Mr. Speaker, with the steady rise in production costs and the credit squeeze and the rise in interest rates, the average farmer in South Africa to-day is not getting more than 3 per cent on his capital investment, according to the S.A. Agricultural Union. What businessman anywhere in South Africa would be prepared to-day to invest his capital to draw interest at the rate of 3 per cent and even less? Most farmers to-day in South Africa are not farming because there is a fortune to be made from it. Far from that. I believe that most farmers to-day are farming because they happen to be lovers of the soil They love their properties and they love the land, not for what they can make out of it, quite obviously, with the interest they are getting on their capital investment. We have heard so much about inflation. The other day an old farmer asked me: “You know, during the depression days they spoke about depressions. Now they speak about inflation. We farmers are having a tough time. Does inflation mean depression?” As far as the farmer to-day is concerned, it is virtually a depression. We have read and heard about the boom, for which the Government took the credit. When there is a boom the Government is very ready to take credit for it, but now that there is inflation they try to find all sorts of excuses, and it is not going down with agriculture at all. The hon. member for Marico yesterday mentioned that we must remember the drought conditions prevailing. I concede, that it is exceedingly dry, but this is not the first drought we have ever had in South Africa, or since this Government has been in power. The 1933 drought was equally as bad, and I should warn hon. members opposite that this is not going to be the only drought. When the present drought has broken, there will be another one coming, and they must be prepared for it. They must not be caught on the wrong foot again, as they were with this drought, in spite of all the warnings from this side of the House. The hon. the Minister rightly sympathized with the farmers in regard to the drought. I wonder how many farmers appreciate sympathy. They want more than sympathy to-day. We have seen boom conditions, but the farmer never saw them. Now there is inflation but the Government refuses to take the blame for it. Sir, they have made the bed and they must lie on it, and they must hold themselves responsible for it. The hon. member for Queenstown at the commencement of this debate mentioned that the new Budget would mean that the average man would only have to pay an extra R7 in taxes. I am quite sure he was speaking on the Budget, but he has overlooked the fact that in the Cape Province alone the average man is paying far more than R7 extra in taxation. It has been the pattern with this Government over the years to try to form everything on a national scale in all four provinces, to try to find uniformity over the whole country. They are suggesting a national education scheme. We see that the roads are being nationalized. There are national roads under a national transport commission. We see a national road safety programme. We see uniformity between provincial traffic policemen. We see uniformity in organized agriculture under the S.A. Agricultural Union, but I regret to say that there is no uniformity of taxation. This is worrying me, and most of us in the Cape Province to-day.

Now whose fault is that?

Of course it is this Government’s fault, and I will tell you why, if I have the time. My time is very limited, otherwise I would answer any questions put to me. In the district where I happen to have farm property you will find to-day, and I have gone into it thoroughly, that approximately 70 per cent of the farmers in that district are paying more taxes under the divisional council road rates, than they pay income tax. Now that is taxation under this Government.

Under this Government? Surely it is a provincial matter.

What I want to come to is the Cape property tax, commonly known as the divisional council road rate. I know it has been a hardy annual for many years, and every municipal congress, or divisional council congress, and every agricultural union congress, have had resolutions appearing on the agendas pleading with the Ministers.

But it is a matter for the Provincial Councils.

The hon. member says it is a matter for the Provincial Councils. He knows a fat lot about it. That is only Transvaal talk. He does not know what he is talking about. It is very significant that nobody on that side has spoken about the abolition of the Cape Provincial property tax, and yet I know everyone agrees with what I am going to say. I mentioned that this is a hardy annual. It has been going on for many years, but nothing has been done about it. Many deputations have already met the Ministers, which has cost different organizations large sums of money to send deputations to see the Ministers, and I am very disappointed that the Minister has not mentioned one word about this unfair tax in his Budget speech.

This is not a provincial congress.

It is a matter for Parliament to decide, and you know it. The hon. member says it has nothing to do with Parliament, but I want to quote here from a memorandum to the Schumann Commission. I only have the Afrikaans version because there is no English one.

We all understand Afrikaans.

It says—

As I said, for many years the townsmen were the people who lodged objections to this property tax. Now it has gone from the townspeople (who also pay the divisional council road rate on their fixed property) to the farmers, and we find that organized agriculture today is pleading with hon. Ministers on that side, to do something about it. We feel in the Cape Province that we would like to see uniformity within all four provinces. We are not trying to get away from taxation, but we object most decidedly to having to pay more taxes than the people in the other provinces. When I plead for the abolition of the divisional council road rates, we see that the subsidies which have been rendered by the Provincial Administration to the divisional councils has been 70 per cent on an average, in this province, so that when we abolish this tax, it will only in fact mean that we abolish 30 per cent and not 100 per cent. During the past 12 years, up to 1963, the taxes have risen on fixed properties by more than 300 per cent. Fourteen years ago we were paying on fixed properties a tax of R2,495,000, and in 1963 we paid R6,298,000. It has risen, therefore, by more than 300 per cent. An hon. member asked a moment ago: “Why did your Government not abolish the tax?” That is a very fair question. Why did my Government not abolish the tax? But when my Government was in power the tax was very, very low. Since then it has risen by over 3(50 per cent, and that is why the people are objecting to the tax to-day.

In the short time at my disposal I want to illustrate what I mean. Let us take a farming unit in the Cape Province with a divisional council valuation of R30,000, and a taxable income of R1,000. Compare the taxes on that unit with those in other provinces. In the Free State the farmer will pay on that unit a tax of R126 in provincial taxation. In the Transvaal he will pay R135. In the Cape that farmer pays R150 provincial tax. Now we come to the property tax, the tax I am complaining about. In the Free State he does not pay anything. In the Transvaal he does not pay a cent either, but in the Cape the farmer has to find R165 in hard cash to pay his property tax on the same unit. When we total up the total taxation on fixed properties, we see that in the Free State the man still pays only R126, and in the Transvaal still only R135, but in the Cape it is R315. Now, where does the argument of the hon. member for Queenstown come in? Why did he not mention that throughout the country we are paying R7 extra per annum under this budget, but bear in mind the unfortunate farmers in the Cape Province who pay through their necks.

