Mr. Speaker, during the past few days I have listened attentively to hon. members on the Opposition side of the House and at this stage I can say with every conviction that the Budget which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance remains unshaken. He set out the objective of his Budget as being fourfold. He pointed out that the Republic must be placed in a position to resist economic and military pressure from outside. He pointed out that we must strive for the protection of the rand; that we must strive for the continued growth of our economy, and that we must help our underprivileged people as far as we can. All that the entire argumentation of hon. members on the Opposition side actually amounted to was that they tried to prove that this Government was no longer taking care of the man in the street.

The question is:. Who is the man in the street? Is it the civil servant, is it the railwayman, is it the clerk, or is it the pensioner? Our next question is: Have considerable salary increases not been granted by the Government at regular intervals and after thorough consideration, and are these things not being reflected in this Budget? Of what avail would salary increases have been to the man in the street if the Government had allowed the value of the rand he was earning to be eaten away by inflation erosion? That is why this Budget serves, in particular, to protect the man in the street by protecting the value of the rand, of the money he earns. The purport of the entire Budget was simple and clear: Save more and spend less.

It is the man in the street who is being affected the most. His rand is being protected and his country is being protected—protected against military pressure from outside and against economic pressure. If the hon. the Minister comes forward with various measures to encourage our population to save more and spend less, we shall in the very process strengthen our economy by building up a bulwark of reserves which will in future be able to offer much stronger resistance to possible economic pressure from outside. It has always been the endeavour of the National Party Government to make our economy as strong and as independent as possible. We have had many examples of that. All of us in this House have on many occasions heard hon. members on the Opposition side say that the hon. the Minister of Finance was taking too much money from the public and that his surpluses were too large. But what has the hon. the Minister of Finance done with those surpluses time and again? He did what he has also done this year; he transferred them to our Loan Account. In other words, we have all contributed to strengthening our loan capital, in order to finance our expansions ourselves. By that means we were steadily building up an independent and strong economy. What criticism do hon. members on that side have against this sustained policy and aim of the Government? What would a republic have meant to us if it had not been a republic which could stand on strong economic legs?

It is also the aim of the hon. the Minister and of the Government to, as he put it, continually encourage and plan for economic growth. His aim is not to bring economic growth to a standstill now, but to plan and encourage it within the limits of our country’s available manpower, and that is really one of the important points with which he is concerned, i.e. that we will plan our economic growth so as to let it develop and progress within the limits of our manpower. I hope that hon. members will at least understand and accept this simple point.

The fourth aim is very clear—and we are grateful for that—it is that the Government is continuing to assist and to care for our underprivileged people, to an amount of R107,152,000. And then hon. members stand up here and ask: What is the Government doing for the man in the street? Let me tell the hon. members on that side that the man in the street is an intelligent person and he is intelligent as far as political matters go.

This has been proved in election after election since 1948, and, what is more, the man in the street also comprehends the aim and purpose of this Budget as it has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The man in the street knows a good government when it sees one and is able to understand its aims. But for the purpose of my argument let us consider the Opposition for a moment. They did not draw up any budget but they did on occasion state certain points of view and pleaded for certain actions from which we will have to deduce what kind of Budget they would have drawn up and what kind of economic progress or chaos they would have created in the country. I want to refer here to the crisis in Rhodesia and the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. He said—

“Justified in taking risks”.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member should not be so quick to say “hear, hear”. What were these risks? He did not specify them. He did not say how far we should go, but he pleaded for this Government to enter that crisis. He pleaded that the Government should even be willing to run certain risks. Could we improve our relationships with Rhodesia by running certain risks? I would say that that was hardly likely; there was little chance of us being able to improve our relationship with Rhodesia, but we would certainly run the risk of becoming involved in a struggle and an issue between Britain and Rhodesia; we would certainly have run the risk of becoming involved in trade sanctions against Rhodesia. Our trade with Great Britain, could in other words, certainly be adversely affected. We would certainly be running the risk of becoming involved in an oil boycott. We all know, or we ought to know, that there are important bodies in the United States who are working for stronger action on the part of the United States against the Republic of South Africa, particularly with regard to the race policy of the Republic, and those people are seeking a suitable opportunity.

If we interfered in the Rhodesia crisis, if we ran risks there, would we not also run the risk of affording those people the opportunity which they have been seeking, to intervene and to institute trade sanctions against South Africa? By injudicious action at least 50 per cent of the Republic’s trade could become involved in such a situation. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated that we should have been willing to run risks. Why should we have run risks if there was a safe solution, if there was a clear-cut policy, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated on more than one occasion, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, non-interference in a struggle which was a British-Rhodesian struggle. I am saying here to-day that time has shown that the South African Government adopted a clear, a correct and a strong attitude in regard to that matter. We are able to-day to view this matter with a little more perspective.

Mr. Speaker, let us now consider another frontbencher on that side; let us examine a statement which was made by a sort of assistant-deputy leader of the United Party. I quote from what he said in 1962.

He acknowledges that we are right in that respect at least—

Yes, one recognizes that language, Mr. Speaker. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. While this matter was before the World Court and while it was accepted that in South Africa, particularly in responsible circles and particularly in this House, as little as possible should be said about the matter, he, who can reach such theatrical heights, took the liberty and arrogated to himself the wisdom of making such a statement, not only in order to ridicule the Government as regards the way in which this matter was approached, but also in order, as he put it, to drag in a number of the usual passions. One could almost have said that it was a representative from Ghana or one of the other Africa states who spoke those words on that occasion. When I look at the Opposition my question is this: What would they have done with this important matter, a matter which was of vital importance for South Africa? We humbly accept the finding; we have nothing to boast about, but we have a great deal to be thankful for, and we are certainly also very grateful that it was not that Party and its Leader who had to act for South Africa in this case. They have been left behind in the struggle for survival of the Republic and its development. They were left behind more than five years ago when they were still working, striving and voting for the retention of a monarchy. There is an old tale of a man and his family who lived in a sinful town, and who received a Divine warning that they must flee that city. They hesitated, however, and those messengers ultimately led them from that city—lead them out by force—and said to them: “Flee, do not look back.” But the wife of that man did look back and she became a pillar of salt along the road. Mr. Speaker, if I consider the United Party’s political views, then I say to-day that it has been left behind along the road. It can no longer give the lead in political and economic affairs in South Africa; it has become a political pillar of salt. We on the other hand look to the future. Where the United Party stands with its back to the future, we look to the future and to the realization of even greater ideals and to the development of a strong and a powerful Republic of South Africa. That is why I say that the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance is a good one.

One new member after the other admitted in this House that a maiden speech was a difficult matter because we are not being allowed to be contentious, but what is contentious and what is not contentious occasionally becomes in itself a contentious question. However, there is clarity in regard to one matter. There is one matter which can in no way be contentious, except of course for the enemies of South Africa, and that is what a particular privilege it is for a true South African to be able to represent in this House a territory of the fatherland, a constituency of the Republic of South Africa, and I freely confess that it is my particular pleasure to serve the Odendaalsrus constituency here to the best of my humble ability. When I use the word constituency in a Budget debate, I think immediately of my voters who also have to sit down to the Budget dish which the hon. the Minister of Finance has placed before us. It is the hon. the Minister’s right and duty to arrange the menu and to flavour the dishes according to his taste and according to the requirements of the occasion.

With sour porridge.

I trust that I shall be allowed to deliver my maiden speech unaided. On a later occasion I shall welcome interjections. Mr. Speaker, it would be contentious to offer the hon. the Minister recipes, but in all due deference I want to associate myself with three of the ingredients which appeared prominently on the Budget menu. Since we are at present considering the national Budget, there are, inter alia, three factors which are of particular importance for our national economy and for the Budget, namely productivity, achievement, and potential. It is the task of the hon. the Minister and the Government to measure the Republic of South Africa by these and other standards and to determine the policy. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, on a much more humble level to measure and emphasize in this House the contribution of my constituency to the economic structure of our country in terms of its productivity, its achievements and its potentials, because the national Budget and the fiscal policy of the Government are indeed intimately linked to the contributions of the constituencies which we represent here. In our judgement of the national economy we must let the emphasis fall not only on requirements, but also on contributions. We must not merely ask, we must also give, because I believe that the treasury does not only take, it also rewards according to merit. I therefore do not want to plead for the impossible in the present circumstances, but what I do want to do is to underline the positive contributions of my constituency and my region. With reference to the three factors of productivity, achievement and potential, it is with humble pride that I shall set out these contributions under the respective heads. It is not necessary for me to boast, Sir, because the bare facts are more eloquent than any argument.

In the first place I want to draw your attention to agriculture. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the four magisterial districts which go to make up my constituency, namely Vredefort, Viljoenskroon, Bothaville and Odendaalsrus are situated in the heart of the maize triangle. The latest estimates of the harvest for the present season for the entire Republic is 55,600,000 bags. Of this total these four magisterial districts, according to official surveys, contributed 10.4 per cent of the Republic’s total yield. That is more than one tenth of the staple food of a very large part of the Republic. This constituency made a remarkable contribution in respect of groundnuts as well. The latest statement for the groundnut crop for the present season is 136,200 tons. In this case too the yield of my constituency was more than 10 per cent of the total. I do not want to bore you with further statistics, Mr. Speaker, but to the above-mentioned achievements must be added a considerable contribution through the production of sorghum, beef and mutton, dairy products and tobacco.

In the second place I want to draw your attention to mining. As appears from the latest presidential speech in June this year of the President of the Transvaal and Free State Chamber of Mines, South Africa produced 73 per cent of the gold production in the free world. My constituency forms part of the Free State goldfield complex which yielded no less than 35.63 per cent of the total South African gold production. In the opening address by the State President at the beginning of this Session the latest gold-mining development in the Republic was referred to, and that took place south of the Vaal River. Over the radio and in the newspapers there have been further reports about this development in the past few weeks, and what was referred to inter alia was the supplementary potential for the production of uranium. This development is taking place in my constituency in the Viljoenskroon district in the vicinity of Vierfontein. The mines of the Free State gold fields also make a considerable contribution to the Republic’s uranium production. For understandable reasons the figures of this production are not freely available, but the significance of this mineral for the future of our country must grip the imagination. I believe that it will not be long before this mineral, in its peace time application, will become a key factor in our domestic economic structure as well. Mr. Speaker if you suspect me of dreaming dreams and seeing visions, then at least I am in very good company. In his latest presidential speech the President of the Chamber of Mines stated the following in regard to uranium—

The rapid development of science and technology can only result in our country, as a foremost uranium producer, moving in this direction as well. But, Mr. Speaker, the North-Western Free State is not limited to the production of gold, uranium and maize. In addition to other mineral deposits, which have not yet been fully explored, it also has extensive coal reserves at its disposal. The coal mine at Vierfontein feeds one of the largest power stations in South Africa there, a power station which supplies 7 per cent of the total power generated by Escom in the Republic. But this coal is not only suitable for power stations. I understand that it is of the right kind and quality for the manufacturing of petrol from coal. As far as I am concerned there is no doubt about where a second Sasol should be erected in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to water in the Republic we also have a say. My constituency is bounded by no less than 161 miles of the Free State bank of the Vaal River, a fact which speaks for itself. Also on the Free State bank is situated the Balkfontein waterworks, the key to the water supply of the Free State goldfields as well as of several Free State towns.

But, Mr. Speaker, all these remarkable achievements in all these fields have not fallen like manna out of heaven. These achievements have been made possible by the policy of the authorities, and they have been accomplished by people, my people, my voters. They have been accomplished by tough, hardworking. dynamic and progressive farmers who have, with their skill and grounding converted that part of the world into one of the most stable food granaries in our country, and that in spite of serious droughts and other farming setbacks. They are people over whose interests you and I together must guard in this House. These achievements were accomplished by miners, both in gold and coal mines, men who have given and are still giving the best of their powers, who have endangered their health, who mine the mineral wealth of the Republic deep under its soil to the advantage of the economy of this country. The working conditions and health of these men can only continue to receive the sympathetic attention of the Government and of this House. These achievements, Mr. Speaker, were accomplished by men operating the power stations and the waterworks, those working in the factories, and by those in the private sector and the officialdom in all its facets, as well as by those local authorities which are wide awake and alert, and are planning conscious.

Where I have given you a brief idea of the production capacity, the achievements and potential of this area, I must add that that is not enough. A fourth factor is indispensable for the future, namely planned development, and I emphasize the word planned. This presupposes as a primary prerequisite two further essential components: stability and balance. We are aware, Sir, that the life of a mine is unfortunately not unlimited and that in developing areas it must gradually be replaced by other industries. The constituency and the region which I am talking about now is not asking that it be given that which belongs to other people, but it is asking that it be granted that which is its due, so as to ensure its future. In the light of the accepted and stated policy of the Government in respect of the decentralization of industries, I am convinced that the north-western Free State, this gold-mining region, can with justification apply to be taken into consideration in this pattern. One finds here a reasonably well-developed infrastructure of road and rail communications, of schools, hospitals and planned town establishment. We have made great progress in this field and we have made an exceptionally large contribution in this regard. Much capital, inter alia, in regard to town establishment, has been invested in this development pattern. These capital investments and this established population are asking that their future be ensured by stable, balanced development. It requires both short-term and long-term planning in both the physical and the economical fields. As far as that matter is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have not remained static either. Under the guidance of the Free State Provincial Administration, in collaboration with the Natural Resources Development Board, the Chamber of Mines, the Universities of the Free State and Pretoria, a planning survey for the Goldfields and vicinity has been launched by the relevant local authorities, a survey which has made considerable progress and in respect of which the data is at present being correlated before being finally evaluated.

Sir, we have the power, the water, the infrastructure, the production, the capital investment and great potential and most of all the dynamic human material for future planned development. As the economic production pattern varies and changes, these national assets and planned development must be absorbed, inter alia, particularly by suitable industrial establishment in order to ensure stability and balance. I am convinced that the Government is aware of these facts, but I am just as much convinced that it is my calling and duty in this House to underline repeatedly and at the right time and the right place, and along the right channels, these facts, on the basis of productivity, potential and achievement, not only in the interests of that constituency and that region, but also in the interests of the economy of my homeland.

I conclude by pointing out that the hon. the Minister invited us all to accept his menu both monetary and fiscal. My voters are therefore sitting down to the budget dish as invited guests. Sir, they will enjoy all the dishes which the caterer has prepared in the knowledge that under present circumstances it is a balanced and healthy diet for our nation. But, Sir, they are asking just one thing. They are asking that when the main course has been dealt with and we come to the tasty sweets of further planned prosperity, that they will also receive their full portion of that planned development. Because, Sir, we do not rely on speculation, we rely on tested achievement and guaranteed potential. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, who has just made his maiden speech. The hon. member referred to the hon. the Minister’s menu at some length and also to him as a master cook. I wish the hon. member lots of luck, Sir, but I want to tell him that when it comes to cooking, he had better leave it to some of us.

I can think of no less suitable role for the hon. the Minister of Finance to cast himself in, in presenting this Budget this year, than that of a cook, because I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the cooks in the country are after his blood. What is more, the house wives of this country who do most of the cooking—he can take it from me, because I talk to a lot of them—have given him the sack. What is more, if this Government had not set out deliberately, as they did, to fool the country over our financial position before the election, the hon. the Minister would have been given the sack without any notice, and his colleague, the Minister of Railways, would have gone packing with him. I want to say that these two Budgets, presented within a week of each other, the Railway Budget and the other, have got the country absolutely hopping mad. You go and talk to the ordinary people. Over 90 per cent of the taxpaying public of South Africa fall within the R0 to R6,000 a year bracket—the majority of them earning anything between R200 and R300 a month. There are 93,000 people employed on the Railways who earn less than R200 a month and there are 23,000 who earn less than R100 a month in the Railway service. And, Mr. Sneaker, these are White people. There are thousands and thousands more who earn similar salaries in similar occupations. They are on a fixed wage with no capital margin at all and no margin for emergencies. How does the hon. the Minister imagine that families with three or four children can provide for them on a salary of less than R200 or less than R100 a month? And there are thousands of White people in South Africa who are trying to do just that at the present time, with all these extra burdens placed upon them.

With regard to pensioners, the hon. the Minister had several friendly and kindly remarks to make about pensioners. I wonder if he knows the conditions under which many of them are living in South Africa to-day? It is a disgrace. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there are hundreds of pensioners in South Africa who are going to go hungry as a result of the rise in the cost of living and of the burdens placed upon them by this Budget. It is as bleak and as harsh as that. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to sit there smiling with a Sphinx-like expression on his face. The hard fact is that the basic price of all foodstuffs in South Africa has gone up during the past 12 months, with the exception of bread. And you cannot live on bread alone, as the Scriptures rightly say.

Do not exaggerate.

I have to buy meat and vegetables like every other housewife, and I know what I am talking about. The price of meat has gone up to such an extent, the price of cheap cuts and even offal, that there are hundreds of people who are too poor to have meat more than once a week. The price of fish has gone up, even the cheaper kinds of fish. Milk, which is essential for children, and adults as well, has gone up twice. Butter and cheese have gone up more than once in price. Breakfast oats, bacon, dried and sugar beans, vegetables, including potatoes, fruit, coffee, condensed milk, jam, soap, rice, floor polish—the list is endless. These are the things the ordinary housewife needs day after day. They are essential things. And when it comes to people who are trying to buy their own houses and they have a bond on their house, the mortgage rate has now gone up to 8½ per cent. The hon. the Minister comes and says: We will allow you a longer time in which to pay back the bond. But to what extent is that going to bluff the public? If they have an extra two or three years to pay off their bond. the hon. Minister knows what it means. It means it is going to cost them another R1,000 or R1,500 before they have paid off the bond. That is all it means. And then their children have to be educated as well, and at the same time. And then the rail fares for the city commuters have gone up, bus fares have gone up, coal costs more, petrol costs more. The 5 per cent rebate on income tax has been removed. And when it comes to working married women, which is one of my hobby-horses, as the hon. the Minister knows, under the P.A.Y.E. system married working women pay double the tax of anyone else. How does it assist a family if the married woman goes out to work in order to improve the position, if she has to pay this high taxation?

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had the effrontery, last year, I think it was, to tell us to have another baby a year for the sake of the Republic. I wonder what his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, thinks about that, when he includes babies’ prams, refrigerators and toys in his list of “luxury” goods to be taxed under this Budget. Does the hon. the Minister expect us to carry our babies about on our backs while he takes his baby home in the Cadillac in which he drives around?

Here in the Western Cape, the position is that the production costs of many manufactured goods will go up as a result of these new impositions and clothing and other essential things will go up too. Shoe repairs are up already, haircuts also.

As to the non-Whites, Heaven knows what will happen to them, for a large proportion of them—go to the medical officers and they will tell you—both in the urban and rural areas already live below the poverty datum line.

It is certainly true to say that our sociological problems are receiving far less attention from the Government than the ideological issues which continue to motivate them, as is apparent from this Budget. You see, Sir, these sociological problems present South Africa with a series of realities that are so harsh that most of us shrink from facing them at all. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) will agree with me when I say that only those people leading dedicated lives, people whose job it is to work, day in and day out, with the poor, the sick, the underprivileged, the ignorant, the delinquents, or the common criminals, have any conception of the enormity of the task that faces us in the sociological sense in South Africa to-day. And some of these sociological problems demand an answer from us with an urgency that makes all other arguments about political rights pale into insignificance. Yet there is less money, less time, and there are fewer personnel, allocated to the solution of this type of problem than the Government is devoting to projects of an ideological kind.

I want to deal particularly to-day with our Coloured community. I think it is a tragic fact that the Coloureds in South Africa today are rapidly becoming a lost community. They are being steadily cut off from our society, the society from which they themselves originally stemmed, at least in part. For all the talk—and I know that real attempts have been made—to apply a programme of socio-economic uplift to these people—the standards of the Coloured people generally (I am not referring now to the small more fortunate elite at the top, but to the mass of the people) are deteriorating steadily. This is something we cannot afford to ignore. The Coloured people in South Africa are God’s step-children at the present time. For them there is no cohesive pattern of living at all, no one simple stabilizing factor in the socio, economic or political sense. One might almost say no stabilizing factor even in the religious sense, for what percentage of the Coloured people are reached or disciplined by the Christian churches to-day? The one community with whom they have the greatest affinity, namely our own, has rejected them out of hand, thanks to the policies of this Government.

The only cohesive element these people ever knew was their official link with us as part of the Western group in South Africa. It is a serious thing to say, but I say it advisedly, that there is a considerable body of evidence to prove that the social structure of the Coloured community—the Coloured family in particular, battered, harassed, insulted, and in many cases uprooted and discriminated against, is in the very deepest trouble. And when I say “deepest trouble” I speak with the utmost sincerity. Because whilst many young Coloureds are moving ahead (that is quite correct) to unprecedented levels of achievement, many, many more are falling further and further behind. In fact, we are witnessing a massive deterioration, particularly in the towns, of the whole fabric of Coloured society and its institutions. I have only to remind hon. members of the appallingly high rate of alcoholism, drug addiction, vandalism, illegitimacy, fecklessness, violence and assault, which characterises this element of our society to a frightening degree.

And, at the heart of this deterioration in the fabric of Coloured society, lies the Coloured family itself. The family is the basic social unit of Western society. I would say on analysis that the Coloured community to-day is in the process of division between a stable and a middle-class group, which is steadily growing stronger and more successful—we accept that—and an increasingly disorganized, irresponsible, rootless lower-class, which represents the masses of the Coloured people, whose birth rate is higher than any other population group in the world to-day.

We have the habit, when discussing the Coloured people in this House, of thinking of them only in terms of the better class element, about whom we have a good deal to say when we talk about them here, but we forget the extent to which the rot has set in amongst the lower classes, which are very much greater in numbers.

What I want to warn this House about is that this is a very serious matter indeed. Generations of Coloured children are growing up in our congested urban areas, to which the majority of our Coloured people have now been attracted, and the burden of dealing with these unfortunate youngsters must fall increasingly upon our welfare agencies and the State. I want to ask the hon. the Minister just how much provision has been made in this Budget to deal with situations of this kind. It is an extremely urgent matter, something which has to be dealt with as soon as possible. I am not going to talk about the political side of it, because that is not really my object today. I want to seal more with the sociological side. A minority of Coloured people have reached the top, the better class Coloured person. They have apparently reached some degree of equality with the Europeans. At least many of them have done so educationally. When they get to the top, what do they find? They find the same old prejudices, humiliations and discriminations still directed at them, the old built-in prejudices. Their situation, in psychological terms, I would say, is in no way improved, and the hurt, if anything, as the result of all the apartheid laws of this Government, is the greater and the basic discontent becomes ever more profound. In other words, Sir, their emancipation in terms of education, so hardly achieved, has the taste of gall in their mouths, and one cannot blame some of their leaders if they say to-day, in view of the Government’s plans for their development: “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

This is the problem with which we are faced. Before I sit down, however, I want to give the House a few figures to show some of the difficulties involved in dealing for instance with the community in Cape Town and this part of my province. Mr. Speaker, the number of Coloureds in Cape Town outnumber the Whites to-day by 213,000. I wonder how many hon. members know that? The family structure of the lower-class Coloured people is so unstable that in the urban areas it is in a state of almost complete break-down. I do not need to tell you about the birth-rate. The birth-rate for Whites in the municipal area of Cape Town for 1964 was 18.7, and the birth-rate for Coloureds 41.7. The illegitimacy rate amongst the Coloureds is so high that here in the Cape Town municipal area, 27 per cent of all live Coloured births in the year 1964 were illegitimate. And what happens to these children? This is something in regard to which I think the State has to assist. The volume of work involved in the administration of maintenance orders and the investigation of cases of non-support literally threatens to engulf our magistrates courts to-day. The figures for assault, criminal convictions, and dagga smoking amongst the Coloured community are quite fantastic when compared with the ratio of Coloured people to the rest of the community. The thing that alarms me about all this are the children. Some of them are cared for a few weeks in institutions. The State pays R8.50 a month to foster parents. But this is not adequate. No-one will take on a child at R8.50 a month to-day, with the cost of living being what it is. What we need desperately is money for research to investigate these sociological problems, see where the evil lies and what can be done in a practical sense. If the hon. the Minister were to introduce compulsory schooling for three or four years for the Coloured children in the urban areas, he would be doing more for the Coloured community than all the Coloured representative councils in the world. The important thing is that the emphasis is on the wrong thing.

