Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I cannot ask you now to regard my short speech of last night as my maiden speech—I already have the Hansard report here in my hand—and then to allow me to be slightly more contentious in the second short speech, which I have to make this afternoon. But since it seems to me as though that is not possible, I shall simply have to carry on with my first innings, and then I want to say at the outset that as the only ex-member of the parliamentary Press Gallery among the newcomers of 1966, and also the only one among the “66group” who was previously associated with this House in some connection or other, I have to confess to-day that while I was still sitting up there in the Press Gallery I frequently looked down on the fears of new members, and sometimes also enjoyed a little laugh up my sleeve about their plight. Little did I think that years later I would run the same gauntlet here on the green floor of the House. Actually I have to run two gauntlets to-day, one the frigidity of the House, and the second those critical ex-colleagues of mine in the Press Gallery. If I look at the sea of faces in front of me and at all the eloquent speakers on both sides of the House, I feel very much like the famous British writer J. M. Barrie felt after he had addressed 1,000 girls at an American girls’ college. After he had finished, his friend asked him: “Well, how did it go?” and Barrie’s reply was: “I would much rather talk 1,000 times to one girl than talk one time to 1,000 girls.”

Mr. Speaker, a new member faces two dilemmas, as I see things, and the first is the dilemma of orientation in this House. The second dilemma, as I see it, is the dilemma of a suitable subject for a maiden speech. Apart from all the other tribulations a new member endures in this House, like mistakes—and you, Mr. Speaker, were most sympathetic when I made a mistake last night—and all the other snares a new member can get caught in, there are also all the strange faces of new M.P.s and Senators that a member must get to know and that form a factor of confusion. As an example I just want to mention what happened to me a few days ago. In front of the Houses of Parliament I encountered a dignified gentleman, and as I knew that he was not one of my colleagues here in the House, because I am gradually beginning to recognize the faces of the new members and the old members, I said for courtesy’s sake: “Good morning, Senator,” and a few minutes later took a lift here in the building and much to my surprise I saw that that dignified gentleman was a lift-operator.

The other dilemma in which a new member may land, as I see it, is that he may choose a too contentious subject for his maiden speech. I may, for example, as the first National Party member for Turffontein, refer to my predecessor, but I fear I shall then have to be contentious. As an ex-newspaperman I may perhaps also refer to the Press, and advocate higher salaries for my over-worked colleagues in the Press Gallery, but then the hon. the Minister of Finance may perhaps accuse me of wanting to stimulate inflation.

But Turffontein is also associated with its famous race-course, and because the racecourse has to do with revenue and in particular with expenditure, I may perhaps have chosen that as a subject. In lighter vein I may perhaps also have referred to Turffontein’s mongrel dogs. As you know, Al Debbo made those mongrels very famous years ago when he wrote and sang an Afrikaans song which referred to the red mongrels, brown mongrels, black mongrels, piebald mongrels and all kinds of mongrels of Turffontein.

But joking apart: To me it is an exceptionally great honour that Turffontein has elected me to represent the constituency in the House of Assembly, in this highest legislative assembly. As regards the constitution of its population, Turffontein is one of the most representative constituencies on the Rand. Sixty per cent of them are English-speaking and 40 per cent Afrikaans-speaking, and I hope that during my term of office in this House I shall be able to serve both sections of the population to the best of my ability, and to make a contribution in respect of the ever-growing national unity in South Africa.

Turffontein is also a historic constituency. As you know, Sir, it has been a separate parliamentary constituency since Union, and it is also less well known that on one occasion the famous General C. F. Beyers stood as candidate in Turffontein. Like the hon. member for Humansdorp, I am also proud that two previous Ministers of Transport have been associated with my constituency; in the first place the late Mr. Claude Sturrock, and in the second place the hon. the Minister of Transport, whom I believe once went to school there.

But to get down to business: Because this constituency is one of the oldest suburbs in Johannesburg—it was proclaimed a township as long ago as 1890—and because it is situated in an old area in the very heart of Johannesburg, it presents us with an exceptional problem, which is the problem of encroaching slums in some part of my constituency. The problem is of material interest to an old suburb like Turffontein, but it is also of material interest to all metropolitan areas in South Africa, and, therefore, I do not want to adopt a parochial approach towards the matter this afternoon. I should rather refer briefly to this urgent problem which is of national dimensions, but in the first place I want to express my gratitude towards the Government for grappling with this problem with determination and with initiative to the extent allowed them by the available funds. I think we are fortunate in having had and in having two dynamic Ministers of Community Development, who could initiate and pursue this matter. In the first instance I am thinking of the previous Minister, now the Minister of Defence, who went on a study tour to Europe and returned from there to clear up our Johannesburg Augean Stable, Sophiatown, and who established the White residential area Triomf, which I think is generally accepted as an ornament to urban renewal and urban planning. Then I want to refer to our present Minister of Community Development, who made it clear shortly after he had taken office, that to him too this question of slum clearance and urban renewal was a serious matter, and I quote what he said when he opened a factory in Roodepoort, as reported in the Transvaler, on that occasion the Minister said (translation)—

He then pointed out the necessity for urban renewal and urban planning.

Mr. Speaker, slums strike at the soul and the spiritual prosperity of an entire generation of White South African inhabitants, who are in danger of being engulfed in these slum areas and in the beehive existence. It is a good thing that the Government is coming to grips with all its might with this disastrous human erosion. We simply cannot afford any further losses of human material. Our White population in South Africa is too small to allow that. We must continue combating the spiritual erosion, the shallowing and the moral decay in the slums with all our might. To the inhabitants of these slums the slum conditions become an evil vampire which drags its victims deeper and deeper into debt, which disintegrates families, whose children drift towards drugs, crime and an empty future, and I, therefore, reiterate that we cannot afford to think small about the matter, but that we should launch a blitzkrieg against slums in South Africa, and I as a new member see visions that with an energetic Minister of Community Development South Africa may one day become the leading country in Africa as regards urban renewal and urban planning; that just as the Americans are remodelling entire cities like Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, we will also succeed in doing so in South Africa when we have the funds available.

Before I sit down, I want to suggest in all humility a few practical steps in the interest of slum clearance. It is quite possible that the hon. the Minister has already given attention to these, or that they are not news to him, and I, therefore, beg his indulgence.

Firstly, I want to ask whether the time has not perhaps come that we should hold a national congress on the question of slums, in the course of which the sociological problems arising from those conditions may be discussed, and at the same time practical measures may also be planned at such a congress. I want to ask whether the National Council for Social Research cannot perhaps take the initiative in this respect. All of us remember the Poor-White congress of the thirties in which the hon. the Prime Minister played such a vast part, and from which such brilliant results emanated for the Afrikaanse nation in course of time.

Secondly, I want to plead for the possible establishment of a chair in urban renewal and urban planning, and here I want to suggest in all humility that this may be a golden opportunity to establish such a professorship at the newly-founded Rand Afrikaans University. Perhaps it may at first be established as a sub-department of a department of architecture.

In the third place I want to plead for even more funds for alternative housing, because, as you know, slum clearance and housing go hand in hand; one cannot be done without the other. Fourthly, I should like to ask the Prime Minister in all humility whether he will not consider the desirability of perhaps eventually lending an enhanced status to the concept of urban renewal and urban planning in the Department of Community Development. Is it not possible that the Department of the Minister can be renamed the “Department of Community Development, of National Housing and of Urban Renewal”? I think I speak without fear of contradiction if I say that no Prime Minister in our history has done more to modernize and streamline departmental names and terminology than the hon. the Prime Minister. Fifthly, I want to plead for the finalizing of financial relations between the Central Government and the local authorities. When our members of Parliament exert pressure on local governments to induce them to expedite their slum-clearance projects, the excuse is always that the formula as regards financial and the statutory relations between the Central Government and local authorities has not been finalized yet.

In the sixth and in the final instance I want to plead that joint preventative measures be compiled by the Department of Community Development and local authorities so that the beautiful residential areas we are now establishing in this country will not also deteriorate, as for example in my own constituency, Turffontein, which was once, 76 years ago, a show suburb; in other words, that stricter urban conservation measures should be adopted. I know that the Department of Community Development is doing that as regards its own national housing schemes, but you will agree with me that most houses are built by means of building society loans nowadays, and I get the impression that the building societies often do not carry out very strict supervision over the houses built by means of their loans.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by repeating once again that an entire generation of our White South Africans is disappearing among and behind those ruins of our major cities, and I consider it our sacred duty to stretch out a hand towards these people and also to put our hands in our own pockets—yes, very far into our own pockets—so that we may save them. We simply cannot afford to have them and future generations of South Africans reduced to that same misery. We must secure for them a useful and a decent existence once again.

Both previous speakers, the hon. member for Turffontein and the speaker before him, the hon. member for Gordonia, made maiden speeches, and in accordance with the custom in this House it is my privilege to welcome them into the House and to wish them well. Both made interesting speeches and we on this side of the House trust that in the future we can look forward to continued interesting and constructive contributions from them. Sir, I wish them well in this House and many years in this Parliament.

Having said that, the gloves are now off! Sir, this is the second day of the Budget debate, and I think that the Government tactic in this debate has become clear. The tactic is first of all to ignore completely the charges made against the Budget by this side of the House, and, secondly—what has been more important for the Government—to beat as hard as they can the patriotic drum so that the public may be induced on patriotic grounds to accept the drastic and harsh measures under this Budget and to forget that the situation in which the country finds itself to-day is largely due to the mismanagement of the country’s economy by this Government over the past few years in particular.

I want to examine more closely some of the charges that we on this side of the House have made against the Government. Hon. members opposite have said that we have made none. Sir, if they read the motion moved by the hon. member for Constantia, they will see clearly and in writing—I presume they can all read—what the charges are specifically. Four charges have been laid against the Government and I want to begin this afternoon with the second one. [Interjections.] I propose to deal with all four of them. The hon. member for Brakpan need not become so excited, and perhaps in due time the hon. member will rise and answer some of these charges because none of the other Government members has been able to answer them up to now.

The second charge that we have levelled against the Government is that this Budget provides no long-term plan to combat the rising living costs. I think it will be conceded by the Government that the aim of a good budget should surely be to keep down living costs; and I ask the Government once again, I ask in particular the hon. member who will follow me, and I ask other members on that side: Where in this Budget is a long-term plan to combat rising living costs in South Africa? There is none whatsoever. Let us examine the position. Shortly after or before this Session of Parliament began—I am not quite sure when—the Government introduced a credit squeeze which resulted in increased mortgage bond rates, amongst other things. Then not so long ago we had the Railway Budget which resulted in increased rail fares, amongst other things, and in increased railage on goods, which is bound to put up costs. Now we have the main Budget, and although there are some deflationary measures in this Budget, there are also a great many inflationary measures. Surely the acid test—and this is what the Government has to face squarely—is whether the combined effect of these three, the credit squeeze, the Railway Budget and the main Budget, will reduce living costs or will increase living costs in South Africa. That is the acid test, and I now ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and members on that side of the House what will be the combined effect of these three measures. That side of the House, as well as this side, know that the combined effect will be an increase in the living costs of the ordinary South African. They cannot deny it. All this talk of our spending huge sums of money to preserve the economy of South Africa is nonsense. It is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, unless it results in curbing the inflationary trend, which means in simple language unless it results in curbing rising costs. Once more I challenge that side of the House to show how this Budget, combined with the other two measures I have referred to, is going to reduce the ordinary man’s daily cost of living. Perhaps in due time, Mr. Speaker, some Government member will take up the challenge of what is perhaps one of the most important accusations made by this side of the House.

I come to the next point, namely that the Budget fails to provide necessary incentives for increased production and productivity. No less a person than the Chairman of the Government’s own Productivity Advisory Committee, Dr. F. J. de Villiers, said quite recently that one of the most important single factors in solving inflationary problems is raising productivity rather than curbing demand. In other words, producing more goods more cheaply, with the consequential expansion of the internal market for consumer and capital goods. This view is shared by a number of prominent economists in this country, amongst others the present Chairman of the Netherlands Bank. Do members on that side agree with this contention or do they disagree with it? Let us have a categorical answer: do they agree with it or do they disagree? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they are bound to agree with it because they know that it is correct. Knowing it to be correct, I ask them once again: Where in this Budget are the necessary incentives for increased production and productivity? Perhaps the speaker who rises after me or some other Government member might deal with that point also.

But not only the economists take this view, Sir. This view is shared also by prominent trade unionists, the people who represent the workers of South Africa, those workers whom the hon. member for Queenstown said yesterday his party represented. I should like to read out to the House what I consider to be a very interesting statement by Mr. T. P. Murray, one of the foremost trade union leaders in this country. This is what he said—

But according to the hon. member for Malmesbury, South Africans should not wish for a higher standard of living. According to him their standard of living is already too high. What a shocking statement, Mr. Speaker, what a shocking allegation to make. It is an allegation which we on this side of the House repudiate with all the force at our command. I continue with what Mr. Murray said—

This is the sensible way to tackle inflation. There is no question about that. And what is this Government doing to encourage increased production and productivity? Far from encouraging it, one step it has taken in this Budget is likely to do a great deal to discourage increased production and productivity, and that is the step which has been taken to differentiate between a brewery producing a large quantity of beer as opposed to one producing less. Surely what we should be encouraging in this country is the production of more goods at the same cost. We should encourage higher productivity, rather than discourage it.

I now want to deal with the third point of criticism against this Government, namely its failure to take adequate measures to curtail unnecessary and unsatisfactory spending in the public sector. Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a very interesting talk indeed on the Current Affairs programme on the Wednesday night after the Budget was introduced. It was obviously a programme that had been prepared beforehand in an effort to bolster up the Government. According to the speaker, the public are largely responsible for inflation because they have been spending too much. Now, Sir, is that also the point of view of the Government? Because if it is, I consider it most shocking. This Government told the public last year and also in previous years to spend for prosperity, the public were encouraged to spend their money. [Interjections.] This, if anything, shows the callousness with which this Government treats the ordinary South African nowadays. They have become too big, they have become too powerful, they have become too wealthy to consider the ordinary man in the street.

The Government wants to create the impression that the huge Budget expenditure is due solely to increased defence expenditure. But this is not the case. This is not the case at all. The Budget this year is R1,275,000,000 on Revenue Account, of which defence expenditure is R255,000,000, or 20 per cent. Now, what about the other 80 per cent? Why can the Government not do something about cutting down expenditure on that other 80 per cent? How does the Government expect the man in the street to spend less—as he is being urged to do—when this Government claims that it cannot reduce its expenditure? What effort is it making?

Tell us on what we must reduce?

We were asked the same question yesterday. Well, my answer is this: Put us in office and we will show you. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make a few suggestions. Let us look first of all at the Cabinet itself. What is the Cabinet doing? If it wants the public to spend less, it ought surely to set the example. It should say to the country; we are facing difficult times economically, we want you to spend less; we are setting you an example and we are going to spend less. But what are they doing? Let us just have a look outside the House. There are bigger and better and more black American limousines than we have ever had before. [Interjections.] We have a new Minister of Sport. We have three new Deputy Ministers. The Cabinet is bigger than it has ever been. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? We do not need such a large Cabinet. If the Cabinet started to economize, it would be entitled to ask the public to do likewise. But if the Cabinet is not prepared to economize it has no right to ask the public to do so. The number of motor cars used by the Cabinet is, of course, only a small item. All the Ministers have large cars, big salaries, and above all, Mr. Speaker, they have big staffs. [Interjections.]

We would have expected also that before the Government said to the public that we expect you to spend less, they would have said: “We have done our damndest to cut down on expenditure as far as possible in all Government departments”. That has not happened. On the contrary, Government expenditure has increased.

Unfortunately my time is nearly at an end, and I wish merely to make this one point.

Where are the other four points?