If this Government refuses to abolish the tax, then let us suggest that all four provinces pay property tax on the same lines, and then see what the Transvaal say. Let us have uniformity throughout South Africa. Why should we be so overtaxed in the Cape Province? The way hon. members opposite speak one would imagine that it was the hon. the Prime Minister who put the gold into the Reef of the Witwatersrand; one would imagine that it was the hon. the Prime Minister who put the diamonds in the holes at Kimberley, or the milk in my cows. But, Sir, they must confess that when times get hard, then they must take the blame. I remember only too clearly the gold standard depression; that happened when this Nationalist Party was governing South Africa and when they refused to go off the gold standard. I remember attending a public meeting as a little boy in the village of Hofmeyr in the constituency of Cradock where a plea was made to the Nationalist Government to go off the gold standard, and the late Mr. Louw Steytler who was then an ardent Nationalist said, “We will never go off the gold standard.” Sir, within two weeks he and Mr. Tielman Roos crossed this floor and helped this United South African Party to save South Africa from financial ruin. Sir, do not let that happen again. We are prepared to offer the Government solutions, and I have put forward an excellent solution to-day, but I wonder whether we, on this side of the House, would like to see South Africa governed from here, through the Cabinet. We are prepared to assist the Government. Here is constructive criticism, and I have offered the Government the solution. There are many other ways of finding the money, or of making up the 30 per cent. Why murder agriculture to-day when agriculture can least afford it? The farmer is having a battle, it has been admitted on the other side. Let us be reasonable and reconsider this unfair property tax.

Just before I carry on with my speech I want to say that I really do not know what the constructive criticism of the hon. member who has just sat down means. Does he want to get rid of the system of divisional councils or only the tax?

No, only the tax.

In other words the hon. member wants the Free Staters and the Transvalers and the Natalians to pay for the system which they want to retain. Sir, that will be the day! The hon. member reminds me of a story I once heard during the First World War when the German submarines began to sink so many of the Allied ships, an Englishman said: “I have a solution; we will pump the sea empty and then we will destroy the boats because they will be on mother earth.” The other man replied, “That is all right, but how are we going to get the sea empty?” The Englishman’s answer was, “Do not be a fool; I gave you the solution, you work out the details.” That is the type of solution that was given to us by the hon. member this morning.

*This Morning I want to reply briefly to the accusation made in this House yesterday, particularly by the hon. member for East London (City) and also by the hon. member for Newton Park. They suggested that the National Party had done nothing for the farmers in South Africa; that the National Party had no agricultural policy. The hon. member for East London (City) became very serious; he banged his hands on his desk and cried out, “What have you done for the farmer of South Africa? Nothing!” This morning I want to reply briefly to that, and at the very beginning of my speech I want to sum up the agricultural policy of the National Party.

In the first place it is the policy of the National Party to apply systematic and increasing protection and reclamation in respect of our soil as our greatest heritage.

Why do you not tackle it then?

As usual that hon. member has spoken too soon; I shall deal with that still. Secondly it is the policy of the Party to stabilize the agricultural industry, inter alia, by combating scientifically stock diseases and other agricultural pests. Thirdly it is the policy of the Party to make provision for heavily subsidized water for irrigation purposes, because water is fundamental in agriculture and because water is a restrictive factor in the field of agricultural development in the Republic of South Africa. That will be my particular duty during my term of office. Fourthly, it is the policy of this Government to increase agricultural production per unit by means of research and additional assistance. Fifthly it is the policy of the National Party Government to achieve future stability in agriculture by consolidating uneconomic units into units on which the farmer can be assured of a better standard of living. In this country we have an inheritance of people who are farming in drought-stricken areas—cattle farmers—on land of 800 to 1,500 morgen. No farmer, even if he is the best farmer in the country, can make a decent living in those areas on land of that size. That would imply that for the sake of the small farmer in certain areas, fewer small farmers will own larger tracts of land, but in addition to that we want to develop the population of the rural areas by causing hundreds of thousands of morgens of lands to be settled much more densely by means of large-scale agricultural water schemes. It is being said that this Government is promoting the depopulation of the rural areas. Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of anything more nonsensical. Why on earth would the State go in for these tremendously large irrigation schemes which my predecessor brought into being and which I intend bringing into being in the future, if it is not its very purpose of having a denser and larger population in the rural areas.

What do the figures prove?

Sixthly, the National Party Government wants to serve agriculture through the further expansion of sound agricultural credit facilities. Legislation in this regard has already been piloted through the House by my colleague. In the seventh place it is the policy of the National Party to fix prices of agricultural products, where they are being fixed—I repeat, where they are being fixed—in consultation with the boards which have been established for that purpose, and to keep the prices of food within the means of the consumers, the public, through higher subsidizing of the consumer, but as responsible people we realize that for the sake of the sound economy of the State it has to be done within limits. In the eighth place it is the policy of the National Party Government that, during agricultural disasters, agriculture should be propped up economically in keeping with the gravity of the disaster. In the ninth place it is the considered policy of this Government to bring the practical agricultural expert, a man who has to make a living from it, the farmer himself, into the closest contact with our agricultural policy as a whole by means of organized agriculture. That is why we have the Agricultural Advisory Board, with which my two colleagues and I were still in session for two days only last week. If we co-operate with agriculture as such in that way, I cannot imagine that there can be more co-ordinated co-operation between the State and the farmer. But in conclusion and to summarize, it is the agricultural policy of the National Government to protect the farmer of South Africa against the greatest of all disasters which can befall a farmer, and that is United Party Government in the future.

It goes without saying that the farmer, as the hon. member for East London (North) has said, cannot live on sympathy only. The farmer in South Africa cannot live on an agricultural policy only, no matter how sound it may be. The farmer in South Africa cannot live on nine guarantees furnished by the United Party. The farmer must derive something practical from it to be able to stay alive. I want to ask hon. members the following question: How do we carry out this agricultural policy I have just stated? I do not want to go into the Budget as such, but just before I proceed with my explanation of our agricultural policy, I want to say that I have heard a peculiar argument in this Budget debate, and yesterday it was also used continually by the hon. member for East London (City), and that is that this Budget is only a Budget for the rich man. What I cannot understand is that hon. members on the opposite side immediately started complaining because a varying increased tax was imposed on bigger companies. The argument which is being advanced at present, also by the hon. member for Kensington, is that companies do not represent the great man; companies are the economic home of the small shareholder.

Hear, hear!

I am saying that the hon. member said that: I am not saying so. The hon. member is therefore saying “hear, hear” at his own words. Mr. Speaker, that is an argument which does not hold water. If that were true, then these very greatest of monopolistic organizations are surely also the home of a few small shareholders. I myself am tremendously opposed to it that we should allow monopolies to oust the small businessman in this country. Whether the members of the United Party are satisfied with that, I do not know.

Are your people satisfied with that?

