, the large surpluses we have had for a number of years already. The hon. member for Constantia advances the surpluses as proof that taxes are too high. Sir, that is a very popular thing to say. If one said that the Government was taking more money than it needed, then there would be something in it. But to say that the surpluses prove that taxes are too heavy is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard.

The hon. member was speaking about wages.

No, he spoke about surpluses. But for the information of the House I just want to draw attention to the fact that the criterion as to whether any tax is too high is not whether there is a surplus year after year, or whether there is a large surplus. The criterion is whether the tax burden is really a heavy one. And the only way in which to judge a tax burden is to see what the ratio is between taxation and gross national production. The hon. member for Constantia would be the first to agree with me in that regard. The hon. member for Pinetown, who is a knowledgeable person, will also agree with me. And when we take the taxation imposed by the Central Government, according to the Auditor-General’s figures, and compare the taxation which is imposed, both directly and indirectly, the taxation which the “common man”, the “family man” and all the companies have to pay, with the gross national production, we find a very significant and surprising fact. We find that the tax burden is by no means heavier to-day than it was in 1947-8.

As a matter of fact, it is lighter. In 1947-8 it was 11.6 per cent, that is to say, both the direct and the indirect taxation imposed by the Central Government, expressed as a percentage of the national income. Those are the figures of the Auditor-General and of the Bureau of Census and Statistics. I should like the hon. member for Pinetown to listen to this, because it links up with what I shall have to say to him in a moment in regard to the decline in the value of money. I want to mention three figures only. In 1962-3 the ratio between the total direct and indirect taxation and the gross national production was 11.5 per cent; it had decreased by .1 per cent. If we now take the latest figures which I have at my disposal, those for 1963-4, we find that it was 11.3 per cent in that year. As a matter of fact, there had been a decrease in the tax burden. Surely it is foolish to come and proclaim here that the burden is so heavy that the “family man” cannot make a living and that the “common man” has been forgotten. Even the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is looking up in surprise; he apparently wants to agree with me. There was only one year in which the ratio increased beyond that, and that was in 1953-4, when it was 12 per cent.

Although I mentioned thsee figures last year, I looked at them from a different angle. But if we have to draw an inference from the many surpluses to-day I say it is nonsense to say that in the light of those surpluses the tax burden is too heavy, and when someone like the hon. member for Pinetown comes along and says that he is concerned about the erosion of the value of money, then I can use the same figures on the basis applied by Colin Clarke, a very knowledgeable economist, who wrote about this very problem. He pointed out that when the rate of taxation was too high, that is to say, when the tax burden was too heavy, one placed the value of one’s money in jeopardy. And there is a very easy way to come to that conclusion, although he was the first to tumble to it. The fact of the matter is that when the rate of taxation is too high, entrepreneurs and people within the economy tend to develop a disinclination to work. A doctor who would charge a fee of R2 if he had to get up at night to go and attend to a case and who would have to pay R1.80 in tax, would say, “I am not going to get up for 20 cents”. Consequently those services immediately become limited. If an ordinary entrepreneur has to pay too much in tax, he incurs unnecessary expenditure. He buys fine desks, he buys carpets and builds fountains, not only for himself, but also for his staff, and he charges those things to the expense account. The result is that his profits are not so large and consequently he has to pay less tax. But he is making use of material which could be used elsewhere; he is making use of manpower resources which could be used elsewhere, and consequently he is pushing up the prices of those commodities, and because he is pushing up the prices he is driving up the cost spiral. And that is what erodes one’s currency, what causes its value to decrease. Now, Colin Clarke says that one’s currency is placed in jeopardy once taxation reaches 25 per cent of the national income. I said that last year; it is not something new. But apparently it made no impression. Apparently it is an economic fact which is beyond the comprehension of the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Constantia.

But when we look at the tax burden in our country, we find that it is well below 25 per cent. It has been 11 per cent, 11.3 per cent, 11.6 per cent, 11.5 per cent, and at most 12 per cent. Surely, then, it cannot be said that the value of money is being eroded.

To cap it all the hon. member for Constantia began with the United States and held up President Johnson as the example to be followed. I am not surprised that President Johnson made the speech which he did. If our Minister of Finance had been in the same predicament as the President of the United States, he would probably have had to do the same thing. You will recall, Sir, that I said that the tax burden in the Republic was 11.3 per cent, 11.5 per cent and 11.6 per cent in the years I mentioned. But do you know what the tax burden in the U.S.A. is? The tax burden in the U.S.A. is such that the United States ought to decrease it unless they want their currency to deteriorate or to become eroded. The tax burden in the United States is beyond the limit which Colin Clarke considers to be a safe one. It is 28.2 per cent. Can you understand, Sir, how an hon. member of this House can come along and mention the U.S.A. as an example, when the circumstances there, as pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central (Mr. van den Heever), are quite different from the circumstances here. The tax burden in this country is 11 per cent. Here we have to deal with a rising cost spiral, an inflationary spiral. In the United States the position is just the reverse. Of course the United States must promote production, it must solve its unemployment problem, it must save its currency from danger. They face more dangers in that regard than we do.

It is interesting to know what is happening in the rest of the world. Let me mention a few figures just to show how ridiculous the argument of the hon. member for Constantia is and how sound a course the Minister of Finance is adopting. In West Germany the tax burden is 34.6 per cent, in Italy it is 29.1 per cent, in Sweden 32.8 per cent, and in the much-vaunted United Kingdom it is 32.6 per cent. Those are the figures for the past three years. Those people are faced with dangers. We are not faced with any dangers on the two grounds mentioned here by the hon. members. Do you know, Sir, that apart from South Africa, the tax burden in no single civilized country is below 20 per cent? In the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, Australia, Canada—all of them except Japan—the tax burden is above 25 per cent. I wonder what the hon. member for Constantia would say if we ever reached 25 per cent. I think I would agree with him then.

Then, in connection with the heavy tax burden which was referred to by him but which does not exist, he said that the officials had been forgotten; he said that the State was losing all its employees to industry; he said that the gross national production was being distributed unfairly; that the public servants and the public sector were getting nothing. But what are the facts? The facts give the lie to the statement made by the hon. member for Constantia. The facts are these: In 1964 there were 167,000 public servants (I am leaving the Railways out of account for the time being); in 1948 there were 98,000. Over that period of 15 years the State got enough employees. It may not have them now. At the moment I am confining myself to the State’s employees who have allegedly not received their due share. I am pointing out that the State as employer has absorbed a larger share of the population increase than perhaps any other sector. The salaries paid to them (and these are figures which were furnished here by the hon. the Minister of the Interior) amounted to more than R72,000,000 in 1948-9, but in 1964 the figure was R267,000,000. Does the hon. member want to suggest now that they have not received their share? These are very large figures, of course, and they do not always register, but when we say that the per capita payment in 1948 was R735 and the per capita payment in 1964 was R 1,600, then one gets some idea of what the State has done for the “common man” working for it, for the “family man” who is employed in the Public Service. But, Sir, do you know why the hon. member for Constantia came with this refrain? Because he thought there would be an election this year and because he thought he could influence the public servants as a group to vote for the United Party.

But let us take this point further. The hon. member for Pinetown says that there is an erosion of our currency. There can only be an erosion of our currency if the cost-of-living index has risen to such an extent that one can buy much less to-day than one could buy yesterday for the same money. That is to say, one can only talk of an erosion of our currency to the detriment of the individual if there have been no adjustments. But what adjustments have there been? There have been the following adjustments: Whereas the average annual increase in the cost of living over the last 15 years (I am not including this year) was 2.6 points, salary adjustments and other benefits of promotion, which are much greater today than before, amounted to 7.3. Those figures have been calculated on the basis of particulars given to us by the Minister of the Interior. Therefore, when the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Pinetown come along here and say that taxes are too high and that our currency is decreasing in value—that is to say, its value is being eroded —and when they maintain that that is to the detriment of the common man, it is the biggest nonsense in the world.

The hon. member for Constantia did not say much about the balance of payments position and the Foreign Reserve Fund. The Minister did say that there was a certain amount of concern in that regard. Well, I am one of the optimists. Perhaps I am too optimistic. But I do not think there is any cause for concern, except of course if one has the pyschological attitude of the hon. member for Constantia, who does not become enthusiastic over anything except some impending catastrophe. But let us take a look. The Minister mentioned R80,000,000 as the figure by which our assets had decreased since the date of his Budget speech. But when we look at that figure it is very important to view it in its proper perspective. When we examine this excellent White Paper issued by the Minister in respect of 1965-6, we find on page 13 the tables of imports and the tables of exports, and they are very illuminating. We see, for example, that the total in respect of raw materials was R 1,200,000,000; in respect of processed or manufactured goods, R900,000,000; and in respect of commodities ready for sale in the retail trade or directly to the consumer, R125,000,000. In other words, these total imports were not in respect of consumer goods, but in respect of capital goods. That has a very far-reaching effect on foreign trade and the balance of payments. The effect is this: the capital goods imported into this country are used here to manufacture goods for one of two purposes, either for exports, which will improve our balance of payments position, or to replace imported articles, which will also improve our balance of payments position. That whole table therefore contains this message, that the object of the heavy imports which we had in the past was to balance our trade and to keep our foreign exchange at the desired level. That is perhaps the reason why the Minister mentioned this matter. In the light of that, I do not think we need be concerned at all about the drainage of our foreign reserves because when capital goods are imported, the position is that the beneficial effect of it is not felt immediately in the Foreign Reserve Fund. In the case of some investments it takes a year and in the case of others up to five years before they produce results. In other words, bearing in mind the fact that the large increase has taken place only since 1962—in the other years the increase was not so tremendous, and in two years there was even a decrease—we can only expect the results in two years’ time. But it is also interesting to look at the commodities which are ready for the retail trade or ready to be sold directly to the consumer. In this regard we find that there has been a constant decrease ever since 1948, with a sharp decrease in 1950. Let me read out a few figures for the benefit of the House. The figure for 1957 was R232,000,000, that is, in respect of consumer goods for direct sale to the consumer, but the figure for 1963 was R125,000,000, that is to say, R 100,000,000 less. That, too, is the result of the capital imports which I mentioned earlier. The same applies to exports. So much with regard to the hon. member for Pinetown, who now wants us to develop much more rapidly than we can and who refuses to take into account the various bottlenecks which exist as far as knowledge is concerned and as far as our capacity is concerned. But when one looks at the table of exports, one again finds that the commodities which are ready for sale to the retail trade show a large decrease in the retail trade sector, that is to say, commodities ready for sale in the retail trade or directly to the consumers. Whereas we imported goods to the value of R40,000,000 in 1957, we imported goods to the value of only R19,000,000 in 1963, a decrease of more than half. That again is the result of our expansion; it indicates that we manufactured goods to replace imported goods.

But in spite of that we are still importing goods on a huge scale, of course. What I want to indicate is that we need not be concerned at all about our balance of payments; that we need not be concerned about our exchange reserves, because this matter will adjust itself in the long run. My conclusion is that there is no reason to feel upset or concerned. These facts speak for themselves in the light of another fact over which we have no control, and that is the decrease in the export of wool and maize, two of our important export items.

And do not think that our present position can be compared with our position in 1961, because in those days we had a flight of capital, whereas to-day we have an influx of capital, not an influx of capital which is seeking a temporary home in this country, and which will flow out again subsequently, but investment capital which is coming to stay. Therefore we are not in the same position as we were at that time. On that point too, therefore, if I may draw a conclusion, the Casandra approach of the hon. member for Constantia is a misplaced one. Both he and the hon. member for Pine-town asserted with great emphasis that the Government had not done everything which it could have done in regard to inflation and in regard to the inflation spiral of which we are afraid and of which they, too, are afraid. They tell us what great disadvantages are attached to inflation. Sir, we are knowledgeable people; why should they come and tell us what the disadvantages are? The fact of the matter is that we know what the consequences will be if we do have inflation; we do not dispute the fact that it has great disadvantages. It is in fact because we agree on that point that we are taking measures to combat inflation. What has the Minister done? He has taken certain fiscal and monetary measures. The fiscal measure was the savings levy. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Plewman) strongly objected to it and said that the taxpayer always had to foot the bill. But the Opposition now come along and tell us that these measures have had no effect. Sir, how could they have had any effect at this stage already? Under our P.A.Y.E. system, the effect of those measures will only be felt three months after 28 February. We have only reached the stage now where the extra taxation is being felt by the sector for whom it was intended, which is the private sector. To suggest now that those measures have been a failure is quite ridiculous. Sir, hon. members opposite say that the country is spending money in the wrong direction What do they mean? No one has explained what they mean, and it is not clear to me either. Then the hon. member for Pinetown goes on to say that the building industry has had to come to a halt. That is just not true. And if they mean that the State is continuing with its capital programme and that the private sector is not, that is not true either. We have the situation—it is an economic law—that when investments are made in immovable property, the rate of interest increases of its own accord, and because it increases, people stop investing in immovable property. That is a truth which is as old as the hills. It was formulated by the very first economists who wrote on this subject. But we have the situation to-day that capital is so liquid in the modern world that it can be transferred at any time. There is no necessity therefore to stop the building industry, or at any rate the same degree of necessity. In how many cases has the Minister of Community Development said that building projects must be held in obeyance for a while? He has not put a stop to them. He has simply said that there are so many hands, which are enough, and that we are carrying on with them. If he had put a stop to it and there had been unemployment, hon. members would have had a case, but the Minister only said, “Do not go any further now because it will only push up the cost spiral unnecessarily”. I cannot understand how hon. members can say that the Minister has put a stop to building. The State itself is still building.

