I move as an unopposed motion—

That the proceedings on the Roodepoort and Weltevreden Agricultural Settlements Adjustment (hybrid) Bill be suspended under Standing Order No. 75 (Private Bills) and leave be granted to proceed with the Bill next session at the same stage as that at which the proceedings are now suspended.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

As far as the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House are concerned, this debate followed the same pattern as past debates in regard to railway matters. The attitude which the hon. the Minister and members on that side have always adopted is this: Why do members interfere in railway matters; why do they not leave it to the railway staff associations to air their grievances? The hon. Minister did it again in his last speech. He said that the railway staff would much rather have their complaints and grievances brought to the hon. the Minister’s notice by their staff associations. I grant that in most cases that is the proper way, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister this: If that is the only proper way to do that, why does he bring Railway Estimates before this House, and why is there a discussion on this matter? Nevertheless, there are members in this House who represent the railway workers. The hon. the Minister has been adopting this attitude for a long time and I myself have on various occasions received a reply from him in this vein. When I bring railway matters to his notice he usually tells me that there are the usual channels through which the staff can make their representations. He is the only Minister from whom one gets this kind of reply, namely that the railway worker’s representations should be made through the usual channels; that the staff should bring their difficulties to the Minister’s notice through their staff associations. I want to say here to-day that in my opinion it is the wrong attitude to want to canalize the difficulties and the grievances of the railway staff through the railway staff associations only. Mr. Speaker, I was very upset about this, particularly when I read the report of the General Manager of the Railways. The General Manager’s report is the coldest, most impersonal report which I have ever read on any subject. Compare it with the reports we had in the past and which dealt with the working conditions of the workers and the improvements which were being made. I can see the hand of the hon. the Minister in this report, as the Minister does not want the just and legitimate grievances of railway servants to be brought to the notice of the public of South Africa by members in this House. He does not want us to bring these grievances to his notice. His point of view is that we should leave it to the staff associations.

A moment ago I referred to the General Manager’s report and I said that it was one of the coldest reports I had ever seen. Sir, I want to quote to you what I read in another General Manager’s report—

I am quoting this from the 1957 General Manager’s report. Do you see, Mr. Speaker, in those days the railwayman was still a person; he was not merely an item in the annual report. Then it was not yet the Minister’s habit simply to refuse to have matters submitted to him by members of the House investigated.

Danskraal.

The hon. member over there has reminded me of Danskraal. When I was speaking about Danskraal the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) told me I did not know what I was talking about, and the hon. Minister too has just told me that I am wrong when I say that there are certain works which have been standing in the Brown Book for years now, and that promises were made to me that improvements would be made. Let me quote what the hon. Minister said to me in the 1957 debate Hansard, vol. 9, col. 2576—

That is what the hon. Minister said to me on 11 March 1957. Since 1957 I have come to this House year after year with the same complaints and year after year I come up against and am brought up short by this attitude of the hon. the Minister, an attitude which has now spread to his General Manager, who submitted to us this annual report which was drawn up extremely efficiently, but is also extremely cold. This document is so cold that one cannot decide whether it deals with people or whether it deals with pieces on a chess board.

It has of course become the habit of the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side invariably to level the accusation that the United Party is against the railwayman. It was said again in this debate. When we pointed out the fact, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did, that trucks frequently have to stand for long periods on stations, he said that it was an accusation against the railwaymen. I want to state here that the Government, the Minister and hon. members on that side are making fun of the legitimate complaints of the railwayman, and I particularly want to have this on record. I want to have on record what the hon. Minister said to me in 1957 and in 1956 in connection with the railwaymen at Danskraal. On each occasion he cast it in my teeth that the railwaymen at Danskraal were Nationalists. The hon. Minister is wrong on that score. Some of the railwaymen are Nationalists but many of them are United Party supporters. However, I am not pleading for the United Party supporters only; I am pleading for all the railwaymen, for Nationalist Party as well as United Party supporters, and I am pleading for them regardless of how they are going to vote in this forthcoming election, as it makes little difference to me how they are going to vote. I am pleading for those people because I regard them as part of the South African nation; because I am looking to their sons and daughters and because I do not believe that they are a group of people who are going to remain in the railway service. I believe there are boys and girls who will leave the homes of railwaymen to go and work in other sectors of our economy. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that the Railways, as such, is the largest employer in the whole of South Africa, and that is why I repeat, and I want to have it on record, that we have complained year after year about the staff shortage. I want to have it on record that we have complained year after year about railwaymen’s housing and that we made representations year after year to the Minister in connection with the working conditions of these people. I want to mention one little matter which the Minister could easily improve if he wants to, and that is that he could easily improve the conditions under which those people are working by appointing a caretaker to keep an eye on the rest rooms and the wash rooms. I said in my speech—and I want to repeat it—that these rest rooms, and even the best rest room there, are hosed out once a week with a hosepipe. How can those people remain in good health and remain willing to work if they have to work under those conditions? Why can the Minister not appoint a caretaker to keep an eye on those buildings? There is only one Bantu in charge and he does as he pleases because there is nobody keeping an eye on him. Over the years this state of affairs has remained unchanged. If any change was made, then it was so slight that it is not worth talking about it. The hon. Minister told me that provision had now been made on the Estimates for the flash-butt welding depot and that work in that connection would be commenced. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of his Hansard, because under the new rules, as you know, Sir, copies are not so easily obtainable; they only appear 12 hours after the debate and unfortunately I do not have a copy of the Minister’s Hansard. However, the hon. Minister told me that great progress is going to be made this year with the flash-butt welding depot. Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. Minister about it as far back as 1956; I told him about it as far back as 1953 when I first came to this House, and of what avail has my raising of this matter during all these years been? If that is not callousness on the part of that side of the House then I do not know what callousness is. I am repeating here to-day that the people working at that flash-butt welding depot work hours and hours on end in the boiling hot sun. There are apprentices, young men, there who have to read the cards in the bright, boiling hot sun and they simply cannot do it. The sun is bright and there is no shade. It is an impossible task for those people to read cards in a broiling sun, with the temperature frequently at 95 and 100 degrees. Has it ever occurred to you, Mr. Speaker, that these men might have to be discharged before they have reached middle age because their eyes have given in? Has it ever occurred to the hon. the Minister that the conditions under which these people work will result in their being told at an early age that their eyes are giving in and that they cannot continue with their work, with the result that they will then have to fill an inferior post or might be discharged from the railway service?

There are many other things I can mention. One of the other hon. members here spoke of the road leading to one of these workshops or workyards. I would also like to bring the case of Danskraal to the hon. Minister’s attention. I wanted to tell him that there is no road going there. All that there is is two strips on which people have to drive. Danskraal is quite a distance from Ladysmith. These people cannot therefore walk there. I told the Minister about four years ago that those people’s cars have to stand in the sun. I want to tell the Minister to-day that I do not know how those people can stand walking on the floors of those workshops. Do you know, Sir, what the floor is made of? It consists of coal ash, of pieces of coal which have not been completely burnt out; this is thrown on the floor to cover the mud. These are the conditions in which the people have to walk from one workshop to the other; this is the sort of surface too on which the people have to stand and work in the open air.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a difference in the bonuses which are paid. There are people working together in one workshop who get different bonuses. In this case I am referring to the fitters. The inspectors, repairers and electricians working in the same place receive different bonuses or no bonuses at all. One case I came across was that of a man using a hand trolley to bring supplies needed by the workers from one place to another. He received a bonus of 10 per cent on his salary. He is entitled to a bonus of 25 per cent, but when he asked why he was receiving a bonus of only 10 per cent, the reply was, “you are using a hand trolley: if you were using a truck then you would have received a bonus of 25 per cent.” I do not know whether the hon. Minister has ever been to Danskraal. In 1956 he told me that he knew what the position there was. Prior to that, before 1956, I had invited him to accompany me there. I invited the General Manager to accompany me there and I invited the District Manager of Durban to go and see what the position there was. I do not know whether the hon. Minister knows what the position there is, but when he tells me that it should be left to the staff associations to bring these difficulties to his attention then I want to tell him that these people have already complained to their staff associations and that they received the reply from their staff associations that they simply could not make any progress; That no attention whatsoever was being paid to these smaller matters.

Then there is something new I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. If a person is entitled to a month’s leave and he asks for a month’s leave, then he is told that he must take his leave from the first to the last day of the month. If for example he wants to take his leave from the 16th of the month to the 16th of the following month he experiences endless difficulty; he must take his leave from the beginning to the end of the calendar month.

Then there are special grade drivers who have to work 266 hours per month, if they do not do so their overtime is not taken into consideration. Of course a driver can only work when he is called out and if he is not called out often enough to enable him to work 266 hours, the overtime which he does work is subtracted from his overtime and is added in order to make up his basic salary.

The hon. Minister poked a bit of fun at the hon. member for Yeoville after he had spoken about the shunters and explained how hard they had to work, and the hon. Minister also poked fun at me in this regard. I want to tell the hon. Minister that it is not something to scoff at or laugh at. He knows that he had special houses built in Danskraal to see whether he could not attract more shunters to Natal. There is a shortage of shunters on the entire Natal system and in this regard I want to mention what I experienced myself. The fertilizer I ordered for use on my mealie lands simply disappeared. My lands had been prepared but the fertilizer had simply disappeared. I telephoned the Section Manager in Durban and asked him to trace truck number so and so for me. Do you know where we traced the truck to? We traced it to Newcastle. The truck had already been standing for 27 days in Newcastle. The truck was standing to one side because there were not enough shunters. Instead of the full staff of 14 shunters at Newcastle there were only three men who had to do all the work. I am blaming the Government for those trucks having to stand there. I traced the truck very quickly but I had to phone the Section Manager in Durban in order to find the truck, and when the Section Manager made inquiries he found that this truck was standing at Newcastle, 27 miles from Utrecht. As a result of the tremendous staff shortage the truck had simply been shunted to one side and left there. We have heard here about the salary increases granted to the staff. The hon. Minister is of the opinion that in this connection he has done a wonderful thing. I told him that the increases had come too late and that the increases were too small. I want to tell the Minister that he should have increased the salaries of these people three years ago already. He should have done it last year. The Administration owes them three years’ back salaries, as it has been three years already since the cost of living went up to such a great extent, and it was three years ago that a start was made with this planned economy about which the Government has had so much to say.

But let us take a look at how much they really receive. Take the case of a driver on the Road Transport Service, a special driver. His monthly salary was R158. His future salary will be R168. The maximum salary which he can earn one day, if he has had enough service, is R170. He receives R5 as holiday bonus and under the new salary scales which are payable from October 1965 this, as I have just stated it, is the position. He will have an increase of R5 a month. I saw this pay sheet with my own eyes. But I like working it out in pounds sterling. This man, a special driver, received £79 a month, or R158 When he has reached his maximum, he will be receiving £85 a month on this increased salary scale. Is this a decent wage? You see. it has become part of the entire remunerating method of the Railways that unless the people work overtime they cannot live. They must work overtime in order to stay alive, and that is my difficulty with this Minister and with his whole management. [Interjection.] Someone has just said my arguments are weak.

No, I said you were having a blue Monday.

My Monday is not so blue as that of the railway officials. For them it is very blue. I realize now for the first time where that saying comes from. I shall leave it at that, but this I do want to say, and let it suffice. I think the Minister should change his whole attitude, he and his Management. When they receive complaints from members of Parliament they must have the complaints properly investigated and should not simply allow them to go through the usual channels, because by that time they would already have gone through the usual channels. It shows contempt for the members of this House when their voters come to them with legitimate complaints and the Minister refuses to take any notice of them. I want to content myself with saying that the attitude of that side of the House, as I said the other day, is the same in regard to the farmers of South Africa too. As soon as we say that these people cannot make ends meet and are having a difficult time, that they cannot live on their basic salaries—I am now talking about the railwaymen—we are told that it is all United Party propaganda for the election. [Interjection.] That hon. member was of course sitting there sleeping while I was talking and when I said that it did not matter to us whether a person voted Nationalist or United Party, but that what did matter to us was what sort of life that person was leading, how his wife and children were getting along, so that they could in the future be good citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has replaced the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) after the sound drubbing he received at the hands of the hon. the Minister of Transport the other day. The Leader of the Opposition then had no choice, but what really surprises me is that the hon. member for Yeoville has been replaced by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I have never before pitied myself for having to reply to a speech in this House, but this morning I pity myself, and I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: For Heaven’s sake, let us rather have the hon. member for Yeoville back. For what did we get from the hon. member for Drakensberg? A few complaints about individual cases where railwaymen had complained to her. I want to tell her that the South African Railways is a vast organization, and that for each dissatisfied railwayman she encounters, there are hundreds who are satisfied. And I am sure that if a railwayman had to talk to her, he would not, even if he is satisfied, remain satisfied for very long, because she would make him dissatisfied.

She has now told us about individual complaints from railwaymen, but if those complaints are true and if she wants to use them as examples of the great dissatisfaction existing among railway workers throughout the country, I want to ask her whether she is not aware of the fact that at the moment the relations existing among the Minister and the Management and the staff and the staff associations are of the best. Surely she must come into contact with the railwaymen to such an extent that she must at least be aware of that? Surely she must be aware of the good relations existing between the Minister and the staff associations? Surely she must be aware of the fact that the railwaymen throughout this country say that this Minister is the best Minister that they have ever had?

She said that the increases which have been granted came too late and were too small. She said the railwaymen should have received those increases three years ago. But is the hon. member not aware of the fact that the railwaymen received a substantial increase of nearly R24,500,000 three years ago, in 1962-3? Has she never heard about that?

That was four years ago.

No, it was three years ago. She mentioned the example of the special driver, who got R158 before the increase and now gets R168. I want to tell her that her information is incorrect. She is referring to a special driver. I want to mention the example of a driver Class 2. A driver Class 2 previously got R165, and now gets R185. [Interjection.] The hon. member should not speak now; I am speaking now. I had to put up with a great deal of annoyance and difficulty in listening to what she had to say, because she turned her back towards us and it was almost impossible for us to hear what she was saying, and if I am mistaken about the grade I apologize, but she need not be so impatient about that. The hon. member said she wanted to put it on record that the Opposition had complained year after year about housing not being provided to the railwaymen. But does not the hon. member know that in the 18 years of Nationalist Government R154,000,000 has been spent on the three different housing schemes in order to provide housing for the railwaymen?

You had no alternative.

The hon. member said we had no alternative, but the hon. member for Drakensberg said she wanted it placed on record that she was still complaining about the housing.

Of course.

You have still not done enough.

The hon. member said she wanted it placed on record that the Opposition had complained year after year about the staff shortage. But surely it is quite understandable that the staff position on the Railways should also be affected by the manpower shortage in the country? Surely that is a result of the tremendous economic prosperity we have had, which is also attributable to the sound financial and economic policy followed by the Government through the years? The other day the hon. member for Yeoville made the accusation, which was repeated by the hon. member for Drakensberg to-day, that this Government had planned for an economic boom but had not planned for enough people to do the work. But I should like to know from the Opposition how the Government should have done that. Should the Government have followed a policy of having redundant manpower, in other words, a policy of unemployment, during normal economic times? That is the only way to provide for sufficient manpower during an extraordinary economic boom. But the Government preferred to adopt the sensible course; it followed a policy of full employment during normal economic times, and that necessarily had to result in a manpower shortage during an economic boom period. I want to ask the hon. member for Drakensberg this question: Which would she prefer, large-scale unemployment in normal economic times, or a shortage of manpower/during a period of extraordinary economic boom and expansion?

I want both.

She wants both. The hon. member should really broaden her views on Railway matters. This morning the hon. member for Drakensberg made the same mistake here which the hon. member for Yeoville has been making year after year, which was to become so preoccupied with a few examples of irregularities, that she became blind to the great work being done by the Administration in meeting the transport needs of the country over the years, and in paying the staff well.

I want to mention a few grades in order to show how the salaries of railwaymen have improved over the past 18 years. A railworker’s salary has increased by 197 per cent; that of an ordinary shunter by 87 per cent; a clerk Grade I by 104 per cent; an artisan in the mechanical department by 114 per cent; an assistant foreman in the mechanical department by 128 per cent; a first clerk by 80 per cent; an assistant superintendent by 73 per cent; a fireman by 130 per cent; a driver Class 2 by 138 per cent; a station foreman, Class 2, by 171 per cent; a checker, Class 2, by 154 per cent; and a Railway Commissioner by 81 per cent. And during these years the cost of living increased by 70 per cent. From these percentages the hon. member for Drakensberg will notice that the Government cared in particular for the White workers in the low income groups, the railworkers, because they received the largest salary increase over the past 18 years. I say that the hon. member is making the same mistake as the hon. member for Yeoville in being so preoccupied with a few minor matters which are not as, they would wish them to be, that she loses sight altogether of the general running of the Railways.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville said the other day when he complained about the transport capacity of the Railways, about bottlenecks which had arisen. You know, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is a master in the art of making mountains out of molehills. Of course, there have been bottlenecks during the past few years, and nobody will deny that or wants to deny that. In a large country such as South Africa, with its urban concentrations, one may plan as well as one likes, but one will always come across bottlenecks in times when one has a growing economy. Bottlenecks will also arise as a result of certain unexpected factors, such as a sudden increase in traffic at certain places, drought conditions or heavy rains or snowstorms or derailments. These are all factors which cause bottlenecks, apart from the extraordinary economic growth experienced over the past number of years. But such bottlenecks do not give either the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Drakensberg the right to make the general accusation that there is something very seriously wrong in the Railways, that there is no proper planning, that there is a lack of efficiency or a poor management. 1 want to appeal to the hon. member for Drakensberg, and at the same time in his absence to the hon. member for Yeoville as well, to broaden their outlook. The hon. member for Yeoville should not just stand on a mine dump at Angelo and become entirely preoccupied with the shortcomings he sees there. He should make a greater sacrifice. He should climb the highest mountain peak in South Africa and try to see the whole of South Africa, and he should see how the Railway system as a whole operates. He should form a total impression of the Railways, and he, as well as the hon. member for Drakensberg, should place the mountain and the molehill in their correct perspective. If we look at the operation of the South African Railways as a whole, what do we see? We see, as the General Manager quite rightly observed in his report, that—

But if one looks still further, one sees the results achieved by the Railways. Then one sees that in the past year alone the Railways had, and handled, a record traffic, 104,000,000 tons of goods, which was 5.23 per cent more than that for the previous year, and 425,000,000 passenger journeys, which was 10.79 per cent more than that for the previous year. If the hon. member for Drakensberg also looked at the statistics supplied by the Minister, she would see that there was an increase of 17.3 per cent in the White establishment, of 23.4 per cent in the non-White establishment, an increase of 16.3 per cent in the carrying capacity, an increase of 106 per cent in the number of trucks, and an increase of 62 per cent in tractive power. If they looked at the results, on the other hand, they would see that the total tonnage of traffic increased by 98.4 per cent and the total number of passenger journeys by 74.6 per cent. Even the hon. member for Drakensberg has to admit that that is an attractive picture, and across that picture one word is clearly written, and that is the word “efficiency”.

I want to come to a matter in respect of which I think I was done an injustice in the second-reading debate by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I said that the hon. member for Yeoville was a master in the art of making mountains out of moleholls, but in the hon. member for Durban (Point) we meet the hon. member for Yeoville’s master. He is a past-master. Not only does he understand the art of making a mountain out of a molehill, but he also knows how to inflate a mountain into something much bigger. In the second-reading debate I referred to the fact that in the past 18 years the Nationalist Government had increased railwaymen’s salaries and wages by R190,000,000. I then asked what that meant to the railwaymen in terms of money, and then I said the following, and I want the hon. member for Durban (Point) to listen to my actual words, which he can go and verify in my Hansard—

That was all I said about the matter, and to my great surprise I had to listen that evening to a number of further statements about the matter being attributed to me when the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke. Without turning a hair he told the House that I had divided that amount of R1,600,000,000 by 18 years, and had then divided it by the 200,000 employees on the Railways, and that I had then arrived at the conclusion that each railwayman had received an annual increase of R440; he said that was how the workers of South Africa were being misled. I read the Hansard report of the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) very thoroughly, and he may go and read it again. Those were the very words he put into my mouth. He set up his own dummy and then knocked it down. Is he not ashamed of himself for attributing words to me which I never used? Anyone who takes the trouble of referring to my speech will see that I put two matters very clearly. Firstly, I said that the salary and wage increases the Nationalist Government had given the railwaymen over the past 18 years amounted to a total of R190,000,000; and as for my second statement, I want to challenge the hon. member for Durban (Point) to show me a place where I had tried to give out or had calculated that the salary and wage increases had amounted to R1,600,000,000 over the past 18 years. I did not do that. When I spoke about R1,600,000,000, I made it clear that as a result of the wage improvements of R1,90,000,000 the railwaymen had received R1,600,000,000 more since 1948. That statement and that figure of mine are correct, and I challenge the hon. member for Durban (Point) to prove the contrary, but then he must keep to the truth and to the truth only and must not attribute words to me which I never used; and if he cannot do that, he should have a strong enough sense of honour to apologize; and if he is not prepared to do that, the House and the country outside will know what to think of his speeches in future.

We have known for a long time.

I want to come to the hon. member for Yeoville, to an interjection made by him the other day while the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) was speaking. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville can get away with that interjection. When the hon. member for Parow said during the second-reading debate that at a certain stage the most prominent members of the Opposition had said that the Minister was wrong in his policy of sinking so much capital into the Railways, the hon. member for Yeoville, with an air of complete innocence, interjected: “who said that?” I do not know why the hon. member for Yeoville is always running away from his own words, because what did that same hon. member who asked so innocently on Friday: “who said that?”, say when he spoke the previous Thursday? He said this—

But the very next day, when the hon. member for Parow pointed out that, the hon. member for Yeoville made the innocent interjection: “who said that?”

Is that Government expenditure?

Yes, is Railways expenditure not also Government expenditure? But since the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has now made that comment and seems to be in doubt whether the Railways expenditure is also Government expenditure, I want to read to him—and he can pass that on to the hon. member for Yeoville—what he said about capital expenditure on the Railways. The hon. member for Yeoville said the following in 1959—

But when the hon. member for Parow said the other day that the Opposition had complained about the capital expenditure, the hon. member for Yeoville asked with the innocence of a child who had said that. I say I cannot understand why the hon. member is always running away from his own words. I do hope, though, that despite everything I have said against the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will restore him to his position as their main speaker, instead of calling upon the services of the hon. member for Drakensberg.

It is interesting to note the impression which the speakers on the Government side are trying to create that railwaymen are actually very rich people, that through the beneficence of this Government they have over the last 13 years or so, put R1,600,000,000 into the nockets of the railwaymen. In fact, it would be surprising to realize that you have so many still working, according to the impression which the hon. member who has just sat down has tried to create. Actually, the hon. member spent a lot of time giving us globular figures of the amount by which salaries have been increased. He has given us a considerable number of percentages by which the salaries of individual categories of workers have increased, but none of these figures bear any relationship to reality because there is no comparison made with the improved standards of living or with the increase cost of living, and there is no comparison made with the tremendous upsurge in the country’s economy. Anybody can look at the figures in the General Manager’s Report or the Estimates of last year to extract globular figures and globular percentages. They mean absolutely nothing in relation to facts and realities. I should like to say that one of the greatest weaknesses of the whole of the explanation and defence—and I say defence deliberately—of the Government side with regard to the increase in salaries, is that there appears to be no real scientific basis on which the whole subject is approached. We well remember when we put to the hon. the Minister last year that he is lagging very seriously behind in the assessment of increases in salaries in relation to existing circumstances, that he replied: “where am I to get all this money from? You are talking about figures which will probably amount to over R30,000,000 per annum. Where do you expect me to get the money from?” Yet, Mr. Speaker, without any difficulty at all and, one might almost say, with a mere stroke of the pen, the hon. the Minister increased the salaries by R36,000,000 and a whole song has been made about this. But I should like to know, and so would the country, on what basis are all these improvements being made? It is all very well to say that there is such a wonderful spirit of goodwill between the unions and the hon. the Minister. I do not necessarily decry this— there are quite a number of things which I think are very satisfactory about the hon. the Minister. We are not attacking the hon. the Minister personally because the hon. the Minister is probably trying to do his best. But we do certainly take exception to some of the laudatory allegations that have been made which do not necessarily bear any relationship to fact. I find for instance that in the Government Gazette Extraordinary of 2 February 1966—I thought that we might have an explanation in due course—that two commissions of inquiry have been appointed. One was appointed to investigate a dispute between the Administration of the South African Railways and Harbours and the Staff Association representing Group “B” servants of the Railways in connection with the revised wage scales applied with effect from October 1965 to the grade of senior fireman/senior driver’s assistant, driver (steam), (electric) and (diesel), ordinary and special class, and shedman, classes 1 and 2, etc. The other was appointed to investigate a dispute between the Administration and the Staff Association representing Group “D” servants of the Railways in connection with the method of application of the revised wage scales granted to trade hands with effect from the October 1965 nay month. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily all beer and skittles in the garden of this increase in nay because although it has satisfied quite a large section of the railway employees, there is a considerable number who are completely unhappy and dissatisfied with the increase in their salary scales. The point I should like to make is that we have to take into account—and I have dealt with this subject before— with greater concentration and in greater detail, the human side of the railway organization. The Railways have made tremendous strides over the last 15 or 20 years and, as has been said not only by this side of the House, but also by other economists, this is not due to a particular Government, but rather in spite of Governments. I make bold to say that next year and the year thereafter, there will be an even greater advance in the giant machine of the railway organization. During the 1964-5 financial year R130,000,000 went into additional capital investment and I am positive that year by year more and more money will go into capital investment. This is natural because this country is developing. We are among the countries with the greatest latent economic wealth that has hitherto been discovered and we are making discoveries year by year. We are reaching more and more parts of this vast South Africa and with that development must go this important institution of the Railways which was established by predecessors of the hon. the Minister, consisting of men who had vision and courage, and assisted also by administration which over the years has been the source of great pride to the country. But I must say that it becomes somewhat pathetic to listen to the great play that Government members are making and have made during the last few days of the sacrifice and devotion of the railway-worker and the lip-service that is given. Only when severely pressed do we eventually find that the hon. the Minister is obliged to give an increase in salaries which I say that had it been done on a more scientific basis, would not have resulted in spasmodic and haphazard increases which are given without any relation to reality. Mr. Speaker, the position is that we are living in a fast-moving world where the cost of living structure is becoming completely revolutionized, and in this great mechanical giant which is the transport system of South Africa we have lost sight of the real intimate human side of the railway-worker. If the hon. the Minister were to bring a policy before this House setting out a proper scientific basis so that the worker knows exactly where it is going to lead in the long run and so that he knows that his earnings will basically keep abreast of the continuous rise in the cost of living and the cost of the changes to which he must adapt himself in this nuclear and scientific age, then we will have a policy which can bring some satisfaction to this vast army of workers of which the Railways consist. We must remember that it is not only a question of the bare necessities of life in the existence of a worker. We must consider his living conditions, proper housing, clothing, recreation and particularly schooling and higher education for the children of the railway-worker. There is the question of his adaptability and his merging into the society in which he lives. There is the normal dignity of the individual.

These are conditions under which the work of railwaymen must be approached because we believe that at this stage that approach has not been fully considered and in fact many of the aspects of the approach to the railway-worker hardly bear any relation to modern trends. We find for instance the long hours of certain jobs to which reference has already been made. The hon. the Minister himself is most unhappy about overtime He is a man who has been through the mill himself and he appreciates the fatigue to which the individual is subjected and which is not only undermining his health but can even be a danger to himself and the public whom he serves.

Looking through the General Manager’s Report one sees that reference is made to public relations. I notice that the public relations department was attenuated during the 1964-5 year. This department only concerns itself with railway services and the public, and I should like to see a modern staff liaison set up which can be incorporated into public relations but which bears a relationship not with the public outside, but with the employee himself. We have had many complaints from railway-workers. These complaints are not necessarily in regard to the few matters which one is able to bring before the House, but there are numerous complaints of all kinds where these people are referred to specific channels. They have to adapt themselves to a certain technically laid down routine and, from the point of view of the worker’s future, it would be almost a crime for him to go to any outside source except the channel laid down in these regulations whereby the worker has disciplinary boards and disciplinary appeal boards. There is no other means whereby he can go to some individual and unburden himself, as he very often does to persons outside the Administration, always with the fear that he has no right to approach these people because in some way or another it may reflect on him. There was a suggestion in a motion which was on the Order Paper with regard to the appointment of an individual known as the ombudsman—a person to whom complaints can be made. I think that if one looks at the structure of organizations as large—if there are any at all, but certainly very large organizations—as the Railway Administration, you will always find that inside the administration there is some person or department to which the individual can go with his every-day complaints and problems. I think that this would make a very big difference to the whole spirit of the railway-worker, despite the fact that he is protected by the various staff bodies, trade unions, etc. There would then be an opportunity for him to plead and press for the rectification of any of his individual problems. Take for instance, the question of promotion. I do not want to make any assertions in regard to promotions which have not been satisfactory, unless I have a specific case which I can lay before the hon. the Minister and I will seek to do that in the normal manner. But I do want to say that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. It may perhaps be just a human weakness to be dissatisfied, but there is dissatisfaction. You get it in the ranks of all large bodies of workers—people feel that others have been unjustly promoted above them and others feel that because it is a Government organization there might possibly be other motives for others being promoted over them. Some find that they are completely frustrated because despite their ability and merit, they seem to make no progress at all. There may be many good reasons for this, but how is a man to bring that particular problem to the notice of the management of the Railways? It is a very difficult procedure—very difficult indeed. If, however, you have this particular office established in the Administration, a man might be able to have all his problems cleared up easily, and instead of having an unhappy frustrated employee, you have a man who at least is satisfied that everything that could have been done for him, has been done.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with another problem about which I have read and which 1 have discussed with one or two people. It is a problem which exists on the Witwatersrand, but which is not only peculiar to the Witwatersrand because I think it will be found in all big centres such as Cape Town, Durban and probably Port Elizabeth—that is, any system where you have a commuting form of transport, similar to the Randfontein-Springs line, the Cape Town-Simonstown line and Durban with its lines along the coast on either side. The Administration has brought at)out, and, I think, very happily and very much to the appreciation of the staff, a five day week for its salaried staff. The staff has a lunch-hour break from one to two o’clock, and the day is divided into working hours from eight to one o’clock and from two to five o’clock, which is an eight hour day.

Prior to this the staff used to work a six day week—that is, working a seven hour day from Mondays to Fridays, and, I think, four and a half or five hours on Saturdays, making a total of 39 hours per week. The five-day week provides for, I think, 40 working hours. This has virtually meant an increase of one hour per week and I think has saved the Administration on a voluntary basis approximately 500,000 man-hours per annum. This is a very big increase, and I understand that it has been given willingly and that it has given a great deal of satisfaction. But the problem which arises is this: There is a large body of the salaried staff that would be quite happy to work from 8-1.30 and from 2 to 4.30, which is still an eight-hour day. But there will be a half-hour break for lunch and it will enable the people to make use of transport half an hour earlier than the general public. I have had personal experience of this on the Witwatersrand, because I live at Florida and I find that I leave my own office at 4.30 or just before, if I am able, in order to use the railway transport which runs between Randfontein and Springs, a distance of 70 or 80 miles. Most of the people who work in Johannesburg, particularly those who work for the Railways, live out of the city. They live in the various towns along the Reef. I therefore think that this would be a very advantageous move which. I believe, would meet with the satisfaction of 90 per cent of the staff. I know that certain difficulties have been foreseen. If. for instance, this system were to be applied in all the coastal towns, you would find that it might be difficult to maintain communications over the lunch-hour period between offices in these towns and some of the inland towns, such as Bloemfontein, where the lunch hour would be 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. But, Sir, I do not think that that is an insurmountable difficulty because, when you work a five-day week, you are closed in any case on a Saturday and you have no communications on that day except urgent and emergency communications. I do not think that it would make all that much difference, but it could be a very important contributing factor to the time at which a person is able to get home in the afternoon without having to go through the unpleasant experience of having to stand most of the way. There has been a lot of talk on the Reef with regard to the staggering of hours in order to meet transport difficulties. That is not a new problem. In fact, one of the means of encouraging people to use public transport in preference to private transport, which is beginning to choke the streets of the big cities on the Reef, is to stagger working hours so that public transport can be used. Here is a means of doing that. Here we have to do with a large section of the workers, who travel almost entirely by train. This is a question which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

During this debate members on the Government side have made all sorts of silly assertions with regard to colour. It is interesting to note that the hon. the Minister, through the Administration, has now introduced a system of service to non-Whites on mail trains. I see that meals and refreshments are now served by proper stewards—I think Coloured stewards are being used—and it is quite clear that the Administration wishes to give all the satisfaction it can on long journeys. This is just an interesting matter which I noticed recently while coming down by train and I thought that it was something that could be commented upon.

With regard to the pipeline, which, I think, is going to give much satisfaction to the oil consumers on the Witwatersrand, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered, from the point of view of capital expenditure, whether he should not suggest to the Minister of Planning that it might be advisable to press on with this idea of another Sasol? He might find that by doing so we might perhaps make an even greater contribution to the oil supplies of the country than even the pipeline will. The pipeline, I think, is going to serve a very sound and useful purpose.