Most decidedly not. Let us now test the results of the agricultural policy of the National Party against the facts. If we accept the year 1948-9 as the basic year with an index figure of 100, then the physical volume of agriculture has increased up to 172 in 1965. The hon. member for Newton Park almost waxed lyrical yesterday about the wonderful Minister of Economic Affairs we have, a man who can keep his word, a man who has a policy for the industrial development of South Africa, but according to him it is only agriculture which has no Minister and no policy. I want to agree with him.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member reminds me of the parrot which always says the right thing at the wrong time, but now he has said the wrong thing at the wrong time. We agree wholeheartedly that we have a Minister of Economic Affairs who can speak the language of the angels; he can put his case in an exceptional manner; he is able to guide the brain-power of everybody around him in regard to industry, but the index figures I am going to quote now, are proof that up to now agriculture has most decidedly had Ministers who have formulated a properly planned agricultural policy for South Africa and carried it out successfully. Take the financial figures of our development.

In 1948 the maize crop in this country was worth R70,700,000 and in 1965 it was R149,500,000. In 1941 the wheat crop was R21,400,000, and in 1965 it was R62,000,000. The wool production in 1948 amounted to R39,000,000 and in 1965 it amounted to R88,000,000. Other agricultural products increased from R244,700,000 to R648,700,000.

Let us take the gross value of agricultural products for three years during the difficult drought period we experienced. In 1962–3 it was R907,000,000 and in 1963-4 it was R934,000,00; in 1964–5 it was R980,000,000. You see therefore that reasonable progress was made during the most difficult period agriculture has ever experienced in this country.

Sir, this did not come about by itself. In the first place it did, of course, come about as a result of the perserverance and the devotion of the farmer of South Africa and I want to take off my hat to the farmer of South Africa because of his achievements during these difficult times, but there has also been assistance from the State. Agricultural research and extension have made a tremendous contribution to this progress, and that contribution could be made because the Government saw to it that the necessary staff was made available to provide that extension and information and to do that research. In 1961 the total establishment of our Departments was 4.364; in 1964 it was 5.292. Our technical staff numbered 643 in 1961 and at present it is 1,119.

In 1965 107 students were studying at our universities with the aid of agricultural loans amounting to R200,000; the total number of students of agriculture at our universities was 1,252 in 1961 and 1,831 in 1965. Can you see, Mr. Speaker, how this Government in particular has made its contribution by the assistance it offers, to develop the agricultural brain in South Africa for the sake of the farmer. Furthermore this Department has 85 experimental farms and research stations. My hon. friends know some of those experimental farms and research stations. I have visited a large number of these since I became Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. And it is a delight to the eye to see them and the work which is being done there. A tremendously great task is being done there for the sake of the farmer. The other day I visited the bull experimental station in Pretoria. A tremendously great service is being rendered there to the meat industry. I visited our fruit research stations; I visited our wine research station; I visited our vegetable or seed research station. Tremendous services are being rendered there on behalf of agriculture. No wonder that a good farmer can show progress with such a good Government. Take the combating of stock diseases.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is laughing. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, at that bull station every bull is not tested; some of them are rejected on sight, even before they are fed. I do not want to say more about it. Take the combating of stock diseases. What success our Department has not had in that regard! Simply take foot-and-mouth disease; take lumpy-skin disease, to mention only two. What would have become of the entire agricultural industry of South Africa, what would have become of its fruit export industry, if this Government had not tackled and eradicated foot-and-mouth disease through its brilliant officials and its policy? In 1960 we prepared 55,000,000 dosages of vaccine departmentally and in 1965 we prepared 82,000,000.

When we come to water affairs the Government’s record is phenomenal. It actually makes me feel self-conscious to compare the National Party’s record with that of the United Party. I am a sensitive person and it really is outrageous to make such a comparison, but I have to do it to-day. Any country has certain restrictive factors as far as the development of its economy is concerned. South Africa also has such restrictive factors. Now, in this country water is fundamental, but it is a restrictive factor. What has this Government done in regard to the provision of water in South Africa? During the past six years R169,000,000 has been made available by this Government for water schemes. A large share of that is in respect of heavily subsidized irrigation schemes.

During the six years from 1960 to 1965, R86,000,000 was voted for State water schemes for irrigation, and of that R86,000,000, R70,000,000 is not recoverable. Only R16,500,000 is recoverable. This National Party Government does not only have a policy, but it has a policy which it carries out actively and effectively for the sake of the farmer of this country. The other day I inaugurated a dam in the Western Transvaal where the farmers will pay R2,900 in interest and redemption for their water rights, while the interest on that scheme will cost the State no less than R33,000 per annum. But it is the policy of this Government to supply irrigation water as cheaply as possible to the farmers of South Africa, and then the Opposition, upon my soul—I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker—actually complain about State expenditure.

In regard to State boring R10,000,000 was spent in the period of 38 years from 1910 to 1948. During the latter six years of the National Party régime R14,000,000 has been spent. In 1962 boring by private contractors was subsidized to a minimum. In that year my predecessor allowed private boring machines to be used and for that purpose an additional R260,000 per annum was voted. In 1964 he made further concessions and these cost the State an additional R500,000 per annum. In 1965, as true as faith, he once again made concessions which cost the State an additional R450,000. That was done for the sake of the farmer. Whether the farmer is a great man, I do not know, but this expenditure was incurred by the State for the sake of the man in the street. Take this reclamation scheme which is coming into effect on 1st September. A greater and more ambitious scheme for soil conservation has never been embarked upon in any country in the world. Over a period of six years this Government plans to rehabilitate almost 11,000,000 morgen of land which has almost completely been destroyed by the drought. Mr. Speaker, that is planning; that is devotion, but the United Party is saying that we are not doing anything. When the disaster of 1958 struck the Cape, this Government spent more than R3,000,000 on relief. Now again with the disastrous drought in the northern Transvaal, this Government has announced schemes for the purchase of fodder, for the purchase of fuel and, for the information of the hon. member for East London (City), for the transportation of stock as well as for the hire of grazing. In addition we have made loans available for the purchase of licks, subsidies for the fodder of breeding-stock, and so on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Australia in this House—I mean the hon. member for East London (City)—makes continual comparisons between South Africa and Australia, and now I want to tell you this: In these times in which we live both Australia and South Africa are experiencing severe droughts. We are sympathizing with them; we know what inner conflict it is for the farmer and for a government. But while that is the case, Australia has lost 15 per cent of its livestock up to now and in South Africa we have not nearly lost that percentage.

Two per cent.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that we in South Africa most certainly have a Government which is carrying out its duty towards the farmer to the full in this period of disaster.