As far as the fiscal measures are concerned, I repeat that it will take time before we feel their effect. We know what monetary measures have been taken and we need not enumerate them here. The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly obvious that the financial institutions have not been as selective as we expected they would be, and the result is that there is a certain measure of dissatisfaction in the commercial sector, as well as in the farming industry and other industries. The Minister stated very clearly that consumption credit must be restricted but not credit for production. I still have to learn what leader in the field of production has come along and complained. I have yet to learn of any person who made out a case to his banker and who wanted credit for production purposes and who did not get it. But as regards the further measures taken by the Minister to increase the liquidity of the commercial banks, it seems to me that the Minister himself is of the opinion that the commercial banks can be more discreet as far as their advances are concerned. But one cannot blame the Minister for the fact that the commercial banks have not shown the necessary selectivity, that they have not drawn a distinction between production credit and consumption credit. The hon. members for Pinetown and Constantia would like to blame the Minister because they are so bereft of arguments that they are green with envy over the fact that the country is enjoying such prosperity.

The hon. member for Pinetown makes a great fuss about the fact that the dividend structure will allegedly decline and he says that after having told the people in its propaganda to buy South African goods and to invest in South African undertakings, the Government will cut a ridiculous figure. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) tries to keep in the fashion set during this Session by trying to attribute every argument advanced from this side of the House to being made with an eye to the next election. But he certainly convinces me of one thing and that is that he himself is very much concerned about the results of the next election. I leave him to his fears.

When the hon. member tries to justify the Minister of Finance’s administration of our public finances and the method in which he directs the operations of the public sector of the economy, he is of course on very vulnerable ground. I am not going to quarrel with his mentor, Colin Clarke, who theorizes on public finance. I can assure him that we are much more concerned with the practical aspects, and so is the forgotten man. That is why we deal with it from the practical aspect rather than from the angle of this very high theory the hon. member tried to advance. But while we are dealing with the theory, let me remind him that whilst the fiscus is entitled to take a proportion of the national income, it is only entitled to take sufficient to meet the public needs and no more. That is something which has not happened for years. In fact, the breach of the theory gets worse every year, because this one thing is certain. The fiscus is not entitled to take a proportion of the national income on some rule of thumb basis which the hon. member tries to establish, quite regardless of whether it will result in overtaxation or not. Experience has shown us that the result of this is over-taxation. We have had enough for many a year and I hope next time the hon. member will deal with the practical aspects rather than with theory.

But this is certainly an appropriate occasion to look back over the events of the past year, and also to attempt to see what lies ahead for the country in the present year under this Government. I intend doing so in regard to certain of the economic and financial matters with which the country is at present concerned and almost burdened.

Let me start with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). I am sorry he is not here. I would have liked to satisfy him by telling him that no one can have failed to realize that 1964 was the year in which the Government’s apartheid policy and its legislative schemes to enforce that policy was crumbled, humbled and tumbled by the forces of economic reality and by the march of business prosperity. It is quite true that all the paper work connected with apartheid went on, and that means that the political illusion of apartheid went on, but in terms of economic reality the policy really went into reverse. Let me just quote from one report which was issued last year. The report on the Hotel Industry openly said “No request for exemptions from job reservations had been refused in the trade.” That, I think, is very substantial evidence for what I have just said. But there is also other evidence of further I under-the-counter or blind-eye relaxation of other labour restrictions, and that they had become the order of the day as well. Moreover, the population pattern of the country as a whole confirms that the growth of industrial integration has gone hand-in-hand with the growth of economic prosperity in 1964. But the tragedy of the situation is not that prosperity went on, but that it took the Government so long to realize, and even now that realization is still either unofficial or blind-eye realization, that industrial integration is the way to economic salvation for everyone in this country, and that it is certainly not necessarily the way to racial disaster. But this protem or half-cocked salvation of industry along this blind-eye line during 1964 has not really been good enough to bring about economic stability in the country, and it is economic stability which is so badly needed for us in a highly competitive world. Therefore, the problem that now faces South Africa is no longer how to get the Government to face economic realities, but how to assess and how to pay the penalty for the Government’s failures, for its failure firstly to appreciate the fact that industrial integration is the way to economic salvation, and also for its mismanagement of the industrial boom in various other directions. It is in that regard that 1965 may well become a significant year as well, because no one can fail to be apprehensive of the unpleasant possibility that 1965 is likely to see a tailing-off in the past favourable rate of economic expansion in South Africa. The first bit of evidence why I say that is that already the Minister . . .

Do you want us to go on at the same rate?

I say there is likely to be a tailing-off.

Do you want us to go on at the same rate?

I do not think you were responsible for the rate that was there before. But had you managed affairs better, it might not have tailed-off as fast as it is tailing-off now and is likely to tail-off still before the end of this year. The evidence of that is that early this Session the Minister turned the current year, 1965-6, into a year of Budget jitters. That is what he produced to us, Budget jitters. The full reason for those jitters may not yet be apparent, but it is significant that expenditure on Loan Account for 1965-6 is to go up by some R14,000,000 since the Budget was introduced in March, and at the same time by a convenient revision—I call it a convenient revision, but it might of course be purely a coincidental revision—of the Revenue Account, it now shows that revenue receipts for the current year are also expected to go up by over R14,000,000, over what was originally presented to the House. Those revised figures in regard to revenue take no account of the new taxation which has to come into effect during the course of the year. But judging from the Minister’s own remarks, his Budget jitters are not likely to be allayed so easily with the financial and economic trends being what they are to-day, and he has confirmed that again to-day in his speech. We are faced with the position that the country’s external accounts are in serious imbalance. The external money markets are more or less closed to the Treasury and the application of the Government’s arbitrary control such as building control, import control, rent control and monetary control, are all being marshalled ostensibly to aid administration, but really in an attempt to remedy the Government’s failure to take timely steps to stop inflation. It may be quite true, as the Minister has tried to indicate to-day, that the level of prosperity has not as yet dropped remarkably. It is true that business activity and profit-taking are still high, but the Minister cannot overlook the fact that there is an obvious mood of caution and hesitancy discernible in financial circles about the present financial and economic trends in South Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia has already pointed out that export-earning, save of course for the sale of gold, is unimpressive. The fact is that the local market is now also being strangled by inflation which is steadily but surely robbing people of their real earnings. The people concerned are those to whom we have drawn attention before. It is particularly the daily-wage earner, the railway worker, the postal worker, the public servant, the persons with fixed incomes, and the pensioner. I hope no one opposite will now say that all wage demands have been met. The Government cannot have it both ways. It must either curb inflation and restore the value of money, or else it must meet legitimate wage demands. That is the dilemma facing the country and I hope the Minister will be specific in telling us how he intends dealing with it. Last year the Minister chose to make a debating point of the dangers of inflation. When it was raised from this side of the House, he toyed with these inflation dangers but certainly never tackled them. Indeed, he and the Minister of Economic Affairs were trifling with the problem, even to the extent of thinking out a slogan “Spend” to start prosperity, in spite of the fact that already at that stage the cost of living was rising quite alarmingly. It seems to me, therefore, that it is just as absurd to have this new slogan of saving more when the cost structure is getting as high as it is. Let me substantiate this point from official figures. Expressed in statistical form, the retail price index for food which stood at 104 in November 1963 started to rise sharply in March 1964 and reached the figure of 114.6 by December 1964. That means, in terms of consumer spending, an increase of some 10 per cent in one year in the cost of food. But that is not the worst, because it is obvious to everyone that consumer prices are still rising even faster than they did then. Unfortunately figures later than March are not yet available. But there is also evidence that building costs have almost reached prohibitive levels and that industry and mining are suffering from the rising costs of production. When it comes to the question of building costs reaching almost prohibitive levels, that certainly is the case for the private householder. That is the man whom the hon. member for Standerton more or less jeered at as the family man. Therefore, to put it bluntly, the need for putting an effective curb on inflation has now become a matter of crisis urgency and I hope the Minister, if he disagrees with that, will deal with the matter and dispose of it by quoting figures. As I see it, the Government still fails to demonstrate its ability to handle this problem either effectively or efficiently.

I and others on this side of the House have said before that the current inflation problems stem largely from the growing, heavy State spending by the Government. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) asked us to specify individual items. We cannot give individual items. We are not the fiscus. We do not arrange the priorities of expenditure, but I say that capital expenditure is a big contributing factor to inflation and that it is mainly the unproductive expenditure of the Government which has that result. This is not the time, nor is there any need, to go into figures again. The point has been made over and over and the hon. member for Constantia has stressed it today, and I, during the debate on Ways and Means, indicated that the Government now adopts an attitude of blind unconcern that State spending is no longer a means of stimulating prosperity or the expansion of business enterprise. That time is long past. On the contrary, the Government’s heavy spending programme has for some time now been an active factor in speeding up inflation, especially demand inflation. The Minister himself to-day confirmed that when he indicated that one of the problems that had to be met is this demand inflation which is still rising alarmingly. Therefore the Government cannot evade its responsibility in that regard, because to that extent it is certainly helping to hasten the slowing down in the rate of business expansion and it is helping to aggravate the near crisis in our balance of payments problem. We all know that inflation at present is particularly dangerous to the gold mining industry, because of two factors. The first is that the miner is being robbed of his real earnings by inflation, and at the same time inflation is strangling the industry slowly but surely. I mention those things because I say that the matter has now become one of urgency and that the Minister should not only satisfy us that he is taking adequate steps, but also the country.

But there is one other disturbing feature of business strangulation of a different kind, and in a different direction, on which I wish to make some comment as also having been started in 1965. Replies given by two of the Minister’s colleagues in this House in recent weeks confirm that there has been a sudden and complete cessation of Government purchases of motor vehicles from the Ford Motor Company. We have had what I can only describe as a limp answer from the Government, from one Minister, that the Government is entitled to buy from whom it pleases. The House has not yet had the reply as to the reasons for the change in the Government’s buying arrangements. This action has been described in our Press, and also in the overseas Press, as “an unofficial boycott of the Ford Motor Company”. It is hardly necessary for me to say that trade boycotts have always been condemned from this side of the House, whether they are official or unofficial boycotts. I hope therefore that the Minister of Finance will make a statement to the House on this subject, not only to clear the air and to free South Africa from anything which we on this side condemn, but also to put an end to speculation in regard to this matter. A very clear statement in that regard is needed at this juncture to put an end to both internal and external speculation as to why this has happened. The hon. the Minister might choose to pass the buck by saying that it is not his concern. If that is so, I would urge upon him to get one of his colleagues to make that statement, because all the indications are that private investment in South Africa from external sources is to be encouraged. Private investment from external sources is to be encouraged, not to slacken its business but to increase its business in South Africa in the current year; that is to say to keep it in 1965 to the level at which it was earlier. Sir, I say this in particular because there is considerable concern in financial quarters in South Africa that the balance of payments difficulties are likely to grow and get bigger rather than to diminish as 1965 progresses. The hon. the Minister has in fact confirmed that there is a possibility that that may happen. Already there are enough deterrents against new private enterprise taking root in South Africa, by reason, firstly, of the Government’s credit squeeze which is now beginning to take effect and also because of the other financial controls which are being exercised by the banks and other bodies at the instance of the Minister. Why I particularly ask for this explanation is because some new form of consumer resistance on the part of the Government could only lead to damaging consequences for the economy at a time when investment in free private enterprise is sorely needed if investor confidence is to be improved. It stands to reason therefore that any arbitrary control measures or any consumer resistance, whatever the reasons for taking those steps may be, can never be a substitute for investor confidence. I think therefore that the Government owes it to the country to make a clear statement about it, whatever the reasons may be. It is obvious that you can only restore investor confidence by practical methods, not by rigidities of control or arbitrary steps.

Finally, I believe that the Government at this stage needs to encourage hard work in South Africa and it therefore comes as somewhat of a surprise that although the Government is the largest employer in the country it has chosen to set the example for a 5-day week, regardless of the cost to the economy.

Unfortunately it followed the example set by others.

I think it is setting the example to others. There might have been some who introduced a 5-day week and I am not complaining about that, but I do think that hard work is something that needs to be encouraged. I do not believe that South Africa can afford the luxury of a 5-day week, and it is likely not to be able to afford it during 1965.

Why not? If their production is the same in five days as in six days, why not?

I think it is utter nonsense to say that a man can do in five days what he can do in six days. Why not reduce it then to four days? Hard work has done nobody any harm and it will not do the Ministers any harm either. I hope that they are not going to adopt a 5-day week for themselves, or do you think, Sir, they have already done so? I say that the Government has set a sad example, and in that respect too I say that the Government has failed to keep boom conditions going, and I therefore support the amendment which my hon. colleague moved. I say that this year, 1965, is likely to reveal how great the penalty is that the country will have to pay for the failures and the blunders of this Government in the economic field.

While I sat here listening to the hon. member who spoke immediately before me, it occurred to me how happy some members of the Opposition felt that they could again return to the days when they were so fond of painting a grim picture of the country’s economic prospects. The hon. member who has just spoken and the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) have been in the unenviable position lately that having held out grim prospects one moment they have had to try the next moment to explain that the prevailing prosperity is not due to the Government. We again had the position here to-day that the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about a critical need for measures to combat inflation. No, we continue to see the Opposition as a party which believes that it only has prospects and hopes if it can paint a grim picture of the economic position of our country.

That is not true.

Sir, when do they wax eloquent in their speeches on this matter? It is when they see the slightest opportunity of painting a grim picture, even though the situation is not really grim. The hon. member discussed a variety of matters here; he referred to the balance of payments position, which he fears is going to deteriorate, and he spoke about the 5-day working week. No one will prevent the hon. member and his party and those whom they represent from working as hard as they can but even if they work all day, they are not going to make any progress in the political field. The hon. member referred to the problem caused by capital expenditure on Loan Account by the Government as though it contributed in large measure to inflationary conditions. But we have also had the position in this House that when various Votes have been discussed here hon. members opposite have put forward the criticism that expenditure has been cut down too much and that too little is being done as far as capital expenditure is concerned. How the hon. member who has just spoken can reconcile those two conflicting attitudes remains a riddle to me.