I have dealt with three of them so far, and I hope the hon. member for Middelland will get up and answer at least one of these points. I wish to close by saying this: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown said that this is a rich-man’s Budget. He said it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I want to challenge the Government to deny that this Budget will not only make the poor poorer but that a great many people will be much poorer than they were before with no constructive result at the end.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member rose to speak, he put me very much in mind of that kind of boxer who climbs into the ring promising the spectators with grand gestures that a fierce fight is now going to take place, but, alas, the mountain then brought forth a mouse! I want to give the hon. member a piece of good advice now. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member not to allow his whips to drag him into a debate in which he is quite out of his depth. Apparently the hon. member has no understanding of what these matters are all about. I also want to advise the hon. member not to quote from pamphlets which have come into his hands from all kinds of sources without having established beforehand precisely what the connection is between what he wants to quote and the subject of the debate in which he wants to participate. Furthermore, the hon. member is much too young to be so disconsolate and discouraged about this beautiful country of ours. It befits a man who is as young as the hon. member—and I think he is one of the youngest members on that side—to be a little more enthusiastic about South Africa and the future of South Africa. But the actual keynote was sounded by the hon. member for Constantia. Did the hon. member not say yesterday that we were building our economy on the ruins of a boom. Such a pessimistic view one can expect from the hon. member for Constantia. However, we do not expect the hon. member for Musgrave to continue in that vein, for then we shall not achieve anything in this debate. Arising from everything which has been said here—also that which has been said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, although he did not understand everything he said—I now want to put forward the suggestion that the hon. members have quite failed to grasp the important and major fact in connection with the economy of South Africa. It is not only this year that they have failed to grasp it, they always fail to grasp it. The fact which they have failed to grasp is the tremendous vitality of our economy. And we ought to be grateful for this vitality, Mr. Speaker. This vitality of our economy is quite capable of surviving any supposed short-term phenomenon, or even of absorbing it in its growth. Our economy is strong, and it can absorb such temporary phenomena. All those things which the hon. members on the opposite side quoted here as arguments, are in fact all short-term phenomena which are already, unbeknown to them, disappearing. This powerful economy of ours is possible because it rests on a very important factor, namely the gigantic infra-structure to which hon. members on the opposite side referred to so frequently yesterday. I am refering to the tremendous transport network. I do not have the time to enlarge on this, but merely want to mention it in passing. This transport network must link up all the remote areas and must in fact carry the country’s economy. There is also the tremendous investment and development which goes into the generation of power. This network must, in spite of all the jeremiads about our water position, also play a major role in order to meet all the requirements in this respect. Hon. members also complained about the productivity of our manpower. The hon. members have talked about productivity, but they do not know what it means. There are so many examples of how the Government has in recent years tried to consolidate that part of the infra-structure by stepping in itself on a large scale and expanding higher education as well as technical education on a large scale, and there is also the participation of the private sector insofar as they are trying to do that on their own accord. A very large portion of the various industries are already doing that themselves and are also trying by means of comprehensive training programmes to train their own workers. I say that these things are important and that this is the basis on which future growth is being established. But what is more, we have also had the assurance on the part of the Government—and we can in fact deduce this from the actions of the Government—that it has bound itself to see to it that this development of the infra-structure will continue in the same way in the future. That is the reason for there being such a great measure of confidence, and this great measure of confidence finds expression in the fact that a large-scale investment of fixed domestic and foreign capital has taken place, and is in fact still taking place and will continue to take place jn the future. If that is so, the question can be asked whether our economy is in fact strong enough. It is strong, but in this process which we are now entering, i.e. where it is slackening off somewhat, does it contain within itself all those elements which a strong economy must possess in order to control the slowing down or accelerating of economic growth. Steps had to be initiated, which the Government began doing, and we subsequently experienced a period of development of four or five years. This in fact means that at that time it contained and controlled within itself all those elements with which growth could be determined. Now I say that we do in fact have those elements in our economy at the present moment, and this can be discussed at great length. Do you know, Sir, that our national saving is 22 per cent of our gross national product. That is a very large percentage. In comparison with other countries it is in fact a tremendous percentage. But apart from that the liquidity which is at present locked up in our economy is of such a nature that the Government can on that basis commence with the next phase at any time. But apart from that the hon. members who have spoken about productivity here will think again if they would just look for a moment at our export figures. Recent exports consist mainly of an increased number of manufactured exports, the very commodity we want to increase because we want to build the economy of the country on that. I say that we have inherent in our economy at the present moment those things which would make it possible to slow down the economy as it becomes necessary, but the economy is also adjusted to beginning a further forward development. That is the first important point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that we are at present experiencing a boom, a boom which has lasted now for approximately four years, and we are at the topmost turning-point of that boom. Now I say that various bottlenecks are being revealed in this boom, because if the economy moves at the speed with which our economy is moving, and it moves fully equipped with all the factors of high employment, high investments, high imports, high liquidity, etc. in all sectors, then one can understand that there will be pressure in all directions. But that is normal; it should be like that. It is essential in every country and occurs in every economy where there is free enterprise and competition. What is important is whether these things are controllable and whether they are in fact being controlled by the Government. Now I say that many questions can be asked with reference to the boom. Inter alia the members talk about full employment and productivity. I regret that my time is so short. However, I just want to try and make a few brief remarks on those matters.

Productivity is related to employment, but can any of the hon. members opposite tell the House what they mean by productivity, and how it is measured? How does one define it if one says that South Africa’s economy is productive or if one says it is not productive? The fact of the matter is that South Africa is shifting its industries and its whole production machine into a higher gear, and I contend that it is moving at a speed and with an efficiency equal to that of any country in the world. We are not an old, worn out country like England which no longer wants to work. The economic development of South Africa, particularly in the industrial sphere, has been on the go now for the last ten to 20 years and our factories are all new ones. In fact, we are equipped with a spectrum of factories which are the best and most modern in the world. There is no country which has industries which are more modern and more effectively equipped than our own. If any of the hon. members opposite were to look at the increase in the gross national production, and he were to look also at all the indicators with which it could be compared, then he would see that if our economy had not in fact been so efficient then the gross national product would not have been growing so rapidly and would not have continued growing so rapidly in comparison with the price index of consumer goods. In other words our people are producing very rapidly. The hon. member will also know that the First National City Bank of New York made a survey, and what was the impression it gained? It was that the price index figures in most other countries are increasing, and I may as well mention them. The price index in Holland and Sweden is increasing at a rate of 8 per cent, in Denmark at a rate of 7 per cent, in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland at a rate of 5 per cent and in England at a rate of 4 per cent, but in South Africa the rate of increase is 2.3 per cent. I want to say that the indexes in all these various comparative countries are increasing at a faster rate than that at which the gross national production is increasing, but in South Africa the reverse is true. Here the gross national product is increasing at the rate of 6.1 per cent, and its cost of living, expressed in its index, at 2.3 per cent. In other words, South Africa is not busy consuming everything, it is busy storing up and becoming stronger. The hon. members talk about productivity, but they do not know what they are talking about.

There are various factors such as these which I could compare, but in the few minutes remaining I want to return to the reproaches made by that side of the House that the man in the street is not getting anything out of the Budget and that things are not going well with him. I want to say at once that the man in the street, and that includes pensioners too, still forms a part of the economy. He is not cut off from the economy. The fact of the matter is that everybody in South Africa is moving within the confines of our economy, and they have certain advantages, because what we actually find here is over employment. There is work for everybody and if a man works he does so for a proper living wage. But what is more, the actions of the Government towards the lower income groups within the economy have, in fact, been protective. I am talking now about organized labour. What are the hon. members talking about? When they talk about the man in the street, that phrase can mean many things. If, with the man in the street, they mean organized labour, then I say this: Do the hon. members not know that in South Africa the labourer in all the major industries has a built-in protection in his agreement with his employer? Do the hon. members not know that these agreements are reviewed every three years? There are 103 of these agreements, including the vast majority of organized labourers. Each time that wage agreements are revized, it is done for three years and the increase in the cost of living is taken into account in those agreements. In other words, the economic position of the labourers has been entrenched. Why do the hon. members think do strikes occur in all the countries of the world excepting South Africa?

If those whom the hon. members refer to as the “man in the street” are the pensioners, elderly people, and those people who are having a hard time, in other words the very lowest income groups, then I say that their position has also been entrenched by means of specific control measures. At the same time hon. members complain about rates of interest, but do they know that 369,000 housing units have been built which have a rate of interest of either ¾ per cent or 6¼ per cent, very much lower than the present rates of interest, and that those people, precisely because they pay lower rates of interest, are entreched as far as that part of their cost of living is concerned? And do the hon. members not know that those who are helpless, who have no where to turn and who are suffering hardships, can be accommodated to-day in thousands of units, homes for the aged, where they are protected? In this very debate, and in the previous one as well, the hon. the Minister said that he was not going to supply any entrenchment in regard to the direct expenditure of this sector and that this was being done for the protection of the man in the street. Let me tell the hon. member this. I have here the monthly bulletin for statistics and I have tried to determine what the specific, important cost of living items for the man in the street are and how they affect him in reality. Since the hon. members are complaining about the actual cost of living—do they know that in regard to grain products there was a decrease of 1.1 per cent in the index over the past 18 months, that it has risen in the case of meat by 2.5 per cent, that it has risen in the case of fruit and oil by 1.6 per cent, in the case of milk by 2.6 per cent, and that there has been a decrease in the case of sugar? That is also the reason why the hon. the Minister of Finance could say that, while the index for the past six months had increased by the rate of 3.2 per cent, it would have increased by the rate of 3.4 per cent if one had excluded foodstuffs. What does that mean? It means that foodstuffs are increasing at a relatively lesser rate. What do the hon. members mean by saying that the man in the street cannot make a living? Surely that is not true? What is more, do they know that the actual available income in South Africa is 7.8 per cent? That is the average income per person, which is available to him, and which he is able to spend. If one takes into consideration the increase of 2.3 per cent in the population growth, and also takes into consideration immigration and the erosion of the value of the rand, then we are still left with a figure of 2.3 per cent at which the direct income per person is increasing more rapidly than his expenditure. Hon. members did not mention a single figure in support of the contention they were making that the man in the street is having such an unbearable time. I say again that all these ordinary citizens form part of the economy of South Africa. I want to make this statement: I want to tell the hon. members that, as a result of the entrenchment of the man in the street—whom they claim are really having a hard time of it—plus the fact that the middle income group is so well off in South Africa, their contentions are altogether devoid of truth. If there is one thing which is true then it is the fact that we have a strong economy, and that in this strong economy the national per capita income, and the income of the nation expressed in its gross national product, is still increasing more rapidly than the periodic increases in the cost of living. That is why I say to the hon. members that they should not try to take a short-term tendency out of its context and elevate it into a long-term tendency. That does not hold true in economics.

When the hon. member for Constantia rose to address this House after the Budget speech last Wednesday, I thought that that was an opportunity for the hon. member to realize himself fully because for a change a number of tax increases was announced. Those were the elements he liked; they would suit his personality and would give him the opportunity to be a real Jeremiah. He than also swung into action and said the Budget was shocking and drastic, perhaps the most drastic there has ever been. But if the hon. member did not allow himself to become disillusioned over the week-end by the opinions expressed on the Budget outside this House, then he and his colleagues who made speeches yesterday and to-day came up against and was completely shattered in this House by the soundness of this Budget in the first place and the power of our economy in the second place.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Paarl, who yesterday referred to the tragedy we were witnessing here in the actions of the Opposition in its inability to make a constructive contribution in this Budget debate and to think and act constructively in relation to the economic affairs of our country. The United Party’s comments on this Budget can be summed up in a statement which its financial group gave to the Cape Times, the day after the Budget speech and which reads as follows—

I want to ask them for whom that money is used? Does the Minister use if for himself or is it used for South Africa and for the perpetuation of its economy? Is it not used in the interests of the people from whom it came? But the point I want to make is that this story about the “poor kiddies” is symbolic of the approach of the United Party and its inability to penetrate to what is really at stake. It is altogether an emotional approach to butter people up in order to gain popularity. One should compare this view with that of the Financial Mail, which is least of all sympathetic towards the Government, and which wrote as follows about this Budget—

Compare the emotional approach of the Opposition, which is really an attempt at cheap vote-catching at this stage, with the comments of a financial publication such as this. Now it seems to me that even those people on whose support they relied in the past do no longer support them on occasions such as this. Those people see that the Opposition is so lacking in anything constructive in its comments that they no longer see their way clear to support it. To-day business leaders and economists are all giving their support in these matters to the Government with its sensible and courageous approach to the problems of our economy. To use the words of the Minister of Finance’ inflation is a serious problem which threatens all sections of the population and it is necessary, to attack it on a wide front with due consideration nevertheless being had to those who can bear it least.

A great deal has been said here about the man in the street, but who will be affected most seriously by inflation if it has to follow its full course? Will it not precisely be the lower income group? That is why I am saying that the approach of the hon. the Minister is right, namely that everyone should assist in overcoming this temporary problem. It is no frontal attack, as he called it, if everyone does not help and if everyone does not help to wield the instruments we are able to employ against inflation. In a certain sense inflation is the rotten fruit of a psychological condition which prosperity necessarily entails, namely overspending. For that reason the necessity of an attack on inflation should be brought home to everyone. If some of us do not feel that we are personally assisting in an effort, that spending psychosis will continue to exist and so will inflation. Therefore if in our struggle against inflation we are called upon by this Budget to help to bear a small part of the burden, it is good. One will find that an industrialist may perhaps complain about the price of petrol which has been increased, and one will hear a drinker complain about the price of beer which has been increased a little, and a smoker will complain about the price of cigarettes, and one will perhaps hear a leading figure in the wine industry complain about the excise duty on brandy which has been increased a little. But not one of them will adopt the attitude that because that is the case one cannot face up to this Budget. Their whole attitude amounts to the following: it is the modest contribution everyone can make towards overcoming this problem. One cannot overcome a problematic condition such as we are temporarily experiencing in our economy to-day by complaining about it, which is what the Opposition is trying to do. One can only overcome that problematic condition by striking at the root of the evil, by working hard and by taking the measures which the hon. the Minister proposed in this Budget. The Bureau for Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch said, inter alia, the following true words about business prospects (translation): “The authorities should try to educate the public about economic realities in a clear and unambiguous manner.” And I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Opposition will think about this. The public must be educated in a clear and unambiguous manner. The public should not be told apologetically that they, poor people, must pay more for a cigarette. Even that is done with a great deal of exaggeration. I am now thinking of an example I saw in one of the English newspapers where a summary was given of the Budget of the man in the street. It was that of a man and woman who together smoked 30 cigarettes a day. A small calculation was made there and the result was that it would cost the man and the woman R1.20 per month extra. To think that one cannot even do a simple sum such as multiplying 30 by 3! That is the kind of exaggeration one finds in these matters. The Government is already acting on the appeal made by the Bureau for Economic Research. That is evident from its Budget. It penetrates to the root of the evil. Its message to the public is an unambiguous one. It is also evident from the special appeals made by the hon. the Minister of Finance and by business and industrial leaders, namely that we can only overcome this problem by saving more and by working harder.

That the public is reacting favourably to these appeals and also to those made in the Budget, is apparent from the following reactions. I think that was one of the sources of disappointment to the hon. member for Constantia. In the Cape Times published one day after the presentation of the Budget the following headline appeared: “Taxes tamer than expected.” You see, the public was prepared. The public realized what problems were facing us. I shall now read to you an extract from the comments by the Association of Chambers of Commerce. It reads as follows—

Then we have the survey of opinions of various industrialists and economists which was made by the Financial Mail. Professor Houghton made the following comment—

You see, Mr. Speaker, the public realize today what the real problem is, unlike the Opposition who wants to bring them under the impression that they are being hit too hard by this Budget. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is of no avail to butter people up and to look for popularity by doing so. It is very easy to do so. It is no difficult task. But, Mr. Speaker, it gets one nowhere. That is why the idle talks of the hon. member for Constantia about “reckless career of spending”, “nothing else than a bill for five years of mismanagement” and the tale about the boom having been ruined, are complete nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate the Opposition has been afforded an opportunity because no immediate election is at hand—of ceasing its attempt at cheap vote-catching. They could have shown the public outside that they could also act constructively in a debate such as this. They could have presented an alternative. If they tell the Government that its expenditure is too high, that the Government is asking the public too often to economize and is spending too much itself, then one expects the Opposition to indicate where in fact the Government should economize. Various hon. members in this House have asked the Opposition to indicate on what specific items the Government should cut down, apart from the cutting-down it has already done. But there has been no reply. The hon. member for Constantia spoke here about “daylight robbery”. Yes, he expressed himself in such strong language that he had to withdraw certain words. He said that in consequence of the loan levy which was not interest-bearing according to him. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring that to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has gone far enough in this respect if these things are taken so lightly by the hon. member for Constantia. To that hon. member it is immaterial whether or not it is interestbearing. He practically does not know whether it is interest-bearing. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance cannot go further as regards the loan levy. A loan levy is after all a form of savings.