The Coloured people are riddled with disease. The death rate of Coloured infants is appalling. I just want to finish by quoting to hon. members the death rate of Coloured infants under one year of age per 1,000 live births in the municipal area of Cape Town. In 1960 it was 74.4 per 1,000 live births; in 1961 it was 71.9; in 1962 it came down to 66.1; in 1963 it was 73.8 and in 1964 it was 65.1 per 1,000 live births. Mr. Speaker, the percentage of non-White deaths as far as children under one year of age is concerned, is eight times greater than that for Whites. Deaths for the year 1964 of children under five years of age in the White community constituted 3.9 per cent of all deaths in the White community and in respect of the Coloured community for the same year it was 33.7 per cent of all deaths in the Coloured community. The figures are fantastic.

Tuberculosis has for many years ravaged the Coloured people. Nutritional deficiency diseases, like kwashiokor and gastro-enteritis, which is related to malnutrition—if I were to give hon. members those figures, it will make their hair stand on end. This is a terribly serious problem, and I would say that it is infinitely more important to deal with these problems than to deal with the more grandiose aspects of socio-economic uplift which the Minister has put forward and which cannot be adequately tackled until the basic problems are considered. Neither do I find any provision for dealing with these matters in this Budget. Sir, I would like to say in conclusion that something must be done in regard to the Coloured community in a sociological sense. We must assist them, and the State will have to step in and take a hand, unless we want to see the position deteriorating still further. I often ask myself to what extent this problem is already out of control.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the allegations just made by the hon. member for Wynberg, I just want to refer to a speech which the hon. member made in this House during the Censure Motion. Her subject on that occasion was an accusation against the Government that the Government was supposedly responsible for a whole series of supposed misunderstandings and un-pleasantries which allegedly existed between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. In that debate she also made certain references to my person, which I just want to quote. To begin with, she stated that we were afraid of consultations and that we were continually bringing about separation between the two groups by divorcing the two groups from one another. She then made the following statement—

I now want to pay the hon. member a little compliment. The hon. member and her liberalist friends are very fond of talking about political adulthood and political maturity. Now I know that a lady likes to be considered young, and in that case I want to say to her: If I consider that speech which she made then and the speech she made to-day, then I must pay her the compliment of saying that politically she is certainly nothing more than a young girl. And if she is not that, then we can accuse her of being an extremely able political opportunist who does not hesitate for a moment to drive a wedge between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking communities in order by so doing to gain a small measure of political advantage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I think that is one of the most un-forgiveable things which any politician in South Africa in these times can do, i.e. to drive a wedge between the two White language groups in our country. It is an offence for which this nation will never forgive them.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member adopted the attitude that the National Party had in the past estranged the English-speaking group from them and that the people of South Africa were not yet politically of age, were not yet politically mature. Sir, the latest election has proved to our country that South Africa has become politically mature. South Africa has reached a stage of political maturity, Mr. Speaker, and I maintain that because we have been freed in this country of the idea that we must vote on the basis of English-speaking people against Afrikaans-speaking people. We have reached political maturity in that sense that we have become aware that there are basic problems in South Africa, but that there are also certain basic facts in our country which we must acknowledge and must take into account. I want to say that the first basic fact which the people of South Africa must accept is that there is in South Africa a White nation which consists mainly of two language and cultural groups. Before that basic fact is accepted we can never obtain in our country that political solidarity which we so earnestly desire. In the first place we have in our country the English cultural group.

Basically we must accent that in this country one nation is made up of two language groups. In the first place there is the English-language group. a group with their old Western culture and language. Through this language, a language which I as an Afrikaans-speaking person regard as an asset to this country, we obtain admittance to the English culture, to the international business world and to many other fields as well. We regard this language, a language which is laid down in our constitution as being one of the languages of the Republic, as an asset to our Republic. Next to that, however, there is also the Afrikaans language which originated in South Africa and for which great sacrifices were made. It is a language which sprang from our soil and is one of which we, English speaking as well as Afrikaans speaking, ought to be proud. We should not continually be trying to make political capital out of that fact. To do so is both reprehensible and unforgiveable. I shall return to this aspect later. I say therefore that the first basic fact which we in South Africa must accept, is that we have in this country two language, and two cultural groups.

The second basic fact which we must accept is that the White people of South Africa cannot afford to allow themselves to be divided into those two language groups in the field of politics. On this continent of Africa there are approximately 3,250,000 Whites and they must maintain their position against an unsympathetic Black continent which, with a cry of uhuru, wants to claim Africa solely for the Black man. That is why it has become essential that Afrikaans-and English-speaking Whites in South Africa should grasp hands so that we can solve our problems and resist these attacks on us, unjustified attacks, as a united nation. That is why I say to these hon. members that the people of South Africa will find it very difficult to forgive them for their political opportunism and for their continual attempts to drive a political wedge between the Afrikaans-and the English-speaking people. We live together in this country and we acknowledge that we are two basic cultural groups. My neighbour and I live next to each other, we belong to the same community, to the same associations and perhaps even to the same church, but my household remains my own, and my distinctive individuality must be respected. There is an intimate bond which binds us together. In this way there are cultural bonds and we must respect each other’s culture. We must respect the other culture group and not try to convert the cultural differences which exist in South Africa into a political bone of contention. The hon. member was continually stating in an accusing tone how unfriendly we as Afrikaans speaking, and in particular the National Party, are towards the English-speaking people. I say to her that the people of South Africa will remember what she has said at the next election. It will all contribute towards making of that party on the opposite side an even greater nonentity than it already is.

The hon. member had a new story to tell us to-day. She came along here and spoke about the position of the Coloureds. I have already told her that, politically-speaking, she is a young girl, but as far as the position of the Coloureds is concerned I also want to tell her that she is remotely related to Rip van Winkel. She is living in a previous century. Is she aware of what has been done in the past ten years for the social and economic upliftment of the Coloureds? Or has she never heard of what has been done? But she entered this debate and had the temerity to accuse the Government that here we had a forgotten people. She said, “they are being rejected”. She said they are being discarded. As far as we are concerned the Coloured group has never been a part of the White group and if that hon. member is pleading for integration, then she must please stand up and say so. We regard the Coloured group as a separate group in South Africa, a group for which we are prepared to do everything possible to elevate them, and to give them everything which could possibly be given them. But we do not regard them as being a part of the White group. When someone asked the hon. member’s leader whether it was possible, in terms of his policy, for a Coloured to become Prime Minister of South Africa, he said that it was improbable, but not impossible. If the hon. member takes exception to the fact that a thing like that cannot happen under our policy, then we are proud of our policy and we go forward with our heads held high and say that that is not our policy. But to come along and make the accusation in this House that the Coloureds are being neglected …

I said nothing about politics.

If you were referring then to their economic upliftment, it would have done you good to have accompanied the hon. the Minister recently on his journey through the Coloured reserves in Namaqualand. You would then have heard the words of praise and gratitude which the Coloureds addressed to the hon. the Minister. I was present. On one occasion one of the leading Coloureds rose to his feet and said that he just wanted to express his sincere thanks for the way in which the Coloureds today were being lifted out of the mud and for the opportunities which were being created in an economic field for the Coloureds. That expression of thanks was typical of what we experienced throughout our journey. But now an hon. member of this House comes along and accuses the Government, after all those things which have been done, of neglecting the Coloured group, and states that they are now a rejected group and should be left to go to rack and ruin. If that speech had been made in the United Nations, I could still have been able to understand it. But it is a speech which was delivered in this House by a hon. member of the Opposition. I think it is nothing less than disgraceful. If that hon. member wanted to talk about the Coloureds, why did she not acquaint herself with what is in fact being done for the Coloureds? That member should not merely agree to everything which the liberalists in South Africa are declaiming. She should first determine what is actually being done. Millions of rand annually are being applied for the economic and social upliftment of the Coloureds. They are obtaining opportunities to-day which they did not have under the old régime. Then they were being exploited politically and used as a political football. We have said that we want to make an asset of this population group, an asset for South Africa. We do not want to talk about a Coloured problem, but about the Coloureds as a human asset for South Africa.

That then is my reply to that hon. member. My time has almost elapsed, but before I resume my seat, I want to say a few words about the Budget as such. Hon. members on the opposite side complained here about the poor man who was supposedly no longer the friend of the Government, and much worse, about the Government which was supposedly no longer the friend of the poor man. If all the people who voted for the National Party during the past election, were rich people, South Africa should be a tremendously rich country.

If they had known what was coming, they would have voted differently.

That hon. member has prophesied on many occasions, but he has always been wrong. In fact, if has always been the very opposite which actually happened. Have hon. members on the opposite side forgotten that it was this very Government which raised the standard of living of the working-man? Yet it is those hon. members opposite who come along and say that it is no longer possible for the man in the street to-day to maintain a standard of living which keeps him above the breadline. But do they want to deny that the standard of living of all groups in South Africa has risen? Are they prepared to deny that? Are they prepared to deny that standards of living in this country have increased tremendously? Yet the hon. member for Wynberg comes along here and makes the irresponsible statement that people are being compelled to-day to live below the breadline. The Government is being accused that the public sector of our economy is spending too much, but the greatest part of that expenditure is on defence. In view of this, I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to get to their feet in their benches and say that South Africa must spend less on defence. This Party and this Government has always been renowned for being the conservative element in the political life and domestic affairs of South Africa. That is why the Government cannot at this stage merely let things slide and take their own course. That is why we want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on a Budget which is not only sensible, but also courageous. It is a budget which does not seek for popularity, but a budget in which sound common sense has given the lead. It is a fact that we have a Government which does not run away from the Opposition and do irresponsible things.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my lot to steer the parliamentary ship back to calm waters before hon. members hurt one another’s feelings. I want to use the time which this opportunity affords me to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to have an investigation instituted into the legal aid services in our country, particularly with a view to expanding and improving them. With the continual increase in cost of living over the past number of years, not only locally but also in overseas countries, the necessity of legal aid services has become very real. I can give this hon. House the assurance that nations all over the world, in the Western world in any case, are engaged on streamlining and improving these services, and where there are no such services, instituting them. Yesterday I received legislation from Toronto which indicates what they propose to do there in this connection. The General Bar Council of South Africa also decided at one of its recent meetings to approach the hon. the Minister in this connection. The Association of Provincial Law Societies discussed the entire matter at their congress at Kimberley in May this year.

As regards criminal cases, we have a particularly effective and fine service in South Africa in the form of pro deo aid given by the Government to people who cannot afford to pay for their own defence. It has been in existence for many years and I can assure you that this service is operating particularly well. Not only as far as the Bar is concerned but also for the accused. I want to suggest that we should not limit that aid to capital crimes only—those crimes for which a person may receive the death sentence. I want to suggest that we should extend that, aid to the following two cases. In the first place those cases in respect of which a Judge, a regional magistrate or a magistrate certifies that in his opinion the person who is appearing before him as the accused ought to be defended. One finds many cases where people cannot afford to pay for their own defence and where it becomes quite obvious to the presiding officer during the first few minutes of a court case that questions concerning the administration of justice and various problems concerning the law of evidence will arise and that such person ought to be defended. I want to ask that in cases of this kind the presiding officer should have the right to request the Attorney-General for permission to brief lawyers to defend such persons on a pro deo basis. I want to suggest that a further extension may be considered, namely that in cases where the Attorneys-General of the various provinces have certain information from the dossier submitted to them, from the police dossier or from other sources at their disposal, they themselves may brief lawyers to defend those persons who cannot afford to pay for their own defence. I want to tell you that it has come to my attention that an extension of this nature has already been made in the Eastern Cape. Recently, in the past year, there have been some cases in which lawyers were briefed to defend persons charged with crimes with a political background. I have read a letter in the Eastern Cape Herald, in which the correspondent wrote as follows—

I may just mention that I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that extension, and I want to ask him to make a further investigation into the possibilities in that connection and of extending this service to the other provinces. I may just mention in passing that I think that as far as this service is concerned, it must surely leave the critics of this Minister ashamed of themselves.

As regards civil cases, we have the following existing services. We have the applications in forma pauperis. That is the case where a person applies to institute civil proceedings and then applies for legal aid in that connection. The drawback of this service is to be found in the fact that it is virtually limited to people who possess absolutely nothing. It is for people who possess less than R50, and the fact that not many such applications reach our courts shows that the service has become somewhat anachronistic. Then we have cases where the legal aid bureaux assist people. The legal aid bureaux have a very long history in South Africa. I do not have the time to go into that now, but suffice it to say that the Secretary for Justice consented round about 1963 that the legal aid bureaux should be accommodated in an office in the magistrates’ courts. They placed an official of the magistrates’ courts at the disposal of the bureaux and also made the chairman of the bureau the chief magistrate. The problem as far as I can see is of a dual nature. In the first place the profession virtually bears the entire financial burden of the legal aid bureaux. One finds that attorneys place their names on a panel and when an application is considered and granted a certain attorney is instructed to render the services. He in turn appoints the counsel and the service is rendered completely free of charge. You yourself will understand that under present-day circumstances it is virtually an impossible task for the profession to undertake this ever-growing service free of charge. That is one of the major problems of the bureaux.

The other problem is that the bureaux, like the in forma pauperis cases, have also been established for people who possess virtually nothing. I want to suggest that the possibility of extending this to people in the middle income group should be investigated. The majority of the people living in my constituency fall into this category. In my constituency I have public servants who approximately earn from R150 to R200 per month and I want to tell you that a person who earns that amount can hardly afford, due to the fact that the cost of litigation is so high, to have his rights tested in a court of law if he has to run the risk of losing his case. I want to quote a few examples of cost accounts.

I have made extracts from cost accounts in the Transvaal Supreme Court. All the figures I quote are actual taxed party and party cost accounts. In case No. 2503/65, a third-party case, the person who lost the case was taxed with an account of R911. If one assumes that this person had a legal team to assist him then he also had to pay his own people R911 as well as the person who won the case and then there would still have been additional expenditure we call attorney and client fees. I have calculated his risk to be in the vicinity of R2,050. In case No. 607/64 I have calculated the risk at R1,919. I have gone through other cases and I have found a risk amounting to R1,082 and in another case the risk amounted to R4,150. I am unable to draw any scientific conclusion from this because many factors contribute to costs in a court case. One simply cannot arrive at conclusive figures, and I must say that the costs in the magistrates’ courts are much lower, of course, than those I have quoted here.

Now the question is whether these costs can be reduced in some degree, and I want to say immediately that in my humble opinion the fault is not to be found with the attorneys. The figures which I have quoted are figures laid down in the tariff of fees for attorneys published in Government Notice No. 2835 of 12th December, 1952. Since 1952 up to the present time—and one of these cases was heard in 1965—there has been no increase in the tariff of fees for attorneys. You may ask whether the fact that counsel as well as attorneys are employed is not to blame, in other words that we have the so-called dual Bar system. I do not have the time at my disposal to try to convince this House that we should not interfere with the dual Bar system. Suffice it to say that it is a proven system which has recently been put to the test in the World Court at The Hague where counsel from our system came up against counsel from the one Bar system—the American system, which is always held up to us as the ideal one—and I want to say that in my opinion our representatives did not compare unfavourably with the American counsel. However, the question of the de facto position of the cost of litigation remains; the question how a person who falls into the middle income group can risk instituting legal proceedings, and now I am speaking from personal experience.

I know for a fact that persons in this income group do one of three things. He asks his lawyers what the costs are likely to be if he should lose the case, and upon learning that he abandons his reputed right. This happens fairly often. The second possibility is that he settles his case before it comes to court and sometimes he does so at a financial loss to himself, especially if his opponent is powerful financially as in the case of an insurance company. This also happens fairly often. The third possibility open to such a person is to take the law into his own hands where right of ownership is concerned. One finds the case where a person says: “That thing belongs to me,” and takes possession of it under the very dubious motto of “possession is nine points of the law”. That for instance happened in the case of Grey ling v. Estate Pretorius in 1947. In that case a person went to a farm which he alleged was his farm, simply chased the people on the farm into a small room, locked the door and threatened them and took possession of the farm and all goods. The case was heard by the late Justice Price and hon. members who knew that Judge will know how it happened that he wrote the classic exposition I now want to read to you. He said that people were not allowed to take the law into their own hands because if that should happen—

That remains a problem and consequently I am of the opinion that it is essential to give attention to this problem. I am of the opinion that it will be possible for a commission of inquiry to inquire into the possibility of making a certain amount of money available, to be administered by the provincial law societies on such a basis that people may apply for financial assistance in order to test their rights in a court of law.

The consideration of whether assistance should be rendered, may be left in the hands of a committee which must have wide discretionary powers. The committee may, for instance, decide to render assistance of 50 per cent or 100 per cent or merely to grant a loan. That which has to be paid, can then be borne jointly by the profession and the Government. To those of us who are inspired with the ideal of developing our country into a model Republic in the comity of nations, a social service such as this would be a mile-stone in the administration of justice in our country. I need not point out to you, because you are aware of the fact, that the hon. the Minister of Justice has erected mile-stones for us before. I am thinking of his Children’s Act, for instance. This service will also assist in proving to the outside world how highly we in South Africa regard the rights of individuals, and how essential we deem it that the courts of law in our country should function for all our citizens.

I am pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Prinshof on his maiden speech in this House. We all listened to his speech with interest and we noted that he spoke with conviction on a matter with which he was familiar and which he had studied, and we feel that we can depend upon his making many interesting and valuable contributions to the discussions of this House in the future. We wish him every success in his parliamentary career.

I wish that I could have followed the hon. member for Namaqualand, but he made it a bit difficult for me, because he tried to continue the debate on the motion of censure of a fortnight ago with his attack on the hon. member for Wynberg, and it is, of course, a bit difficult to return to the past. However, I want to tell him this. It is with interest that I notice that he spoke so passionately in the interests of our Coloureds. I appreciate that. It seems to me that Namaqualand has such an effect on people, because his predecessor, after he had left this House, tried to return to Parliament as a Coloured Representative, and who knows, Sir, whether Namaqualand will not accomplish this again in the case of this hon. member?

We on this side of the House are glad when members on the opposite side intercede for the Coloured population, since those of us who are Afrikaans speaking must realize that there are only two Afrikaans-speaking communities in the entire world—we who are sitting here and the other community is the Cape Coloureds. We ought to be grateful that it is possible to strengthen the Afrikaans idea from the ranks of 1,500,000 people whom we may in the past have failed to appreciate or whom we may have humiliated with speeches such as those made before that of the hon. member for Namaqualand. That may signify a change of heart on the part of our hon. friends opposite, and if that is so we can only react to it with gladness.

But I wish I could be as glad about what he had to say about national unity. I wish we could have more conviction from hon. members on the opposite side when they talk about national unity. I wish we could see them doing something to bring our children together. I fail to see how one can truly strive after national unity by separating the children. I wish we could see more English-speaking people occupying the highest posts in the Public Service under the present Government. Here are so many things that I do not want to take him up on. However, I should like to take him up on the latter part of his speech where he spoke of the man in the street in South Africa and the Government’s concern for that man.

I believe that one of the main reasons for wanting to combat inflation is that inflation is a thief which steals the purchasing power and the standard of living of the ordinary citizen, the man with a fixed income. For that reason all of us are concerned about inflation, and for that reason I also believe that the Government in particular has an exceptional duty to combat inflation in South Africa. That is why we find it so pitiable that in these Budget proposals of the hon. the Minster, the Government itself furnishes so little proof that they, on their part, really want to do something to combat inflation by means of sacrifices on the part of the Government. The only sacrifices asked, are asked of the ordinary citizens of South Africa and there are no sacrifices on the part of the Government.

I think that by this time we are all agreed that one of the most important factors which contributed to inflation and to rising costs, to a surplus of money and too few goods and competent people in South Africa, is the fact that public expenditure has increased so tremendously, particularly since 1960, and that the State, under the guidance of the Minister of Finance, has financed that expenditure in such a peculiar manner. For instance, we see that while the Minister and other members of the Government are appealing strongly to the ordinary citizens and the private sector of the economy to curtail their expenditure, no similar comparable attempt is being made on the part of the Government. On the contrary, according to the Minister’s own admission, the Government is counteracting the sacrifices made by the citizens and the private sector and subverting them by the manner in which they set about it.

The Minister himself told us that during the year which ended on 30th June, 1966, bank credit granted to the private sector dropped by R140,000,000, but he also said that this decline and its effect were counteracted by two factors; one of the factors he himself mentions, is that during the same period the Government borrowed from the banks an extra R243,000,000. In other words, while the ordinary citizen of South Africa is curtailing expenditure and making the sacrifices necessary for combating inflation, the Government is foiling those sacrifices by borrowing short-term credit from the banks amounting to R100,000,000 more than the savings of the private sector. One wonders whether the Government is at all in earnest, because there is nothing which is more directly inflationary that if the Government is in earnest about than financing the expenditure of the Government in this manner. But we should realize combating this demand inflation, everybody has to economize and everybody has to draw in his horns, the Government as well. But this year we once again find that the Loan Estimates from which the Government meets its capital expenditure, and by means of which the Government competes with the private sector for the available labour and material, show an increase of R30,000,000. And that could have been much more; it could have been R90,000,000. But the Minister tells us with considerable complacency that he has succeeded in causing the departments to curtail their demands by R60,000,000. But that is not enough. If this is really a crisis and if it is really necessary for the private sector to make such great sacrifices and to curtail spending to such a tremendous extent, then the State should have set an example,‘ and there are no signs of an example having been set on the part of the State. The private sector does its share, but on the part of the Government there is a dearth of self-discipline.

Are you suggesting that the private sector has reduced its spending?