The Prime Minister announced that in his last speech.

Yes, I remember that. I have heard that matter debated and canvassed before, but I think that we should consider this question of an additional Sasol because I understand that we are getting 10 per cent of our oil from internal production at the moment. Certain things which have been happening in Southern Africa recently make us realize the importance of not relying only on a pipeline which will bring oil from the coast, because that oil is mainly imported.

Finally, Sir, with regard to salaries in general, I should like to say that I believe that it is not sufficient to quote to us from time to time repetitions of what we find in the various reports in regard to better hours, better holiday pay and improvements in various other directions. I think that the hon. the Minister, when he presents his budget to us in the next session, should bring us a proper plan on a scientific basis so that the problem of salaries and wages should not become a matter of desperation in the life of the railway worker. The railway worker should know that the cost of living and the standard of living and the economic advancement of a country will always be part and parcel of the basis on which his salary will be dealt with and that he can always rely on the Administration to make its own advances in the interests of the worker, and not wait for him to protest and get his union to press on his behalf for better wages, and to hold public meetings as happened during the last year. The worker should not have to find, when he finally receives an increase, that what he has received has been swallowed up in the increase in the cost of living, which has accelerated over the period that he has been obliged to make representation upon representation for better wages.

If there is one matter on which I can agree with the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) then it is that all of us who represent constituencies on the Witwatersrand, hope and trust that the day will come when the passengers who have to make use of the suburban train service will not have to stand from Brakpan or Springs to Johannesburg, but will also be able to sit down occasionally. That is virtually the only matter on which I can agree with this hon. member in the criticism which he levelled against the Railways to-day. I think the hon member for Florida made a very unfair remark about the speakers on the Government side when he said that these members were giving the impression that “the railwaymen are rich”. There is not one member on this side who gave that impression, namely that the railway worker, since the salary increase, is now a well-to-do and rich man. I think it was very unfair of that hon. member to have made such a remark. What these members did say is that this Government had always looked after the interests of its workers, within the limits of what the taxpayer is prepared to contribute to those interests. Then the hon. member for Florida comes along and says that the railwayman would very much like to know where he stands and whether they can plan his future in regard to housing, the education of his children and in regard to sport facilities. Mr. Speaker, is it not this very Government who made it possible for the railwayman to acquire housing, whether he lived in Johannesburg, Brakpan, Springs or any other place? This Government made it possible for the railway worker to be an honourable and respectable citizen in the best suburbs of our cities, precisely because it created facilities which enabled him to stay in a house of his own choice. Was it not this Government who created some of the best facilities for the railwayman’s children? The railwayman’s child to-day no longer has to take a back seat to the child of any other citizen in our country. His child can attend our best schools. The doors are open for them, and the facilities have been created for them. He has absolutely nothing to fear on that score. Let us now come to sport facilities. I think the hon. member would agree with me that the Railways may be proud of the fact that it has created some of the best sport facilities too for its workers—facilities which we are proud of. I think that to-day we, even here in Parliament, must admit as far as bowls is concerned, the best greens in the Cape Peninsula belong to the Railways. We can therefore say that the Government has really taken care of the-interests of the railway worker. But then the hon. member comes along and pleads for the establishment of a “modern staff liaison department”, so that the railwayman, in case he has problems which he wants to discuss intimately, can do so without running to his member of Parliament or some other person. My experience is, however, that the Railways, in its welfare department, already has those facilities, and that any Railway official who has problems which he would like to discuss, can already do so if he would only make use of these facilities. This is proof to us of the ignorance of this hon. member, it proves that he does not know what is going on ih the Department. My experience has been that the welfare department and its staff render the best assistance and give the best counsel to the railwaymen. If they have any problems, they are advised and they are always able to find a solution.

As far as overtime is concerned, I want to say that there will always be overtime in the Railways and not one of us will be able to eliminate overtime as the Railways to-day i|? one of the largest organizations in the Republic of South Africa. The Railways cannot continue to exist if there is no overtime. Sometimes it is unfortunate that very long hours have to be worked, but what can be done about this matter? The wheels of the Railways must be kept rolling and they can only keep on rolling if the men are on duty and are doing the work. If there is no one to replace those workers, they have to do overtime work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the hon. member for Drakensberg. She accused the Minister, saying that he took it amiss of the hon. members of the Opposition for taking up Railway matters and discussing them in this House, and that the Minister has said that the railway-worker’s affairs could best be dealt with through his staff association. A point on which I want to agree with the Minister is that when there is competition between the Minister and the staff associations as far as better working hours and increased wages is concerned, it is a reprehensible thing for the Opposition to want to act as mediator. They would then be doing the Railway officials nothing else but a disservice. If any member has taken up the case of a railway official in his constituency on behalf of that official, and provided that that case has already gone through the correct channels of his staff association, I do not believe that this Minister has ever been unprepared to listen with a sympathetic ear to that matter.

I can testify to-day, and I think every member on the other side can also testify, that if …

[Inaudible.]

That has not been my experience with this hon. Minister. All the members in this House will definitely testify to the fact that where we have gone to the hon. the Minister with a case and it was a just and fair case, the Minister has always given his attention to the matter. He has never ever discouraged anyone from coming to him with any problem which might have arisen in their constituency. We can also testify to the fact that this hon. Minister has always been prepared to listen with a sympathetic ear to any complaints with which we have gone to him. Just think of all the trifles raised during the course of this debate by hon. members on the opposite side. I think it is detestable that the main speaker on that side, namely the hon. member for Yeoville, should come forward with such paltry things that the Minister in his reply had to deal with them in a mocking way. The South African Railways is the largest undertaking in our country to-day. If this hon. Minister were not to apply disciplinary measures, or if he did not run things on a business basis, the hon. member opposite would be the first to condemn him. The Opposition want the hon. the Minister to deal with the Railways on a business basis, but the minute he applies disciplinary measures, they are angry at him.

We are not against disciplinary measures, we are against disciplinarians.

But how can one impose discipline without there being a disciplinarian? In my opinion that hon. member is in need of a disciplinarian as far as this matter is concerned. In any case she will be able to make application for such a post after this election. I now want to refer to the Railways employment offices and compliment them on the work they are doing and the way in which they are doing it. Many of us are very much concerned in this matter. We want to pay tribute to the staff of those offices, for the sympathetic way in which they are approaching the future railway official and for the attempts which they are making to send an applicant, whether man or woman, in the right direction, that direction in which they will be of the most use to the Railways and in which they will best be able to further their own future. I also want to express my thanks for the attempts which have been made (and for the sympathetic way in which it was done) to re-employ people who had had to leave the service on account of their health. The Railways Administration really goes out of its way to be of assistance to these people so that they may once more be able to become worthy citizens of our country. But let me point out that the Opposition is no longer taking any interest in this Railway debate. Just look how many of them there are on the opposite side. Why do they not take more interest? It is because to-day they have once more come face to face with the fact that the South African Railways is administered very well. Year after year the United Party comes forward with its complaints, but each time they come up against a rock wall which they cannot penetrate because they can furnish no proof of bad administration. No, Mr. Speaker, we must all agree that the capable way in which the Railways is being managed must compel respect from all of us. It not only compels respect from all of us, but also the respect of the business world and other people outside this House who count. The hon. member for Pinetown can laugh if he wishes, but even financially the Railways is fundamentally sound. No criticism can be levelled against it on that score. The Minister saw to it that the finances of the Railways remained fundamentally sound. Where he thought that certain claims were not in the interests of the Railways, he did not comply with them. He only gave way when he was of the opinion that the right time had come and that the Railways could support it financially.

This hon. Minister also succeeded in satisfying the Railway staff in regard to the conditions in which they have to work. Yes, hon. members can now say that there are people here and there who are dissatisfied …

[Inaudible.]

I won my nomination and all the railwaymen voted for me. They voted for me because they were satisfied about the way in which their affairs were being handled, in the first place by myself and in the second place by the Minister. But as far as the hon. member for Drakensberg is concerned, she will find on 30 March that the railwayman will reject her as she has never been rejected before.

Through efficient planning the Railways has been able to play a role in our industrial development. They have always been able to overcome any crisis. The Opposition and its Press want to create crises to-day. Each year, just before the winter months, it is predicted that there will be a tremendous shortage of coal on the Witwatersrand. Such a shortage has never arisen however, and that is the case because the South African Railways has always been able to carry the extra load which this entailed. In this connection it is only necessary to look at the tremendous development which has taken place in every province in the country. Look at the long distances this development covers. Yet we find that the South African Railways have always been able to cope with any new requirements. The South African Railways has never let the country down; but not only has it never let the country down; sometimes the South African Railways has taken the lead itself and tried to precede development. That is why we have to admit that the South African Railways takes pride of place in our transport system. We can be proud of the Railways, thanks to the actions of the hon. Minister and his staff, staff which stood by him loyally and which has, at times, done so under very difficult conditions. That is why we want to say thank you to the men in remote places, to the men in the head office, to everyone, no matter what kind of work they are doing, for the service they are rendering the Republic, a service which our nation will not easily forget. On the other hand the Opposition, with the criticism which it tried to level, will not achieve anything. On 30 March we shall once again obtain proof of the fact that the railwayman pays tribute to this Government for what it has done for them in past years.

It is obvious that the velocity of the hon. member’s enthusiasm ran away with him. He said all railwaymen were satisfied, but it is significant to find, Mr. Speaker, that at the present moment two commissions of inquiry have been gazetted for the purpose of dealing with the grievances of certain classes of the railwaymen in connection with the recent salary increases. So, if the hon. member had read the Gazette, he would have seen that not all railwaymen were satisfied. But yet, he came to this House to make such extravagant statements. He said the Railways had experienced no difficulty in the past year; coal supplies were delivered on time he said. The Transvaal in the winter months had experienced no difficulties in this connection. But I can tell him that that is not the position in Natal. I can point to a case, of which the Minister is aware, of a factory which had to close down on account of the shortage of coal. So, do not let us have such extravagant statements. I know the hon. member tried to make an election speech and was obviously anxious about the coming election. There are two principal matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I submit that all railwaymen are not satisfied with the excessive and systematic overtime required of them. One cannot in the long run expect to receive an efficient service if workers are systematically required to work excessive overtime, particularly on small stations. I have had railwaymen coming to me telling me that they cannot go on work 12 hours at a stretch week after week and month after month. I do not want to name particular stations because it may not be to the advantage of the staff concerned to be identified but, I am sure, the Minister too must be aware of cases where the staff on stations had to go on working overtime excessively week after week and month after month. Here I have in mind stations with a staff of three, each required to work eight-hour shifts. But on many stations you will only find two. each required to work 12-hour shifts. A shift of 12 hours going on day after day, week after week and month after month, must, of necessity, be to the detriment of the worker. It must result in fatigue and frustration. He cannot look forward to any time of leisure and, furthermore, he is tied to the Railways because it may be difficult for him to find other work.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication whether he sees any possibility in the foreseeable future of those railwaymen working excessive hours at the present moment getting some form of relief. While asking this, I particularly have in mind staff at small stations. As far as I can see the working of overtime by the running staff can only be put an end to when there is a series of accidents. In saying this, I do not suggest that all accidents are due to fatigue on the part of the staff but the hon. the Minister, from his own experience, ought to be able to say that accidents do occur as a result of the fact that staff have to work excessive overtime. But unless we have the necessary evidence, we cannot say that all accidents are due to fatigue on the part of the staff. There can be a variety of reasons. In relation to motorcar accidents, I think it can be said that accidents occur invariably when the driver is suffering from fatigue. So I should like to learn from the Minister whether he sees any hope in future of some relief being given to railwaymen having to work excessive overtime, some of them having given years of the life to service in the Railways in spite of the fact that through the years they have often been called upon to give long and excessive hours of duty. I of course agree with the hon. member for Brakpan where he said that overtime work is characteristic of a public system of transport. That such overtime work should not, however, be perpetual, that is something with which we cannot agree.

The second matter I should like to discuss with the Minister is the question of suburban transport. The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to this matter and said that he hoped that all people using trains as a means of transport would be able to get a seat. I know the Minister has always in the past when this matter was raised said that suburban transport did not pay. For this contention, however, he has never produced figures. Now I think the time has arrived where the question of suburban transport should be accepted by the hon. the Minister as being a social problem, because whenever the hon. the Minister’s Department is unable to take or convey all the passengers offering, he is contributing to the congestion of the public roads. The Minister, with his usual humour, may perhaps tell us that transport on roads is the responsibility of himself and the Department of Transport and not of himself and the Department of Railways which we are now discussing. But suburban train transport and road transport are the responsibilities of the Minister as executive head of both these Departments. In any event, the hon. the Minister should know that a fast electric train service offers the most efficient system for transporting large numbers of passengers as speedily as possible. In many of our large cities we have noticed that increasing congestion on road is becoming an almost insolvable problem. Recently the Minister sent some of his senior staff to Japan where suburban trains run on tracks of about the same gauge as those in South Africa but nevertheless traffic there is handled much faster than is the case here although under conditions which the travelling public in South Africa will never accept. They will not accept the way in which people are being pushed and herded into trains as is done in Japan. However, passengers are conveyed with such speed, that the Minister’s officials ought to have been able to learn certain lessons from that.

[Inaudible.]

I said our public would not accept the treatment. I qualified my statement deliberately in this way because I was expecting the Minister to react. Furthermore, the Minister recently himself took a trip to America, inter alia, to San Francisco, where he would have noticed, I presume, the fast railway service there. There, however, a wider gauge is being used with the result that trains can travel between 80 to 100 miles an hour. I cannot see how the San Francisco system can be made applicable to our conditions, and accordingly I would submit that the hon. the Minister’s visit there was not necessary. I do hope, however, that the Minister has been able to learn something there and that we will see the benefits of it in our transport system.

You will notice it in the marshalling yards.

The Minister’s intermittent interjections may serve a useful purpose but does not constitute a proper reply. I am not concerned for the present with marshalling yards, but with suburban transport in general. I submit that the time is overdue and that more consideration should be given to this question of suburban transport. This is necessary in the interests both of the public and of the railway servants themselves because I think it can be said that the majority of passengers on suburban systems are themselves railway servants.

Many of our railway servants live in suburbs because they are entitled to concessions on fares. This allows them to purchase homes and bring up their families in the suburbs in a more country atmosphere. But these people are finding that they are being let down by the Railways because the services it offers are not convenient. So, as I said before, I think the time is overdue that all forms of suburban transport—railways, motor transport, bus transport, and even monorail—should be given consideration by the Minister. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for an experimental monorail service to be provided in our big cities. I admit that opinions are divided on the question of the efficiency of a monorail service from a traffic as well as from a financial point of view. So I would suggest to the Minister he gives consideration to the introduction of such a service as an experiment for the time being in one of our larger cities in an endeavour to establish whether such a system can deal satisfactorily with suburban transport. People have to live either in the centre of our big cities or dispersed in suburbs. If they have to live in the centre of the cities, we will force our traffic upwards and we shall have to build higher buildings. But as the hon. the Minister knows, it is cheaper to move traffic horizontally than to do so vertically. So I hope we will not encourage our people to go up instead of going out. Accordingly the question of suburban transport becomes a burning problem. Roads cannot carry the increasing motor traffic.

Furthermore, I do not think it healthy from the public point of view that more and more cars clutter our roads because thereby the number of accidents is increased as is also the attendant problems of road congestion. I admit that congestion of the roads is not a problem with which the South African Railways are directly concerned but the S.A.R. function is to move our population by means of the railways. Our system of suburban transport has as a disadvantage the fact that the same lines used for passenger traffic are also used for goods traffic. In some countries, like Britain and Sweden, special lines are used for passenger traffic. That an efficient suburban transport system is the best method available, that is evidenced by what is taking place in Britain and Sweden to-day. The underground railways in London is introducing a new line in order to be able to handle additional underground transport. This has become necessary because it has been found that the road cannot cope with the additional traffic. The new Victoria Line is due to be finished in a year or so. In Stockholm a new underground line has just been opened. This has been done in an effort to tackle the vast problem of road congestion. There it has been found that, on balance, the most efficient way of moving traffic at peak loads is by means of electric transport. This is also confirmed by the Minister’s own policy.

In our Native townships the Minister, in Consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has found that the most efficient way of moving our Native people from their work to their homes is by means of a fast electric train service. The Minister may argue that this service does not pay, but it is a social responsibility to find the most efficient way of transporting large numbers of working people at peak loads from the towns to their places of residence. This, I submit, can best be attained by a fast electric train service. This has been done in Durban where a fast electric service is being provided between Durban and Kwa Mashu and to the new Indian township of Chatworth. The Minister has provided these services at these places because he accepts that that means of transport offers the best solution. But we should like to know when similar services are going to be extended to the entire community. They do not enjoy a fast suburban service at present. Take my own area as an example.

For years I have been campaigning for the old main line to be electrified, but it was only when there was a washaway on the new main line that the Minister capitulated and agreed to the electrification of the old main line. As far back as 1946 the then United Party Government had a survey made of the old main line and had even gone so far as to start serving notices of expropriation on people in the Pinetown area to provide for modernization of the old main line. But when this Government came into power, those plans were all abandoned. The problem still remains, however. To-day the time a train takes from Tongaat on the North Coast to Durban and from Umkomaas on the South Coast to Durban also Hillcrest to Durban is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago. There has virtually been no improvement in the time taken. It is true that we have had an electric train service and it is true that this is more efficient. But until such time as increased speed is possible and we can modernize coaches and until such time as we have the line straightened out as part of the modernization of the whole suburban system in the peri-urban area, we will continue to be confronted with increasing congestion on the road and increasing dissatisfaction among the railway people about the use of railway lines. Until such time will there be increased frustration on the part of the general travelling public.

All our major cities should face up to this problem of suburban transport, and so must the Minister in the interests of the travelling public as a whole. Therefore I should like to make a final plea to the Minister to consider the advisability of introducing a monorail system as an experiment in one of our major cities in order to determine whether or not such a system will solve our problems. It is certain that we cannot go on as we are going on now with road traffic increasing and greater delays occurring. Every time we increase the time of travel of our working population we assist to increase inefficiency because increased travelling time results in increased fatigue. For this reason I suggest that the whole question of travelling time of the worker from his home to his place of work and back again is an important social problem which warrants the urgent attention of the Minister of Transport in his capacity as administrative head of the Department of Transport as well as of the South African Railways. The Minister should take the initiative in this matter. If it requires additional finance, let the Minister then come to this House and put his case before us.

I have listened very carefully to the speech of my hon. friend who has just sat down. In his speech he alleged that the S.A. Railways was inefficient. But any person in the country who has carefully watched the activities of the Railways cannot possibly come to the same conclusion. I have already referred to this matter in a previous speech and consequently I do not want to be guilty of repetition. Even if one only looks at the increase there has been in the volume of traffic with which the Railways had to cope in recent years, and one looks at the manner in which it has in fact coped with that increased volume of traffic, then one has to admit that the South African Railways is a very efficient organization. The hon. member referred to a factory in Durban which had to close down because an insufficient quantity of coal was available. But apparently the factory owner concerned was not a person who planned in advance like the Minister and his Department. He simply did not make the necessary provision. I often visit factories and then I see large heaps of coal lying there. Apparently this man waited until the last of his coal was put into his furnaces and then said: “Now I want coal straight away.” One should bear the fact in mind that it takes a few days to transport coal from the mines to the point where it is required. There seems to have been bad planning on the part of that factory owner. That was the only complaint I have ever heard of a factory having had to close down on account of the unavailability of coal. I say that in this case the blame should be laid at the door of the owner and not at the door of the South African Railways.

Of course, one does have sudden cold spells —as I mentioned here the other night—when snow and frost cause a sharp drop in temperature. Only last year we experienced such conditions. That often happens in the interior at places far removed from the coal mines. Under those circumstances people who do not have surplus capital for supplementing their supplies experience difficulties. To-day I want to make an appeal to dealers—and especially coal dealers—to build up good supplies at an early stage during the year, in February and in March, which actually is the proper time to do so. They should not wait until June and July, when it is really cold, and then expect a truckload of coal to be delivered one day after they have placed their orders. That would be very bad planning indeed.

The hon. member once more discussed overtime. The other night I mentioned in this House that I had a few thousand Railway people in my constituency.

So have I.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance—and I am not exaggerating—that I have never received a single complaint from any railwayman that he has to work too much overtime. Not one single complaint. But I have received many letters from railwaymen in which they complain because their hours of overtime have been decreased. Stacks of letters. They complained because they were losing overtime payments.

They need that money.

Of course. But everybody needs money! It is not a question of the railwayman being too tired to work overtime. On many occasions and in different ways I have inquired from the men whether the hours they worked, when they also had to work overtime, were not too long. Their immediate reply was: “No, Sir.”

They are afraid that the overtime will be taken away.

No, that is not the position. But now the hon. member tries to get the railwaymen to believe that we shall take away their overtime. Sir, there has never been any likelihood of that. The United Party is trying its best to catch a few railway votes. It has been trying to do that since the year 1948. Well, it should have tried before that year, before we on this side came into power, to gain the confidence of the railwaymen. But they did not do that. No, they thought: “Those are a lot of Railway people, so why should we be concerned about them? How can their vote affect us?” But before they realized what was really happening, nearly 100 per cent of the railwaymen became National Party supporters. That is something which is hurting the United Party to-day. They want to get back the railwayman’s vote, and they realize that they are powerless and that they cannot get it back.

Sir, I want to mention the fact that since the commencement of this debate H hours ago, only eight members on the opposite side of the House have been in their seats. That is how much interest those champions of the railwayman are taking in this debate. Out of that number of eight hon. members, only three have any interest in the Railways. They are trying to gain the railwayman’s vote, while they themselves are not interested in the railwaymen.

The penultimate speaker on the opposite side once more referred to the question of wages. I learn from up country that the United Party is spreading the rumour that it was on account of its actions that railwaymen were granted increased wages and salaries. It is almost a shame that the United Party should make such a statement.

It is not a shame; it is a crime.

In the past they have had opportunities of doing something for the railwaymen. But they failed shamelessly to avail themselves of those opportunities. They did practically nothing for the employee. I do not want to keep on harping on the same point, but I nevertheless want to make a comparison once more between the circumstances of the railwaymen in 1948 and their circumstances in 1966. Since 1948 there has been an improvement of R190,000,000 in the wages and salaries of railwaymen. And now the United Party comes along and boasts that those improvements should be attributed to their actions. No, Mr. Speaker, the conduct of that party is such that it will receive less and less support from the railwaymen. We know what happened in the latest provincial elections. As the results became known hon. members on that side of the House lowered their heads more and more and when their heads were touching their desks, they got up and left the debating chamber. They were quite surprised that the people for whom they were pleading so fervently nevertheless did not vote for them. They could not understand why the railwaymen, whom they were allegedly helping so much, would nevertheless vote against them. What happened in Natal? Was that not a tremendous surprise? I could hardly believe the results when I heard them. And what happened in the constituency of Cape Town (Gardens)? Merely as an experiment we put up a candidate in that so-called absolutely safe United Party constituency. And what was the result? A difference of only 300 votes. Now I should like to know what is happening to the United Party? If they are such wonderful people who want to look after the interests of the country’s worker, why are they not receiving support? Are those people who do not want to support them too stupid to believe the United Party, or is there a difference between the things they are pleading for in this House and the things they are pleading for outside?

It seems to me De Aar-Colesberg is in danger.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is not in danger. The hon. member wants to create a different impression here, but I can assure him that my constituency is not in danger.

An hon. member on the opposite side once more raised a time-worn point in this House. He wanted to know what benefit the railway people would derive from the higher salaries as the increase would simply be absorbed by the increase in the cost of living. I waited on a reaction from that side, but nothing happened. Sir, I am the last person to deny that there has been an increase in the cost of living. But to a certain extent we are all pleased about the increase in the cost of living. Surely it is not such a wrong thing, because if products become more expensive, then the general standard of living of people is raised. I am afraid hon. members on that side do not understand me. If one’s wages are increased one’s product has to become more expensive, and one’s standard of living has to improve gradually. One’s standard of living is dependent upon the income of the person …

You are on dangerous grounds now.

Oh, no. You simply do not want to realize what I am saying. Hon. members want to keep the people right down. That side is not in favour of paying people a decent salary so that people can buy cars to drive about in. A man may not own a car. He should not live in a respectable house either. He should have a zinc roof over his head. That is what that side wants! One should bear in mind that since 1948 the cost of living has increased by 65 per cent while wages have increased by 122 per cent. Hon. members should write these particulars down because they are official figures. I want to bring that fact home to the opposite side. And because wages have increased by so much more than the cost of living in this country, the worker in South Africa is grateful, and they show their gratitude by voting for the Government.

One of the hon. members also mentioned railwaymen’s housing. I want to say here that large-scale provision has been made for Railway housing, for both single and married persons. Consider the number of Railway hostels which have been erected for unmarried railwaymen. They are beautiful buildings with active wardens who look after the interests of the men. The food too is very good. When I first became a member of this House there was not a single hostel in the country. Consider the progress that has been made in this respect. A young railwayman may apply for a position on the Railways and on arrival in a strange place he may not know where to stay. There may be no place to stay. There may not be facilities for unmarried men. But now hostels have been erected for those men and the recruit has a good place where he can stay.

The number of resignations on the South African Railways has also been mentioned here. Well, there is of course tremendous competition from the private sector, especially as regards wages and salaries. But, Sir, I have had the experience time and again that many men who resign from the Railways to go to the private sector, subsequently decide that they have made a mistake. After two or three months, or even after six months, from the date of his resignation, I receive a letter from the man and the letter simply states: “Sir, I have realized my mistake. I am a railwayman, and I can only make my living on the Railways. Is it possible for you to help me to return to the Railway Service?” I think the hon. the Minister’s office will be able to confirm the receipt of that type of letter. During the past few years that office must have received possibly hundreds of letters from me in connection with people who had resigned from the service and who wanted to return. And why should they not want to return? It is possible for anybody to make a mistake. It is only human that one should want to work for somebody who pays one R25 or R50 more per month than one’s present employer. Such an offer is tempting and the railwaymen decides to accept it. But after only a few months the ex-railwayman realizes that he will not go far on the course he has taken. There may for instance not be a pension fund. No provision is made for a house. Social facilities do not exist. There are no sports facilities. The man decides that he wants to return to his previous work and he then writes: “Is it possible for me to be re-employed?” I am pleased that I am able to say that in most cases such persons are reemployed by the Railways.

A very important point raised here was the losses suffered by the Catering Department of the Railways. It was said here that large losses were suffered. Well, let there be a loss. In any field, for instance in a farming or in a business undertaking, one always finds that a loss is suffered in some respect or other. It is humanly impossible to show a large profit in each branch of an undertaking. The fact remains that the catering service of the Administration is an essential service which simply has to be rendered.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the opposite side complained about the treatment they have received from catering staff on our aircraft, our trains and even from the office of the Chief Catering Manager. They said that in many cases the treatment had not been good. I really think it is scandalous to make an accusation like that. I often travel on trains, and the treatment I have received from the staff has always been courtesy itself. The courteous service I get from them is not on account of the fact that I am a Member of Parliament. When I sit in the dining car, I keep my eyes and ears open. I look around and I listen to what is happening about me, because I know that it may become necessary to make use of my observations. Consequently I have no alternative but to congratulate our catering manager very sincerely for the way the public is being treated both on our trains and in our aircraft. Let there be a loss. I do not deny that there is a loss. The figures prove that. But the catering service is a supplementary service—that service simply has to be provided.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the Railways as a whole, no loss is suffered. The hon. the Minister has mentioned in his reply to the second-reading debate that there will perhaps be a deficit this year. There are very good reasons for that. I, as a farmer or as a businessman, am able to plan my affairs in advance. It is possible for the farmer to plan in advance that he will have a wool production of 100 bales, but before the time for shearing arrives he may have lost one-third of his flock of sheep as a result of the drought. He then has 300 or 400 hides for sale, but he does not have the wool for export. These things can happen.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to put two important questions. The first question is: is the railwayman satisfied? My second question is: is the South African Railways able to meet the demand made on it? These are two major and important things. To the first question, namely whether the railwayman is satisfied, I have to reply: “Yes,” unhesitatingly. One will always find the odd railwayman who is dissatisfied because he or his wife does not want to live in a certain place. Perhaps the man wants to be near his parents or near his wife’s parents. He then requests a transfer and it is not always possible to arrange transfers according to the likes and dislikes of employees. It then happens that the man concerned does not feel happy and satisfied. Anyone who has made a study of this matter will know that an employee can be transferred only when somebody is prepared to swop places with him or when a vacancy occurs. A man cannot be transferred to a centre where the position he is to occupy is already occupied, because then one has double the amount of service in the one place and no service at all in the other. There may be persons who feel as I have described. But such employees should just be patient and believe that the Administration is always doing its best to help them where possible.

As regards the handling of the transport services, it has been proved time and again that the Railways is able to fulfil its task. In the year 1965 and during the first five or six weeks of 1966, tremendous demands w ere made on the South African Railways, much higher demands than ever before in the past. The South African Railways had to employ every means for transporting fodder, maize, lucerne, lupins, chaff, etc., as a result of the drought. Hundreds of thousands of head of livestock also had to be transported. I have no alternative but to congratulate the Railways very sincerely for having acted so efficiently in an emergency without other branches of the service having had to suffer as a result.

That is why I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that if I bear in mind how railwaymen have acted in the past, as well as what treatment they have received and are still receiving from, this Government, I do not doubt for a single moment that the railwaymen will do anything but express their full confidence in and give their full support to the National Party Government on 30 March.

Only one point arising out of what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down requires some of my time. I refer to his statement that there have been no complaints from railwaymen regarding their having to work overtime. According to him, the only complaints have arisen from the fact that their overtime had been reduced. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that statement is the pith and kernel of my plea yesterday. Because without a shadow of a doubt many young men on the Railways have had to live on their overtime remuneration because their wages and salaries were too low.

Nonsense.

The hon. member may say that is nonsense, Sir, but I have been in business in a certain railway centre for over 25 years, and time and time again railwaymen making purchases have told me that I need not fear about their not paying their accounts because of their overtime earnings, earnings which, they said, they would continue to receive for a very long time. Which every way one looks at it, Mr. Speaker, the working of overtime is bad. I have only to refer to the fact that over the years the trade unions have been campaigning—successfully, too—for reduced working hours coupled with adequate pay for the time worked. Therefore the hon. the Minister—and for that matter any other hon. member on the other side—must not pride himself on the fact that the railwaymen are satisfied with their earnings, because a large part of their earnings is overtime pay. Mr. Speaker, it is a glaring fact that there is a shortage of staff on the Railways and that the hon. the Minister is unable to fill many vacancies that exist. In order to improve the position the hon. the Minister recruited staff from overseas. Some of these people performed their work in a satisfactory manner, and some did not. The Minister has also resorted to re-employing pensioners. These measures are all good and laudable because the pensioner finds it difficult to exist on his pension after earning a somewhat higher salary over the years. What is more, Sir, in the old days the pensioner paid his contributions in good hard cash, but when he draws his pension he receives a depreciated currency. The result is that the pensioner cannot buy with his pension money, what he thought he would be able to buy when he contributed good money years and years ago. So let us for the moment forget that an election is round the corner, because on balance I think it must be conceded that the United Party people have pleaded with the hon. the Minister for increased wages and salaries for railwaymen to a far greater extent than hon. members on that side have done. The fact that the staff associations have been pleading—with some measure of success—for increased salaries and wages indicates that there were grounds for our pleas, and therefore it is clear that the United Party and not the Nationalist Party should get the credit for assisting in obtaining these higher remunerations.

At the moment two commissions are dealing with grievances arising out of Railway pay scales, and when in the course of the second-reading debate I asked certain questions and raised certain points dealing with this fact, the hon. the Minister—to my great sorrow and regret—failed to answer me to any degree. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what I must do to get him to deal with the points I raised with him. Because, Sir, all the Minister said was that the Coloured people have his sympathy. I am afraid that sympathy has no cash value. Sympathy finds no jobs. Sympathy gets no promotions. Sympathy creates no opportunities. All that sympathy does is to provide tears. Because, Mr. Speaker, the Minister studiously avoided the plea I made for the creation of a pension fund when last year he asked me where he had to get the money from. Sir, I return the question to the hon. the Minister: Where did he get the money for the increases for the White staff? He obtained the funds from where the other Ministers obtain theirs—out of the taxpayer’s pocket and the pockets of people using the Railways. That is the right place to get it and that is the place where the funds must come from for the creation of a pension fund for the non-White staff of the S.A.R. & H.

I also asked the hon. the Minister whether he would consider paying a cost-of-living allowance to those servants in the lower income bracket. The hon. member for De Aar-Coles-berg said that because wages and salaries are increased, therefore the cost of living also goes up. Of course it does. And it goes up for all people on the Railways, including those in the lowest paid groups. There are no half-price or low-price shops where these unfortunate people can buy the necessities of life at a reduced price. These shops do not exist. I was, frankly speaking, disappointed because the hon. the Minister did not reply in any way to the plea I made to him on behalf of these men. Apparently it is a matter of no concern to him that I should ask for the establishment of a widows’ and orphans’ fund which will ensure that those Coloured women and children who lost the bread-winner—or pensioner supporting the family—will have some comfort and security in old age.