The hon. member said here that the people who were having the hardest time, the lower-income groups, were being deprived of their income as a result of the fact that food, in particular, had become dearer. But has it not occurred to the hon. member that one of the reasons for the recent increase in food prices is in fact the increase in wages, which has enabled more people to buy certain foodstuffs—I am thinking particularly of meat and dairy products—and that prices have increased as a result of the increased demand?

However, I do not want to deal any further with the inflationary and depressive talk of the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to draw the attention of the Government to a matter which in my opinion deserves its attention. I am referring to an appeal made to the public by way of advertisement in various daily newspapers during the past week to contribute to the funds of an organization which has set itself the fine, idealistic object of combating malnutrition, an organization which calls itself the Feeding Corporation of South Africa (Ltd.), and which is generally known by the name of Kupugani. This appeal to the public to take shares in that non-profit company, as it is called, has been advertised in various daily newspapers and the cost of the advertisements has been paid by a well-known chain-store organization. One of the English-language newspapers in Cape Town made the statement in a subleader that that organization was doing much more than the Department of Information, with all its publications and all the means at its disposal, to present a good image of the White man in South Africa to the world because they are supposed to be pursuing this splendid object of combating malnutrition. But there are certain things in connection with this non-profit company which worry me, and when one examines the story of Kupugani for a moment one comes across a few strange features. One thing which strikes one is that the persons who play the most active part in that organization are prominent members of the Progressive Party. What also strikes one is the fact that when one knowingly or unknowingly treads upon the toes of that organization, Kupugani, one finds that some very prominent member of the Progressive Party squeals. Mr. Speaker, all of us would probably agree that the combating of malnutrition is a very noble undertaking. I think we would probably agree, too, that we have a multitude of registered welfare organizations in this country which enjoy the support of the Department of Social Welfare and other Government authorities, and that through the agency of those existing organizations all sections of our population, including the Coloured section and the Bantu section of our population, have an opportunity of contributing in their own sphere through their organizations to the education of their people and the relief of distress in cases where assistance is required. Let us look in the first instance at the way in which this organization, which is not a welfare organization, but a non-profit company, acts; let us see what method it is going to apply. It writes in one of its publications—

When one takes a closer look at this story that one can become a member of this nonprofit company upon payment of Rl, that one then becomes a shareholder and can make further donations, and when one tries to find out what rights one has in shaping the policy pursued by the company, then one finds—not from what appears in the advertisement, but elsewhere—that in becoming a member one accepts the following obligations (translation)—

Further on one finds the following—

Now, who are entitled to vote? Upon further examining the story of the company, one finds that only 100 foundation members are entitled to vote for the purpose of electing the board of directors, and that the board of directors alone determines the policy of the company and the way in which it will act. Members of the public who respond to this call to become members of that organization for such a noble purpose, have no say whatsoever in the administration and management of that undertaking. Now, Sir, who are the privileged members of the board of directors of this undertaking who cannot be dictated to by anyone as regards the way in which this concern is to be run? One finds the following names, and these names too do not appear in the advertisements of the company in which it makes an appeal to the public for support. The directors are Mr. R. N. Harvy (Chairman), Mr. H. N. Hirsch (Vice-Chairman), Mr. N. L. Alcock, a person who had a prominent Bantu person as his best-man at his wedding, and who is one of the foundation members; other members of the board of directors are Messrs. T. F. Betts, G. R. Bond, L. Cooper, Mrs. M. M. Hoffenberg, M. B. Lazar, Dr. O. Martiny (Managing Director), Dr. F. Schneier, L. S. Tunbridge and L. A. Weinberg. The alternates are L. Apfel, Mrs. A. Cobden, Miss Ruth Hayman, and others. It so happens that some of these names became known in a recent court case on account of their associations. I am referring to the name of a certain Dr. Schneier amongst these directors, about whom another person gave evidence in that particular court case. Mention was made of the evidence of one Goldreich before a commission of inquiry in London earlier this year, in which he admitted that some of his political friends and associates had stayed with the Schneiers in mysterious circumstances at a certain time. He further stated that Dr. and Mrs. Schneier were sympathetically disposed towards Progressive action in South Africa. The Managing Director of this organization—he is a foundation member and a very good friend of Dr. Schneier’s—said of Dr. Schneier that he was not a man who wasted money and that he supported the Progressive Party and Kupugani.

This matter assumes greater significance when one examines the activities of this organization still further. They also say the following in one of their publications—

Now we carry on with the story. In the Survey of Race Relations of 1964, published by the Institute of Race Relations, I read the following about their activities in connection with welfare work—

Now one gets a more general idea of the activities of this organization, an organization which poses in local communities as a fine undertaking which wants to eliminate malnutrition, which approaches well-known local societies and organizations with the noble object of assisting to eliminate malnutrition, but which does not tell the local people and the public the whole story openly in its advertisements. An hon. member of this House told me this afternoon that he has become a member of this organization. I am afraid that the activities of this organization in that hon. member’s constituency in particular are designed to get a hold on his voters, because special attention is being paid to the non-White members of the population. This food is being provided at low cost in the Coloured areas of the Boland and in certain Bantu areas of the country. The question occurs to one: If this organization is such a noble one, why cannot the company which is paying for their advertisements, a company which is a large chain-store organization, also sell food, where necessary, to every member of the population of South Africa at the prices at which it is now being offered to certain sections of the population in certain circumstances? I say that this whole thing smacks of politics to me and I should like to ask the authorities to pay attention to the question as to whether this organization is really pursuing the noble object which it is professing to pursue or whether it is not perhaps the Progressive Party in disguise.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) has qualified as a farmer but I would like him to apply his mind to the five-day week which every farmer will have to put un with in the near future and the ultimate effect it will have on the production of the various products that are consumed in this country. However, Sir, I do not know whether he was advertising Kupugani this afternoon or what he intended to do. I should say that he gave it a great boost. The one thing that I do object to is that he seems to think that Kupugani should now embark on supplying cheap food to everybody. Nobody objects to Kupugani supplying food to those who are in need of it when that food is subsidized.

I want to come back to this question of the fictitious land prices that are utilized for the purpose of assessing estate duty. I think the hon. the Minister must by now realize what the effect has been. His Land Bank has told him that the artificial or fictitious values that are applied to land have reached levels which have little bearing on income, yield or the productive capacity of that land. The hon. Minister is aware of the fact that in any estate the first man who has to be brought in for valuations is the sworn appraiser. We know too that an opportunity is given to every estate to get a Land Bank valuator if the executor is not satisfied with the appraisement. Why involve an estate in two appraisals right from the word go? I want to assure the hon. the Minister that even those Land Bank valuators are influenced by the fact that their values have been questioned and in some instances rejected by the Receiver of Revenue in Port Elizabeth. So what must they do? When these valuations are referred back to the executors they have to get another valuation, possibly more consistent with the appraisement which has been given by the sworn appraiser. In the Land Bank report they express concern at the speculative prices that apply to land; that they do not bear any relation to the productive capacity of that land. I wonder whether the hon. Minister really realizes what this is doing to agriculture? Because if he did realize it, Sir, I think he would change his mind as to its application for the future.

I have before me one of a number of cases that I have had to handle over the last two or three years. This is a case where, in 1919, a property was bought for some R15,000 and with the stock it came to something like R23,000 or R24.000. Last year in the estate it was appraised at R204.000. That is almost ten times the original valuation and that includes both land and stock. That is a completely artificial value and that unfortunate estate is now being called upon to pay an amount of R31,000. I admit that some improvements have possibly been effected. Certain changes have been made to conform with soil and water conservation requirements but not to the extent that it can give it ten times the original value. If the hon. Minister would go back to 1919 he would find that that price was termed an inflated price.

What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that these unfortunate people now have to find R31,000 and there is a credit squeeze on, a credit squeeze which, I think I am justified in saying, the Government has brought about. The hon. Minister has given instructions. Whilst we are told that farmers will not suffer under that credit squeeze I can assure the hon. Minister that they are suffering.

These people now have to find this money. Where do they find it? They cannot go to the Land Bank because the Land Bank has already told them that they did not qualify. They have been to the banks but they cannot raise the money. No bank will give them credit to the extent of R31,000 on a property which was originally bought at the price I have already stated. So what do they do? They have to do precisely what this Government is now preaching should not be done. Sir, if you would refer to the Ministers of Agriculture they would tell you that they were opposed to the subdivision of land in uneconomic units. We are all agreed that this should not go on. Only one avenue is open to these people and that is to sell a portion of that land so that they can continue with their farming operations. They are thus reducing the portion they are retaining to an uneconomic unit. I regard this matter as extremely dangerous to agriculture and I am afraid that if it is allowed to continue we are going to reduce to an uneconomic state that section of agriculture which is at least stable to-day. Agriculture is finding it most difficult to-day to make headway. I put it to the hon. the Minister that something must be done to overcome that difficulty because it is dangerous to agriculture. In agriculture we have a state of instability to-day which agriculture cannot afford to tolerate. We have variations in agriculture of as much as R8 of the same quality product sold within minutes of each other and on every market you have variations that cannot be tolerated. I think it is time that agriculture had a say in what should take place. The facts, as I have put them to the Minister this afternoon, are worthy of his consideration in the interests of a healthy agriculture.

I feel that I should reply just briefly to the matter raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit). I think it is necessary to do so. I regret to say that this body, Kupugani, has played a role in South Africa lately which has not been a very pleasant one. A number of people in Johannesburg suddenly began to take an interest in the drought conditions in the Bantu areas. One thought that it was their honest and sincere intention to make their contribution, but I want to say this at once: In my own mind there is no doubt that the vast majority of these people are leftists. I say that with a full sense of responsibility. I go further. Up to now Kupugani has used more tar than it has used food; it has used more ink than it has shown charity, and I am going to prove this statement.

Kupugani began to concern itself with the drought conditions existing in the Northern Transvaal, and along with the leftist newspapers—here I have in mind the Rand Daily Mail in particular—they have published things which have been completely untrue in most cases.

One of the strange features is that when Kupugani publishes its reports on the drought conditions, on the position of the Bantu in those drought-stricken areas, it is always accompanied by representatives of those newspapers. I want to mention one example. The world was presented with an image of the Northern Transvaal, an image which was so dirty and so false that one still shudders when one reads it to-day. After the publication of this report, we took a number of the journalists, about 15 of them, along with us to investigate that area, and when we asked some of those people to show us where those conditions prevailed, none of them were able to do so, and all the journalists in that group admitted that the conditions existing there were not as they had been described in the relevant newspaper and as suggested by Kupugani. Sir, is it fair towards South Africa to play that sort of game? Why do they do it? They do it because in that way they want to gain the sympathy of people who donate money to Kupugani. That is one of the main reasons. Sir, I want to mention one of the reports as an example. The Rand Daily Mail published a description which was supposed to have been given by two doctors. It was stated that kwashiorkor occurred on a large scale in a certain locality in Soutpansberg and that people were dying of hunger. Sir, I was surprised when I subsequently received a letter from the two doctors concerned, together with a copy of a letter which they had written directly to the Rand Daily Mail and in which they said: “Look, those things are false, we never said any such thing, that is not the position at all, and we ask you to publish that in your newspaper.” And, Sir, do you know what happened? They refused to publish it.

Now Kupugani comes along and suggests to the world that it knows all about the conditions in the drought-stricken areas. Various reports of that type are sent out into the world by them. They put out the suggestion that it is really because of their activities that the Bantu are not dying of hunger there. But that suggestion is entirely false. I readily concede that Kupugani has done something here and there, but those things are all greatly exaggerated and false reports are sent out into the world which do not do South Africa any good. If they published facts, I would still say that there was something to be said for it, but I now want to read out some of the things they say. This comes from the Pretoria News —

That is absolutely untrue. But here you see. Sir, how they drive in this wedge which is aimed against the Department in the first place and against the chiefs and their councils in the second place. And I have already indicated in this House that the method adopted by us is to work through the agency of the Bantu themselves. And who could do the work better? After all, they know every nook and cranny and they are in touch with their people. But I have already read out in this House what was reported by a prominent member of the Red Cross, namely, that he had visited all those areas and had come to the conclusion that no additional work was required there and that it would only complicate the position and would only be a waste of money. I have read out in this House what Professor Krige said in connection with her experiences there after she had witnessed the entire process. I have not read out in this House the piles and piles of letters of thanks which I have received from the Bantu throughout those areas. But this type of report is sent out into the world. Sir, is it right for an organization which professes to be a welfare organization and to be anxious to serve the Christian ideals to employ these methods? It is a sly dig at South Africa. But I go further. He goes on to say here—

He then goes on to say that in the winter the position will be much worse, and then he suggests that in actual fact they are rendering the assistance. I can call those Red Cross people and others to testify to the fact that that is not so. It is true that they have supplied food here and there. But why suggest here that they are really doing the work in connection with this matter? Moreover, they have associations with overseas places. They came along with these ugly stories and made contact with OXFAM (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) overseas, and here I have a report which reads—

Then it goes on to say—

I think we all know this Mr. Betts too. Then it continues—

In other words, they have associations with OXFAM and it is suggested that they have to do this work. I just want to say here that not all those funds were used to buy food. By the time I discovered what was going on, they were buying tractors for certain people at certain places, just to make our position very difficult. But there is something else that I just want to mention. One of the main supporters of Kupugani up to his death, was Mr. Harris. The day before he was hanged his principal request was that the money which would have been spent on wreaths for him should rather be given to Kupugani. Now, I do not think Mr. Harris had any love for us and for South Africa. But the question I ask is this: Is it fair towards South Africa to send out a completely false image into the world in this regard? According to Kupugani there is no country in the whole of Africa in which there is so much famine and so much malnutrition as there is in South Africa, and Kupugani has to step in to save the situation; the Government is doing nothing and the Department is doing nothing. I challenge anybody to go and look at the work we have done. We are receiving thanks for it from all quarters. What right has such an organization, which professes that it wants to do good work, to employ such methods? If it wants to promote the interests of the Bantu, that is not the way to act. I had another case the other day, in the Ciskei at St. Matthews, where a certain Minister demanded to know why Kupugani was doing nothing to save the people who were dying of hunger in that area. Mr. Speaker, that was reported under large headlines in certain newspapers, and one newspaper even had a leader about it. I issued a statement the next day in which the facts were given. Do you know, Sir, that that newspaper did not have the decency to publish even a small news item about that statement? As a matter of fact, of the Cape newspapers only the Cape Argus published a small report about it, and I am very glad it did, but none of the other newspapers was prepared to publish that statement, or any part of it, because they said it was not news. But when South Africa is slandered by certain people, when they describe conditions which do not exist at all, then it is fine, then it is news. When we keep a watchful eye and see to it that such conditions are combated, then it is not news.