I say that the private sector accepted what the Minister asked of them, and curbed the rate of progress considerably, but there are no signs of that on the part of the Government. [Interjections.] They slowed down the rate of spending. Surely, that is very clear. They had to do it, because they had no option. And that is the difference. The private sector has no option, because the Minister, through the agencies he controls, can force them to do this. But only the Government itself, can, by self-discipline, force Government bodies and persons to economize. Whenever we raise these matters, the Minister says that we should tell him where he should have economized. He wants the Opposition to tell him specifically where the Government can economize. We have already given part of the answer. We mentioned quite a number of matters where it is clear that economizing is possible. The hon. members for Constantia and Orange Grove and everybody gave examples. But what I fail to understand is that such a question is asked in the first place, because it is a silly question; it is a stupid question. It is a question which testifies to irresponsibility and a frivolous approach to this great problem. The man in the street has to economise, whether he wants to or not. The Government does not ask him how he is going to economize in order to pay the extra money on his beer and petrol and taxes. He simply has to do it. The private sector has to manage with R140,000,000 less credit from the banks. Did the Government prescribe to him how and where he could economize? Is it the duty of the Opposition to do this for the Government? What silliness is this? Were the private businessman, the citizen and the working man consulted as to where he had to economize in order to make the sacrifices required by the Budget? Did the Minister say during his Budget Speech that the family man who has to pay more on this and that, can save here and there? Why then should we prescribe to the Government how to act?

I understand your difficulty.

The man in the street has less credit and has to pay higher taxes, and he has to continue with compulsory economizing at a stage when the value of his money is decreasing and when it is difficult for him to save anything. He has to pay tremendously high interest on his loans, particularly the loan he made on his house which is security for his family. He has to contend with a high cost of living. In the year which ended on 30th June, 1966, the adapted index figure rose by 3.6 per cent, but in the first six months of this year it rose at an annual rate of 5 per cent. The. man in the street has to make all these adjustments. Did the Minister take the trouble to tell the man in the street how to adjust himself? But he expects the Opposition to tell the Government how it should adjust itself and where it can save.

I want to ask the Minister a further question. The Minister boasted that he had induced the State Departments to request R59,000,000 less on Loan Account than originally. When he told them that they should request that R59,000,000 less, did he prescribe in detail to each Department how and where they could save? When the Minister subsequently asked the State Departments to save a further 1 per cent on expenditure, did he prescribe in detail to each Department where they had to save? Why then does the Minister ask the Opposition such silly questions? Life is not like that and circumstances at present require different replies. The circumstances at present simply mean that the Government should have decided that it would cut down on its tremendous expenditure which was out of all proportion to the increase in the national product, and it should have decided how much it had to save; and after it had decided that, it should have placed the onus on each State Department to contribute its share to that economizing, and each State department, in consultation with its own heads, would have had to determine where they could save.

You are wrong. You do not know the Cabinet system. That R95,000,000 was saved in consultation with each Department.

You mean the R59,000,000.

What R95,000,000 is that?

The R59,000,000.

I must say that we have a Cabinet which has very much time. I am sure that the Cabinet can meet and say that this department has to try and save so much and the other so much, but to tell me that they analyse each Vote in detail to see how much can be saved, means that the Cabinet is simply paid to do the work of clerks, the Minister of Finance being the chief clerk. I have slightly more respect for the Cabinet than to believe that story.

You should not betray your ignorance so.

I repeat that I do not believe that that can be the position. But I want to ask the Minister again, when he requested the saving of 1 per cent, did he at the same time send notes to each department explaining to them the manner in which they had to save a rand here and R100 there? Of course not. Why then does the Minister expect the Opposition to do that for the Government? That is my point. [Interjections.] Sir, I should very much like to show the Minister the courtesy which is his due as Minister. Would he please tell me clearly what he is trying to say now?

I merely wanted to help you.

The Minister is doing so splendidly! When I talk about R59,000,000, he makes the mistake of talking about R95,000,000. That helps a lot. He should rather help himself.

Another point to which I want to refer is that this Budget, just as another Budget we had last week, must necessarily also have an effect on prices which, viewed from another angle, is also inflationary. The danger is that the workers, when they find that as a result of the action taken by the Minister their money is buying less and less, will once again come forward with wage demands which can become irresistible in the circumstances, and then we start a new cycle of inflation. It is very interesting to see how many bodies and persons welcomed the hon. the Minister’s Budget, and since I am always fair, I want to point that out. I have here a number of the headings I saw in the Press. Under one of the headings stockbrokers are singing the praises of the Budget—not the man in the street, but brokers. “Petty fuss about sound Budget”, says the Transvaler, and it quotes one person after the other, all of them well-to-do people, representatives of the moneyed people in South Africa, and no representatives of the man in the street or the worker. I read again from the Transvaler: “Minister deserves praise for policy lines”, but who is saying that? The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, and not an Afrikaans trade union. Another heading reads as follows: “Determined effort against inflation”. Who is saying that? The Johannesburg Sake-kamer, not the mineworkers. “Assocom support steps against inflation”. Then I also see other headings, very striking headings. “Trade Unions face pressure from members as rand loses value”. Then I read: “John Citizen must pay, says trade union leaders.” Then I read: “Raised prices result in rising tempers.” That is the reaction of the man in the street, the worker in South Africa.

Will you address a meeting with me on that question at Vereeniging?

I want to quote from the Star what was said by Mr. J. H. Liebenberg, chairman of the Artisan Union of the S.A. Railways, the chairman of one of the largest federations of trade unions in the country, a good authority to quote. He says (translation)—

He issues the warning that it will lead to further demands for higher wages unless all these increases are absorbed by commerce and industry, something the Minister cannot expect. I see that after the Budget the Federation of Salaried Staff Associations has already asked for higher wages and they mention this Budget and the Railway Budget as part of the cause. I see that the Society of Woodworkers already intends to ask for higher wages at once, because, in order to combat inflation, the Minister is asking that the greatest sacrifices should be made by the workers of South Africa, the ordinary citizens of South Africa, people with fixed incomes who are already paying the heaviest fines as a result of the inflation in the country. The hon. member for Parktown has already pointed out that a person who is well-to-do, need not pay extra tax before he virtually earns R50,000 p.a., since he can recover everything once again through the concession allowed him by the Minister, and that is by saving more on pension insurance, by saving more by means of Government stock at the Post Office and by saving more by means of savings accounts. But the man in the street does not have that loop-hole; he cannot afford that; he simply has to pay. I want to mention to you just one example—because I like to be concrete in these matters—of what has been done by the Government since it came to power to force up prices in South Africa in one respect. I am referring to taxes imposed by this Government on items such as petrol and allied products connected with motor transport in South Africa. We all know that increases in the price of petrol and in the price of transport have a direct effect on production costs throughout the economy of South Africa. I want to mention the fact that this Government has reduced the duty on these commodities on three occasions. In 1954-5 the excise duty on tyres was reduced by R2,000,000. In 1956-7 the excise duty on retreaded tyres was reduced by a further R56,000. In 1963-4 the duty on petrol and diesoline was reduced by R5,000,000—all in all approximately R7,700,000, and for that the Government must be given credit. If they had contented themselves with that, we would have praised them to-day. But look at the reverse side of this picture: In 1953-4 the duty on petrol was increased by R7,800,000, on motor cars by R4,200,000, and tyres by R2,000,000; in 1958-9 the duty on motor cars was increased by R6,000,000 and on petrol by R1,200,000. In 1959-60 the duty on diesel oil was increased by R4,000,000 (and even on food, on rice, the duty was increased by R2,000,000). In 1961-2 the duty on motor cars was once again increased by R2,000,000. In 1962-3 the duty on petrol was once again increased by R5,400,000. In 1966-7 the duty on motor cars was increased by R3,400,000 and that on petrol and oil by R4,200,000; all in all R38,000,000 on the transport of the people of South Africa, the major part of which has a direct and immediate effect on the production costs of our industries and other business undertakings in the country. That is the achievement of this Government; that is the extent to which the Government looks after the man in the street with his problems and his price difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, the man in the street is the man whose income is hit hardest by inflation. We all know that inflation means a shift of purchasing-power from that sector of the population with a fixed income to those sectors of the population which are able to unload higher taxes on the eventual consumer. What is the Government doing to accommodate those people? The only thing the man in the street sees in this Budget, is that he is being asked to make all the sacrifices. He is the man who has to pay 2c per pint more on his well-deserved glass of beer; he is the man who has to pay another cent on a tot of strong liquor, if he can afford it. He is the man who will soon have to pay more—because it cannot be prevented—for the cooldrinks of his children; who will have to pay another 5c on a packet of 50 cigarettes; who will have to pay another R40—perhaps a little less, perhaps a little more—if he wants to own a small car; he is the man who will have to pay a further 2c on each gallon of petrol as from the 1st September, thanks to the Minister and the Minister of Railways; who will have to pay more for his children’s toys, more for his stove, more for his refrigerator, more for his washing-machine, more for his golf ball, if he can afford to play golf, more for the dates he eats, more for the mustard he eats with his fish, more for the yeast in his bread, more for the wallpaper on his walls, more for the photographs of his children. I can mention more. It covers three pages in the Minutes of the House of Assembly. Virtually all of these taxes are taxes which are recovered from the man in the street in South Africa. Indirect taxation, such as these taxes, which will increase the cost of production, is not being distributed on a pro rata basis according to the income of the rich man and the poor man. It is disproportionate taxation which is a heavy burden to the less well-to-do man. And that is the policy of this Budget. If one looks through this Budget, one only sees one connection between the various taxes, and that is “kick the small man in the wind”. That is the policy of this Government.

[Inaudible.].

No, that will not happen. But there is one thing I did in fact notice: The Minister is very cautious not to impose taxes on either himself or anything with which he is connected. Yes, that is very striking. I received a shocking letter to-day; I do not want to quote from it, but to me it is a shocking letter. That is the way people are feeling. In this letter a pensioner who is a small shareholder in a certain large brewery is complaining about the discrimination in taxation on the beer of a large factory. He points out that it is not a tax on profits, but a tax on production. He points out who is protected by it, because smaller breweries will not be affected by the tax. He points out who the people are who are to a large extent involved in the liquor trade and who will benefit by this. I want to warn the hon. the Minister: before he talks nonsense, he should tax himself …

If you want to make accusations you must come out into the open with them, not with innuendos.

It is not necessary to make innuendos; everybody knows what I am talking about. I say that it is the man in the street who has to pay. That is the point I want to make and which the hon. the Minister must realize. He does of course realize it, but he hides it from us. It is the man in the street who has to pay; It is the man in the street who paid when he could not obtain in time a share in the supposed prosperity of South Africa, when he did not obtain his share in the “boom” which, according to the Minister, was planned by him and his Government and which has now become a boomerang. Now that the incompetence of the Government to govern South Africa in times of prosperity has been shown up, now the man in the street has to pay once again by means of the higher prices which are extorted from him to reduce his purchasing-power as a matter of policy. Sir, if there has ever been a government which has been shown up as incompetent and lacking in the qualities to govern a country such as South Africa with its possibilities, then it is this Government.

Why cannot you unseat us then?

Mr. Speaker, Budget day is an important day for any government. It is the day on which the Government is summoned to render account of its stewardship. It is also the day on which the Opposition has the opportunity to bring the Government to book. I do not think they could have made a better choice than the hon. member for Yeoville, for calling the Government to book this afternoon. I had looked forward with great expectations to the attack he would launch here and the points he would bring up but of the great battle that was supposed to break out, I saw nothing. All I saw here was a skirmish. And I cannot blame the hon. member. That reminds me of a cartoon strip I saw years ago, in which a boxer was shown with both eyes blackened by his opponent. His assistant was sponging him down and giving him the following sound advice: “Look, if that guy hits you again, hit him right back.” The hon. member for Yeoville was knocked about so badly in the Railway Budget debate that they have now given him an opportunity to do some hitting back. We are most disappointed with the way in which he hit back. The object of this Budget, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, is to combat inflation and thus try to maintain and protect the purchasing power of the rand; secondly, to ensure economic stability in order that we may withstand onslaughts from without and from within. There is no difference of opinion on these, I think we are all agreed that those are the objects of this Budget. I do not think hon members on the opposite side have any objection to this statement. If I understand the hon. member for Yeoville correctly, they do, however, find fault with the measures taken to achieve those objectives. He alleged that the cost of living would rise, and he made much ado about certain items of which the prices would supposedly rise. He tried to make much of the proposed Government expenditure, which is essential, and which is allegedly so inflationary in nature. I want to admit that the measures taken, particularly as regards Government expenditure, are still carrying the sting of inflation; there is no getting away from that. But that it will assume unprecedented proportions, as the hon. member for Yeoville sought to allege, is a far-fetched argument.

When did I use the word “unprecedented”?

That is what I inferred. I think it is a far-fetched argument which has already been refuted most effectively by previous speakers on this side. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville will concede that sacrifices are essential. If a tree grows too luxuriantly it has to be pruned, and all the branches are affected by that. Yesterday the hon. member for Musgrave brought up what I found quite an interesting notion. He alleged that the method the Government would use to try to defend this Budget would be “to beat the patriotic drum”. The hon. member for Yeoville did not go quite as far as that. He concentrated more particularly on the economic aspect. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side: What is wrong with an appeal to the patriotism of the people of South Africa? What is wrong with an appeal to loyalty and faithfulness to the Republic of South Africa? There is nothing wrong with that. If I interpret the comment of the hon. member for Yeoville correctly, then he objected in particular to two measures in the Budget, which he criticized; the first was in respect of private consumption expenditure, and the second was in respect of Government expenditure. Now, I quote from the White Paper—

The total consumption expenditure during 1965 and 1966 was as follows: Durable consumers’ goods 15 per cent in 1965 and 14.6 per cent in 1966; the hon. member for Yeoville will note that there has been a decrease in the expenditure on durable consumers’ goods in the past year; the expenditure on non-durable consumers’ goods increased from 55.9 per cent in 1965 to 57 per cent in 1966. During 1965 the private consumption expenditure represented 83.5 per cent of the current personal income in 1965. According to the requirements of the economic development programme, it would be desirable to keep private consumption spending on the minimum level, which is put at 71.4 per cent of the net national income. That implies an increase of 1.1 per cent and 2.7 per cent in the per capita consumption expenditure in 1965 and 1966, respectively. According to the White Paper the real consumption expenditure per capita was 3.9 per cent during 1965, i.e. considerably higher than the objective set by the economic development programme. I can therefore find no fault with the duty on beer—and there I differ from the hon. member for Yeoville. I can find no fault with the fact that a person will have to pay more for his beer. I can find no fault with the fact that he will have to pay more for his cigarettes. Neither can I find any fault with the fact that he will have to pay more for non-essential luxury consumer goods. But in particular I welcome the duty on mineral waters. Can the hon. member for Yeoville find any fault with that?

Definitely.

Will he not admit that far too much mineral water is consumed in our country? Will he not admit that it is not beneficial to the health of the people? The consumption of mineral water is superseding the consumption of healthy fruit drinks, for example orange juice. I can therefore find no fault with the duty on luxury goods. I can find no fault with the increased import duty on carpets, toys, refrigerators, washing machines and stoves, because the people who can buy those things are in fact the people who can afford it. It was in vain that the hon. member made an appeal to the sentiment of the poor man. It is the rich people, of whom the hon. member for Yeoville may be one, who can afford to buy those luxury commodities. The increased import duty on stoves, refrigerators, etc., also serves the purpose of promoting sales of the local product. The hon. member for Constantia alleged that the prices of locally manufactured products would merely be increased. There I want to disagree with him. I think he is underestimating the mentality of our local industrialists completely. I think they will grasp this opportunity to expand their own industries even further; they will grasp this opportunity to put their industries on a sounder basis. I therefore think that the hon. member’s allegation that the price of the local product will be increased in order to adjust it to the increased price of the imported article, is far-fetched. As regards the increased duty on motor cars, one feels sorry for those who are dependent upon motor car transport for their livelihood, but it should have the effect of forcing people to keep their cars somewhat longer, and it should boost the market in second-hand motor cars.

They will also become more expensive.

No, not necessarily. If the hon. member thinks that, he is underestimating the mentality of the dealers. I believe that these measures will help to cut down private consumption expenditure, particularly on non-durable goods.

In the second place the hon. member for Yeoville complained about Government expenditure. As regards Government expenditure, one finds oneself in the uncomfortable position that it may in fact be of an inflationary nature; we admit that it does in fact hold the sting of inflation, but international conditions—the threats of hostile states and the reaction the World Court judgment has elicited in America—compel the Government to take measures to be able to meet any onslaught, whether military or economic. I therefore regard the Government expenditure on Defence as a compulsory Government expenditure. We must all accept that Government expenditure has been restricted to the minimum. The hon. the Minister has previously given the assurance—and he did that again this afternoon—that Government expenditure has been cut to the very minimum: that he curtailed it by an amount of R59,000,000 after the various Departments had submitted their budgets to him. In this regard I should like to mention something the hon. member for Orange Grove said yesterday. He said that the Opposition had no objection to Government expenditure which was aimed at safe-guarding and ensuring the security of the country, but he said that what they did in fact object to was the way that money was being spent. The hon. member for Yeoville did not have much to say in that regard, but yesterday the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to a commission of inquiry which inquired into Defence expenditure some years ago. I want to ask the hon. member: What has that really got to do with this Budget? Is he insinuating that moneys voted for Defence are misappropriated? Does he not know that there is a Controller and Auditor-General who acts as a watchdog over the spending of the country’s money? Or is the hon. member for Orange Grove—I do not want to include all the members of the Opposition—alleging that there is corruption in the Department of Defence? If he thinks that, it is his duty to ask for a commission of inquiry. In the third place the Government is therefore in the uncomfortable position of having to undertake this Government expenditure in order to ensure that the Republic of South Africa will be safe. In the fourth place—and with that the hon. member for Yeoville finds no fault, and I am sorry that he will not admit that—the Minister of Finance has taken the wise step in this Budget of combating inflation by encouraging saving. I feel it is my duty to offer our gratitude and appreciation to the Minister for having taken measures to revive personal saving. It was a source of concern that personal saving declined last year. In this regard it is gladdening to note that there has been a remarkable change during the past year. I quote from the White Paper—

We therefore welcome all the concessions and the incentive that is now offered to investment in national savings certificates, in the Post Office Savings Bank and savings certificates.

Speakers in this debate have placed much emphasis on the fact that our labour productivity should be increased. What is this Government doing to increase labour productivity? I want to admit that there is the tendency in our time—it applies to all sectors of the economy—to want more money for less work. But work is and remains the basis of success in any undertaking. Nor can the value of money be determined only by its gold coverage; it can also be measured against the amount of work done in order to earn a rand. In my view that is also a yardstick for the value of the monetary unit. The logical conclusion is therefore that if every employee performs slightly more work for the rand he earns, it must help to combat inflation. In a leading article in Tegniek (July, 1966) it was put as follows—

What is the Government doing in this regard? I read that in 1963 the Government established an advisory committee for manpower research and planning under the guidance of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, with the object of co-ordinating research and analysis of all Government and semi-Government institutions concerned with manpower matters. This committee shall also advise the Government on the supply, the training and utilization of the Republic’s manpower. The following projects, which cover various aspects of the manpower problem, are at present being carried out or planned: In 1965 an ability survey of all White Std. VI scholars in the four Provinces and in South West Africa was carried out. The object of that was to determine the potential of the future supply of White labour. The data is being processed and will be supplied to schools immediately in order to enable them to train scholars to their maximum capacity. During the year a survey was also carried out in order to ascertain what qualifications employers demanded for admission to certain vocations. That survey will give an indication of the training requirements and of the demand for manpower. In the third place, the broad pattern of the future development of the demand for labour in each sector was converted by the manpower centre into a programme which indicates the future development in the demand for labour on a vocational basis for each race and sex.

In the fourth place, work is proceeding on a national register of graduates in the natural and social sciences. This register will afford a complete review of a section of the high-level manpower. These studies will supply information, in the first place, about the potential of the future supply of labour, and in the second place, about the future demand for labour on a vocational basis, and in the third place, about the training requirements. It is basic to this that the education authorities shall be enabled to implement a flexible training system which will be better adjusted to the anticipated pattern of the demand for labour on a basis of race, sex, vocation and sectors. In this regard the Opposition can make an excellent gesture by promising the Government their co-operation. The underlying cancer which is hampering this entire project, is the divided control over our education, and the absence of a national education policy. If the Opposition will assist us so that we may have a national education policy and so that differentiated education may be applied, we shall be able to increase our labour potential and our labour productivity. Only then shall we be able to make better use of our labour potential in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we may differ about the monetary and fiscal measures that have been taken to combat inflation. But on one matter we may not differ, and that is the responsibility and obligation which rests on every worker to increase his productivity. It will do no worker any harm, whether he is in the employment of the Government or whether he is employed as an artisan, to do some extra work for the same remuneration. It may mean somewhat less spare time, but after all the most effective weapon for combating inflation is higher productivity and the better utilization of our labour-force.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most vital problems the Government is facing at present is the question of family housing. The Government realizes that community development, and therefore also the raising of the people’s material and spiritual standards, can only be carried out successfully if it starts with the heart of the nation, namely the family. A sound housing policy is not only the key to higher standards of living, but the fact remains that the family which has a happy niche of its own is not readily receptive to the Communism and other dangerous influences which surround us at present. In this spirit I therefore want to try in all humility to make a constructive contribution to a cause which is not only dear to my heart and to my constituency, but which is also of the utmost importance to our people as a whole. The volume of work of the local housing department is increasing by the year. Every day the socio-logical problems that go hand in hand with the progress of a great industrial city become more evident and more pressing. The families affected by that are not only the poor, but also the rich. All of them have only one objective: They want housing, and housing they can afford. The community life in our urban areas has become so complicated that large numbers of individuals and families can no longer solve their own problems. They seek the assistance of others. In my own constituency I have found them, and in my close co-operation with officials in our housing offices I have frequently been present when complaints were heard about our shocking housing shortage. I saw the despair on their faces when it was explained to them that there was no hope of relief for their problems within the foreseeable future. In my region, namely Port Elizabeth, or the Bay, as it is often called, which has a White population of 92,900, the Government is at present engaged in a colossal task. As the Minister of Community Development announced recently, his Department is at present planning housing to the value of more than R25,000,000 for the next five years. On behalf of my constituency I want to congratulate the Government on that vigorous attempt they are making to meet the housing shortage in Port Elizabeth. Unfortunately it is a fact that some city councils have neglected our housing shortage in the past 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately those city councils and local authorities failed to give attention to housing at that critical stage when depopulation was in fact taking place, and when thousands of Whites left the rural areas and went to the cities. No provision had been made for that exodus to the cities. The migration was an unavoidable economic phenomenon, because that migration to the cities provided the manpower required by our enormous industrial expansion. Despite the inflow of Whites, some local authorities neglected the housing question at that very critical stage. The Government is now engaged in that enormous planning, the planning of more than 2,000 flats in Port Elizabeth, apart from the houses being built. But there is a problem as regards the practical implementation of the Government's policy. That problem is the income limits and the rates of interest as a result of the rising building costs in respect of those houses. Unfortunately we have in Port Elizabeth a sub-economic group who have to earn R80 and less in order to obtain such sub-economic houses. Those who earn more than R80 form part of the economic group. As a result of that, there are to-day more than 2,000 applicants for housing in Port Elizabeth. Under the old dispensation 1,000 of those applicants could not have been housed, because their incomes amount to more than R80 per month. Consequently those persons who earned between R80 and R100 per month could not afford to rent an economic house, because the rental was approximately R40 or R50 per month. That is the rental charged for houses built by the State. The other day the Minister made an announcement here, and we are grateful for that realistic announcement, but we think it could have gone somewhat further. As a result of that announcement there is the possibility, because the sub-economic income qualification has been raised to R100, that it will be possible to house more people in future. But who will be responsible for building those houses in the case of that sub-economic group? I want to state in all honesty this afternoon—and I have the evidence in front of me—that the last sub-economic house built for the lower income group in Port Elizabeth, was built in 1935. That was in Holland Park. After that another economic housing scheme was undertaken by the City Council of Port Elizabeth, namely the Ferguson residential area, and that was completed in 1953. We now have the position that during the past 13 years no provision has been made for that low income group in Port Elizabeth. It is in this regard that I want to make a plea this afternoon. As a result of my interest in welfare services in the urban area of my constituency, I have met the families that are doomed to bring up their children in unhealthy and unsafe slum conditions. They live in garages, backyards, back-rooms, overcrowded houses, caravans, motor cars and shacks. We must provide houses for those people, houses that build a nation, and of which our descendants will be proud. I wonder whether the time has not come for the Department of Community Development to take the step of planning in co-operation with the city councils to provide houses for those people in the low income groups. Must we allow the less privileged Afrikaners to remain in the back-streets of Port Elizabeth? Must no provision ever be made for them? Must we simply adopt a policy of letting matters take their course?