My time is almost up. There are a few things I should still like to mention. I should like to point out that the total assistance granted since 1959-60 is as follows: State Advances—R13,478,000; Farmers’ Assistance—R22,750,000. In that field only the State has therefore spent R36,228,000 in these few years. The total assistance granted to agriculture in these years, amounts to round about R500,000,000. In subsidies alone, which are not included in that amount, R449,000,000 has been spent in these 17 years. Can you see, Mr. Speaker, how we are carrying out the policy I have stated here? This assistance is not granted to the farmers of South Africa simply because they, are farmers. The United Party are accusing the National Party all the time of mixing economic affairs with sentiment. That is the first political accuracy the United Party has proclaimed in the past 100 years. That has always been the policy of the National Party since the time when General Hertzog announced the policy of “South Africa first” under the circumstances of that time; it has always been our policy to link up the building of our nation, our national growth or national development, with our economic development, and for the very reason that that is so, the National Party has at present 126 members here as against the Opposition’s 39, since they have never been able to accomplish what the National Party has accomplished, and that is to permeate material objects with things of the heart. The success of the National Party is contained in that. I want to tell the farmers of South Africa this: Their future is ensured not only because they are economically valuable to themselves and to the Government as long as they are on the land, but also because they fit into the National Party’s policy of building a nation. The future of the farmers of South Africa is safe because a National Party Government will still be in office in the distant future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my modest first contribution to all the wisdom, experience, knowledge and foresight that have been displayed in this hon. House. As the hon. members know, the constituency which I have the honour to represent here is Germiston (District). It is a very important constituency. If hon. members referred to that beautiful book they received yesterday, entitled South Africa—Land of Promise, they would learn something more about Germiston on pages 54 and 55. Now I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have two very good neighbours in Germiston. Germiston as a city is represented in this House by the hon. member for Primrose, and also by the hon. member for Germiston. Contrary to its name, Germiston (District) is not a rural constituency but in fact an urban constituency. The entire Germiston (District) constituency is situated within the Germiston municipal area. There are many important things in Germiston. The many important and excellent plans advocated in this House by other hon. members have already been carried out in Germiston. I want to mention some of the major things to you. One of the most important is the Rand gold refinery. That refinery, Mr. Speaker, is so big that 70 per cent of the gold of the Free Western World is refined there. That refinery is situated in my constituency. Mr. Speaker, more than 600 industries have been established in Germiston. Many of those industries are situated in my constituency. The Simmer & Jack Mine is situated in my constituency. In the 80 years of its existence that mine has produced so much gold that it might have served to finance all the hon. new members’ requests to this House. In my constituency, in Germiston, we also have a very beautiful lake. It is called the Germiston Lake. On that lake there is a boat which is used for pleasure purposes. The name of that boat is Eland II. I think Eland 1 foundered in one of the storms. Germiston has a population of approximately 200,000. That gives you an idea of what a big city it already is. In the Transvaal Germiston is the third largest city. As you know, Johannesburg and then Pretoria are our largest cities. It is the sixth largest city in the Republic. Germiston has the most important railroad junction in the entire Republic, 1,049 trains pass through Germiston railway station every day. And if the hon. the Minister of Transport’s train is one minute late, only 1,048 trains pass through the station. Therefore a train passes through Germiston every minute or two. Now, Sir, you and hon. members may get the impression that we already have so many things in Germiston (District) that we do not meet with any problems. You may perhaps think that we already have everything we want. But the opposite is true. The voters of Germiston (District) are mainly employees, and employees also have their problems. During the past few days “the common man” has been mentioned several times in this House. But I should like to plead for the plight of the common woman, in other words the working woman, the working married woman. You know, Mr. Speaker, that when women go out to work, they do not do so for the sake of luxury, or in order to afford things which their families do not need. They go out to work in order to augment the salary of the breadwinner, the husband, and in order to obtain essential things for their families. But in terms of our taxation system it now happens that at the end of the year the wife’s income is added to her husband’s, and as a result of that a much higher tax tariff is applied to that portion earned by the wife. Here I do not want to go into particulars. From my personal experience, however, I want to give you this one example. According to the salary deduction tables, approximately R8 is deducted monthly from the salary of a working wife who earns R120 a month, by means of the P.A.Y.E. system. The wife is then under the impression that she has met her tax commitments. But where her husband’s salary reaches a certain level—to which hers is then added—the husband finds that for very R8 deducted from his wife’s salary, he has to provide a further R37 a month. That is done to augment the tax on her salary. Mr. Speaker, my argument is the following: The deduction tables applicable to the earnings of a married working woman are not drawn up in such a way that the tax commitments applicable to her portion of the salary can be met in terms of those tables. Now you know that there are certain economic requirements for a proper taxation system. I should like to deal with two of these. The first refers to the convenience of the system. A taxation system should be convenient for the payer, i.e. the Receiver of Revenue should collect the taxes from the taxpayers when it is most convenient for the latter. The P.A.Y.E. system meets this requirement very well. But now married women receive a further assessment at the end of the year—after the closing of the financial year—and they find payment of that assessment inconvenient. The second factor is fairness. A taxation system should be fair to all members of the population, i.e. to all taxpayers. Where an unmarried person pays taxes according to a certain tariff on an income of say R120 per month, the married woman pays taxes on that portion of her salary according to a much higher tariff than the unmarried woman. Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance dealt with that problem. You will remember that at that time the hon. the Minister made a very important concession, which has perhaps not received enough publicity and for which he has not received enough gratitude. The hon. the Minister announced in this House that as from the year of taxation ended 28th February, 1966, he had made a concession of R1,400,000 in this regard. That is a considerable concession. I can assure the hon. the Minister that all the working women in the Republic are sincerely grateful for that. It has brought them great relief. I believe that the hon. the Minister may perhaps go even further, and I should like to plead for that today. I should like the hon. the Minister of Finance to test the tariff applicable to the earnings of married working women by the requirement of fairness. I trust that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to granting further relief.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is my pleasure to thank an hon. member for his maiden speech. I want to assure him that I too know Germiston exceptionally well. It is an important seat and I am sure the way in which he is tackling things will be of assistance to his electorate as well as to himself. I myself have very fond memories of Germiston, especially of the lake part that he mentioned. I remember distinctly that the 18th hole of the golf course was across the lake and I remember that out of every nine shots I took eight of them landed in the lake. However, I wish the hon. member every success and hope that he will contribute a fair share to the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am a South African and am very proud of my country. About 300 years ago our ancestors landed not far from here to take over this beautiful country, a country which was then rich in pasture, had a wealth of game and sufficient water. Later on it was found that it had a wealth of minerals and precious metals as well. If you attend any meeting to-day in South Africa, whether it be a political or a social gathering, and tell them about this heritage, this land of ours and tell them that you will protect it, as I am prepared to do, with your life, you will get the most vociferous exclamation from those attending. But, may I ask, are we proud of this heritage? Are we really proud of what we see around us? Are we proud to see that our rivers have drained this beautiful country of ours to the last vestage of moisture? In 1779 Captain Jordan of the Netherlands army visited the Orange River. I do not know whether it was in Namaqualand or where else but most likely it was at the Aughrabies Waterfalls. When he saw the river he changed its name from its Hottentot name, Garieb, to Orange River. Whether he did this in order to honour the House of Orange or whether it was on account of the colour of the river, is not known. I have, however, an orange coloured photograph here of the Aughrabies Waterfalls in flood. From what can be seen from this picture it is most likely that he changed the name of the river on account of what he saw. About 40 years ago I stood at the mouth of the Orange River with the then Minister of Justice. The river at that time had just broken out of its hibernation, a process which takes place every year, and we watched it flowing through the two-mile sandbank into the Benguella stream of the Atlantic Ocean. As it was at that time, one could not say whether it was water that was in it because it was a mixture, or better admixture, of paste. As a matter of fact, so thick, so chocolate, was the waters that the waves gave you the impression that they could stand there stagnant and dry in the Namib sun. The Minister then said to me that it was a disgrace that we as South Africans should stand there and watch the lifeblood of South Africa flowing away into the ocean. If one with a magic wand could remove the silt from that water, do you realize that one could cover 40,000 morgen to a depth of ten inches? And it has flowed continuously since then and for many years before that.