Premium bonds.

No, I am not talking about premium bonds. Hon. members suggested something similar with their State lottery during the election. [Interjections.] We are not gambling. We are saving with a view to prosperity. A loan levy is also a form of savings and has the effect that it assists the State in carrying out its programme in a non-inflationary manner. And it has the added advantage that it ensures future revenue to the taxpayer and brings him stability.

I say that a frontal attack has been made here on the so-called high Government expenditure. The hon. member for Constantia spoke about Defence. He said that we had to incur high expenditure in that regard because our policy was estranging our friends in the West and that they no longer wanted to supply us with arms for that reason. That was one insinuation. But may I ask the hon. member for Constantia what has gone wrong with the policy of Rhodesia that it too has to arm itself at a tremendous rate? Mr. Speaker, I want to make the following statement to-day. If any charge can be levelled in respect of our defence programme, then it is to be found in the policy which hon. members opposite followed when they were in power. They neglected to build up our Defence Force at that time. One finds the same phenomenon in Rhodesia. At that time our Defence Force was an appendix of that of Great Britain. That was a situation which we had to take over to our detriment when we came into power. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members are talking about cutting down where we are engaged in financing an infra-structure. They are the people who tell us to cut down. If we do not continue expanding our transport programme and should be faced with a serious coal shortage during a severe winter, they would be the first to reproach the Government by saying that it had not made sufficient provision for transport. And if there is a water shortage during a period of drought such as is the case to-day, then they tell the Government quite easily that it has not done its duty. In what respects do these people want to cut down? The Department of Sport, on which R150,000 will be spent this year, has been mentioned here. I have calculated that that expenditure represents a 14,000th part of the Estimates. The Department of Sport is aimed at promoting the health and vitality of our young people. This is something for which the hon. member for Newton Park and I pleaded in this House. Functions which were previously carried out by the Department of Education, Arts and Science will in future be carried out by this Department to a certain extent. But now hon. members say that this small amount of R150,000 should be cut down. Let us be honest. This attack is not aimed at the spending of this amount, but is aimed at a person, an English-speaking person in the ranks of the Government. That is what is at the basis of this suggestion.

There have been discussions on productivity and manpower. In these Estimates an extra amount of R3,000,000 is appropriated for our universities. Should this be cut down and should we thereby sacrifice productivity and manpower? Mr. Speaker, all of us are affected by cuts. It affects the programme of development in our own constituencies. In my constituency we have been struggling for many years to get a new police station. These people are expected to work under the most primitive conditions. But if we are expected to wait for that under circumstances such as we are experiencing now, then we have to wait. But now I want to ask hon. members opposite the following question. If they criticize the Government on the grounds that it is spending too much, how can they have the moral courage to approach the hon. the Minister of Finance or other hon. Ministers to plead for capital expenditure in their own constituencies? Must we now ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to refuse any such request point-blank because it coincides with the attack made in this House? But, Mr. Speaker, the real point is the following. It is not fitting of hon. members to reproach the hon. the Minister about high Government expenditure. You will remember that we had an election a few months ago. And do you know what they promised the nation during the election? They promised them a Government medical aid scheme. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that. But that was done during this period of inflation. In addition they promised the nation cost-of-living allowances. I have nothing against cost-of-living allowances as such. But that had to be done shortly after salary increases, to which they also objected by implication because of the higher Government expenditure involved, had been announced. They also said that if they should come into power they would introduce a scheme for the payment of old-age pensions without the application of the means test. That would include even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. Can they perhaps tell us in what way they would cut down on these Estimates? But that is not the worst. They promised the electorate television. Television which would cost, at a conservative estimate, R50,000,000 to introduce. The ordinary current costs of black and white television amount to R50,000,000 per annum. Are those the people who can reproach the Government that its expenditure is too high? I want to say to you that their approach, in which there is nothing constructive, is also evident from these promises which they made. At a time when the nation needs wholesome fare for its economic well-being they promised the nation fancy sweetmeats which are not only very expensive but not in the least conducive to the economic well-being of the nation.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the established traditions of this House I am going to break the pattern of the debate and I have selected as my initial contribution a subject which is non-contentious. I want to talk about the importance of scientific research in South Africa and my theme will be that although much of consequence has been achieved much also remains to be done.

Now, probably the most characteristic feature of our age is that of rapid technological change. To-day we do not know where precisely we stand in the continuum which started way back with the first spark of life, with the first blob of protoplasm in some ancient, humid, fetid swamp and which has taken us to a position where to-day we control great power; where we are beginning to understand abstractions such as intelligence and creativity; where we are verily reaching up for the moon. Nor is it clear what we will do with the power that we have. Because, Sir, it is to-day within our capacity to abolish all forms of human poverty and also all life itself. All that we do know is that technology is increasing with ever-dramatic speed.

But to put it into perspective. Scientists tell us, Sir, that this world we inhabit was formed some 5 billion years ago. The mammal we call man probably arrived some 250,000 years ago. Recorded history stretches back some 5,000 years. But nearly all the things we use and buy and sell to-day had their origins less than 50 years ago. Sputnik, and with it the race for the moon, came to us less than ten years ago. So the period of dramatic change has been the period of our lifetime, the period of the past 50 years, which is of course merely an instant in the space of time. But let me illustrate this, Sir.

If we were to equate the history of the world to the distance around the earth—a distance of 25,000 miles—then this period I have referred to, namely the period of 50 years would be equal to one foot. Or if we were to see the earth’s history as a book, a book consisting of 100 million pages—and incidentally a book of that nature would be five miles thick—then the period I am referring to, the past 50 years, would be equal to the last page. Or if we were to compress the earth’s history into one calendar year, we find that there is no life whatsoever until late August. We find that man arrives on the scene on the 31st December at 11.45 p.m., and the past period of 100 years, that has seen almost all the dramatic technological discoveries, would be equal to the last half second of the year. Now the question arises, why has there been this dramatic explosion of knowledge? The answer is not far to seek.

To begin with, each discovery forms a building block for subsequent discoveries. And with the rapid transmission of knowledge of nowadays, growth is no longer merely geometric, it has become exponential, it is growing at an ever increasing rate. But there is more to it than that. Research is no longer merely the domain of the long-haired boffin who works away in his backroom. Research has become massive. It is sponsored by industry and by the State. It makes possible the mammoth programme of organized discovery, such as the Manhattan project which led to the development of the atomic bomb.

Sir, although science advances on a broad front, it might be useful to refer to one or two areas to illustrate our underlying rationale, to dramatize our basic theme of ever increasing change. And one of the first fields that come to mind is that of atomic energy. Although this came to us as a weapon of war, we are beginning to-day to realize its capacity also as an instrument of peace. And one of the many fields that I could refer to is that which scientists call “geographical engineering”. Here the idea is the massive changing of the face of the earth through the use of the principle of atomic fission. So there is under active contemplation to-day, the blasting of a canal across South America and another across the Malay Peninsula. They claim that with one or more well placed detonations they could create harbours where none existed before. They believe they could slice off the tops of mountains so that water could reach the arid wastes of the hinterland.

Then there is a completely different field, namely that of bionomics. For years our scientists thought that the problems of engineering have to be solved through the use of principles of physics, chemistry and mechanics. And only now have they realized that nature solved many of these aeons ago. So to-day if your problem is that of sonar detection you could do no better than to start with a bat which can fly, even in a blindfolded state, through the most complicated maze of closely spaced wires. Or if you want to propel your ships and your submarines faster you could do no better than to emulate the porpoise, which swims 40 per cent faster than is theoretically possible in terms of its size, its shape and its muscular capacity.

But let us look at the fields of surgery and medicine. A corneal graft was a rarity until a few years ago. To-day they can transplant nearly all of the major organs of the body and they believe that quite soon they might be able to transplant the brain itself. We are gradually in the process of overcoming the process of ageing itself. Life expectancy figures are increasing dramatically. Quite soon we might reach the 100 mark. And Sir, what would not be the impact upon the world if an Einstein or a Newton could live and be productive for 100 years or more? We stand also on the eve of unlocking the code of genetics itself. And if we could do this then planned evolution or eugenics would be possible. And who says that within our lifetime there will not be thought transmission or controlled clairvoyance? The aeroplane was considered impossible by competent scientists of the time. Yet what science has probably really shown us is that there is very little that is beyond its capacity.

But as everything increases, Sir, so also increases our population, and here we have at once one of the fundamental problems with which we as a people and a world is concerned. The population of the world is given to-day as some 3 billion people. At the turn of the century it is estimated that it will be 6 billion. Within 100 years from now it will be 25 billion. And if this process continues unabated then it is estimated that within a few hundred years’ time each and every living person will have only one square yard on which to live and to die.

That is why we are rapidly exhausting the facilities and the raw materials of the world; that is also why our age is becoming known as the age of materials, of plastics and ceramics and even synthetic foods. We are now keeping people alive in laboratory situations by giving them synthetic foods drawn from amino acids and other substances. But that too is probably why we are turning more and more to the sea as the one vast remaining treasure house to feed our teeming millions. And what a treasure house! The sea, as we know, cover three-quarters of the world’s surface and in places it is a mile and a half deep. It is estimated that each and every cubic mile of sea contains some R60,000,000 worth of gold and that it has in addition 4,000,000 tons of minerals and of other salts and chemicals. But what do we know about the sea? We are still scratching around on the Continental shelves, we know less about the ocean floor than we know about the surface of the moon.

This, of course, represents the last remaining frontier that we are also investigating now. What are we likely to encounter out there in the limitless voids that reach out beyond our universe? Some scientists maintain that there are over 600,000,000 planetary systems that contain conditions suitable for supporting life. Statistically speaking the chances of intelligent life out yonder are therefore virtually assured. And, Sir, this is the interesting aspect: If development had started a little earlier, if it had only been minutely faster, if they were 100 years ahead of us, which is a fraction of an instant in time, as I tried to indicate, then they would already have reached that stage of technological advancement that we were only speculating about for ourselves a minute ago.

But perhaps we should leave the field of speculation and return to that of reality, to the scene before us, to South Africa. The question we naturally pose to ourselves is how are we placed to take part in this technological race that lies ahead? Will we be in the vanguard; will we be doing pioneering or will we play for more modest stakes and try to ride in on the coat tails of others?

In answering this question we must say right away that in certain fields of scientific endeavour we have done very well and that there is much to be proud of. The reputation of our Onderstepoort has gone well beyond our borders. Our medical scientists have come to the fore with some truly remarkable discoveries. The research institutes of our Chamber of Mines have a reputation that is world-wide, and we have that unique institution, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, that can take on most comers. And I could mention many more.

But perhaps to-day we should not concentrate on what has already been achieved, we should rather see what still remains to be done. All scientific endeavour starts in the very first instance from education and the magnitude and the whole direction of your research service is largely a function of the capacity of your educational establishment. And here in this field too, we are confronted with rapid development. All over the world new and dramatic changes are being introduced into the field of education. Just to give some idea of what we might be called upon to do in order to keep pace with these developments, I might mention that in the United States of America at the moment some 10 per cent of the gross national product is devoted to education. In Britain this figure has been given as 7 per cent and in South Africa it has been variously estimated at between 3 per cent to 4 per cent. But when we look at research services, it is probably the university that comes to mind because here you have the rich inter-disciplinary culture that is so essential for research. Here we must realize too that the whole nature of the university is changing. It is not merely a teaching institution any more, it is becoming more and more of a research institution. If we accept this too and if we look at some of our own universities then we must admit that at many of them we are not doing anything like the amount of research that we should be doing. Indeed there is great danger that some of them might degenerate into glorified cram colleges for the teaching of post-matriculation courses. But the fault is not entirely theirs because how can you concentrate on research when your staff/student ratio is out of balance? How can you concentrate on long-term development when your faculty is completely overloaded with teaching assignments and other administrative commitments? But there is even more to it than this. The modern university, in order to sustain research, must be big; there is a certain critical mass involved, a certain threshold size that you must attain. I need only mention that the linear electron accelerator at the University of Stanford, for example, probably costs more to operate than the great university that houses it. Our quest, if we want to remain competitive in this field, should therefore not be for more universities but rather for bigger and better ones.

Coupled with this, there is the manpower problem. Indeed, it is probably true to say that in the ultimate sense it is not finance but the availability of scientific manpower which will determine the parameters of scientific research in this country. Here we will have to identify the talents at an early age and develop them and we will have to do much more than we are doing at the moment. In this country at the present time we are spending nearly three times as much on the education and development of the retarded child as we do on that of the gifted child. It is true that those who are less endowed than we are should be looked after by us; it is an obligation we carry on behalf of the rest of society; but surely we are also justified in looking after that small group of gifted children on whom our future technological survival depends. And once we have trained them, then we must give them the facilities that they need and remunerate them on a basis so that we will retain their services. Sir, South Africa cannot afford the drain on its intellectural resources. Let us export to the world everything that we have except our brains, the results of their endeavours, yes, but not the generators themselves.

Let us at the same time create the organizational structure that is necessary so that science can really be effective. In the U.S.A, there is complete symbiosis between the State and industry and science, and this probably more than any other factor has served to make America the powerful country that she is today. And we will have to emulate this too. In our own country the Cilliers Commission and the Monnig Report have already drawn attention to the tendency throughout the world towards further centralized planning and towards a greater co-ordinated structure in research. We have many research agencies but sometimes they are not effective and their efforts are hampered because they have not been taken up into an articulate and well cohesed entity of organization.

All this will cost much. I cannot indicate how much; I can merely provide one or two bench-marks. In the great industrial countries of the world to-day, they earmark something like 3 per cent of the gross national product for research. In America and Britain they aim at an annual expenditure growth rate of some 13 per cent in real terms. When we, for our own C.S.I.R., set a growth rate of some 10 per cent, then it is not enough because erosion in money values and ordinary salary increases will take up at least 6 per cent, which leaves a margin which is far too slender for the development that is necessary to keep abreast of affairs.

In all this. Sir, we must also see that we do not become isolated from the rest of the world. There are those who are not well disposed towards us who would wish to isolate us in the scientific field, but isolation will lead to stagnation and stagnation is merely the fore-runner of death itself. The scientific community of the world is one that has traditionally stood aside from national borders. The corpus of science rests on a mosaic which contains contributions from many lands and we must see that we take part in that. There is great talk to-day of a common market in goods; let us make quite sure that we do not become excluded from the common market of ideas.

Sir, what I have tried to put before you is that our future economic survival depends on an advanced technology, and technology in turn is dependent upon science and research for its fundamental concepts and for its growth. But research helps also to shape the very fabric of our culture. It adds to the totality of our experience and so it brings enrichment to our civilization. Research is probably the main ferment in the growth and in the progress of society because without the spirit of inquiry there would be no safeguard against sterility and decadence which is frequently the lot of institutions and also civilizations.

What I have tried to put before the House, as I saw it, is a very real challenge. I can only hope that we will be equal to the task ahead.

It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow on his maiden speech in this House. The hon. member showed that he was able to think in a fundamental and scientific way, and I believe that these qualities will stand him in good stead as a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes a new member when he enters this House, is the grandeur and the atmosphere of great tradition prevailing here. One cannot help being impressed by the services which have been rendered and the functions which have been fulfilled here by great men and women in our history. One thinks with gratitude of those people who helped to make that history and who created our future for us. You will therefore permit me to refer just in passing to two figures who also fall into that category and whom it is my privilege to succeed in this House. I am referring to the man who was everybody’s friend, Mr. Gerard Bekker, and to the late Dr. Abraham Jonker, and I want to pay tribute to them in this way. Mr. Speaker, it is when these impressions of grandeur take possession of one that a feeling of the total inadequacy of one’s ability, of great humility and meekness in respect of this new career also takes possession of one and one begins to wonder whether one has done the wise thing to have set out along this road. However, one discovers very soon that this sensation, which is only a suspicion on one’s part, is an accepted fact amongst the senior members of the House and that the hon. Leader of the House, for example, has no doubt about one’s inability as a new member to make any real contribution at this stage to the debates in this House. Then one indeed realizes that for all practical purposes one is really the lowest form of parliamentary life. But the realization of one’s worst fears actually occurs when one walks into this House and finds that the seat which has been allocated to one gives conclusive proof of the humbleness of that position. Deprived of the fundamental facilities for writing one arrives at the highly dubious conclusion that one has come here exclusively to talk and not to write. However, I hasten to add that I am in no way rebelling against this systematic process of being cut down to size. In fact, when I consider the hon. frontbenchers of this House, who were all newcomers once, then I find that this process is definitely effective in its end result, and I resign myself to it submissively.