Mr. Speaker, I want to come to another very serious matter. That is the housing shortage among the aged in our cities. The rising life expectancy causes a great increase in the numbers of our aged. As a Christian community with a social conscience, it is our duty to look after our aged. Fortunately, we have a Government that makes the money available to us at a rate of 1 /20th per cent, but, let me tell you, at a capital cost of R1,000. It was afterwards increased to R1,100, and it now stands at R1,475. It is with gratitude that I have heard that the Minister and his Department are already giving attention to this aspect. I also want to plead very strongly that the figure should be increased even further, in order that the standard of our homes for the aged may at least be maintained. It may be that our charitable organizations have left us in the lurch, or perhaps the churches; it does not matter which organization it was that perhaps did not devote adequate attention to the matter, but at present we have 300 aged people who have to be accommodated. In Port Elizabeth we have seven private undertakings which together offer accommodation for 305 of our aged people. Then the City Council of Port Elizabeth has four institutions, all of which happen to fall under my constituency. Approximately 200 aged people are accommodated there. But despite that there are still 300 aged people awaiting accommodation. They are in the evening of their lives, and cannot wait long. We do not want them to wait until they are dead or until our young people are old, before we provide for the needs of those aged people. I approached the City Council of Port Elizabeth again and asked them what they were going to do to accommodate those aged people. I was then informed that in March, 1965, the City Council had applied to the Government for a loan of R148,000 with the object of building 100 units in Kabega Park. I was also told that in June this year the Department of Community Development informed the City Council that the National Housing Commission had recommended the matter to the Department of Social Welfare. Nothing further has happened. Meanwhile more than 300 aged people in Port Elizabeth are still waiting for relief. The local authority of Port Elizabeth has the services of trained officials at its disposal, and can determine the housing needs in its area scientifically. Does it have to be investigated once again? Cannot delays in this regard be avoided by close co-operation? We have an obligation towards these aged people, many of whom have to spend their last days under abject conditions.

In view of the policy of our country, namely the policy of separate residential areas, we also have the obligation of housing our Coloureds. In Port Elizabeth the relevant department has succeeded in removing 7,000 Coloured families from the White areas, but despite that there are still between 3,000 and 4,000 Coloured families that have to be resettled. That is the position in Port Elizabeth. But as if those problems are not enough, we now also have to cope with a migration, a second migration; the phenomenon that the Coloureds are leaving the rural areas and are descending upon our large cities. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could show you the critical conditions in my constituency. The inhabitants of White housing schemes are being threatened by evils caused by the squatting of non-Whites. At my request the relevant Government Departments are at present giving urgent attention to this matter. I realize, however, that the clearance is, in the first instance, a municipal matter; yet thorough inquiry, and it was it remains a fact that thousands of additional houses will have to be built, i.e. over and above the houses that have already been built. We have a policy of separate development, but unless our local authorities are given the necessary financial assistance, they cannot implement that policy. On the shores of the Korsten lake I see the misery every day, and I hear the dissatisfaction caused by the cohabitation of White and non-White. Despair frustrates the finest dreams and expectations, expectations which are held up in theory to those inhabitants. The growing and disillusioning realization of failure germinates so easily in crumbling human dignity. Those are places where the volcano of racial diversity and racial unassimilability may come to an eruption. Let us save them from that in time.

I have already referred to the numbers of Coloureds who are descending upon our large cities. Here I am concerned in particular with Port Elizabeth. I have made a socio-economic survey of conditions in that regard, and I found that 2,386 non-Whites are at present living in a squatters’ town on the border of a White residential area. Can you see, Sir: On the one hand we are cleaning up, while on the other hand we are allowing a new influx to continue unchecked. According to particulars I have received from the City Council, there are at the moment 10,800 Coloureds who have to be moved and supplied with housing. Over and above these 10,800, there are a further 10,158 in Walmer; in other words, a total of 20,958. That, then, is the number of Coloureds who will have to be moved and supplied with housing within the municipal area of Port Elizabeth.

I know that the Government is already allocating great amounts to housing and that we should not complain in this connection. But from personal experience I can assure the hon. the Minister that the greatest erosion is taking place among the lower income group there in our big cities. That is where we have to check it. I therefore want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance to allocate an even larger amount to housing and community development next year, if that is possible.

My time has almost expired, but there is another small matter which I have to mention. I am only a newcomer to this House, and therefore you must not hold it against me if I do that. Yesterday the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said something about which I should like to make a few remarks. Mr. Speaker, you must not think that I am going to offend against the rules, it is merely a small matter among ourselves. Yesterday the hon. member said that the oil found at Murraysburg should remain there and should be processed there. But he also said that the training college we are going to build in Port Elizabeth should not be built. Now I want to tell the hon. member that he may keep his oil in Murraysburg, but that we are not going to give up our training college. Graaff-Reinet’s college will not be closed. The Administrator is a thorough man and has instituted a only after it had been found that the accommodation for students at Graaff-Reinet and at the colleges in other places was not adequate, that he gave his permission for the building of a new college in Port Elizabeth. Uitenhage claimed it too, but we struggled for it and said that with its 90,000 Whites Port Elizabeth was entitled to a college. It should not be forgotten that 88 per cent of the Whites of Port Elizabeth are less privileged, and does the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet expect those people to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage? Mr. Speaker, this is merely a small matter among ourselves, a matter we shall be able to settle over a cup of tea. The vast majority of the Whites in Port Elizabeth are not rich. They are factory workers who keep the factory wheels turning. They are not rich wool farmers, nor are they oil barons.

Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) on his maiden speech in this hon. House. I am sorry that he beat me to it, because I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is the south side of the city of Port Elizabeth that is the most important.

Mr. Speaker, it affords me a very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member on the way he delivered his maiden speech in this Assembly. It is obvious that he has prepared his speech well and his speech was well delivered. If this is a sample of what is to come. I am quite sure that he can be assured of a successful parliamentary career.

It is with a feeling of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that I avail myself of the opportunity of addressing this distinguished Assembly for the first time. Might I say at the outset that I wish to thank you, Sir, and the personnel of this House for the way they made things easy for me during my first few days here. I would also like to thank my hon. colleagues and the Whips for the way they treated me on arrival here and the warm welcome extended to me and their helpful co-operation. In taking my place here as the elected member for Walmer, I am conscious of the fact that I am following in the footsteps of a very distinguished parliamentarian, Mr. Percy Plewman, and on behalf of the constituents of Walmer I wish to thank him for the services he rendered there. I am also very much conscious of the fact that if I can in some small measure emulate his great contributions, I will be a very happy man indeed.

In selecting a subject to discuss, I felt it incumbent on myself to select a topic which I know to be of paramount importance, not only in regard to the future progress of our country but also in the future progress of the city of Port Elizabeth, the area which I now serve. I may say that I am grateful to have the opportunity of serving a region which is developing so fast and is so rapidly becoming one of the most important industrial and commercial complexes in the Republic, a city which due to the foresight and the drive of its people is making a great contribution to the national product of our country, a city which offers so much to the prospective industrialist that little wonder it has become the Detroit of South Africa, and is in a position to-day to produce no less than two-thirds of the motor transport requirements of the Republic of South Africa, and if we take into account all the industries that are allied with the motor manufacturing industry, and if moreover we take into account the need to increase the local contents of vehicles manufactured in South Africa, it can easily be understood and appreciated what a great potential this area has. But, Mr. Speaker, I may add that this potential, unlike other areas in the Republic, has not the shadow of a water shortage hanging over it. However, there is a shortage, a very real shortage, which restricts the full exploitation of this great potential, a shortage which unfortunately confronts the whole of South Africa—I refer to the shortage of skilled manpower. This shortage, Mr. Speaker, is not so much one of non-availability, but rather, like the shortage of water, due to improper use and lack of conservation. In considering this matter of the shortage of skilled manpower, I feel we must examine our system of technical education and see if there is not scope for improvement in that education, and see if that improvement be brought about, it might not largely eliminate this shortage of skilled manpower which exists in the Republic to-day. At the outset I must concede that considerable efforts have been made in the field of technical education in this country. Indeed, it would be unrealistic of me not to pay tribute to what has been done; it would also be futile on my part to reiterate the unprecedented industrial progress which our country has made. I do however, feel that it would be wrong for us to rest on our laurels. We should rather see what has been done and let this be an example to us for further endeavours in order that we may achieve maximum efficiency and productivity of our potential manpower resources.

One of the first problems we are called upon to face up to is the fact that if we consider statistics and information available to us, there is a very considerable degree of antipathy towards technical education in this country as opposed to academic education. We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that not all Whites have the ability or the aptitude or even the incentive to achieve a professional status for which a university degree is required. Because of the snob status of our universities and of the professions, parents are very often misled into entering their children for a university study when they lack the ability and aptitude and the scholarly ambition. The result is a very high rate of failures in our universities, which is not only a great expense to the State but the full potential of these children, these students, is never realized. In this regard I am wondering whether after the natural aptitude of the child in a primary school has been assessed to indicate a vocational or technical education, we ought still allow a child to continue with an academic high school education in many cases instead of directing the child in the direction of vocational education from which he and the country will benefit far more than when he is left to his own or parental aspirations. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that ways and means of streaming children into academic or vocationally directed education at a relatively early age, is very important. We should with all the means at our disposal break down the social prejudice against technical training and ensure that the technician in industry enjoys a status equivalent to that of an established profession. One of the most obvious ways of doing this is to provide opportunities for gifted technicians to receive training in management so that such a gifted technician also can reach the top. The boardroom, Mr. Speaker, has too long been the prerogative of the lawyer and the accountant, and even the politician. One wonders if our present system of education administration is such as to allow efficient co-ordination between vocational and academic education. It appears to me that a very strong case exists for the administration of education up to the matriculation standard to rest with the Provinces and higher education being the responsibility of the State. A change in the administration of education is obviously fraught with great difficulties, but unless we carry through this co-ordination, we will continue to lose manpower efficiency, and we cannot afford this loss. We must teach our people to produce more. This will be one of our most effective weapons in fighting inflationary tendencies in our country to-day.

Mr. Speaker, as the country stands poised and ready for further development and expansion of our vast resources of natural wealth, we cannot afford to lose a single ounce of available manpower talent, and in stressing this point, Mr. Speaker, this point of coordination, one is inclined to the view that there may be a wastage of many an effort in academic education of our youth, and that the country would be better served if the present imbalance between the number of children attending academic schools and those attending technical colleges were rectified. To illustrate my point: in Port Elizabeth alone there are 12 high schools, whereas there is only one technical college.

Mr. Speaker, in considering a programme for the extension of the training of artisans, we must not overlook the need for technical training of apprentices in our country towns where there are no technical colleges whatsoever and no facilities for technical training. Country apprentices, I am told, have to rely on correspondence courses which are often not yet fully up to date. In addition, Mr. Speaker, these apprentices are being trained by persons who have acquired artisan status by the effluxion of time rather than by qualification. I might mention that many of these older journeymen do not understand the correspondence courses with which they are dealing. In deciding where one should start with these technical colleges on the platteland, Mr. Speaker, we must obviously study the potential of the various areas. I have done this, Mr. Speaker, and without being biased in any way, I have come to the conclusion that Graaff-Reinet has a very strong claim in this particular respect. After all, without being unnecessarily optimistic, this may well become the meeting place of the oil from Murraysburg and the waters from the Orange River. It requires little imagination therefore to see that this little town with proper handling can easily be transformed from the Gem of the Karoo into the Hub of the Platteland.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the climate for the acceptance of the need for an extension of the field of vocational training and introduction of a better co-ordinated system alone will not achieve our objective. We must see to it that the colleges are provided and that the universities are placed in a position to set up faculties for technological education which is so urgently needed. In Port Elizabeth, where the university is progressing very well, I feel a faculty of technology is urgently required.

Sir, I come to my concluding remarks—I feel I have taken up sufficient of your time, Mr. Speaker—I would like to say just this, that I feel that it is in the field of technological advance that the destiny of our country lies. We have an opportunity on the African Continent that no other country in the world can equal. We have a lead, but we can only maintain our superiority if we are in fact superior. We must not fail the generations to come by inaction in the field of education now.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the hon. member for Walmer for his maiden speech. I trust that he will yet play a major part in this House.

I regard it as a great privilege to represent a constituency which consists mainly of mine workers; men who work to a depth of 10,000 feet underground to exploit the riches of our country. It is with great pleasure that I refer to that masterpiece in the House, the Mace which is displayed there, a Mace of pure gold; and to my knowledge this is the only Assembly that can boast of something like that. This symbol, which in fact represents the authority and the dignity of this House, is made from pure gold. Mr. Speaker, those men in my constituency to whom I want to pay tribute to-day have contributed to the creation of that symbol which we have here to-day, as it is displayed in its place of honour.

In the year 1903 the mining activities in this country were registered as an industry. But it was only in the years before the first World War that the South African began to be interested in the exploitation of the mines. In those years there was a flow of people from the rural areas who wanted to help exploit the riches of this country. Some years later we had the lamentable period which included the strike of 1922. Then our miners, those people to whom I want to pay tribute to-day, had to fight for their rights. We know in what carnage that resulted on the Witwatersrand. As one who spent many years underground myself, I want to pay tribute to-day to my companions who lost their lives at that time. During the depression years of the thirties, the sons of our rural areas went to the Witwatersrand goldmines to try to make a living. They could not make a living in any other way. The farms offered them no livelihood or future. Many of those people are still connected with the mining industry. For more than 30 years they have been toiling in the bowels of the earth. For those people I want to plead to-day with the Chamber of Mines and other concerns, including the trade unions. I want to ask all of them to co-operate so that when the day comes for those men to retire, their pensions will be adequate so that they will suffer no want in the last few years of their lives. Our mineworkers are among those people who have contributed most towards the development of South Africa’s economy. Whenever those people have gone, towns and cities have arisen. I am thinking for example of the large towns that have arisen in the Free State. We know that in regions where formerly there were only plains, we find some of our country’s most attractive towns to-day. There are also fine towns in the Western Transvaal. I remember what a small rural town Klerks-dorp was when as a boy I visited that region for the first time. And see what an enormous city it is to-day!

Mr. Speaker, we cannot but acknowledge that the mineworker has done his duty by this country. He has also done his duty by the Chamber of Mines. But has the Chamber of Mines done its duty by our mineworkers? Unlike our Public Servants, the people who are employed by the mines cannot look forward to a carefree retirement when they reach the age of sixty. If the mineworker is fortunate enough to reach that age, his health has already suffered such injury that he frequently has only a few years of life left to him. It is no use trying to get away from that, Sir. Those people are discontented to-day because they have no security for their old-age. I know the Government will lend a sympathetic ear if the various concerns held consultations in order to improve the plight of the mineworkers. In actual fact that is a matter on which the employers and employees should decide among themselves. But our mineworkers are a section of our people, and unfortunately they are a section which is easily forgotten by the general public. And yet they are people who have really given everything to help exploit our country’s riches. In fact, I expect that we shall shortly receive representations from those people, and I believe that this House will give favourable consideration to those representations.

I remember the Coalbrook disaster very clearly, when prayers were offered everywhere that the unfortunate victims should be found alive. I could visualize the position in which those victims found themselves, because as a young man I was also trapped in a mine, saved 3½ hours later, and carried away for dead. I thank my Creator for the privilege of being able to represent those people in this House. I know that I shall never forget that section of our population. I also hope that the Chamber of Mines will look after those people, people who can indeed be regarded as soldiers in the development of our country’s economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly privileged to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Stilfontein on the fine maiden speech he made here to-day. It is always a pleasure to hear a member speak straight from his heart, and this afternoon the hon. member spoke straight from his heart. As the representative of a constituency which includes many mineworkers, I am grateful to have such a companion-in-arms, who can join me in fighting for the rights of people who in my opinion are perhaps among the most unjustly treated people in the country. I also want to predict that in view of his specialized knowledge of mining and the practical experience he has gained, the hon. member will yet be able to contribute a great deal and be invaluable to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I realize only too well that I should not say anything contentious in my maiden speech. I nevertheless regard it as my duty to report here on what is taking place in my constituency, and to report to my voters on what is taking place here. As I will not have another opportunity to speak during this debate, I should like to report to the House on what is taking place in my constituency. Last week I had the opportunity of spending a few days in my constituency. I spoke to many people, and I also had the opportunity of visiting quite a few industries, some of which are among the largest of their kind in South Africa. Without exception the managers of those industries told me that they were grateful and had only praise for the Budget which was introduced in this House last week.

About two weeks ago I noted with gratitude everything that was being done for our mentally retarded children. So much is being done, not only to make these unfortunate children contented people, but also to enable them to assume their rightful place as useful citizens in society. Because, Mr. Speaker, to me that is the main task of all teaching, namely to educate, train and prepare the youth for useful membership of the community. That means that every child should receive the education that will be of the greatest benefit to him and to the community. It is therefore absolutely imperative that we should make all possible facilities available to education. Surely we all agree, Mr. Speaker, that a nation’s most precious asset is its youth. Nothing but the best a nation can offer the education of its youth should be good enough. The Government is continually planning the shaping of a better future for our children. We are thinking, for example, of the Orange River scheme, which will cost some R450,000,000 over a period of 30 years. Thus we are creating a future for our descendants, in order that the White population as a whole may be placed systematically on a higher basis of education and skill, according to the dictates of the national economy, of the industries and of all the developments taking place.

It is therefore absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that we should employ every possible means of making our children skilful and knowledgeable people. Our education should therefore be attuned to meeting the challenge of our times, particularly under the exceptional circumstances in which the Republic finds itself, where we are entering an era of tremendous economic development. It is surely accepted that higher productivity is the most effective counter to inflation. In view of the fact that we are at present experiencing a shortage of trained managers and also a shortage of technicians and technologists, we should indeed devote all our powers and determination to making the best use of our available man-power. But here in South Africa we as Whites are faced with a non-White population which enjoys the advantage of a tremendous numerical superiority. We as Whites should therefore compensate intellectually for what we lack in numbers. As Whites we shall be able to present a strong front to the world only by demonstrating our spiritual power, and not by boasting of our material wealth or by emphasizing our extensive boundaries. That is the arena, Mr. Speaker, in which the survival of the Whites in South Africa will be fought for. In this struggle strength will not be measured in Parliament or on the battle-fields abroad. Spiritual achievements will decide whether we as Whites will be victorious.

We shall therefore emerge from the struggle as victors only if we have won the struggle in our own educational institutions. But, Sir, apart from the struggle for the survival of our White civilization, we also have exceptional responsibilities in respect of the development of our non-Whites. In proportion to its numerical strength, no other nation in the world is assuming such great responsibilities in respect of the welfare of the non-Whites as the Whites in South Africa are in fact doing. It is therefore all the more necessary and essential that the youth should be educated to the highest educational level in order to equip them for that role of White mastership in South Africa. In saying so, I am not implying that this Government is not fulfilling its duty in respect of our education. On the contrary, I can state with gratitude that no previous Government has done so much for education as the National Party Government. This is borne out by the fact that apart from America, South Africa has, in proportion to its White population, the largest university population. Furthermore, we also notice that in 1947 there were 39,000 White pupils in Standard 6 in our schools, of whom 10,600 or 27.8 per cent reached Standard 10 in 1951. In comparison, there were 61,000 pupils in Standard 6 twelve years later, in 1959, of whom 24,500 or 40.1 per cent reached Standard 10, which therefore represents an improvement of 12.3 per cent.

But I should like to plead for some matters which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, and those are that more should be done for our normal and intelligent pupils who fall by the wayside and from whose intellectual powers the community cannot derive the full benefit. I saw many of them during my career as a teacher; normal and intelligent children at school, who vanish among the masses so that the nation can never utilize their potential. That is what causes me concern: that so many of those intellectual powers are lost because we cannot utilize their potential to the full, notwithstanding the fact that all facilities are made available to them. In the urban areas of the Transvaal—and now I want to refer in particular to the Witwatersrand—it is a fact that only from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the pupils admitted to Standard 6 at high school reach Standard 10. Compared with that, we find that 50 per cent, or twice as many, of the children in the rural areas reach Standard 10. What I find even more disquieting, is that while it is accepted that ±25 per cent of our pupils are qualified to go to a university, we find that in the urban areas only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of them reach the universities. This phenomenon may be attributed to the fact that so many mothers have to work because the economic development has brought about a shortage of man-power and after school the children are not under supervision in the afternoons while in the rura-1 areas, where there are in fact hostels, we find that, on the contrary, almost twice as many of them reach Standard 10. The reason for that is that where there are hostels, the children study together in groups, and it is indeed true that man, as a social being, feels the urge to be one of a group; and in membership of a group his desire for security is partly satisfied, because he feels that there he is not facing up to the world all alone, or that he is not alone in the midst of nowhere, without the care of a father or a mother. In that sympathetic group atmosphere he then finds the opportunity to assert himself. His striving for acceptance by other forces him to fall in the standards of that group and to accept the ideals of that group. Is it not the solution then that we should make more provision for afterschool care, where pupils may study under supervision? It is a fact that a child who grows up in an environment where he becomes acquainted with art and culture and where he is encouraged to develop an interest in those things, will achieve a higher development level than a child who has the same abilities but who is denied those privileges. Let us therefore endeavour to give equal educational opportunities to everybody, so that the child who is denied those privileges—a good domestic environment—will have the same opportunities of realizing his full potential. Because a favourable or an unfavourable environment helps to determine whether a person will achieve his maximum or inherited growth or development level or potential.