The Minister also failed to reply to the point I made regarding the integration or otherwise of the 100.000 non-Whites employed on the Railways. Are these people integrated into the service or are they mere temporary sojourners, temporary employees whose services are going to be dispensed with? The answer obviously, Mr. Speaker, is No. These people are in the service and they have been there for a long time. Yet we have heard hon. members on that side alleging that all the United Party wants to do is to integrate the Coloured and Black man into the service, to the detriment of the White employees. That is absolutely false. That is not the intention of the United Party at all. There are 1,500,000 Coloured and 3,000,000 Whites in the country. I have said it often enough, and I repeat, Sir, that there must be a fair share of all jobs going which these people should and can fill. It is the duty of this hon. the Minister to find ways and means of achieving this.

This is not a political matter. It is a plain, straightforward matter of economics. Here we have a railway system employing people, who should be in retirement and drawing their pensions, because they cannot live on their pensions. We have people—especially young men —working overtime when they should be enjoying life with their families. Attempts are made all over the world to recruit staff for the many vacancies existing in the Administration. I say quite unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister needs the men and the Coloured community can provide them. Why do we not make use of them? I ask the Minister this question plain and straight. Why can we not use these people to an ever-increasing extent? The Railways are expanding and developing. New industries are established. All sorts of activities are taking place. The Railways must —and do—serve and cater for all these projects and undertakings. Whether the Railways provide these services in an efficient way is not a matter for me to discuss at this stage. But what I do say, Sir, is that the one and only solution which is in the hands of the hon. the Minister is to look about him and find ways and means of employing more and more Coloured men and women too. By employing more of these people the Minister will place the Railways on an efficient basis and also cut down on overtime. Pensioners will be able to enjoy their old age instead of going back to work. I repeat what I said during the second-reading debate, namely that no Coloured man or woman wishes to be employed in the Railways—or in any other Government Department for that matter—at the expense of a White colleague and fellow. I think it is time that that attitude was abandoned. Instead we should have regard to the merits of these people as to what they can and cannot do. Training should be provided for them to enable them to fill a variety of posts. If the process be slow, well and good. If it be a faster process, then it will be even better. If the hon. the Minister is sincere in his intentions towards our country, he should take heed of the fact that there is this huge labour force in the country, waiting for opportunities, willing to work, and most anxious to get started.

I should like the Minister to tell the House why the hon. the Minister, when I asked him to consider the appointment of a committee— or a commission—to investigate ways and means of employing Coloured persons in various departments and spheres on the Railways, failed to reply and fobbed me off with the single sentence, “The hon. member knows that these people have my sympathy.” As I said, Sir, sympathy is of no use. It has no value. Our country is bursting at the seams, it has tremendous wealth, and above all things, it has a wealth of people. Yet here we have a law-abiding community, people who have lived with us for 300 years, who have worked and fought with us, people who want to be with us and who are in fact part and parcel of our Western way of life, who are not used as they should be. I plead with the hon. the Minister to please use them and make of this country what it should be, namely a place of harmony, peace and concord.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch upon a matter concerning the South African Airways. We now find that the Airways has created a problem for us precisely as a result of its efficiency. The South African Airways is so efficient that it has been possible to decrease the number of aircraft operating between various centres, and that passengers are now conveyed from one airport to another in a minimum of time. The efficient operation of the Airways is also responsible for our exceptionally good and smooth service. And now I come to the real problem, namely that we are rapidly reaching the stage when it is going to take longer to get to the city from the airport than it has taken to fly from one airport to the other. I have already said in a previous debate that it only took from an hour to an hour and a quarter to fly between Johannesburg and Durban. If one has to catch the afternoon flight from Johannesburg one encounters such a congestion of traffic and so many problems on leaving the city that it takes almost longer to arrive at the airport from the city than it takes to complete the flight. We realize, of course, that in the first instance the question of roads is not the hon. the Minister’s concern and we know that he has given some attention to the question of roads. Perhaps it will not be improper to pay Cape Town a compliment in this respect. The airport at Cape Town is one from which one can reach the city without any inconvenience, which is a good example for other air centres in the country to follow. We shall have to conduct a thorough investigation in order to determine in which way it will be possible to accelerate our air traffic between termini and how it will be possible to make the winding-up of the flight more convenient for passengers.

It is interesting to note in passing what has happened in a previous debate in this House. Merely for interest sake and with a view to the matter possibly being examined, I put forward the idea that we should investigate the question whether helicopters could efficiently be employed as a means of transport from the airport to the various termini in our cities. The Cape Argus then thought it proper to present the idea as something ridiculous. They published an article on the matter and made quite a number of inane remarks. It is interesting that Assocom, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, deemed it fit at their annual meeting to appoint a committee to investigate this specific subject, and now the suggestion finds a very agreeable and welcome place in the papers of the Opposition. Now it is something valuable because it comes from a source other than this honourable House. Mr. Speaker, that is so typical of what happens to all constructive ideas coming from this side of the House. They are pooh-poohed and concealed by the Press supporting the Opposition, and the public of South Africa is made to believe that the only constructive contributions to these debates always have their origin on the other side.

That is true.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) says that that is true. Now, it is also true that he has the ability of putting his brains into neutral while his tongue speeds along happily in this debate. That is a great advantage which many of us do not have; that he has that advantage is something for which we can but envy him; it is an asset which can serve him well in these debates.

I say that it is typical of the mentality of the reporting of newspapers supporting that side of the House that the only constructive contributions to debates always come from that side. I hope that the public outside will note that hon. members on this side of the House also have constructive criticism and that they try from time to time to point a finger at things in respect of which a change or improvement may be justified. When that is done and when it is reported in the Press, hon. members on the opposite side say the opposite. They say that the Press is only reporting this side of the House. No, the fact is that hon. members on the opposite side are speaking while they keep one eye on the election. They are aiming at their voters. It is very conspicuous that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has now become the main speaker on Railway matters on that side of the House. All of a sudden she has now become main speaker on Railway matters. Where is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)? His absence is conspicuous. Perhaps there may be a good reason for his absence and then I do not want to be unfair towards him, but it is very conspicuous this morning after the hiding the hon. the Minister gave him in a previous debate, that he deemed it fit not to be here this morning. I have not heard one excuse from any of the members on that side for his absence. Perhaps there is a reason and I do not want to be unfair. If there is a reason, I hope that it is not a serious reason. But it is conspicuous that the hon. member for Drakensberg has now become main speaker on Railway matters. There was a time when she was addressed as the hon. member for Danskraal by mistake, but it is somewhat difficult to understand how she has suddenly progressed to the status of United Party main speaker on Railway matters. Seeing that she is now making her swan-song in this House, one would expect her to choose some subject other than the Railways which will efficiently and effectively help to transport her from here to a place from which she will not return.

If the hon. member who has just sat down had been here during the whole of the debate he would have known, as the Minister knows, that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) indicated that he would not be here to-day. The Minister had that information and it is a pity that the hon. member did not have it as well. I do not know whether it is accepted on the Government side that every member must be here all the time. I should imagine that at this moment there are at least 30 to 40 Government members away; we accept that as normal, so I do not think he should make a point of this issue. Then we had the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la Rey Venter) drawing attention to the fact that there were few members on this side of the House. On Friday, Sir, I had to draw your attention, on a point of order. to the fact that there was no quorum.

You will not be here after the next election, don’t worry.

Sir, that type of interjection indicates over-confidence on the part of the Government. There is many a slip between the cup and the lip.

In any event, I am not going to deal with that particular aspect. I want to deal with one or two things that were said by the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg). The hon. member has made it clear that if we want to make progress it is inevitable that there will be an increase in the cost of living. He gave us certain figures here which indicate, according to him, that the workers should be very much better off now than they were in 1948. He says that as far as railwaymen are concerned wages have increased by 122 per cent since 1948 whereas the cost of living has increased by only 56 per cent.

He said 65 per cent.

I accept that correction. Sir, I would like the Minister in his reply to give us a break-down of the 65 per cent increase in the cost of living. I should like to have that figure explained. How do they arrive at the answer that there has only been an increase of 65 per cent in the cost of living since 1948?

You should put that question to the Minister of Economic Affairs. I accept his index.

When we look at the index we find nothing to support the statement that the cost of living has risen by 65 per cent since 1948. The present index is based on the the cost of living being 100 in 1958. How do

we link that up with 1948? That is the comparison which is being given to us by hon. members opposite. In 1958 the cost of living index was 100 and at the present time the index, taking all items, is roundabout 115. I want to know how hon. members opposite arrive at the conclusion that wages have increased by 122 per cent since 1948 and the cost of living by only 65 per cent. The suggestion, of course, is that for every 1 per cent increase in the cost of living there has been a 2 per cent increase in wages. I do not know how these figures are arrived at and I feel that we should get clarity in this regard. I fail to understand these figures. All I know is that, as I said on Friday, the ordinary housewife will not accept that she is better off with the wages earned by her husband to-day than she was in 1948.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg went on to refer to hostels. Sir, there were hostels before 1948. There are newer ones today. New hostels had to be provided because of the large increase in the number of Europeans employed in the Railway service and because of the fact that men had to be transferred to areas where there was a shortage of manpower and housing. I want to remind the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg and the hon. the Minister that when we on this side suggested that it was necessary for houses to be built at a time when there was a considerable shortage of manpower the hon. the Minister who was then in charge of Railways said that that was ridiculous; that his job was to provide transport, not housing.

I started building houses when I became Minister 11 years ago.

Exactly. If the Minister will look at the record of his predecessor he will find that I personally asked him to have houses built as a means of solving the manpower crisis in certain grades, and the Minister’s predecessor turned that suggestion down. That was why he was thrown out of his job. This Minister was then appointed and he started to provide houses. Those are the facts. When criticism is put forward of the role being played by the Opposition as far as Railway matters are concerned I am prepared to state that far more constructive suggestions have come from the Opposition side of the House than from the Government side. Government members appear to leave all these things to their Minister and they say “thank you” to the Minister time and time again. Take this debate, for example. What constructive criticism have we had from the other side?

Surely you can do better.

Is the hon. member asking me for more suggestions to help the Minister to run the Railways more efficiently? You see, Sir, it is no use criticizing the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have done their job very well as far as the Railways are concerned; we have put forward suggestions from time to time. The Minister although he did not accpet it at the time, accepted them later on. What more can we do in that regard?

The Minister did not reply to me when he replied to the second-reading debate and I am in this position that I am not able now to anticipate what he would have said had he replied to me, but I should like him in his reply to this debate to indicate, firstly, why it is that the pensioners who are at the lowest rung of the ladder, i.e. Coloured and Asiatic pensioners, have not received the increases which have been given to European pensioners. I put a question on the Order Paper with regard to changes which have been made in the allowances paid to White, Coloured and Asiatic Railway pensioners since 1 April 1959, and I went on to ask what further changes were expected to be made as from 1 April 1966. It would appear from the reply to my questions that an increase was granted to the Whites as from 1 October 1965 and that a further increase is to be granted to them as from 1 April 1966 by way of a bonus, but as far as the temporary allowance is concerned …

NonEuropean pensioners are also going to get an increase.

I have raised this matter because there was no indication in the information given to me that they were going to get any increase at all. [Interjection.] With effect from 1 April 1966 certain pensioners in group 1, i.e. Whites, will receive a bonus on the following basis: Where the pension, excluding allowances, exceeds R150 per month, the allowance is decreased or falls away if the pension is R154 or more in the case of a married pensioner or R152 or more in the case of a single person. There is no indication whatsoever that there was going to be a proportional increase for Asiatic and Coloured pensioners with effect from 1 April 1966.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing with the new proposals for the payment of an additional bonus to certain pensioners and it appears that the Minister and I were at cross purposes. I was referring to a reply which I had received from the Railway Administration, in which I had asked for information dealing with Railway pensioners. In this reply reference was made to those who are in receipt of Railway pensions as well as Railway gratuities. It would appear, as far as I can understand, that increases have been given to Railway pensioners but not to those who are in receipt of gratuities. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister in his reply will indicate whether this was an oversight or whether the intention is that all those who are in receipt of gratuities are also going to be given some financial relief although perhaps not to the same degree as Railway pensioners, to enable them to combat the ever-increasing cost of living.

The other issue dealing with pensioners is tied up with the decision taken as a result of the joint efforts of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Railway Administration and the Inland Revenue Section of the Department of Finance. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to one issue specifically and that is this: With the introduction of PAYE Railway pensioners find that they are being asked to contribute by way of PAYE deductions in respect of a pension which the Railways are paying out but which is recoverable from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions at a later date, that is to say, the War Veterans Pension. The point I want to make is that war veterans’ pensions are not taxable, and the only consolation which is being given to Railway pensioners is that if they find that deductions have been made from their pay vouchers in respect of war veterans’ pensions they have to submit a claim to the Department of Inland Revenue for a refund. Sir, this is a most difficult thing for them to do. They are not in a position to know what portion of their allowance constitutes a war veteran’s pension, what portion constitutes a temporary, allowance or an allowance paid on the minimum scale. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look into this question. I believe that in the case of the majority of railwaymen who are in receipt of pensions PAYE deductions could very well be suspended and that any recovery that has to be made could be made annually instead of following the very difficult suggestion which has been made to them now. that is to say, that if they find that they have been overtaxed by way of PAYE deductions they must submit a claim to the Department of Inland Revenue. It is extremely difficult for them to establish the figures on which to base their claim.

I have no intention of dealing with the wage and salary increases which have been agreed to between the Minister and the staff associations, but the hon. members for De Aar-Colesberg and Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and others have made it necessary for me to deal with this question so that we can get the record straight. During the Railway debate last year we asked the Minister to grant increases to the Railway staff. I do not think anyone will deny that fact. What will not be remembered is the Minister’s reply. His reply was: “where am I to get the money from? Are the Opposition prepared to vote for an increase in tariffs to make it possible to increase wages and salaries?” Our answer, much to the Minister’s surprise, was: “Yes, we would be prepared to vote for an increase in tariffs if that is the only way in which the money can be found to give the well-deserved increases to the personnel on the Railways.”

What has happened now? The Minister has indicated that these increases will cost in the region of R35,000,000 per annum and that he may have to draw upon the Rates Equalization Fund to balance his 1965-6 Budget. Sir, I remember that when we debated this matter at length in the past we were told that the Rates Equalization Fund was the railwaymen’s best friend, the railwaymen’s best insurance in times of need. I might mention in passing that this Fund was also established by a United Party Government. The Minister made the point that he might have to draw upon the Rates Equalization Fund to balance his Budget. Sir, we have no quarrel with that because I think at the present time, or rather as at 31 March last year, there was a credit balance of over R50,000,000 in the Fund, and this fact alone means that the Minister could have paid these increases as from 1 April last year instead of from 1 October 1965. We cannot understand why the Minister refused to entertain the idea of increases early last year when his Railway finances were better than they are at the present time, and yet he has now agreed to the increases at a time when he finds that Railway finance are not so buoyant. I say that the Minister’s record in regard to these increases, is not one of great consistency. You will remember, Sir, how he dealt with this in the past.

It was because-of the uncertainty surrounding the whole question of wage increases and because of the continual rise in the cost of living index that my Leader and other speakers on this side asked for the re-introduction of the cost-of-living-allowance system. We believe that the re-introduction of cost-of-living-allowances is the only effective way of protecting the purchasing power of the workers’ money. The system worked very well during the war years, and in those years it was introduced in consultation with the staff associations, both inside and outside of the Railway service. You will remember, Sir, how this system was stopped. Cost-of-living-allowances were frozen without prior consultation between the staff associations, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance. The system was eventually abolished and, Sir, you will remember what happened when after many years the cost-of-living-allowances were finally consolidated with basic wages.

When the discussions on the question of consolidation took place I think the Minister drove a very, very hard bargain indeed with the staff. He said this, in effect—

I will consolidate all cost-of-living allowances with basic pay, but I can only do so if the staff associations agree to a different basis of calculating overtime, Sunday time and bonus work payment.

The staff associations were in a difficulty. Consolidation meant better pensions and more stability, but the price that had to be paid was cheaper overtime and bonus working. There you have it, Sir. The Minister drove this hard bargain and I think there are still ripples of dissatisfaction over the fact that overtime and bonus payments are cheaper today than they ever were in the past. But the Government’s record in so far as the granting of increases to the staff is concerned is not as hon. members tried to make out. We all remember how the Minister has acted over salary increases in the past—no increases unless financial provision was made in the annual budget. We all remember the Minister saying that in this House. When we pleaded for improvements he said he would not make any improvements unless they were budgeted for annually. But he never kept to that promise. All the increases since that time have come about apart from the budget, which meant in fact that we never had an opportunity of discussing the merits or otherwise of the increases. They were all done during periods when Parliament was not sitting. We remember strikes and threats of strikes and how the Minister met that problem. He amended the Act. No strikes in any shape or form can now take place. These are the things which happened under the direction of this Minister. When we have said from this side of the House that we wanted increases for these workers and when we battled for the railwayman, we found that Government members continually attacked us on every opportunity they got, and they condemned us for the part we played in trying to improve the lot of the railwayman. They say, in effect, that we have done nothing and that the Minister has granted these millions and millions in increases to the staff. They were not granted; they were forced out of the Minister by the staff. The staff had to battle and had to go to all sorts of lengths to get the Minister to make these concessions. When I listen to the debates in this House from hon. members opposite who have never raised their voice at all in defence of the lost purchasing power of the wages of the workers, and particularly the Railway workers, they always praise the Minister after the Minister has been forced to do, these things by the staff associations. That, I think, is something which they will not tell the electorate before 30 March.

As I have said, we believe that the re-introduction of the cost-of-living allowance system, if properly applied, will be in the best interests of the staff. The consolidation can take place at intervals when it is clear that there will not be a considerable drop in the index figure. That will ensure that overtime and bonus work payments will not lag behind. The system at present being followed by the Government is not satisfactory and creates many hardships on a section of our community which can least afford it, the wage and salary workers.

Now, in the short time I have I did intend dealing with a further aspect of the manpower difficulties, but I am quite sure, Sir, that you will draw my attention to the fact that my time has expired and so I will leave it at that. [Time for debate expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have not really had a great deal from the Opposition to which I have to reply. As a matter of fact, the debate has been a bit disappointing to the members on this side of the House, because they have had nothing to fight against. However, there are a few matters which I think I should deal with, because I know the speeches which have been made will, of course, be read out during the election in order to show the railwaymen outside how the hon. members opposite have looked after their interests and have been their champions.

Before I come to that, I think it is only right that I should correct an erroneous statement which the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) made this morning about Hansard. The hon. member said—and I am quoting from her speech—

The position is that speeches made during the last hour of the day, or speeches made after the supper adjournment, will normally be available not later than 12 o’clock the next day. However, if Hansard is asked to do so, they will see to it that copies of the speeches are available sooner the next morning. Speeches have never been available 12 hours after a debate, and in regard to the debate on Friday, the 4th, the entire debate, including my speech at the end of the day, was available at 9 o’clock on Saturday morning. The Editor of Hansard was in his office from 8 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and the hon. member for Drakensberg did not come to ask to see a copy of any of the speeches. Other hon. members did so and read several of the speeches. The new rules regarding the perusal of speeches make it far easier for members to peruse a speech, and if they want a copy they have only to ask the Secretary to obtain Mr. Speaker’s approval and the copy will be provided. I am just putting this right on behalf of Hansard. I should not like a wrong impression to be left.

*I see that the hon. member for Drakensberg is not present, but she said something which I think is very important and, for the sake of clarity, I must put the matter right. She alleged that I had said that members of this House did not have the right to raise matters concerning the staff. Then she asked why then were the Estimates brought before the House? She said that she regarded it as a humiliation for the members of this House if I said that they should not raise the personal affairs of railwaymen here. I should like to state my attitude very clearly, because I expect that her speech will be read during the election campaign, and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. It is quite correct that I have always adopted the attitude that, on the one hand, the railwayman should make use of his normal official channels if he has grievances and, on the other hand, as far as conditions of service and the improvement of wages are concerned, the staff associations are quite capable of managing the affairs of their members. They have all the details. They know the facts and they know the members and the circumstances. Hon. members on the opposite side know nothing about the real circumstances, and it is much better that the staff associations—and they rely on that—themselves should look after the interests of their members. There are three very good reasons for my adopting this attitude. The first is that I think it is unhealthy and wrong that the railwayman should be a political football. [Interjection.] The Opposition is the cause of that. They are trying to make political capital out of that, as this debate has shown once again. They come along with cock-and-bull stories, and with incorrect facts, and they reveal a lack of real knowledge. They would make any demand and any promise and any request with only one object in view, and that is to get the political support of railwaymen. I maintain that it is in the interests of the railwayman himself that he should not be turned into a political football. That is the first reason, which, I think, is a very important one. The second reason is this: At present the staff associations represent between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the railway workers, and the authority of those staff associations is being undermined. Their prestige and their status suffer when hon. members raise matters here which really fall under them. They have managed the affairs of their members all these years, and they have done so very well, because the leaders of those associations are competent and responsible men, and discussions take place regularly. Conciliation machinery has been established, and they are making use of it. For that reason I maintain that it is really for the staff associations to bring these matters to the notice of the Minister, and not for the members of the Opposition. The third reason is this: that, if I simply had to accept that each railwayman who has a grievance should go to his Member of Parliament, it would undermine the discipline of the Railways, and that is wrong. Any man here who has managed an undertaking himself and has borne responsibility for a group of workers himself, will realize that, if every railwayman were allowed to go to a Member of Parliament when he had some or other grievance, it would undermine discipline completely.

Is that different to the position in other Government Departments?

No, in other Government Departments it is even worse. There a man can be dismissed if he takes his personal grievances to a Member of Parliament. But railwaymen are more privileged than other public servants, because public servants do not have the appeal machinery which railwaymen have. Railway workers have the right to appeal. They have the right to refer any grievances they have to the head of their department. If they are not satisfied with the reply, they can appeal to the General Manager and, if they are still not satisfied, to the Minister and the Railways Board. That machinery is not at the disposal of public servants. For that reason I maintain that railwaymen should avail themselves of that machinery. Now we hear the absurdities put forward here by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) about the appointment of a sort of ombudsman, a man who has to stand there and listen to all the grievances. He says that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, particularly in regard to promotions. But does the hon. member not know about the existence of this machinery which is at the disposal of railwaymen? Every 14 weeks the Railway Board receives a large number of appeals in regard to promotions. Every railwayman who feels that he has been done an injustice as regards promotion can appeal, first of all, to the head of his department. If he is still not satisfied, he can appeal to the General Manager and, if he still has not received any satisfaction, he can appeal to the Minister and the Railway Board. What more do they want? I say that it is very important, and that it is in the interests of the railwayman that he should make use of the normal channels. That is essential for the maintenance of discipline on the railways and, even since I became Minister, I have been saying this, and I still say it to-day. Now, what is the hon. member’s question?

Does the hon. the Minister suggest that a railwayman who has availed himself of the normal channels is prevented from going to his Member of Parliament for relief?

The reply is that if he has not received satisfaction by availing himself of the normal channels, he will most certainly not receive satisfaction by running to a Member of Parliament, because those channels lead to the Minister. Does the hon. member think for one moment that, if I gave a ruling in connection with a matter, I would alter that ruling because he touched upon the matter? But the trouble is that many of the railwaymen do not avail themselves of the normal channels. Parliament can look after the broad, general interests of railwaymen, but not the individual grievances. For that purpose they have machinery they can use. [Interjection.] That is merely sound management, not dictatorship. In this regard I want to say that in what I have said here, I have the full support of all the staff associations. If there is one matter to which the staff associations object, it is that their members run to Members of Parliament instead of going through the normal channels.

That is not so.

But it is so. Surely I know much more than that hon. member. She is not even aware of everything that happens at Danskraal. I want to refer to a few matters in order to show how little the hon. member knows. She spoke of a special road transport driver, and said that he received a minimum of R158, which is R168 now, and a maximum of R170. That is wrong. That shows how little she knows. The actual scale is R155—R165—R170, but there is R3 which he receives as a long-service increase, and then he receives R173 when he has reached his maximum. I merely mention that to show how deficient the hon. member’s knowledge is. Then she spoke of bonuses some people received while others did not. The hon. member does not know what she is talking about. That bonus scheme was drafted in collaboration with the staff, and the artisan staff endorced that bonus scheme; they are satisfied with it. I almost used an English expression which would not be quite parliamentary, the one about “where angels fear to tread…

May I put a question? The Minister indicated that it ought not to be the function of the Opposition to request improvements in wages and salaries. Is it not necessary to say the same to Government members who are appropriating to themselves the praise for these increases?

It stands to reason that they should claim the praise for themselves, because it is their Government which has granted these increases. The hon. member also said that I ridiculed the shunters who were working so hard, but that is not true, surely. I made a fool of the hon. member for Yeoville, but not of the shunters. I know how hard the shunters work, and I have repeatedly expressed my appreciation for that and, for that reason, I effected so many improvements. The hon. member should not say such things, because they are not really true.

I do not know why the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) came into the debate. It is really a mystery to me. I do not know what he really wanted to say, except that he wanted it on record that he spoke about railwaymen, so that he can use it in the election in his seat, which is of course very unsafe. But I have already dealt with promotions. He suggested the appointment of an Ombudsman to settle grievances. I have already dealt with that in regard to promotions. Then he spoke about the scientific basis for increases in wages, but what that scientific basis is still remains a mystery, because the hon. member made suggestions.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said in the course of his speech how many crises there were on the Railways. He spoke about a factory which had to stop operations for a few days because the Railways could not deliver coal. But the hon. member should know that that is not true. The factory the hon. member was speaking about was the Coronation Brick & Tile Co., and this happened two years ago when they were short of coal and had to stop operations for two or three days. But that was not the fault of the Railways at all; it was the mine which could not deliver the coal. The Railways went out of its way to send them some of the locomotive coal so that they could continue operations. But that is the type of complaint made. They say it shows the inefficiency of the Railways that two years ago—not last year—a factory had to stop operations for a few days because the Railways could not deliver the coal. You know, Sir, it has become the national sport in South Africa to criticize the Railways. Whenever anything goes wrong the Railways gets the blame, and those hon. members always sing the same chorus—blame the Railways for everything, even when it is not the fault of the Railways.

I have dealt with excessive overtime. I have said that I would like to reduce overtime as much as any hon. member opposite, but the difference between myself and those hon. members is that I have had practical experience of working long hours. I know what it is to shovel coal for fourteen or sixteen hours a day. Not one of those hon. members has had that experience. [Interjection.] I do not think the hon. member for Drakensberg has ever looked into the fire-box of a locomotive. If excessive overtime can be reduced it will be reduced. The hon. member mentioned station foremen. It is quite true that owing to a shortage of station foremen many of them work twelve-hour shifts, instead of the eight hours they should work at that particular station. If we get more men we will reduce the hours. But what I am doing to alleviate the position is to introduce the C.T.C. The hon. member should know that when Centralized Traffic Control has been introduced on a section, all of the operating staff are eliminated, and in that way we conserve manpower. It is my intention—it is already provided for in the Brown Book— to introduce C.T.C. from Ladysmith right up to Durban, which means that all the operating staff at the intermediate stations will be removed. In regard to suburban transport, I agree that it is very important to the public, and the Administration is doing everything in its power to improve the position. But there is another aspect, of course, and that is transport within the boundaries of the city. That is to a large extent the responsibility of the Municipality. If they want to introduce underground railways they can do so. If they want to introduce mono-rails inside the cities they can do so. I can only tell the hon. member in regard to mono-rails that the Railway engineers went into that matter very thoroughly. It is still to a very large extent in the experimental stage. It has so many disadvantages that one gains very little by introducing that system. In Seattle they have a mono-rail for about a mile and I rode on it, but there are many difficulties in connection with it. To give just one example, if you have a mono-rail and something goes wrong with a train in between stations, there is no other train that can pass it; it has to stand there until it is hauled back, where as on the Railways, if anything goes wrong, you can always build a deviation. So far it is only in the experimental stage and no country in the world has really introduced the mono-rail system to any extent. The Japanese did it with their fair, but I believe it has also been stopped now because it is quite uneconomic and inefficient.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) again dealt with certain matters to which I did not reply in my second reading speech. As the hon. member knows, I had only an hour and I could not deal with every point raised. The hon. member again suggested that instead of allowing immigrants to enter the country to alleviate the shortage of manpower, why do we not make more use of Coloured labour? I think the hon. member should first of all get the support of his own party in regard to this matter, and I want to challenge the hon. member. There is not a single member opposite who will say now by way of interjection that they are agreeable to Coloured men being employed as firemen on our locomotives.

I say it.

The hon. member does not belong to the caucus of the United Party. The hon. member for Karoo must ask any of the members on those benches whether they are agreeable to Coloureds being employed as conductors, guards or ticket-examiners on the trains. Can you hear, Sir, how quiet they are now? The hon. member should convert his own members, first of all, and get their support. I have told hon. members that I am trying to create more opportunities for Coloured workers, but there are certain conventions we have to bear in mind; we have to bear in mind the attitude of the staff and of the public, and to change it is a gradual process. I am quite convinced in my own mind that there is not a single section of the staff which will be agreeable to Coloureds at this stage being employed as firemen or as ticket-examiners or as guards, or as station foremen.

Not even for their own people?

No. That is what we have to deal with. The hon. member represents the Coloured people, but he is a lone voice crying in the wilderness on that side of the House None of his own members supports him.

Then the hon. member suggested that the cost-of-living allowances must be reintroduced. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) also suggested that, but they will not get the support of the staff for this suggestion. Do the hon. members not know that cost-of-living allowances are non-pensionable, and that overtime and Sunday time are not paid on cost-of-living allowance, and that the staff agitated for years that the cost of living must be consolidated with basic wages, and that their standpoint is: Rather increase basic wages instead of introducing non-pensionable allowances? Then the hon. member for Karoo also wanted to know about a pension fund for Coloureds. Well, a pension fund will not be introduced at this stage. I have introduced a contributory savings fund for them and they get their annuities and they get their gratuities. The hon. member must bear in mind that a pension fund is contributory, whereas they contribute nothing towards the annuities and gratuities they receive.

*The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) suggested that helicopters should be used to convey passengers from the airports to the cities. That has been investigated but it is a completely uneconomic proposition. A helicopter is tremendously expensive and in addition its capacity is very small; it can only carry some 20 or 25 passengers. In the first place, unless passengers are prepared to pay much higher fares it will be totally uneconomic, and in the second place, we shall need a whole fleet of helicopters, because the hon. member will realize that if two or three international airplanes arrive and there are perhaps 300 passengers who require transport to the city, one would need many helicopters to take them there.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the increased allowances paid to non-White pensioners, I was incorrect when I interjected that they were going to receive the benefit of this increase. I was thinking for the moment of social pensions. As the hon. member is probably aware, non-Whites on the Railways do not receive pensions; they receive gratuities and annuities. Consequently, they do not share in the increased special allowance which has now been granted to pensioners.

Are you going to give them any increase?

No, not at the moment. Then the hon. member spoke about P.A.Y.E., the amount deducted from pensioners at the end of the month. That matter has already been raised by my Department with the Department of Internal Revenue, and we are still awaiting a reply from them.

The last matter the hon. member raised was that he again asked why were not these increases granted in April last year as the Rates Equalization Fund has a balance of about R55,000,000. Surely the hon. member will agree that it is most inadvisable and bad policy to completely exhaust the Rates Equalization Fund. If these increases had been given in April last year, the expenditure of this financial year would have been R36,000,000 instead of R16,000,000 for the half-year, and that would almost have exhausted that fund. As I have already informed the House, there will be a deficit at the end of the year, but it will not be R36,000,000; it will be less, but it would have been R36,000,000 if I had granted these increases in the beginning of the financial year. The last speaker ended his remarks by saying that I am only granting concessions when I am forced to do so by staff organizations. The hon. member probably knows that collective bargaining in our industrial life is very important. It is the main purpose of trade unions to bargain with their employers in regard to conditions of work. That is what is happening in regard to the Railways. We have excellent conciliation machinery and collective bargaining takes place between the trade unions of the railwaymen and the Administration and after negotiation agreement is arrived at. It has often happened that I have had to say “no” to their demands if I have found that financially we were not in a position to give any increases, but more often than not I say “yes”. But the whole basis of our conciliation machinery is collective bargaining and that is why the Minister or an employer never comes and says: “All right, I will give you this or that.” But I have told the staff association on occasion that I could afford to give them an additional R8,000.000 or R10,000,000 or R12,000,000 and then we have discussed in what form it should be granted. In one case, in 1961, it was granted by way of consolidation with wage adjustments, and in another case by way of non-pensionable allowances. That is the whole basis of the conciliation machinery, but I want to repeat again that hon. members are suffering under a very sad illusion if they think increases were granted because hon. members opposite have advocated for those increases. This Government has hardly ever done anything that the Opposition has agitated for because usually the Opposition is wrong. But I can assure the hon. member that the staff associations deserve credit for the way they have negotiated and the way in which they have shown their responsibility and their competency to look after the interests of their members, and after negotiations with them I have granted the improvements that have taken place in the past.