The constituency which I have the privilege of representing has within its boundaries a large variety of soil and climatic conditions. We find the Karoo landscape with its distinctive beauty and charm, the waving grasslands, the lovely natural beauty of the Hog’s Back and the Katberg, as well as the sub-tropical climate of the Victoria East-Keiskamahoek complex. Farming is the principal occupation practised in that constituency and I want to say at once that in years gone by the contribution of the agricultural industry to our national product and our national income has not been inconsiderable. But in recent times another common factor has come to the fore, i.e. the scorching drought to which that area has been subject to a greater or lesser extent in the past two or three years, a drought which has not only claimed its victims amongst our farmers but which has also had a detrimental effect on the economy of the area on a very broad level. It is an acknowledged fact that the local economy of a place or an area, even although it forms an integral part of our national economy, is nevertheless somewhat detached from it in so far as it is subject to fluctuations, and to shocks of a minor nature, which have a detrimental effect on it. From the nature of the sources of that economy it is indeed a very delicate structure and the balance which always has to be maintained is a very delicate one. When a natural disaster such as a drought strikes an area such as that one, one finds that it has a detrimental effect not only on agriculture, but also on the retail trade complex, the social service organizations, schools and churches and all the other bodies constituting an ordered community. It is a fact that all these bodies normally continue their activities on a very tenuous financial pattern and the slightest disturbance of that pattern usually either brings that machinery to a standstill or throws it out of gear altogether. It is not my purpose to-day to examine the important role which those bodies and institutions play in our national life in the rural areas; after all, that is general knowledge and is accepted everywhere. But I do want to refer to one sector of that community whose importance is not generally realized when we are dealing with these matters. I am referring in particular to the retail trade complex, the motor car and implement repair shops, the tailors, the bakers, the cafes, the tyre retreaders, etc. Are we always aware of the important role which these people play when a financial crisis is prevailing in the rural districts, or when we are having a hard time financially? One must remember that it is those people in the first place who have to provide credit facilities to our farming community when things are going badly with them financially because of drought conditions or other disasters.

The delicate nature of the economy of the rural districts must be attributed in the first place to the sparse population. As is the case everywhere, the growth and flourishing of this economy is also dependent upon a high turnover. Too few people have to maintain too many businesses, organizations, bodies, etc., for them to be able to do full justice to them. To mention only one example: Municipalities are expected to render all the services which a civilized and cultivated community has the right to demand, but owing to the per capita costs of these services and schemes in very small communities either the specific requirement cannot be met fully or the community must do without it. To illustrate the importance of numbers in a community I want to make brief mention of an example.

Some time ago there was talk in my constituency of the Towers Hospital, an institute for mental patients at Fort Beaufort, being removed elsewhere, which would entail 62 families—all of them people working in that institution—having to leave the town. That would simply have caused a chaotic state of affairs in that town, not only as far as the local authority was concerned, but also as far as the retail trade complex, the schools, the churches, etc., were concerned, and those bodies would have been dealt a severe blow from which they would have recovered with difficulty. I am mentioning this example to point out that even minor transfers of people have a very detrimental effect on the economy of such an area. I do not want to go into all the causes of this phenomenon, but it is interesting to note that this removal of country people to the towns began as far back as 1870, during the period when gold and diamonds were discovered, a period which can rightly be called the birth period of our industrial development.

The laws of sociology determine that people have to go to the places where there are employment opportunities for them. Those are also the areas in which a cultural structure then arises. The people go to places where cultural facilities are created for them. We find that these facilities are created particularly where concentrations of people develop. Mr. Speaker, in this regard I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on the 22nd April, 1963. (Hansard, Col. 4463.) I paraphrase: The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned the hypothesis of various sociologists in the world that the bread-winner of a family, working in a secondary industry, is the direct provider of the needs of five persons, namely himself, his wife and three children. When the earnings of this bread-winner are spent in the place where he earns his money and where he lives, this in turn gives rise to a large number of tertiary activities such as light manufacturing industries, service industries, etc. The hon. the Prime Minister then pointed out that jobs of that kind were always five times as many as those occupied in the basic industry. In other words, when secondary industries arise which draw, say, a thousand people to a specific area, it means that in the tertiary activities five times as many people earn a living as a result of the repeated circulation of money and the variety of requirements which arise as a result of such conditions. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in our country some existing industrial complexes have already reached saturation point. I want to plead here to-day for the policy which has been accepted by the Government, and which we welcome, to be applied at a fast rate in so far as it will promote the establishment of industries in the rural areas. At this stage one can only visualize the possibilities which industrialization holds for the rural areas, but I believe that if the process is tackled,, carried on and completed dynamically and purposefully, even our most optimistic visions will be eclipsed by the reality which will ultimately be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, an exceptional honour has fallen to my share to-day. I have many acknowledgments to make. In the first place it is my privilege to mention my old friend, my old classmate, who served with me on the Students’ Representative Council of the University of Pretoria, I myself as chairman and he as secretary. He did not disappoint me to-day. He has been a credit to those high expectations I have had of him all these years. I have the utmost confidence in his future contributions in this House. I want to congratulate him on his speech. I look forward to further contributions in this House by the hon. member for Cradock. As the fifth Member of Parliament for Fauresmith, I also have the good fortune to-day to be able to pay tribute to all the previous members who represented the Fauresmith constituency. I want to mention them by name: the Hon. C. T. M. Wilcox, former Administrator of the Orange Free State; the hon. N. C. Havenga, former Minister of Finance; the hon. T. E. Donges, in whose Budget Debate I have the privilege of speaking to-day; and my immediate predecessor, the hon. J. J. Serfontein, a man for whom I have the greatest respect and who made his mark in this House, first as a Whip and later as Minister of Social Welfare.

On behalf of the Fauresmith constituency I want to thank Oom Serfie to-day. But then, Sir, I also find myself in a rather difficult position. As a result of the fact that the Fauresmith constituency has sent me to this House unopposed, I do not know whether I should make an election speech to-day or whether I should make a maiden speech. Sir, you will appreciate that it was in this House that I made my first acquaintance with an Opposition, or discovered an Opposition. If that had not been so contentious, I would have had something more to say about the possibilities of that discovery.

From the nature of my constituency, Fauresmith, I have no choice but to devote my first speech to that excellent project which is being carried out on the southern boundaries of that constituency and which is developing there, namely the Orange River Project. To me that great project is pre-eminently evidence of this Government’s confidence in the future of South Africa. We in the Fauresmith constituency are particularly pleased with the Orange River Project, because we believe that for the very first time it offers us the possibility of putting a stop to the depopulation and deterioration trend in the rural areas in that most undeveloped region of South Africa—the central South African region. Mr. Speaker, exceptional possibilities are presented by that region. I am thinking of a place like Spring-fontein, with an abundance of power, water and rail communications; as fine as one could wish, to all the Cape harbours, to Bloemfontein and to the Rand, and yes, Sir, even right into the Fauresmith main street. I, therefore, believe that Springfontein offers exceptional possibilities.

Then there is Bethulie, a little town with exceptionally fine natural scenery, where, amongst other things, building work is at present proceeding on the largest bridge in Southern Africa, and which is situated on the Verwoerd Dam. There possibilities for tourism and the development of tourism are offered. The Free State Provincial Administration is planning a brand new game park there, between the confluence of the Caledon and the Orange Rivers. Those places offer exceptional possibilities.

But there are certain problems as regards the Orange River scheme. Those problems may be discussed for days on end. I shall mention only a few of them in the short period I have at my disposal. I think that a problem in respect of water conservation which will have to enjoy very serious attention, is the problem of evaporation. The Hendrik Verwoerd Dam has an evaporation curve of approximately 65 inches per year. The daily evaporation will therefore be approximately 300,000,000 gallons. That is almost If times as much as the entire Vaal Triangle consumes. It will have to be endeavoured to come to grips with that problem. In view of the scientific progress made in this country I believe, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said, that that problem will be mastered.

There are two other problems which I just want to mention briefly. They relate to irrigation as such. I appreciate that in respect of water consumption, agriculture may render a smaller return than other industries, but agriculture and food production nevertheless remain a basic industry. We should therefore utilize water in the best possible way. I want to mention two problems in particular. The first problem is that certain stretches of land will now be made available to farmers—it is estimated that there will be land for approximately 9,000 farmers—and the question is now: Which farmers should be placed on that land? In the second place I want to know where the irrigation plots will be sited. As regards who those farmers should be, there is in my view only one possible solution. Only the best farmers in the country should be settled there. I have the highest respect for everything that has been done by the State and by the Church and for what they have achieved to solve the problem of unemployment, but we are living in a period of full employment, and we cannot allow further utilization of these areas for welfare schemes. It is in the interests of South Africa to settle only the best farmers—and by the best farmers I mean the most productive farmers—in those areas. I want to express the hope that there will be the closest co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and that exchanges will be possible, where plots are consolidated, so that farmers will be prepared to have their land consolidated with other land at an economic price, provided that the Department allowed them too to obtain land under this scheme at an economic price.

I then come to the second point, namely where this land is to be situated. I can find no fault with the policy of the Department that those irrigation schemes which are experiencing a shortage of water, should be supplied first. That, Sir, is the duty of the Government. In my constituency there is a settlement which suffers almost chronically from a shortage of water. Recently the Director of the O.F.S. Agricultural Region wrote to me as follows (translation)—

I have no objection to the provision of additional water to those farmers. But where are the new lands to be irrigated? I must tell you briefly what has happened to this Riet River Irrigation Scheme in my own constituency. In 1935 the Chemical Services Section of the Department of Agriculture made a survey. On the basis of that survey they came to the following conclusion—

It was recommended that that territory, namely the present settlement area of the Riet River Scheme, should not be purchased. In 1937 the Land Board also visited the area and made the following recommendation (translation)—

The then Minister accepted that recommendation, but in 1940 a new Minister did in fact decide to purchase an area of 5,800 morgen there and to establish an irrigation scheme there. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence that that will not happen again. We have been experiencing a drought, and everybody has an obsession about the best utilization of water. The Minister of Water Affairs has also frequently cautioned us to make the best use of water. We should therefore take care that water and agriculture do not become our Achilles heel. I therefore believe that we can irrigate only the best land. In view of the fact that our water is so precious at the moment, it is my humble opinion that one of the most uneconomic ways of utilizing water is to irrigate land which is not suitable for it. As I have pointed out to you, Sir, that has already happened in my constituency. That is why I am making the plea that that will not happen again. Mr. Speaker, it may happen again, however, if the Department applied the principle of irrigation by gravitation rigidly. Fortunately it seems to me as though the Government, as announced in the White Paper on the Orange River Project, has already adopted a different principle in respect of the Van Der Kloof Dam. In America, and in the Negev Desert in Israel, water is also being pumped in an economic way. This is therefore an accepted principle. It is therefore my plea to-day that this policy shall be pursued in all its implications, and that the water shall be pumped, if that can be done economically, to that land which is most suitable for its utilization. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking of miles. I merely mention this example because I know that country—there may be similar cases on the left bank of the Orange River—but it is planned that in the vicinity of Luckhoff water will be pumped from the Van Der Kloof Dam over a distance of 5,000 feet—approximately one mile. If water is pumped over a distance of 5 miles to a higher contour, instead of over one mile, large areas will be opened up and may then be exploited—land with a deep top-soil, properly drained to a depth of 30 feet and with a pH value of approximately 7.8—land which is preeminently suitable for irrigation. By means of gravitation the water can then be taken to great areas in other directions, even in the direction of Jacobsdal, Petrusburg and Kimberley.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Henry Olivier, the chief engineer on the Owen Falls and Kariba Dams, who has been consulted by the Government on the Orange River Project and who is at present engaged in the scheme in the Indus Valley, stated recently in a symposium on the Vaal River—

These are astronomical figures, Sir, and it is therefore my plea that if we do not exploit the best land available at present, it will cost us millions and millions of rands in future. We are gravely concerned about the dams. Consulting engineers are called in to build dams by the best methods. I do not know of a single instance where a dam of the Department of Water Affairs has broken, but I do know of a considerable deal of water that has been used for the irrigation of unsuitable land. Hence my plea to utilize only the best land. If the Department of Agricultural Technical Services does not have the necessary staff to do that, I hope they will employ consulting firms to find the most suitable land. That land need not necessarily have fixed boundaries, but to me it just seems wrong to draw two lines and then tell a man: Here you have to find diamonds, and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fauresmith on the maiden speech which he has just delivered. I am sure that I speak for all the members of this House when I say that we listened to him with attention and enjoyment, that his speech was very well prepared and that he raised a subject which interests everybody in the House, be they representatives of rural or urban constituencies. All of us, Sir, are deeply concerned about the problem of water, which the hon. member raised with commendable concern and objectivity. I wish him well in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to one or two detailed criticisms of this Budget before I come to the major theme that I want to raise in the House to-day. A good deal has been said about the Budget not being inflationary—a Budget which will have unfavourable effects on the ordinary man. As far as the hon. member for Soutpansberg, who spoke earlier to-day, is concerned, the ordinary man includes people who belong to organized labour, people whose rights and wages are protected by collective bargaining machinery, people whose wage packets are regularly reviewed by the trade unions and by conciliation boards which have the welfare of such workers at heart. What he has forgotten is that the ordinary man also includes the enormous non-White section of South Africa, particularly the African section. These are the wage earners who do not fall under the banner of organized labour, who have no collective bargaining machinery and whose wage packets are certainly not subject to review every three years. I should like to remind this House that it took some 14 years before wage increases were given to Africans working in the unskilled trades, and by the time those wage increases were given, the additional amount was eaten up and more by the decreasing value of money.

Fourteen years?

Yes, there was a period of 14 years when there were no increases in the wages whatsoever of many of the unskilled occupations in South Africa. That information is given in Wage Board reports and is information well-known to anybody who knows anything about the industrial structure of this country. There was a 14-year lapse before the Wage Board reported and recommended increases in unskilled wage rates in many of the occupations in South Africa which are carried out by Africans. The new Deputy Minister had better make himself more conversant with facts before he raises objections to what I am saying in this House. I should like to mention this to the hon. the Minister as one objection which I have to the Budget. That is that it does not take cognizance of the impact of indirect taxes upon what I consider to be one of the types of ordinary men who are living in South Africa and attempting to subsist on wages very often below the bread line.

The second important point that I wish to make is that no incentive, as far as I can see, has been given to exporters in this Budget. I am going to return to this in somewhat broader terms later in my speech. I want to say, however, that the hon. the Minister seems to have ignored entirely the blueprint that was given to him by SAFTO (the South African Foreign Trade Organization). This organization represents all the major commercial and industrial bodies in South Africa. They produced a blueprint concerning incentives for export trade. As I shall point out later, as far as I am concerned, increasing our export facilities is in fact the lifeline of South Africa. Some of the recommendations made by that organization were that people who are producing for export should be given substantial rebates of the customs duties on imported raw materials used in the manufacture of articles for re-export. That is one recommendation that does not appear to have been carried out by the hon. the Minister. The second important point is that there should be generous reductions from taxable income for outlay in promoting new export markets. Some allowance is given at present, but it is not nearly large enough. Thirdly, there is the question of duty-free ports—something which could be of great advantage to South Africa, particularly as we are now increasing our tourist traffic. It would be a very good idea to have some duty-free ports, which people could take advantage of. In this way our entire export trade could be increased.

I think it was the hon. member for Parktown who raised the question of the discriminatory tax as far as the beer companies are concerned. I wish to associate myself fully with the sentiments that he expressed. I believe that the hon. the Minister has adopted a most unfortunate precedent in this regard. It is one which is creating a great deal of uneasiness in business circles. It has certainly, as far as I know, not been used in this country before. The only other example that I can find of the use of such a discriminatory tax, which penalizes productivity and the large producer, is a tax which is not even a good analogy. It is used in Germany, but it is not used to assist small producers to get going in competition with large producers. It is a discriminatory tax which was introduced in order to protect the traditional beer brewers of Germany so that they could keep their specific and rather special nature. But nothing of this kind that I know of is in existence in other free enterprise countries. I think that it is indeed one of the most startling precedents which a Minister of Finance has introduced in this House.