I want to say here, that where this body does establish contacts with the Bantu it is done purely for political reasons. As soon as they hear that there is some chief who does not want to co-operate with us, he is appointed to the executive of the local committee of Kupugani. That is the game which is being played. Consequently I do not think it is right that such a body should be in a position to make this appeal to the people. We must not forget that our people are rather compassionate by nature. I was surprised to see how many people fell for this game. I repeat that our method is to pay attention to these matters everywhere. Take the case at St. Matthews. All that the minister concerned should have done was to have phoned my Bantu Commissioner and to have put the case to him. I am perfectly satisfied that what he said was not true. The conditions are bad, but we are prepared to grant assistance wherever it is required, and not only to provide maize but also to provide enriched food. I repeat that I wish I had the time to show the House the piles and piles of letters of thanks which I have received from all kinds of bodies, not only from the Bantu authorities, not only from chiefs, but from ordinary Bantu persons, from mission societies, from church denominations, all expressing their gratitude for what we are doing for the Bantu, to such an extent that there are even people who reproach me for doing too much for the Bantu. But I am not going to allow myself to be put off by such stories. I will do my Christian duty in that regard, no matter what happens. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that in the Northern Transvaal there is no such thing as famine among our Bantu. The whole position is under control. The position is serious, very serious, but we have been on the alert. The same applies to the Ciskei. The position is quite serious there, but we have food supplies ready everywhere and they are being placed at the disposal of the people. There is not one respect in which anybody can point a finger at me and say that I have neglected my duty. The same applies to Zululand. There have been cases in which Bantu persons, too, have objected strongly to the type of methods used by those bodies. The position throughout South Africa is that through our Bantu Authorities and through our Department’s officials and agricultural officials and our Bantu Commissioners we do all that is necessary to see to it that our Bantu are properly cared for and that they do not starve. I want to give the House the assurance that there is no truth in all those allegations, which are made with the sole object of obtaining money, but that the Department is doing its duty very thoroughly and no one can point a finger at me. I repeat that if there is any place where people are not being cared for properly, it is very easy to pick up the telephone and to get in touch with the Bantu Commissioner, or to send a telegram to my Department. Reference has been made to the Transkei. The Transkeian Government made the necessary provision in this regard two years ago already, and here, too, we shall help them if necessary. They have voted a large amount to see to it that these people do not starve. To sow suspicion in this way is not fair to South Africa, and it is not right that a body should play this sort of game towards South Africa. I am very sorry that this thing should have happened, because initially I really thought that they were serious in their intentions, and therefore I allowed them here and there, but I very soon discovered what methods they were applying. Under no circumstances can I grant any further support to an organization which plays this type of game towards South Africa.

I do not propose to follow the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, nor the hon. member for Stellenbosch, in discussing this body, Kupugani, firstly, because it is not a body on which I pretend to be an authority, and, secondly, because I want to get back to the problems of agriculture.

I listened with great attention to the hon. the Minister of Finance when he said that the credit restrictions were not intended to be used against productive industries, particularly not against agriculture and export industries. I do not think the Minister can be entirely aware of some of the side-effects that these credit restrictions have had. The hon. member for Standerton said that he would like to hear of cases where production had actually been restricted because of these credit restrictions. The position is just this, that it is the small man who is being hit by these restrictions in most cases, and not the big entrepreneur. The big man can go to the commercial banks, and they respect him, and perhaps they might fear him, but that is not the case with the small man. I can tell the Minister that I am getting representations from people in my constituency, which is a rural one in which there are very few big farmers, and in which the majority are either small farmers or farmers on medium-sized units, complaining about these credit restrictions which hamper their production. I have a letter here which I received only yesterday. No matter what security they offer, the banks will not advance them money for production purposes. What is more, with this gentleman’s agreement between the banks, that man cannot go to another bank and get credit. It goes even further than that because the position is extending to the firms from which that farmer or the small businessman gets his production requirements, whether it is machinery or fertilizer. Their credit is also being restricted by the banks and therefore they cannot extend the same facilities to the farmer that they normally get. I hope the Minister will bear this aspect in mind, because it will definitely have an effect on production, particularly that of the smaller farmer. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Economic Affairs has not entirely forgotten that the problem of short-term financing for farmers has not entirely been solved yet. We have a good system in many ways of long-term finance, but we still need what we have pressed for so long, the speedy establishment of a Department of Agricultural Financing, to give short-term finance to the farmers. During the course of this Session, besides the debate on the Votes of the two Ministers of Agriculture, a large proportion of some of the important debates has been taken up by this subject. I refer to the no-confidence debate, the private member’s motion moved by the hon. member for Gardens, and the Budget debate. It is indicative of the fact that all is not well with agriculture, and also that the policies of the Government in respect of agriculture are halting and fumbling, a hit-or-miss policy and a short-term policy which lacks long-term planning which is necessary both in regard to technical matters such as provision against recurrent droughts and prices. However, I first of all want to deal with an aspect of an agriculture in which there has been a great deal of planning, and I refer to the Orange River project, of which all of us can be proud and in which there has been a great deal of planning indeed. I am sorry the Minister of Water Affairs is not here, but his Deputy is here and I hope he will be able to enlighten us on some of the results of that planning which must still be going on. After all, this is one of the largest projects ever undertaken in this country, and according to the Minister of Planning recently, he said there would be approximately an extra 300,000 morgen put under irrigation under this scheme. That is a considerable area, and the irrigation of this vast area will bring vast problems in its train. A few years ago the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services appointed a Departmental Committee, which went into the research needs of the land to come under irrigation.

The first request I want to make to the Minister is that the time has now come to finalize these recommendations and to give this House and the country an idea of what those recommendations are. I also hope that he will give us an assurance that the research which will be needed in future will not merely be carried out by the Department itself, because we know of the difficulties the Department has in regard to technical staff, but that they will also enlist the aid of independent institutions such as the universities which have not got faculties of agriculture. I saw in the Press that this dam will begin to fill up in 1970, a bare 4| years from now, and there are many questions affecting a great number of people which need to be answered. One of them was put to the Minister last year by my predecessor, as to what will happen to the ground that is coming under this dam; are those people going to be expropriated? I think the Minister owes those people an answer to that question so that they will know what their future will be. Secondly, I think the people should be given an idea as to what the Minister has in mind in regard to the size of the holdings under that scheme; and, lastly, according to Press reports of the recent speech of the Minister of Planning, I notice that an extra population of some 50,000 Whites will be needed on this project. On the assumption that those are going to be farmers, I want to know where those farmers are going to come from?

How can they all be farmers?

I said on the assumption. Perhaps the Press report was not a full one. Even if only a large proportion of them are farmers, I still want to know where they will all come from when our farmers, due to industrialization, are leaving the land at the rate of 2,400 a year in order to take advantage of the better living conditions in the cities, and the better remuneration they can earn there. Possibly they will come from immigration, because this is an important part of the country. The Prime Minister himself referred to it as the “hartland van die blanke”. Again I quote from a Press cutting, from a newspaper that hon. members opposite are very fond of quoting, the Sunday Times, which said that recently Mr. Rudolph Koch, a lecturer in agriculture at a German university, had spent six months in South Africa unsuccessfully trying to find jobs for young Germans who wanted to farm here, and that he had had virtually no response to his efforts. It continues—

I do not think it makes sense to anybody. We have the Minister of Immigration. Surely here is an opportunity to get people who want to come to our country. I take it these are not going to be big farms under irrigation, but relatively small properties. Here are people who come from a country where the farmers farm on small properties and are used to it; they are used to working for themselves. They come from a country with which hon. members opposite in the past have had a great deal of sympathy. They come from a hard-working race which we all respect. The point is whether the Government is doing anything to plan who are going to settle these properties under the Orange River scheme.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for its supper break, I was dealing with the question of the Government’s longterm plans for the settlement of the land which will come under irrigation when the Orange River project is completed. I also dealt with the question of what was going to happen to this new irrigable land as far as expropriation is concerned and who was going to settle on it.

There is only one last point I should like to make in connection with this question and that is the question of training those European farmers who are going to occupy that land. What long-term plans does the Government have for their training? I should, in this connection, like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that when the Fish River Valley was settled under irrigation, a scheme was started —known as the Tarka training farm—where immigrants, among others, were trained how best to make a living on these irrigation settlements. So I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell this House that the Government does have long-term plans for the training of settlers on the land to be irrigated by the Orange River project. Experience on many irrigation settlements has proved that where people are placed on that type of settlement without prior training and without adequate guidance, it leads for them to a dead end. So in the long run it will cost the State a large sum of money to rehabilitate them.

Allied to the question of the Orange River project is the question of a fodder bank. This is something which has engaged the attention of the farmers of the country for a very long time. There seems to be an impression abroad that once the Orange River project is under way with the tremendous amount of lucern and other fodder crops that is going to be produced, the drought problem in this country will ipso facto be solved. This we should approach with caution. Our population is, after all, increasing and with that increase will come an increase of the stock population on those settlements, accompanied by increased production of products like milk, fat lambs, beef, etc. So we cannot just assume that all the extra fodder that is going to be produced will be available as a drought reserve for the future although there is no doubt that some will be available for that purpose. The scheme will thus in fact serve as a cushion in this respect to a certain extent.

But all of us know that drought is something which we shall always have with us in one part or another of the country. We have it again at the present time when it is so severely affecting such large areas of our country. As far as the Government is concerned, I must say that it has taken steps to help the farmers in their distress and I do not wish to attack the Government on this score. What I do, however, want to lay at the door of the Government is that it has hitherto not shown any signs or given any indication that it is going to deal with this problem in terms of a long-term policy. The steps it does take are designed to meet each emergency as it arises. To my mind the time has come when we cannot afford to bump along like this any longer and deal with this problem only on an emergency basis.

There are two ways by which this problem should be tackled. The first is that the farmers Should be helped to help themselves. In this connection I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister of Finance that our present policy of taxation is certainly not designed to achieve that object. If a farmer endeavours to build up his own fodder bank for instance, whether of lucern or of any other fodder crop, he has to declare it at the end of the year as stock on hand. This is the first point I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. This serves to encourage the farmer to use up the potential fodder bank rather than declare it as stocks on hand. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to bringing about a change in this respect.

Secondly, I think it is urgently necessary that incomes from farming should be averaged or levelled out over a period of years. Already farmers, like diamond diggers and fishermen, are, on account of the tremendous disparity in their incomes from one year to the next, treated differently from other sections as far as income tax is concerned. What I am pleading for is a levelling of income so that these primary agricultural producers will be able to build up a financial reserve fund to help them to face emergencies, like droughts and other natural hazards.

Finally the time has come when the Government has to accept the principle of establishing a drought fodder reserve scheme. There have been attempts at this in the past but one of the difficulties was that we were thinking of bulky items such as lucern, items needing a lot of storage space. This has, however, changed with the introduction of feeds such as cubes and pellets, things which can more easily be stored. I sincerely hope that the Government will turn its attention to the necessity of establishing a reserve of these things so that they can be available in times of need. It need not be an involved scheme. The Government should assist firms to keep these items by paying them a fee for handling and storage. In this way an adequate reserve can be built up.

In conclusion I should like to repeat that I hope the Government is now going to stop dealing with the problem of drought on a hand-to-mouth basis and that we will instead see some long-term planning to combat what is after all one of the farmers’ biggest natural enemies.

Mr. Speaker, where this Session of Parliament has almost run to a close, and where we are living in an exceptionally difficult world to-day—a very interesting but nonetheless a very difficult world—I hope you will permit me to make use of this opportunity to say that it is a particularly great honour, not only for us as Nationalists, but for the whole people, to have a leader of the calibre of our hon. Prime Minister at the helm of affairs. It is a particularly great honour to me, especially in the present world conditions, to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on having handled the Session in such a wonderful and capable manner. I think we have dealt with a record number of measures this Session, 113 of them. All the measures have not been disposed of, but I think it is nevertheless a new record. I think our Cabinet, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, deserves the thanks and admiration of the people—and of Parliament as well—for the wonderful and efficient way in which they have handled this Session. Mr. Speaker, I certainly think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also deserves to be congratulated. After the hiding which his party received at the Provincial Election, it must have been extremely difficult for him to keep together the two extreme wings, the left wing and the right wing. I think that was an extremely difficult task. Consequently it is no wonder that we never heard any more about the federation plan after that election. But who knows, perhaps we shall hear about it again in the last hours of this Session, while the death-bells toll over this Session. However, I have very strong doubts about that. I think the Opposition has now learnt the lesson that the people of South Africa do not want to accept that federation plan of theirs. I hope the Opposition is sensible enough—because we do not want the Opposition to be destroyed, we should like them to continue in existence—not to persist with that foolish plan, that plan which has been rejected by the people.