Another factor that contributes towards this tremendous national loss is the fact that normal, intelligent children leave school at the age of 16, regardless of the standard they have passed, and at a stage when those children are still immature and are receptive to bad influences. In this respect the main culprits are perhaps our industries, who employ brilliant children without any technical qualifications or prospects for promotion. They are interested in those who leave school only as cheap labour, and even encourage them to leave school. What becomes, as a rule, of those young people who land up in that cheap labour market? For a year or two they lead an unsettled existence and then become frustrated, and then that search begins all over again. That is the group of people which is presenting us with considerable problems. They do not have the necessary academic, vocational or technical qualifications to occupy a good position, but have to be contented with unskilled labour. Has the time not come that we should keep those pupils at school until they are more mature and are better able to adapt themselves to the community? Has the time not come that we should provide after-school care rather than nursery schools? Should not the Government take our pupils and give them something more than free education? Ours is a richly endowed country with a fine future and the greatest investment possibilities. Will a father not therefore spend R200 on the education of his child rather than to leave him R100 in his will? Should we not do everything in our ability to give our White children equal educational opportunities so that we may have more and better trained citizens, which in turn will result in greater productivity? Greater political power, greater industrial power and military power, are all dependent upon scientifically trained power. Just as we seek to conserve water that is going waste, and try to prevent it from flowing unused into the oceans, I want to plead that we should also make full use of the intellectual powers of our normal and intelligent children who are falling by the wayside of education, so that those too may not go waste.

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg on his sincere speech. He is obviously an authority on the subject on which he addressed us, and I should like to wish him a happy sojourn in this House, although I am sure he will appreciate, by virtue of the constituency he represents, that I cannot wish that his sojourn in this House will be over-long!

When the Minister of Lands in 1963, moved the Territorial Waters Bill, he explained that at the Geneva Conference on the Sea in 1960, there had been a proposal that territorial waters should be extended to six miles and that a state should be entitled to proclaim a fishing zone in a further six miles of sea, contiguous to its territorial waters. He explained also that his proposal had failed by one vote to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority for acceptance. The Minister went on to urge the House that it should pass the second reading of the Bill, despite the narrow defeat of the proposition at the Geneva Conference, because, like other states, he felt that we should incorporate it in our legislation.

Hon. members will know that the sea comprises 71 per cent of our global area. They will also know that only a small portion of the water areas of the globe fall within the national jurisdiction of the over 100 dependent states which divide among them the political control of the landed areas. Of these water areas, territorial waters extend seaward from their base lines to a minimum of three miles. I say minimum, because there is no state which claims less than a territorial water belt of three miles. Like internal waters, territorial waters are part of the national territory of the coastal state whose sovereignty over territorial waters is qualified only by the right of innocent passage allowed to foreign merchantmen; but, so far, no international conference has succeeded in determining uniformly the width of the territorial sea. Since 1963 our territorial sea has been six nautical miles. The remaining water areas are the high or the open seas, and the dominating principle in international law governing the open sea is that of “the freedom of the seas”, a doctrine which was proclaimed in the first place by Grotius. In origin, this doctrine arose from the twin beliefs that the resources of the sea were res nullius, according to Gaius, and thereafter res communis, according to the law of Justinian; and furthermore, that the resources of the sea were unlimited.

To-day, as we know, both of these beliefs are open to challenge, the first because international law and practice no longer recognizes that the natural resources of the sea-bed and the subsoil of both the continental and the insular shelves are still res communis. In fact, they are now subject, as in our case, to restrictions by the coastal state; and the second, because conservation measures of international application show the fallacy of the belief in the inexhaustibility of the resources of the sea. So to-day, while the general principle of the freedom of the seas is still acknowledged, and if challenged, is vigorously defended, in the international community there is a growing realization that territorial seas are often insufficient for the protection of the interests of the coastal or the littoral state, and that the Grotian doctrine of the freedom of the seas required to be modified in the light of present-day circumstances. So strong, however, is the tradition of the freedom of the seas that even an internationally recognized institution such as the contiguous zone is only of limited application.

As Gidel puts it in his book, La Mer Territoriale et La Zone Contigue, a contiguous zone is a zone in which the littoral state enjoys only certain rigorously specialized types of competence. The coastal state at no time in a contiguous zone acquires sovereignty, but only certain powers to protect and to safeguard certain specific interests. The International Law Commission, in its recommendations to the Geneva Conference, maintained that a contiguous zone could not extend further seawards than a distance of 12 miles from the base lines of territorial waters, and this, it would seem, is generally accepted in the international community to-day. Thus I believe that unreasonable extensions, either of territorial sea or of the contiguous zone are not likely to meet with international approval and consequently will not be observed. It is against this background, that we should consider our own situation in South Africa.

The waters around our coasts, as we know, have in recent years been visited by the fishing fleets of foreign nations. According to Press reports at the beginning of 1965, there was a 24-ship Russian fishing fleet off south West Africa. Their aim was to catch 1,000,000 tons of fish. Russia, I would like to point out, has the largest fishing fleet in the world. It reputedly consists of 3,000 trawlers. It has 30 research vessels and it has one submarine for under-sea research. The Bulgarians are reported to be off our coasts, and we know that the Israelis and the Greeks are there. The Japanese are catching red fish off the Aghulhas bank, I believe it is a great delicacy in the East. They are also entering the hake market of the world. In the middle of 1965, it was reported in the Press that there were 80 Spanish trawlers operating between Walvis Bay and Cape Town, and that they were catching as much as 20,000 tons of fish a month and that their aim by 1975 was no less than 500,000 tons of hake per annum. Earlier this year, in March, British trawlers were reported in the Press to be considering the possibility of joining the other international fleets off the South African coast, because of competition and the depletion of stocks in their own fishing grounds.

What of ourselves? Our fishing industry has expanded in recent years such as never before. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization Report of 1964, of the 4,160,000 metric tons of fish taken from African waters, South Africa caught 1,250,000 tons, the Portuguese 355,000 tons; in all a little over one-third of the total tonnage of fish taken from the African waters was caught by South Africa and Portugal.

Our fishing industry, as we know, earns for our Exchequer over R60,000,000 per annum. There has been in our fishing industry, a rise of 70 per cent since 1959. After Peru, Japan, China, Russia, the U.S.A., Norway and Canada, we are the eighth largest fishing nation in the world. To give an example of the rate of growth of our fishing industry, allow me to refer to that section of it known as the pilchard section. In 1943 7,500 tons of pilchards were caught. In 1949 12,500 tons, and in 1962 543,000 tons. According to the annual report of the Fisheries Development Corporation just released, our inshore fisheries during the past year produced 536,000 short tons of pilchards, anchovy, maasbanker and mackerel. South West Africa during the same period produced 794,000 tons. We all welcome the growth of our fishing industry, but while welcoming it we should never forget the example of California. In 1937 in California 761,000 tons of pilchards were caught. Less than 20 years later, in 1950, the total production of pilchards in those waters was 2,000 tons.

We are all conscious of the need both to exploit and to conserve our marine resources. What have we in South Africa done about it? First of all, we have rightly imposed quotas on our own fishing industry. Secondly, we have established seasons and we have defined the sizes of mesh. The South West African Administration recently appointed a commission to go into the regulations governing fishing in that territory. I understand they have not yet met. We have extended our territorial waters to six miles, and we have established a “fishing zone” for a further six miles. The Railways and Harbours Amendment Act of last year and the Sea Fisheries Amendment Act, also of last year, gave us power to refuse harbour facilities to states engaged either in a boycott against our country or else in other unfriendly acts. In terms of this year’s Railway Budget, wharfage dues to discourage the transhipment of fish in our harbours have been imposed, and judging from to-day’s Press they have been immediately successful. We use our warships to patrol our territorial waters and our fishing zone. According to Admiral Biermann—

So we have done much, but I believe we should do a great deal more. I believe that the restrictive measures that we have in operation at present are not far-reaching enough. I believe that we, as a first step, should claim sovereignty over the fishing zone, to make in all a territorial belt of 12 miles. The International Law Commission Report on the Geneva Conference of 1958 records that the right of a coastal state to fix the limit of its territorial sea is not disputed, but that international law does not permit that limit to be extended beyond 12 miles. I believe, therefore, that a claim to a territorial sea of 12 miles, after initial protest, would be respected since it accords with the practice of other states of the world.

As a second step, I believe that we should enter into bilateral treaty arrangements with those nations which fish the waters off our coasts. If we wish to invoke them, the articles of the Geneva Convention make specific provision for negotiation between states with a view to agreement on the necessary measures for conservation of the living resources of the sea. Furthermore, they provide for the reference of any dispute to a special commission should agreement not be reached within a specified period. And, lastly, I believe we should take steps to initiate an international fishing conference for the purpose of discussing the exploitation and the conservation of the marine resources of both the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. Such international conferences have been held with a measure of success before.

For example, in October, 1943, in London a conference considered the co-ordination and consolidation of existing agreements on fishery control in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Despite it being wartime, 11 nations were present at that conference. The conference recommended a draft international fisheries convention, consisting of 59 articles. This recommendation, in turn, was taken up three years later by the International Over-Fishing Convention in London, which recognized “the necessity for some international control of fishing effort mainly in the North Sea and possibly in other areas adjacent to the British Isles, threatened by over-fishing”. The draft convention was ratified in 1953 and a permanent commission in terms thereof was set up to consider from time to time what conservation measures, if any, were necessary. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that in 1958, the Russians signed this convention and, as far as I am aware, they have strictly stayed within its terms.

I believe that the initiative for taking action to protect our fishing interests lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. I am sure that any steps it may take to protect them will be welcomed in South Africa, and if reasonable and properly represented, they will be sympathetically understood and accepted by the responsible nations of the world.

I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down, on his speech. It seems to me as though he had made a thorough study of his subject, and I hope he will continue to do so. I hope he will also understand what he studies. The men on that side who study matters and understand them show a strong inclination to come over to this side. I congratulate him and I hope he will be an asset to this House in future, and that he will not disappoint his colleagues.

Because our defence expenditure has evoked certain comments in the overseas Press, I should like to give the Government the assurance, for as much as I know the country, that that is the very last item it need have any concern about. I make bold to say that if it were necessary, John Citizen and the country in general would be prepared to tolerate even higher taxes as regards defence. I think that if there is one item which is important and with regard to which one has the entire country behind one, then it is our defence expenditure.

There are a few things, of course, which we welcome very much. There are a few things which we simply have to bear with under the circumstances, and which we will bear with because there is no alternative. I want to tell the Minister that there is one duty that I welcome in particular, and that is the increased export duty on diamonds. On a later occasion I hope to be able to say why I welcome that duty. In my opinion it is not high enough, because I have added up the figures briefly, and according to that calculation the country is still being deprived of ± R88,000,000. I say that there should have been methods of keeping that R88,000,000 in South Africa, instead of its falling into the hands of overseas diamond cutters. I hope to deal with that subject when a suitable occasion presents itself.

The outstanding feature of this Budget is the attempt to combat inflation. The Minister said that he hoped and trusted that it was a temporary phenomenon. I do not want to join in the academic dispute which is at present being waged all over the country in connection with inflation. As a practical politician I want to concentrate more particularly on the causes of inflation. It is no use administering medicine if we do not know what caused the disease. I therefore want to state briefly that I blame the origin and growth of inflation on monopolistic combinations and power groups in South Africa, which have increased to a disconcerting extent during the past decade. It is noteworthy that in the course of the Budget debate the hon. member for Yeoville launched an attack on the Railways as a monopoly, but it is equally noteworthy that the hon. member failed to mention the other monopolies that are detrimental to South Africa. He attacks the Government monopoly, but he does not say a single word about the Hoggenheimer monopoly, which is responsible for the primary cause of all increases in the cost of living in South Africa. What the opposition still has to learn is that there is a world of difference between a Government monopoly and a Hoggenheimer monopoly. The Hoggenheimer monopoly has only one motive, and that is the motive of profit, whereas the Government monopolies like the Railways and Sasol and Iscor are intended to supply their services and produce to the consumers at the lowest possible prices. [Interjection.] If it had not been for Iscor and the Railways, I wonder how high the cost of living would have been in South Africa to-day. Let us just make that clear. It is no use talking about inflation and attacking the only existing Government monopoly because it has been forced to charge higher prices, which has been forced upon it by the higher wages demanded by the workers and by the materials it has had to buy, all of which are controlled at present, as regards their prices, by the Hoggenheimer monopolies. I maintain that the Hoggenheimer monopoly is also responsible for the increases in all prices in South Africa. There has not been a single wage or salary increase which has not been intercepted by the Hoggenheimer monopolies, and the housewife has been consistently robbed of the advantages emanating from the so-called wage and salary increases.

Did Hoggenheimer increase the price of petrol?

The price of petrol, the price of agricultural implements, the price of building materials, the price of spares and the price of everyday commodities are increased by Hoggenheimer monopolies from time to time. That is the reason why the farmer cannot make a living at present, and every time the farmer is forced to insist on an increase in the price of his produce, it is those very Hoggenheimer monopolists who accuse the farmer of being responsible for their increased cost of living, while the farmer is forced to ask for higher prices. Every time the workers’ organizations in the country are forced to ask for a slightly higher wage, the power-wielding monopolists in South Africa are at hand to intercept it. I repeat: There has not been a single wage increase in South Africa of which all the advantages have not been intercepted by Hoggenheimer, by means of his power and by means of the stranglehold he exerts on the distribution of goods in the country. I want to take one example. Take the tremendous dissatisfaction about meat prices at present. Can any member on that side, which is so ready to intercede for the Hoggenheimer monopolists, tell me what has caused the gap between the price the producer receives and the price the consumer has to pay? I blame that gap on a gold producer in South Africa who interferes with the prices and distribution of meat in the country, and so I could mention one item after another. During the past week I have come into contact with retailers. They say that if they order a certain article from a factory, they do not get it as cheaply as they can get it from some other distributor. There is such a strangle-hold on the retailers to-day that they are disappearing one after the other. I therefore think that it may be necessary for the Government to take drastic steps in the near future, not only to combat the results of inflation, but also to deal with those responsible for the inflation. It is no use taking only one measure. I fear that unless we bring those concerns to book in the future and take proper steps, anti-inflationary measures will have to be taken again, because if those power groups are left to themselves to ruin the country as they are doing at present, one will simply have to come with similar measures next year. Sir, the horror of inflation is emphasized continually, but the present generation in our country knows preciously little about the terrible horror of a depression, and depression as well as inflation are the makings of Hoggenheimer.

Who is Hoggenheimer?

I say that inflation and depression have always been the makings of Hoggenheimer. At the moment they are operating in the following way: The price spiral rises; there is an increase in prices, and those prices are still rising. Mr. Speaker, is there any open competition at present? No, there is no open competition, because Hoggenheimer is driving one competitor after another from the market. If he is not bought out, he is crowded out. There is no free distribution in the country at present. The number of retailers is shrinking year by year, because those power groups are able to smother the retailers. And where does that lead? It leads to poverty. It leads to a price spiral, to ever-increasing prices which the man in the street simply cannot afford. What is the consequence of this inflation? Just as inflation came out of the blue—nobody knows where the bogy of inflation comes from and where it will stop—you will also see (and that is my warning to every member in this House) that the Stock Exchange will collapse all of a sudden and that factories will close at a stage when their sheds are stacked to the ceiling with goods. That is Operation Depression. Look what is happening in America at present. Only the other day you saw that the capitalists there have the power to bribe the trade unions to strike, because their sheds are so full of motor cars that they can keep a strike going for six months and still have enough motor cars to supply the market. When they can no longer achieve their object by means of inflation, those power groups, those monopolies may turn around and restrict credit; they can turn around and they can simply close down factories; they can cause strikes and they can cause unemployment; then it simply assumes a different pattern. You may perhaps ask me: Is it then Hoggenheimer’s calculated method to go about matters in this way? In the first place he does not want these small capital forming concerns and bodies; there must be no prosperous people who can also form well-monied organizations outside his reach and outside his control, because that would mean open competition, and the monopolist does not want that. Wherever monopolistic powers have not been restricted, as has happened in America and also in England, and where the “anti-trust laws” could not succeed in restraining them, open competition simply vanished, and that is the pattern Hoggenheimer wants in South Africa. He does not want those smaller concerns with capital, because they would merely stand in his way; they would promote open competition; they would insist on open competition. If that same pattern which we see in America and in all the highly industrialized countries is applied here—and there are many signs that they are already doing that—then I ask you: How are you going to stop that tidal wave of Communism? But Hoggenheimer expects the country to defend him …

Is Hoggenheimer a capitalist or a communist?

Go and take a look in the mirror.

It is in fact being complained that America, which is a so-called opponent of Communism to-day, is on the verge of Communism. If that hon. member would think somewhat more seriously about the causes of these things, he would not speak so derisively about them. It is a very dangerous state of affairs that there is the complaint in America that those monopolistic powers are conditioning the pattern of life of the nation as such. Hoggenheimer is at work there, and here in South Africa the Opposition has already become so conditioned that it dare not say a word. The Opposition in this House, as somebody once said on a platform, is speaking with its mouth in a nose-bag. That is the trouble with this Opposition. That is why one never hears effective criticism from the Opposition side in this House. There has been some mention of productivity. Productivity or efficiency is something which cannot exist or be promoted under this system. I have already pointed out what a fiasco is caused when gold producers interfere with the meat trade. There is a limit to all human abilities. Nobody objects to it if a group of persons makes a success of a certain undertaking, but when those monopolistic power groups arise and are organized, my hon. friends should not come here and urge the workers to higher productivity. They are wide off the mark. Productivity in this country is not ruined on the lower level but on the management level, by the policy-formulating directions. Those are the people who ruin productivity in South Africa, because for them the service motive does not count, but only the profit motive, and as long as there are no great profits at stake, they do not care how slovenly a business is run. In America it is complained at present that open competition may vanish altogether; that there is no difference whatsoever between the restrictions imposed on economic freedom in America and those in Russia; one is exactly like the other, and the people who write and speak about that know what they are talking about. I am sure there is nobody in this House who is so naive that he does not realize that small undertakings in this country have disappeared one after the other. I am sure there is not one member in this House who is so ignorant that he does not know that the prices of vehicles, of agricultural implements and of fuel are fixed once, and even if the world came to an end those prices would remain unchanged, or they would increase, but they would never be decreased. No matter if there is an overproduction of oil or of motor cars or of anything else; where those monopolistic power groups exert their strangle-hold, prices change in only one direction and that is upwards. Who gets the benefit of that? Only those power groups, not the farmer and not the worker. The worker cannot get it and he has never got it yet. As a result of those high prices one then finds the maldistribution that I have already mentioned; one finds maldistribution and under-consumption, and once one reaches the stage of under-consumption, one can expect a slump to supersede the boom, and then one switches from inflation to depression.

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned these points here in the few minutes at my disposal, because I have become tired of the academic quibbling about inflation and the causes of inflation. I want us to realize clearly what are the causes of inflation, because it is only if we have the daring to take a firm grip on the causes, that we will not have to cope with problems like these again in the future.

As a new member representing a new constituency, I unfortunately do not have a predecessor to whom I can pay tribute here, but at this late hour I want in all humility to pay tribute to all our great statesmen who have left such a lasting impression in this House and who, through their efforts here have bequeathed us such a rich heritage and valuable tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I am firing the last volley in the battle for Port Elizabeth in this House to-day. I trust that if Port Elizabeth has never been on the map in this House before, it will be to-day. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks and pay tribute to the Government on behalf of the 15,000 voters of my constituency, as well as on behalf of the inhabitants of the Port Elizabeth area, for the particularly sympathetic way in which the problems of that area have enjoyed the attention of the Government during the past years. Port Elizabeth and the Eastern Cape in particular have always experienced periods of storm and strife. It was there where the Bantu and the Whites met and clashed for the first time. It was there where a long series of wars between White and Black was waged, and because it was an isolated area, the Government of the day did not always understand and comprehend with consistent sympathy the requirements and the problems of the area. As time went by the feeling arose there that that eastern part was merely the Cinderella of the country and that the Whites there were merely the step-children of the State. This feeling increased to such an extent that it later developed into agitations for secession. When I rise here to-day and thank the Government for its sympathetic approach to our problems there, then historically speaking, I am not entirely correct. There are, nevertheless, certain matters, which I want to mention specifically here, for which we want to convey our thanks to the Government. In the first place I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Planning for the appointment of a planning committee which will specifically concern itself with the planning and future development of the Port Elizabeth, Despatch and Uitenhage area. In the development revolution which the Republic is going through at present, co-ordinated planning is of primary importance. According to authorities this area has developed more rapidly during the past 15 years than the metropolitan areas of Cape Town, Durban or even the Witwatersrand. This area, with a population of approximately 425,000, will undoubtedly be an important link in the future industrial development pattern. And that is why the appointment of this committee is being generally welcomed.

At present 1,423 factories have already been established in this area, employing altogether 24,500 Whites, 23,700 Coloureds and 28,100 Bantu. It is only at the beginning of its development potential, however, and now that the Vaal Triangle is more or less beginning to reach saturation point, and particularly with a view to the Government’s policy of decentralization, this area can in future make a real contribution to industrial expansion. In particular I want to mention the following factors which will stimulate further industrial expansion in this area. In the first place there is more than enough land available for expansion. Next year, after the incorporation of Walmer, the Port Elizabeth Municipality will have at its disposal a municipal area of 157 square miles, quite apart from Despatch and Uitenhage. In the second place, the area is situated east of the Eiselen line and one can therefore assume that an adequate supply of Bantu labour will always be available. With the improvement of our traffic arteries I foresee the day when it will be possible to transport Bantu labourers, temporary Bantu labourers, to and from their homes, even over week-ends, in order to keep them in touch with their families and their homelands. But the most important of all is the fact that this area, in contrast with most other areas in our country, has a plentiful supply of water at its disposal. By next year a total of 53,000,000 gallons per day will be available from the Churchill Dam and the Coega Dam collectively, whereas by 1980, according to calculations, a further 40,000,000 gallons per day will be available from the Orange-Fish River scheme. In addition this very interesting phenomenon must be mentioned, i.e. that a few miles outside Port Elizabeth, at Aloes, there is an underground source of water, the so-called artesian basin, of which the potential is still unknown but which can possibly play a very important role in the future. Purified sewage water will also be available soon for industrial use, so that Port Elizabeth during the last quarter of this century will have at its disposal considerably more than 100,000,000 gallons of water per day.

Where there is water there is life. That is why this area can make an important contribution to the industrial development of our Republic, if the following bottlenecks were to receive the favourable attention of our authorities. I humbly want to point out just a few of them. The first one I want to point out is electricity. I just want to ask here whether consideration could not be given to the possibility of linking up Port Elizabeth’s power supply to the national network of Escom, and to the possibility of electrifying the Railway line between Port Elizabeth and De Aar. In the second place I want to point out a further bottleneck, and that is in connection with steel. The transportation by rail of materials, particularly steel from the Witwatersrand is a slow and expensive process. Since the Government is at present considering the erection of a third steel factory, I would like to offer a plea that this area be given very serious consideration. Briefly I just want to mention that Port Elizabeth is situated very strategically between Cape Town and Durban, that Port Elizabeth is already by far the most important iron-ore harbour of the republic and, without being provincialistic, I want to mention that Cape Town is in urgent need of new points of growth. I also want to ask that, if possible, there should be greater encouragement on the part of the Government for the exportation of manufactured goods. I believe that that will encourage and strengthen our economy.