It is, of course, always easy to criticize and very often it is not easy to offer constructive alternatives when one is arguing in this House. But in this particular case, there is no difficulty in offering what I believe to be constructive alternatives for South Africa as a broad policy for economic development. I believe that we need never have reached the stage that we have reached in South Africa, had we not straitjacketed our own potentialities as far as productivity is concerned. I want to say that this policy has resulted not only in growing isolation from the rest of the world—an isolation not only in the scientific field, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Hillbrow in his very able maiden speech—but also isolation in various other fields. And it has resulted of course in growing hostility towards South Africa. What is more, it has deliberately inhibited the use of our own productive resources in this country. I talk about the overall policy of separate development. We are paying dearly for the inflexibility of this Government. Our resistance to change is costing this country millions of rand—resistance to change which so often is disguised in this country by saying that we have to keep to our traditional way of life. I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have used ad nauseum in this House about the need for a change of basic policy, but some of them I believe are so basic to the future of this country and they are so disregarded by hon. members who are absolutely obsessed with ideological nonsense that I have to repeat them, and very often year after year, I am afraid. Again I must mention the need for education for everybody—compulsory education for all races in this country and technical education for all those who can take advantage of technical education. Then there is the need for a stabilized labour force which is able to be trained and which can be used on all the machine-operating jobs and the skilled jobs. All the technological changes which are taking place in modern industrial countries must be taken advantage of. There is the obvious inability to raise migratory labour to the standard of a properly trained stabilized worker. Then there is the removal of all the statutory impositions that we have in South Africa for the full utilization of our labour potential. Job reservation is only one of them. The other is the fact that I mentioned earlier, namely that the vast bulk of our labour force, the African labour force, is excluded from the industrial conciliation machinery and is kept out of closed shop jobs and is, generally speaking, excluded from apprenticeship jobs which require some sort of higher education and later will require membership of a trade union.

The development of our industries should be on the normal economics of location rather than on the politics of border development. These are what I call inflexibilities built into the structure of separate development which the Government is, of course, not prepared to abandon. But these are the obvious adaptations which this country is going to require if we are to take advantage of the potentialities of everyone of our population of 18,000,000. We have a population to-day of almost 18,000,000 and in addition to our large manpower resources we have magnificent natural resources. A combination of these two, properly used, can open up a phase of development for this country undreamed of by people who, as I have said, are completely obsessed with the idea of separate development. We need a firm base for the full utilization of all our resources, a base from which to advance, taking advantage of the skills, the know-how, the productivity and the purchasing power of all our people, both Whites and non-Whites. We are about to enter the era of the seventies. For Heaven’s sake, let us move boldly into this era and let us not repeat the mistakes we have been making over the past decade, the mistake of moving ever further into isolation, thereby depriving ourselves of an ever increasing standard of living and the enjoyment which we could have if we were completely part of the continent of Africa and, for that matter, of the Western World as a whole.

South Africa already has a modem industrial economy. To a large extent we are living in the cities. Already the population of the platteland have moved to the cities and more than three-quarters of the White population of our country are already living in cities. And, what is more, this has been to our advantage. We are a country which is becoming increasingly industrialized and we want to continue on these lines if we want to raise the standard of living for everybody.

I think we have a wonderful opportunity at this juncture to assume our rightful place on the continent of Africa. What this country badly needs is to take its place as the workshop of Africa and to assume continental responsibility. This is not the case at the moment because we have isolated ourselves, not only from our neighbours but also from those states situated on this continent. We would have magnificent opportunities if we were to consider ourselves as the industrial workshop of the continent and take full advantage of the huge population living on the continent of Africa. This is, after all, our future export market. We are endeavouring to compete in European markets and some of our exporters have done extremely well. Our nation should be grateful to them. But if we want to take advantage of our geographical situation, we must assume that the real market for our exports in the future is going to be the African continent. Therefore, we should start assuming this continental responsibility as soon as possible because if we do not do that, others are going to do it. If necessary we can start off with our nearest neighbours on this continent. We should explore every possibility for establishing a common market in Southern Africa. Already there are seven neighbouring states with whom we can combine. This is a matter which is of particular importance now that the three Protectorates are about to receive their independence. They share with us a common border of thousands of miles. They are dependent on us for the employment of their labour and for the marketing of the products they produce. So I say that it would be to the enormous advantage of South Africa if we were to explore the idea of establishing a common market in Southern Africa. As I say, we can start off with our immediate neighbours: with the Protectorates, with Rhodesia, the Portuguese territories and later on include perhaps Zambia and Malawi. We are, after all, one economic unit in Southern Africa and the sooner we realize that, the better. If we establish a common market with these countries we already would have a market consisting of nearly 45,000,000 people. If we utilize our own resources to the full in South Africa, to have a market of that extent means that we would be able to take advantage of the economy of large-scale production and lower unit cost production which would give us an immediate advantage in these countries.

These are the things we should be worrying about. And if we remove the basic objectionable features of our policies here in South Africa, features such as race discrimination, it would not be necessary for us to spend R255,000,000 on defence. And this expenditure, I might point out, is one of the major causes of the inflationary tendency in South Africa to-day.

Are you really so naive as to think that that expenditure will no longer be necessary?

Yes, I am, Sir. I do believe that. We have earned the hostility of the Western World only on account of our racial policies and hon. members opposite are bluffing themselves if they think otherwise. Why then do they think are we excluded from all kinds of scientific and technical societies in Africa? Why have we in South Africa then been moving into isolation when the whole trend of the Western World has been in the direction away from isolation, i.e. to get together and to know each other, to make use of modern communications and to exchange scientific knowledge? If it were not for our racial policies, why then do hon. members opposite think we are unpopular?

You are speaking to the wrong country.

I do not know what the hon. member means by his cryptic remark. Perhaps he will make his maiden speech and explain that to me.

That was his maiden speech.

Then I must congratulate the hon. member. Sir, it seems to me extraordinary that right now when we have been given at least some sort of breathing space as a result of the decision of the World Court, that these are not the problems occupying the attention of the Government. These are the things we should be thinking about in order to ensure a future for this country, a future of expansion and not one of isolation. Surely, these things must be obvious to hon. members sitting opposite or are they content to continue sitting behind a sort of canvas curtain while the rest of the world, even England and America, are exchanging diplomatic visits, getting together with other countries and are expanding the whole trend of diplomatic exchanges? But here in South Africa, apart from Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories, we have hardly any contact with the other African states on the continent. I understand the hon. the Prime Minister will be receiving Chief Jonathan shortly and one can only hope that that will be the start of diplomatic exchanges with our immediate neighbours.

When I talk about our immediate neighbours I refer to the people with whom we are destined, whether we like it or not, to share the continent of Africa.

The other point I want to make is that it will also be to our advantage to aid the underdeveloped areas of Africa. Here I want to make perfectly clear that I am not talking about charity. What I have in mind is the expansion of the economic structure of those areas, an expansion which will enable them to become consumers of our goods. We should help them to attain some measure of stability. Nothing irritates me more than when I have to listen to Radio South Africa broadcasting with undisguised glee that there has been yet another upheaval in some of the states of Africa. But what do we hope to gain by living in a continent that is in constant ferment and state of tension? Will that be to our advantage? Surely there is a correlation between stability and prosperity. Furthermore, violence is always one of the consequences in a country that is struggling and poverty stricken. It is to our advantage to relieve such tension.

How did your newspapers gloat about trouble in this country?

Nobody gloats about troubles, Sir. What these newspapers did was to point out the inevitable consequences of the policies followed by this Government. What they did was to warn the Government that unless steps were taken to improve conditions unrest could obviously be expected. So, Sir, in the rest of Africa, because unless economic conditions there are improved we are going to have instability in the African states. This, I say, is not to the advantage of South Africa. What is to our advantage is to have a vast hinterland of settled, developing areas with whom we can exchange goods, personnel, technical know-how and all the advantages of modern scientific knowledge. That is what we should go for. That is what we should promote instead of building ourselves into a laager while spending unlimited millions on defence thereby imagining that we will be safe for all times. That I do not for one moment believe. I think it was the American Secretary for Defence who said that a point can be reached where peace can no longer be purchased simply by the purchase of more military hardware. This is a point which, I believe, we have reached in South Africa. We cannot purchase our own security and stability simply by the purchase of more military hardware. What we should put in its stead is the development of this country on proper economic lines. We should rather take advantage of all the facilities which we have here, e.g. our resources and especially our manpower resources. Then we should develop some form of common market with our immediate neighbours and to aid the rest of Africa as far as we possibly can. The figure of 1 per cent of gross national product is I am told the ideal figure to be aimed at as a contribution to assist under-developed countries. A country. Sir, is not judged great purely by its economic or its military power. To-day a country is considered great by reason of its own involvement in international affairs and its assumption of responsibility in the sphere where it is located. South Africa can exert a tremendous influence in the continent of Africa and the sooner we assume our continental responsibilities, the better it will be for all the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the tension that preceded this, my maiden speech, was so great that I almost congratulated the hon. member for Houghton on her bachelor speech. Coming as I do from a constituency where, as a result of sanctions, one of the most rapid developments in this country is taking place, namely the Atlas factory, from where the South African made Impala will shortly take to the air, it falls to me to look at the problems of the future, problems which arise from the process of development. What were fields and valleys only yesterday are foundations and canals and roads to-day, and will to-morrow be structures of concrete and steel where the products necessary for our continued existence will be manufactured on the basis of automation and mechanization.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of all this activity and change there remains the one central figure—man. Amidst the hustle and bustle of development, human nature remain essentially the same and every individual still yearns to be a member of a community, a community in which he will feel at home, in which he can live his life to the full, and in which he can also relax. So permit me, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the manner in which we spend our leisure time, with special reference to the time we devote to physical recreation. A year still has 365 days and a day still consists of 24 hours. But over against that we work only 225 days out of that year and during a day of 24 hours we work an average of only eight hours. What do we do with our leisure time? What do we do for our physical well-being in our leisure hours where conditions of employment do not demand so much from us physically? Surely the old saying of “a healthy mind in a healthy body” has never been more apt than now. Permit me to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for his far-sightedness as regards the necessity for the establishment of a Department of Sport and Recreation, because not only are we going to be stimulated into becoming a healthier nation, but it will also contribute towards happier family relations, greater pleasure in our work and therefore greater productivity. Are we going to allow ourselves to degenerate physically as a result of mechanization, so that it will quite rightly be said of us that we were given two legs which are used for purposes other than those for which they were intended and that we have thus developed a clutch foot and an accelerator foot, both of which will later degenerate even further as a result of automation? Are we going to become a nation of excalator travellers and lift users? Is it going to benefit us physically if we devote all our free time to watching others keep themselves healthy and fit physically? We are grateful that we are still being spared the evils of television.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough simply to talk about and simply to be aware of the necessity of keeping fit. It should be encouraged in all spheres of life as well. In the industrial sphere it will certainly contribute towards greater productivity and a lower accident rate. We are grateful to those institutions who have already introduced fitness tests as part of their working programme.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to quote a few figures from that part of the latest Annual Report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner dealing with injuries sustained by employees whilst on duty. In 1965 260,973 cases were reported. Of these, 1,578 were fatal, while 939 suffered permanent disablement to a degree of more than 30 per cent. But that is not all. In 1962 we lost 4,589,745 man-days as a result of injuries sustained at work. Where a relatively young person was injured his potential working capacity was calculated. The potential loss based on this figure was 19,627,194 man-days. That means a total loss of 24,216,939 man-days. In 1965, 4,913 people received benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Fund; they received a total amount of R978,851. It is therefore clear, Sir, that unfitness, however slight it may be, is an important factor which contributes to this great loss of man-power.

A second factor we have to take into consideration is contained in the well-known saying, “Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.” If one is idle and unfit as well, it only leads to frustration, on the results of which I do not want to elaborate now. In our multi-racial country frustration is something which we should avoid or eliminate at all costs. We realize only too well what effect changed circumstances of life have on our White population. How much more does that not apply to the other population groups? Only yesterday the Bantu was a child of nature. He was in daily contact with the smell of the soil after the rain, the lowing of cattle and the sound of distant voices over the hills. For centuries these things were part of him. Yes, his pace was the pace of time. And what is the position to-day? He is surrounded by cities and mines and concrete and steel—and he is not ready for that. Should we not give him too the opportunity to feel happy in his leisure hours and to live a full life among his own people? Should we not take care that our Bantu do not fall prey to and are not made unhappy by frustration? The Department of Planning deserves all our gratitude for having appreciated the necessity for that. We also thank the local bodies who have already provided and are still going to provide for that.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we can relax physically while at the same time doing something productive for our country. In this connection I cannot think of a better institution than the Land Service Movement. I want to plead that we should develop the idea that physical recreation can take place in such a way that a contribution will at the same time be made towards the preservation of this dear country of ours. By coming into closer contact with the soil that sustains us we will come to a deeper realization of its value, and we will not only be resurrected physically but also enriched spiritually.

Mr. Speaker, the avenues exist, the foundations have been laid and the time is available. It will depend solely on ourselves whether we are going to allow ourselves to degenerate physically or whether we want to harbour a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body cannot be bluffed. We may be able to camouflage the inner tensions caused by unfitness, but we can overcome them only through physical exertion and recreation.

Mr. Speaker, to me as a newcomer it is a privilege to congratulate a fellow newcomer, the hon. member for Brentwood, on his maiden speech in this House. We want to wish the hon. member only the best on the road ahead. We want to congratulate his constituency on him, and him on his new constituency.

Permit me in this my maiden speech to express my gratitude for the honour which has been bestowed upon me to represent the constituency of Zululand in this House. I also wish to thank the Party organization, and to say that I am grateful for the inspiration, guidance and influence which has come from our Prime Minister and leader, Dr. Verwoerd. I also thank senior members and all officials for making me feel really at home here in the Cape.

It would be ungrateful of me if I did not mention the men who represented this constituency prior to me. We thank them for everything they did in the interests of the constituency. We shall try to follow in their footsteps and to display the same diligence. I noticed that the large majority of hon. members in this House rather welcomed my arrival in the Cape. However, that cannot be said to the same extent of the hon. members who form the minority in this House!

Now, there is one small point I should like to clear up, Sir. When I arrived in the Cape somebody asked me where I came from. I told him that I came from Zululand. His reaction to that was: “Oh, that is up in SouthWest, isn’t it?” So it seems to me that one of my tasks will also be to place Zululand in its proper place on the map of the Republic.

I want to follow the theme of this debate by thanking the hon. the Minister of Finance for the extent to which he has succeeded in retaining a reasonably high level of expenditure by the authorities on capital and construction works in spite of the inflationary tendencies in our economy. South Africa, of course, is a young country which still has to be developed in many respects. For that reason it would seem unwise—also when seen in the light of the fact that inflation is a world tendency at present—to introduce drastic reductions in expenditure on development. I am grateful, therefore, for the balance which has been maintained in this Budget. I am saying that particularly in view of the fact that Zululand is a relatively undeveloped part of our country. It is a part of the country which has tremendous potential and which is to-day on the eve of large development projects, projects which will all require considerable capital, and I do not think anyone in this House will want the country to forfeit this potential—not even temporarily. In the field of agriculture the sugar industry is well-established but this industry suffered severe set-backs owing to the drought, with the result that the average farmer who produced 5,500 tons of cane in the 1965-6 season was operating at a loss even without allowance being made for such factors as depreciation, amortization of loans, etc. The industry made a miraculous recovery-after the drought, but this year the price of sugar will be even lower, owing to large production and lower foreign export prices. Consequently I am somewhat surprised at the fact that in the course of this session we have already had two references from the other side of this House to the slight increase in the sugar price which has been introduced this year. In due course representations will be made to the Government for an investigation to be made as regards improving conditions in this industry and into the possibility of manufacturing fuel from sugar.

With the supply of water from the north out of the Pongolapoort Dam this area promises to become one of the best beefproducing areas in our country. Water supply remains a major problem in Zululand. We want to thank the Minister of Water Affairs in anticipation for the interest he has in and the attention he has given to the construction of two dams which have now become more than urgent, namely one on the Mhlatuze River and the other on the Amatikulu River. In the southern portion of the constituency, where population increase and industrial development, especially in the Tongaat vicinity, have led to an increase in the need for water, the North Coast Water Supply Board is struggling along with small springs and mountain streams and even has to buy water from Durban.