Bill read a third time.

I want to begin by moving the following amendment—

To omit all the words after "That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the second reading of the Part Appropriation Bill unless and until the Minister gives an assurance that the Government will undertake, inter alia, to—

1. (1) equip our working population, especially our youth, to qualify for greater responsibilities;
2. (2) devote a proper proportion of the national income towards fulfilling the social needs of the people, including education, family allowances, health services and housing, and contributory old-age or retirement pensions free of a means test; and
3. (3) plan and ensure the establishment of a healthy agricultural industry on a long as well as a short term basis.”.

I think the amendment is relevant in this debate, because a main criticism, amongst any others of course, has been so far as expenditure is concerned, and still is, the neglect of the Government in past years to attend to the essential services of the people. Mr. Speaker, we have had in the last week or two, during this short Session, a flood of oratory from the Ministerial benches. lauding the achievements of the last five years, but for the most part it was only a question of lip service to the things contained in this amendment and in no case producing any blueprint or concrete proposals for dealing with the problems to which we refer.

Take the question of manpower, to which the first leg of our amendment refers. It is the key, as we all know, to half of our problems at the present moment and in past years it has restricted production, it has hampered the Public Services and has caused a constant inflationary trend. The hon. Minister in his speech referred to the fact that there was a constant threat of inflation, and during the last few days we have been told in reply to questions and in reply to speeches that the staff position on the Railways is no better. We have been told that our permanent Defence Force is still short of approximately 3.000 officers and men. Of course, that means that the whole of our very big training schemes for our ballotees is threatened by a shortage of instructors, because it is the Permanent Force which supplies them. We have been told that the gold mines are short of 2,000 miners. And we all know, Sir, that the telephone services are desperate because of a shortage of technicians to keep the ordinary telephone services properly equipped, to make up the ever-growing backlog of ordinary telephones that are required, let alone to get ahead with the very big expansion schemes for modernizing the telephone services. This problem of the shortage of manpower is constantly in our minds and is constantly brought to our notice, but we have not had a word from that side of the House, or from the Ministers, as to what is being done to tackle this key problem, or what we can expect in the time to come to ameliorate the position.

The hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in this House a few days ago, painted a glowing picture of Government intentions during the next few years. He said, quite apart from private undertakings, the Government would be involved in the establishment of a tractor industry, a shipbuilding industry, fishing industry, a second Sasol, a third Iscor, an expansion of our Airways and airports, an extension of telephone services, vast water schemes for the irrigation of hundreds of thousands of morgen. We have heard about housing and a vast extension of power stations. It was quite remarkable, however, that there was no mention either of the men who are going to carry out these vast works or where the money was coming from to make it possible. Incidentally, one wonders whether the economic development programme took cognizance of all these vast Government plans in producing their programmes for the next five years, because if it did not it makes nonsense of the economic development programmes, and it means that a great deal of what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say can be set down to nothing but. to put it mildly, electioneering exuberance. I saw during that speech that the hon. Minister of Finance was gazing heavenwards. I do not know whether he was lost in admiration at the visions opening up before him, or whether he was struck dumb at the thought that he would have to provide the money to carry out these schemes. But in any case, neither from him nor from any other Minister, has there been any hint of pruning in the public sector of expenditure. The Minister has told us that during the current year he was able to reduce loan expenditure by some R4,000,000. Remembering what he and his Prime Minister had to say last October and what has been said so far, it bears little relation to what he said then, because all the indications are that it is the intention of the Government, if they get the opportunity, to plough straight ahead in the same reckless manner in the public sector as they have in the past five years, which has largely contributed to the position in which we find ourselves at present.

Do you still remember how you fought against Sasol?

The hon. member forgets that I put the Sasol Bill through this House. Bearing in mind these declarations and remembering that we are being asked to vote money for seven months of the year without having any idea of how that money is to be found, and remembering the vicissitudes and the uncertainties in the past years, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree and you will appreciate that we are entitled, in fact we are bound, to press for a good deal of information from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister told us that he was going to give us a short explanation of the economic position and the fiscal position. I think that explanation might have been fuller and I think it might have been franker, and I hope that he will fill in many gaps in his reply to this debate, and I am going to ask him some questions in the hope that these questions will help him to fill in those gaps. Because there is so much speculation going on throughout the country, in all circles, as to exactly what the position is in the various spheres of our economic life, that I believe that the more facts and the more plain speaking there is on behalf of the Government, the better it will be for everyone. I hope the hon. the Minister will see fit to amplify his statement in the course of these debates. The Minister referred to the spectacular and quite unexpected, and of course to the welcomed improvement and rise in our foreign exchange holdings, which fell by R150,000,000 in the first nine months and then suddenly recovered by R100,000,000 towards the end of the year, to R416,000,000 at the present moment. The important question is whether this improvement is permanent. The Minister cannot answer that question, but he can at any rate tell us to what extent can it be regarded as a permanent improvement, and to what extent can it be regarded as something on which we can count. He told us that there had been an inflow of private investment capital to the tune of over R50,000,000, I think he said. But I think that he should analyse the position more closely, because this question is so important. Why should it not be analysed closely? After all, this question of our foreign exchange affects the whole question of the relaxation of control, of our balance of payments. It is the barometer of the economic activities of the country, and I can see no reason why all possible information should not be made available so that the clearest picture that is possible should become available to responsible people in the country. Because there are other factors besides the coming in of private investment capital and the hon. Minister referred to one important factor. He said there had been a considerable influx of short-term capital, and I would like to ask him how much short-term capital came in, how long it will remain in, and under what arrangement it has come in. Because such capital movement is not unfettered under exchange control, and if short-term capital has come in, it can only have come in, I imagine, with some sort of authority from the Government, and it may be withdrawn in a short time. I think there is no reason why the House should not know. After all, if it is a considerable amount and if nobody knows how much it is, or for how long it is here, and if it is suddenly withdrawn, it is going to cause very considerable uncertainty if there is a sudden drop in our foreign holdings. I hope the hon. Minister will be able to answer these questions in his speech, and I would particularly like to know what benefit does the country derive if large sums of money are transferred out here for a few months? I do not suggest that there are no benefits. I only say that I do not know what the benefits are, and I would like the hon. Minister to be able to tell us just what benefit there is to the country by admitting large sums of money to be brought out here on the understanding that they will be taken out again in a few months’ time.

There is another factor and that is the question of the transfer of dividends overseas by certain foreign overseas companies, especially those which have subsidiary companies here. One understands that companies overseas in some instances have established companies here, subsidiaries of overseas concerns, with very small share capital and then they proceeded to develop their business, using as working capital money borrowed locally—by way of loans, mortgages and so on—local capital, and one understands that they have been told that any overseas company which employs more than 25 per cent (that was the figure I was given) of South African capital, other than share capital in the working of its business, will not be permitted to transfer dividends back to the parent company, the idea being of course to lessen the strain on the local money market. If that is so—I am not discussing the merits of it—I would like to know whether it is having any effect, because obviously it affects the exchange position. To what extent are these companies leaving their dividends here and using them in their own companies for expansion; or are they transferring capital from abroad to increase their share capital to avoid having to borrow in the local market? Can the hon. the Minister give us some idea as to whether that step is having the desired effect?

Then there is a third point, the question to which the hon. the Minister made some reference, the question of capital purchases on credit. One understands that if for instance you wish to import R1,000.000 worth of capital goods you are likely to be turned down if you ask for permission to do so, but if you can say that you have arranged to pay for those goods over one, two or three years, then you are likely to get permission. Of course, that does not immediately affect the exchange position, but indirectly it does relieve the drain on our reserves and allows the importation of capital goods. To that extent it is an important contribution, even though, like the hire purchase system, it means drawing on the future even if it does increase costs. But under the circumstances it may be a useful thing, and I think we would like to know from the hon. Minister whether that practice is growing, whether any use is being made of it, and whether in fact it is proving a direct relief in respect of the foreign exchange position.

The last question is, of course: there appears to have been a revival, a renewed interest in the gold share market, particularly in the United States in recent months, and in Britain too, and possibly in France as well. One would like to know whether that indicates that there is a capital inflow coming into the country for investments in the golding mining industry, because I imagine that if it is, most of it will be coming in without permission to take it out again, and to that extent it may be regarded as a permanent investment.

All these factors do have a bearing on this question of our exchange reserves, and I think that the hon. Minister could very usefully give us that information to enable us as far as possible to get a picture of what is the nett effect, what is the nett position, of our foreign exchange reserves.

The hon. the Minister then went on to talk about the relaxation of control. He said that he would like to relax control—I am sure he would—but he gave a number of reasons why that is not possible. The first one, of course is the fact that there was an inflow of short-term capital which could not be relied on, and then he pointed out that the drought would result in considerably lower exports of agricultural produce, and he said that in contrast the importation of foodstuffs would be considerable. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us any idea as to what he expects to have to spend on the importation of foodstuffs this year. Have his colleagues given him any estimate of the money they are going to require to import wheat, maize, butter, cheese, etc.? I have seen a figure of R40,000,000 mentioned. It may be well informed, it may not be, but it is an important question in judging the position, and if the Minister has any information, even if it is approximate, I think he would render a service to the country if he could give us an idea as to what the importation of food is going to cost us during the coming year.

Then the hon. Minister referred to the recent salary increases which, he said, might have an inflationary effect, although he hoped that the effect might be not as severe as expected previously. I would like to ask him how much are these salary increases going to cost the country? There have been all sorts of estimates—to what extent they are guesses, to what extent they are inspired officially, I do not know, but all sorts of figures have been given. The nearest figure that I have been given, including the Railway increases, was that the increases may amount to something like R125,000,000 in a full year, plus R5,500,000 which the hon. the Minister of Pensions and Social Welfare has announced is going to be given to social pensioners. That is a lot of money, and it seems generally agreed in the private sector that this increase is certain to be followed—and in fact is being followed already in some cases—by demands in the private sector by organized workers in various branches of activity, and it has been suggested that the total increase in money to be paid out in wages in the course of this year may run to anything between R200,000,000 and R300.000,000. If the Minister is able to estimate approximately what it will amount to, if he can give us an idea, it will give the country something to go on, because it is quite clear that whatever the figure is, this action of the Government in giving this very large increase all at once has offset to a large extent the deflationary monetary measures which they have taken. It is true that the Minister has said that he is a fairly hopeful that in spite of these difficulties of overcoming the inflation and the balance of payments problem, but he makes a proviso; he says “Provided that prices can be kept down.” Now, the question is how the cost of living is going to be kept down? We have had no indication from anybody on that side of the House, including the Minister, as to how it is proopsed to keep down the rising prices which are taking place and which everybody seems to expect in the coming months. The hon. Minister referred to the increase in the cost of living over the past 12 months, and he mentioned 2.5 per cent. The figure I have got is 4 per cent. Well, whatever it may be, one knows that the increase in food prices over the last 12 months was something like 9.5 per cent and judging by the news we have in regard to the drought and the production of food and the food that has got to be imported, it is likely that food prices will go still higher.

The question is how the cost of living is going to be brought down and kept down. I should have thought that, in view of the position in which we are now, some attempt would have been made by hon. members on the other side to allay the apprehension in the minds of people by giving some indication how they are going to cope with what everybody agrees is an inflationary tendency which, if allowed to get out of hand, is going to cause numerous difficulties for the entire country. In this connection I should like to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members on this side of the House in the previous debate in regard to cost-of-living allowance. Does the hon. the Minister not think that he ought to create the necessary machinery so that, if the cost of living continues to increase —and one must admit that in time of difficulties and even in times of prosperity there is a tendency for prices to increase—a system of cost-of-living allowances for public servants may be re-introduced. After all, Sir, personnel of the public services are not in the same position as employees in the private sector. The former are subject to certain disadvantages. For instance, they are not in a position to bargain to the same extent as employees in the private sector; they are forbidden to strike —at least those employed in essential services. Moreover, their entire tradition is against using the strike weapon. In the circumstances I think they should get some special consideration. Furthermore, if it was known in the public service that the Government has created such machinery in principle and was ready to apply it in the event of an untoward increase in the cost of living, it would do something towards preventing the continual drain on the public service going on at the present time. We have heard the hon. the Minister of Transport telling us that no less than 21,000 people left the Railways last year.

And how many came back after having left the service?

I thing he said 18,000. But that is not the point. The point is that, if there is anything we can do to make servants in the public service, whether a public servant or a railwayman, more secure and satisfied, we should do it. As it is, the general belief that the cost of living is going to go up still further the Minister, I think, will be well advised to set up the necessary machinery and not to wait until later and then come along and ask for an enormous sum, as he is doing now, thereby threatening a dislocation of the entire economy.

The hon. Minister dealt with his loan account. I understand that on the external loan account an amount of R71,000,000 was raised since last March. When he went overseas in August he raised R35,800.000 short-term one or two year loans. I should now like to know how much of the R71.000,000 was earmarked for redeeming existing loans or the conversion of existing loans. How much of this R71,000,000 he raised since last March has he still got left in the kitty? Of course this policy of financing long-term projects by means of short-term borrowing, which means living from hand to mouth, may lead to a lot of difficulties. As a matter of fact, that is just what is happening at the present time. One can therefore only hope that the hon. the Minister will succeed in his attempts to secure long-term loans from abroad. However, he did not seem to be very optimistic in what he said about it. Meanwhile, our external loan account does not look too healthy except on a very short-term basis. This is not a sound position. As far as the internal loans position is concerned, he told us that he wanted R70,000,000 in his twenty-year loan scheme but that he did not have it as yet. But I should like to know from him how much in actual fact he has got so far. He has extended the period of the loan from 20 to 25 years and made a fresh appeal to institutions and others to subscribe more. Recently he went so far as to issue what amounts to veiled threats almost to institutions to invest more in this loan. I should like to suggest to him that he would do much better if he quite frankly states exactly how much he is still short of the mark. He should say that he requires R70,000,000, has only R50,000,000 so far and needs another R20.000,000. If he does that and then makes a special appeal to institutions they are all likely to come forward and invest because then they would know what the Minister’s target is. The Minister, however, has not done so yet. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will tell us exactly what the position is in connection with this loan.

I told the House that I expected a deficit of R50.000,000 on loan account this year.

But that does not necessarily apply to the R70,000,000 loan, does it? Then there is the tax free five per cent bond issue. I understand the Minister hoped to raise by this an amount of R20,000,000. I do not know how this scheme is progressing and I hope the Minister will give us some further information. My point, broadly speaking, is that the more information the Minister can give us, the better it will be for him and for the country. As a matter of fact, I fail to see why this information should not be given.

He must not forget that to-day is only the 7th February whereas the financial year ends on the 31st March.

Well, I do not think it is more difficult on the 7th February to say how much you have got than it is on the 31st March. What is certain is that there can be more on the 31st March if the Minister sets about things in the right way instead of issuing vague threats to everybody if they do not come forward.

While on the subject of loans, I should like to ask the Minister another question. This concerns the question of housing loans. Is the hon. the Minister aware of the position in which building societies find themselves at the present time? I understand from the hon. the Minister of Housing that something like 40,000 houses are usually provided by the private sector, a large proportion of which is financed by building societies assisted largely by the Government-sponsored 90 per cent scheme. But, as I understand it, the present position is that mortgage loans issued by building societies have been reduced to a mere trickle. The building societies are short of money. They say that that is so because of the interest rates. The hon. the Minister has tied them down to 6 per cent and in consequence they are not getting any money. Building societies are the chief channel for the money of people who want to build houses and, that being so, is the Minister prepared just to sit there and let the thing stagnate? Surely something must be done to assist building societies to receive deposits again so that they can continue lending money. Some people say that if building societies are allowed to increase their interest rate on deposits by ½ per cent, they in turn will raise their rate of interest on loans by ½ per cent. That is correct. But the building societies can deal with it either by lengthening the term of the loan or by reducing monthly payments. So I think building societies will be able to cope with that.

I am glad you are taking that line because 1 am criticized for helping building societies more than other deposit taking institutions. I am glad to see you do not fear that criticism.

This is a problem to which the Minister made no reference at all although it is a very important factor in the economic life of the country. While on this subject, I should like to raise another matter. When this Government’s sponsored loan scheme was instituted through building societies years ago, the limit of the income of people who could apply for a loan under this scheme was fixed at R2,400. Since that time, however, the cost of building has increased by 25 to 30 per cent while salaries and wages have also increased. The result is that a person earning R2,400 in those days has to earn R3,000 to-day in order to be in an equivalent position. But the moment he earns more than R2,400 he is excluded from the scheme. So I wonder whether the Minister could not consider bringing that limit into line with the level of present-day prices so as to enable those people who were included under the scheme in the beginning but have since been priced out to be included again. Young married couples are having the utmost difficulty to-day in finding anywhere to live. If there is anything our society needs more than anything else that is security and a home for our young married people. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Development has called for more babies but you cannot expect young married couples to have a lot of babies in a two-roomed flat. They will be able to have some security, however, should they be assisted to acquire a house of their own. Then you may see a different state of affairs. I should like the hon. the Minister to pay particular attention to this problem and to do something about it.

Then the hon. the Minister came to his fiscal position. The year has not ended and the Minister is not introducing a budget. In announcing the date of the general election, the Prime Minister set out various reasons for having an early election. At the same time he dismissed some suggested reasons. One of these was that an early election was being held because the Government did not want to introduce a budget before the election. The Prime Minister said that not only was that not so but that the Government was perfectly prepared to introduce a budget. One would have expected the Minister of Finance when he spoke to have referred to this question. One would have expected him to go a little more into detail as to why the budget was not being introduced before the election. We listened to him, Mr. Speaker but, as the poet said “answer came there none.” But one can well understand the Minister’s silence on this point. Now, as the hon. the Minister knows, I am always prepared to help him so I will answer this question for him. The answer to the question why there will be no budget before the election, is a very simple one. The answer is that the hon. the

Minister dare not introduce a budget because he knows full well …

How long have you not been in Parliament? You ought to know better by now.

The Minister knows full well that if he introduces an honest budget now —and being an honest man, he will introduce an honest budget—he will most certainly lose the election for his Party. Because let us piece together the figures the hon. the Minister gave us. His figures show that he is expecting a surplus on revenue account to the tune of R45,000,000 and a short-fall on loan account of about R50,000,000. That means that he expects to end up the financial year plus minus all square. There seems to be no reason to suppose that revenue on the present basis of taxation is likely to increase to any extent in the current year. In fact, I think there is going to be a decrease. But let us, for the purpose of this argument, say that it will remain the same. The Minister also explained that the sum he is asking for, i.e. R710,000,000 on revenue, represents a 5i per cent increase on the expenditure for last year. Well, if there has been a 5| per cent increase during the first seven months, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a similar increase also in respect of the remaining five months. On that assumption one can expect an increase of expenditure during the coming year of about R55,000,000. This, to my mind, is still a conservative figure, but let us put it at that. In regard to his loan account, the Minister used the R110,000,000 surplus last year, in addition he took R20,000,000 from the tax reserve account and R30,000,000 from this year’s revenue—a total of R160,000,000 all out of revenue. With that he started his loan account. If he starts his loan account more or less from scratch this year he has, unless his loan account is going to be slashed this year or unless he is going to get a large loan from abroad or impose some kind of levy and a big one at that on various institutions, to find R160,000,000 from the usual sources for his loan account, where is that going to come from? Incidentally, he has to repay something like R281,000,000 on internal loans this year. Well, Sir, the economic development programme last year visualized that over its five years it was expected that a substantial proportion of the loan account would have to be furnished from revenue. A very senior Treasury official made a speech last year in which he said that a much bigger share of the loan account would have in future to come from revenue. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is the tax payer who will have to bear the brunt for finding this additional money. Taking the revenue and loan accounts together the indications are that there may very well be additional taxation to the tune of anything up to R220,000,000. That, then, is the taxation the Minister would have had to impose had he introduced a budget now. That then, Sir, would be the bill for five years of mismanagement. So I am not surprised that we are not going to have a budget before the election. In his peroration the hon. the Minister said that “under a stable dynamic government” and at the cost of a little temporary discomfort South Africa could look forward to still greater records during the next five years. A “stable and dynamic government”! I take it the Minister is clearly forecasting a change of government.

That will be a contradiction in terms.

The way the Government has muddled the economic affairs of this country during the past five years has no precedent in our history since 1910. What, Mr Speaker, is this “little temporary discomfort”? In the first place it will mean that citizens will have to wait for six months in apprehension to receive the bill for five years of mismanagement. And this bill may mean anything up to R220.000.000 in extra taxation. So it is a decided understatement to talk about “a little temporary discomfort.” It is what the Greeks have called a “hyperbolic myosis.”

You may be committing a terminological inexactitude.

That then is the first item of this “temporary discomfort.” The second item is that due to the lack of foresight on the part of the Government, it has been forced, in an effort to control the situation, to introduce control after control and restriction after restriction—all of them “temporary” of course and imposed more in sorrow than in anger. At any rate, the Minister gave no indication that for any appreciable time to come a limitation of taxation will be possible. The result is that the whole economy of the country, which have offered everyone a marvellous time, after five years of mishandling has …

That is not what you thought in 1961.

If the Minister had taken my advice in 1961 he would not have been in the trouble he is to-day. At present our entire economy is in a strait-jacket. From this it can only be freed by the Government because the Government holds all the strings. This fact puts an increasing responsibility on the Government, a burden it is probably not fit to shoulder. Therefore are you surprised that we should refuse to vote the Government any further money but should demand a stable and dynamic government, the same demands as has been made by the Minister but with this difference that we want a stable and dynamic government under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition so that we could set about restoring normal business conditions in South Africa.

One would expect that in the last major debate before a general election the Opposition would come forward with a positive policy which could be laid before the nation. One would expect that they would come forward with a positive amendment and accompanying speeches which would at least be based on facts. But what did we find? What we got here was a meaningless amendment accompanied by equally meaningless speeches. This amendment contains nothing constructive which the Government has not already carried into effect, and done so to a far greater extent than they could ever have conceived. Here they have come along and asked for a contributory pension scheme. But as recently as last year they proposed in this House that the largest contributory pension scheme in the country, the pension scheme for Government officials, be abolished. Should one take any notice of such people? The motion which they introduced in this regard last year is recorded in the minutes and may be consulted. The hon. member has asked why we are not coming forward with a budget before the election. But that hon. member has been in this House since 1929 and he ought, therefore, to know that a budget has never once been introduced in the year in which an election has taken place in the first half. It simply does not happen.

In their time they never introduced budgets on such occasions either. In 1924 the election was held as late as June and yet they did not introduce a budget during the first session of Parliament that year. Now the hon. member comes along here and talks nonsense like that. The hon. member also referred to the large development programme which the hon. the Prime Minister announced the other day in his speech and asked where the money and labour for that programme is going to come from. He says the labour question makes nonsense of that programme. But surely the hon. member is aware that the planning programme laid before us is based on a realistic survey of the availability of labour and currency? With due consideration of those factors it has been calculated that there will be a development of 5.4 per cent over the next five years. In other words, both labour and currency will be able to carry this programme. With reference to the cost of living, the hon. member alleged that there had been a rise of more than 5 per cent during the past year. In the December 1965 edition of the publication of the Department of Trade and Industry the consumer price index of all commodities is given as 111.2 in November 1964 as against 114.3 in October 1965, i.e. an increase of 2.8 per cent. That is precisely what the Minister conveyed to us here.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the best effort the Opposition can make, with an election around the corner, then I can inform them now already that they will be much worse off after 30 March and cut a much sorrier figure than Willie Ludick did the other night at the Green Point stadium. But Willie Ludick has recovered, whereas the United Party will never recover. As a matter of fact, they are going into liquidation. All that they are doing at the moment is fighting what the English call a rearguard action, with the object of trying to delay their destruction a little while longer. But they will not succeed in this. The people of South Africa remember too many things about the United Party. Now they are coming along with pretty speeches about what should be done for the Whites of South Africa. But was it not they who, prior to 1924, deliberately replaced White labour with non-White labour? Surely it was they who did it? It is they who are now saying, “the rate for the job” and “away with job reservation”. But what does “rate for the job” mean? It means that the man with the low salary, the non-White, must take the work so that the Whites have to walk the streets.

Mr. Speaker, we bear in mind that the only real development which has taken place in South Africa—real large-scale economic development—took place under the policy of this present Government. If one compares the development over the past 17 years with that which preceded it during not only the previous ten-year period of United Party rule but even during the previous 300 years—then their achievements were that of the proverbial gnat in comparison with those of the present mighty elephant. They will not mislead the voters with this kind of thing. I want to tell the United Party that they must not think the people of South Africa are a lot of pocket patriots. It is an absolute insult to the voters of South Africa to think that one can catch them with a sixpence a day here and a tickey a day there. Our voters vote according to principles because they are people of firm principle. They stand for those fundamental things for which the National Party stands. I am certain that just as in the past when they came along with all sort of promises of an extra hundreds of millions of rand per year and reductions of hundreds of millions of rand per year in taxation—promises with which they have come along to every election since 1948 and each time suffered a greater defeat at the polls than on the previous occasion— so it will once again be their fate on 30 March. No, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with people of firm principle.

Allow me to say here that these matters which the hon. member raised here to-day have met with no approval whatsoever from the public. Those things did not count with John Voter outside this House. The economic matters which will count will be the major economic matters which are of fundamental importance and not the trivial little matters the hon. member spoke about, and about which most people do not know the first thing. It is a very good thing, for awhile here on the eve of an election, to give an account of one’s stewardship. It could do no one any harm to cast a backward glance at those things which have taken place in the economic sphere in South Africa during the past few years. I want to repeat that the public are not going to vote on minor economic matters. The public are going to vote on fundamental matters affecting our survival and that of our descendants here in South Africa. Yet these economic considerations are of paramount importance in indicating how we are expanding and building a great nation within the framework of the Government’s apartheid policy. In this regard I want to take as my text the motion of the hon. member for Constantia who has unfortunately just left the House, and test that motion against the actual facts. In June 1961 he moved an amendment to the Appropriation Bill that he and his party refused to support the second reading because (a) the Government was responsible for the alarming decline in the country’s economy; and (b) was making it impossible to restore the expansion and rate of advance.

Mr. Speaker the motion was a harbinger of woe. The subsequent post mortem was an even greater tale of woe, but that I leave to other members. I just want to mention to you what really happened during and before that time. Allow me, therefore, to take a look at certain basic considerations.

The National Party has always adopted the attitude that as long as our economic prosperity is based on a wasting asset, such as our mines, provision has to be made for its being replaced when it is no longer there one day. And that is why we must have a strong industrial development programme, assisted to a great extent by State money and State aid, so that when the mines disappear they will already have been replaced by these industries. When we came into office in 1948, half of the Loan Account consisted of bad debts. Absolutely nothing could be shown for it. Since that time we have already paid more than R700,000,000 into the Loan Account by means of appropriation by Parliament and by the transfer of surpluses. Something, Mr. Speaker, which was done against the wishes of that party. They were of the opinion that more money should have been borrowed for the loan programme and that the taxes should have been reduced. The result of this action on the part of the Government is that our Loan Account to-day is better off to the tune of R1,600,000,000 than it was when we took over in 1948. We wiped out their bad debts. The present public debt amounts to R3,142,000,000. On that we can show assets totalling more than R4,060,000,000. That amounts to a surplus of almost R900,000,000. Of that R2,802,000,000 is already yielding interest. In addition to that there are fixed assets such as forestry and posts, etc., which are not directly interest-bearing, and are not included in that. In this way the disappearing assets in the country are being replaced. The United Party wants more debt and less taxation. They are short-sighted, Mr. Speaker. They do not care what happens in the future and in the far-distant future, just as it is in the case of their race policy which only, according to them, makes provision for the foreseeable future. We are making provision for the far-distant future and for the generations to come.

I have already said that the first real growth period in the economic sphere took place under the guidance of this Government. During the period 1945-8, after the end of the last World War, the United Party could not even enforce complete demobilization because there was no work for the soldiers. This Government had subsequently to demobilize several thousands. There was no work for those people, Mr. Speaker. To-day, on the other hand, there is a major shortage of labour. It is no longer necessary to-day for a White man to do pick and shovel work on the roads or on the Railways either. We have created good posts for them in the factories. The basis on which this Government operates is to make the key industries strong and build up other industries about them—and to let them be built up by the private sector. The first industry to which this Government gave its attention was the South African Railways. The Railways debate is over, but you will not take it amiss of me if I just refer in passing to a few points. On 31 March 1948, the capital investment in the South African Railways amounted to R492.000,000. On 31 March, last year, Mr. Speaker, this amount had grown to R1,726,000,000. This figure shows an increase of three and a half times over the 1948 figure, when we came into office. The tonnage transported in 1947-8 was 34,000,000 tons. Last year this figure was 90.700,000 tons, i.e. more than twice as much. The carrying capacity of the Railways therefore made it possible for us to expand our factories freely, and to supply all transport requirements. This thriving state of affairs also led to the Railways being able to pay its employees proper wages. In 1948 the White railwayman received an average wage of R909.3. In 1965 this figure had risen to R2,179.5 per annum. This amounts to an increase of R1,270.2 per annum, or 139.6 per cent. The increase in the railwayman’s wage was therefore twice as much as the increase in the cost of living during this same period. Let us now take a closer look at the development in a few of our key industries. Let us commence with the iron and steel industry. The United Party tells us that they also want to encourage industrial development, but we all know how they opposed the establishment of Iscor. In 1938 27,000 tons of pig iron were produced in South Africa. In 1948 the production was 49,815 tons. In the ten years therefore when the United Party were in office, there had been an increase of 121 per cent. In 1962, Mr. Speaker, after this Government had been in office for only 14 years, the tonnage production was already 243,000 tons per month, an increase therefore of more than 400 per cent. In July 1965 the production was 345,371 tons per month, i.e. an increase of 577 per cent above that of the United Party’s best effort. Here we have an increase which is five times greater than it was in the time of the United Party, and then that party still wants to imply that the country’s economy has deteriorated. Let us take a look at another key industry in our country, i.e. that of electricity supply. In the United Party’s last ten years of tenure before 1948 there was an increase of 60.9 per cent in the production of electrical power. Since 1948 when the National Party came into office the production has been 772,000,000 units per month. In August 1965 the production rose to 2,923,000,000 units per month, which amounts to an increase of plus-minus 380 per cent. And in this regard we know that tremendously large power stations are under construction which will result in an even greater increase in this figure. In this regard we are reminded of the establishment of Sasol, which they opposed, as well as the establishment of Foskor. They said that these industries were works of the devil and would never pay. These industries are, however, the pride of the National Party and the country in general. Let us now glance at our factory production as a whole. In 1947-8 the total production of our factories was R922,000,000. In the pessimistic year 1961, when the hon. member for Constantia introduced his famous motion, it was R2,751,000,000. That was the year the United Party predicted that this country would go to rack and ruin economically, yes, even in all respects.

But, Mr. Speaker, in 1961-2 it rose again to R3,154,000,000, and in 1964-5 it reached the figure of R4,516,000,000. Mr. Speaker, this amounts to an increase of more than 50 per cent in the past five years, during which, according to the predictions of the hon. friends on the opposite side of the House, we would have experienced a collapse in all spheres. However, there was virtually a quintuplication of the position as compared to 1948. The increase was 490 per cent.