The Orange River has been a pipedream of engineers, of many engineers. The old ones are no more with us and those who succeeded them have retired. Now the very young ones come along to try and harness this river, something which no one else has as yet seen fit to do. Dams are to be built and four have so far been approved. Let us take the first one, the Dr. Verwoerd Dam. It will be supplied by the Orange River from Basutoland and by the Caledon River flowing on the boundaries of Natal, the Free State and Basutoland and coming from the same snowy heights of the Malutis. It is comparatively clean. Then there is the residue of the Vaal River which, I take it, also is fairly clean. This dam is going to play an important part. It will revive the barren river areas of the Fish and Sundays rivers and will bring water to Port Elizabeth and its industrial complex. Then we come to the next dam. the Van der Kloof. Here the water is not so clean. The question I want to ask here is how long it will take before that dam is completely silted up? But let us go further down to the Tokai. Its waters are still more polluted and thicker with silt. Not many more years, Mr. Speaker, before that dam is silted up. Then we come to the diversion dam of Namaqualand, or the Richtersveld as it is also called. Here the engineers speak my language, because here they are doing the right thing by diverting the silted waters onto the land, the same as they do with the Nile in North Africa. The farmers there have played an important part in our economic life in the past as meat producers but I do not know whether they are going to plough up the flowers of Namaqualand in order to plant “duiskoring”. The great thing is the large area of water, of surplus water, which will supply moisture to the area and I hope too that it will bring rain to the barreness which we call Namaqualand.

I come now to the Tugela Basin. I am not going to harp on it, however, because many members have already spoken about it. The hon. Minister of Water Affairs has already in reply to a question indicated that this basin is going to be investigated. But I have the plan for the development of this basin here. It is so thick that it had to be divided into three sections. It has been published 12 to 13 years ago, complete and in detail. Everything that can be looked for by an investigation is in this book. But what has happened to it? Universities in America, in Great Britain, in France and even in Sweden have used it as a text book. They have tapped the brains out of it, and what have we done? We have thrown it on our bookshelves, there to gather dust. But I still want to commend it to the Minister of Water Affairs and to ask him to implement its recommendations. No other investigation is necessary. At least a dam should be built in that area. The earlier and quicker, the better for the area. If they want to supply water to the Reef they can at least make it large enough to commence the Tugela Basin plan to supply water also to Ladysmith and its complex. The Department of Bantu Administration has already, I believe, purchased farms in the Peters area, adjoining Ladysmith. They want to establish a Bantu area here. Let them do that.

Why is South Africa so dry, Mr. Speaker? What has happened? Can I take you to where I think the trouble lies, i.e. in the North Western Cape and in the North Western Transvaal? We can start at Kuruman where water has been bulging out of the earth. How much less is flowing out there to-day than did 100 years ago? What about the water at Mafeking and at Ottoshoop, where the huge furrows speak for themselves? They are dry. Take the place where Moselekatz is buried. Take the rivers there. Take the Klein Marico. I know the farms there: Tweefontein, Klaasstroom, and others. Take the Klein Marico River, the Groot Marico, the Crocodile River that flows through Britz; take the Matlabas, the Magol, the Palala. Let us take all of them. Hon. members representing that area will know what I am speaking about. Take the Magalakwin, where I understand they are at present making a dam. Where are the waters of the Kuruman River, the Malopo, the Aub, the Nossop and others? How did those cavities in the earth get there, cavities which in places in South West is 400 yards wide and 400 feet deep? They were washed out, Mr. Speaker. It was water which washed out the earth. Professor Schwarz of Rhodes University investigated the area but his ideas were pooh-poohed. But he was perfectly correct. All the waters of the Etosha Pan and of the Makarikari Pans of Bechuanaland were drained by two rivers: the Kunene on the one side and the Zambesi on the other. All these waters come from the highlands of Angola and are still flowing there. There is that wonderful river the Okavango that flows into the lake there. Then there is Lake Ngami, but not the Ngami the Voortrekkers found there. I remember, Mr. Speaker, one of the ladies who participated in that trek having told me that she got married at Lake Ngami after the terrific trek through the Kalahari. When I say “Kalahari”, I do not mean red sand dunes. It has the most wonderful pastures, scrub land and bush. All that it requires is water and this it used to have. What has now happened to the water of Lake Ngami? When I was there last I could hardly find water to soften my socks. I am told that the United Nations have given two grants, one for an investigation into the waters of the Okavango and the second to implement this scheme. I am told, but here I am subject to correction, that Lake Ngami has been reflooded and that the papyrus has been removed from the river area connecting the two lakes.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is sending our roving Ambassador to Secuanaland, as I call it, or Botswanaland as they call it. I say let him negotiate with Seretse Khama. I know the Khamas very well. They are all buried at Kenya. These are people who realize that South Africa is their only outlet for the only product they have to sell, i.e. labour. They would welcome it. I should like to see the Makarikari Pan being flooded once more over an area of 150 miles in diameter and also lake Ngami over an area of 20,000 square miles. Is it not possible for hon. members of the Cabinet to act boldly and get back the moisture, get back the water and thereby the rain?