Another matter about which I want to say a few words is the Coloured policy of the Opposition. In the course of time the Opposition has gradually come to abandon its policy that Coloured persons throughout the country should be included on the Common Voters’ Roll. They gradually came to the decision to keep the Coloured people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State off the Common Roll. And now it is their policy—and I want hon. members on that side to correct me if I am wrong—not to restore the Coloured people to the Common Voters’ Roll, but to keep them on the separate roll and to give them direct representation in this House.

Take another guess.

In virtually every debate held here in the past the Opposition attacked some or other aspect of the Government’s Bantu policy. But that phenomenon did not manifest itself during the past Session. It has apparently been decided to use those hon. members who represent urban constituencies to stir up antagonism against the Government amongst the farming community. Well, we want to congratulate the hon. the Opposition on their return to bread and butter politics. After all, they have not achieved any success in other fields. In fact, it would probably be in the best interests of the country if we argued about bread and butter issues in future and rather left the colour problem alone. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speak about international affairs this year. Even when the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister was under discussion, he did not speak about that topic. And now they have resorted to agricultural matters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for King William’s Town and Albany raised a few points to which I should like to refer. One particular point which was repeatedly mentioned in the course of this Session was the declining figure in respect of South Africa’s livestock, as far as both cattle and sheep are concerned. It has been said that the country will experience a shortage in due course. The hon. member for Albany referred to the Orange River scheme and other large schemes.

Never mind, he will find his feet eventually.

No, I admire the hon. member for the speech he made here. However, I want to refer the hon. member to what his Leader said recently. He said that it was the United Party’s policy to establish industries outside so that farmers who left the land could be absorbed in those industries. The hon. the Prime Minister immediately replied to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and said that it had already been the position for a long time—a position which simply had to be accepted—that all the children and grandchildren of the farming population could not remain in the rural areas for ever and that they of necessity had to find their way to the industries and cities. This position existed as a result of changed circumstances, circumstances which we had already experienced in this country before. I want to mention a few figures now. We have a stock of 12.000. 000 head of cattle in the Republic. If we accept that each head of cattle requires five morgen of land, then we have to have 60.000. 000 morgen of land for natural grazing. We have approximately 30,000,000, 32,000,000, 34.000. 000 sheep—small stock—in the country. If every sheep requires two morgen, then an additional 60,000,000 morgen is required, which brings the total to 120,000,000 morgen. Between 10 and 15 per cent of our land is arable. Twelve million morgen are already being cultivated. It is therefore clear, Mr. Speaker, that we already have too large a number of livestock—that we are overpopulated in that respect. An additional 17,500,000 morgen has to be added in respect of grazing for Bantu stock. In other words, we have to realize that, unless we proceed in a scientific way in future, we have already reached the limit of our natural resources as far as keeping animals is concerned.

We all realize, of course, that our farmers have been experiencing a very serious drought during the past few years. We also know that the end of the drought is not yet in sight. We are thoroughly aware of the fact that our farmers have been dealt a severe blow and will most probably continue to suffer. We therefore have to make plans to assist the farmers to produce again. The Government is already doing that and discussions in that regard are being held with the various agricultural unions and other bodies. It is necessary and essential that the farmers should receive assistance in that regard, and that assistance will be granted too.

The hon. the Opposition repeatedly returned to farming matters in the course of this Session, and when listening to them one felt compelled to accept that there was no future whatsoever for the farming population of South Africa. If anybody had ever given a pessimistic representation of any state of affairs, if ever it was suggested that our farming population could not possibly recover, then it was done by the Opposition in the course of this Session. But, Sir, permit me to ask whether the position in South Africa and in the world is such that there is no future for the agricultural sector in the world, and in South Africa in particular?

I do not mind that the Opposition points out deficiencies in the policy of this Government. After all, it is their duty to do so. If they are of the opinion that this Government has not done what was necessary to assist the farmers in view of the prevailing drought conditions, they are at liberty to say so. As I am saying, it is their duty to do so. On the other side, however, we should be careful not to bring our farming population under the impression that as far as South Africa was concerned, there was no future for them in which they would be able to stand on their own feet. The farming population has never asked, and will never ask, that they should be assisted to build up an agricultural industry on the basis of subsidies.

Hear, hear!

I am saying that our farming population has never pleaded for that in the past and will never do so in future. They will never plead for assistance to build up an industry on a basis of subsidies. On the other hand, we must accept that as far as our urban and sometimes also our rural populations are concerned, we have had abnormal times, situations which have been caused by natural disasters, something for which neither the Government nor the population groups concerned were responsible. In those circumstances the Government must and will step in and render assistance. It is in that light that we see the serious drought prevailing at present. The State must step in to relieve the distress. But if, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested the other day, we now went along and fixed a price which was not coupled to anything—a price, therefore, which was a completely arbitrary one—then I say that our farming population would not welcome that, because it would mean that they would have to be subsidized in some way or another.

I am convinced that our farmers are a very proud section of the population. Up to now they have been a group which has wanted to maintain its independence and they intend to do so in future as well. As far as conditions in South Africa are concerned, we have, as I have said, reached our maximum grazing potential. Consequently we will have to adopt more concentrated and intensive methods now. It is for that purpose that large schemes are being undertaken now. We have to take into account the fact that within the next ten years our farming population will have to produce enough food to meet the needs of a population which will total approximately 22,000,000. In other words, Mr. Speaker, our available agricultural land is becoming less and less. If the land is not cultivated more intensively, it will mean in the end that we shall not have enough land to meet our requirements. That means, therefore, that the agriculturist must be so proud and jealous of his land—not only from the point of view of the farming population, but also from the point of view of the country as a whole—that he will think twice before using for other purposes any morgen of land which is being used for agricultural purposes. Every morgen of land is required if we want to feed our growing population. That is not a tendency which is found in South Africa alone. It is found throughout the world. According to the latest figures we have received from the International Food Organization, Europe was the only importing country in the period preceding the ’forties, while six large countries outside Europe exported to Western Europe. Approximately 24.000. 000 tons of food were exported there every year. But since the Second World War that position has changed considerably. Admittedly Western Europe is still importing approximately 23,000,000 tons of food every year. But a strange phenomenon is that the less developed countries, countries such as those in Africa and the Latin-American countries, are becoming net import countries. The same phenomenon is noticed in Eastern Asia. Of the countries which used to be export countries the only remaining net export countries are Australia, New Zealand and North America. The less developed countries only imported approximately 4,000,000 tons of food in the forties. That figure has gradually increased, however, and it is expected that 25.000. 000 tons of food will be imported by those countries this year. It is interesting to note that in the more developed countries food is more and more being consumed in processed form. In the less developed countries more starchy foods are being consumed. That means that exporters of cereals will have a much better market in the less developed countries in future. In South Africa a favourable position is being created for our farmers. Tremendous developments will take place in the course of the next few years. Not only is the Orange River scheme being tackled, but other large schemes will also be carried out. Our farmers will have to supply food not only to the South African population, but also to a part of the world population, a population which is rapidly increasing. We find that the population growth in Europe is less than 1 per cent, while the average population growth for the world is 2 per cent. The relevant figure for the less developed countries is 3 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we find not only an increase in the normal consumption of food, but also a per capita increase. Consequently through the agency of the Government of the day South Africa will have to assist the farming population to produce more and more by means of better methods, in the same way as the farmers have already benefited from various technical methods which have been applied. A larger farming population must be built up. The hon. member for Albany referred to the one-year diploma course at the agricultural colleges. We had only 304 students at those colleges in 1947, whereas there are 662 to-day. This number will be more than doubled within the next year as a result of the one-year course which is being introduced now.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that, with the collaboration of this Government, with its political sense and its assistance, South Africa has a future in which the farming population will experience great development and in which we shall continue to build up a strong farming population, a population group which will continue to be the backbone of the country.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is a very important member of this House. We consequently listened with interest to what he had to say, particularly towards the end of his speech. Unfortunately he was not as objective in the first part of his speech as he was towards the end. Towards the end of his speech he stated that there was still a future for farming in South Africa if the Government would turn its attention to the mass of people to our north and also in other parts of the world with the view to finding better export markets for our agricultural products. Nor can one find any fault with this statement.

He started his speech by saying that he wanted to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister. He then turned to the Leader of the Opposition and said he also wanted to congratulate him. In fact, the hon. member only devoted the last quarter of his speech to agricultural matters. He devoted the first part of his speech to congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for succeeding in keeping the various factions of his party together, as the hon. member put it, the hon. member has obviously lost sight of the fact that had that been the only objective of the Leader of the Opposition a great future still awaited him. The hon. member talked about various factions. But the Nationalist Party is the party who pre-eminently has within its ranks a variety of different trends of thought and, peculiarly enough, that is the party which has already been governing South Africa for 17 years.

On 29 October last year the hon. member for Malmesbury addressed a meeting at which he said the following—

We kicked Japie out.

The hon. member said—

Now the hon. member for Christiana says the Leader of the Opposition has succeeded in keeping the various factions together in his party, while the hon. member for Malmesbury boasts about the fact that the Nationalist Party has achieved what it has achieved for the very reason that it has tolerated a diversity of thought within its own ranks. I am consequently quite right, therefore, to say that a great future still awaits the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member said that there was not much we could do to increase our animal population . . .

I did not say that.

. . . because, according to him, we were already over-populated. However, if I misunderstood the hon. member I apologize. There was a time in South Africa when we had a sheep population of 50,000,000. And to-day? To-day it is only in the neighbourhood of 30,000,000. Hon. members opposite say it is not necessary for us to increase our animal population because the quality of our animals is such that we can meet the food requirements of the country. What is our position as far as our animal population is concerned in comparison with other countries? As far as cattle are concerned we had 12.000. 000 in 1959 compared with 11,400,000 in 1938. As against this the animal population of the U.S.A. has increased from 65,000,000 in 1938 to 97,000,000 in 1961. I can also give you the example of Brazil and Australia, Sir, where the animal populations have increased over the same period from 13,000,000 to 18.000. 000. In the case of France it has increased from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 and in Russia from 51,000,000 to 76,000,000. But here in South Africa we say it is not necessary to increase our animal stock because the quality of the animals we breed is such that it can meet the food requirements of the country. But think of what has been done in other countries. Why can’t this Government do the same here?

The hon. member also alleged that the Opposition was very pessimistic about the future of our agricultural industry and wanted to know whether the position was really as bad as the Opposition thought it was. I say it is even worse. To prove that I want to quote from a report which appeared on our desks a couple of days ago, namely, the report of the National Marketing Board. Let us see what they say in this report about the position of the farmers in South Africa. They state in paragraph 89—

During a period of 12 years the purchasing power of the farmer and his employee has increased by 8.1 per cent—that is not even 1 per cent per annum. Then hon. members opposite, vis-à-vis the hon. member for Christiana, say that the United Party is unnecessarily pessimistic about the future of the farmer.

I did not say that.

I wrote down the words of the hon. member. He said the position as stated by the Opposition was such as to cause pessimism. Is this report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing not something about which the hon. member for Christiana should be concerned? Is he satisfied with the fact that the purchasing power of the farmer and his employee has only increased by 8.1 per cent over a period of 12 years? Is he satisfied with this position? The hon. member says the farmer of South Africa in no circumstances wants to build up his agricultural activities on a subsidized basis. The hon. member said so a moment ago. Every year we spend quite a number of million rand on subsidizing the South African consumer thereby assisting the agriculturist. Is the hon. member not grateful for that? Does he want that subsidy to be abolished? South Africa is not the only country in the world which is following this policy. There is no other policy it can follow. Does the hon. member not want the people to get any subsidy? I know why the hon. member for Christiana says that. He says that because he has also read this report. I want to ask the hon. Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing a little more about this report. We find the following on page 34—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with that. Is that the solution to many of the problems of the farmers? I hope the hon. the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity and tell us whether he agrees with that. Judging from what the hon. member for Christiana has said he has apparently also read this report that was why he said that. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees with that or not.

The position of the agricultural community has developed in such a way to-day that they have no confidence in the agricultural policy of this Government. This Government cannot find any constructive solution to the most important problems . . .

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is that recommendation of the Marketing Board he has read out a recommendation in respect of subsidizing the industry, i.e. the consumer, or the farmer?

Surely the hon. member knows why subsidies are paid. Subsidies are paid in order to prevent the farmers from getting too low a price for his products and simultaneously to prevent the consumer from having to pay through the neck for that product. It cuts both ways. The hon. member knows that that is the whole object of subsidies and if he were to reduce these subsidies two things would follow: It could result in the consumer having to pay more or in the producer getting less for his product. The hon. member can choose which of the two he wants.

I want to deal with the origin of the problem of the South African farmer. It has a great deal to do with the fact that a large number of our agriculturists have had no training. As a result of the fantastic mechanization that has taken place great demands have been made on the modern farmer both as far as his financial and his mental ability are concerned. Another reason for his problem was that greater production was accompanied by increased production costs. We also found in South Africa that increased production did not lead to increased consumption with the result that there were surpluses from time to time. I admit that that did not only happen in South Africa but in other parts of the world as well. The result was a drop in prices which in turn lead to a great number of our farmers who found it uneconomical to continue in that direction giving up farming. Instead of protecting the farmer at this stage we find that there is only unsympathetic treatment on the part of the Government. For the sake of my argument this evening I do not want to take climatic conditions into account as far as our agricultural industry is concerned because that is something which we will always have with us, as the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) has said. But the purely economic and technical problems which confront the farmer to-day are also the responsibility of the Government. Only when the Government has solved or helped to solve these problems will it be able to talk about the problems which the farmer has created for himself, namely, the problem of bad management, too high a standard of living or the problem of perhaps having paid too much for his land, as we are often told. Unless the Government solves the firstmentioned problems it cannot point the finger at the farmer. Nor will it avail the Government to argue that the movement from the platteland to the cities is a world-wide phenomenon because it is not only in respect of agriculture that there is a marked similarity with other countries. We have a youth crime problem in South Africa but so have other countries in the world. We cannot say that we cannot do anything about that because other countries of the world have the same problem. The Government cannot say: “The movement from the platteland to the cities is a world-wide phenomenon so we cannot do anything about it”. We on this side of the House do not suggest for one moment that the South African farmer is perfect. But I want to say this that as far as his efficiency, his common sense and his appreciation of what is expected of him, are concerned the South African farmer need not stand back for the South African industrialist or businessman. [Interjections.] I am pleased to see the reaction of hon. members opposite to what I have just said. The difference is this: The industrialist receives a greater return on his labour because of the tremendous demand for his product and the South African industrialist, or the industrialist in any part of the world, does not manufacture and sell a product at a price which does not cover his costs of production and yield him a reasonable return for his labour. Had they not observed that principle they would not have been able to expand the way they have expanded during the past decade.