Now let us glance for a moment at the national accounts as a whole. The active expansion policy of this Government, its protection and encouragement of local industries, is bearing fruit, and we see this in the country’s national accounts. The national revenue in 1947-8 was R1,686,000,000, in 1963-4 it was R6,096,000,000—an increase of R4,410.000,000 which is almost four times as great. The gross national production in 1947-8 was R1,922,000,000. In 1961 this figure was R5,590,000,000. In 1964 it rose to R7,376,000,000, i.e. an increase of R5,454,000,000, or 383 per cent. During this Government’s tenure of office the figure has almost quadrupled. We come now to the gross savings of the people of South Africa. You will remember than when this Government came into office the population was unwilling to save. The United Party had held out no prospects to the nation in terms of which saving could be encouraged. At that time money was being squandered. While saving and capital formation was R556,000,000 in 1948, it was R1.645,000,000 in 1965, an increase of almost 300 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I have briefly drawn a picture —I can give many more examples and go on doing so until to-morrow—of the economic growth in South Africa. The last few figures have given us a summary or an overall picture of the economic growth in our country. These things are of paramount importance for South Africa. As I have said our people no longer have to go and work on the roads or do pick and shovel work on the Railways. These people are now obtaining work in our factories. I know of reasonably good farmers making a reasonably good living in the country, who have sold their farms and come to work in factories. They say that the interest on their capital plus their earnings in the factory enables them to make a better living than they did as farmers. Hon. members must not just say that the farmers are being driven out of the country districts, because they are also being attracted away from the country districts by the very prosperous conditions in the cities. A labour market is being created; an insatiable labour market. Another well-known fact is that all countries which are industrializing on a large scale, are experiencing a shortage of labour. It is not only in South Africa that this problem has to be contended with. A moment ago the hon. member implied that it was a problem unique to South Africa. That is not the case. It is a problem which is cropping up throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, in the second place this new abundance which arose in South Africa created a big market for country products. The city dweller must eat and drink, and these supplies are brought to him from the country districts. Consequently there is a sound and stable market for agricultural products in South Africa. It has a stabilizing effect on the economy as a whole. The country districts are no longer so dependent upon overseas markets, together with all their accompanying risks. The National Party can indeed be proud of its record of economic development and growth. Other countries envy us. The public knows that this Government and no other will take care of health and prosperity in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also referred the other day to this story that we now want a growth rate of 5.4 per cent, but that we will not have the manpower to achieve that. I want to ask him whether he has ever heard of a person’s productivity improving? I want to ask him whether he has ever read the report of the Department of Planning which gives a summary of how the development over the next five years will take place. If he had done so, Mr. Speaker, he would not have spoken nonsense like this. I do not want to keep this House much longer but I just want to say that the aspects which I am dealing with here are basic considerations as far as the development of South Africa in the economic sphere is concerned. The minor matters which the hon. member for Constantia mentioned—I could deal with them one by one if there had been the time to do so— are not of fundamental importance and do not interest the voting public. It is nothing more than hair-splitting. The hon. member knows that he could not penetrate to the reality, for as soon as he does that he makes himself look ridiculous just as his motion at that time was made to look ridiculous by the facts which I mentioned a moment ago. I am now asking him this question: What actually remains of his 1961 motion in terms of which there was a refusal to pass the second reading because the Government was responsible for the alarming decline in the country’s economy and was making it impossible to restore the expansion and rate of advance? South Africa’s growth has not only been two or three times greater than it was in the time of the United Party, it has grown twice as much in the past 17 years as it did over the previous 300 years.

In conclusion I just want to mention one point. It is not an economical or financial aspect. I want to say this: Notwithstanding these considerations, notwithstanding this tremendous prosperity which the country is enjoying and notwithstanding this sound policy which is being applied by the National Party, we shall not go to the country on 30 March to vote on pounds, shillings and pence. We shall go to the country to vote on the survival of the White civilization in South Africa. As far as this is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have against us and our policy of separate development, the whole of the United Party and the rest of the world. In that respect they are allies. I think it is only fair that we must keep on asking, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already asked the people, that South Africa form a united front on 30 March under the auspices of the National Party against the United Party and foreign countries which are raising such Cain against us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) spent quite a long time in delivering his prepared speech and said very little in answering the speech by the hon. member for Constantia. I should like to remind the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that, when he talks at length about development that has taken place since 1948 he should not claim credit for the development of the Orange Free State gold mines. That was no responsibility of the Nationalist Party. I would also like to remind him of the opportunities that have been lost. Things would have been very much better than they are had the Government taken the opportunity to deal with first things first and not to place all the emphasis on apartheid. Only the other day we had the admission from the Prime Minister himself. He said this:

Now, when the Prime Minister comes with a statement of that kind only a few days ago he confirms what I have just said, namely that the position in South Africa could have been a good deal better. Only a few years ago this Government introduced the Water Bill and all the matters raised by the Prime Minister in his statement were in fact dealt with at the time of the introduction of this Bill. We, on both sides of the House, emphasized the importance of developing the water resources of this country. But it needed a record drought to bring the matter home.

That is just cheap talk.

It is a hard fact and not cheap talk. The hon. member for Cradock who is bleating his last song in this House should realize that the industrial development of this country could have been far better planned had it been planned on the basis of water and not on that of colour. Here we have the Minister of Finance with an Appropriation Bill which gives a bare outline of the financial position and leaves a lot unsaid. The Minister indicated that he would require additional finances throughout the country. He indicated approximately what he needed and he showed beyond doubt that he is in difficulties with regard to short-term loans, and that this particularly applied to overseas loans. He told us during the course of his speech that the time was not ripe. He went overseas and he got R35.8 m. from overseas loans all of which was to be returned within the next year to two years at the outside. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister when he thinks the time is going to be ripe for him to take another trip overseas to obtain long-term loans. Does he think there would be an opportunity of acquiring long-term loans. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) criticized the outside world and we are finding too many members on the other side criticizing the outside world. One of their leading bankers criticized the outside world and said that we do not want any foreign banks in this country. Mr. Speaker, as long as we talk that way, as long as responsible members of the Government ridicule the outside world and tell outside bankers that they are not wanted here, they cannot expect the Minister of Finance to go overseas and be very successful in obtaining foreign money. Or is it the policy of members on the other side of the House to say that we do not want any foreign money. If that is their policy they should inform the Minister of Finance accordingly. You see, Mr. Speaker, we have either to meet our loan position from internal or external loans. If we cannot get external loans we have to look to internal loans for our finance. In this respect the Minister has indicated that he is experiencing difficulty in regard to the internal loan position. There are no long-term monetary prospects if the Minister fails in obtaining loans internally. He indicated in his speech that he offered a record interest rate. He indicated that it was the highest interest rate that South Africa has ever achieved, in other words, it is the highest rate of interest that South Africa has ever asked for a long-term 25 year loan. And yet he failed. Does he now expect to offer a higher rate in future or is he going to take steps to enforce loans? Does he intend introducing legislation similar to that obtaining in other parts of the world to compel financial institutions to invest large sums of money in Government institutions? Because if that is his intention he should tell us. Does he intend to have a compulsory savings levy—a higher compulsory savings levy? Does he intend to continue the savings levy? I take it that he does not intend answering that question now but that he will do so during his budget. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is in difficulty in regard to internal loans, and he is not being helped by interjections from his own side with regard to the procurement of overseas loans. The balance of payments position will continue as long as the Minister is going to experience borrowing difficulties, as long as the Minister is having difficulties with exports and as long as the import bill continues to rise. Exports have increased, Mr. Speaker, but in years to come we will need further exports and we are going to need additional productivity on the part of the exporters, particularly in the current year, having regard to the fact that we have to import so much food. With the failure of certain agricultural products like maize and wheat we will need to import further quantities of maize and wheat for feeding our people. And if we are to import wheat and maize at a later stage, will the Minister give an indication of how much we will have to import this year? To what extent will the import bill be increased this year in order to satisfy the basic food requirements of this country? That will all help us to give us the complete picture in regard to our balance of payments position. With regard to our exports, Mr. Speaker, one of our principal difficulties is that certain countries to the North have closed their doors to us and that one of these countries is in financial difficulties. This country will not be able to import from us as much as formerly. That will raise further problems in the export markets and we would like to know from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Economic Affairs what further expansion he anticipates in the export markets during the coming year because exports are vital to this country, and with exports we have to face up to the fact that when there is inflation we have rising costs, and with rising costs in our industries we are going to find it all the more difficult to compete on the world’s export markets. We are going to have this further difficulty that as our gold mines, which are the main purchasers of the products of our industries, reach the end of their economic life, or as some of them reach the end of their economic life, they are not going to be purchasers to the same extent, and in the years which lie ahead we are going to find ourselves in the position that our secondary industries, which formerly looked to the gold mining industry for their orders, will have to look either to the internal market in South Africa or to export markets. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is facing up that fact? I should like to know from the Minister of Finance whether either he or the Minister of Economic Affairs has the answer to the question of improved export markets and whether he sees any prospect of substantial exports for our secondary industries during the current year. You see. Sir, part of the difficulties under which we are labouring at the moment were foreseen by the Minister in his Budget speech last year when he said—

I would like to know from the Minister whether he thinks that the stage has now been reached where he has arrested those serious inflationary pressures? Does the Minister believe that he has those inflationary pressures under control? Does he see any risk of further inflation? Because this matter was omitted by the Minister in his summing up of the financial position of the country. It is true that he gave us a brief summary of the financial position, and his answer will be that it is not yet the end of the year but the end of the financial year is only six weeks away and I suggest that the hon. the Minister is in a position to indicate whether the pressures are still there or whether he has them under control, because there is no doubt that the cost structure is high and that the inflationary pressures are there. I cannot over-stress the importance of keeping our cost structure under control. Any further increase will reduce the possibilities of our competing in the world markets. Sir, I see further problems this year before we get out of our difficulties. I refer to a recent development in this country and that is the transfer of insurance business from firms in Britain to insurance firms in South Africa. Recently, as a result of the complications in Rhodesia, certain insurance business which formerly was given to insurance organizations in Britain, has been transferred to South Africa and South Africa will receive a considerable amount of premium income from Rhodesia and South African insurance companies at the same time will accept the responsibility for substantial insurance liabilities. I would like to know from the Minister whether he has given the assurance to the insurance companies that should they have any claims, the claims will be met without any exchange restrictions. Sir, the point is a valid one. If a company which was formerly insured with, say, Lloyds, now insures with a South African firm and submits a claim for R1,000,000, then as soon as that claim has been accepted that insurance company will be called upon to remit that insurance company will be called upon to remit that money to Rhodesia. Can the Minister give us the assurance that no obstacles whatsoever will be placed in the way of an insurance company which seeks to transfer funds to meet that claim back to Rhodesia; because if that assurance cannot be given then the benefits which flowed from transferring the business from British companies to South African companies no longer apply. That is one of the difficulties which Rhodesia experienced and that is the reason why she has transferred her business to South African companies. As all of us know, we have had cases where life insurance policies have matured in this country and the beneficiaries under those life policies are no longer living in South Africa. They are living in America or Britain or Europe or Australia. Some considerable difficulty has been experienced in obtaining from the exchange authorities the right to transfer those funds out of South Africa since the introduction of exchange control regulations. I submit that this is a very important matter which warrants a reply from the Minister in this debate because unless the insurance companies can be given the assurance that they will be able to transfer those funds forthwith the benefit accruing to South Africa as a result of the transfer of this business to South African insurance companies, can at best only be a temporary benefit. Unless the claims can be paid forthwith without any exchange control restrictions, then no special benefit accrues from the fact that these companies have insured with South African firms. I would like the hon. the Minister, in the course of his reply, to give us that assurance. Has the Minister’s Department given the assurance to all insurance companies that no exchange difficulties will be placed in their way? Sir. not only must the Minister give us that assurance; he must give a further assurance to this country. He must give the assurance to the country that there is going to be better financial discipline. I think the whole country has been stunned over the past ten years or so by the number of crashes of financial institutions. I do not want to mention any particular organizations but I think we are all concerned, and the Minister must be concerned, with the number of crashes which have occurred over the last ten years or so, and I suggest, without putting the blame on anyone, that what the Minister does need is an increased qualified technical staff in his Department, in the offices of the Registrars of Financial Institutions, Banks and Insurance Companies. I do not see how these officials, however loyal and efficient they may be, can maintain adequate control and administer the Statutes efficiently unless there is an increase in the staff. I suggest that some of these crashes which have taken place might have been avoided had earlier steps been taken or had there been that measure of financial discipline which was contemplated when the Statutes were introduced Sir, if we are to have cleaning up in South Africa of financial institutions all financial institutions must be assured that the Minister has an adequate inspectorate and that the financial regulations and Statutes are being adequately administered.

While we are considering this matter I think it is time that some fresh air passed through the corridors of some of the financial deals in this country. I think that all concessions, be they for diamonds, be they for crayfish, be they for water, be they for land, should be open to public tender so that everyone will know that such and such a concession was available: so that the world can examine them. There should be the maximum publicity so that there will be no possibility of rumours, however wild they may be.

They may be false rumours.

The hon. the Chief Whip says that they may be false rumours. We do not want any kind of rumours, either false rumours or rumours which are not false. A rumour that is false is just as damaging as a rumour that is not false and I suggest that just as we have Government tenders and tenders which are open for inspection …

What about the United Party tender system?

Sir, I am not going to be side-tracked by the hon. Chief Whip. I am dealing with the position to-day, and I say that in all concessions there should be the maximum publicity so that the whole world will know what the conditions are. If the world is to have confidence in this country then the ordinary man in the street must have confidence. There are far too many people getting rich too quickly and we want the ordinary man in the street to feel that he has just as many opportunities of getting rich as anybody else. It should not be confined only to those who sit inside.

To whom are you referring?

I am not referring to anyone at all. I am suggesting that the Chief Whip is sufficiently responsible to require that there should be honourable dealings in South African business, at all levels, and I hope that the hon. Chief Whip will support me when I say that there should be honourable dealings in all business transactions and that a clear wind should blow through the whole question of the allocation of concessions so that the whole world will know what the position is. Sir, we are concerned with the ordinary man in the street; we are concerned with the every-day man who finds that the cost of living is increasing. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) who has now left the Chamber referred to increases in salaries. He showed that there had been tremendous increases over the last few years and suggested that salaries had increased at a much faster rate than the cost of living had risen. The ordinary man finds that the cost of living burden is growing every year. The ordinary man is finding that whereas formerly his wife stayed at home, his wife has had to go out to work. In many cases the price of the wife going out to work is that homes are not as stable as they should be. The ordinary person, who has suffered as a result of the financial crisis which we have read about in the newspapers, finds that certain people become rich while others have to continue to struggle. Until such time as we have a clean-up in the financial world as a whole the ordinary man will continue to be dissatisfied. The ordinary man is suggesting that there is something in the rumours of nepotism and that a proper clean-up is overdue or maybe overdue. It may only be rumours; I hope the hon. the Chief Whip is right that these rumours are false, but I suggest that the finest way of clearing up anything is to let fresh air blow through it.

You are sowing suspicion.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that the average man in the street is highly dissatisfied with the number of financial crashes which have taken place in recent years. He is highly dissatisfied with the fact that his money has been lost. Sir, all these crashes have to be paid for by the ordinary taxpayer. When there is a financial crash and money goes missing, someone has to pay; it has to be recovered in future costs, and I suggest that the time is long overdue when we should have a proper clean-up in our financial institutions. I suggest that the time is long overdue when concessions should be properly advertised and that we should have evidence that there is going to be some constructive planning in this country, not just pie in the sky and pipe-dreams, as the Prime Minister suggested the other day. There should be a sounder basis of planning the country as a whole. I suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he comes to his next Budget, if he presents another Budget—I am told that he will not do so—instead of casting himself in the role of a doctor or a tailor, should cast himself in the role of a dancer with seven veils. The first veil which should be stripped off is the credit squeeze; the second one is inflation and the increased cost of living; the third one is that there is no sign of easing the burdens of the farmers, the young people and the aged; the fourth is compulsory loans and the threat of compulsory loans; the fifth is the slowing down of development; the sixth is the increased costs and the consequent loss of markets and the seventh as the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said, is higher taxes. I suggest that when all these veils are stripped off the Minister we will find him naked on a tight rope which is very inelegant.

It seems to me, after listening to the hon. member who moved the amendment and to his seconder, that there is not much substance in the amendment. The amendment has three legs. One deals with training, the second leg deals with social services and the third one deals with farming. We have heard nothing about training as yet neither have we heard anything about social services. Social services really deal with those people in the urban areas where hon. members on the opposite side are now about to lose further seats. As regards farming, we did not hear much about that, but perhaps we shall hear more about it later. At the present moment the amendment concerning, farming is misplaced, because that leg of the amendment is being wiped out by rain. But, at any rate, we shall see on 30 March what the verdict is of the voters in those constituencies which suffered years of drought. If there is dissatisfaction in those constituencies we shall be able to test it on 30 March. Zoutpansberg is one of those constituencies. It is one of the driest constituencies in South Africa. The United Party is now going to put up a candidate there and we shall see what the verdict of the voters is. The National Party goes to meet the election with confidence, also as far as this matter is concerned.

Apart from its usual frustrations, it must frustrate a party further to have to tackle in an economic debate a party which has created over the years such a vivid image of confidence, of competence, of vigour and of planning. Such a vivid image of confidence and competence was created, not only with supporters of the party on that side of the House, but also in the entire country and with the partners in trade of the Republic of South Africa. This image of confidence and competence has grown so much over the years that hon. members on that side of the House have to struggle, as they are struggling now, to launch a real assault on the Government in a debate such as this one. Over the years hon. members on the opposite side have not been able to bring in any legitimate criticism against the basic economic and financial policy of this Government—neither have they been able to do so in this debate. It is perhaps necessary that we should review the basic policy on which the economy of the country has been built and which this Government is pursuing. These are well-known facts, but it is perhaps good that we should repeat them. In the first place it is a policy aimed at the greatest possible growth and economic development, economic independence and financial independence; it is a policy aimed at maintaining a free economy; it is a policy aimed at creating major growth centres and major basic economic resources—of which a few have been mentioned this afternoon—to support the economy around which a nucleus can develop and which will also be able to give the necessary stimulus to the economy itself; further it is a policy aimed at maintaining the necessary marketing mechanism for the creation of stability and noninterference in that marketing mechanism unless it is aimed at directing and planning and saving the economy from imbalance; further it is a policy aimed at large-scale industrial development of the country and the expansion of markets over the entire world, as it is happening at present. Another important aspect of the Government’s policy is to cause economic development to centre around all the resources of the country and the total geographic distribution of its people, and over and above the economic development of South Africa also to provide for the development of the various population groups and for creating, by means of economic development, peaceful and safe and calm conditions amongst all population groups. Together these things form the basic economic and financial policy of the Government. That is exactly what happened, and hon. members on the opposite side were unable to assault that image. A few days ago we listened to the hon. the Prime Minister when it was with confidence that he could rise and further uphold to South Africa not only the achievements of the past, but also achievements of such magnitude that to be able to hold out the prospect of such achievements, can only fill the country with pride.

It is also essential that we pause for a moment at the reason for the policy being laid down in that manner, and how the Government itself looks upon its aspirations in regard to economic development in the future. It looks upon that against the background of the necessity of having to comply with certain economic conditions in South Africa—certain things we cannot forget, and the first point is that our population is small. On the other hand, however, we have many resources and these major resources of South Africa can be used to make the Republic a powerful factor in world economy, on condition that we are able to develop these resources by keeping our economy both self-reliant and as far as possible, independent, and thus to make up for our deficiency in numbers by developing our inherent strength. In the third place, the background to achieving this is that we should harness our economy to its full capacity; in other words, we should utilize both our human and our material resources to the full. As the Government’s policy evolved, we have seen over the years a development which was the result of the Government’s good planning. The fact that we had that development was the result of purposeful planning on the part of the Government.

In the second place it is also important that we have been able to maintain a praiseworthy balance in the economy, in spite of many influences against the economy and by means of purposeful attempts on the part of the Government itself. There is a large number of examples we can quote: maintaining our economy in spite of the fact that internally South Africa did not have the loyalty of all of those who could have been instrumental in helping her: the fact that South Africa was attacked abroad and that specific attempts were made to arrest the economic growth in order to harm the Government in that way; the fact that in the past years we have not had the loyalty of major financial institutions to assist in the implementation of the basic policy of the Government, and also the fact that in this House we did not have the loyal support of hon. members on the opposite side to help us in regard to this planning. I say that, in spite of the fact that the Government did not have the support of hon. members on the opposite side, and that the Government had to maintain the economy and the balance in the face of so many problems, it still succeeded in doing that. Important and basic, however, is the fact that we have had this image of economic growth and of stability as a result of the basic control exercised by the Government over the past few years over the course of the economy, and also as a result of the basic control the Government is exercising over the course of the economy at the present moment. That control was exercised in such a manner that hon. members on the opposite side, with all the questions they asked and all the suspicions they cast, could not succeed in wrecking the Government’s policy. In spite of certain indications that on certain levels the economy is developing faster than is necessary, hon. members on the opposite side need not fear that the Government will release its hold on the development of the economy.

We should also remember that the problems which are being held up as problems of the country at the moment, are in fact problems that result from prosperity. We prefer saying that they are not problems and that they are nothing but signs of an economy which is growing too rapidly; and we say that they are indeed problems resulting from prosperity for which we should be very grateful.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to look upon the development of our economy and the problems which are coming to the fore at the moment, against the background of certain happenings in the course of our economy itself. There are a few things which are happening to-day, and if I speak about them, it will really be a reply to the remarks made here by hon. members on the opposite side. In the first place, our economy is characterized by excessive imports. Our imports have increased considerably. Our imports did in fact increase in extent, but it was at a reduced rate, and if the measures of control applied by the Government had not been applied, the rate at which our imports would have increased, would probably have been higher still. We now find criticism on all levels and concern is expressed about the fact that our imports have been so large in the past year. The fear is also expressed that our imports will probably be too large for South Africa in the years that lie ahead. There are three sectors which have offended as regards excessive imports. In the first place there were large imports of capital goods. If there is criticism about large imports of capital goods, we should remember that excessive imports of capital goods really cause a short-term squeeze. We do not deny the fact that as far as the importation of capital goods is concerned there is indeed a squeeze, but what we do in fact say, is that it is a short-term squeeze, because imports of capital goods are quickly converted into production and the increase of production potential. What enters to-day as imports, leaves as exports to-morrow. In other words, it is a short-term pinch at the present moment, but in the long run it will have an effect which can only help South Africa. Therefore we do not regard it as dangerous that South Africa’s imports of capital goods have been large.

There have been large imports of consumer goods, but large imports of consumer goods do not necessarily constitute a major evil, because such imports can be controlled and their effects are of short duration. We had a choice. We had the choice of either allowing a problem to be created with increased inflation as a result, or slightly moderating the inflation by allowing more goods to enter the country; and it is much easier and probably more sound for South Africa to weaken the balance of trade temporarily than not to allow consumer goods to enter and to cause inflation which in turn can give rise to their difficulties in South Africa. In other words, the importation of consumer goods did not necessarily create a dangerous problem. In the third place I shall also refer to the imports of industrial and commercial supplies. That took place at a very high tempo but there was a reason for it. Many industrialists were under the impression that there were very high profits to be made and they built up huge stock-piles. They made a mistake, but at the present moment the position is returning to normal because those industrialists have started to cut down on their imports, either because they disciplined themselves or because they are afraid they will be caught with stock-piles that are too large. For that reason it is not a major problem. However, a further phenomenon of our economy is reduced exports. Exports are too small, not in total, but the increase in exports took place at a reduced rate of growth. However, that can also be controlled and there is a reason for that. The agricultural sector is a very important sector of our exports, and there was a decrease of R65,000,000 in the exports of the agricultural sector, but it is a seasonal phenomenon and in all probability the present rains in South Africa will cause that figure to look quite different this year. Therefore one cannot make any deduction from that seeing that it is beyond our control. That is really the only part of our economy which is truly beyond our control, and it is beyond our control because we cannot control rain. But the decrease in exports was also attributable to the raw materials which South Africa exports on a large scale and which has shown a decrease on the world market. This, too, is a temporary phenomenon, because as far as its exports of raw materials are concerned, it is the declared policy of the Government to reduce these items and to process them inside South Africa, and to export them in their processed form. In other words, if this were a factor it will probably become a factor of decreasing importance in the future. There are also decreased exports as a result of the easy sale of industrial products on the local market. Here, too, it is a case of South Africa having to choose whether it is going to force exports and leave the local market devoid of essential consumer goods, thus creating inflationary pressure, or whether the Government would rather allow exports to be smaller, but bring about higher sales in South Africa, thus decelerating the inflationary pressure. The third characteristic of our economy was the fact that our decreased exports and increased imports lowered our balance of payments. Its turning point at the beginning of 1964 was R584,000,000, and its lowest turning point was R314,000,000. At the present moment our foreign reserves once again amount to R416,000,000. But you will remember. Sir, that a number of years ago hon. members on the opposite side made a point of reproaching the Government for keeping the reserves of the country too high. They asked why the Government wanted to save so much money, because it was not necessary. The Government’s attitude was to keep the balances safe, because it felt that it had to maintain certain ratios, but this is also a characteristic which we do not have to fear, because at the present moment those ratios are improving, and so is the position in regard to the reserves, and for the reasons I have just mentioned it will probably happen that we shall see our reserves rocketing probably to a figure which will be much higher than the turning point of R583,000.000 which we had last year. But in this, too, the characteristic of our economy was that it created the impression of being over-heated. It is true that our economy was over-heated to a very large extent. The only way in which that can be measured is by taking the price indices. From 1953 to 1963 the total increase in our retail consumer prices was 2.1 per cent. On several occasions speeches were made in this House and figures were quoted which indicated that an increase of 2.1 per cent was reasonably normal in comparison with increases in comparable countries overseas over similar periods. I do not want to reneat those arguments. Since that time up to the present the increase has been 2.9 per cent, but at the present moment the rate at which the price index is rising, has decelerated again. In other words, what happened was that there has in fact been a temporary over-heating of the economy, but that it did not reveal itself in a permanent uncontrollable economy in which prices kept rising at a high tempo, or rose abnormally high; that did not happen. Any fear which existed in regard to the over-heating of the economy has therefore fallen away. However, what is in fact important is that the economy continues to grow at a high rate and that there is full employment, and that large imports are being maintained, and that our production resources are fully employed—and that is fundamental. In this regard it is perhaps necessary to make a few observations in connection with possible bottlenecks, because we are making use of certain mechanisms in the economy. The mechanisms we use for controlling the economy are the mechanisms of interest rate control, of export control and of credit control. It may perhaps be necessary to suggest that we should look at the mechanism of credit control which is playing such an important part in South Africa at present, and that we should say a few things about it.

The mechanism of credit control also has its shortcomings, and one of them is that credit control measures affect commercial banks, but does not affect money owners. In the economic set-up of South Africa we have large companies which are able to use their own means, without having recourse to the commercial banks, in order to get round the Government’s object of attempting to retain control; without taking any notice of that, they can continue to jeopardize our balance of payments, and without wanting to co-operate they can land the country in a position where they would be promoting inflation. For that reason we believe that the control over such institutions has to be as complete as the control over banking institutions. If one wanted to apply credit control, it would be of no avail if it were only applied to commercial banks, while the other large money owners are allowed to use their funds as they wish. There is also a second reason for our having to apply credit control carefully, and that is that a very large percentage of the savings funds flow into the hands of insurance companies and pension funds. Of the total private savings in our country, 60 per cent goes into the hands of these two bodies. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has dealt fairly fully with the principles of economic development which I suppose are basic to the development of any country, and he has praised the Government for their planning which brought this development in the Republic into being. We, of course, as you know, Sir, have somewhat different views on that subject. The hon. member also accused us on this side of the House of never supporting the Government in its undertakings. I think we have done a lot better. We have made some very good suggestions to the Government, and most of their success has come as the result of our suggestions which they accepted, e.g. on immigration, the pipeline and the Hex River Tunnel. These are the things which have really brought them fame and all of them originated on this side of the House.

The Minister of Finance, in his address to the House last Thursday, told us that at the moment we could expect no easing of the credit squeeze. He told us that the inflationary conditions had not been fully cured and there could be no relaxations of the restrictions imposed to combat inflation at this stage. He went on to tell us that he was happier to-day than he was six months ago about the inflationary position and that he was hopeful that the measures which had been adopted by the Government were being and would be successful in warding off the dangers of inflation. We are very gratified to know that the position is being got under control, because it is the sincere hope of this side of the House that we will soon get back to normality and that the Minister will be able to tell us that he can remove these restrictions. I think the important question to be asked is whether we should have got into the situation in which we are at the moment.

It is true that over the past years there has been a steady increase in the national product in this country; in most cases there has been a bettering of the standard of living of the people, and generally there has been development in most sections of the economy. But despite this progress, which has gone on for many years, from time to time we have been continually faced with the same recurring problems. And what have these problems been? They have been the problem of reconciling growth with stability of prices and with the balance of payments, the problem of excessive consumption of consumer goods, the problem of over-investment in the private and in the public sector and perhaps, above all, the lack of the availability of skilled labour. Now we had the same situation in 1948 and we had it in the early 1950s and again in 1956. The Minister has at his disposal some of the best financial brains in the country. He has the experts in his own Department, and he has some very good people there. He has the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council to call on when he needs them. In fact, he can call on any economist in the country for help. We will even help him if he calls on us. One would have expected the Minister, with all these financial brains at his disposal, to have seen the writing on the wall long before he did, and to have seen the old familiar pattern repeating itself. Had he done so, the position to-day might have been quite different. A stitch in time saves nine, says the old adage, and the restraint that the Minister could have imposed say 12 months ago would have been a mild restraint, whereas in fact over the last six to nine months he has had to bring in one drastic measure after another to control this over-expansion which could not be sustained without a crippling of our overseas reserve.

There is another aspect which I hope the Minister will take cognizance of. There is a body of informed opinion in this country which believes that all these controls which have had to be imposed distort the position to such an extent that planning becomes more and more difficult. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the publication by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa. The Challenge to Sustain Prosperity in South Africa,at page 16, under the heading “Lessons for the Future”—

They are talking about this repetition of this situation against which the Minister had to adopt these measures—

This point of view is reinforced by the Chairman’s statement for 1965 of the Anglo-American Corporation, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says this—

We hope, Sir. that the result of these controls will not be as suggested by these two authorities. I think a lot of undue hardship could have been avoided had the hon. the Minister taken action earlier. A typical case is what has been happening in the provinces where the Minister of Finance told the provinces to stop spending. There has been a very serious clamp-down. If you ask for small work to be done, e.g. on schools, you are told that there are no funds available because of the credit squeeze. That is the excuse for everything. I think that had the position been realized earlier, a lot of the projects which had been started would not have been started, because once they are started they have to be continued; you cannot stop projects in the middle, and many of the essential services which we are told to-day cannot be performed because of the credit squeeze could have been undertaken if a lot of these projects had not been started and funds had been available to meet the essentials.

There is one thing which is common to all the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Finance. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). The hon. the Minister never quite finishes his stories. He never quite cures the patient. He never scores the winning run. He never produces the prize-winning bloom, and he never catches the big fish. Whatever guise he adopts, he never writes “Finis” to his story. I would have liked to have heard the ending to the story of the Minister on the two points already raised by the hon. member for Constantia, because I think it requires some elaboration. The Minister told us that for the first time since 1956 there has been a net increase in the flow of capital to the private sector. He did not tell us the amount, but I am informed, and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, that it was of the order of some R158,000,000. We understand from the Minister that of this amount approximately R50.000,000 was long term, and therefore approximately R108,000,000 was short term. We also know—the figures have been mentioned twice already this afternoon—that the Minister has borrowed nearly R36,000,000 from abroad, also short term. The Minister also told us that his reserves last week were R415.000.000. If you take the short-term borrowing in the private and the public sectors, you will find these come to R140,000,000. The Minister, quite rightly, tells us that there are other problems we will have to face as the result of the drought, which we are all delighted has in the main been broken. There will have to be lower agricultural exports for a while and greater agricultural imports. Sir, if our reserves are R415.000,000 and our short-term borrowings are R140,000,000, can the Minister not give us some idea of what the balance of payments will be in the immediate future? Is it going back to R300,000,000, or will it increase, or will it decrease? Can we look forward in the not too distant future to some sort of stability in what is the most vital factor in our whole economy, which affects the thinking of every single person? If you talk to a business man he always discusses the balance of payments, because everyone is worried about it.

The second issue which has also been raised is the question of loans. In 1965-6 the Minister told us we would have a deficit of R50,000,000 which he would balance with the surplus from revenue. He also told us that the amount available from the State Debt Commissioners is less than the R135,000,000 which was anticipated. He did not. of course, tell us how much less it was, and the same in regard to the R70,000,000 loan. We also know that one of the points made by the Economic Planning Council is that it is likely that portion of our revenue income will have to be utilized in future for capital purposes if we are to maintain the target of growth we desire. The question that arises then is the one which the hon. member for Constantia raised, namely what will be our position if the Minister cannot raise longterm funds abroad? He told us that the climate was not quite right. I think the House would like to have some indication from the Minister of his anticipation of what he may or may not be able to do abroad. Otherwise I think the point taken by the hon. member for Constantia will be only too true. We will have to tax the people to take care of our capital requirements.