Furthermore, I would also like to pay tribute to and convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Community Development who announced recently in Port Elizabeth that the enormous amount of R25,000,000 would, within the next five years, be spent on White housing alone in Port Elizabeth. Happy is that nation, Mr. Speaker, which has a Government which also concerns itself with the comfortable settlement and place of abode of the family, for to build up a home is also to build up a nation. But what I really want to do is avail myself of this opportunity of conveying the thanks, the appreciation and the tribute of the people of the Eastern Cape to the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, as well as to the entire Cabinet, for the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth. When the request was addressed to the Cabinet three years ago that a new University should be established there, it was an extremely difficult and even contentious decision. Nevertheless vision and faith in the future triumphed and to-day every inhabitant of the Eastern Cape is proud of and grateful for this new institution where the descendants of Voortrekker Boer and British settler are being afforded the opportunity of being moulded together to serve our Republic. Although classes only commenced last year, the student body numbers approximately 600, while an academic and "library staff of 70 and an administrative staff of 30 are employed by the University. Recently, during the first graduation ceremony the University was able to install its first Chancellor in the person of the hon. the Leader of this House.

As a new institution, the University can in many respects move in a new direction. New fields of study, such as the introduction of a professorship in Material Science, are being envisaged. The tremendous proportions which knowledge of natural sciences and technology have assumed during the past decade, has caused an explosion of knowledge which is making our present knowledge of natural sciences and technology out of date and obsolete to an ever-increasing degree. It offers new challenges to the University which this young institution is taking up eagerly. Since the 2,000 acre campus is situated on the seafront, particular attention will also be given to oceanographic research. It is being maintained, correctly or incorrectly, that the foreign powers which are poaching in our fishing grounds, know more about the oceans surrounding our coasts than we ourselves do. It is also a generally acknowledged fact that humanity today is trying to discover everything about the stars which are billions of miles away, whereas it knows very little about the oceans which comprise four-fifths of the entire globe, and which offer a possible solution to many of its problems. We know, for example that great mineral wealth lies hidden in the bosom of the sea. We also know that 16 per cent of the world’s oil to-day comes out of the sea, and it is thought that in ten years’ time it will be 40 per cent. French scientists have indicated that the waves of the sea can become a rich source of electrical power. In these fields, which require a great deal of research, the new University can make a particular contribution.

Since this university is situated in an industrial area, its greatest need is for the introduction of a faculty of engineering, with particular emphasis on industrial engineering, and in conclusion I want to make a serious plea for this to be done. The development revolution and the explosion of knowledge which I have just spoken about make exacting demands on industrial development, which again is very closely associated with the availability of engineers, technologists and scientists. The Straszacher Commission which instituted an investigation into the training of engineers, found that a definite correlation existed between the total production per capita of a country and the number of engineers in that country. Their recommendation read as follows—

The Commission also found that there was a great shortage to-day of industrial engineers in particular, because people were not being trained at our universities, and that approximately 20 per cent of the trained chemists, metallurgical and mechanical engineers, were, for that reason, being obliged to practise as industrial engineers. The inter-disciplinary approach to the drawing up of curriculums, as it is being applied at the University of Port Elizabeth and which is something which makes it unique of its kind in our country, will lend itself very well to the modern trend in the training of engineers. The fact that engineering students can gain experience in local industries during their training must also be taken into consideration. In this connection Professor H. O. Mönnig, chairman of the Scientific Advisory Council, has stated the following—

The Straszacher Commission also came to this conclusion—

Mr. Speaker, if we wish to retain our undisputed leadership in the scientific field in Africa, we shall have to think creatively, work hard and undertake continual research. Large sums of money will have to be made available for that purpose. I believe that we have at our disposal the human material to enable us not only to hold our own in the Western world but to enable us to emerge as leaders. To-day a nation does not have to be great in numbers in order to be a great nation. Apart from any clouds which might appear on our horizon, the future lies before us like a fallow land which we must till and sow. Everything will depend on how we till and sow it. That is why we must do it with faith and strength of action. That is why we may not flinch from higher taxes and financial sacrifices. It is our duty and our task to convert our present material wealth into spiritual and intellectual wealth by investing in our most precious possession, the sons and daughters of our country. Only then do we afford them the opportunity of developing to the full their talents and abilities in the service of our fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, my first task and pleasant duty this evening is to congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on having made his maiden speech in this House. The hon. member made a speech which indicated careful preparation, study of his subject and a very quick acknowledgment of the rules which indicate that he will go far in the ranks of his party. I am sure that if he follows the good start which he has made, his virtues will be recognized and he will make a contribution to this House worthy of the status which he now enjoys. I wish him luck and as brief a term as possible on the benches which he occupies.

There is nothing personal in that. Mr. Speaker, because the next speaker to whom I wish to refer is the hon. member for Krugers-dorp who has applied “treetop” economics to the Budget. But, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a difficult position this evening. I have to plead with the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have to plead with him not to be too drastic with the hon. member for Krugersdorp because the last time I heard a speech along the lines of that which the hon. member for Krugersdorp made to-day, it was a speech which included, inter alia, a final appeal for the red flag to fly over the city hall of Durban. The person who made that speech was later rewarded and he entered the Other Place to plead the cause of private enterprise and capitalism. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Krugersdorp in his search for Hoggenheimer has rather lost his way. We heard for 20 minutes about the evils of the system of private enterprise. It was a speech which would have delighted the absent Minister for Post and Telegraphs. The only thing that was missing was the nationalization of the gold mines. I am sure that the friends of the Nationalist Party who follow socialist policies will study the speech with great care and that the hearts of the Wilsons and the other left-wingers of the world will feel that a convert has been made in South Africa—a convert from the Government benches. I am now trying to defend him from the hon. the Minister of Justice because if many people had made a speech as left wing, as socialistic as the one we listened to this afternoon, then I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Justice would have confined them immediately and the hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would have seen that immediate action was taken. I can imagine the joy with which some publications would have greeted the punishment which would have been meted out to someone who could propose that the system of private enterprise in South Africa should give way to Socialism.

Are you trying to make an after-dinner speech?

No, I am trying to protect the hon. member for Krugersdorp because I can see very difficult problems facing him—problems arising from certain of the great combines which have arisen in South Africa in recent years. The Hoggenheimers are pre-republican. We do not talk of Hoggenheimer to-day. That was in the imperialist era. To-day we talk of Haakenheimers. I think that the hon. member is going to have a lot of explaining to do amongst his colleagues because these big combines such as liquor, diamonds, fish—the combines which the hon. member has condemned—are what he regards as the root of all evil in South Africa.

You are just jealous.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the hon. member for Brakpan then I wonder what he has got that I have not. I know that I have been unsuccessful in this search for wealth. I am just one of the ordinary people who cannot compare with hon. members on that side of the House and those who sit there. The hon. members may perhaps have to deal with the hen. member for Krugersdorp who believe that it is wrong for private enterprise to accumulate wealth. I want to come back to this subject later. Before doing so there are certain matters concerning the Budget which require the attention of this House. I hope that I will have the opportunity later to follow the trail that has been blazed by the new socialist member for Krugersdorp.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with what is the largest single item in the Budget which this House is considering at the moment. One-fifth of the total revenue expenditure of South Africa, some R255,850,000, is to be expended—and this House is being asked to approve of this expenditure—on the defence of South Africa. It is expenditure which we on this side of the House believe requires careful and detailed analysis. We have a new Parliament, a new Minister of Defence, and earlier this year, in the last session, a new Commandant-General and a new Secretary of Defence. I want to introduce another new idea into this debate. That is that I want to say a kind word to a Nationalist Party Minister—in fact two kind words to two Nationalist Party Ministers. It indicates what happens when you have this spring feeling of newness—new Ministers and new senior officials. One kind word I wish to say is to the retiring Minister of Defence. I do not want to give him the kiss of death, Mr. Speaker. It would be unfortunate if my words were so construed because it is not my intention to give him the kiss of death. But I believe that his era was a good one. It was a difficult and unenviable period in the history of the South African Defence Force. He took over the force when it was weak in number, poor in equipment and broken in morale. He took it over when the natural leadership of our forces had been sacked in large numbers, others had resigned and others had been shunted into byways. The hon. ex-Minister of Defence ended the tragic era of partisanship and sectionalism which had destroyed the morale of the forces of South Africa.

There is a sting in your congratulations.

But the hon. the Minister wisely decided to allow himself to be guided by the advice of those who knew their job. He allowed himself to be guided by experts, by people who place the defence and security of our country first. He was able to strike a balance in that difficult political problem, the problem of balancing political leadership with military leadership, of political control vis-à-vis military control and military leadership. I think that it is only right that we on this side of the House should say that the hon. the Minister who formerly held this post was able to strike that fine balance—a balance which is not easy to obtain because the hon. the Minister dealt with a period of phenomenal growth in the South African Defence Force. A growth which brought with it resultant problems. Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, that all the problems were not well-handled. They were not all solved. It would be foolish to say that the hon. the Minister created a perfect state of satisfaction in our Forces. But I do believe that he laid a solid foundation—a foundation upon which the forces were rebuilt and morale was rebuilt. He has handed over at this time a force of which South Africa can well be proud—a force in which experience and ability is recognized—a force in which politics do not play a part. That is a goal for which every Minister of Defence should strive and for which I believe we can pay tribute to the hon. the Minister who has led the Defence Force during these past years. He has removed from defence the partisanship of political differences. To the new Minister I should like on behalf of this side of the House to extend a friendly welcome. His is no easy task and because the hon. the Minister and I know one another so well I think that I am entitled to say that it is a task which will carry with it some temptations, a task which may test him but a task which I believe he is big enough to tackle. I believe that if he follows on the road of placing defence above other considerations, as a prime consideration on behalf of the people of South Africa. then he has within himself the ability to do so. It is a force rich in tradition, proud of its great history, high in morale—and in answer to the member who interjected a moment ago on a subject of which he knows nothing—a force dedicated in patriotism to South Africa. That dedication is one which extends to us on this side of the House. Most of us on this side of the House are in fact part of that force which the hon. the Minister controls. Most of us are members of the reserve which falls under the hon. the Minister and we share with the forces the pride and the dedication to South Africa which is their hallmark. We wish the hon. the Minister luck in taking on this new task. What more can he ask, Mr. Speaker? He has a force of fine men, well-officered and the goodwill of the Opposition. The rest is in his hands. It is now up to him to make of the Defence Force—and to keep the Defence Force—the sort of army of which South Africa has always been proud and of which I believe we can continue to be proud. We would like to play our part in that task.

I think that the time is perhaps appropriate to restate very briefly our attitude to defence. Firstly, we believe that it should be non-political and bipartisan. That is our fundamental approach to defence problems. The forces of South. Africa should enjoy the support of every citizen of South Africa and we in the United Party guarantee that support. As we have given it before, so we will continue to give our support to the army upon whose success or failure our own freedom and our own future depends. Secondly, we support the building up of a strong force—a force well-armed and equipped and a force well-trained ,—and we will support all necessary, and I repeat necessary, expenditure towards the achievement of that objective. Thirdly, we recognize our responsibility as the official Opposition to act as watchdogs over that expenditure. To act as watchdogs, firstly, over the money which is voted and how it is spent. Secondly, we act as watchdogs over the requirements of the forces, vis-à-vis the manpower resources and requirements of the national life of South Africa. Thirdly, we see our role as watchdog over the welfare of the forces who serve under the hon. the Minister of Defence. In view of these three objectives it is therefore our task to-night to consider this Budget. I want to say at once that with the development of defence as it is now taking place—with air to ground and ground to air missiles with high-speed jet aircraft such as Buccaneers and all the developments which involve defence—it becomes increasingly difficult to make the criticisms which it is necessary for us to make across the floor of this House without affecting the national welfare of South Africa. We want to play our part and we want to avoid saying or doing anything in this House which may react against the best interests of our country. My appeal to the hon. Minister to-night is that he must make it possible for us to play our part. I ask him to reconsider the request of this side of the House to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee on Defence, limited in scope and responsibility, for dealing with the expenditure of the Department of Defence. I am asking no more than that.

The old, old story.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the old, old story. In the past we have asked for more than that. We have asked to be able to participate in other fields. I am limiting my appeal to-night exclusively to the question of defence expenditure. I am not asking to participate in policy. I am not asking to participate in those things in respect of which the Government have the prerogative to determine the course. I am not asking for the disclosure of secret information other than what applies to defence expenditure. I believe that if the hon. the Minister wants the whole of South Africa to back his demands for finance which he requires—if he wants the whole of South Africa to feel that the money which South Africa is being asked to pay, one-fifth of the total expenditure of this Budget, is well-spent, then he will get that money far more willingly and with greater goodwill if he enables us to participate in the control of the expenditure. I want to take the matter no further to-night. During the Defence Vote we will deal with the details. I have only two other requests to make to the hon. the Minister. The first is to tell the House whether it is correct that he has agreed that the basic recommendations of the Groenewoud report will be made available, excluding secret information. Secondly, to ask whether he will consider issuing again a White Paper along the lines of that issued in 1964, a White Paper which will enable this House to consider the effect of the money which it is being asked to vote.

There is only one way this House can exercise proper Parliamentary control and that is if we can have a select committee limited in its work to that control, a select committee in which both sides of this House can participate so that our Defence Force, from a Parliamentary point of view, will enjoy a truly rational and bi-partisan support. I believe that this is an opportunity for the Minister to give to South Africa a token of his sincerity—sincerity which we accept unquestioningly—and to show that he will make of this Defence Force a force which will retain a truly South African spirit. I do not want to go any deeper into questions of defence, Mr. Speaker. These are matters which we shall raise on the Defence Vote, but I leave this thought with the Minister as it will determine the attitude which Parliament must take towards this vast expenditure, this vast sum which we are being asked to vote to-day.

I now wish to deal with one or two other matters which have arisen from the Budget which is before us. Firstly, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether this Government can distinguish its own arm from its own elbow. I have here a publication issued by the hon. the Minister of Information, dated 17th June, 1966. In this publication the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs stated—and this is not Sap propaganda; this is a Government publication:

In June, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Affairs stated that salaries could be doubled or trebled without harming the economy of South Africa.

That is only a part of the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming this Minister. If the Minister of Information misreports the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Economic Affairs must blame his own colleague. I am reading a statement from a Government publication. I am not quoting out of context. I have quoted from the first words of this report. The report continues:

The Minister now states that his own Government does not tell the truth to South Africa and the world. He says that it is only part of the truth. I think that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should apply immediately to the Prime Minister to have the Minister of Information dismissed. [Interjections.] How can two Ministers sit in the same Cabinet when one is misreporting the other? I suggest that the hon. the Minister should report this matter to the Press Board and ask for the reappointment of the Press Commission. [Interjections.] Look at the confusion of members who see themselves misreported and misrepresented by a Government organ and a Government Minister, namely the Minister of Information. That is the amusing part, but also the tragic part. Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet changes so often that I do not know whether it is the deposed Minister of Information or the Minister of Information who has been brought in to try to save the shambles which the ex-Minister created, but it was somewhere in the period between deposition and king-making that, on the 15th July, less than a month later, on the front page of the South African Digest, the Minister of Finance came out with a statement of a four-point attack on economic inflation. Mr. Speaker, where do we stand? One Minister says that we can double and treble salaries. One Minister comes out with a four-point plan to curb inflation. One Minister appeals for babies and another Minister taxes prams and toys. [Interjections.] But, Sir, this is not the end of the conflict. On the 1st August, the first of this month, the Department of Community Development advised the United Municipal Executive that it was quite impossible and absolutely ridiculous to suggest raising the level at which people could be helped with homes. Two weeks later the Minister of Community Development proudly announced a raising of the level of the means test for community development subsidized homes. Where do we stand, Sir? Do we accept the statement of the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Finance, the statement of the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Minister of Finance, that of the Secretary of the Department of Community Development or that of the Minister? Does this Government know what it is doing? Can the Government then complain when we accuse them not of taking candy from kids but of taking toys from toddlers, prams from parents and cokes from kids? It is not a major issue, Sir, but what is a major issue is that the things which they have taxed are the things which are the joy and the life of the ordinary working man. They are the things which matter not to the Haakenheimers, the member for Krugersdorp and the member for Malmesbury, but to the working man of South Africa. His beer which he enjoys is one of these things—beer which is now taxed by a punitive and discriminatory tax, contrary to every principle of justice in the history of democratic government. This is the first time in South Africa that a punitive and discriminatory tax has been placed on one of the luxuries of the working man. It is a small luxury which is being taxed at the cost of efficiency and productivity and in the interests of small firms, which cannot compete in efficiency and productivity. And’ what else is taxed, Sir? The workers’ smokes. And then there are the thousands of cigarette machines which are now valueless in South Africa. Every cigarette machine in South Africa has been rendered valueless by the Minister. If you walk into any station, café or restaurant where there is a cigarette machine, you will find that they cannot be used because the Minister has quite callously and without thought raised the price of cigarettes above the level which has always been recognized as the level which the ordinary working man can afford. Then there is the question of spirits. What does the Minister of Justice say? What has happened to his drinking pattern in South Africa? What has happened to his drinking pattern to turn the people away from strong drink, from spirits, to beer and wine? He introduced a Bill to change the drinking patterns of the people. The one thing he wanted to encourage, namely that people should use alcoholic drinks with lower alcoholic content, this Minister taxes out of the market, forcing the people back on to hard tack. I say that it is the ordinary man in South Africa whose luxuries have been taxed out of his reach.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member when he pays tribute to my predecessor. I have on several occasions outside this house paid tribute to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services for the work he has done in connection with defence in South Africa, and therefore it is not necessary to repeat what I said outside this House on those occasions. I need only second what the hon. member has said in paying tribute. But let me say immediately that I do not think that it is necessary when one is paying tribute to one person to disparage another. I shall definitely not follow the hon. member in that process.

We do not expect that.

The work which was done in the time of Mr. Erasmus in connection with training facilities in the form of gymnasiums, in connection with the Military Academy, the take-over of Simonstown, and the creation of a purely South African spirit in our Defence Force, no one can take away from him. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that we should now please get away from acting in that kind of spirit when dealing with the Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, I think we agree about two other principles. The first is that the Defence Force of South Africa, namely its army, its navy and its air force, belongs to all South Africa. It belongs to the entire population as represented in this House and in that spirit I, in my new capacity, shall follow in the footsteps of my predecessor and shall endeavour to promote the unity and the strength of the Defence Force to the best of my ability. But when I say that I must add that there is one requirement that goes with that, namely absolute loyalty of the entire Defence Force to South Africa and as regards the demands made on it by the Government of the day. On this point I have no doubt that that spirit does exist in the South African Defence Force at present. There is not the slightest doubt that there is an excellent spirit in the supreme command at present. The supreme command as constituted at present is an example of cooperation and of discussion on the basis of merit. It has been my privilege to attend several meetings of the supreme command since taking over this portfolio. I could come to no other conclusion but that a spirit of unity and a team spirit prevailed which only augured well for South Africa’s future.

The second principle about which we agree is that there must be proper financial control over the expenditure of the Defence Force. Whereas I welcome what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here to-night, I regret to say that it has not been my impression during the past few days that all hon. members hold that point of view, namely that we are prepared to spend this money and that we want to keep the Defence Force outside the party-political struggle as far as possible.

You are talking nonsense.

I accept that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has stated the official point of view of the Opposition. I hope that all hon. members will adhere to that. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to be petty, but I just want to refer to two things. The hon. member for Orange Grove made a speech here yesterday in which he referred to certain things which had occurred, not in my time, but in the time of my predecessor. He created the impression that there had had to be an investigation into irregularities in the Defence Force. That is not true, because the facts are that the investigation which was instituted, was instituted at the request of high-ranking officers in the Defence Force because gossip had implicated them in certain matters. After that investigation had been completed my predecessor read out the findings here, from which we learnt that those reprehensible stories had not only been disproved, but that the persons who had been slandered had come through with flying colours. Now I ask, why does the hon. member for Orange Grove come along, if he wants to adhere to the official standpoint of his party, and start a campaign of this nature which can only create concern and doubt among a certain section of the public? I hope that this will be the last time we shall have that kind of tactics in connection with the Defence Force.

The second point to which I want to refer and which also caused me concern is that an old parliamentarian whom we all respect, the hon. member for Constantia, commenced his speech the other day by saying that it would not have been necessary to spend this money had it not been for the racial policy of this Government. What other impression could we gain from that except that if a United Party government had been in power that money would not have been spent? Surely it is not correct to make such statements?

Why not?

I shall tell you why. Let me quote a few comparative figures. One finds that Canada spent 20.9 per cent of its national Budget on its defence Budget in the 1965-6 financial year and 20.3 per cent in 1966-7. The United Kingdom spent 18.5 per cent last year, and the present figure is 17.6 per cent, in spite of reductions it necessarily had to make in certain parts of the world. In 1965-6 Australia spent nearly 15 per cent and there was a report in the newspapers the other day that this percentage had been increased very heavily this year. These countries do not have a racial problem or a race policy such as that of this Government. The percentage spent by the Republic of South Africa in 1965-6 was 14.7 as against 15.5 this year. How does that compare with other modern civilized Western countries, the group of which we form part? It only shows that in the dangerous situation existing in the world all those countries are preparing themselves as far as possible to be ready to fight. If someone wants to make this point against the Government, I therefore say that it is unfair to create the impression with the public that too much money is spent on the Defence Force as a result of our race policy. I hope we shall not find tactics of that type being used again and I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Durban (Point), where he has now taken the lead in these matters in his party, that we should rather steer clear of this type of thing and that we should rather maintain the tone set by him this evening in connection with defence.

The hon. member said that it was their standpoint that there should be proper control over defence expenditure. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this side of the House is as keen to have that proper control exercised. The hon. member asked that a joint parliamentary select committee should be appointed for exercising that control. but in the same breath he said that they did not want to know secrets; they realized that there were certain things which could not be disclosed even to the select committee. Now, if we agree in principle then that there should be proper control—and let me emphasize once more that there is no difference of opinion about that—it is only a question of what we ought to do. This Government, like the Opposition, is intent on exercising the most effective financial control possible. But what are the means the Government has at its disposal for exercising that control? A joint parliamentary select committee is advocated now, but we know that in previous years a plea was made—and it has not yet been dropped altogether—for the establishment of a defence council in terms of section 73 of the Defence Act. Only this morning an article appeared under a nom-de-plume in a sympathetic newspaper advocating the idea of a defence council for exercising this control. But I think that the time has arrived that the country should once more be told what means there are for ensuring this proper control over the purchases and the financial expenditure.