Let me give another example of what has happened in our agricultural industry. Take the question of the surpluses. Those came about because our production was higher than our consumption. There was consequently a decline in prices with the result that many farmers withdrew from production. To-day prices have again improved. The position today is that the consumer has to pay high prices and the State has had to embark on an expensive programme of importing products from overseas in order to supplement our local supplies. Those are the problems we have to face in agriculture to-day. I maintain that this Government is directly to blame for this position, because at a time of high agricultural production the Government failed to ensure that there was an adequate rise in the standard of living so that the increased production could be absorbed. That was why there was only one way out for them, namely, to reduce prices and that was what they did. I say the Government is to blame for it.

Give me one example where prices have been reduced.

They forced people out of production because of the low prices without seeing to it that there was a corresponding drop in the costs of production. You can reduce prices if you want to but then you must immediately see to it that you also reduce the costs of production and that was not what happened under this Government. Surely they are not going to tell me that it is the fault of the South African farmer.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker; I am just finishing my argument. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just drawn my attention to the fact that that is precisely what has happened in our dairy industry. That is a beautiful example of that. But to-day things are developing in exactly the opposite direction. To-day the position is developing in the direction of shortages and enormously high prices to the consumer. The South African farmer no longer relies on that old stereotype saying that farming is a particular way of life. People are always inclined to say that the farmer lives a wonderful life; that he is free, he is the master on his farm, that that is his way of life and that that is why he likes to farm. I think the time has arrived for us to get away from that approach because what the farmer wants to-day is that that way of life of his should also be accompanied by a rise in his standard of living as is happening to-day in any other sector of our economic life.

The farmer regards himself to-day as an entrepreneur; he is a manager who controls capital; he is an enterprising person and a person who makes big demands on himself just as the manager of any business undertaking or factor makes upon himself. But above all, just like those other people, the farmer is entitled to a reasonable return on his labour. The farmer feels that he is performing a primary function in our country’s economy and he does not want to fulfil it at the expense of the consumer. Such an attitude would be selfish and of short duration. What the farmer is striving for is no more and no less than that any other entrepreneur strives for and that is why he asks for stability in his industry. How often, for example, has the meat committee of the South African Agricultural Union not asked for a guaranteed price over a period of five years with annual adjustments? Why do they come with that simple request? Because they want to embarrass the Minister? Because they want to exploit the South African consumer? No, they come with that simple request so that the meat producer can plan according to the prices he is going to get. Is that request on the part of the meat committee of the South African Agricultural Union different from the request of the salary or wage earner to know exactly, before he starts work, what he will earn initially, what his annual increments will be, after how many years he will reach the maximum, and what his pension will be the day he retires? The approach is exactly the same. That is the most serious charge that can be laid against the Government to-day.

May I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has all the time he needs at his disposal to reply. The charge I wish to lay at the door of this Government this evening is that their approach to our agricultural problem is absolutely obsolete and old fashioned. It is an approach which is not adapted to 1965. They still think that the farmer wishes to be that free entrepreneur who can do what he wants to do but the Government has failed to regard the farmer as they ought to regard any entrepreneur, namely, an entrepreneur who wants a wage for his daily task. Unless the Government regards the farmer in that light they can come to this House year after year and vote as much money as they want to for the Farmers Assistance Board, the Land Bank, etc., without ever solving the problem of the South African farmer.

I know the Government boasts about that outside. Those members who represent platteland constituencies are going to report to their constituencies after the Session and say to the electorate: “Look what we have voted this year; we voted so many million rand for the Land Bank; we voted so many million rand for the Farmers’ Assistance Board; this is how we look after you; this is how we assist the farmers of South Africa.” Is that the solution on a long-term basis? We have to face up to the same position every year, namely, that the Government is doing more and more patch-work instead of trying to solve the fundamental problems of the farmer. I have mentioned the problems to the hon. the Minister; he cannot say that he does not know what they are. If the farmers were not faced with the cost price problem why do more and more of them leave the platteland?

The hon. member for Christiana has told us how many thousands will be established under the Orange River scheme, that they will be able to increase our farming community and that they will be able to find the farmers. But in 1965 and during the previous years the Government is and has been prepared to allow more and more farmers to leave the land. But they intend establishing some 10,000 or 12,000 farmers along the Orange River under that scheme in 25 years’ time! Surely they are putting the cart before the horse. If the Government were serious about a scheme such as this Orange River scheme, if the Government were serious about keeping the farmers on the platteland, then surely it ought to be their very policy to see to it that those people were kept on the platteland.

No, Mr. Speaker, this Government has failed to create a sound economic future for the South African farmer. That being the case I cannot but agree with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) when he said that this Government was completely unaware of the serious difficulty in which not only the urban dwellers but the rural dwellers of South Africa were finding themselves.

I just want to refer to something raised by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) namely, the credit squeeze. I am not the Minister of Finance but if hon. members of the Opposition were concerned that the credit squeeze would adversely affect agriculture members on this side of the House were equally concerned and we immediately approached the Minister of Finance. We expressed our concern to him and we also had discussions with the President of the Reserve Bank. Both the Minister of Finance and the President agreed that unless it was stopped it could curtail credit for agricultural production ! The President of the Reserve Bank discussed the position with the various commercial banks and pointed out to them that it was not necessary to curtail credit for agricultural production purposes. That does not involve only ordinary agricultural requirements, such as fertilizer and wages, etc., but where a farmer wants to buy cattle, which is normally regarded as capital expansion, to feed on what is left of his crop which has been a failure and which he has converted into fodder, the money necessary for that purpose will be advanced to him. We were also promised that when it was necessary for a farmer to buy a tractor or implement the banks would be allowed to give him credit. That does not mean, of course, that the bank must give credit to somebody who is not solvent. It is obvious that credit will only be extended to solvent clients.

Both the hon. member for Albany and Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said this Government had no policy. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) says that in 17 years’ time this Government had not succeeded in formulating a proper policy for the farmers of South Africa. What I find very interesting is the fact that we are dealing with such stupid farmers, according to the hon. member, that they have allowed this Government to govern for 17 years without kicking it out. In other words, I think that statement of the hon. member’s is totally incorrect. This Government does indeed have an agricultural policy and I briefly want to outline that policy. We have no fewer than 24 control boards to-day.

Too many.

The Marketing Act, which is an enabling Act gives the farmers the right to establish their own control board to see to the orderly marketing of their products. Then we have the South African Agricultural Union with its commodity committees which continually advise the various control boards and make representations to them in regard to price fixations. Members of various boards sit in this House and they know that is the position. Those boards consist mainly of practical farmers. In consultation with the Marketing Council they submit recommendations to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Minister, in consultation with the Cabinet, determines and fixes the price of those agricultural products. Do hon. members opposite really think that this Government and this Cabinet consist of people who live in the mountains like baboons and do not realize that, if you want to have a sound national economy, you must have a sound agricultural economy? I admit that there was a tremendous surplus of butter in this country in 1962. If my memory serves me correctly there was a surplus of 24,000,000 pounds of butter which we had to export at a tremendous loss. I now want to ask hon. members opposite this question: Had we not had this serious drought which has had a serious effect on production and production had been proceeded with what would we have done with that surplus butter? If the Opposition were to come into power and the poultry farmers of South Africa were to produce millions and millions of dozens of eggs, which can easily happen, what would they do with those surplus eggs? I am asking the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman): what will he do with those eggs? He cannot eat them all himself. The Government can assist the farmers as much as possible but we as farmers are not fools either, Mr. Speaker. We are quick to see what the tendency is in respect of the various products we produce. In the area in which I live to-day we make a thorough study of the various agricultural commodities. If it is not profitable to produce a product then we do not produce it. It is obvious that if it does not pay the poultry farmer to produce eggs he will simply stop doing so and produce something for which there is indeed a demand both locally and overseas.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said we would now go to the platteland and tell the farmers what the Government did for them during the past Session. Of course, we are going to do that, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the farmers of South Africa who are suffering as a result of abnormal drought conditions I want to express their gratitude and appreciation to this Government for what it has done for them in these abnormal circumstances.

The Government has introduced drought assistance schemes this year which have no parallel in the history of South Africa. Rebates, subsidies and loans were introduced in order to assist those farmers. To-day the hon. member for Albany says this Government lacks planning. If a state of emergency exists in the country as the one we are experiencing to-day—it is practically the worst we have had in our history—and the Government takes immediate steps to meet the position what is that other than planning? The hon. the Prime Minister stated at a public meeting that the moment circumstances were again normal special measures would be announced to rehabilitate those farmers who could not be rehabilitated under the existing emergency assistance measures.

We also had the accusation from that side of the House that the Government did not see to it that the farmers received profitable prices. What the Opposition is doing to-day is to exploit a position which has arisen as a result of the drought conditions. Mr. Speaker, I can prove in black on white that there are areas in our country, areas where the seasons have been reasonably normal over the past two years, areas where the farmers have practically had normal crops, and where the farmers, as in my area for instance, have showed a profit of 20 per cent on their capital investment. That happens where you have normal climatic conditions and where the farmers have normal crops. [Interjections.] I want to assure the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that the farmers in my areas—I invite the hon. member to pay us a visit—have a totally different approach to agriculture to-day. They are to-day taking the maximum potential from the soil in a most scientific way; they are farming scientifically. We are living at a time when the farmers have overcome the majority of the defects which have been responsible for failures in the past. The remaining factors are those over which we as farmers have no control and there are not many of those. Drought conditions hardly constitute a factor in some areas because if you apply the correct farming methods, you can conserve your labour force in such a way that you can produce practically the maximum crop with the minimum of rain, provided you farm correctly, of course.

Say that to West Transvaal.

I admit that abnormal drought conditions have prevailed in some areas this year.

Now you are contradicting yourself.

No, I said that in many areas of the country the drought hardly constituted a factor because the farmers were applying the right farming methods.

West Transvaal?

They are faced with abnormal circumstances this year and the Opposition is exploiting the position. Those abnormal drought conditions are being exploited with one object in mind only and that is a possible election next year. They are now bidding for the votes of those people. Mr. Speaker, this Government is also planning in such a way that, where drought conditions have prevailed and where the farmers have had set backs and crop failures, loans are granted to these farmers to sow crops for the following year. Those crop loans can be as much as R4,000 per annum at a very low rate of interest. I realize that those loans have to be repaid but the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) has just said that the banks do not give credit to the small farmers. But they can go to State Advances. That office is prepared to give them credit and to grant them crop loans if the commercial banks are unable to do so. This Government is also planning to assist the small farmers who farm on uneconomic units to re-settle on economic units by acquiring adjoining land. At this stage I want to thank the Department of Lands for the progress they have already made in assisting the small farmer who has an uneconomic unit. Both the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Deputy Minister have made tremendous progress. We really appreciate it and we want to congratulate them on the progress they have made. In that connection there is one matter, however, which concerns me somewhat. Looking at the Estimates I notice that the Minister of Finance has not made a very big amount available for the resettlement of small farmers. I am afraid that the amount of R3,000,000 which has been made available will be totally inadequate and that it will have a retarding effect on the work of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Lands. That is why I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to make more money available in future for that important and essential service which will have to be provided to the small farmers.

Let us see what the Government has done in the past year to assist agriculture. I want to give a few figures in order to show what the Government has actually done during the past year in order to develop and expand agriculture in South Africa. We are told that we are not doing enough for agriculture. I want to point out that during the period 1959 to 1964 an amount of R78,000,000 was voted for Agricultural Technical Services which is not recoverable; that amount was voted to cover the services rendered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in order to promote agriculture. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing spent an amount of R534,000,000 and the Department of Lands an amount of R 1,004.000,000. Over R6.000,000 was voted to the Department of Technical Services for subsidized loans and free services rendered during the same period —this is recoverable—and over R8,000,000 which is not recoverable. This gives a total amount voted of R 15,000,000. In the case of the Department of Economics and Marketing a total amount of R32.000.000 was voted, a total amount of R32,000,000 in the case of State Advances, in the case of the Department of Lands a total amount of R25,000,000 and a total amount of R 13,000,000 in the case of Water Affairs. When we take all these services together we find that a total recoverable amount of R56,772,000 and a total unrecoverable amount of R296,000,000 in the form of services and loans were voted. That means that from 1 April 1959 to 31 March, 1964 this Government has spent on agriculture a total amount of R352,900,000. Then hon. members of the Opposition say this Government is not interested in the farmers!

What was the income of the farmers? Surely that is important.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is a stranger in Jerusalem but if he looks at the adjusted prices for products he will agree with me that there has been a considerable improvement in agricultural prices this year. Let me just mention a few. Last year mealies sold at 300 cents and to-day the price is 305 cents; last year wheat was 587 cents and this year it is 560 cents. The farmers are satisfied with that and the Western Province is also satisfied with that. Butter fat was 31.5 cents in 1963-4 and today it is 40 cents plus a special premium of 1 cent plus the winter premium which varies from 3 to 5 cents. Beef has increased from R 11.70 in 1954 to R14. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West): What would have happened to the farmers had their prices been guaranteed two years ago for five years as the United Party asked for? Then the price would have stood at R11.70. That is the policy of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). To-day the guaranteed minimum price is R14 and the winter premium varies from 160 to 200 cents per 100 lbs.