The Minister has once again predicted a surplus for 1965-6. This, of course, does not come as any surprise to us. I think what is a surprise is the modesty of his anticipated surplus at the moment. No doubt when the actual surplus is known it will be far greater, because last year the surplus was in the neighbourhood of R120,000,000, and the previous year it was R88,000,000. Over the last five years we have had surpluses of something of the order of R300,000,000, an average of about R60.000,000 per annum. Sir, you know, great wealth brings great responsibility, and I wonder whether the Minister feels that he has carried out his great responsibilities, out of this great wealth at his disposal, in the best interests of the country. We do not think so, Sir. Speakers on this side of the House in the debates over the past few days have told the Minister so in regard to education, technical training, etc. I think the Minister and the Government are only now beginning to realize, late as usual, that to make money you have to spend money, and that you have to spend money on the right things. Therefore there are two points I want to take up with the Minister and with the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I am comparatively new in this House, but except for the first year I was here I have joined battle with the Minister of Economic Affairs almost every year in regard to our overseas representation. I have not had much success. He did, after two years of pleading, send somebody to Brussels, to the Common Market, and he promised to let me know on which plane the gentleman was going, because I said I would like to see him off. I am told that he actually went. Last year I raised the matter again. The Minister of Economic Affairs, in a New Year Message to Commerce and Industry, said this—

We subscribe to this entirely, but we do hope that the Minister will take a more active part in our representation abroad. I pointed out last year that in regard to South America we had posts on the Estimates which have never been filled, and the following year they were removed. What does one find? An organization supported by the Minister, SAFTO, have been dealing at great length with South America. In SAFTO News of January 1966 we find: “R7,000,000 American trade open to South African export.” In 1965 we find: “South Africa wants larger share of South American markets.” “Peruvian shaft-sinking contract.” Also in 1965: “A market on which South Africa must set her sights.” There are long articles on Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica—the whole of South America. And I agree. I was in South America two years ago and spent quite a time poking my nose around, and yet the Minister, as far as I know, has not yet appointed anybody there. If he has, I hope he will tell us so. Now I see that SAFTO is suggesting to the Minister that we could do a lot more business with Lebanon. All the wealth of the Middle East has found its way to the Lebanon for security reasons. I was there last year. We have a commercial representative there, and I had the pleasure of meeting him. I spent quite a while with him and, like all our commercial representatives, he is a first-class man. I have not found one who is bad, and I have met them in the Far East and in South America and in most countries, but they are not getting enough support and I hope the Minister of Economic Affairs will really do his best to help them. Now, I know things are happening in the export world. I know a subsidy is being paid to SAFTO. I know that private enterprise is entering the field in quite a big way and that a number of big export corporations have been set up, bu there is still more to be done and if you read the reports of the E.D.P. You will find this question of our commercial representation abroad is always dealt with.

The second field where I do not think we have done enough is in the field of taxation. We have discussed this with the Minister of Finance previously. Last year he accepted the principle that there should be some alleviation of taxation for married women. We told the Minister last year that we did not think he had gone far enough, and I want to repeat it this year, particularly in regard to working women. I think the Minister will find ultimately, that he will have to differentiate between earned income and unearned income, and that the woman who works is entitled to greater benefits than the woman who has an income from investments.

But there is another field where we want help from the Minister, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, and that is in regard to young married people. The young married people have two problems. They find housing almost impossible to obtain, and they find it very difficult to save. The Minister will know that, taking a class which is dealt with in the latest E.D.P., the professional, semi-professional, technical, managerial, executive and administrative occupations, those occupations in which large shortages occur, the cost of a house to-day is from R10,000 to R12,000. He will also know that if you want to borrow from the building societies, and the hon. member for Constantia has told him it is almost impossible to do so, a young couple has to find 25 per cent of the purchase price of the home. That means that they have to find some R3,000, plus the transfer fees. The Minister knows what the situation is regarding the rental of flats which young people occupy, and he knows of the increase in the cost of living, and he knows that it is very difficult for these young people to make ends meet at all. We would like the young people to agree with the Deputy Minister regarding the increase in the White population in this country, but the simple position is that they cannot afford to do so. The young people in the middle income groups, where the husband probably earns in his first years from R200 to R300 a month, and if he is lucky and his wife is working she earns perhaps R100 a month, so that between them they are earning between R300 and R400 a month, have to provide for pensions and medical aid and unemployment insurance and the Minister demands his P.A.Y.E. So they are left with anything from 85 per cent to 90 per cent of their salaries. The deductions represent from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. These young people, Mr. Speaker, are the backbone of the country. We will have to depend on these young people in the future. And it is only really in the first few years of their married life that they find things difficult. Because if they have the right education, as many of them have—and in many cases their families had to struggle to provide them with such an education—you will find that they progress fairly rapidly after the first three or four years of married life. Their incomes increase fairly rapidly.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he can do to help these young people. According to figures supplied to me a married couple without children earning more than R180 per month are disqualified from obtaining a Government-assisted loan. It is just impossible to obtain a loan from a building society. If you can, you have to pay too much as a deposit. 1 want to ask the hon. the Minister and his colleagues to go into the question and try to work out some formula whereby these young people can be helped in the first few years of married life to own their own homes.

The same situation applies to the question of taxation. And here I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should not introduce a crash programme but rather an atomic explosion. One of the things that bears most heavily on these young people is the tax that they have to pay. I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider two possible alternatives. First of all, the Minister might consider granting young married couples a tax honeymoon for the first two or three years of their married life. Such a step will give them an opportunity to establish themselves. He will certainly be the most popular man in the whole country amongst the younger people! But he would, in all seriousness, Sir, be doing a great service to the young people of this country and be doing something to vercome one of the great problems of South Africa, namely the relatively small figure of our White population. In the second place, if a young couple have a child they receive from the hon. the Minister a rebate of R34 per annum per child. Now I want to suggest to the Minister that he should be big and he should be bold and he should give us this atomic explosion. He should say to young couples that all children born in the first four years of marriage will entitle them to not R34 per annum per child as a rebate but R240 for every child per annum. This will be some little modicum to enable them to comply with the wishes of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who quite rightly wants to see the White population of this country increased.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the unfortunate things that when a young couple have a child, the wife has to stop working. And unfortunately many of them have to go back to work much sooner than they would like to after the birth. I think there is a crying need for couples finding themselves in the circumstances I have mentioned. There were about 80,000 children born in this country last year. I do not know what it will cost the hon. the Minister if he adopted my second suggestion. It may be R10,000,000 or R15,000,000 per annum. I cannot determine, with the information at my disposal, how many couples will have to be helped, and what the cost will be. In any case, Sir, it will be a mere bagatelle. I ask the hon. the Minister, who has his whole Department, including many experts, behind him, to accept in principle that these young people must be helped. I ask the Minister to give this matter some consideration during the recess so that before the next Budget he will be in a position to come to the House with a concrete scheme to help the young married couples of this country.

I have listened closely to what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) said. During the past few years I have always enjoyed listening to what the hon. member had to say and 1 think he made another fairly constructive contribution to the debate this afternoon. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member asked: “Should we have got into this position?” If the question is put in that way, it sounds as though we were in an un comfort d A position, a position in which we would present not to be. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the position. As hon. members on this side of the House have pointed out, we are in a position of which we are very proud We are in a position of which we very much like to be. Now I ask the question, Sir: “How far have we progressed? To set out with a position in which our reserves were very high and the country had vast liquid assets. Our manpower was not fully utilized and we did not have full employment in our industries. We handled that position in such a way that our economy and the country as a whole could derive the maximum benefits from it.

During the past few years the position has changed continually, and in 1965 the process reached its peak. And as a member of this side of the House I am very, very proud of that gradual process. But now the hon. member seems to be insinuating the we have arrived at a rather unenviable position. He levelled the charge that the hon. the Minister should have set about his corrective measures at an earlier stage. But if the hon. member cast his mind back across the past two years, he would remember that the hon. the Minister had cautioned the public to save more. The hon. the Minister appealed to the financial institutions of South Africa to grant credit facilities more evenly and in a more balanced way. We changed the Banking Act. Various financial institutions which had previous been out side that, were brought within the provision> of the Banking Act in order to achieve more control over the monetary transactions and financial policy in general. The hon. the Minister did not introduce the corrective measures too late. On the contrary, he took the necessary action timeously. But, Sir, it is not only the Government which should do its duty in this respect. The manufacturers and industry also have a duty to fulfil, namely the duty to produce; the duty to make the correct use of credit; the duty not only to sell locally, but also to export. Surely the financial institutions also have a duty to fulfil, and that is to grant and cancel credit facilities judiciously. The public also has a duty, and that is not to live above their incomes and to save as much as possible. Hon. members should not pretend that only the Minister has a duty. And since voluntary action on the part of the various concerns was not as desired, the hon. the Minister came forward with certain measures in 1964, in March and again in October last year. That is why I maintain that the hon. the Minister had acted timeously. It should always be borne in mind that the economy is something delicate. Hon. members spoke of “too little too late”, but on the other hand, too much can be done too soon.

Like the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member also spoke of taxes which are to be imposed in the second half of the year. In that respect the arguments by those hon. members were fallacious. The hon. member for Constantia spoke as though only the expenditure will increase. Surely he may just as well argue that the revenue will also increase by 5| per cent. Surely this year’s surplus could also increase by 51 per cent. Then there will be no deficit which will have to be met when the main estimates are submitted. I could argue, on the other hand, that there may be a surplus of R50.000.000 to R60,000,000 in the coming financial year, and that the so-called deficit of R160,000,000 on the estimates from Loan Account, which they have calculated theoretically, will then be hopelessly exaggerated, since that account will not be as high as that at all.

I now want to quote what appeared in a certain journal concerning various aspects of the economies of the major countries. This is what was said about the U.S.A.—

That is the same as the increase in South Africa.

This figure is lower than that in respect of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I think the following is significant—

As I have now demonstrated, the South African problems to which hon. members are referring, are in fact being experienced throughout the world. As the hon. the Minister has in fact put it, where a country’s economy is based on private initiative, as in South Africa, the Government cannot press buttons left, right and centre in order to bring about certain conditions, but can merely make the necessary machinery available in order that the private sector may carry on the development. In such an economy one should always anticipate fluctuations in the trade cycles.

The hon. member for Constantia said: “This Government has muddled the financial affairs of the country over the last five years without parallel.” I shall now try to indicate how this Government has “muddled” the country’s affairs over the past five years.

What does every worker want? Every worker wants work. He asks: “Give me work.” And if a country’s Government sees to it that there are opportunities for employment for all its workers, and that they are duly remunerated, then that Government is worth its salt. The number of workers of all races in this country has increased from 1,600,000 in 1957 to 2,023,000 in 1964. In this number, the increase of Whites was as follows: 407,000 in 1957 to 482,000 in 1964. And in the manufacturing industry and construction works alone there were 218,000 White workers in 1964, a figure which had increased to 233,100 by September last year. In the year 1965 the employment figures again showed a strong rise. And now the hon. members on the other side come along and allege that the Government has muddled the country’s economy over the past five years!

I should like to refer to the extraordinary private capital investments from abroad which flowed to South Africa during 1965, something to which the hon. member for Parktown also referred. Is that an indication of a weak economy, an economy which is being “muddled” by this Government? For that is what the hon. member for Constantia alleged. I also refer to the hon. the Minister’s intention of entering the European capital market. Is that intention on the part of the Minister an indication that our economy has been muddled Is it an indication of a muddled economy when the Government of a country keeps the prices of goods within limits, as this Government has in fact done?

I want to read to hon. members the consumer price indexes of a few countries, based the year 1958. Since 1960 the index in South Africa has increased by 11.6 per cent. In New Zealand it has increased by 14.3 per cent; in the United Kingdom by 19 per cent. In the U.S.A, it has increased by only 7 per cent. In the Netherlands the increase has been 24 per cent, and in Australia 9.4 per cent. In Canada the increase has been 7.8 per cent, while in West Germany it has been 15.7 per cent. It is therefore evident that the Republic does not show up too badly.

If we look at the index figures for wholesale prices, it is once again clear that South Africa is in a favourable position. Last year, also, more companies were registered in South Africa than in many previous years. Yes, during the year in which the muddling of our economy reached its peak—according to hon. members on the other side—more companies were registered in our country, with a larger share capital, than in the previous year. In addition, factory production last year showed an increase compared with the figures for the preceding year, and the same applies to exports—except in respect of agricultural products—and imports. Mr. Speaker, can a poor country buy as we bought last year?

As regards purely consumer goods, the figure was only slightly more than a tenth of the total import figure. In contrast, purely capital equipment represented a third of our total imports. The rest of our import goods were intended to stimulate and promote industrial and factory production in South Africa. As the hon. member for Soutpansberg said, that large import figure will yield dividends and gains to South Africa, as it has already done. Because more domestic consumer goods will be made available and our export trade will also be promoted, as is already the case.

Mr. Speaker, our economy has not been muddled; on the contrary, our economy has been handled very well. Let us look at the gross national incomes of a few countries. I shall quote the figures in respect of the period 1955 to 1964, adjusted to consistent prices for the year 1958.

Over the whole period our figure increased by 6 per cent, while over the last five years it has increased by an average of 6.5 per cent per annum. Australia’s figure has been an average of 4.5 per cent per year over the last five years. The figure for the U.S.A, has also been 4.5 per cent. The national income in the United Kingdom has increased by 3.7 per cent over the last five years. Canada’s increase has been 5.5 per cent. It is therefore evident that South Africa’s figure of an average of 6.5 per cent per annum over the past five years was the highest. I repeat: The gross national production figure showed an average increase of 6.5 per cent per annum compared with adjusted prices.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have now disposed of the allegation that we have “bungled the boom”. I think this boom should get a different name. I think our boom is so good that it deserves a “bugle”. With the bugle we can tell the world how strong South Africa’s economy is and how well is has been handled by this Government. And to the Opposition we can give a “bangle” with which to “wangle”!

I should have liked to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question or two, but since he is not present, I shall put the question to the hon. member for East Londen (City) (Dr. Moolman). In the course of the no-confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked why the agricultural sector was contributing progressively less towards the national income. He supplied the answer himself, namely that—according to him— agriculture is not sharing in the prosperity of the country. Now I want to ask the hon. member for East Londen (City) whether he agrees with this statement by his leader?

Are you alleging that he does share in that?

He does not agree—he is avoiding the question. The hon. member is too scared to admit in this House that he agrees with his leader. I want to ask the hon. member a further question—does this argument apply to agriculture only, or also to other sectors of our economy?

It applies inter alia to agriculture. [Interjections.]

Well, I should like to supply the hon. member for Drakensberg with the following facts. In 1912 mining contributed 27.1 per cent to our national income. In 1965 it contributed only 12 per cent. Do hon. members now allege that this decrease was due to the fact that mining did not share in our country’s economic prosperity? [Interjections.] As soon as these figures are placed in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the folly of such an allegation becomes evident. I asked myself why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that allegation. It is printed in Hansard, and if hon. members like, they can read it themselves. I cannot quite understand it, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is no fool. He is an intelligent man. Then why did he make that allegation? I think I know why. The United Party candidates are I all supplied with this little book. They have I to read what their leader said, and then they have to go and propagate that from the political platforms, since it was said by their leader. And there are so many of them who know nothing about politics! Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most untrue statements I have ever heard in this House. Surely it is an elementary fact that agriculture play a predominating role in any under-developed economy. As soon as that economy developes, the secondary and tertiary industries advance and cut down agriculture’s contribution to the national income to a certain extent. Some of the new money in the economy goes to those industries. In fact, that is a sign of development. Let us see what agriculture’s contribution to the national income has been over the past number of years. In the year 1919 it was 24.7 per cent. In 1948—the year in which the United Party lost the election —the figure was only 13.5 per cent. And now I ask once more—what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to prove with his statement? Nothing—absolutely nothing. All he can prove with his statement is that there has been a fantastic expansion of the mining industry in South Africa. And the decrease in the agriculture figure between 1948 and now is simply an indication of our country’s fantastic progress in the field of industry. It merely proves that our country’s requirements have undergone a change.

That is why … [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon. member, he can go home if he thinks he is more sympathetic towards the farmers of South Africa than I am. The farmers in my constituency know that. We shall talk about that again in August.

Then why do you not say that they are getting their fair share?

My farmers know that I am thinking and planning with them in order to give agriculture a sound position in the new economic deal in South Africa. They know that this Government is thinking and planning seriously in order not to neglect agriculture. The farmers know that the reason for that decrease in agriculture’s contribution is not what hon. members on the other side pretend it to be, but that it is due to other factors. Mr. Speaker, in a developing country the requirements of the inhabitants increase continually. That is actually a sign that the standard of living of our people is rising steadily. If a family’s income is two units, both units are used for buying food. But if one’s income increases to ten units, one still uses only two units to buy food with, and the other units are used to buy all sorts of things, including motor-cars.

Of course the hon. members on the other side are going to use those figures in their election campaign. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) that he is free to come and quote them in my constituency. I know he intends speaking there. And I tell him right now that he will achieve nothing. If what I have quoted here to-night cannot convince the hon. members on that side, then I ask them to read pages 34 and 35 of the latest edition of the Economic Development Programme. They will read the same things I have said here to-night. They will find that scientific people confirm in scientific language what I have said here.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

That hon. member should rather be quiet. Last year the hon. member flung his arms about and forecast that in October and November of last year there would be no meat in the country. He alleged that we would have to import meat from abroad.

The hon. member for Parktown had something to say about taxes. Well, Mr. Speaker, since 1947 our annual taxation has remained constant in comparison with the national income. It has remained unchanged over the years. I shall now give some figures to indicate what percentages of their national incomes a number of countries pay to their central government in the form of taxation. In South Africa the taxes collected by the central Government represent 10.6 per cent of the national income. In France the figure is 34 per cent. In West Germany it is also 34 per cent. In Italy the figure is 29.1 per cent. In Sweden it is 32.8 per cent. In the United Kingdom the figure is 32 per cent. In the U.S.A, the figure is 28.2 per cent. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I received the impression that the hon. members on that side were critizing our high defence expenditure in the course of the no-confidence debate. Well, why does that hon. member now allege that America is spending so much on defence? In any case, in Australia the corresponding figure is 21.4 per cent. The figure for Canada is 25.2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to point out to the hon. House …

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry. As it is, I will not finish. Before my time expires, I want to bring one or two small points to the notice of the hon. members. As regards a married couple with two children in South Africa, they become liable for taxation only when their income reaches R1,826. The corresponding figure for the last year of United Party Government was R1,142. In 1947 a married person with two children paid taxes to the value of R71.19 on an income of R2,000. At present the same person pays only R31.3O. In 1947 a married person with two children paid R151.69 on an income of R3,000, compared with R89.30 at present. I could continue along these lines. But before I leave this matter, I want to draw one more comparison between South Africa, Great Britain and Australia in this regard. In South Africa a family consisting of a husband, a wife and four children is not required to pay income tax until their income reaches R2,802. It is only on that income that they begin to pay income tax. On an income of R2,000 a person in the Cape Province—I take the Cape Province because here the aggregate of the central government and provincial taxes is the highest—pays R47.96 compared with R73.46 in Britain and R146.00 in Australia. On an income of R4,000 a husband, wife and two children in South Africa pay R226.13; in Britain they pay R651.00 and in Australia R680.00. On an income of R8.000 such a family pays R1,482.73 in South Africa, R1,856.56 in Britain, and R2,350.000 in Australia. Unfortunately I cannot pursue this comparison any further, because I notice that I have only one minute left, and I therefore have to conclude. If the United Party cannot do any better in its economic criticism than it has done so far, the same is going to happen in that respect that happened to their foreign affairs criticism, their non-White criticism and their agriculture criticism. In the no-confidence debate the Opposition tried to adopt the image of a champion of the interest of the Whites in South Africa, but they have forgotten—though the people of South Africa have not forgotten— that during the years that have passed there has been only one Government which has stood up for the rights of the White in South Africa. Hon. members on the other side who are only now waking up, will be regarded by the country as a lot of somnambulists.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my fullest support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia and at the same time to endorse his well-founded criticism of the high price the Republic is paying and will go on paying both nationally and individually, for the failure of this Government to place the sound development of the Republic before the well-being of the Nationalist Party. The introductory speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance has dispelled any lingering doubts which might have existed in regard to that very high price which the South African public is going to have to pay later in the year in order to meet the high cost of Government failure and for their lack of faith in the Republic’s ability to cope with the problem of national prosperity. Not so long ago the hon. the Minister in one of his characteristic impersonations in presenting his Budget adopted the role of a fisherman. This year he and his colleagues are following that role through by playing the traditional trick of the angler when he is out for a good catch. Everybody knows what that is; it is well-known throughout the country amongst anglers. For that purpose they use what is known to the angler as “lokaas”, scattered bait designed to tempt the fish to take the hook without realizing at the time just what he is doing. The bait in this instance is the increase in salaries which has just been granted and the hook is concealed to catch the voter on 30 March. But I feel it my duty to give a genuine warning to all those who will temporarily benefit from this wide-spread wage and salary increases recently approved by the Government. This warning is that no matter how well-earned or overdue those increases may be they should remember that in reality they are only advances being handed over to them, advances which will have to be re-paid in the not too distant future. Consequently I would advise these people not to spend everything they receive but to put some of it aside in order to be able to repay the costs they will undoubtedly be required to pay in the form of extra taxation and a further increase in the cost of living after the election. After these people have used up their voting rights for the next five years, they will be presented with the account for these overdue payments. I ask them not to be caught by the “lokaas” which is now being so freely distributed. They should also remember the sustained pressure which has been exerted over the years by this side of the House in an endeavour to move the Government to pay more realistic wages in the face of the living costs of the day. This pressure has at long last brought for us some realization of our own policy in terms of which every man and woman who help to build up our nation are justly entitled to a first share of the wealth and economic security which they themselves have helped to create. Our policy was to spread these benefits over a period so that the burden would not have such a heavy impact at one particular point of time, when there is a danger that the country may not be able to bear that burden. This is one of the basic foundations of the policy of the United Party.

I want to touch upon a few defence matters. First of all I should like to welcome the evidence there is that the Minister of Defence and his officials are at long last conceding the justice and correctness of the sustained requests from this side of the House for a more realistic and practical system of military training, a system which will give the maximum national security to the country, taking into account at the same time the limitations imposed upon us by the available manpower and finances coupled with the widely varying nature of the dangers for which we have to prepare as well as the probable nature and direction of any external aggression. This constitutes a big problem and nobody is trying to belittle it. As I said, more and more evidence is becoming available that the Minister and his advisers are moving in the direction for which we have pleaded so long. Press releases over the past few weeks show a decided trend towards the direction which we have so strongly advocated from this side. We welcomed that as being a sound thing for the country. At the same time, there is a widespread concern—and the hon. the Minister too is aware of this—amongst the parents of trainees at the continual injuries and in a lew unhappy cases a loss of life among trainees due without doubt to unnecessary harsh and over-exacting exercises coupled with the obviously inexperienced behaviour of some of the instructors used to carry out the training of these boys—inexperienced behaviour of officers who seem to think that they are dealing with seasoned and trained commando troops instead of what are in the main immature school boys. The nature of the training and the manner in which it is being carried out places far too heavy a strain on them at this particular stage of their lives. It is too fast and too vigorous without sufficient caution being taken something which can be ascribed to lack of experience. It seems to me that these instructors are trying to make up for the fact that they are inexperienced by bullying and roughing up the boys for whose training they are responsible. There is evidence of this coming from so many quarters. I shall be pleased to learn what evidence the Minister’s committee has presented to him in this regard. The hon. the Minister must realize that although in the higher ranks of his officers he has men with practical military experience, such experience is stretched out very thinly amongst the lower group of those commissioned officers who are in direct contact with these boys during their period of training. Below these are non-commissioned officers, men mainly in the 20-year age group and thus they cannot be expected to possess the experience or the qualities of leadership of their more matured and experienced comrades. This fact demands a greater degree of supervision than would otherwise been necessary specially over the more junior commissioned officer who stands between the top ranks and the trainees themselves. The situation requires much more vigilance and attention on the part of those officers than that which according to the evidence already available has been the case up to now. Certain cases have already been before the courts and these have passed some severe strictures on the type of individual concerned. Neither the trainee nor his parent should need to have to face the avoidable dangers and anxiety which some of the unhappier occurrences we have recently witnessed have produced. Taking into account the number of trainees and the widespread and inricate nature of the training itself there is no question that the actual number of trainees who have been injured or in some way been incapacitated through their training is relatively small. From the view point of figures that is true. The figures as such have not much significance but it is the human aspect that has the biggest bearing on morale. Everyone of those trainees figuring in one of these cases stands as the most important person in the world to his family. Furthermore, they are of the youth of South Africa and in that sense more precious to South Africa than our material wealth. I have told the hon. the Minister before that he in fact stands in the position of foster father over virtually everyone of these trainees.

I feel more than being a foster father.

I have no doubt that personally the Minister would feel more than being only a foster father. He occupies the position of father towards every ballotee that is called up, and as a father he should keep a stricter parental control over his enlarged family however difficult that may be.

But there is a second point about defence matters which I should like to raise and here too I should like to express our pleasure at seeing that at long last some definite steps are being taken to follow repeated requests from this side of the House for an improvement in the conditions of service in all branches of our defence forces and to move up the pay scales to more realistic levels. We have pleaded that they be placed on salary scales bringing them more into line with the outside world and commensurate with the tremendous scientific and technical responsibilities which are now being imposed on everybody, even on the private in the army. Responsibilities which are no longer confined only to the officer branch. Everyone has to share in these technical advances and consequently it is only fair and reasonable to expect that these men should be recompensed in accordance with their increased new responsibilities. If you read through the pages of Hansard over the past five years, you will find them studded with reasoned arguments from this side of the House for such an upgrading of service conditions and pay. So we are pleased to see that the lesson at last is sinking in and that those improvements for which we have so consistently fought in the past are at last becoming reality. As a country we cannot afford the cost of training our defence people, no matter what rank, unless we can also carry the increased burden of retaining their services in the capacity for which they were trained.

Before I close, I should like to point to some of the effects of the racial policies followed by this Government and bring them into relation with the welfare of the country as a whole. We have often urged from, this side of the House, and I do so again to-day, that irrespective of a man’s social position, or his colour or the part that he plays in the build-up of our nation, he should be treated as a human being and not as a pawn to be moved about in accordance with the dictates of Government policy. There is an issue before the country now exercising the minds of people especially here in the Cape, namely the question of beach apartheid. The policy of setting aside certain beaches for certain racial groups is the policy of the country. It is also the policy of my own party but linked with it there must be a fair share to each group in the handing out. Each group should be allocated a reasonably equal share of the amenities that are available. But to apportion to tens of thousands of people a piece of beach the size of a pocket handkerchief and expect them to be satisfied with it, whilst the other section have got the pick in what is left, does not create racial harmony nor racial peace. These are some of the things which are upsetting the racial harmony in this country—people not being treated as human beings, not being treated as South African citizens as they in fact are. with a right to their place in the sun, in their country like every other citizen. I should like to drive this point home in this which will probably be my last opportunity to do so in this House. All of us in this House go forth to strive for the improvement of our country, each one according to his lights. In this process we should set aside our own personal ambitions and views and subordinate them to what is in the long run the best for this great land of ours. This we are not doing Sir. The racial policies of this Government are not taking any cognizance of that human consideration. This is one of the ways in which they are damaging the future of our country. By which they are bringing nearer and nearer and faster and faster the time when we are going to find trouble. This can be avoided by a more practical and common-sense, a more humane approach to this problem. People should be treated as human beings, as units of a family and not as pawns to be moved at the wish of a politician.

On this note I wish to finish. In the years that lie ahead it will not, I believe, be sectional domination which will advance this country to greatness but rather wise leadership, leadership which will safeguard the rights and interests and natural human ambitions of all people, leadership that will create respect for all people and will use human beings not as pawns but as human beings with the dignity of human beings and the aspirations and hopes of human beings for themselves and their families. This principle should apply to all, to everyone of us no matter what our station in life is. This is one of the things I am afraid we are failing to do in this land of ours to-day. And yet this is one of the spheres where this country can grow great and become one of the unquestioned leaders on the continent of Africa. Only in that way can we ensure the maintenance of White leadership with justice into the future, a policy which was so ably enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and a policy which is basically so correct and true that it is incomprehensible that there are people still not grasping its significance. These are some of the thoughts I should like to leave with this House.

To you, Sir, who according to tradition are the servant of the House but at the same time the leader of it I should like to place on record my appreciation for the guidance received from you and your predecessors in the Chair and for your assistance at all times. I couple with you the Officials and Staff of the House. This will in all probability be the last occasion on which I will address this House. And to my appreciation to you and to the staff I should like to express my appreciation to both sides of the House. To thank them for their co-operation and assistance and friendly help when friendly help was needed as well as opposition when that was needed. That all is part of the life of this House. For that one bears no ill will. But I would like to wish everyone of you the very best of everything. Although I shall leave this Chamber I shall continue to keep a close eye on what is happening here. I can only hope that if Parliament assembles again after the election, that if the country has not been wise enough to elect the Government who will carry out the wishes of this side of the House, at least all of those who will return, will do so with a more open mind and be more prepared to put South Africa first and the racial and political policies of their own parties perhaps a little bit lower down the scale.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my unfortunate privilege to say goodbye to a man with whom I co-operated very well in matters of defence during the six years that I am Minister of Defence. There were times now and again that I did not agree with the hon. member but then again there were times that I did agree with him, especially when he brought me a snoek; then he really was doing a really fine thing! In saying goodbye to the hon. member, I should like to express the wish that he will have the luck to enjoy his period of retirement and that he will be kept fully occupied and still enjoy his retirement.

*Now, Mr. Speaker, I too want to say something in connection with agriculture, and when I speak about agriculture, I am not speaking of something I have read about. On the contrary, when I speak about agriculture, I am speaking about something which forms part of my life. To me agriculture is not merely a source of income, it is more than that. To me it is a way of life. During the past Christmas season I had the opportunity of visiting some of our farms, and what I saw was a tragedy in many respects. For the first time in my life I saw strong men crying when they spoke about farming conditions. It was indeed a tragedy which struck the farming community. Not only I, but the entire Government, have the deepest sympathy with our farming community. In certain places people told me that farmers were somewhat too harsh in their language, but I then asked them what they would have done if they had been staring into the sky for three, four to five years waiting in vain for relief while the weather forecasts predicted scattered thunder showers and those thunder showers never came? Under those circumstances we might all develop a frame of mind in which we might use unfriendly words. In fact, the person who does not become embittered in his innermost soul after yearning for relief for so many years, must be an abnormal person. In such a frame of mind one may say unfortunate things, although one may not intend any harm. I am fortunate to be a member of this Government, inter alia, because I am convinced, and I am fully convinced, that this Government realizes that it came into power because of the support of, inter alia, the farming community. Consequently it is our duty as a Government to see that the farming community will be rehabilitated, and not only for the sake of the farming community, but also for the sake of our country as a whole, because just think of the fact that there has been a deterioration of R200,000,060 in our country’s balance of payments as a result of the drought. That is why it is the duty of this Government to see that our farming community will be rehabilitated in every conceivable way in the interests of the country as a whole.

Have some discussions with the Government about that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) should realize that there are certain times in one’s life when one should be serious, and I think one should be serious especially when discussing the disasters which hit our farming community.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.0 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was stating in passing my reasons for believing that it was absolutely essential that our farming community should be rehabilitated after the disaster which had struck it. One of the first reasons I mentioned was that the farmers should be rehabilitated out of sheer sympathy one felt for them in this disaster which had struck them. The second reason I gave, was that they should be rehabilitated because agricultural prosperity was so closely linked with our general economic prosperity in South Africa. But there is a third reason why agriculture in South Africa should be rehabilitated and placed on a sound basis once more, and that is the fact that South Africa is a country which is far removed from the countries in the world which produce a surplus of food. We do not know what is awaiting us in South Africa and that is why it is unavoidable that South Africa should be a state which basically produces its own food. That is another reason why agriculture should be placed on a sound basis as soon as possible after this disaster. We on this side are deeply concerned about the White depopulation of the rural areas, and that is why I, together with the two Ministers of Agriculture, believe that we should not only undertake short-term planning for the rehabilitation of our farmers or for keeping them in the rural areas, but also long-term planning. In the first place, I believe that it is right to convert un economic agricultural units into economic agricultural units. I want to take my own case as an example. I have experienced this drought. It was possible for me to remove my stock. On their return, I shall be compelled to sell large numbers of my stock in order to rehabilitate my land. Because I had additional sources of income, I could afford to do that, but how many of our farmers who make a living from farming alone, will be able to afford that? They cannot afford that, and for that reason the Government will have to make plans—as has already been announced—for assisting those farmers over the period in which their land is being rehabilitated. That is absolutely essential, and for that reason I am in complete agreement with the two Ministers of Agriculture, who do in fact, carry out agricultural rehabilitation on a basis of short-term planning as well as long-term planning. [Interjections.] I learn that it is not necessary for the hon. member to farm. Mr. Speaker, I want to prove that there is concern about the depopulation of the rural areas. In this connection I want to say that it was stated here this afternoon that the depopulation of the rural areas was a natural process in any developing country. I know that it is a natural process, but the nation of South Africa has always derived part of its character from our agricultural community—from those people who still have the opportunity of living close to nature and of working in close harmony with nature in cultivating the soil which is our heritage. The nation of South Africa has always derived strength from the farming community. We should preserve that for South Africa for the future; hence the large irrigation schemes by means of which old farmers and new farmers will be re-settled in a way which will guarantee a sound economic existence to them.