In the first instance there is the ordinary departmental control that one finds in any department, with a sub-committee of the Department which includes the three forces and the secretariat to exercise control over all matters concerning ordinary expenditure. In the second place there is the Tender Board, which deals with all internal purchases. I do not think anybody will deny that the Tender Board exercises effective control in South Africa, and that that is the fairest way of making one’s purchases. So we do have that assurance. But what is not generally known, although it has been stated by my predecessor but has apparently been forgotten, is that there are various bodies at the disposal of the Defence Force which assist in exercising this control not only in respect of policy but also in respect of financial expenditure. My predecessor had the co-ordinating committee, of which he was the chairman, at his disposal. He had at his disposal the Defence Resources Board, on which experts served. He had at his disposal the Council for Defence Research, on which experts served. But my predecessor also had at his disposal a special Cabinet committee on defence matters. I just want to say a few words in this connection tonight.

With the permission of the Government I have decided to combine the functions of this co-ordinating committee and the Defence Resources Board and the Council for Defence Research in a single body, and it is my intention to constitute this council in such a manner that it will not be a statutory body but, being geared for administrative purposes, will serve as a defence advisory and research council. The terms of reference of this council will be the following: firstly, to define the research and development requirements of the Defence Force and to determine the order of priority in respect thereof; secondly, to deal with the financing of research and other projects; thirdly, to consider progress reports and research results in connection with projects undertaken on behalf of the Defence Force; fourthly, to advise on defence requirements and the desirability of the local manufacture of any product as opposed to its importation; in the fifth place, to advise on stock-piling and control of essential supplies; in the sixth place, to determine the capacity and the convertibility of our industries in time of war; and in the seventh place, to consider any other defence matter referred to it by the Minister. The intention is to absorb this co-ordinating committee and the Resources Board in this Defence Advisory and Research Council, of which the Minister himself will be the chairman. On this Council will serve, inter alia, the chairman of the Munitions Production Board, the general manager of munitions production, the Commandant-General, most probably the Secretary for Trade and Industries, who is at present serving on the Resources Board, and the President of the C.S.I.R. and other persons who can give expert advice on large projects. In other words, it will be possible for the Minister to obtain the best advice after the supreme command has stated its requirements to him. He will be advised by this body of experts on all projects before he approaches the Cabinet. In this connection I want to say that this special sub-committee of the Cabinet, which consists of six or seven Ministers, has regular meetings under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister himself. In other words, the means are there—not only through the ordinary departmental machinery, and not only through the Tender Board and not only through this Defence Advisory and Research Council I have discussed, but also through a Cabinet committee of which the Prime Minister is the chairman—to exercise control over all defence matters. I think I have said enough to convince hon. members that no major projects are embarked on, that no new directions are taken, that no large purchases are made, unless they have passed through a fine sieve and have been carefully considered from all angles.

But that is not Parliamentary control.

I am coming to that. Now the hon. member asks us to appoint a joint parliamentary select committee in addition to these bodies of control. We do have a joint select committee, the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The only information that is withheld from that Select Committee is information that we cannot divulge to others in any case and in connection with which hon. members have the assurance that if the matters concerned are of a secret or a delicate nature, or if they are matters affecting diplomatic relations, or matters that require action which cannot be discussed in public, there are the guarantees that I have mentioned that the Minister or the Commandant-General may not simply do as they please, but that there are responsible bodies which exercise supervision. If, in addition, you ask for the appointment of a parliamentary committee, then I say that you have that in the form of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that one would not be able to disclose anything more to such a committee than to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. And one cannot entrust any task to a defence council other than those that have already been entrusted to the bodies I have mentioned this evening. I think that that is a conclusive reply, and I honestly think that we should try to discuss other affairs with a view to ensuring the future of the Defence Force and gaining the enthusiasm of the people for the Defence Force, rather than to take matters of this nature any further.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the members of the control bodies to which he has referred are all Ministers or State officials, or whether there are outsiders as well?

No, not all of them are State officials. The chairman of the Munitions Production Board is not a State official, nor is the president of the C.S.I.R. The chairman of the Munitions Production Board does not receive remuneration from the State, but is a well-known leader in the business field in South Africa. I do not think anybody will call that in question. I am glad that I have been afforded this opportunity, because I should not like to see a new agitation arising. There is no room for a further defence council when the position is viewed against the background of the existing bodies of control, to which the Prime Minister also gives his personal attention. In the second place I think hon. members will agree with me that the necessary financial control is being exercised. I do not want to say any more to-night, apart from replying to two questions put by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

In the first place, the hon. member asked me whether the Report of the Groenewoud Committee would be released. The Groenewoud Committee itself classified its Report as secret. But in spite of that I have requested the Supreme Command to make such extracts from the Report of the Groenewoud Committee as do not contain any secrets and will not divulge any military information, and to make a summary of those recommendations and also to indicate which recommendations we are already implementing. I hope to be able to make this summary available to hon. members within a week or two. I hope it will be done before the discussion of my Vote, so that hon. members may study the summary if they want to discuss the matter. But hon. members will understand that there are certain aspects and certain recommendations by the Committee which we cannot release at the moment because that would mean rendering the Defence Force a disservice—not in the sense that something is being concealed which is to the discredit of the Defence Force, but simply because it contains information which should not be disclosed in the times in which we are living. But let me say that in general the Report of the Groenewoud Committee was not critical or derogatory as far as the Defence Force was concerned. There are certain flaws and shortcomings, but they are simply shortcomings which came about in the process of development and to which we will have to give attention. We shall disclose these.

The hon. member also asked me whether we would table a White Paper. We have given consideration to tabling a White Paper as has been done in the past, but we have decided not to do so this year but rather, if possible, next year because there are certain matters which are at present receiving attention from the Supreme Command and which will also have to receive the attention of the Cabinet committee as well as of the new council I have mentioned, matters we shall be able to discuss more profitably next session.

I want to conclude by making a single appeal. In its Report the Groenewoud Committee stated, inter alia, that one of the things which have an adverse effect on the morale of the South African Defence Force is interference in the internal affairs of the Defence Force by, outsiders, including members of Parliament at times. In this connection it proceeded to mention, inter alia, unauthorized exemptions, and persons who flooded the Minister with requests that he should intervene. The Groenewoud Committee urged that these things should be kept out of the affairs of the Defence Force as far as possible. I want to make use of this opportunity to-night to appeal to this House to assist us not to impair that morale, but rather to create a spirit of dedication and enthusiasm in the youth of South Africa because, as the Groenewoud Committee said, there is still too large a number of youths who adopt a half-hearted and luke-warm attitude towards the Defence Force and towards training. I hope that hon. members will help me to create a spirit of dedication and of readiness to serve in our youth so that, through our co-operation, we may ensure only the best for South Africa and its youth and its Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days it has become customary for one member to congratulate another on his maiden speech, and this evening I am privileged to congratulate the Minister of Defence too on his maiden speech in his capacity as Minister of Defence. We were particularly pleased to learn from him that he intends to continue along the road of his predecessor. This statement is, I think, adequate proof to the former Minister of Defence of the high esteem in which we hold him. We had a great deal to do with him and we always found him to be helpful in personal matters as well as general matters affecting the Force. There is no doubt that he placed the Defence Force on its feet again. I was also pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that he found a very good spirit prevailing in the Defence Force. I think I can confirm this, because I keep in close touch with many members of the Force and I know that a wonderful change has taken place over the past five or six years. I can assure him that we hope that that spirit will continue. It is up to every South African to give his full support to the Defence Force. I was also very pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that he demands that the Defence Force support the Government through thick and thin and that it does so unquestioningly. That is the way it should be, and he will always receive the backing of this side of the House when it comes to the support of the Force having to be given to the lawful Government of the country. I should also’ like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his speech but I do have some criticism to pass in connection with the control over the Force.

The Minister told us of the various councils there are, and I do not want to detract from what he said. They are obviously very good bodies but it is nevertheless as plain as a pikestaff that this Parliament is asked to vote colossal sums for the Defence Force, and neither we on this side nor the hon. gentlemen on the other side know how or on what this money is spent. Parliament is, after all, the responsible body in this regard and I hope the hon. the Minister will consider telling us a little more about what is envisaged for the Defence Force and about the equipment they are buying and what they are buying it for.

A great deal is said about secrecy but I think we exaggerate the question of secrecy. You know, Sir, any enemy that South Africa need be afraid of knows more about what is going on in the Defence Force than we members of Parliament do. They have their sources of information and they can tell what the position is up to the last rifle and the last trained man we can muster. We do not have to be afraid of the enemies of South Africa who do not have that information. To tell the truth, I think it might be a good thing if they were to know a little more of what South Africa is capable of doing. There is a tendency to hide too much under a blanket of secrecy. We know, Sir, that there are important matters which need to be kept secret, but we do not require a large blanket for that. All we need is a veil not much bigger than a bikini, and that will cover all those matters. I want to leave this thought with the hon. the Minister—that he should take this House more into his confidence; that he should tell us, even if it is by way of a secret sitting, exactly what the intention of the Defence Force is, who our potential enemies are, how strong they are and how we are planning to combat them.

There is another matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, a matter that is very dear to me and, I am sure, also dear to him. That is the question of the Permanent Force. In reply to a question a few days ago the Minister told us what the shortfalls in the Permanent Force are. This is a question I have asked time and again over the past few years, and I was very upset to see that the position as regards other ranks in the Permanent Force is deteriorating. According to the figures given us by the Minister there is a shortfall of approximately 10 per cent among officer-ranks in the Permanent Force at the moment. There is also a shortfall of approximately 57 per cent among other ranks and included in this 57 per cent, there are a large number of technical personnel who have to hold key positions in time of peace and men who have to hold far more responsible posts in time of war. The position has deteriorated,, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will make it one of his primary tasks to devise a plan to halt the shocking drainage of these trained men from the Permanent Force. We know he has his difficulties. We know that some of the technical staff in the Air Force leave the Force and go to work with private firms or at the new factory at Jan Smuts Airport, and that they are paid better there. I am sure a plan can be devised to try to retain these men. I hope the hon. the Minister will make this one of his primary tasks and will give it the highest priority in order to stop this drainage and to build up the Permanent Force.

There is another matter I feel I should bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and that is the recent appointment of two very senior officers, Brigadier Claassen and Colonel Goosen. I am the last person to detract from the capabilities of these two gentlemen. Both of them represented South Africa on the sports field with distinction. I am also the last person to say that these positions do not have to be filled. I think there is a void in this regard and that that work in the Defence Force must be done. But it always leaves a very bad taste when people from outside, who know virtually nothing about military life, are brought into the Force at these high ranks. I can assure the hon. the Minister that these appointments evoked a great deal of criticism from his senior officers in the Force.

Not from the Supreme Command. These appointments have the wholehearted support of the Supreme Command.

I accept that. But there is nevertheless a great deal of criticism expressed by senior officers. The criticism is that there were individuals in the Force who could have filled the posts. I do not want to argue the point because I do not know the facts, but there is this criticism on the part of senior officers and there is a great deal of criticism on the part of those people who are now going to be the juniors of those appointees. The good spirit which prevails in the Force, to which the hon. the Minister referred, may be harmed if appointments of this nature are made.

I also want to say that I take off my hat to the hon. the Minister for trying to defend one of his predecessors, Mr. Erasmus, in this House. I do not want to say that Mr. Erasmus did not do good work; the few things which the hon. the Minister mentioned, were sound, but one of the reasons why we have to pay so much for our defence to-day is because the Defence Force was broken right down over a period of 12 years and everything had to be built up again from scratch. That is one of the reasons. It was during that period that men whom we need desperately to-day, men who could have assisted us in the training of those people whom we now need so badly, were dismissed from the Force for a variety of reasons. It will avail the hon. the Minister nothing to try to defend Mr. Erasmus, because these are irrefutable facts.

Let us leave him out of politics.

I am not talking politics; these are facts and this is the price we have to pay to-day. I think too that we have failed in the diplomatic sphere. We cannot rely upon any of our friends to help us nowadays if we should find ourselves in difficulty. We cannot even obtain equipment from them, equipment which we need so desperately and which we cannot manufacture in this country, and for this I blame the Government.

I want to come back now to the Budget which is the subject of this discussion. Mention has been made of the new members who have delivered their maiden speeches. I am not one to thank and congratulate the Government continually, but I must congratulate the Nationalist Party because there is one group in the party which has been greatly strengthened by the new members and that is the “thank the Minister” group. One member after the other stood up here and thanked the Minister or the Government. Mr. Speaker, one cannot blame them, because they do not know what a good government is. They have grown up and become old under this Government. If they had had any experience of a good government, they would not have thanked this Government to such an extent.

We also had the spectacle here of hon. members trying to defend this Budget and describing this Government as a good government. We listened to them juggling with statistics in order to prove to us that the cost of living was not rising; we listened to them juggling with statistics in order to convince us that they had taken adequate precautionary measures in order to safeguard our water supplies in this country. All they can give and promise us is bread, dry bread, and figures, and nothing more—not even water with the dry bread!

They tell us that we do not give them good advice but it is very strange to see how they nevertheless take our advice! We have been asking the hon. the Minister of Transport for an oil pipeline for years, and he admits to-day that that pipeline has proved to be a money-spinner. If they had listened to us they would to-day have had many other money-spinners in operation. If they had listened to our advice the Orange River scheme would by this time have been completed and it would have cost far less than it is going to cost. [Laughter.] It is true. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development laughs. Slowly but surely the Government is accepting our ideas. Another example that I can mention is our immigration policy. The Government took that over as well. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development thinks that this is not true, but it is nevertheless a fact.

I cannot omit referring to the statement by the hon. member for Malmesbury that we are living beyond our means. One would think that he has never been poor, that he no longer moves in those circles. He told us that we were living beyond our means because, he said, he had visited certain garages and there he had seen cars with low mileages which had been traded in on new cars; he had visited furniture dealers and there he had seen comparatively new furniture which had been traded in. But he did not try to find out how many of those cars and how much of that furniture had been repossessed because the owners were in debt.

He did not say that.

He did say it. Neither did he ask those dealers how many of the owners of those cars and the furniture had had to sell those articles in order to be able to buy food. Like his Government, he has lost contact with the ordinary man in the street.

It is really strange that the ordinary man in the street keeps us in power!

Yes, but there is an answer to that. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Piketberg said. He said that we must remember that the voters of South Africa are very intelligent. All I can say is that a number of intelligent people have on this occasion done a very silly thing in returning this Government to power, and now that the party is over, they are going to pay. We are only sorry that the people who were sensible enough to vote for us will also have to pay.

A few days ago I saw an article about South Africa in an overseas newspaper. The article was headed “South Africa’s full belly and empty heart”. This simply shows how completely out of touch they are with conditions here. South Africa does not have a “full belly”; South Africa will shortly have “an empty belly and no heart”.

As a result of the trend which the debate has taken since the dinner break, I should like to start by saying that I deem it a special privilege to have been a member of the South African Defence Force for the past 14 years, and that I am proud to be a member of that Force to-day. I should like to say that in my opinion the Defence Force is to-day as prepared and as moden as probably never before.

Actually, I should like to devote my speech to another matter to-night. As a result of the judgement given by the World Court in the South West case between the Ethiopian Empire and the Republic of Liberia on the one hand and the Republic of South Africa on the other, jurisprudence as such has for the moment been placed in the limelight of world and South African attention.

I want to endeavour for a moment to-night to steal part of that limelight for our common law. South African common law, i.e. Roman-Dutch Law, is the oldest legal system practised in the Western world to-day. It developed out of Roman Law, which, after itself having evolved over a period of 1,000 years, was codified in 533 A.D. by order of Emperor Justinian. These are the last traces of codification to be found in our common law. It is now almost 1.500 years since its codification, and it is my humble opinion that it is high time that attention was given by the State to the codification of our South African law in its entirety.

The position to-day is that the legal practitioner and the law student who seeks authority for a statement which he wishes to make, depending of course on what the statement is, has to look for such authority in the Justinian Code and other very old European statutes, in writings and notes, and of course in the decisions of Judges. Indeed, these legal sources cover a period of 15 centuries. The books containing this information are not always readily available, and even if available are very expensive and, what is more, often written in a language which is foreign to the person seeking the information, although he may be able to decipher it, which is in any case a laborious task. It is a fact that many of the legal principles of the Corpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian are applied unchanged in our law today.

To mention only one example, with which I had to deal just the other day: South African vicinal law, i.e. those legal principles governing the relationship between neighbours, even to-day contains the stipulation that one may not break stone on one’s premises in a manner which causes splinters to fall on one’s neighbour’s premises. This is derived directly from the Justinian Code. Apart from these principles, we may find our common law in old Dutch collections of edicts, as I have mentioned previously, and more often these days in the decisions of our Judges. Some of our legal principles are, of course, completely unwritten. For example, the prohibition on killing a human being is an unwritten one. Wilfully killing a human being constitutes murder, and killing a human being through negligence constitutes culpable homicide. These two instances do not create problems because they are of fairly frequent occurrence.

I have mentioned these examples to illustrate to the House that a lawyer may sometimes find himself in quite a maze of legal principles when trying to determine the legal position. I hasten to add, however, that thanks to the standard of training at our faculties of law such a man is usually equipped to find his way through the maze eventually.

Another matter that should be mentioned when one discusses the codification of our law is the fact that, as a result of the autonomy of the provincial divisions of our Supreme Court, one finds the position that the same legal principle has different consequences in different provinces, merely as a result of the fact that there may be differences in interpretation or differences in approach in the various provincial courts. These differences can only be eliminated by legislation and, of course, also by a decision of the Appellate Division. I mention this to link up with what I want to say about the codification of our law. To me the most important principle lies in Roman-Dutch Law being the common law of South Africa. Roman-Dutch Law originated as Roman Law, which developed for several centuries in the Roman Empire before the birth of Christ, and was spread over a large part of Europe by the Romans.

In Holland it developed into Roman-Dutch Law, whence it came to South Africa with Jan van Riebeeck. It survived here despite the fact that in Holland it was replaced by the Code Napoleon. It also survived here after the Second British Occupation of the Cape in 1806, when it was stipulated in the conditions of surrender that it would remain in force as the law of the colony, and from here it was carried into the interior by the Voortrekkers. Therefore it is indeed the common law of South Africa, but it is a fact that it has not escaped all foreign influences. Especially after the Second British Occupation of the Cape, numerous principles and forms of English law crept into Roman-Dutch Law as a result of the English-law orientation of the administrators of justice. The jury system, for example, is one form that crept in. Mr. Speaker, the jury system probably served a purpose at one stage, but it is my opinion and experience that this system has become obsolete in South Africa and that, indeed it may just as well disappear from our law of criminal procedure. Its existence at this stage is purely academic; it does form part of our law of criminal procedure, and as such it takes up the time of our law students.

The question of the codification of our law has been discussed in South Africa for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I am fully aware of the fact that jurists will be able to produce a counter-argument to every argument I may adduce in favour of codification; that is only the nature of the jurist. That is why I said at the outset that this matter was one which should now be considered by the State. I also want to make it clear that I do not expect codification to give South Africa an absolutely flawless and irreplaceable new legal system, complete in all respects, but on the other hand I am convinced that codification will bring renewal and a great deal of clarity and lucidity to South African law. Codification will enable us to modernize our law, for instance, by consulting other continental legal systems. Codification will also have the effect of making our law more readily accessible, not only to the legal practitioner and the law student, but also to the ordinary citizen who wants to make a study of it.

But above all—and to me this is the most important consideration—codification will enable us to purify and adapt our law where necessary. Foreign legal principles which have infiltered over the years and which do not fit in could be eliminated. Pure Roman-Dutch legal principles which have been ousted or which have fallen into disuse could be reinstated. Codification would not deprive South Africa of its age-old and well-tried system of Roman-Dutch Law. On the contrary, through codification it could be renewed and modernized to such an extent that it might remain valid for the next 15 centuries. Mr. Speaker, the task of codifying South African common law will indeed be a challenge, but South Africa has never flinched in the face of great challenges.

In the monetary sphere we have only recently given the world a pattern for converting one monetary system to another. In the sphere of constitutional law we entered a new era five years ago by becoming a Republic. I believe that by undertaking a complete codification of our law South Africa could in the field of jurisprudence give the world something which it has not seen since the time of Napoleon.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in congratulating the previous speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof, on his maiden speech. I find myself in the position that while making my own maiden speech I have to congratulate another member who made his maiden speech a moment ago, but that is a tradition from which I do not want to depart. Why this type of speech should be called a maiden speech while we are men, I do not quite fathom either.

Hon. members who are successors to former members have paid tribute here to their predecessors. I do not know whether that is a tradition to, but if it is I want to observe it by paying tribute to my own predecessor, and I want to say this of him: As a person I found him a first-class fellow, as an opponent in the election very pleasant, but as a politician still in a state of dormancy.

I have listened to the speeches made in this House, and I have paid particular attention to the hon. new members. I really felt small when I listened to the scientific discourses and to the learned dissertations on agriculture, and I was really impressed by the heights attained by hon. new members. If I may do so, I want to tell the hon. senior members—and in saying this I exclude myself completely—that there is a considerable amount of good talent in this House. Mr. Speaker, I have to make my first speech in this illustrious House tonight and I stand here in fear and trembling. This evening I really feel like the person who, with others, had to charge a certain position during a battle. When he looked down and saw his trousers trembling he said: “If you are afraid, old chap, you stay behind. I am going to charge on my own.”

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do that. At school and later at university all of us had to go through an initiation period. I think it is good that such a method is applied in order to make a man of the novice. One gets that feeling of Alma Mater only after the initiation period has passed; then one may also join the adults in conversation. Mr. Speaker, I have observed some of my hon. new colleagues during the few weeks we have been here; I did not say much. I do not want to compare myself with Moses, except in so far as he needed an Aaron to show him the correct way. Now, I have watched the tense faces of hon. new members; I have seen them studying during the day, in the early hours of the morning and late at night. Some of them lost their appetites. After a while I became very, worried and it was then that they started talking to me and told me: “You have to make your maiden speech.” Everybody seemed to look at me critically as though wanting to say: “You will never survive it,” and then, Mr. Speaker, I also lost my appetite. I also began to study, and you know, Sir, I have already studied three different topics, and do you know why? As soon as I regarded myself well-versed in a subject, one of my hon. new colleagues got up and made a speech on that very subject.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all. I was told by the hon. Whip to make a speech to-day. I chose a fresh topic and tried to prepare my speech and this afternoon, late this afternoon, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) came along and spoke on that very topic. He did not come to blows with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, but he did speak about the oil barons and so forth, and then added: “We can settle that over a cup of coffee.” Now, I hope he and I will also settle matters over a cup of coffee.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be long. My time is limited in any case. But, Mr. Speaker, permit me to say, as an Anthony of old did when he buried Caesar: “Bear with me.” The subject I want to discuss is the question of housing, and now I am serious. The Department of Community Development—and this is the topic the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) took out of my mouth—has really done wonders in the past five years, in spite of the numerous difficulties it has had. The Department’s first difficulty was that it did not have the co-operation of certain local authorities; as a matter of fact, not only did it not have their co-operation, but it had their opposition. Secondly, funds were limited, apart from many other difficulties they had to contend with. But now the picture is changing slightly. The local authorities have come to realize that the policy followed by this Department is the correct one. I am not going to bore you with figures, Mr. Speaker. You must please stop me if I go too far, but I should like to quote a few figures to you. During the past five years the National Housing Commission,, which is an organ of this Department, provided local authorities with funds for the erection of, in round figures, 9,000 houses for Whites to the amount of R42,000,000, 36,000 houses for Coloureds to the amount of R33,000,000, and 13,000 houses for Indians to the amount of R18,500,000. In addition, the following advances and loans were made: for 11,000 houses for Whites, 13,000 houses for Indians and 37,000 houses for Coloureds, a total of approximately 62,000 houses at a cost of approximately R107,000,000. In addition to the said houses, the Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission are engaged on a crash building programme for Whites at the following centres: Cape Town, Durban, West and East Rand, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Pretoria. This programme makes provision for an additional 4,000 houses. Mr. Speaker, other schemes are being contemplated as well, but I shall not bore you with any more figures. Suffice it to say that the Department of Community Development is carrying out a gigantic task. But I want to plead that the tempo be accelerated. I address myself to the hon. the Minister of Finance when I ask that more funds be made available for housing. There are, inter alia, three factors which cause this Department great difficulty. They are the time factor, finance and immigration. It is expected that another 50,000 immigrants will come to this country in 1966.