I conclude by saying this: that I for my part, and I believe hon. members on that side of the House, have full confidence in the future of agriculture in South Africa. We want to thank this Government for the way in which it has developed our country and for having promoted the tremendous economic upsurge we have experienced in this country, an upsurge which has led to such an increased demand for our products that there are shortages to-day and to the consumers, particularly the middle and lower-income consumers, who are receiving so much higher wages to-day that they are in a better position to buy agricultural products. I do not think the day is very far off when we as farmers will have to produce to the utmost of our capacity to provide South Africa with food and we shall do so.

Agricultural matters have been discussed for three hours now, since before the dinner adjournment, and we on this side of the House hoped that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or the Deputy Minister would take part in the debate at this stage, but it seems to me they are waiting until the end of the discussion on the Vote before entering the debate. We also notice that the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services is not present. We do not know why. We know that he was aware of the fact that the debate would take this direction. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) put a direct question to me. He asked: “If a surplus of eggs or butter is produced, must all of it be consumed here, or must the price be maintained at a high level? What must we do with the surplus?”

I am surprised! The hon. member for Bethlehem knows what happens in the case of a maize surplus, that there is a control board, that funds are collected from the farmers, and that the farmers carry this subsidy as far as the export of maize is concerned. Now he asks me what we want to do if there is an egg surplus. What we say, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a stupid kind of policy in terms of which one had to import 20,000,000 or 17,000,000 lbs. of butter last year, while one could have kept supplies in cold storage from the surplus in the preceding years. Now one has to spend hundreds of thousands of rands on imports, after having lost on the exports. We say that it is a stupid kind of policy to export meat at this stage while one knows that meat is going to become very scarce in November and December. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) sits there and knows as little what the answer is as the Government does. If there is going to be a scarcity in October and November, why have we exported now? I shall sit down if the hon. member can reply to that. But the hon. member for Bethlehem spoke about everything which the Government had done for the farmers in this country. I asked hon. members on that side of the House who represent agricultural constituencies, and who are always talking of how agriculture is thriving and who are always saying that agriculture would have been in a wonderfully good position if only there had been no drought . . .

I said that certain parts were having a hard time this year.

No, in actual fact the hon. member for Bethlehem ended on this note: He said that the farmers of our country were wonderful, that they would produce enough for the entire population of our country. But I just want to point out that in spite of the wonderful assistance which the Government is supposed to be rendering to agriculture, the question does occur to one: Has it done more or has it done less for the farming population than has been done in other countries? If it has done more for its farming population, or has done as much as other countries, is our country then the only one which is hit by droughts or floods? Why do the farmers in our country have a harder time than those in the other countries?

Which countries?

I am referring to America, to Germany, to France, to Italy.

Is the number of farmers in those countries increasing?

I did not say that the number of farmers was increasing; I said that the production in these countries was increasing to such an extent that their exports were increasing. I mentioned figures the other day. In the case of America alone, beef exports increased by $600,000,000 in one year. Now the Minister asks whether the number of farmers in those countries has increased. I did not say that the number of farmers has increased, shall come to that point later.

What is happening in the United States?

There has been a corresponding decrease in their number, but not because of a Government’s saying that the uneconomic farmers had to get out and the small farmers had to get out.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member for Christiana is not so rowdy as a rule. I will be glad if he gives me a chance. Then, Sir, the hon. member for Bethlehem came along and asked: But have prices not increased this year? Of course agricultural prices have increased, but too little and too late. What has been the Government’s policy all along? If there is a large maize surplus and maize is exported, the prices decrease by 25 cents per bag. If there is a shortage, the prices increase. This year there is a shortage of virtually all agricultural products and the prices are increasing, and sharply too. But will they remain at that level if we have a surplus again?

However, I want to come to an important point in connection with finance, with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Bethelehm that it was not necessary for the banks to refuse credit to the small farmers to farmers who were creditworthy.

What bank would grant credit to a man who was not creditworthy?

Am I quoting the hon. member correctly if I say that he said that the banks would not refuse credit to farmers who were creditworthy?

Yes, they would not refuse it for purposes of agricultural production.

That is what I said. I now want to put the following question to the Minister of Finance, because I shall be returning to the financial aspect and to agricultural credit at a later stage. I want to ask the Minister, since he has also made the statement that no restrictions have been imposed on banks and financial institutions as far as agricultural production is concerned: If the liquidity basis of the banks is to be increased from 38 per cent to 40 per cent and that absorbs the approximately R60,000,000 which they had at the end of April, if I understood the Minister correctly, and there are no longer any funds available for additional credit and the creditworthy farmer wants to take up additional loans, where is he going to find the money?

Surely repayments are made from time to time? It is not an expansion. There is still a surplus of R2,000,000 even if everything has been drained off.

I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will make use of the opportunity later in the debate to explain the matter to us and will tell us where the additional funds are to come from. But while I am still dealing with the hon. member for Bethlehem, I want to say that he made another state ment, and a dangerous one at that. He said: If this Government had not planned and had not looked after agriculture, the farmers would have thrown out the Government. Sir, I shall tell you what happened. After the war period the farmers carried on with their production and they mechanized agriculture and produced more and more, but they never had a surplus cycle; that only came three, four years ago, and since that time agriculture has begun to feel the pinch and the farmers have begun to complain incessantly about agriculture. And the hon. member for Bethlehem should just wait a little. We have made this prediction before: Those highly satisfied, prosperous farmers whom the hon. member speaks about will still throw this Government out of office.

I want to come back to this planned boom, this planned prosperity which is supposed to have been engineered by this Government during the period from 1961 to 1964. Similar planning has of course been undertaken by the Governments of America and Germany and Canada and Australia. Surely those Governments are just as good and perhaps better than this Government. As a matter of fact, I have to accept that they are better, because their prosperity has lasted longer than ours—as far as agriculture is concerned at any rate. They are not yet experiencing the sharply declining tendency which we are experiencing. They are still in a better position. They are producing more and have a larger income. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) showed that the increase in the income from agriculture has been | per cent per annum over a period of 12 years. Is there any sector of the economy in which the position is worse and more scandalous? But this Government, who is supposed to have planned this prosperity, who said that the people should industrialize, and who told the country that the people should manufacture and produce and that they should spend, where is it now? The people have industrialized, regardless of whether existing industries were being duplicated and regardless of whether we could obtain the markets for the manufactured goods produced by us, regardless of whether we could sell the poplin which is lying at East London, and regardless of whether existing factories which were being duplicated were working eight hours or 16 hours to achieve full production. That did not enter into the matter at all. That is the lack of planning that we are speaking of. But the people are to industrialize, and, Sir, there are many industries which have only reached the blue-print stage as yet. Others are busy laying the foundations and the bricks. Many of them are still bringing equipment into the country, and it is not so easy to put the damper on imports while those factories are still being fitted out, if one does not follow a proper policy. The country has gone along and has produced and has worked itself into a cycle, and has produced and manufactured a fair amount, but the fact remains that the industrialization that has taken place has never been a balanced industrialization and that the production that has been achieved is not a balanced production either. That is why we have the position that for certain consumer goods we cannot find a market to-day, and that we are having difficulty in finding markets overseas, whereas we still have shortages as far as other things are concerned. So many people have gone along and spent money in a direction which has resulted in our being in this sorry plight to-day. Now I say that if the Government claims the credit for the prosperity and if it claims that it has brought about that prosperity, then we also have to blame the Government for the sorry plight in which we are at the moment, then, surely, that has also been brought about by the Government. If it is so strong a Government, as it claims to be, that it can even bring about prosperity, which comes automatically in many other countries, because it is the tendency in the world, then we must also blame the Government, if the tendency goes in the other direction, for being responsible for the sorry plight in which we find ourselves. And it seems as though the Government, in the difficulties in which we are—or are we not in difficulties?

What sorry plight are you talking about?

Oh, we are not in financial difficulties! Our reserves are not standing at R346,000,000 instead of at R550,000,000 ! We have no problems! All those credit restriction measures which have been applied were not necessary, were they? The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) says we are not in a sorry plight.

The United Party is in a very sorry plight, that we know.

What was the Government’s answer to these minor difficulties which we are experiencing and which are causing our reserves to decrease to such an extent? The answer was credit restriction and more credit restriction and more credit restriction, and instructions to the banks and to the financial institutions, etc. But surely there are other methods too? Surely there is the method of import control in respect of luxury articles such as expensive motor-cars and other luxury goods, which could have helped to narrow the gap between our exports and our imports? Surely that is the obvious method which could have been applied by the Government? But no, they apply this one method, the method of depressing the economy, because as soon as that is done a depression is created, and if a depression is created, unemployment results, and if there is unemployment, one is again able to man the Public Service and the Railways and the post offices, because then there are unemployed persons available. It seems to me as though that is the solution the Government now wants to adopt in that regard. Create a depression by way of these measures. Do not use the other method of applying import control in respect of luxury articles, by means of which millions and millions could be saved in foreign exchange. Use this one method—credit restriction—and put a damper on the economy so that you can depress it.

In mentioning those problems in connection with credit control and the obtaining of credit and of the necessary finance for agriculture, I want to say something about agriculture and its rehabilitation. Mr. Speaker, anyone who says that agriculture had a reasonably good year last year should substantiate that statement. The fact remains that on our agricultural exports alone we are down R 100,000,000 to R 150,000,000. No one can say how much we are down as far as our production is concerned. No one can even guess how much. But on our agricultural exports alone we are down R 150,000,000. No one knows yet how much we are down by way of losses in respect of our livestock, the numbers of which have been reduced and have to be built up again. Nor does anyone know how much we are down as a result of the exhaustion and erosion of our soil through the long periods of drought we have had. I wonder whether I am putting it conservatively enough if I say that agriculture has been put back R400,000,000 by the drought within the space of one year? Now I ask: What has this Government done to rehabilitate those farmers? We have heard of all the things which the Government has done so far, but take the case of the creditworthy person. By this time he has a mortgage with the Land Bank, but he has lost half his stock and he has spent R5,000 on fodder and he is down R10,000, R15,000, and he goes to the bank, to an ordinary commercial bank, and applies for an overdraft, while the bank has instructions not to grant him an overdraft, and to keep that amount liquid. Where must the farmer get the money from in that case? How do you rehabilitate that man? He is creditworthy, he is solvent. In normal financial circumstances he had all the credit he wanted, but now he cannot get it, because if the bank granted him an overdraft of R5,000 in the previous year, surely it is not going to grant him an overdraft of R20.000 now to pay his accounts, to pay for his feed supplies, to pay his co-operative, etc.? And the cycle goes further. It is not only the farmer who cannot pay the trading house he deals with. The trading house cannot pay the wholesale dealer, and so the cycle continues. The wholesale dealer cannot pay the factory. The pinch is felt everywhere, and we have a very depressed state of affairs in agriculture to-day. The hon. Ministers over there probably receive many more representations still than we as individuals receive. One is being inundated with letters and telegrams from persons who plead for assistance. They cannot find the means to rehabilitate themselves. Now I ask the Minister of Finance: Was it not possible for this Government, in planning for agriculture, to make special financial arrangements for the agricultural sector and to provide finance for agriculture—as has been done in many other countries—in view of the fact that there are greater risks involved in agriculture than in any other sector of the economy? Surely the risks involved in agriculture are greater than elsewhere? In addition to being subject to all the normal risks it involves the risks caused by natural factors, the droughts and so forth. Cannot special provision be made for the financing of agriculture? The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that there are no funds available to assist the farmers at a low rate of interest—by means of long-term loans at a low rate of interest, for example. Agriculture is being treated on the same basis as any other sector of the econnomy. When I approach the bank for an overdraft and I say that I belong to the agricultural sector, and I point out that provision has been made by the State, then the bank does not tell me that I can get money at 5 per cent. The farmer is paying through his neck, he is paying the same rates of interest as the shopkeeper and the building constructor and everyone else, although the others are not subject to the same risks. The risk factor in agriculture is so much greater than in any sector of the country, and therefore the farmer should have special facilities.

Discrimination?

Discrimination. I heard the argument in this House two years ago that the farmer simply had to take the risk, and that that was all there was to it. I repeat that if the man has had no crop, or his wool clip has become smaller, or he has suffered losses of stock, and he does not have the credit-worthiness, I ask the Minister of Finance very pertinently that he should tell us what facilities he is contemplating for the future, because the Government has done nothing about that in the past. What financial arrangements will be made for the agricultural sector so that the farmers will be able to rehabilitate themselves, so that the agricultural sector will become an industry such as has been described by the hon. member for Bethlehem which is going to produce so wonderfully and will produce enough for our population, instead of slowly deteriorating year after year as at the moment? No, we on this side eagerly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, for the reason that even to-day this Government still does not have any policy as far as agriculture is concerned, and does not even have an economic policy. Where do we stand after three or four years of wonderful prosperity? Read any of the financial magazines, read the Financial Mail. They tell you that “the boom is over, depression is here”, and they prove that by means of statistics. Whatever the hon. member for Bethlehem may say, and despite all the soft talk by farmer members on the other side, we all know what the position is. The farmers are in a sorry plight. There is a large measure of dissatisfaction with these Ministers of Agriculture. When members on the opposite side get up in this House, they thank the Government and the Ministers for the wonderful work which has been done and the goodwill which has been displayed towards the agricultural industry. But the farmers in our country will not merely keep on protesting to the Government, as they have already protested against the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, they will not merely keep on protesting about the lack of policy and of leadership in the agricultural industry,—they will still throw this Government out of office.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of this Session we have seen a new farmers’ group. You know, Sir, we started this year with the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) as the chairman of the farmers’ group of the United Party, but somewhere along the road the leader of the United Party changed his team and he first tried to put the hon. member for East London (City) in the lead midway through the stream, but by making that change he discovered that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) got drowned in the stream. Then he found that this team would still not pull properly and then he again put the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) in the lead, and then they were going to show us something in regard to agriculture, but what happened?