We thank the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for his interest in improving means of communication in Zululand. We also thank the Minister of Transport for making provision for and expediting the proposed construction of a tarred national road to the North. This road is not only of economic importance, but also of strategic importance, and the inhabitants of that area are particularly glad about the funds provided for that purpose in the current Estimates. Our only regret is that more funds could not have been provided.

The mineral riches of this area are still unexploited and untouched, also inside the Bantu reserves, a factor which has become important for the economic development of the homeland concerned. With the prospect of a new harbour we have great visions of industrial development, and we believe that Zululand is on the list for future developments in the iron and steel industry, the so-called third Iscor. But as a result of the process set in motion by credit control and other factors, development in Zululand has virtually come to a standstill at the moment. Diligence and vitality have been caught up in a lull in which nothing is moving. We are grateful for the ambitious harbour planning at Richards Bay and for the express traffic rail link from the harbour to the interior via Vryheid, but the declaration of controlled area number 9, which includes the Empangeni—Richards Bay complex, has resulted in an irritating, retarding and restless inactivity and an absence of even the normal development which should be taking place. Town councils which should be developing by purchasing more land, by supplying electricity, by providing housing and by supplying water for normal expansion no longer know which way to turn.

For the purposes of the development of this area I therefore want to plead for more coordination and co-operation, if possible, between the Government Departments of Transport. Bantu Administration, Water Affairs and Planning. But then one has to guard against temporary stagnation which may cause temporary disruption through inactivity. As an example of that I want to quote the Mhlatuze Dam which I have already mentioned. The water in this strong-flowing river is required for agricultural purposes, for the irrigation of sugar and citrus plantations in the valley. The Bantu are having a hard time without water during the dry months. Cane growers lower down are suffering losses amounting to thousands of rands in times of drought, particularly on account of the irregular supply of water in the river and the fact that it flows away very rapidly. The Empangeni township will shortly require 5,000,000 gallons per day, and in the meantime Richards Bay is silting up because the Natal Provincial Council decided to abandon their dredging activities after the proposed harbour was announced. In this way everything, even property transactions, has come to a standstill in Zululand following upon the freezing of the new harbour area.

Finally, we are aware that many of these matters are bound up with the final decisions on the interdepartmental report on Zululand, and also with any progress which may be made in the consolidation of the homeland, something which we are eagerly awaiting and to which we believe a great deal of serious thought should be given. It is my privilege today to be able to present these matters to a sympathetic Government. Just as we know that we can rely on the Government, I want to assure you, Sir, that the Government can rely on us Zululanders at all times, in the interests not only of the area itself but of the country as a whole.

I am pleased to be able to extend to the hon. member for Zululand who has just sat down my hearty congratulations on his maiden speech in this House. I think we on this side appreciate in particular the fact that he also paid tribute to his predecessor, although his predecessor’s political convictions were not the same as his. We appreciate that fine gesture and at the same time we are sure that he will be able to make in this House a contribution which will be of value.

Mr. Speaker, something struck me in the House this afternoon, something which is quite unique. We had six maiden speeches this afternoon, all of them excellent, and, incidentally, I want to extend my hearty congratulations to all six of the speakers. Of the six newcomers we heard this afternoon, no fewer than five have a doctor’s degree. Among them, I am sure, there are competent medical men as well, and I think that with the condition in which our country is at present, we are doubly delighted to have doctors in the House.

About one thing there can be no doubt, and that is that this Budget, together with the Railway Budget we have just had, is the most severe, the most bitter and the most abominable Budget this country has ever had. It is a budget which does not only coincide with a high cost of living, but also with the highest cost of living figure in the history of South Africa. There has never been a budget with such a disastrous content as this one, and the cost of living has never been as high. What amazes and shocks me is that hon. members on the opposite side are trying to defend this Budget, that they are trying to commend the burdens which are being imposed on the man in the street, and that they are virtually congratulating the Minister on having imposed higher taxes on the people and having caused the price of petrol and of beer and of other articles to rise sky-high.

To me that is simply incomprehensible, and what I find as incomprehensible are the excuses with which they come to this House. This is what we hear from them, “Yes, you say that expenditure should be reduced, but where should it be reduced?” If one looks at the manner in which money is spent in this country, if one sees the boundless waste of money that takes place, it astonishes one that that question is still being asked. For instance, this side of the House is asked whether we want to curtail spending on defence, education or salaries. Our reply is no, we do not want that. Let us take one of these questions. We say that we do not want to see that the expenditure on defence should be curtailed. We should like to see a strong defence force in our country, but what we do in fact say is that we should like to know all the particulars of the way in which the money is spent on defence. We remember that a commission was appointed a few years ago and that it inquired into irregularities in the Defence Force, and to-day we still want to know how many millions of rand were wasted. That commission cost the country R41,000. We are not saying that less money should be spent on defence. The man in the street is willing to pay an extra cent on beer if he knows that a good Defence Force is being established, but is he expected to pay that extra money when there were irregularities in regard to expenditure in the Defence Force and when a commission which cost R41,000 had to be appointed to try to put those matters right?

The hon. members are asking whether the expenditure on education should be curtailed. No, not on education, be it for Whites or non-Whites, but what we are saying is that that money should be spent in the right manner. I am looking at the latest report of the Auditor-General and there I see that the cost per student at the Zulu University at Ngoya amounts to R1,667 per annum. That is four times as much as the cost per student at a White university. Then I ask whether the tax payer’s money is being spent in the best manner, or are we once again paying here for some ideological white elephant or other?

In that manner I can mention numerous examples of how money is wasted and on what items money can be saved. We have had instances of our products being exported at a loss. We have had instances of other things as well. If one goes through this Budget Book, one finds numerous instances where money is in being spent for unnecessary ideological purposes. Nobody can tell me that every penny which is being spent on the Bantustans, is being spent for economic reasons. We on this side of the House have a far-sighted plan for the development of the economy of those regions. We say that it has to be done by means of private capital through which it can be developed more cheaply and better than by the Government. But no, the Government wants to appropriate everything to itself. It wants to have the development there under its own control, but at the same time it is we, the tax payers, instead of free enterprise, who have to bear the brunt in this regard. The tragedy is, of course, that when one of those areas is granted independence, all those things go over to that state holus-bolus and free of charge.

They are asking where money can be saved. The S.A. Broadcasting Corporation makes an annual profit of more than R2,000,000. I want to know why the S.A.B.C. cannot bear out of its profits the losses on Radio Bantu amounting to R500,000 per annum. Why does that have to be borne by the tax payers? I do not even want to mention the luxurious Cadillacs and all the things we see outside this building, but I want to ask this. Is it true that this Government has a plan, or had one, because I hope that they have given it up, to purchase three new, expensive, luxurious, French jet aeroplanes for dignitaries—and I assume that they are members of the Cabinet? I have heard that there are three of them, but I hope to hear that they intend to give up that plan.

Where can money be saved? Take the commissions. I mentioned one commission which cost R40,000. The commissions of this Government are costing the country between R150,000 and R200,000 annually. I am thinking of the time that is often wasted on unnecessary things. Just imagine how many thousands of man-hours were lost when envelopes had to be opened in the Post Office to see whether they contained lottery tickets. With the tremendous deficits in the Post Office, why did those thousands of hours had to be wasted? I am thinking of the Department of Bantu Administration which in a previous financial year bought 574,000 passbooks at a cost of R50,000 for the purpose of selling them to the Bantu. I hope that the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will give us a reply to that. What has happened to those books? The Bantu did not want to buy the books, and then the Department simply proceeded to give them away, free of charge, to charitable organizations. And then they ask where money can be saved. There are many things which are more important than the things by which the Government is at present so possessed, things such as taking a ruler and going to the Bloemfontein swimming bath to measure the distance between a young man and a young girl. Is that the type of thing on which public money is spent and for which subsidies are granted to the Provincial Council? If I want to proceed this manner, I can mention dozens and dozens of examples but this is only one example of how expenditure can be reduced.

We may perhaps be asked to say how revenue can be increased without imposing an extra burden on the man in the street. There are quite a number of obvious things. The hon. member for Kensington mentioned the example of the “participation bonds”. By those means people can voluntarily give revenue to the Government which is looking for capital. I am thinking of another source of revenue. How many concessions for crayfish, fish, diamonds and things of that nature, from which millions of rand of profit were made subsequently, were not sold for a song? Why can those millions not accrue to the people of South Africa; why in those cases only to a select few?

In this way one can think of numerous other instances. I want to mention to the hon. the Minister one small example taken from his own Department to show how he can quite easily obtain R1,500,000 every year. Special sets of South African coins are minted every year; approximately 20,000 experimental sets are minted every year and they are sold at a profit of R1.20 each. But do you realize, Mr. Speaker, how great a demand there is for those experimental sets throughout the world? They do not want 20,000; they want 1,250,000. Application was made for 1,250,000 of those sets on which the Minister could have made a profit of R1,500,000, but he only minted 20,000 sets. That is merely one example. If within a matter of a few minutes and at the rate of R1,000,000 per minute, I am able to give the Minister examples of how to obtain money, then, if I had 50 minutes at my disposal, I ought to be able to mention enough examples to enable him to balance his entire Budget.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget is a serious one. It imposes a tremendous burden on the man in the street. If one thinks of 15 to 20 years ago when a United Party Government was in office, and when meat still cost 1/3 per lb. as against 45c to-day, when rice cost 6d per lb. as against 13c to-day, when bread cost 6d as against 10c to-day, then one realizes what tremendous burdens have been imposed on the man in the street in South Africa.

And then we still have you as well.

Let me mention two striking examples of how the burdens on the man in the street in South Africa have been aggravated. This Government says that it is looking for immigrants. A number of months ago the Transvaal Provincial Administration sent a special mission overseas to recruit workers for the Transvaal Provincial Administration. They explained to those people what their wages would be and what benefits they would enjoy if only they would emigrate to South Africa in order to work here. Do you know how many they recruited? Not a single one, and the reason is that those people say that the cost of living in South Africa is too high for them; that they do not enjoy the same benefits here, benefits such as better pension rights and medical benefits, as they do over there.

Another piece of gossip.

Hon. members on that side must not tell me that the man in the street is satisfied to-day. The man in the street is already passing judgment on this Government. Only a few days ago, before this Budget, a by-election was held in Jeppe, and Jeppe is pre-eminently the constituency of the man in the street. The electorate of Jeppe passed their judgment on the increases which had already been announced at that time. These continuous increases in customs and excise duties on petrol, raise one’s price pattern throughout the country. Do you know what the excise duty on petrol was in 1949? At that time it was 1d. per gallon. At present the excise duty on petrol is almost 13c per gallon, an increase of 1,300 per cent in excise duty on a single gallon of petrol. That is one of the last stones in that heavy rucksack with which the man in the street is burdened at present.

This Budget is not simply a new burden which has to be shouldered by the man in the street. Over the past three, four, five months those burdens have been imposed on the man in the street at an unprecedented rate. During the past few months there have been increases in the price of meat, sugar, flour, butter, sweets, cheese, milk, copperware, ironware, jelly, icecream, etc., etc. I am not saying that all those price increases are to be condemned; some of them are good, but what should in fact be condemned, is that the Government, after having imposed those heavy burdens on the man in the street during the past few months, now introduces this Budget under which it has really become impossible for the man in the street in South Africa to carry all his burdens.

Mr. Speaker, here I have the promises made by the Government before the election, as contained in an election manifesto with two large photographs of the Prime Minister and it says, “South Africa is enjoying a stage of national development such as has never before been reached.” Has there ever been a Budget which has imposed heavier burdens on the man in the street than this one? Has the cost of living in South Africa ever been higher than it is to-day? According to this manifesto we can rest assured since this manifesto says that “the Government will keep an eye on price increases”. We are asking: “What is this Government doing in that regard in view of this tremendously heavy burden which rests on the man in the street at present?” Sir, I have used the time at my disposal, but I want to repeat that this Budget is a bitter one; it is an unbearable Budget. It is an unbearable Budget in a country where more than half a million summonses are issued for debt each year. This is a Budget which is heartless and monses for debt were issued during the first five months of this year than during the corresponding period last year. Just imagine what it will be during the latter six months of this year. This is a budget which is heartless and merciless. It is a black Budget and it is a black day for the man in the street in South Africa.

I am glad that it is not my task to reply to the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down, as I am one of the six members from South West Africa who hold seats in this Chamber in terms of the provisions of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act, 1949, which was piloted through this House at that time by the present Government under the leadership of the late Dr. D. F. Malan. We are glad that that Act was placed on the Statute Book, and, indeed, I deem it a privilege to participate in the debate in this House for the first time today.

After the recent judgment by the World Court in the case in which South West Africa was concerned, it will certainly not be inappropriate for me to express a word of thanks on behalf of the people of South West to the hon. the Prime Minister, his Cabinet, the officials, the witnesses from other countries, and the legal team who helped to make the judgment a favourable one.

Mr. Speaker, an hon. member here calls out “order”, but that motion is no longer on the Order Paper. I therefore think it is quite in order for me to convey the thanks of the people of South West to the Government and the Cabinet. We were glad to see that the system of law applied by the World Court had not yet followed the pattern adopted in other countries in Africa, but that the World Court based its judgment on legal grounds. On behalf of South West we should like to express our sincere thanks to the Government for the thorough manner in which it put our case there.

Before continuing, Sir, I should perhaps first give you some idea of the geographic extent of South West Africa. South West Africa extends over an area of 318,261 square miles, and it has a population of approximately 75,000 Whites and approximately 460,000 non-Whites. The latter section of the population consists of 11 different ethnic groups. South West Africa suffers droughts from time to time, and it is also subject to various other disasters. In spite of the droughts which we have experienced there in the past years and in spite of other natural disasters to which I shall refer in a moment, we find that South West Africa has grown tremendously in the economic field in recent years. I do not want to quote a large number of figures here, but permit me to draw the attention of this House to the following figures: In 1951 the Estimates of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa amounted to approximately R7,000,000, and last year, notwithstanding the severe drought and a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the most serious South West has ever experienced, the Estimates amounted to R100,000,000. If one considers those figures one cannot but take off one’s hat to the people who have governed that territory.

We do not know what caused it, but in 1961 there was a sudden outbreak of foot-and mouth disease, one of the most serious which the territory has ever experienced, in one of the most important cattle-farming districts. This outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease came in the middle of a very serious drought. It virtually came out of the blue and caught the Department and the farmers completely on the wrong foot. An immediate start was made with setting up cordons to combat the outbreak as far as possible. The exporting of cattle was temporarily discontinued in many districts. A start was made with the erection of game-proof fences.

The whole of South West Africa was fenced off into five large compartments by means of fences consisting of 16 wires, eight and six feet high, in order to try to control the game and to prevent the disease from spreading. The fence runs into a total length of 2,000 miles. In collaboration with the Pilbright Research Institute of England a vaccine was produced which was imported from England, and 5,250,000 doses of that vaccine have been administered as a preventative measure.

In addition a commission was appointed to report upon and make recommendations in regard to the precautionary measures to be taken in order to prevent foot-and-mouth disease from being carried over from Bechuanaland and from the non-White states lying outside the police zone. As a result of the report of the commission the first few farms along the borders were placed under certain restrictions. As a result foot-and-mouth disease has been combated so successfully in South West Africa that there has been no outbreak for quite some time, and we think that the territory has now been cleared. The cost to the Administration amounted to R5,000,000. Unfortunately it is not possible to calculate the losses suffered by the public. We can only say that the public, and more particularly the farming community in the north, suffered tremendously heavy losses in that period as a result of the fact that they were unable to market their animals; their animals were placed under quarantine on their own land and they simply did not have grazing.

In view of the success with which foot-and-mouth disease has been combated up to now and in view of the fact that we believe that the territory has now been cleared, we want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services whether he will not declare South West Africa free of foot-and-mouth disease now. With the successful methods which have been applied there and the division of the territory into compartments, we believe that it will be quite possible to do that at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say much about the Budget. I merely want to say that I believe and hope that the measures taken by the Government against inflation will be as successful as the Government’s handling of the South West Africa case.

I have great pleasure in congratulating my colleague the hon. member for Mariental, who is also a new member, on his first contribution. It is obvious and striking that he is a person who loves the land; that it still forms part of his body and soul. I just want to ask, should the foot-and-mouth disease quarantine be lifted, that he should bring the new member who is congratulating him to-day some springbok biltong.