Right at the outset I want to associate myself with the gratitude that other newcomers who spoke before me expressed towards the officers and authorities of Parliament for their kindness and for the cordial welcome we have received here. I represent the Vyburg constituency. Here I should like to warn you in passing that there may be some confusion because it has happened by coincidence that the member for Vryburg and the member for Vryheid are seated side by side in this House. In the past it has in fact already happened that mail and goods intended for Vryburg arrived at Vryheid, and I therefore want to caution you, Mr. Speaker, not to confuse the two of us. It may be that the member for Vryburg will be known as the wattle grower, whereas the member for Vryheid may perhaps be known for his fine cattle. There is a story about an old gentleman who mentioned people in faraway countries in his prayers every night, and who also prayed regularly for those people in faraway countries like Mafeking and Bulawayo! Mafeking is one of the main towns in my constituency, and I shall therefore simply have to accept that I shall be the member for Faraway Land. Both of us are proud of our respective constituencies, however, and I think we shall simply have to reconcile ourselves to any possible confusion, because I do not think he would like to have the name of his constituency changed, nor should I like to have mine changed.

Like other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to introduce my constituency to the House. It is the most northerly constituency in the Cape and it covers an exceptionally large area. The Mafeking and Vryburg magisterial districts have a surface area which is as large as that of the Free State, give or take a few square miles. This area also includes the agro-economic cattle grazing region known as the M.3 region. The area is excellent for cattle farming and therefore the weal and the woe of the meat industry is very closely bound up with the weal and the woe of Vryburg. Nine per cent of the cattle marketed in the controlled areas comes from the Northern Cape area, and of this Vryburg produces half. The largest stock auctions in South Africa are held in Vryburg on Fridays and the record amount for cattle sold on one day is R178,000. Grain is also produced in this area. In fact, the average grain production over the past number of years was 1,000,000 bags. We therefore see that it plays an important part as the agricultural garner of South Africa. Now there is also mention of gold, but we hope that the public of Vryburg will see to it that the constituency remains the granary, as it has been in the past. Unfortunately we have also been afflicted by a disastrous drought for the past four years. Here I want to associate myself at once with what the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said this morning, and I want to take my hat off to the farmers of Vryburg for the way in which they have combated this drought and for the spirit they are still showing. We also thank the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services for the visit he paid us recently to see for himself what the position of those farmers was. We thank him for his sympathetic approach towards the problems of those people. We also know that this Government will help those farmers who have been brought to their knees, to get back on to their feet.

On the eastern side this constituency borders on the Transvaal for approximately 170 miles. Many of my voters maintain that the grass on the other side of that border is greener than on their side. I would rather not elaborate on that now. I want to speak about the northern border of this constituency. On the northern side it borders on the Bechuana-land Protectorate for a distance of approximately 350 miles. At first it is the Ramathla-bamaspruit to the east of the Transvaal for 30 miles, and then the Molopo River. Bechuanaland will shortly become an independent state, Botswana. In the past there was an agreement as regards this border: a give-and-take agreement which was entered into in the early 30’s. The border consists of a wire fence of some four or five strands which criss-crosses the river. Further down there is no fence at all. For 80 miles on either side of the Transvaal border the area is populated by Bantu, and then it is populated on either side by Whites, and lower down, towards the Republic, by Whites with isolated Bantu communities on the side of the Protectorate. This border is of particular interest to South Africa in the strategic, military and other fields. But it is also of particular interest in the field of agriculture.

In 1956 there was a sudden outbreak of the feared foot-and-mouth disease. As far as could be ascertained, this disease originated in and came across from the Protectorate. You are aware of all the restrictive measures imposed upon us, and of the control measures which are still in operation to keep this disease under control if it should break out again. This disease is not a particularly feared disease in South Africa because the mortality rate is not very high, but in cool and moderate climates like that of Europe it has a high mortality rate. But economically it may cause tremendous disruption, for people in the affected regions as well as for the rest of the country, because it has a direct effect on our exports of agricultural produce. The most important means of spreading it is through direct contact between animals, although it is also spread in other ways, such as the transporting of meat, and even by birds and game. Immediately after the outbreak at that time the Government appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the problem of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa in all its aspects. The recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the Government, and one of their direct results was that it was agreed to put up a double fence on the South African border in order to avoid direct contact. But the implementation of this recommendation met with immediate difficulties on the part of the Protectorate authorities, because they wanted to abide by the give-and-take agreement of the 30’s. The solution is therefore to put up a double fence along the border in the bed of the Molopo River, which is dry for the most part. In that way direct contact between animals will be avoided. It is now my plea in this House that the Cabinet will do everything in its ability to ensure the security of this border as soon as possible, both by the construction of this double fence and by regular patrolling of the line. These things have all been approved in principle, but have been delayed as a result of the constitution of a new government in that State. I want to plead that as soon as that area becomes an independent state, those measures will be put into operation immediately and that negotiations will be entered into on a high level with the new state in order to protect us against the infiltration of foot-and-mouth disease in future. You will appreciate what the present position of these farmers is, not only in Vryburg but also in Kuruman and Gordonia. They can expect a new outbreak of the disease there at any time, because it is endemic to the Protectorate. Despite the control measures that have been taken to restrict future outbreaks of that disease, I want to put it to you that if foot-and-mouth disease were to break out along the Protectorate border, it would also spread to the Republic immediately, because there is continual contact between the cattle in the Protectorate and in the Republic. We plead for the removal of this sword which is hanging over our heads throughout these three constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time I have been allotted. This is the first plea I make on behalf of my voters. I shall also regard it as my duty to state their problems in this House in future.

Mr. Speaker, the sword of Damocles which has been hanging over my head has fallen at last. I want to associate myself very closely with the newcomers who have expressed their appreciation of the manner in which we have been received and have been made to feel at home here. I think it fitting at this stage to define the attitude with which I have come to this House, and I can do so in very few words. I have no aspirations other than to be at the service of those I represent. If it is possible for me to make a further contribution here, this would be a rich reward for me. In this connection I just want to mention in passing that my constituency really consists of portions—one may virtually say remaining portions—of four other constituencies, namely Kimberley (South), De Aar-Colesberg, Graaff-Reinet and Prieska. It does my heart good to be able to say in this House that I really feel inadequate to try to follow in the footsteps of those who have represented those constituencies before me. Wherever I go I hear people speaking highly of them and expressing their gratitude for what they have done. I am thinking of the hon. member for Colesberg, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) and the former members for Prieska and Graaff-Reinet.

The temptation to tell this House about my constituency to-day has been very strong but I have resisted that temptation because I want to sneak about a matter which is very close to my heart. I have long sought an opportunity to discuss that matter and although my time is fairly limited and will not permit me to discuss it in detail, I do not want to allow this opportunity to go by. If I think about what has been said during this debate then I am not far wrong in saying that it is really a new note I want to strike in this debate. If it proves to be a discordant note, I shall humbly submit to this House sitting in judgment on me.