But to-night I want to make an appeal to the taxpayer of South Africa that when the time comes and he may be asked for money for the rehabilitation of our farming community, to give that money willingly because it is needed for South Africa as such. But I also want to make an appeal to our farmers tonight to keep their requests within the limits of reality. We as farmers have to realize— and I am not saying this to create fear; a person who accuses me of that will be doing me an injustice and will achieve nothing by doing so—that we are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate of South Africa, and we have to retain the goodwill of the other population groups by acting fairly and justly. We cannot simply make demands which will make life impossible for the other population groups—for those groups who have to eat. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the taxpayer of South Africa to put his hand into his pocket, if necessary, for the cause of rehabilitating our farmers. But at the same time I want to make an appeal to our farmers to keep their requests within the limits of reality.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. L. C. Gay) for the compliments he paid me as far as defence is concerned. Of course the hon. member found some pleasure in saying that what we are doing at present is as a result of repeated requests by the Opposition. I grant them that bit of pleasure. It is the privilege of an Opposition to say that whatever good the Government does, is because they asked for it previously. I was also a member of the Opposition. I was a member of the Opposition who had the idea that before long they would come into power and even then I said irresponsible things. But what can you expect of an Opposition who has no hope of coming into power —of course you can expect all kinds of irresponsible things from them. I do, however, grant them that bit of pleasure. The hon. member made the point that parents are perturbed at the number of casualties. The hon. member said that comparatively speaking the number of casualties was low but that parents are perturbed. Of course they are perturbed. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible for anybody, barring a parent who loses a child, to feel this question of loss more than I do. I know where those blows strike. I have lost a son and I know where those blows strike and I have every sympathy with the parents. But we are doing everything that is humanly possible to make the training as safe as possible. I received to-day the report of the Groenewald Committee which I appointed to investigate the whole question of the training of our youth. It is a question to which we are all trying to give of our very best. When it comes to military matters, we must do our utmost for South Africa—there cannot be any half measures. Whenever we find that people are overtaxing our youngsters in training them, they are severely dealt with. Only the other day a man was found guilty of going too far. He was find R400 and had to resign. In other instances heavy fines were imposed. We are therefore doing our level best and I want to assure the parents of the youngsters undergoing training that with ever-increasing supervision we will try to curb the type of accidents that have occurred up to now. But I think we will all realize that while we are training large numbers it will always be impossible to guarantee that there will be no accidents. We will, however, try to do what is humanly possible to prevent accidents. I have answered some of the points made by the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Simonstown also discussed our race policy and said that it should be the policy in South Africa to treat everybody with human dignity. I cannot agree with him more. That is something basic in any country where different race groups live together. I cannot agree with him more—that is our policy. But also in this case—where one is dealing with the feelings of people—there is a short-term policy and there is a longterm policy. We have to treat every man with respect. As far as the long-term policy is concerned, however, we have to apply ourselves to a policy which in future will create the possibility of decent human relations in our country, and that is the policy of the National Party. It is our policy to treat every man with the greatest of respect. One finds brutes in every country, of course. In every country one finds irresponsible people. We even have new politicians in this country …

And old ones too.

No, I am not thinking of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). We even have new politicians in this country who present themselves to the people of South Africa with a policy of once more making a kaffir of a kaffir. One will find that type of wild irresponsibility in any country in the world. Every person who has respect for others can only deplore the fact that there are people of that type in a country. We can only pray: Lord, protect us from such people in the future. But one does come across those people. It is the policy of this Government to treat every man with respect. It is also the policy of this Government to follow a longterm policy which will render better relations among our various race groups possible.

I assume that the hon. member for Simonstown, in discussing human relations was only speaking about human relations between White and non-White. If he was also referring to the human relations between our main language groups, then 1 want to tell him that we have made much progress in that sphere. Mr. Speaker, when a nation can pray together in a time of emergency, then that nation has become united. Last week we could witness a nation, consisting of various language groups, praying together in a time of distress. On Thursday we shall have an opportunity of saying thank you as a nation. Once a nation has progressed that far, it has progressed a long way.

As Minister of Defence I want to say that I believe that if the emergency should arise and South Africa must be defended, we shall find that this nation has become more united in recent years than ever before. I do not want to take up the time of this House any longer, but I want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown that as far as defence is concerned, we shall do everything humanly possible to give training in such a way that we shall have the smallest number of accidents possible. But I also want to say that a soldier has to be prepared to carry out a difficult task, and it would be impossible to give military training to our youth which would leave them “softies”. They will be turned into men. But we shall not allow brutality. I want to express the hope that in studying this report of the committee, we shall find much which we shall be able to use to the advantage of our Defence Force.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister say he hopes that the nation would become united and would take concerted action for the protection of this South Africa of ours if we should find ourselves in trouble. There is no need for me to tell the Minister and the Government that they need not be concerned about us. He should speak to those “boys” on his side. He should make that speech in the caucus. [Interjections.]

That hon. member is always pursuing petty points.

It was very interesting for us to hear that the Minister was so sympathetic towards the farmers. All of us also sympathize with the farmers in the difficult times they are experiencing. We too are all sympathetic, but it has been said time and time again that sympathy was not enough. We cannot eat sympathy. We are not accusing the Government of not being sympathetic, but of not having taken sufficient precautionary measures for combating the drought.

Mr. Speaker, this was not the first drought South Africa has had. We always have droughts. We shall still have many droughts, and a Government that does not take that into account and does not make plans for combating droughts, is not worthy to sit on the Government benches. That is the complaint we have against the Minister and the Government. [Interjections.] We hope that the Government has learned a lesson from this drought, tragic as it is, so that they will take better precautionary measures in future. We hope that the rehabilitation of which the Minister has spoken and which is so necessary, will take place. But we say once more that a greater measure of precaution would have been welcome.

Mr. Speaker, many of the members who spoke in this debate during the past few days, told us about the boom we have had in South Africa. They told us how the Government was responsible for that boom. But that is not true. We had a boom in spite of a weak Government. The entire world has made rapid progress during the past 20 years. Consequently the boom did not only occur in South Africa or in Africa, but in the entire world. Do those members, who spoke such a great deal about the large improvements and progress, expect that South Africa should always move at the pace of an ox-wagon, at a pace of three miles a day like some of our trains as we have learned here during the past few days? We should try to keep pace with the rest of the world. It does not help to say that we have indeed kept pace, because we did not do so.

Why does the hon. member say that we have not kept pace? Let him prove that.

I shall come to that, Mr. Speaker. Many of the members compare present conditions with those of 1948. That is not right. That is not fair either. What was the position in 1948? Is it not true that

South Africa had just emerged from the greatest war in history at that time? Is it not true that everything was shattered and out of order? In that war South Africa did its share here and abroad. It is true that conditions then were not the same as they are now. But it is definitely not right to compare conditions in 1948 with those of the present time. The world was then recovering from that war and since that time not only South Africa but the entire world, has made rapid progress. Things went better in practically every country in the world than they did in 1948. Why should that not have happened to South Africa as well? [Interjections.]

Order!

It is perfectly true that there has been an improvement in the standard of living, in salaries and housing. One expects that. To take housing alone, how much time did it take in 1948-50 to build a house? How much time does it take at present? A government which is not capable of building a sufficient number of houses now, has to be urged on as we now have to urge this Government on. They are not building enough houses. Mr. Speaker, we expect a country to make progress. For hon. members on the opposite side to say that they were responsible for the progress is so much nonsense. Our complaint is that the progress was not rapid enough under this Government.

Mr. Speaker, one asks oneself the question what the position would have been in South Africa to-day if this Government did not abandon the immigration policy of the United Party. What would South Africa’ position have been in the sphere of industrial development? What would have been the position in connection with our manpower? Would the position not have been much better? What would have been the position if the Orange River scheme had been launched when this party was removed from power? Instead of launching the Orange River scheme at that time, they dawdled for 15 years. The same is true of the Railways. We expect the Railways to have progressed and there has been progress. That is another instance where it is not fair to compare present conditions with those of 1948. Simply consider the change there has been in the value of money. We learn from the other side about the high salaries people are earning today and about the taxes they have to pay. That is quite correct, but what is the value of money. The test still remains whether the individual man and the individual woman are better off to-day. Are they now much better off than they were then?

Yes.

Yes, to a certain extent the individual is better off than he was at that time, but he is not so much better off as those hon. members want to pretend. The other day I came across a case of a senior Government employee who earned three times as much to-day as he did in 1948-50. In the meantime his cost of living had increased and he told me that he was leading a better life, but that there was not much left for saving. He does not have more money to save now than he had in 1948. That is the test which has to be applied.

We are being accused that we are making speeches with an eye to the election. Sir, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I was astonished to learn yesterday that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) intended propagating untruths, and the same goes for the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter). It seems to me those hon. members now want to make propaganda in an effort to retain their seats. There is a Republican ghost in their past. That seems to me to be their trouble. I come to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). We expect that of him. He will tell stories which are untrue, even though he may not say so now.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw. I expect him to make propaganda and nothing but propaganda. The hon. member often speaks in this House: he speaks about everything and I have often wondered what the Mayor of Naboomspruit would have said if he had to listen to the hon. member’s speeches, because he talks piffle, absolute piffle.

I want to say a few words in connection with the question of training in the Defence Force. It is still being said that the time of many of the ballotees undergoing training is being wasted; that they are kept very busy for three months and that the work they do after that is of a repetitive and boring nature and that there is not enough to keep them fully occupied. We regret that it was not possible for the Minister to let us have the report of the Groenewald Commission for perusal, but I realize that it might not have been possible to let us have that.

I do not agree with those people who say that we should make the period of training shorter than nine months. I am of the opinion that those nine months can be employed to good effect. The allegation is made that the ballotees are wasting their time while there is a manpower shortage in the country, but the truth is that the warrior of today has a great deal to learn. There is a tremendous amount he has to learn. He is faced with new ideas, with new equipment, with new weapons, with new situations, modern techniques and development, etc. In effect, he has to be a specialist. If he is not a specialist he will not be able to make proper use of the munitions given to him for defending his country. I do not think that it would be right to curtail the period of nine months. I am of the opinion that we need every single day of those nine months for giving our young men the necessary training in order to enable them to achieve the required degree of perfection.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) referred to the tragic accidents and deaths which occurred in the Defence Force recently, something about which one naturally feels very bad. We too realize, as the Minister has said, that there will always be accidents. We hope and trust that the Minister and the people under him will restrict the number of accidents to an absolute minimum. However, we should be very careful that this type of incident, with its accompanying publicity, will not eventually lead to people losing their confidence in the training course and in the methods of training. We should take care that people do not get the idea that there is not sufficient supervision at the places where the young men are being trained.

This brings me to a matter about which I personally feel very strongly, namely the strength of the Permanent Force. We all know that the peace strength of the Permanent Force is always restricted to the absolute minimum. We need the services of Permanent Force staff very badly for the huge programme of training we have to-day. I am convinced that the Minister and the staff, in drawing up the establishment, kept the figures as low as possible. We also know that the Permanent Force is the mainstay of the entire Defence Force; it is the pivot on which everything in the Defence Force hinges in time of peace as well as in time of war. They are the people who take the lead; they are the people on whom we depend if we have to mobilize, and what do we find?

It is clear from figures with which the hon. the Minister furnished me a few days ago that unfortunately more people resigned from the Permanent Force in 1965 than joined its ranks. The difference between the two figures is not big. For instance, 2,270 people resigned while 2,202 people joined. But the trouble is that in many cases many of those who resigned were people with a long period of service in the permanent Force and people with experience which was badly needed for training purposes. In other words, if a sergeant or a sergeant-major resigned and one private joined the Permanent Force, then we have suffered a heavy loss even though we have replaced the man who resigned with a private.

Not only have we lost a number of men during the year, but we find that there are still many vacancies in the Permanent Force. We find, for instance, that there is a shortage of plus-minus 270 Permanent Force officers and a shortage of 2,600 other ranks in the Permanent Force alone. It seems to me that this is the very source of the Minister’s trouble as regards the supervision he has to exercise over the training of ballotees. To-day he has a very capable staff of senior officers, but he has a large gap between the senior officers and the men in the lower ranks. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his Department are doing enough to keen his trained, experienced men in the Permanent Force. Improvements have been effected in the salary scales and in the men’s living conditions, etc., but the fact remains that there have been more resignations than appointments, and we have not included people who have attained the retirement age in the number of resignations.

I hope that the Minister will try to do two things. In the first place he must try everything in his power to keep his Permanent Force staff and then he must try to fill those vacancies. We learned some time ago that the Department had been reorganized; that quite a number of senior officers had been promoted. To me that seems to be a step in the right direction. There should always be reorganization in an organization such as the Army, and it is a good thing that the prospect of senior persons staying on in the Permanent Force for a longer period is now being held out. However, it would not be of much use if we had a large number of brigadiers and generals in the force and they did not have the necessary people to rely on for carrying out the policy and if they did not have the necessary instructors for conducting the exercises. I hope that the Minister and his Department will succeed in drawing the necessary people to serve as instructors, and, secondly, that jie will have the necessary people to exercise the necessary supervision so that the public will not get the idea that many of the young men are left to their own devices.

To-night. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address you for the first time in this House. On this occasion I feel that it will be proper to pay tribute to my predecessor and friend, the late Mr. Badenhorst. a man who was highly thought of in his constituency throughout the years, a man who left an indelible imprint on the hearts of his voters, and a man who was prepared at all times to make sacrifices, not only for his voters, but also for the organization of his party, of which I too am a member. We pay tribute to him.

On this occasion you must allow me to dwell on a few matters affecting my constituency, a constituency which received a great deal of publicity for various reasons during recent months. In the first place I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to give urgent attention, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Public Works, to the erection of the new post office building at Despatch. Despatch is a town with a White population of approximately 8.000. It is a town which shows phenomenal expansion every day, and for that reason I want to make the friendly request that the erection of the new post office building there should be expedited. My information is that the sketch plans for the proposed new post office building at Despatch have been completed. Private architects are now drawing up the working plans and specifications, and according to my information these documents have to be completed by the end of May or June this year and that the preparation of the bills of quantity will be undertaken as soon as possible after that date. Therefore I hope and trust that the erection of that building will receive the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the Railway debate is something of the past, but with your permission I should like to bring three points to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport. As I am now dealing with Despatch I also want to plead for the erection of a new railway station at Despatch. My information is that only the passenger shelters for Whites and non-Whites are being enlarged at the present moment, and that respectively 80 per cent and 60 per cent of the work has been completed. I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, but I nevertheless want to plead with the Minister to instruct the administration concerned to investigate that matter as I feel that it would be in the best interests of my voters.

Mr. Speaker, while I am now dealing with the hon. the Minister of Transport, will you allow me to convey to him on behalf of my voters—and there is a large number of railwaymen in my constituency; I think Uitenhage is one of the largest railway centres in the country—our sincere thanks and appreciation for the recent increases in wages. I want to give the hon. the Minister of Transport the assurance that as far as Uitenhage is concerned, and as far as the Railway employees in my constituency are concerned, that gesture is highly appreciated and that they also appreciate what the hon. the Minister has done for them in that connection in the past.

Then I also want to touch upon two matters in passing. I respectfully want to refer the hon. the Minister to Free Pass Regulation No. 67 as applicable in respect of the travelling facilities. and the sick fund benefits to which the widows of deceased pensioners are entitled. I do not want to tire this hon. House by quoting the two regulations concerned in full, but I want to put it as follows to the hon. the Minister: Free Pass regulation No. 67 reads— “widows of pensioners (not widow-pensioners) i.e. widows who do not receive an annual pension, whose husbands have completed at least 15 years’ service, are granted the following concession for bona fide vacation or bona fiderecreation purposes only …” and then the concessions follow. In my opinion that minimum period of 15 years of service which the deceased railwayman must have completed before his wife and dependants could qualify for such benefits, is too long a period. When that Railway employee has passed away, it is his widow and his dependants who have to bear the brunt. As a matter of fact, they are the people who had to bear the brunt over the years while the breadwinner, the head of the family, was earning his daily bread, and for that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister politely whether he will not consider decreasing that period of 15 years to, say, ten years. I feel that a decrease in that number of years can only be to the advantage of the younger people who are joining or intend joining the service of the administration; it will be to the advantage of the younger generation. The second regulation to which I respectfully wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention is Sick Fund regulation No. 21(1). This regulation reads as follows—

with due respect, my objection is once more to that period of 15 years, and I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to decrease that period to ten years too, or perhaps to a much shorter period because it will once more be to the advantage of the widow and her dependants when her husband is no longer with her.

There is a large number of my voters, White workers in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex, workers employed in factories such as General Tire, Goodyear, Firestone, Samad, Ford, General Motors and others, who will insist on higher wages from time to time. Now, I do not want to discuss that here to-night; I only want to make the following remarks in that connection. I want to plead with the authorities that attention should be given to the wage structure of those workers. Some of those workers earn an average amount of plus-minus R18 per week. I realize that the hon. the Minister of Labour does not have the final say; other bodies, such as the Wage Board, have the final say, and I do not want to go into that to-night. But, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I want to plead very earnestly that a Bill which is now being given its final form by a Select Committee of this House—the Select Committee on the subject of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill—will be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. And why am I doing so? I am doing so because that Bill, as I see the position, will make provision for, inter alia, stop order facilities being compulsory on employers. That is what those White workers I represent here want, namely that that Amendment Bill should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible and that the stop-order system will be binding. Only then shall we find White registered trade unions in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex, and in fact throughout the Republic of South Africa, which will be able to speak with any authority. Here I want to refer to one of those White trade unions in my constituency, namely the South African Iron, Steel and Associated Industries Union. As far as I know that is an organization which does a great deal for the White workers. That is an organization which has as its object the promotion and extension of the interests of the White worker, and once that Bill has been placed on the Statute Book that particular trade union, to which I have only referred in passing, will also be able to continue its work because they will not be handicapped by a lack of money as in the past. That is why I want to make a strong plea that this Bill should be passed as soon as possible.

Finally, I want to turn to my hon. friend, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The Department of Community Development, whose main task is to ensure and assist in providing proper housing for all population groups and in developing sound communities, is changing the appearance of the entire country’s urban population. I should like to mention what the hon. the Minister’s Department has already done in Uitenhage. In spite of the fact that group areas have not yet been proclaimed in Uitenhage, the Department started negotiations with town council some time ago for the provision of housing to meet the requirements of the various race groups. As a result of activation by the Department of Community Development, several townships have been planned by the town council and an actual start has been made with three different schemes for Whites, one at a cost of R500,000 for the erection of 100 dwellings, another at a cost of R180,000 for 36 flats, whereas a further scheme for the provision of 100 low-cost economic dwellings for Whites is enjoying the attention of the townships commission. Now, what is the position in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex? The Department’s programme for White housing in Port Elizabeth includes 3.833 dwelling, namely 2,100 units in Algoa Park where 804 flat units are at present being constructed, 563 units in Walmer, of which 310 units are being constructed, and 1,170 units in Sidwell which are still in the planning stage. At present the town council is engaged in the erection of 416 units with Housing Fund moneys. Much progress has been made with the renovation of 312 units for White occupation, whereas applications for funds for a further 232 units have been approved. A further 900 dwellings in Kabega and Perseverance are being planned by the town council. Perseverance falls in my constituency and I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to expedite those housing schemes in Kabega and Perseverance as much as possible.

I want to conclude, and where I have expressed on behalf of every one in the Eastern Province our gratitude towards the hon. the Minister, I nevertheless want to draw attention to a group which is having a very hard time under the Housing Act on account of the present economic rate of interest of 6f per cent, namely the income group between R81 and R140 a month. Those people simply cannot make ends meet. I want to urge the Government to introduce a rate of interests between the present sub-economic rate of 1 per cent and the present economic rate of interest of 6| per cent for that White group, a rate of, say, 31 per cent or 4 per cent. That would contribute towards the man in the street, the worker, the under-privileged, if I may put it that way, who does not have the necessary financial means, being provided with housing in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex, as a matter of fact throughout the Republic. I want to ask courteously that the matters which I have tried to present in all modesty on behalf of my constituency should receive the urgent attention of the authorities.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the members of this House when I congratulate the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Swiegers) on his maiden speech, and say that his fluent delivery and the well-marshalled facts that he has presented to the House augur very well indeed for his future parliamentary career. I would like to wish him well on behalf of the House.

Now, Sir, I wish to raise a subject which I feel sure will not be as popular in this House. It is a subject which, I think, has to be raised in the last few days of this Session, and I raise it because I am not sure whether anybody else will raise it, and I think it is necessary that the House discuss this matter. I want to raise a few specific issues with the hon. the Minister of Justice. I want to raise, first of all, the question of the 180-day detainees with the hon. the Minister. As he well knows, I opposed this law at the time of its introduction, and I expressed great fears about the method of its implementation. Many members on this side of the House, who also opposed that law, attempted to obtain certain assurances from the hon. the Minister as to how this law was going to be administered. The hon. the Minister did not commit himself as to whether or not the law was going to be used for the purpose of interrogation of witnesses. He did, however, give us one assurance in column 7915 of Hansard. He told us, when we asked what was to happen to persons taken into what he called “safe custody”, that all he wanted to do was to keep witnesses in safe custody. He pretended to be very shocked at any insinuation of bullying or intimidation or ill-treatment, and he went on to say—

Sir, it is my experience that people can be persuaded to do certain things other than by gentle treatment. They can be persuaded by intimidation, by threats and, indeed, by harsh treatment, to do certain things. Whether this is so in the case of the 180-day detainees or not I do not know, but I am sure the hon. the Minister will be in a position to tell this House. There is at the moment a case which is about to be hard in the court of law on the treatment of a 180-day detainee. I am unable to comment on the details of that case, because it is sub judice, but what I would like from the hon. the Minister to-night is an assurance to the members of this House that the 180-law is not being used for the purposes of intimidation and that the interrogations which obviously do take place of 180-day detainees, are not lengthy, standing interrogations of which we heard a great deal when the 90-day detention law was still in force. The hon. the Minister took this responsibility upon himself when he persuaded this House to grant him powers well beyond the normal powers of a Minister of Justice, powers well beyond the normal Rule of Law, powers which abrogated habeas corpus…

Do you know of any case of ill-treatment?

I do not know specifically of any ill-treatment….

Yet you cast suspicion.

Yes, I am suspicious; I am deeply suspicious. The hon. the Minister can re-assure me; he can set my suspicions at rest. All he has to do is to make a categorical statement that, to his certain knowledge—and, after all, he has to bear the responsibility for the administration of this exceptional law— this sort of interrogation, the sort of intimidation, this sort of persuasion of witnesses, is not in fact taking place. That is what I asked the Minister. I might very well believe him if he gives me a categorical assurance on this particular point. [Interjection.] We have very good reasons for disbelieving him.

Then why do you ask for assurances?

The Minister is quite capable of looking after himself, and he does not need the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to do so. I want to raise another matter. [Interjection.] Sir, may I ask that the hon. member for Vereeniging remain quiet for at least ten minutes while I develop my point? He has ample opportunity to stand up after me and to answer every single question I raise.

Order!

Sir, I want to raise the whole issue of the prisons. Now, as the hon. the Minister knows, I accepted his kind invitation during the recess, and I visited some of the gaols in South Africa. I want to say at once that I was accorded every courtesy by his Department, and I was given access to everybody I asked to see, and I was able to speak to any prisoner whom I wished to address. I want also to say that I paid a second visit to at least one of the prisons, and I was very glad indeed to see the present improvements. I refer specifically now to the case of the so-called political prisoners. I use the word “so-called” because I know the regulations have been changed and the words “political offenders” have been expunged from the regulations. Those prisoners are still kept under pretty tough conditions, although I am glad to say that certain aspects of their imprisonment have improved. Most of them, when I saw them, had been up-graded to “C”. I hope that some of them have been further upgraded since then. I want to come back to this question of grading a little later. I am speaking now only of White prisoners of that class. I have not see any of the non-White prisoners. I do not know what their grading is, and perhaps the Minister would care to tell us that. There is lots to be done to make the position even bearable for these people, such as the type of work they have to do and various things of that nature. But most particularly do I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider further up-grading. I understand that the behaviour of these people in the prisons has been exemplary, and there is no reason, therefore, why they should be treated in a different manner from ordinary prisoners who are up-graded to the “B” and “A” categories if their behaviour warrants it. I, therefore, hope that the Minister will consider doing this. I want to suggest, too, that he reconsider his decision about remission of sentences for some of those people anyway, particularly the young ones who made a very foolish mistake in breaking the law and are paying very dearly for that mistake. I hope the Minister will reconsider their sentences. He has done so in some cases, but I hope he will further reconsider the cases of these young and foolish people, who, I believe, are deeply regretful of the mistakes they have made. I should like to suggest that the fifth anniversary of the Republic, which is due shortly, would be a very good opportunity for the Minister to consider the question of remission, as I have no doubt that an amnesty will be declared in the case of other prisoners, because it is usual on occasions of this kind. I would like to point out to the Minister that I read a report in a paper recently that the men who were convicted in the Bultfontein case have been paroled after serving two years’ imprisonment, and if mercy can be granted in a case like that, I think it can also be done in these cases.

That report is not quite correct. It is only Rossouw.

Then parole was granted to only one of the men concerned and the other two have not been granted parole. But I hope the Minister will continue in this compassionate fashion in regard to other people.

I am afraid I cannot say anything very flattering about the non-White prisons. I must say at once that they are old gaols. I am not discussing the new gaols. I think it is high time that the old gaols should be razed to the ground. They are in a very bad condition indeed. I am not saying that the officials are not doing the best they can under the circumstances, but these gaols are old and they are hopelessly overcrowded. The two gaols I visited were unbelievably overcrowded. The cells accommodated nearly double the number of prisoners they were meant to accommodate.

The sanitary arrangements were nothing short of mediaeval, and as for normal hygiene the facilities are simply not there, nor are there any facilities for recreation in the two non-White gaols I visited, and there are no facilities for the long-term prisoners. I want to say that the officials are not to blame. I wonder whether it is realized by the House that we have one of the highest pro rata prison populations in the Western world. Our daily prison population is 74,000 according to the latest figures I obtained from the Minister himself. The latest figures I could obtain for Great Britain with a population of approximately 55,000,000, as against our population of 16,000,000, was a daily prison population of 31,000 people. In other words, not only have we a higher pro rata prison population but the absolute figures are more than double. In the United States the population is about twelve times that of the Republic of S.A., but the daily prison population in the United States is only three times that of ours. Naturally this huge prison population leads to conditions of overcrowding, and however much we spend on the gaols we never catch up with this huge prison population. There is something wrong with a society which has this enormous daily prison population, I want to say at once that statutory crimes account for a great number of these prisoners, such as the pass laws which I have always considered should be repealed anyway, but there are other crimes also which, of course, account for this enormous prison population. We have many crimes of violence and our murder rate is one of the highest in the world as well. All this requires investigation, and that is why I come back to the point I was going to make originally, and that is that we need a review of penal reform in South Africa and also an investigation into the causes of serious crime. Real research needs to be done in S.A. into the causes of serious crime. It has not been properly done. It is just about 20 years now since the Lansdown Commission enquired into crime and penal reform in S.A. and it is high time that we had another such commission. We need a complete reconsideration of our grading system, the “A” to “D” categories, where a man in D grade is cut off almost entirely from all contact with his family, which I might say is pleaded for in our own regulations. The regulations aim at keeping contact between the prisoner and his family as much as possible. It is obviously an aid to rehabilitation of a criminal which surely is one of the main aims of a penal system. But under the “D” system the man is allowed to have only one visit in six months and only one letter in six months. Under the “C” grading it is one visit in three months and one letter in three months. “B” and “A” are very much better. “B” grade can have a visit every month and a letter every two weeks. “A” grade can have two visits and two letters twice a month. Now the British system of prisons of course does not have anything like this. Prisoners are graded into star or first offenders, and others, but every prisoner on admission is entitled to certain basic privileges, and one of these is a visit every two months and a letter every single week, into and out of the prison. If the prisoner happens to be a young person, this is increased to a visit every four weeks and a letter every week, and these privileges may be increased immediately the man is admitted, except in the case of long-term prisoners who are allowed extra visits after four months. I think our grading system is out of date and should be scrapped. I think small privileges which are withheld from prisoners and which are granted to prisoners in any other modern prison system in the world, such as tobacco, should be granted to our prisoners and should only be withdrawn if the prisoner misbehaves himself. There is a tendency in S.A. to use the prison system for the punishment of prisoners instead of as a punishment. The distinction is very clear. Being sent to gaol is the punishment. Once the man is in gaol the gaol system itself should not further be used to punish the prisoner unless he has committed a breach of prison discipline. This is the attitude in every modern country as far as penal reform is concerned. It is not the attitude of many officials in South African gaols. They use the prison system for punishment. They think that because the man is in for a certain type of crime he should be punished further, other than the deprivation of liberty. That is not the case in other countries where modern systems of penal reform are applied. Prison visitors should be allowed; there should be committees of people who have access to the gaol at any time. Here we have magistrates and judges being allowed to visit prisons. I do not know to what extent they take advantage of their privilege to visit the gaols. I have been informed—I do not know whether this is reliable—that this system is gradually simply slipping into desutude. The Minister can tell me whether this is true or not. The visits of private individuals should in fact be encouraged in order to keep the prisoner in contact with the outside world other than through the very people who are placed in a disciplinary position over him. Everything I have said, therefore, leads me to plead for the appointment of a proper Commission of Inquiry into our entire prison system. I do not go along with the Minister when he has said that it is not necessary because “it will all come out in the courts”. Once again, I cannot comment on cases which are at present before the courts, but I may, I believe, make some general observations on the Minister’s statement that “it will all come out in the courts”. Sir, if anything has been shown by these recent cases, it is that everything does not come out in the courts. It cannot, by the very nature of the court cases themselves, because they are circumscribed by those facts which the State is prosecuting wishes to place before the court. Therefore the whole issue is limited to that particular section which is placed before the court and to the time factor which regulates the incident which took place in those particular prisons. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Vereeniging does not understand. The witnesses may only be cross examined on the actual issues brought into the court by the prosecutor, and everything else is irrelevant, and they may not be cross-examined beyond the time period …

Do you want them to be cross-examined on hearsay stories?

That is not the issue. The Minister must not pre-judge things. There is a case pending appeal and he should not prejudge it. My point is that the only thing which can in fact be considered by the court is the actual issue submitted to it by the State, so the State holds all the trump cards, whereas an independent commission of inquiry could examine far and wide and give protection to witnesses, which the court certainly does not do. In fact, the witnesses for the defence are always under pressure because they know that they are likely to be penalized later and they are given no protection against prosecution and certainly no protection against banning order or any of the other mighty powers which the State has in these cases. Therefore it is quite incorrect to say that the matter can be tested in court. This is a great difference in asking that the matter should be laid fairly and squarely before a commission, with all the protection afforded to witnesses, and with all the wide ramifications a commission of inquiry may enter into, and in confining the inquiry to the very narrow issue which can be examined by the court. The hon. member for Vereeniging, who sometimes is fair-minded, must concede that this is a relevant point I have made.

I do not think so.

Perhaps if the hon. member thinks a second time he will realize that what I have said is the truth. [Interjection]. The hon. member must not confuse the whole issue. I have never said that the inquiry into prison conditions should be confined to the courts of law; the Minister said that. I said a man should not be judged guilty of a particular crime by the Minister; the facts should come before a court. That is something entirely different from a wide commission of inquiry into prison conditions. I want to say also that comments from people in high places when these cases are in fact being tried, amount to contempt of court in many cases.

Who made such comments?

The hon. the Minister has made several public statements over the last few months. Whenever he has had an opportunity at public gatherings he has commented on our excellent prison system.

Did you believe Van Schalkwyk and the two Bantu?

I did not believe or disbelieve anybody. It is not for me to pronounce on it, but I say it is not for the Minister to pronounce on it either.

Those cases have been disposed of.

Yes, but there were other cases pending. The Minister did not distinguish. He made one broad, general statement and other people in high places have done exactly the same thing. I think that is improper.

So you want me to join in the smear campaign of your friends on the Rand Daily Mail.

No. I just want the Minister to keep his mouth shut in the meantime. I know it is very difficult for him to do so. I am just asking him not to pronounce one way or the other. [Interjections.]

But you keep on talking about the bad conditions in prisons the whole day, whether the matter is before the court or not.

I talk in this House and the Minister is quite able to answer me. But he addresses public meetings on the point. As my time is running out, I want to say finally that the whole tone that is set by Section 44 in the Prisons Act makes it impossible for anybody to criticize prison conditions outside this House.

It makes it impossible to lie about it.

No, not just to lie, because the onus of proof is placed on the person making the statement. It is extremely difficult when the State can produce one witness after the other as against the defence which has to rely on ex-prisoners who are extremely nervous of their position and who have not been given any indemnity.

And who are lying.

Well, it is very interesting that all the State witnesses tell the truth and all the defence witnesses tell lies. And I might say it is paradoxical that two cases are heard at exactly the same time in South Africa, where in one case the State is trying to prove up to the hilt that assaults took place and in the other case it tries to prove up to the hilt that no assault has ever taken place. That is very paradoxical. I am probably not the only person who has been struck by this strange paradox. Anyway, the whole system is designed not to protect the officials but in fact to stop any criticism against the Government. We have come to a sorry state in South Africa where criticism of social conditions has become placed on a par with unpatriotic behaviour. That is a sorry state of affairs. One should be able to expose conditions of social injustice and bad social conditions without always running the risk of being called unpatriotic and being called somebody who is deliberately denigrating the fair name of South Africa, etc. I think it is high time that this whole attitude from the top authorities down, against criticism, should be changed. In other countries the authorities are more adult and they are prepared to accept criticism in the spirit in which it is offered. They do not regard it as an unpatriotic action or as an attempt to show no confidence in the Government, but simply as an attempt to restore good social conditions and to see to it that the administration of justice is carried on in the best possible way. For all those reasons I once again ask that a judicial commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate prison conditions.