I also want to express my appreciation for the opportunity I have been granted to make my maiden speech in this Budget debate. I also want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the fatherly advice you have given us new members of the House of Assembly. Your words to us, that it is a God-given privilege to serve one’s fellowman, are striking words, and I pray that I shall not fail in that respect.

South Africa is a young and dynamic country with an excellent potential. I believe that South Africa can and will develop into one of the greatest powers in the world. I base this statement not only on its inherent vitality, but what is much more important is the spiritual resistance and faith we have inherited from our forefathers. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the annals of this House of Assembly historians will one day describe and laud the past decade as that era in the history of our nation in which the future destiny of a nation was planned. I believe that through unyielding spiritual resistance much has been done for the development of a national concept, a national identity; an era in which great ideals were realized, not by the suppression of other national groups but, on the contrary, by creating for them and granting them the opportunity of developing in their own homelands and territories by stimulating the process of evolution, and thus combating revolution. But it is my humble opinion that as a result of these ideals we pursue, and are entitled to pursue—our own national concept, our own identity—there are enemies abroad who are taking arms against the Republic of South Africa with vindictiveness and hate, enemies who, for their own material gain, notice the great possibilities of our mineral riches, of our great potential for development in the industrial field, of our ideal geographic situation. I am convinced that no matter what a government did—any government that is in power and that seeks to preserve the identity of this people—it would meet with the same antipathy, the same hostility, from certain quarters abroad, which the Republic of South Africa meets with to-day.

It is for that reason that I plead for a common front as regards this aspect. I believe that the vast majority of the people of the Republic set the preservation and retention of our own national identity far above any personal material gain. The Government has already achieved much as regards security of our people’s survival. Great ideals have already been realized. A contented family life, a contented community life and a contented national life have already been brought about. Security and contentment are very closely linked. It so happens that we are afflicted by inflation at present, but surely that is an epidemic which is sweeping the entire world. Thus the virus of inflation has also established itself in South Africa. Is it not therefore the duty of the hon. the Minister to take strict measures to combat inflation? Inflation holds great dangers for the economic resistance of our country.

Here I am thinking of the salaried man and of the wage-earner, people who are after all the first to be affected by inflation. The businessmen, the industrialists and our professional men may exploit inflation, but that would be a short-sighted and a reprehensible approach. We have therefore been compelled to take strong measures against inflation, and I am convinced that, if through unforseeable circumstances, these affect some industry or other, the hon. the Minister will immediately introduce counter measures. That, however, is not what I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is that there will be some curtailment of great capital works, of works essential to a growing country like the Republic of South Africa, and essential in the fact of a hostile world. In view of the current inflationary conditions, however, the hon. the Minister cannot be blamed in that regard either. I believe, however, that the solution is to be found in an increase in the price of gold. Clause 4 (7) of the Bretton Wood Agreement is of direct application to the international monetary fund, and an increase in the price of gold is also provided for. Let me make it quite clear that inflation and an increase in the price of gold should not be linked. In fact, I doubt whether there is any country in the world where it has been proved that an increase in the price of gold had caused inflation. There are numerous countries where it has been proved that as a result of inflation they have had to devaluate their monetary unit, and thereby increased the price of gold.

In South Africa we produce two-thirds of the gold of the entire world. We are the largest gold producing country in the world. It is a heritage of our native soil which is being exploited. It is a commodity for which a demand has endured to this very day, not only in the private sector, but also among the great powers of the world. They are always looking for gold. How much gold has France bought in the past month? At present the production cost of gold compels the Government to make certain concessions to the mining industry. It is not only the Republic of South Africa that has to do that, however, but also all other gold-producing countries. If the price of gold were raised, our gold reserves would appreciate immediately. That in turn would enable the hon. the Minister of Finance to undertake more capital works, particularly those essential works which are vital to the survival of our country. Here I am thinking, for example, of the building of dams which will be able to meet the requirements of the agricultural industry, an industry which, because of circumstances quite outside the control of the Government, has not been able to share to the desired extent in the economic boom of the past years. I am also thinking of the development of border industries, industries which can be subsidized by the Government. The establishment of these industries in our labour-intensive areas can help to combat inflation. I therefore also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on everything he has already achieved by his appeals for an increase in the price of gold. He has propagated this cause at various world congresses. At present some of the greatest economists in the world are also propagating an increase in the price of gold. I believe, in fact, that such a measure has already been accepted in principle on an international economic level, but that the problem lies in the international political arena. That is where we should now wage our campaign. It is a difficult campaign, a campaign in which those materialistic and tyrannical countries will yet come to realize that they are waging war on their own interests. If they come to realize that, their political attitude and approach to this matter would undergo a metamorphosis. I want to suggest that in my opinion it is merely a matter of time before the price of gold will be increased. Meanwhile the people of South Africa should be prepared to bring their sacrifices to combat inflation. I have the utmost confidence in our people in this respect, because our spiritual resistance will discipline us so that we will not weaken as regards the material aspect.

To conclude, I think of Abraham Lincoln’s immortal words, “I like a man who is proud of the town he lives in and I like a man to live so that his town can be proud of him.” We can elaborate on that, because it is also valid for South Africa to-day: “I like a man who is proud of our Republic and I like a man to live so that the Republic can be proud of him.”

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rustenburg on the very fine speech he has just made here, and I want to express the hope that his career in this House will be a very successful one. As far as I am concerned, I regard it as a special honour and privilege to represent the constituency of Johannesburg (North) in this House. I also want to make use of this opportunity to assure my predecessor, Mrs. Weiss, that the good work done by her in this House is appreciated very highly indeed.

To-day I want to talk about the cutting of diamonds. For 100 years the presence of diamonds in the South African soil has been a known fact. However, while the diamond trade is reaching great heights, the processing of uncut diamonds in our country unfortunately remains a small industry which is mainly in the hands of other nations. Allow me to mention my motivations for making this statement. The diamond with which Stephanus Jacobo played at the game of five stones on his father’s farm exactly 100 years ago was sold, as we know, for R1,000. To-day, however, we know what a marked influence this historic 211 carat diamond had on our country and on our economy. We also know how the discovery of diamonds changed a sparsely populated country into one which to-day is the most powerful country in Africa in the industrial field. If we look at the sales figures of the De Beers company we realize to what extent the diamond trade has grown in our country. Between the years 1934 and 1939 the annual average sales figures of uncut diamonds was R13,000,000. In 1965, however, this figure increased to a record amount of R300,000,000. It is clear that South Africa owes a great deal to those people who developed our diamond trade to a position of priority in the world, and therefore it is reassuring to know that every endeavour is being made to-day at all levels to increase the production of uncut diamonds to the highest level possible. It is also encouraging to know that new sources of production are continually being sought. While that is so it is at the same time regrettable that the same fine spirit of enterprise is not also being displayed in the development of a cutting industry of the same magnitude as our diamond trade. The cutting industry which we do have has not yet made that contribution to our national economy of which it is capable.

Fortunately it has been my privilege to become intimately acquainted with the conditions in the diamond cutting industry due to the fact that I have been closely associated with that industry for the past 30 years. Consequently it disturbs me a great deal to observe that whereas overseas industries have been developing rapidly, our own industry has remained static or has even been declining at times. It is definitely not my intention to raise a controversial point in this my maiden speech in this House and it is also not my intention to go too deeply into the reasons for our diamond cutting industry not yet having been developed to its full potential. For that reason suffice it to say that South Africa ought to be a leading country in the world also in the field of diamond cutting. If we look at the development of the diamond cutting industry in our country, a number of facts become clear to us. One would have thought that because the production of diamonds from the mines at Kimberley has made South Africa the leading producer of precious diamonds in the world, a diamond cutting industry of the same magnitude would have been developed over the years. That unfortunately did not happen. In 1919 the Government of that time did in fact make provision for diamond cutting licences. A regular supply of uncut diamonds was also ensured. But only in 1927, i.e. 39 years after the discovery of diamonds, an extremely small beginning was made with the establishment of a diamond cutting industry in South Africa. In those years there were five factories and 13 qualified cutters who trained eight South African apprentices. However, it appears that the then Government started realizing the importance of having a domestic diamond cutting industry because in that year an agreement was entered into with a diamond cutting company in Antwerp. In terms of that agreement the company concerned would erect a factory in Kimberley and would import a number of experts from Belgium who would train 500 South African apprentices over a period of five years. The Government undertook to supply sufficient uncut diamonds to the factory and to assist in the training of the apprentices. In terms of that agreement the Government also reserved the right to itself to take possession of the factory in the event of the company being liquidated before the expiry date of the agreement. Certain guarantees had to be given by the company and the Government in turn granted a subsidy of R60,000 to the company, a subsidy which would cover a period of three years. When this agreement was confirmed in May, 1928, and the factory was opened in Kimberley a short while later, it looked as if South Africa was at long last taking the first steps in establishing a real diamond cutting industry in South Africa. It was soon apparent that the South African apprentices showed a real aptitude for the work and could become good diamond cutters. How this factory succeeded in stimulating the industry, is apparent from the fact that where there had been only eight factories with 39 cutters and 25 apprentices in 1928, there were already in 1929 25 factories with 357 cutters and 350 apprentices. If this rate of development had been maintained, South Africa at present would have been one of the leading countries in the field of diamond cutting. In 1932 this promising beginning unfortunately came to an end due to factors I do not want to go into on this occasion. The said factory was liquidated at that time and the Government decided, and quite rightly, not to take over the factory and not to continue training apprentices. The closing-down of that factory and the conditions of depression in the thirties brought lean years for this industry in our country and only in 1941, when all other large overseas industries were not operating on account of the war, South Africa was again afforded an opportunity of re-establishing itself as an important country in the field of diamond cutting. But that golden opportunity was not utilized unfortunately. When all the other rival countries were no longer in the running, no attempt was unfortunately made to increase the supply of uncut diamonds to the diamond cutting industry. In addition nothing was done to make it possible to admit a sufficient number of apprentices to the industry. I am of the opinion that our diamond cutting industry could have been developed to such an extent over the past 25 years that it could at present have provided employment to 5,000 South Africans. Should that have happened our country to-day would have taken up its rightful place amongst other countries of the world in the field concerned. During the period 1941 to 1965 the qualified workers in this industry increased from 309 to 612 only. The development in this case was not parallel to the development reflected during this period in the production of diamonds. If we compare the number of employees in this industry in our country with that of other countries, it becomes clear why I maintain that this industry has not yet reached its full potential in our country.

The diamond cutting industry in Belgium is to-day regarded as the largest in the world. At the end of the war they had to start building up this industry from scratch, but in spite of that 10,000 diamond cutters are employed in that country at present. Israel which only started building up a diamond cutting industry 15 years ago already has 7,100 employees working in this industry. Israel mainly processes very small diamonds but nevertheless the same type of work is done with excellent results in South African factories. Even the United States, which has never really been a major power in this field, can boast of 1,100 employees. We have all the means at our disposal which are necessary for developing a diamond cutting industry. We have the human skill and ability. We have large quantities of uncut diamonds. And we also have the necessary capital. I believe that we will be lacking in our duty towards South Africa if we do not exploit our diamond cutting industry to the fullest extent. I also believe that the Government’s recent decision to increase the number of apprentices and to issue new licences is a step in the right direction. The producers have also indicated that they will market a larger quantity of uncut diamonds for use in South African diamond cutting factories. Mr. Speaker, I welcome these positive steps to develop the diamond cutting industry so that it may take up its rightful place in our national economy. Because of the high financial value of a processed diamond it is very clear that it is in our interest to market the biggest possible quantity of South African diamonds which have been processed locally by local labour.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) on his first speech in this House. I wish him everything of the best for the future, and I also wish that I, too, had finished making my maiden speech.

To-day I want to break a lance on behalf of the White population of the small rural towns and the districts which surround these towns. These communities have been swept off the deck of the South African ship by the wave of industrial and economic prosperity we have been experiencing in this country during the past decade or two. To-day they are trying to cling to the rails by their own efforts. But by their own efforts they will not make it much longer. Unless the Government holds out a hand to pull these people back on deck, they will slip overboard one by one and vanish altogether—not only to their own detriment and loss, but also to the detriment of the Republic of South Africa.

Before the Second World War these places were vigorous towns with a reasonable White population figure, and this does not only apply to the towns, but also to the districts. But even after the end of the war it was perceived by those who carry the interests of these communities at heart that the writing was on the wall. The White population figure displayed a downward trend. Old established businesses flagged. The number of pupils at schools dropped alarmingly, and here and there White farmers started leaving old family farms. The migration to the town was under way. These people turned up their sleeves and attempted to combat this threat on their own. They did everything possible to make these places more attractive and thus to attract newcomers. At tremendous cost roads were tarred, water schemes were laid on, hospitals were built and housing schemes were undertaken. Some towns even went as far as to offer newcomers free houses. But in spite of all these attempts the position still deteriorated. It has become clear that these people have been trying to stem and to control a torrent of water with nothing but a toy spade in their hands. It has become clear that unless these communities are given assistance and recognition by the Government, the White rural communities are doomed. In the past much was written and much more was said about the dangers which the depopulation of the rural areas holds for South Africa. The Government is thoroughly aware of this danger. In 1956 a commission of inquiry was appointed by the Government. But owing to other urgent problems, the question of the depopulation of the rural areas could not have the priority which it should in fact have had. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is the trend all over the world that in countries which prosper industrially and economically, the inhabitants of such countries are lured in great numbers to urban industrial areas, and that in the course of time the greatest percentage of the population is concentrated in a few areas only. We do not only find this phenomenon in South Africa. We also find it in France, the United States, Denmark and in many other countries. But, Sir, must we accept it as an accomplished and irrefutable fact and phenomenon? Must we sit on the ash-heap and look on with folded arms at how the White rural areas are declining without our lifting a finger to remedy the position? No, we must combat this threat with all our power and all the means at our disposal. Every honest South African must regard the depopulation of the rural areas as a real danger to our country. It does not merely affect the people who live in the rural areas. It also affects you and me. Not one of us can adopt an aloof attitude towards this great problem. It affects you and me, Mr. Speaker, because a strong, White, rural population has always been necessary and will always be so for the preservation of the traditional South African approach as far as moral, social and political matters are concerned. The conservatism of the rural areas has always tempered the way of life and the outlook on life of the people. Some of the greatest minds in the annals of the history of South Africa—including Prime Ministers—were born at rural towns and distant farms, and there they also received their early education. Without being detrimental to the personal characteristics of these people, I nevertheless want to say that their rural background played a great role in their subsequent achievements. If affects you and me, Mr. Speaker, seeing that in these times of inflationary tendencies, caused among other things by high public spending, the Government is constantly obliged to spend tremendous amounts on new and larger schools, hospitals and housing schemes in urban areas, over and above many other essential capital works. These things are being done while similar buildings, also built with public money, are empty of half empty in the rural areas. It affects you and me because a strong, White, rural population is necessary for the solution to our race problem. Other countries realize the danger of this migration to the cities only too well. International congresses have even been held in this regard, such as the one held in Scheveningen in 1957. If these countries, which do not have our race problems, are so concerned about the migration of the masses to the cities, how much more should it not be a matter of the greatest gravity for this country? While I realize the dangers of depopulation, I realize at the same time the extent of the tremendous task which rests on us if we want to attempt to combat this problem. I realize only too well that it is not possible to stop the migration of the population and to reverse the process by waving a magic wand. Authorities maintain that such a process will take decades and decades. For that very reason I realize that we can no longer push this problem into the background.

Mr. Speaker, we must exert ourselves for the decentralization of certain industries. I know that there are many stumbling blocks in the way. But many stumbling blocks were also laid in the way of border industries. Nevertheless we tackled the latter problem with great enthusiasm, since we realized only too well that it was a matter of national interest. We must exert ourselves purposefully for placing in the rural areas institutions and bodies which from the nature of their composition and activities need not be coupled to major industrial centres. Mr. Speaker, why are the Land Bank offices which serve the Eastern Cape, situated in Port Elizabeth? Why can this institution not be housed at Graaff-Reinet or at one of the other towns in the heart of the farming industry? Why is it not possible to place more army and citizen force training centres in the rural areas? Not only will these camps help rural towns considerably in their struggle for survival, but they will also make us less vulnerable in times of emergency. Why is it the popular view that if oil is found in the Karoo the crude oil will be conveyed by pipe-line to one of the large centres for processing? If oil is struck at Murraysburg, it should be processed at Murraysburg. It has been decided in principle to erect a training college in Port Elizabeth. But at Graaff-Reinet, only 150 miles from there, we already have a very adequate training college. Erecting a college in Port Elizabeth can only result in one thing, and that is the decline of the college at Graaff-Reinet.