I want to say at the very outset that I wish to say a few words in connection with our education, but allow me to make it quite clear that it is not my intention in the least to sing the praises of our education. To my mind to-day is not the right occasion for doing so. Nor do I come here to criticize and to find fault. I prefer to inform this House to-day of that which causes me concern.

We are living in times which are characterized by the fact that we have to plan anew and reorientate ourselves in virtually all spheres of life. This is caused by the spirit and the demands of the times. We are compelled to do so. Now I have been thinking whether the time has not arrived for us to plan anew in the field of education as well. We know, and it is generally acknowledged, that these are difficult times and as they become more difficult plans are being made and means are being devised for making the shocks we have to absorb less shocking. Therefore I often ask myself the following question. After all, those who are most intimately concerned in our education are the youth. If we may rightly speak about shocks, have our youth been prepared for life in such a way, have they been equipped in such a way that they will be able to withstand such shocks, or do we have to expect that they will succumb to those shocks? We cannot discuss education without thinking specifically of our youth. It is intended for them, it is in their interests and furthermore in the interests of the country.

I have said that we are living in ominous times and if this is true and we all come to accept it, we cannot escape from the questions I have just asked: “How will those who are most vulnerable be affected?” It is when I think about this that I ask myself the question: “Is it not high time now for us to think about taking a new and different direction in education or should that not have been done long ago?” Sir, you will allow me to make a short quotation from this book with which many hon. members may be acquainted, namely Die Uitdaging van Ons Tyd. I want to read a few short paragraphs from an article written by a recognized educationist in our country (translation)—

I want to accept that when I speak in this House and what I have to say involves the concept of Communism, I may speak without fear of contradiction. I accept that readily and that gives me the courage to speak more frankly. If we wish to accept the truth of what we have just heard, then the question I have asked this House a moment ago presents itself much more strongly: “To what extent can our youth defend themselves? Will all of them be able to resist such attacks? Will they be able to resist them to-morrow or the day after?” And we should not forget that education is the most powerful means of making ideas and ideologies take root in a nation. It is for that reason that the communist starts with the youth and it is not only the communist who does so. This is not a new idea at all. We in South Africa became familiar with the motto, “Catch them young” many years ago but it dates back much further than that. It even dates back to biblical times. I may remind you of Daniel and the other young men who were destined to receive an out and out Chaldean education to make them disloyal to that which was their own and to make them conform to that which was foreign. Therefore, I see our youth exposed to dangers, exposed to onslaughts which await them and we do not know for certain that we are doing everything in our power to safeguard them.

Mr. Speaker, time will not allow me to deal with this subject as a complete treatise and I have to make haste. With your permission I should like to mention a few facts to give you some idea of what I have in mind when I say that we have to plan anew and reorientate ourselves. What I do have in mind is the following. Should we not at this stage, and without delay, think of reviewing to a certain extent our curricula, that which is offered to the youth of our country. I am not speaking about upsetting the curricula, but we shall have to make new adjustments and it can be done. I just want to mention a few examples. In the first place I am thinking about the teaching of the mother-tongue and the second language, and something which I regard as being extremely essential, also a third language. One’s love for, care for, jealous protection and safeguarding of one’s mother tongue, is probably the summum bonum of a cultured and educated person. When somebody is proud of his mother tongue, loves it and uses it properly it proves to me always that he is an educated and cultured person. That is one of the prerequisites of being a patriot. One may expect it of a person who does not care for those things at all, on whom they make no impression, to become disloyal. In addition I believe that in this bilingual country of ours special attention should be given to the second language. It makes no difference whether we are Afrikaans speaking or English speaking. I also believe that a third language should be studied. We are committed to maintaining the closest relations with countries abroad and we may feel satisfied that English is a universal language and the commercial language, but there are occasions when we find that that is not enough. Only last year I learnt of complaints in France that South African students did not adequately or satisfactorily avail themselves of opportunities for studying nuclear research and to our disappointment we had to learn that that was apparently due to the fact that they were not conversant enough with the French language or could not speak it at all. You will tell me that we do make a study of two official languages, that they are compulsory subjects at school, but my personal opinion is that I am not satisfied with the approach to that study. It has been my privilege for many years to give pupils instruction in their mother-tongue. I hope that I have been able to make a contribution. Now that that time has passed and I sometimes have the opportunity of sitting back and reflecting, I begin to doubt and the thought occurs to me that I have merely trained those pupils in an examination subject. I am afraid that in future we shall have to regard instruction in both the mother-tongue and in the second language in particular as differing from mere instruction in examination subjects.

But I now come to something else, namely the study of our national history. Several times I have had the opportunity to take up some of the so-called text-books or hand-books, as they are incorrectly called, and one is surprised to see the amount of world history contained in them, history our pupils are forced to learn because of the examination threat hanging over their heads. It occurred to me whether the time has not already arrived for us to introduce new curricula in which special emphasis is given to our national history, preeminently those chapters which are of the utmost importance in moulding our youth. I have recently seen that several chapters in a prescribed history book dealt in detail with the former localities, as they are called, of the non-White tribes during the Great Trek, such as those at Thaba ’Nchu and similar places. I ask myself: “Is my judgment really so poor or are we wasting our time in teaching the children where those localities were?” I think that that time has passed. But what I have in mind is a more condensed national history. We have deviated to such an extent to-day that we have what we call social studies. That gives me the idea that we are satisfied with that. Is it not possible for us to supplement these more condensed history curricula by also teaching our youth something about the political economy of the Western nations and about political science, so that they may learn something about what we in the Western world have come to accept over the centuries as being the usual practice and about what we regard as being the right way in which we want ourselves to be controlled and governed? If that may be supplemented then that is the question I ask myself. I want to point out that the communistic countries and their satellites use the youth for the very purpose of achieving their objectives, of drenching them with their views and their doctrines. Then I ask myself: “If that is something which is also a threat to us, how will that youth know that he is nourishing a viper in his bosom if he has not been taught to know better?” I know there may be many persons who are just waiting for an opportunity to ask me whether I am now advocating indoctrination. My reply is definitely in the affirmative but I do not use indoctrination to tell the youth that he should be a member of either the National Party or the United Party. Far be it from me to do that, but if we regard Communism as a common foe of our Western philosophy of life, then I believe that the time has arrived for us to give attention to that matter.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I just want to raise one point. It is a recognized fact throughout the world that the communist is a Godless person. Is it not, therefore, our task to instruct and educate our youth in the opposite direction, in the positive direction? You will tell me immediately: “Provision is made in the curricula of schools for religious instruction.” That is true, but in many cases—and now you must not be shocked to learn about it; I am not telling you about something new—the pupils recite the Lord’s Prayer, a few verses are read from the Bible and that is as far as it goes. You will tell me that religious instruction is the function of the church and the home. Yes, that is the ideal situation but is it not true that there are many families to whom religion is something foreign and is it not also true that the children growing up in such homes are also strangers to the church?