He is at least still farming.

Yes, he is farming on his father-in-law’s farm. But to-night they have again changed the team. I do not know now whether it is the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) or the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) who is in the lead. They just keep changing the team. Why? Let us analyse why it is. It is very easy to make a lot of statements before an election, but to bring no proof. Let us analyse a few of these allegations.

The hon. members for East London (City) and Port Elizabeth (West) alleged that the contribution of agriculture to the national income has increased by less than 1 per cent per annum in recent years.

No, the purchasing power of the farmers.

No, you distincly said that the contribution of agriculture to the national income increased by less than 1 per cent per annum. Let us analyse it. Agriculture’s contribution to the national income increased from R446,000,000 in 1947-8 to R537,000,000 in 1962-3, and that is at the 1962-3 prices, and in the past five years it increased by 3 per cent per annum, from 1958-9 to 1962-3. But let us analyse this story that the farmer is in a disadvantageous position as compared with the rest of South Africa, and let us take the individual farmer. If we take the net income per farming unit, it increased from R3,852 in 1947-8 to R5,113 in 1962-3. If we take the period from 1947-8 to 1958-9 as the basis, the increase was an average of 2.8 per cent per annum, and if we take all the economic facets in South Africa it is 2.3 per cent per annum for the per capita national income; in other words, the per capita income was 2.3 per cent as against the farmer’s per capita figure of 2.8 per cent. How can hon. members allege that in agriculture the increased income and the purchasing power of the farmer as against the rest of South Africa was neglected and compares unfavourably? The hon. members should not just make allegations; they should prove their statements, and hon. members can all get this pamphlet, “Agricon”, which is issued by the Agricultural Department. Let us see what it says. I come back to the real net income. It says that the contribution of the agricultural sector to the net internal product was R378,000,000 in 1951-2 and in 1962-3 it was R601,100,000. This is an average annual rate of increase of 4.3 per cent. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said it was less than 1 per cent. Why does he give this wrong figure? I want to say again that if hon. members want to make these statements, they must prove them.

I want to come back to the hon. member for King William’s Town, who unfortunately is not here now. He raised the question of estate duties and said that estate duty resulted in the subdivision of land into uneconomic units, and that should not be allowed. He emphasized that this was the most harmful thing which could happen in agriculture. It is interesting to note that there was a Select Committee which investigated the cutting up of land into uneconomic units and they had to issue a report and table a draft Bill, and if we look at the report we find that the United Party members on the Select Committee voted against it in principle that one should take any steps to try to prevent the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. Even more, because they were opposed to it in principle, they voted against it clause by clause. [Interjections.] We have a Bill which has been tabled, and it is open to discussion. I mention it to show how hon. members in this House propose something different, but when it comes to the point where they have to take action and accept responsibility, they do not assume that responsibility and do their duty.

Let us look again at the case the hon. member made out that the farmers are not sharing in the prosperity. Let us look at the same “Agricon” of October 1964. On page 15 there is a graph showing agricultural prices and retail prices and the prices of farming requirements and machinery for the years 1962 to 1964. If one looks at it one sees that prices of farming requirements are right at the bottom and did not even go from the 100 mark to the 105 mark, while retail prices increased a little to just under 110, but the prices of agricultural products climbed to 120 and then again fell to 115. In other words, the hon. member made the statement that when there was overproduction this Government reduced prices. I asked him by way of an interjection to mention a single commodity where the Government had reduced prices. What are the actual facts? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that the farmers received these subsidies. When the question was put to him, he started. Just in 1964-5, a total amount of subsidies of R41,900,000 was paid and I want the farmers of South Africa to note that the chairman of the farmers’ group of the United Party accepts this as being subsidies to the farmers. This group says that the farmers are just used as a means of providing cheap food to the consumer. The fact remains that the Government in this one year alone made available almost R42,000,000 in subsidies to ensure that the farmer got a decent price for his product and that the consumer could buy it. We succeeded in doing what any Government ought to do, and there was an increase in internal consumption.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the report of the Marketing Council, which says that the Governmnet should rather reduce subsidies than increase them.

The hon. member is taking the matter out of its context. It does not affect the farmer in this context. I was saying that the Government had made these subsidies available. In England the British Agricultural Union says, “We are the conveyor, so that the consumer will receive the subsidy”. We regard it in the same light here. As the result of this subsidy agricultural production increased from 1947-8 from R272,300,000 to R521,000,000 and the consumer could always buy the product and we ensured that there was a market for it. Therefore I repeat that hon. members should not just make allegations and try to get away with them; they should give the proof.

I should like to deal with a few of the matters raised by the hon. member for Albany. He is concerned and, firstly, he asks when a financing department will be established. The hon. member for East London (City) also asked where a farmer should get money, and I want to deal with that at the same time. These Category 3 farmers have landed in a difficult position as the result of the drought and other circumstances, but a special agricultural financing department is unnecessary. Those farmers surely know that State Advances has always assisted the farmers and has dealt with every case on its merits and that it has saved many farmers. Mention any other facet in the economy of our country, whether it be commerce or the motor trade or industry, which enjoys the same sort of protection, that there is a special department to save them from insolvency. I invite hon. members to look at the list of insolvencies in the Government Gazettes, and they will find that the insolvencies. of farmers are minimal; they are in the minority because they enjoy the protection given to them by this Government through the various methods it has evolved of assisting farmers.

Now the hon. member for Albany says this Government has only a short-term policy and not a long-term policy. He says we only have hit-or-miss methods, but that is wrong. The development of the Orange River project is not a short-term policy. Is the development of the Makatini Flats and the Pongola project a short-term policy? Is the consolidation of uneconomic units on our settlements a short-term policy, or is it a planned, long-term policy? Then he asks whether the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has already investigated the question of what they are going to do with the extra 300,000 morgen of land which will come under irrigation? Is the fact that he admits that 300,000 extra morgen will come under irrigation not already proof that this is a long-term policy? The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) showed very effectively that all our agricultural land is being fully utilized; he made out a case for our switching over from extensive to intensive farming. I want to ask this: How can one switch over from extensive to intensive farming in South Africa if one does not make proper use of the Orange River scheme and the Pongola scheme and the other schemes? There is also the Berg River scheme. All these schemes show that we have a long-term policy and that the Government is already doing the preparatory work to enable us to switch over from an extensive to an intensive system of farming because we have no more land available in South Africa. We cannot make more land. The Government is trying to prepare the soil we have in such a way that we can, by means of intensive farming on a long-term policy, provide the necessary food for our population and also for export.

The hon. member further asked where all the people would come from who would be necessary in the Orange River scheme, but he ought to know that for every plot we advertise to-day there are more than 120 applications. Secondly, he should know that if one has an intensive production project like the Orange River scheme it automatically leads to industrial development because immediately agricultrual products are produced one must have secondary industries. There must be fibre factories and sugar mills and canning factories, which will employ a large number of people. Did the hon. member not read the White Paper? Did he not see that this Orange River scheme and all the other schemes are not just agricultural schemes? Has the hon. member not seen that this Government sees to it that agriculture and industrial development dovetail into each other? The one results from the other, but then he still asks these stupid questions.

The hon. member already wants to know now how large the plots will be and how many will be scheduled. Does the hon. member not know that this Department and the Department of Lands, and wherever necessary, also the Department of Economic Affairs, makes a proper survey of the production potential of a plot and that in future we will only issue economic units which can afford the farmer a decent living? This Government will not do what that party did years ago in regard to the Pongola scheme. This Government will not use the settlements merely as a refuge for a man who cannot farm. On the contrary, does the hon. member not know that our system of probationary tenants is such that a man is a probationary tenant for at least three years, and if in that time he does not qualify as a proper farmer he cannot retain that plot? We are not going to keep carpenters or clerks on a plot which should be farmed by a farmer. No, I can give the hon. member the assurance that this Government will look to the development of the whole area and therefore it has reduced the diploma courses at the agricultural colleges to a year so that we can train so many more farmers. The Government will make sure that properly trained men will farm on those settlements to supply South Africa with food and the factories with raw materials.

The hon. member said that a number of Germans went to Mr. Gruwer, the chairman of the Agricultural Union, and he could not assist them. [Interjections.] My mother always told me not to interrupt elderly women. Since when has Mr. Gruwer been employed by the Department of Agriculture so that he can employ or accommodate people? The hon. member surely knows that we have already sent people overseas to find agricultural technologists to assist us with our soil surveys. He cannot say that there is no work for traind people who offer their services. Any person who comes to this country as a technician or as one who wants to work can find work here because there is work to-day for every man and woman in South Africa who wants to work, and because we have no unemployed there is increased consumption of agricultural products, and therefore it is not necessary for us to use the soil of South Africa, which is the most valuable possession of a nation, to solve a poor White problem or to give refuge to people who are unemployed.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that in 1956 and in 1960 the number of cattle in the country was precisely the same. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has not seen what the increase in the consumption of meat was in those years? Has he not seen what the increase in the consumption of all agricultural products has been in South Africa? He should not pretend that production has stood still. He must prove his case with figures. The hon. member says the farmers in South Africa are not being trained, but what are the actual facts? The hon. member should weigh this against any of the other facets of the economy. [Interjections.] Hon. members can get these figures for themselves out of the statistics, out of the Estimates. Then they will find that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services from 1 April 1959 to 31 March 1964 spent R78,000,000 just in regard to training and research in agriculture. In other words, for the training of farmers R 15,605,000 was made available over the past ten years. The hon. member says that is a small amount. I want the hon. member to weigh the contribution made by agriculture to the net national income against the contributions made by the other sectors.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the pamphlet or document from which he is quoting is a party document or a departmental document?

I want to tell the hon. member he can also go and do his homework if he likes. These are figures which I myself took from the Estimates from 1959 until now. The hon. member should beg my pardon if he cannot prove that my figures are wrong. I said that over the past five years we made available more than R 15,000,000 for research, training and guidance in agriculture. Then the hon. member for East London (City) interjected to say that this was too little. Let us compare the contributions made by the various economic sectors in South Africa to the national income, and let us ask ourselves which of those sectors received the same training and guidance as agriculture has had, relatively speaking. Only if hon. members can reply to that will they have the right to tell the farmer that he is not being looked after like the other people are being looked after. They do not have the right to make cheap political propaganda and to tell the farmer that he is treated worse than other people in regard to training, etc. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister made a personal remark here in which he unfortunately dragged in his mother. I may just tell the hon. the Minister that he can buy the education he has, but he certainly cannot buy the rearing his mother gave him. The hon. the Minister as usual had a few little books and on those he based his whole speech. If the Minister had put as much substance into his arguments as he put force into his voice, he would have done much better. We on this side of the House are almost deaf already, and the Minister of Agricultural Economics had to go and sit far away from him in order to protect his ears, but there was really no substance in these arguments. The Deputy Minister is very fond of booklets. He did not want to tell us what he was quoting from. He did not want to say what that little green book was which he had in his hand. We asked him whether it was a departmental publication . . .

They are figures which I took out.

It is a printed pamphlet, and if the Deputy Minister had it printed himself I want to tell him . . . [Interjections.] The fact that something is specially printed for the Nationalist members of Parliament and which we did not have the opportunity to study shows the dire position they are in. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister spoke about how hon. members on this side had been changed in the team and how in the beginning one person was in the lead and then again another one, and he said that I had been drowned. He will still notice that I am very far from being drowned, but I should like to know what happened on that side of the House and why they have been inspanned in different places in the team over there? The hon. member for Christiana was the first to speak, and what did he do? He tried to safeguard his nomination because it is quite clear that the hon. member knows that the Nationalist Party majority in his constituency is 1,400. The second speaker was the hon. member for Bethlehem, and the third speaker was the Deputy Minister. Why did he not speak first, because he is surely now playing a wonderful role? He is now the Deputy Minister of all the other Ministers. In other words, he must give them guidance and tell them what to do. [Laughter.] As usual, the Deputy Minister challenged people to prove their arguments and then he quoted from the report of the Marketing Council and he said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) had misquoted it, but the hon. member quoted it correctly. He said that the farmers’ joint income had increased by approximately 8.1 per cent only from 1950 to 1962, and then he goes on and says in the same paragraph that although the total increase is comparatively small, the per capita income was appreciably more because the number of farmers, including the White employees, had decreased from 136,000 in 1950 to approximately 116,000 in 1960. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister is always challenging other people, but that same article contains the truth. [Interjection.]

Order!

I am interested in the three hon. members who have now spoken on the other side. The hon. member for Christiana spoke for about 15 minutes, five minutes of which were devoted to singing a hymn of praise, and the hon. member for Bethlehem had the same story and he was not interested in the farmers of South Africa. He tells us how well things are going with the farmers, but what does the S.A. Agricultural Union say? Did that union not adopt a motion in which they said that the farmers were not sharing in the economic prosperity? If I were the Deputy Minister I would not talk so much. I have a cutting here with his photograph at the top, and here he looks much better than he really looks, and this is what it says (translation)—

Where did he say that?

I do not know where it was said. [Laughter.] Why did the Deputy Minister not tell them that it was untrue? But I remember very well how that same young, little Deputy Minister spoke here about discipline . . .

On a point of order, may the hon. member call the Deputy Minister “that young, little Deputy Minister”?

Then let me say the old, big hon. Deputy Minister? [Laughter.]

Order!

I will call him a big, old Minister if he likes. He now asks me where these words were used in regard to the discipline of the farmers. You will remember, Sir, that I told you that I did not think the Deputy Minister should dare to talk about self-discipline, because if he had applied a little more self-discipline to himself I would have had more respect for him. He told us at the time how many snaps he took from the air from a helicopter and then I said that this was the nearest he would get to agriculture for a long time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.