As hon. members are aware, exceptional demands are made on maiden speeches. One may not say this and one may not say that, and in particular one may not say anything contentious. Under those circumstances I have been wondering whether it would not be best to make my second speech straight away instead of my first. But I want to set the hon. members’ minds at ease with the assurance that I shall try my best to say nothing with which anybody could disagree, and that everybody will be able to agree with all I say.

The first thing I want to mention, is that the international airport Jan Smuts is situated in the municipal area of Kempton Park. Now I notice that on the air-tickets it is stated that the flight goes from Johannesburg to Cape Town, and not that it goes from Kempton Park. I think Johannesburg has so many things already—I am thinking, for example, of its zoo —that Kempton Park may readily be granted the pleasure of saying that the Jan Smuts airport is in Kempton Park, and that it may be stated on the air-tickets and on the time-tables of the Airways that the flight goes to and from Kempton Park instead of to and from Johannesburg. As far as the Airways are concerned, Johannesburg is actually no more than a suburb of Kempton Park.

Another matter about which there can be no difference of opinion, is that the use of the terms “European” and “Non-European” in notices on benches, in lifts and any other public places and documents, is quite wrong. You are aware of the consternation that arose on the Jan Smuts airport when Americans arrived there and wanted to go to a certain place which was labelled “Non-Europeans” and “Europeans”, and then entered the “Non-Europeans” because they knew that they were not “Europeans” but Americans. Well, we are no longer “Europeans”, why should we still be called “Europeans”? It has two most detrimental effects. Firstly, we are trying our best to make people who do not yet feel quite at home in South Africa, who came from overseas in the past, but in particular those who come now and will do so in the future, feel at home here, and to make them feel that they are part of the White nation in South Africa; but if they continually encounter the word “Europeans” and realize that it applies to them, it will have a retarding influence on them. It will make it very hard for them to feel that they have really become assimilated in South Africa, and will have a retarding influence on their assimilation here.

Then of course there is the other great difficulty that there are people who have the slogan “Africa for the Africans”. If we call ourselves “Europeans”, and the people who agitate so strongly that we do not really belong in Africa, see the word “Europeans” there, they will have something with which to reinforce their argument that we actually do not belong here but in Europe. People who live in America are Americans. The Australians are also no longer “Europeans”, and the same applies to the Canadians. I just want to say that at that time —I do not know whether or not that was as a result of that consternation—the hon. the Minister had all the notices in the Department of Transport changed to “Whites and “non-Whites”. And in the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal those were also accepted as the correct terms. I want to express the hope that it will be accepted throughout South Africa. I think that is something on which we are all in agreement.

There is something else on which I think we will all agree, and that is that the White in South Africa and also in Africa as such is in a state of crisis.

From outside, as we know, there are the attacks by the Black states who allege that their actions are justified by our policy of differentiation in South Africa in respect of colour. The fallacy of that argument is evident from the fact that they are just as hostile towards the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique, where the policy is exactly the opposite of our policy in South Africa, namely their policy of assimilation. The argument is therefore fallacious. We realize only too well that the sole object of the hostility is to drive the Whites out of Africa. Hence the slogan, “Africa for the Africans!” So much for the Black states abroad. But coupled with that there is of course the communistic materialism and the capitalistic materialism, which are prepared to sacrifice the Whites on the altar of Mammon for the sake of their greed. That is the threat from abroad of which we are aware.

To the inside, since they cannot subject us, the policy can be summarized in one word and that is “sabotage”.

There is the ordinary sabotage which is committed with dynamite and other means. Fortunately the Minister of Justice and our Police Force have acted so effectively that the White and the Black and the Coloured populations of our country in general are safe and can live in peace and quiet, which cannot be said for many other countries.

But there is a second form of sabotage, and that is to try to conquer the State from within by propagating a broad national concept, a “demos” concept, to the effect that the demos in the democracy consists of all the subjects of the State, of all the people in the State, which is propagated in the full knowledge that if general franchise is granted, the Blacks and the Coloureds in the country must necessarily gain control of the state machinery. I call that another form of sabotage. Of course that propaganda is wrong in this respect, that even if it were true that the demos did in fact consist of all these elements, then it would not follow that in a demos or in a democracy all the members of the demos must necessarily have the franchise. In fact, the truth of the matter is that not all members of the demos have the franchise. We are thinking, for example, of children. In our case we draw the line at children younger than 18 years, but those who are 17 are also members of the demos. All those who are younger are also members, but they do not have the franchise. It may therefore happen that the demos, for example, embraces large families, but that the majority of the members of the demos do not have the franchise, Mr. Speaker, according to Webster’s International Dictionary the majority is not at all in power in various of our democratic countries. On that subject, the dictionary says, inter alia, the following: “In modern representative democracies, as the United States and France, the governing body, that is the electorate, is a minority of the total population.”

The idea has taken root among us that the majority decision is always decisive in a democracy. But here it is proved that even if we were to accept the correctness of the broad demos principle it would still not follow that we should submit to the demands that the majority should govern in that demos. And in our case, of course, the majority is the Blacks. Surely one should draw the line somewhere. Now why should one not draw the line at the colour bar? Surely that is a natural boundary, Mr. Speaker. In defining national boundaries, one tries to establish natural boundaries as far as possible. In this respect I am thinking, for example, of rivers and mountains. Why cannot we use the colour of the skin as a boundary? Why should one necessarily draw an artificial line at an age level? Why can the ages of 17 and 18 years be used as boundaries and not the natural partition of colour? Provided, of course, that the broad national concept is correct. But according to scientific findings that demos concept is not correct.

Authorities point out to us that national sentiment should imbue in people a natural sense of unity. Prof. Ramsay Muir defines a nation as “a body of people who feel themselves to be naturally linked together by certain affinities, which are so strong and real for them that they can live happily together, are dissatisfied when disunited, and cannot tolerate subjection to peoples who do not share these ties”. Alfred Zimman gives the following definition of a nation: ”1 would define a nation as a body of people united by a corporate sentiment of peculiar tensity, intimacy and dignity, related to a definite home country.” George Renard comes to the conclusion that in every nation there is something which he calls “a form in the philosophical sense of that word, a family atmosphere which differs among the human race and binds to each other the members of the same nation”. In his book “The Group Mind” the well-known authority on social psychology. William McDougall, defines a nation as follows: "A people or population enjoying some degree of political independence and possessed of a national mind and character. and therefore capable of national deliberation and national volition.”

That means that a nation should have a sense of belonging together; that is, a national sentiment. A spirit of that nature cannot exist between White and Black peoples because the differences between them are of such a profound nature—and that has also been established by experts—that they cannot share one national sentiment. In fact, they have different national sentiments. If they then share one state as different national groups, they compete with one another for control over the state machinery. That can result in a holocaust.

I have already mentioned two forms of sabotage. In the first place we have our ordinary acts of sabotage. In the second place we have the attempt to achieve control over the state machinery from within, and the third form of sabotage—which I now want to deal with—is to sabotage the soul of the people— to cripple and weaken the national spirit. It has the result that the nation cannot take positive action. The national sentiment which fuses it into a unity has to be weakened. That will then bring us to a situation in which we will be defenceless against the powers that seek to overwhelm us. All we can do to meet such a situation is to arm ourselves spiritually for the struggle which lies ahead. No wonder that in 1899, when our forebears had to enter the crucible, a brochure entitled “Eeu van Onreg” made its appearance. That brochure contains the following brilliant words:

We, too, have a struggle ahead of us. We have to prepare ourselves for that struggle. Mr. Speaker, the era of injustice has not passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and also my pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Kempton Park on his speech. Speaking for myself, I thought that his speech was thoughtful and thought-provoking, philosophical to a degree—and certainly very disturbing to his colleagues! As I watched some of the faces on my left, in this corner here, they appeared to be mesmerized by some of the theories and ideas propounded by the hon. member. I do not wish to criticize the hon. member, but unwittingly, perhaps, he came very close to stating a fine case for Race Federation, which is the policy of the United Party! Sir, I want to say to the hon. member that it is somewhat paradoxical that I should congratulate him on his maiden speech—because the hon. member has just arrived here, while I am just about to leave! However, as we are all confronted with a general election, in the personal sense I sincerely hope the hon. member will return here after the election—but in the party political sense, I regret I cannot express the same hope! Nevertheless, whatever the hon. member may do in future, I hope his outlook on life and his very interesting theories about groups, and persons within those groups, and where the welfare of South Africa lies, will stand him and his community in good stead. I hope I have done justice to my obligations, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to pursue a point made by the hon. member. He referred to the relationship between Kempton Park—his town—and Johannesburg—my city. He also referred to our zoo. Now, the other day the hon. member for Vereeniging also referred to our zoo in Johannesburg. He said that our claim that the United Party would govern South Africa well, and better than the Nationalist Party, could not be accepted by this House. He advanced a reason why our claims should be rejected— his reason was that the Johannesburg City Council, a council governed by United Party members, made two serious blunders in the recent past. In the first place it blundered by erecting a mechanical parking garage, and it was alleged that once your car is parked there you might not get it back for the next five days. In the second place, it was alleged it had taken somebody at the zoo three years to extract an aching tooth from the jaw of a baboon.

No, it took three years to discover the baboon was suffering from toothache.

In that case I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have made inquiries from some of my former colleagues in the Johannesburg City Council, and I have been assured that, should the hon. member for Vereeniging present himself at the zoo, his tooth will be extracted within three minutes. I make this offer without prejudice.

I also recall that this hon. member, in his palmy days—which are well in the past now—was a member of the United Party which advanced him to the position of a member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Provincial Council. I remember the hon. member standing up on a public platform and thrilling the whole of Johannesburg and the whole of the Transvaal by claiming that the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal, of which he was an Executive Committee member, was the finest South Africa had ever had, or would ever have. Does he still think so to-day, now that the Transvaal Provincial Council is controlled by his party? If so, Sir, I want to bring to the notice of the hon. member and this House a few facts to illustrate how the Province of the Transvaal is being run to-day—quite fortuitously, of course, because this hon. member is no longer on the Executive Committee.

I want to ask the hon. member, for instance, whether he is aware of a report which was recently submitted to the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal—a “shock” report, it is called—which deals with the chaotic control of finances and wasteful spending in the Transvaal. This report was tabled in the Provincial Council in the course of this year. The report, dealing with the years 1963 and 1964, comments on matters involving the loss of thousands of rand to the province. Here are some of the points contained in the official report— in one instance, for example, the report mentions that hospital patients owed R2,379,552 in 1963-4, but R1,181,364 was written off as irrecoverable during the relevant financial year. Did such a thing ever happen when the United Party was in control of the province.

I was not there….

Oh, the hon. member was not there. He was never there when the lights went out, Sir! In the case of the Pretoria Hospital, losses were globular. According to the report, at this hospital an inconceivable lack of proper control and co-ordination involving the accounts and the radiotherapy sections was evident. This is but one aspect of the affairs of the Provincial Administration, so he should let alone the Johannesburg City Council and the mechanical parking garage, in which there is an investment of only a few hundred thousand rands anyway.

Then. Sir, there is the matter of road construction in the Transvaal. We must not forget that the Government subsidizes the Transvaal, as it does the other provincial administrations. I have here details of irregularities in a Transvaal road project revealed by the Provincial Auditor for the financial year 1964-5. He says that in December 1964 the Director of Roads reported that, as a result of complaints, and their investigation by a departmental committee, indications were found that serious irregularities had taken place at the National Road unit…. And do you know where, Sir? In the constituency of the hon. the Prime Minister, namely in “ou Heidelberg”. This is happening under a Nationalist Party administration—not under the party that runs the city of Johannesburg. I hope to demonstrate to even that unreasonable hon. member that his party cannot run a province. Why, it cannot even run a village properly.

Why don’t you kick them out?

I hope to do that. This report also refers to such little incidents as money being pocketed for goods that were never delivered; unlawful appropriation of State money, and unlawful use of State labour, services and property. The provincial auditors —not I—say that unnecessary earthworks were carried out on the Heidelberg-Villiers road. Superfluous gravelling had to be scraped off and removed. A more expensive stabilizing agent than the one prescribed was used.

Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal. They cannot administer their hospitals properly. They cannot administer their roads department. But they have the temerity to claim that the Nationalist Party has given the whole of South Africa good government. I hope hereafter we will hear no more talk about zoos or the extraction of teeth from the jaws of baboons or gorillas.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not here. [Interjections.] But I must admit I am encouraged by the presence of the hon. the Minister of Information. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be good enough to convey my compliments to the Prime Minister, and put certain questions to him. I should like to know, Sir, whether it is the Government’s policy to take steps to encourage the natural increase of the White population. Is that the Government’s policy?

You should ask the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He is present.

I would prefer to have the hon. the Prime Minister answering this, but I am prepared to take an answer by proxy from the hon. the Deputy Minister. If it is in fact the policy of the Government to encourage the increase of the White population, is it also its intention to restrict the increase, by natural means, of the other population groups in the country? Is it the policy of the Government to decrease or restrict the increase of other population groups by compelling them, or encouraging them, to employ methods of birth control? On humanitarian grounds, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration was heard to make an impassioned plea to South Africa to increase the White population; not by fair means or foul—by fair means, I hope. Now, a few days later, so to speak, a spokesman for the Government, if I may call him that—because I believe he is appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister—namely the Administrator of Natal, makes a statement advocating a certain policy….

The Administrator is a good Nationalist.

Who else but a good Nationalist could become an Administrator? Does the hon. member for Durban (North) think he could nowadays become an Administrator? To come back to my point—the Administrator advocated a certain policy, and said that a national programme with moral and financial support from the central Government had become necessary. If one read his statement in isolation, one might well wonder what it was all about. One might well think the Administrator was advocating a programme for the general and genuine advancement of the people of South Africa—but one would be wrong, Sir. Because it turns out that this plea is based on the idea that, because it is necessary to ensure that the gap between the numbers of Whites and the non-Whites must not increase further—something that is caused by the higher birth-rate of the non-Whites— therefore it is necessary to have a comprehensive birth control programme among the non-Whites within the next three to five years. Should this not be done, so the Administrator says, it is doubtful whether the policy of separate development could ever succeed. What can one say about a policy which is the cornerstone of this Government’s policy, and which can depend only, and can succeed only, if the Bantu, the Cape Ooloureds and the Indians can be persuaded to stop procreating? What can you say about such a policy, Sir?

This is more than a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, because at the same time that this appeal was being made, there have been reports in circulation concerning pills being handed out to factory girls. I will read a report that appeared in a local newspaper a few days ago—

This is not a funny story at all—this is a very serious matter. Because, Sir, if the Government is seriously supporting this policy adumbrated by the Administrator of Natal, it will embark on a policy which will lead to the encouragement—if not the compulsion— of birth control amongst all the groups in this country, except the Whites. And no matter what I or anyone else may say in South Africa about this Government, they will have blackened the image of South Africa outside its borders as badly as they have done in the past in other directions. The world will take it for granted that the desire of the White community in this country to survive depends entirely on our preventing the other groups from indulging in the natural process of procreation. I am putting it as simply as I can. [Interjections.] But if this is not in fact the policy of the Government, then far from giving me the answer which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs gave me a few days ago. namely that it was not the Government’s policy but that steps had nevertheless been taken to “encourage family planning” among the Coloureds, the Government should go far beyond this statement and make it perfectly clear that it is not the policy of the Government of this country to urge any population group to indulge in this artificial form of population restriction. I hope the Government will answer me, in one way or the other.

Now, Sir. I should like to deal with a few matters arising out of the budget and ask a few questions, if I may. Under the vote of the hon. the Minister of the Interior appears an item relating to a contribution to the cost of the Republic festival. The original estimate was R275,000. But the revised estimate is R500,000. An additional amount of R225.000 therefore has to be voted.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I gather we are now discussing the part appropriation and not the additional estimates. The hon. member is discussing the additional estimates.

Order!

Whichever document my information comes from, I think, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to raise the matter of the 1966 Republic festival as a matter of Government policy. I was present at a meeting recently where a certain body stated that its executive committee is very anxious to co-operate with the Government in staging its contribution to the Republic festival. It approached the hon. the Minister as recently as last November in order to obtain additional funds for its own contribution—in the Transvaal. The reply was that because the budget amount had ben fixed at R275.000, it was impossible to concede the additional amount which was, comparatively speaking, a small amount. In the result, this particular organization will either have to rely on its funds as well as funds already granted by the Government, or else not participate at all. I am raising this point because I hope it will be made known to all concerned that more money is to be voted for the Republic festival. Organizations who have already started planning for the festival and who require more money than that already given or promised to them, can then approach the Minister for further assistance out of the further sum that is being voted here to-day.

I should now like to deal with a matter concerning the Department of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare. I believe, Sir, that this gentleman is soon to retire—may I say that I am sorry I will not be in this House to miss the hon. the Minister. I hope in the years of retirement he will look back on the years he has spent, advancing the welfare of our community in South Africa, and will remember that we on this side of the House, while we have been his political opponents, have nevertheless always tried to co-operate with him for the welfare of the community. I hope he will think of that sometimes.

Quite recently I asked the hon. the Minister some questions relating to conditions in a small-holding area in Pretoria North. Sir, the remarkable thing about this matter is not the fact that such conditions still exist, but that they have never been referred to here since they were first discovered by the Minister’s Department in October 1964. This is now February 1966. But for the fact that I put a question at the end of January 1966, I make bold to say, Sir, this matter would never have been discussed in this House because we know that although almost the whole Pretoria complex is represented by hon. members on that side, they do not seem to feel that it is their duty to come to this House, to relate the unhappy circumstances of their constituents, and to obtain relief for them. Either they do not know of these people’s plight, or else they just do not care. And so it remains for me, a member representing a Johannesburg constituency—which through the good offices of the Delimitation Committee has already been “delimited” out of existence—to raise this most distressing story of poverty and suffering in the Pretoria district. I do not think that is right, and I hope the Government side will take heed of this matter.

Up to the time this matter was raised, the Department had already through the Minister’s intervention been investigating this situation since October, 1964. That is what the hon. the Minister told me in reply to my question. And if one thinks about what had to be done there, in order to alleviate the position, then one realizes how bad the situation was before the lot of these unfortunates was attended to by the Department. We are talking about conditions in this year of grace 1966—not 50 years ago—near the capital city of South Africa, after three, four, five years of boom conditions—this did not happen in 1948 when the U.P. were in power. This did not happen during the war years when the excuse could be raised that because of the war, certain desirable things could not be done. These conditions persist in 1963 or 1964 or 1966 within 20 miles of the capital city of South Africa. And this is what had to be done to get the machinery started for bringing about an improvement. Firstly, a senior welfare officer was detailed to work full-time in the area with the assistance and co-operation of social workers, of social welfare organizations, to give guidance to the community. Secondly, a dietician and home economics officer of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services was made available. In other words, Sir, these people were starving, or they were grossly undernourished. Thirdly, the Department of Health made arrangements for a district surgeon to pay regular visits. Fourthly, provision was made for two permanent nurses for the area—and this is a White area, Mr. Speaker. Most probably these poor people voted for the Government. What do they know? Family allowances, old-age pensions and disability allowances had to be granted to these people. These people had little or no income, Mr. Speaker. I did not choose these words. The hon. the Minister, who is an honest man, told this House that these people had little—which is bad enough—or no income. Now, how does anybody live if there is “no income”? Steps were taken to place the area under the control of the peri-urban areas health board. Investigations have been undertaken. An amount of R5,000 was made available for the remaining year and for the supply of supplementary diets free of charge, or at a reasonable charge.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Minister does not think I am criticizing him, because as I said, I for one, have appreciated the zeal with which he has presided over his Department in the few years that it has been my privilege to be here. This is an indictment, Sir, of the Government and its policy. It is an indictment of a political party which is so busy with ideology, that it is possible for these conditions to exist within a few miles of the Union Buildings in Pretoria, where all these gentlemen have their offices for six months of the year and where all the black limousines are parked morning, noon and night. Nobody said a word about this until, on this side of the House, and representing a Johannesburg constituency, got up here and said, “what about these conditions in the Pretoria (North) area? What about these small-holdings?” I hope this sort of thing will not happen again.

I was asked for a statement and I gave one readily. I told the hon. member that everything possible was done as soon as I heard of these conditions. I also disclosed the reasons for the existence of this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I appreciate the zeal with which the hon. the Minister has tackled this problem. What I am concerned with now, Sir, is the principle involved, because such conditions existed, yet they were quietly suppressed. And yet we were continually being told that we were having the biggest boom in the history of South Africa. We were told that everybody is prosperous—one might almost say like the Cabinet Ministers—and that money was coming out of people’s ears. And this tragedy was happening near Pretoria. This is the point I am trying to make.

In contrast to this, I should like in the time left to me, to inform the hon. the Minister—who, I am sure, will still take an interest in social welfare after his retirement—of the position obtaining in another country, a country very different from ours. That country is much smaller and much poorer; it has a much smaller population. Compared to ours—on an industrial basis—the country does not exist. It has a largely pastoral economy. Can you guess which country I am referring to, Mr. Speaker? Can you guess which country? I am talking about New Zealand, the country of the Maoris who are not allowed to play rugby in South Africa. I have here a letter received from a South African who, for family reasons, went to New Zealand. In it he says—

That is where we should go, Alec.

That is a wonderful idea. Let us go together, and then I will quietly forget to bring you back. At any rate, the letter I have read so far gives an idea of a social security scheme in a small country such as New Zealand, a country which could be our poor relation. The letter continues:

Let me tell this Government that if I should again hear this argument, which has been repeated so often and which I am going to miss—that I will miss it or not, on that every body can take a bet—that we cannot, in this country, have a national contributory pension scheme for the reason that it smacks of socialism, I hope someone from that side of the House will for a change, get up and demolish that canard, that silly idea. It is not socialism, or even communism, to ensure that every person living in South Africa is properly cared for—provided, of course, that he or she, as the head of a family, is prepared to work. That is not socialism. It is nothing else but common, human decency. It can be done, because it has been done in other countries— and of this, the small country New Zealand offers the best example—a country which cannot boast of the same industrial progress and flourishing conditions of living of which we can boast here in South Africa. If a country like New Zealand can do this, and has been doing it for years, on the same simple basis of taxation on the one hand, and social security on the other hand, then surely it is not beyond the wits of the South African Government to follow that very good example. Sir, I hope that this Government is defeated in the general election, whereupon a United Party Government will have the opportunity and the privilege of instituting—once and for all —a true and comprehensive social security system in South Africa.

Speaker, it is said that there are two things which are very certain, i.e. death and income tax, and that it is a great pity they do not follow in that order. But in my opinion there is a third thing which is very certain and that is that the closest this honourable House will ever get to the Johannesburg Zoo is to listen to the hon. member as a person who must not resumed his seat. If the speech which he has just made is his farewell speech, then it was certainly “true to form”. As usual it was amusing, but as usual it was also frivolous. We shall miss him and his jokes he made in his speeches here in this House. I want to give the hon. member a piece of advice, and that is if he wants to be re-elected he should agitate for the Johannesburg Zoo being represented in this House. For such a representative I do not believe they could find a better person in the whole wide world than the hon. member for Hospital. We have come to know the hon. member as a person who must not be taken too seriously, and accordingly I do not want to take him seriously to-night. I would rather confine myself to other matters which are more important and more to the point.

The question before the people of South Africa at the moment is a very important and apposite question, namely, which Party can best ensure the survival of the Whites in South Africa. If the voters of South Africa had not been so well acquainted with the two major Parties in our country, and had not been so well acquainted with their leaders, the United Party may perhaps have been able to succeed to a certain extent in making the uninformed voters believe in its idea of White leadership. But how have the voters of South Africa come to know the United Party? The older people amongst us know the United Party as that Party which came forward with the policy not of South Africa first, but of the Empire first. The older people amongst us remember the United Party, this Party which to-day in South Africa wants to reveal itself as the upholders of White leadership, as the Party which, before the election of 1929, came forward with the grotesque and shocking idea that it was their aim to make South Africa a part of greater Africa in the future, with a northern boundary which would reach out to the Sudan. That is what this Party, the Party which to-day wants to pose as the upholder of White South Africa, at that time gave out should be the great Dominion of Africa. At Ermelo the then leader of that Party said that even the name of South Africa would have to disappear in order to make place for a United British Africa. I obtained this information from the Cape Times of 18 January 1929. The establishment of such a Dominion would have meant that the numerical ratio in South Africa which at that time was one White to three non-Whites, would then have been increased to one White for every ten non-whites. According to the manifesto of the National Party at that time it would have entailed that this British Dominion would become one great Kaffir State from Cape Town in the south to Egypt in the north. In this way the United Party therefore wanted to take leave of South Africa as a White man’s country. The manifesto in question of that time continued as follows—

One’s blood runs cold if one thinks what would have become of the White man in South Africa if that grotesque and shocking idea had not been put a stop to by the voters of South Africa rejecting the United Party. That is the Party which is to-day going to the people of South Africa and asking that they must accept that it, the United Party, will be able to maintain White leadership in South Africa. That same leader of the United Party whose words I have just quoted, stated in 1939 that “segregation is as dead as a dodo.” In 1942 he stated, “you may just as well sweep the ocean with a broom”, when he referred to how impossible he believed it was to prevent Bantu coming from their homelands into the White areas.

As far as we, the younger generation, are concerned, we remember the United Party for its diabolical Senate plans. This, too, was violently rejected by the people. That plan made the delivery of the Whites in South Africa into the hands of the non-Whites a mere question of time. We remember the sharp attacks which one United Party member after the other made upon this Government in this House alleging that this Government was oppressing the Black man in South Africa. In this regard the quotations I can read out to this House are legion. According to Hansard of 1960, Col. 2312, the hon. member for Constantia declared that year in this House—

It is a fact that during the last ten years we have seen continual restrictions and diminution of non-White rights in this country, politically, educationally, in local self-government, in economic advancement and in freedom of movement.

As a matter of fact, the United Party story of that time that the Nationalist Government was oppressing the non-Whites runs like a refrain through the debates of the fifties and sixties. In 1950, according to Col. 4713, the then member for East London City said the following in this House—

Referring to the present Prime Minister the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of the "harshness, the ruthlessness, indefensibility and injustice of the large number of discriminatory and repressive measures which had been made applicable to the Natives in the so-called White areas.” Like a never-ending drip we had continually to hear about the long series of repressive laws. The Nationalist Government was continually being accused of treating the Native, “not on a basis of absolute right and justice, but on a basis of apartheid, domination and injustice.” That is what the then hon. member for Edenvale said in 1954 (see Hansard, Col. 2813). In Col. 2809 of the same year he described the policy of the National Party as “a heartless course, a course which does not take human rights into consideration.” In 1961 the National Party was reproached with the fact “that there is undoubtedly dissatisfaction and antagonism amongst the Bantu in South Africa.” The reason for that, as was advanced, was “the negative and suppressive actions appearing on the debit side of the Government’s record in regard to the Bantu in South Africa.” It leaves a strange and bitter, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove is a master of the art of stating the opposite of the truth more precisely and correctly than any other person I have ever had the opportunity of meeting. Mr. Speaker, in the light of the record which I have tried to sketch by means of these few quotations, it leaves a strange and bitter taste, particularly in the mouth of the younger generation in our country, to learn that the United Party with its cry of White leadership over the whole of South Africa now wants to give itself out as the upholders of Whites in South Africa. We do not believe it, but even if we did believe it. we would never be able to entrust the United Party with that task. We remember only too well how the Leader of the United Party said in this House in 1959 (Hansard. Col. 6329)—

These were the criteria of the United Party at that time. It was not what the Whites in South Africa needed in order to survive, but the world situation and the situation on the Continent of Africa which had to be taken into consideration. How can a nation leave its future in the hands of such a Party which has taken that sort of attitude in this House over such a long period of years? The life of a nation is too precious to entrust to such people, people with a record such as that of the Party on the opposite side, a record of accusations against this Government of repression of the non-Whites, and the temerity, the flagrant temerity here on the eve of an election to try and hoodwink the nation into believing that the Government is not doing enough for the Whites, in which the shabby implication is locked up—which they have only to say and which has already been said by their newspapers outside this House—that the Government is doing too much for the Black man in South Africa. What a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. We remember the United Party of the past only too well. It is that United Party whose trust fund of the fifties were started—in the words of Sir de Villiers Graaff—

Apparently the present Leader of the Opposition at that time believed in the UNO to a greater extent than is the case to-day. We still remember the cry of the United Party—“Equal rights for all civilized people”—a cry with which they fought an election. Do they still believe in that to-day? But it is also this self-same United Party which to-day is supposed to want to protect the Whites of South Africa with their so-called policy of White leadership which advocates the principle of “the rate for the job.” How they want to maintain “the White leadership” in this manner only the man in the moon knows.

There are two things which the people of South Africa will never forgive the United Party. The first is the clouding of the race relations issue in South Africa by consistently accusing the Nationalist Government over a period of more than ten years of oppressing of the Black man, accusations the bitter fruits of which the country is still plucking to-day, because those reports were sent abroad. We are still having to pay for that to-day. Now the United Party is once more perpetrating an abominable and scandalous action by going to the other extreme and trying to make the people believe that this Government to-day is doing too much for the Black man. All these things are aimed at only one thing, and if it is not being done intentionally, then it nevertheless has that effect, namely to cloud the race relations issue in South Africa. It is a disgrace. Our people will never forgive them for that, because our future, the future of the younger generation in particular, is more than ever at stake in these days. The attitude of the United Party cannot be described in any other way than by calling it a cheap attitude in the politics of South Africa, and our people detest and despise them for it. These are difficult times for South Africa in the world and that is why I want to make an appeal to the United Party not to cloud the race relations issue farther by continuing with this allegation that the Government is doing more for the Black man than for the White.

But how ridiculous this story is! I am not going to follow the bad example set by the United Party and draw a comparison between what is being done for the White man on the one hand and the Black man on the other in South Africa, but I only want to indicate what this Government has done for the White man in South Africa since 1948, particularly in the field of education, of housing and of salaries and wages. Each one of these three items is something of fundamental importance which affects every man, woman and child very closely. This will be good medicine for the United Party. They may as well listen to this, therefore.

As far as White education is concerned, this Government spent R188,594,704 during the course of 1965-6 in respect of full-time students in the four Provinces and in respect of the activities of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Over the past three years this Government has spent an amount of R511,416.659 on White education in South Africa.

Since 1948 this Government has built no less than 102,217 houses for Whites. And do you know how much the Government put in to build those houses for Whites? The costs of those houses for the State was R400,000,000 in round figures. Although what an hon. member said here this afternoon might be true, i.e. that for various reasons it is not quite fair to compare 1948 with the position to-day, it is important to note what this Government has done for White housing between 1948 and 1964, as compared with what the United Party did in their time. As I have said, an amount of R400,000,000 was spent during this period as compared with an amount of only R60.000,000 under the United Party Government during the period 1939 to 1948.

What is the position in regard to the salaries and wages of the Whites? The average wage of a White miner in 1948 was R1,174, in comparison with R2,721 in 1964, i.e. an increase of 131.8 per cent, and that while the consumers’ index only rose by 63.5 per cent during the same period. Now members of the Opposition will want to know what the percentage increase in real income was, and that is why I took the trouble to establish what this was as well. Well, the position in this regard is that the real income of a White miner increased by 31.7 per cent from 1948 to 1964. In the factories wages increased by 159.4 per cent as against an increase in the cost of living index over the same period of 69 per cent, and an increase in the real income of 53.5 per cent. In regard to construction works the wages increased by 127.7 per cent during the period 1948 to 1964, as against an increase of 69 per cent in the cost of living index and an increase in the real income of 34.7 per cent. Quite recently we heard in this House that wages and salaries on the South African Railways had increased by 123 per cent over the same period. Now, what Party can, in the light of these facts, come along and try and make the people believe that this Government is not doing enough for the Whites in South Africa. Somewhere along the road the United Party has lost its lead. Just take for example their laggardly attitude which they are revealing here so shortly before an election, as they did in the Railway Debate this morning in this House, when there were only eight of their members present. Apparently they do not even want to participate in the debates any more. Yet this is the Party which states that it wants to maintain White leadership in South Africa, and then tries to attack the Government in this way.

But there are a few more figures which I want to quote in order to prove what this Government has done for the Whites of South Africa. As far as White taxpayers are concerned, those who pay taxes on an income of between R2,000 and R4,000 increased in numbers from 53,901 in 1948 to 322,626 in 1962, i.e. a sixfold increase. In 1948 there were only 12,808 White income tax payers with an income of between R4,000 and R6.000 in comparison with 56,525 in 1962, i.e. five times as many, and to-day this figure is much higher. The number of motor cars in our country has increased by 200 per cent during the period 1948 to 1964. And who were those men who went to purchase a motor car? It was the White labourer. Let us take a look at the purchases of radios. Nobody would buy a radio if they could not afford it. The increase in radio licences was 131 per cent.