Mr. Speaker, we should always bear in mind that in countries with homogeneous populations, the depopulation of the rural areas is not such a great problem. But in South Africa, with its heterogeneous elements, the White rural areas have always been the pivot on which the Western civilization has hinged. Should this pivot disintegrate, the urban population will also find it impossible to hold their own. I should like to confine myself to the request, Mr. Speaker, that in everything we do., we in this House will keep in mind what advantage this holds for the rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who has just completed his maiden speech. It is quite clear that he believes in what he says. I should like to say that if the search for oil in the Karoo is as successful as his speech to-day, I want to hazard the prediction that we shall shortly be self-supporting as regards our natural oil.

It is probably fitting that I should make my maiden speech in the Budget debate, the debate that deals with money, because the only banknote factory in our country, where those fine attractive bank-notes are printed, is situated in my constituency. Unfortunately I have no share in that undertaking, and therefore I do not enjoy more than my legitimate share in the proceeds of that factory, and consequently also have nothing to give away to-day.

It is my honour and my privilege to be able to stand here to-day as the representative of the Wonderboom constituency, the constituency which has been represented in this House for the past 23 years by the previous Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Oom Daan de Wet Nel, a man who through his zeal, his energy and his farsightedness developed and promoted the cause of Nationalism to the advantage of our fair country, and thus to the advantage of the Western world. I want to pay tribute to my worthy predecessor and praise him for the part he played in the development of the policy of separate development, a policy which has become a cornerstone of the peaceful co-existence of people with different cultural backgrounds, and a policy which may serve as an example to the rest of the world and which will be accepted by the world in due course, I believe, as the only key to the co-existence, of people of different nations.

We are experiencing a period of inflation, and consequently I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his Budget and in particular, on two of his objectives, namely his objective to finance expenditure by non-inflationary means, and to endeavour to protect the stability of our monetary unit, the rand.

If we link the origin of inflationary conditions to the presence of excess money and quasi-money, compared with the goods and services available, we are faced with the simple question: Where has the excess money come from? There are two sources. One is domestic saving and the second is capital inflow from abroad. While the gross domestic saving increased at a more or less even rate from the years 1953 to 1965, i.e. from R866,000,000 to R1.862,000,000 per year, the foreign capital inflow pattern has shown unpredictable trends. Thus we find that during the six years from 1953 to 1958 there was a net capital inflow of R430,000,000. For the following six years, 1959 to 1964, we find a capital outflow of R549,000,000. Whereas the national economy had been attuned for many years—also before 1953—to the absorption of considerable amounts of foreign capital every year, there was a sudden turn and large amounts had to be paid back to foreign countries every year. It is interesting that the greatest flow-back occurred over the years 1960 to 1962, at an average rate of R123,000,000 per annum; an aggregate, therefore, of R369,000,000 for the three years.

Against the background of the events of the years 1960-1, namely the Referendum, the Commonwealth Conference, Sharpeville, the substantial outflow of capital to foreign countries, as I have indicated, and the habit of the great capital powers to proclaim at all times, also from company platforms, their lack of confidence in the new Republic, the Government had to show its confidence in the economy of the young state. That was done most excellently, amongst other things by the announcement of the Orange River project—about which I do not want to say anything more because it has been thoroughly discussed in this House to-day by other hon. members and also by means of great expansion programmes like those at Iscor, Sasol and Escom.

Those manifestations of confidence, coupled with the golden opportunities for investment we have always had here and the vigorously growing economy, brought back the foreign investors in due course, and after six years of capital outflow, during which we paid back R549,000,000 to foreign countries, we experienced a net capital inflow of R235,000,000 in 1965, which had to be accommodated despite the fact that certain production factors were practically fully occupied. In the present year, 1966, there has to date been a further capital inflow of approximately R142,000,000 from abroad. Nobody will deny that those funds have served a useful purpose Amongst other things, they have resulted in a considerable increase in our reserves of foreign exchange, but they have also caused an increase in the demand for goods and services available, to such an extent that further inflationary trends have become noticeable. It goes without saying that the foreign funds cannot be refused at this stage. No more can the development programmes of the Government be stopped altogether. But that inflow of funds in such volume and at this stage, has aggravated the danger of inflation considerably. The counter-measures announced by the Minister in the Budget are therefore fully justified. But I have to point out that economic conquest is a recognized and well-tried technique for depriving nations of their liberty, and I therefore trust that the hon. the Minister will instruct our monetary authorities to see to it that we are not engulfed by a deliberate tidal wave of foreign capital inflow.

Here I also want to express the opinion that inflation is furthered by an excessive speculative tendency on the part of certain sections of our population. In a boom the “get-rich-quick” idea becomes infectious. The sound advice contained in the old maxim: “Cobbler, stick to your last,” is often lightly rejected, and dabbing in unknown or poorly-known fields of enterprise is encouraged by the fact that capital assets and equipment can be acquired too easily on hire-purchase. The eventual result is economic doom, but in the meantime valuable production factors are withdrawn from the production stream. Combating the danger of inflation is the responsibility of the entire nation. Nobody may or will deny that. I therefore want to suggest that the terms on which assets may be acquired on hire-purchase be revised in order to bring them into line with current needs.

It falls to my pleasant lot to congratulate the two previous speakers, the hon. members for Graaff-Reinet and Wonderboom, on their maiden speeches, and I do so with pleasure. Their speeches have been prepared with care and delivered with conviction, and I wish them luck.

It seems to me that seldom has this House had an occasion on which so many maiden speeches have been delivered in such a short period of time, and I sought in my mind for a collective noun to describe the situation. I failed to find one, but I could only sum up the situation by saying that the House re-echoed to the murmur of maidens.

Sir, I should like to refer to the comments made previously in this debate, and particularly to a remark made by the hon. member for Queenstown. I believe the hon. member said, when he was discussing the effect of the direct taxation in this Budget, that the extra amount that the average man would be called upon to pay per annum would be R7. What the hon. member for Queenstown and many of his colleagues have not referred to in detail is the effect that indirect taxation is likely to have on most of the citizens of this country. I notice in Die Burger there was a prediction that the amount for the ordinary man would probably be in the region of R4 a month. On that basis it would seem that over the year an amount of R55 extra would have to be found by many of the ordinary people of South Africa. Now, I doubt very much whether the average man in South Africa is able to set aside in savings R55, and I am inclined to ask where this R55 is likely to come from.

Then I wonder whether it is not worth while developing the theme in so far as the indirect taxation which occurs in this Budget is concerned. My examination went into the question of excise duties. I found that in the year 1948-9, when this Government came into power, the total amount in that Budget for excise duties was R38,000,000. Seventeen years after Nationalist rule the amount has swelled to over R220,000,000. I want to be specific and quote certain details, and I want to deal with one subject which I believe is something which is dear to many people’s hearts, and that is beer. I propose to deal with it on a slightly more intimate basis than some of the previous speakers who have dealt objectively with beer. It is dear beer in more ways than one. I want to point out that in 1948—and I am referring to beer of South African manufacture—the total excise duty was roughly R5,500,000, and this year the amount has risen to over R21,000,000. I appreciate that there are other factors which would lead to the increase in the excise receipts, like the increase in population, Bantu consumption and matters of that nature, but I want to take the working man himself, and I want to refer also to the young people of South Africa, because I believe many of the young people drink beer in preference to spirits. Perhaps that is a wise choice. I want to point out that the average man, when he sits down at the end of the day to enjoy his glass of beer, finds to-day that six cents of the price he pays is now devoted to indirect taxation, whereas in 1948 the amount which this drinker of one pint of beer was called upon to pay was 1.85 cents.

Sir, that is a big increase; it is approximately 230 per cent. Then, Sir, let us take cigarettes; let us take a packet of 20 cigarettes. These figures have been given to me in answer to questions. To-day, after this Budget, the excise duty on 20 cigarettes is 11 cents. In 1948 it used to be 4.666 cents per packet of 20. Every time a person lights a cigarette today, if he buys them in packets of 20, he is paying half a cent in indirect taxation on each cigarette. I realize that both items I have mentioned are not essentials but they can contribute to the pleasures and enjoyment of life in general, or at least many people find that they do. What about essentials?

What about a motor car? To-day many people are dependent for their livelihoods and many businesses are dependent for their success on motor cars and what do we find? We find in this Budget that R21,000,000 is extracted from the taxpayer in respect of excise duty on motor cars. Sir, a comparison may be difficult because in 1948 I believe the manufacture of motor cars in South Africa was on a small scale but there was a duty levied, and as I calculate the situation, on the present-day tax of 13 cents per lb., the excise duty on a light car weighing 1,500 lbs. is R150, whereas on the basis of the import duty imposed in 1948 the owner of a similar car would have been required to pay only R34.

The effect of the latest 2 cent per lb. increase has been reflected in the newspapers; the lists have been published, and from them we learn that a small car will now cost the owner R36 more whereas the price of a larger car will be R74 more. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the question of petrol. In passing I would like to mention that the excise on motor fuel in 1948-9 was R70,000; to-day the figure is R34,000,000, after this Budget, after 18 years of Nationalist rule. I appreciate that some of that money goes to the National Road Fund, but if one takes the specific case of a motorist purchasing petrol at a coastal port, one finds that in 1948 he paid 19 cents per gallon for standard petrol, which was all there was then, and he is now paying 31 cents per gallon. The tax has increased by 12 per cent of which 7.6 cents is the extra excise duty.

Sir, in the case of the man who cannot afford a motor-car and who relies on public transport it is interesting to see what has happened to the cost of railway travel. Prior to this Railway Budget, I am told, that railway fares since 1948 were increased by 50.8 per cent; that is for all classes, but since this Budget there has been a further increase of 20 per cent on first and second class and 10 per cent on third class. Long-distance travellers, who are also dependent on the railways, find that there has been an increase over the years of 37.7 per cent and that this Budget has added another 10 to 15 per cent, depending on the class of travel. As far as air fares are concerned, internal air fares have gone up 37 per cent. The only thing which is down as far as I have been able to find out is the cost of oversea air travel and that has gone down by 49 per cent. One is inclined to ask: Is this the result of competition vis-á-vis a monopoly? Sir, let us take other essential services. Let us take the telephone. To-day a telephone is an essential in every home and in every business.

If you can get it.

I am speaking of those who do get them and who have to pay for them. We find that the cost of local calls has increased from 66 per cent to 100 per cent; that rentals for automatic exchanges have increased by 150 per cent; that for manual exchanges they have increased by 180 per cent. In the case of flat rate exchanges concerned with business, residential and farm lines, the average percentage increase has been from 3 per cent to 90 per cent. Then there is the surcharge as well. The surcharge for fixed-time calls has doubled. But, Sir, what about essential foodstuffs? Here we have a very depressing picture. We find that in the 18 years of this Government’s rule, the overall average increase is 94 per cent on the following essential commodities: butter, cheese, milk, beef, mutton, pork, eggs, potatoes and tomatoes, an average overall increase of 94 per cent. But what about salaries? Have they gone up to meet these costs? Sir, I have asked the various Ministers for details in regard to percentage increases over the years. I have found in certain cases that it has been difficult to obtain the information because it is not available but in certain cases the Ministers have been able to give me the information. Take the case of transport workers. They seem overall to have been fairly fortunate. The salaries of Whites have increased over these 18 years by 125 per cent and the salaries of non-Whites by 230 per cent, but we still find that the salaries of 94 per cent of the non-Whites employed by the S.A.R. fall below the accepted poverty datum line. When we come to education the position also appears to be reasonably satisfactory. We find that the average increase for White teachers over these years, from 1948-66, has been 170 per cent. When we come to the Public Servants—and most of the State employees fall within the purview of the Public Service—we find that the average percentage increase for Whites over these years has been 61 per cent and that the overall average for all races has also been 61 per cent. Sir, time does not permit me to go into the details of earnings in the private sector but I find on analysis that some of the percentages in private enterprise are higher than those applicable to State employees. But I believe that the taxpayer has the right to ask at this stage: What have I got for my money; what has this indirect taxation provided for me? Sir, that is a complex question and I would not attempt to answer it either at this stage or within the time at my disposal, but I want to deal with one aspect and that is the question of education. Sir, I deal with it in the Budget debate because to-day education has been diversified. It is no longer possible to discuss education in the broad sense with a particular Minister because there is now a Minister for each particular racial group as far as education is concerned. I find that this Nationalist ideology has created confusion and duplication and that it is in fact a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

I want to make it clear that I am dealing mainly with university education, and here I believe that the Government has run amuck against expert advice. This mania for separation—Whites from non-Whites and even non-Whites from non-Whites—has not been achieved. I believe that the Government has created university colleges as apartheid showcases for Coloureds, for Indians, for Xhosas, for Zulus and Sothos, and that small numbers are being catered for there at great expense. I am not in any way suggesting that any of the racial groups should not enjoy higher education. I am only suggesting that in the interests of the taxpayer it should be done in the most efficient and effective way. But the attitude of this Government in its actions has been contrary to expert advice. I quote the Holloway Commission which investigated separate training facilities for non-White university students The Commission recommended that in the initial stages there should be a gradual concentration of non-White students at Durban and at Fort Hare. The report said that the problem of distance could be overcome by substantial allowances paid by the State to assist students who found, for geographical reasons, that they were in difficulties in regard to higher education. I am also aware of the commission appointed in 1958, the Separate University Education Commission, and I wish to refer briefly to two of their recommendations. This is what was said about the idea of one large non-White university—

Sir, does this justify the expense to which the taxpayers have been put? We are now faced with three Bantu ethnic university colleges, and I am willing to wager that the language medium of instruction is either English or Afrikaans, in which case there would be no language difficulty. But I wish to quote an example which to my mind completely refutes the opinions expressed by this commission. I want to take the medical school of the University of Natal in Durban, founded in 1951 and still functioning very satisfactorily. For the first few years figures were not available but from 1957 onwards we find that the enrolment at the medical school in Durban was 935 Bantu, 948 Asiatics and 134 Coloureds, a total of just over 2,000 students, all working happily together, apparently without any difficulties with regard to culture and different stages of development. During that time the university was proud to be able to produce 150 registered medical practitioners—78 Bantu, 63 Asiatics and 9 Coloureds. As I see it, the indications are that this school will continue to provide the main source of tuition for Bantu and Indians for at least the next 15 to 20 years. But against this we have an example of the ideological extravagance to which I have referred, and here I wish to quote a parallel or kindred profession, that of my own, namely pharmacy. We find that in the Republic we have 453 White pharmacy students who are being educated at two universities and several technical colleges. We have 81 non-Whites, comprised of Coloured, Indian and Bantu, being educated at three university colleges. If we take a break-down of all three races we find that in the first year courses there are 57; in the second year there are 12 and in the third year there are two students, among three university colleges. Sir, I believe it is difficult to assess the wastage that this involves and I believe it is something which requires urgent consideration. You see, Sir, it is not likely that the position will improve as far as the Bantu are concerned. There are three university colleges, one of. which is offering tuition in pharmacy for the various ethnic groups. According to the latest figures there were only 106 Bantu matriculants who matriculated in 1965 with mathematics as a subject, and these 106 matriculants will form the whole nucleus for many of the professions for which the Bantu will have to be trained. But this is not the full picture, Sir. The point that the taxpayer has a right to be concerned about is: What is happening to education for the White people? I believe that as a result of this ideological extravagance, the White university students are labouring under certain disadvantages and handicaps. But the strange position in regard to this situation is, despite the fact that we have five ethnic universities, we have 1,160 non-White students enrolled at the White universities in South Africa: 300 Coloureds, 721 Indians and 147 Bantu. What about their language, their traditions, their culture, their stage of development? In the five ethnic university colleges the total enrolment is 2,800 as against 1,160 non-White students at White universities. The effect of the establishment of Ethnic Universities on White education has been that there has been a brain-drain of lecturers to the non-White university colleges to the detriment of the efficient functioning of the White universities.