This evening, however, I want to plead primarily for the constituency I represent, namely the constituency of Jeppes. There is an emergency in Jeppes as far as housing is concerned. Formerly Jeppes—or “Jeppestown”, as it used to be called—was the select residential area of Johannesburg. The mining magnates and all the other people who really counted stayed there. But to-day Jeppes—and I say it with conviction—is the poorest residential area in the Republic. During the years of the depression, i.e. in the thirties, depopulation of the rural areas took place and many people moved to the cities. Jeppes was one of the parts to which people moved from the rural areas. The people who went to live there were not trained to be employed in factories and parts to which people moved from the rural areas and had to find their feet. As a result of those circumstances we find the workers’ class in Jeppes to-day. Jeppes has been neglected all these years. I need not say that, Sir, because you can deduce it for yourself. Because if it used to be the select residential area and is the poorest part of the country to-day, it is clear that it must have been neglected. And, Mr. Speaker, the local authority concerned is to blame for Jeppes having fallen into such a state of neglect. One finds the worst slums in Jeppes to-day. Whites and non-Whites live side by side. The housing shortage is at its worse there.

At present many of the houses are rented houses. The people never had the necessary funds to buy houses, so they rented them. Today we find that immigrants—and here I want to refer particularly to Portuguese immigrants—come to the Republic, particularly to Johannesburg, and these immigrants are in a position to buy houses. Of course, I do not blame them for buying houses in which to stay themselves. They give the tenants the required three months’ notice and the latter then simply have to vacate the houses. But because there are no other houses available they have nowhere to go. I know of cases where 23 people are staying in one house. I know of one case of a woman who has devoted all her life to nursing. She is 78 years old now. She supports an infirm relative more than eighty years old, as well as a boy who is quite unable to work. The house she stayed in was sold from under her feet and for two whole months she walked the streets of Jeppes looking for accommodation for herself and the people dependent on her. This is only one of the heart-rending cases which have come to my notice. Mr. Speaker, I have no words in which to describe the real state of affairs in Jeppes. I can only say that the position is critical. The Johannesburg City Council now has a grand plan of converting Jeppes into a garden township. I think that is a most praiseworthy decision after the local authority has neglected Jeppes for so many years and allowed it to fall into a state of decay. The Department of Community Development also has plans for the future as far as Jeppes is concerned. But these plans will take years to carry into effect. We cannot—v/e dare not—wait for five years or longer while people simply have to live in the streets of Jeppes because there is no accommodation available for them. The hon. the Minister is not here tonight, but I want to address an earnest plea to him that he should apply some temporary measure or other in Jeppes. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us some temporary relief until such time as his plans in respect of this area have been put into effect. If the hon. the Minister could only provide us with 100 pre-constructed houses we would at least have accommodation for 600 people. These houses do not cost a great deal of money to erect, and it should be possible to put them up within three months.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the plea that very serious attention should be given to this area of Jeppes, an area where the people have to sleep in and alongside the streets and in telephone booths.

I regard it as a pleasure and a privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Jeppes on his maiden speech. By his calm and dignified attitude he set a fine example to us younger new members in this House, and the serious tone of his speech to-night proved beyond any doubt that he has the interests of his voters very near at heart. Indeed, I am convinced that that is one of the primary reasons why he won the constituency of Jeppes and why he will continue to represent that constituency in this House for many years.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege to me to try to make a contribution to the debate in this House to-night, and I want to speak about a matter which not only is very near to my heart, but which, to my mind, is to-day of vital importance to the defence of our country. I am referring to the promotion of the art of shooting in so far as it affects the defence of our country. It is of vital importance to us that every able-bodied man should be adept in the art of shooting. When I say this, Mr. Speaker, I do not do so in a spirit of defeatism, nor do I want to see a potential enemy lurking behind every bush. I should rather like to approach the matter in a positive manner.

Except in the case of the Permanent Force and certain members of the Citizen Force the art of shooting is practised on an entirely voluntary basis in South Africa. It is practised by the commandoes, private rifle clubs and also certain Defence Force clubs. Members of the Commandoes and certain members of the Citizen Force are all volunteers. They belong to these organizations because they are keen to make some contribution to the defence of their country in that way. They often have to make great personal sacrifices, both financially and otherwise, in order to belong to those organizations, but it is clear that their love of our country is of primary importance to them. Members of the rifle clubs belong to those clubs because they are particularly interested in practising the art of shooting. If it should become necessary these people could be used to great advantage in the defence of our country. While we are spending so much money as is done once more in the present Budget, it is also good to see what enthusiasm there is for some of the weapons supplied to these people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a general decline in interest in the art of shooting is becoming apparent on the part of the public. The poor standard which is found especially among some ballottees gives reason for concern in all ramifications of the Defence Force. To my mind there are certain factors which give rise to this decline in interest and the resultant poor standard. The place occupied by the commando system in the Defence Force has been viewed and planned in a totally different light during the past few years. The part played by the commandoes in our defence system has also been formulated on an entirely different basis. For some reason or other many members are unable to attest, and consequently they do not participate in shooting practices. Their only alternative is to join private rifle clubs. Interest among members of these clubs, on the other hand, is declining owing to the high cost of ammunition, a cost which is too high for them to bear. After having completed their nine months’ training in the Citizen Force, trainees have to go back for three weeks every year for the next two or three years for further training, and during that period they fire off a number of rounds without being really interested in the weapons they handle. Owing to the shortage of manpower the Permanent Force does not always have time to devote to shooting practices. When I say this I do not want to offend anybody. The position is simply that owing to the shortage of manpower it is not possible to give the necessary attention to this important aspect.

Arising from what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain aspects to which one may apply one’s mind profitably. We now find that the senior boys in our school cadet units spent most of their time—if not all their time—on the parade ground. Well, Sir, I want to suggest in all humility that our senior boys should perhaps spend less time on the parade ground and devote more time to shooting practice. They should also receive more instruction in certain elementary aspects of military science. In this respect I have the enthusiastic support of a number of senior officers, particularly in the cadet detachments. From Standard VII onwards such a sense of discipline and neatness is instilled into the cadet that there is no need for him to spend so much time on the parade ground during his matriculation year.

I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that members of the commandoes and the Citizen Force should be issued free of charge with rifles and ammunition for shooting-practice purposes. They make great sacrifices to participate in the activities of the various units, and it would be only a small gesture on the part of the authorities to supply them with rifles and ammunition free of charge. All members belonging to clubs affiliated with the South African National Rifle Association should also be members of this Association individually. This Association, which falls under the Department of Defence, is not only recognized by the State but also receives assistance from the State. I am of the opinion that this Association should be granted more powers as regard the organization and control of target shooting in South Africa. Moreover, persons who are members of the S.A. National Rifle Association should be allowed to buy parts for their weapons through the Defence Force and at prices fixed by the latter. During the past six years the price of ammunition increased by almost 50 per cent, that is from R62.50 to R90 per thousand rounds. That means that every round that is fired costs nine cents, so that it is only the well-to-do who can afford it. For that reason the granting of a subsidy in some form or other may profitably be considered here. There is another aspect that may be considered in order to promote interest and enthusiasm. It costs a great deal of money to build a rifle-range, particularly a long-distance one. Besides, there are an unusually large number of ranges. In my area alone there are six ranges which are no longer being used. They are never used and fall under the Defence Force. I therefore plead that members of clubs affiliated with the S.A. National Rifle Association be allowed to use these Defence Force ranges. If that could be done a far greater number of our people could be included in these practices.

The Government, through the Department of Defence and the South African Mint, sees to it that we have very good weapons and ammunition. For example, our .303 ammunition is of such high quality that our Springbok teams are not allowed to use South African made ammunition when participating in competitions overseas because that would mean that they would not compete on an equal footing with teams of other countries whose ammunition is not of the same quality. In addition to that we have the best human material in the world. As a matter of fact, our people have always had the reputation of being expert shots. For that reason it is all the more essential that we should rekindle this waning interest in some way or other if we want to reap any benefit from that. Indeed, I am convinced that all the efforts made and all the money spent in this respect will be a very sound investment as regards safeguarding the future of our country.

I always enjoyed listening to the late General Smuts quoting the case of the five wise virgins who had oil in their lamps. Tonight it is my privilege to congratulate three “maidens”. It was quite clear to me that they came well-prepared and I want to wish them the best of luck for their stay in this House.

I want to come straight away to what I want to say about this debate. Of course in a debate like this one would like to analyse expenditure in order to see where the country can be saved money and how one can assist the Government and the country in such a manner to tax people in such a way that the tax burden is evenly distributed amongst the whole population. If I look at the Budget I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Finance and members on the Government benches would agree with me that it would not be a physical impossibility to reduce expenditure in some places without doing away with any essential service. It is rather significant that the largest item of expenditure under this Budget is that in respect of defence. It is about this and South Africa’s position in the world to-day that I would like to say a word or two. Why does a country have a defence force and, to come nearer home, why has South Africa such a force and what is the role the South African Defence Force is expected to play in times ahead?

This is a matter which can easily be divided into two major aspects. Firstly, it is the function of the Defence Force to assist the Police in dealing with local uprisings and troubles if that may come; secondly—and this is the main reason for having a defence force—it is the function of such a force to maintain the independent sovereignty of one’s country. In this connection I do not want to deal with any land invasion because I consider the chances of an invasion by African States to be very remote. I do not for one moment believe that the African States would attempt or would like to invade South Africa. It is true that a whole lot of hot air has been got rid of in this respect by some politicians. But this is platform talk rather than real common sense.

The aspect of our Defence Force with which I should particularly want to deal is our maritime defences. I have always understood that South Africa is maintaining her Navy, small as it is of necessity, to play its part in conjunction with the grand strategy of the West. That is what I have always taken the object of our Navy to be. Of necessity we cannot maintain a Navy which can defend a coastline of 1,500 miles. The utmost that we can be called upon to do in the event of a conflict between East and West is to supplement the defences of countries such as America and Great Britain in this grand alliance. It is tragic if one looks at the political situation to-day to see that these countries are not always giving South Africa the assistance which we can and should expect from countries who would like to work with us. I have here an article written by one of the world’s best known military experts, namely Hanson W. Baldwin of America. In the first place he deals with the fact that Britain is going to withdraw from Aden in 1968, a withdrawal which will leave the vast area of the Indian Ocean a virtual military vacuum. He continued by pointing out that the answer of Great Britain to this has been dictated not by military but by financial considerations, in that she is not proceeding with the building of aircraft carriers which at a certain stage she was going to build. We all know about the political consequences in Great Britain of this decision. Now she has decided to use land-based planes to fill this vacuum but immediately she ran into difficulties because there are no bases from which to operate. Then she decided to create what is in fact a new colony, called the B.I.O.T., which in full means the British Indian Ocean Territory. These include tiny and low-lying coral islands with hardly any population. These islands she hopes to convert into military bases from which her land-based aircraft could operate. After dealing with this aspect of the matter this writer came to the conclusion that with Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi for political reasons being practically out of the way—

If the United States is serious when she consistently hammers upon the fact that there is a threat from the East and from communist countries, then one wonders why she is treating South Africa in the way she is treating us by refusing to supply us with equipment which would enable us to equip ourselves properly, to train our personnel so as to be able to fulfil the role which we would be called upon to fulfil in such an all important conflict. One wonders why the United States and military planners acknowledge the strategic importance, of. the Cape route to the Western Alliance while the American political government has refused to supply us with ships and aircraft for our maritime forces. This is an attitude which is hard to reconcile with the value to the Western Alliance of well-equipped naval ports in South Africa, especially the naval base at Simonstown. The rapidly expanding Russian submarine fleet is to-day one of the major factors in the balance of maritime power and it should be obvious even to the Americans that the contribution South Africa will be able to provide is of considerable importance to the West. It is quite obvious that by no stretch of imagination would our maritime forces be employed for internal security. This fact makes the United States attitude all the more difficult to understand. In the event of a major conflict the Western Allies, including the United States, would expect the use of naval base facilities in the Republic and it is thus important that the Republic can reasonably expect to be assisted to build up a well-equipped and well-balanced maritime force. That such assistance is not forthcoming is difficult to understand.

The protection of our fishing waters is another task of our maritime forces. Well-equipped Russian trawlers operate on our west coast and it is in the interest of the West that these trawlers should be kept under continued surveillance as the activities of these trawlers may not entirely be devoted to fishing. Then there are numerous reports of unidentified submarines being in our waters. Some strange submarines are operating all over the world and also in the waters off our coasts. In view of these facts it is, surely, in the interests of the West that the South African maritime forces should be in a position where they can actively control our waters. But this can only be fully carried out if the desired equipment is available. We have a position to-day where we have no submarines for practice purposes. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister in the meantime has been able to acquire some submarines for practice purposes. Perhaps he would like to make a statement on the matter. For certain strange reasons we have been denied co-operation with those forces who always operated in the so-called Capex exercises before, and we are left alone. I do not know what joy this gives either to Great Britain or to America. Speaking as a member of the Opposition, an Opposition which has for various reasons no love for the internal policies of this Government, I do not for one moment believe that the South African Government or the South African people will allow her Defence Forces to be used for aggression against any friendly or other State, unless such action is dictated by a world conflict. Now it has been decided by some countries of the West that South Africa should be starved in so far as military equipment is concerned. Such an attitude can only be based on politics. Too often is it being heard in army circles that. politicians create circumstances that eventually demand that soldiers die. So I think this Government should again bring it to the attention of the United States and Britain that it is not standing alone in its demand for assistance and that we do not need that assistance for internal troubles because we ourselves are already manufacturing quite sufficient ammunition and weapons to use in such an event. Great Britain and the United States must be made to realize that South Africa has a role to play. Or at least, they must indicate whether or not we have a role to play in their scheme of things. If they indicate that South Africa has no role to play in the defence of the West in the case of a major conflict, then why do we waste all this money on our defences? If, on the other hand, they agree that we have a role to play in the maintenance of Western standards of life and for the maintenance of those ideologies for which the West is known to stand for then, I say, Great Britain and America should come forward and realize that this is a request for supplies not only from the Government of this country but from the entire people of South Africa.

I am very pleased to note that the Opposition have today adopted a far more responsible attitude in regard to defence matters. We are grateful for it. They have sounded a note to-day which is different from that to which we have had to listen in the past.

We have been sitting here now for many hours listening to the debate on the taxation proposals of the hon. the Minister of Finance. We in this House and, I am sure, observers in the gallery, have been impressed by the high standard of the maiden speeches of the new members. I should like in all humility to add my praise to all the traditional congratulations which have been forthcoming from hon. members one to another in respect of the contributions which these new members have thus far made to this debate. We look forward to further contributions by them in the future.

As far as the contribution of the Opposition to this Budget debate is concerned, it was clear that, lacking any acceptable, positive alternative policy, hon. members opposite confined themselves exclusively to criticizing the Government.

Answer the criticism, then.

It is not even worthwhile replying to the criticism that has been passed. Because they lack an in any way acceptable and positive alternative policy, the Opposition have simply confined themselves to destructive criticism.

Must we help you out of a predicament of your own making?

We are not in a predicament, Mr. Speaker. When I consider the numerical strength of the parties in this House, I feel that it is not for the hon. member to throw stones because it is his party which is living in a glass house! Indeed, if ever a political party in South Africa was in a predicament, it is the United Party. I say that hon. members of the Opposition did not advance constructive ideas and suggestions with the object of trying to curb inflationary tendencies. On the contrary. From start to finish they were trying to poison the atmosphere. One hon. member after another on the other side stood up in order to make use of every possible opportunity to poison the atmosphere with the sole object of stirring up public feeling against the National Party Government.

It is not necessary.

On the occasion of every election the Opposition have to pay the price for the attitude which they adopt, an attitude which has again been revealed by the hon. member who has just interjected. I am mentioning these things merely as statements of fact. This is what I have observed and this is the way in which any objective observer would describe the position after having listened to the debate up to the present stage. But I do not condemn this attitude. On the contrary. I welcome this attitude of the Opposition, because in it lies the finest assurance that the National Party will continue to govern South Africa for many years to come.

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry. My time is limited. The hon. member has made a very useful contribution to this debate this evening and I am afraid that he will spoil everything by asking a foolish question. I have said that the sole aim of the Opposition during this debate has been to stir up feeling. Among other things, they contended that this Government was losing contact with the man in the street. To my mind the reaction of the man in the street in South Africa to a Budget such as this is not that he analyzes it with an economically critical eye but that he asks himself what is expected of him. As against this, and as any reasonable and thinking person should do, he asks himself what he is receiving in consideration of that. It is in this respect that the Opposition have gone completely off the rails.

They give their votes, but receive nothing in return.

No, that is not so. They get the strongest Government that has ever been in power in South Africa. They have chosen this Government at election after election and they will continue to choose it at many elections in the future. That is what is acknowledged by a grateful electorate—that it has been given a strong Government, a Government to which that electorate has given a mandate, a mandate which is being carried out in all its consequences. I say that the man in the street asks himself what is required of him. As against this, he asks himself what he will receive in return. An hon. member opposite interjected just now that he would receive nothing. But what is the true position? What has the man in the street actually received in return for the taxes which he has paid over the years? Just consider the state our telephone services were in when this side of the House came into power!

Did you say “were in”?

Just consider the development that has taken place in this respect in vast areas of South Africa, among others, in my constituency. When we consider the services that are provided to-day, we feel that the electorate cannot say that they have received nothing for the taxes they have paid. Consider too the network of macadamized roads that has been built. With this in mind, there can be no voter who will complain about an increase in the price of petrol. [Interjections.] I accept full responsibility for what I am saying. I am drawing a comparison between what we pay and what we receive in return. We know that a large amount of the money derived from the sale of petrol goes to the fund for the building of roads. When we consider the state of our roads under the United Party Government, both our national and our provincial roads, we find in contrast to-day that we have a grateful electorate, an electorate which is prepared to pay taxes for the services which it receives.

A great deal has been said in this debate about the effect this Budget will have as regards curbing the inflationary conditions prevailing in South Africa at the moment. There is, however, one particular aspect which, in my opinion, has not been sufficiently emphasized. I am referring to the part played by agriculture in our national economy. The agricultural industry in South Africa is probably one of the finest and most honourable industries in our country. It is an industry with a primary function and that function is to produce food. A function as essential as the production of food is something which may under no circumstances be neglected.

Why did you neglect it then?

The hon. member has had an opportunity of participating in this debate. He will have further opportunities for telling us why he feels that way when the relevant Votes are discussed and we shall then reply to him. The hon. member must be careful, because the people of South Africa still remember the state in which agriculture found itself when the United Party was in office. The farmer still remembers the treatment—I should rather say the “maltreatment”—he received at the hands of the United Party. A very important role, a role within the framework of this Budget, which is played by agriculture in South Africa is in its primary task of feeding the people of South Africa, not only for to-day but also for the future. This to my mind is of cardinal importance. That being the position, nobody in this House ought to oppose any effort that is made to stabilize and to strengthen agriculture in South Africa. Nobody ought to oppose our agriculture being placed on a very strong and sound economic footing. Feeding the people is not the only function of agriculture. We are ever mindful of the part which the farmer and farming in particular have played in forming the character of our people. We must continue to be mindful of the role which farming has played in the way of life of Afrikaans-speaking as well as of English-speaking people in South Africa. We are in the fortunate position of still having a rural atmosphere and a rural character in South Africa. My plea to-day is that we must do everything we possibly can to retain this special character. In order to achieve this end, we must, if necessary, invest millions and millions of rands in agriculture, not in the form of gifts to the farmer to be considered as charity, but because agriculture is a national asset to the whole of South Africa and because of the task which it has to perform, a task which I outlined a moment ago.

We are grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the astronomical amounts which have been spent by this Government on water conservation, on soil conservation, on establishing settlers on the land and on technical services for agriculture. We are very grateful for all these things.

And extension officers.

Yes, and extension officers. I think that it is about time that the hon. member stopped harping on that chord.

We want to appoint political extension officers too.

I am afraid that the hon. member will not qualify for that. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are very grateful to know that in addition to a National Party Government with a policy which accords agriculture its rightful place in our national economy, we also have a very sympathetic Minister who knows agriculture in its very essence. We can approach him. We do not expect him to do super-human things, but we know that he will give us a sympathetic hearing at all times and that we will be able to continue working to ensure that agriculture in South Africa will play its part in the stimulation of our national economy. I say that in spite of these amounts which are being spent in this way and for which we are grateful, I also want to make a plea for the electrification of the rural areas in the near future. I am speaking here not only of small rural towns. Many of these towns already have Escom power. I want to make a very urgent plea for the supply of electricity to our farms at an economic tariff. We shall continue to ask for it. We know too that when the time is ripe and when the funds are available, this plea of ours will receive serious attention. Mr. Speaker, in the process of the modernization of agriculture, in the process of this mechanical revolution which we are experiencing and as a result of which agriculture has grown, the transition to very expensive agricultural implements and traction and the conditions which have restricted agriculture in South Africa as a result of natural occurrences over which nobody has any control, the farmer has over the past years not been able to build up the necessary capital by means of which to do all these things himself. We are by no means apologetic and we ask nobody’s pardon in asking for more assistance for agriculture as a national asset of South Africa. When we consider the salutary effect which agriculture has over the past three centuries had upon forming the character of our people, then I say that I am sure that we are not asking too much when we ask for the establishment in the rural areas of a community, of a farming community, which will continue to fulfil that important role and carry on that good work. When we ask for electrical power for the rural areas we are no longer asking for a luxury article. We are asking for an absolute necessity. I should very much like to associate myself with what was advocated so ably by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet in his maiden speech, and that is that more people should be kept in the rural areas. This must not be done at the expense of the soil of South Africa, but points of growth must be established in the rural areas which will keep the Whites there. I should be the last person to ask that we should place more people on the land and thus present a threat to agriculture, that is to say, if there is no land available on which to farm. A large number of uneconomic units have already come into being as a result of the injudicious sub-division of agricultural land. The time has come for us to go in for consolidation. I know that this is the policy that is being followed. I know that this is what the legislation which we discussed last week has in mind. These matters have become urgent and absolutely essential. We shall welcome it if the process of the consolidation of uneconomic units into economic units can be expected.