Mr. Speaker, because time went by so quickly, I have to conclude. Although the hon. the Minister of Education is not present, I want to express the fervent hope that I might have succeeded in planting a seed which might be worthy of further attention. For me it would be a special reward if the hon. the Minister would feel that this aspect of education merited an investigation.

I want to congratulate the hon. members for Vryburg and De Aar on their maiden speeches. The hon. member for Vryburg was very concerned about the conditions in his constituency. He told us of some of the hardships that they are suffering. I hope that now that he has made his non-contentious maiden speech, next time we hear him speak in this House, he will become a bit contentious and attack his Ministers and his Government for not doing more for the people living in his area and that he will join with us in voicing complaints against the Government for the way in which they treat the people living in his constituency. Obviously he could not do it on this occasion, but we look forward with pleasure to his next speech. With regard to the hon. member for De Aar, I would like to congratulate him too on his speech. It was very interesting listening to him. Obviously as an ex-teacher he has the question of education very much at heart and we hope to hear more of his ideas. He did mention that he believed in “catching them young”. He pointed out what influence you can bring to bear on pupils in the schools. We all realize that a child’s school years are the most important years of his life and that it is during those years that the child’s character can largely be formed. The hon. member for De Aar has quite correctly pointed out that the communists use the schools for indoctrination purposes. He said that we should use the schools for indoctrination too, not with a view to turning the children eventually into Nationalists or United Party supporters but with a view to teaching them the Western way of thinking and also to bring them up as God-fearing people. We support those sentiments and I hope that next time the hon. member speaks in this House he will condemn the sort of speech that was made in the Transvaal Provincial Council the other day by a Nationalist Provincial Councillor who wants to use the schools for indoctrinating the children not in the way suggested by the hon. member but the other way. His complaint was that the children of immigrants were going to English-medium schools. He found fault with that because he said quite openly: “We cannot indoctrinate them if they go to English-medium schools; we want them in Afrikaans-medium schools where we can indoctrinate them”. Sir, why has no Nationalist spokesman got up and repudiated that statement? Why has there been no denial from the Nationalist Party? It is because that is what was said and because that is what has been happening and they are not going to criticize teachers who have been spreading the ideas of Nationalism amongst the children. Those teachers are all organizers of the Nationalist Party. They are indoctrinating the children and building them up as young Nationalists and forming their minds at a tender age so that when they reach the age of 18 years they will know where to put their crosses. [Interjection.] Why then has nobody denied it? We hear a great deal of talk in this House about building up a united nation. Sir, listen to the radio talk “Current Affairs” on any day of the week and you will hear talk about building up a united South African nation but, Sir, that is just to allay the suspicions of the English-speaking people, to try to win them over, for one purpose only: It is convenient for the Nationalist Party now to have English-speaking people in their party. They want those English-speaking persons to use their influence with the English-speaking world. As I have said before, it did not matter before where the English-speaking people voted; it did not matter what they thought when it was believed that Hitler was going to win the war, but to-day it is of importance.

I want to come back to the Budget and the attacks on the Minister of Finance. This side of the House has attacked the Government during the whole of this week because of the Minister’s Budget. We have claimed that amongst other things it will have the effect of raising the cost of living. We have dealt with the Budget as it affects the poorer man and the housewife. The Minister and other members on that side of the House have asked us where they can save money, but they have not answered the questions put to them so pertinently by the hon. member for Yeoville. He asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs: “How and where do you want the ordinary man in the street to save? You ask us to tell you how the Government can save; you tell us how you expect the ordinary man in the street to save.” Sir, the rich have been told by the Minister of Finance how to save. He says to them: “If you save your money by giving it to the Government in the form of loans or by contributing to pension funds, you will save income tax and if you save on your income tax you will have more money to spend on luxuries, so the increased taxes which I am imposing in this Budget will not affect you.” The poor man, however, cannot save on his income tax, and the poorer people are the people who are hardest hit. The poorer you are the harder you are hit by indirect taxation. Admittedly you avoid direct taxation but you are hit by indirect taxation, and the poorest group is the Bantu group. The Bantu represent the largest group of our population. They form over two-thirds, almost 70 per cent, of our population. The tragic part is that they are the ones who are going to suffer most because they earn the lowest wages and they have no voice in this Chamber. They are not represented here at all because of Government policy. They cannot express their displeasure at what is happening; they cannot plead here for relief. This is the worst form of taxation without representation.

How will they be taxed?

They have to pay every penny of the indirect tax on cigarettes.

Do they live on cigarettes?

The hon. member over there suggests that because only a few of them pay income tax, they are not taxed. Sir, that hon. member is the chairman of the Native Affairs Commission. I think hon. members on that side should do some re-thinking on the question of the chairmanship of that commission. The hon. member should be going out of his way to look after the interests of the Natives, and he comes along here and asks me what taxes they will be paying. Sir, they pay direct taxation; they pay a general tax which the White man, the Coloured man and the Asiatic are not called upon to pay, and despite the fact that they pay a general tax which is not payable by the poorer sections of the other population groups, they are not exempt from the normal tax paid by other groups. They pay the normal tax as well. If their income is sufficiently high they pay the same taxes as the other groups. True, an adjustment is then made in respect of the general tax but they pay the normal tax and the poor ones pay the general tax. Sir, let us consider their position. They have to pay much more for their education than the White group.

Indirectly.

I mean indirectly. Sir, it is a shocking thing that you still see in the Estimates under Bantu Education a fixed amount of R13,000,000. I think that amount was fixed in 1953 or 1954, and that figure still stands in the Estimates at R13,000,000; it is still shown there as a fixed amount. Of course, they are not only getting R13,000,000; they are getting more than R13,000,000. Why then show a fixed amount of R13,000,000 here? In the Transkei, education has also been taken over by the Transkeian Government and there is more money to spend on education but, despite that, it still costs the ordinary African more to educate his child.

What does he contribute to the ordinary funds of the State? His whole tax goes towards education.

How does the African, bearing in mind his low wages, contribute less than any other citizen of the country? In fact, he contributes more because he pays a general tax which is not payable by other population groups. In addition to that he has to pay for the school books used by his children.

Do you not pay for school books here?

Yes, I pay for the school books of my children but does the poor parent pay for the books of his children? The hon. the Minister knows that very well, Sir, I am sorry I called the hon. member a minister. I apologise to the other ministers. The hon. member should know that the poorer members of the White community do not pay for their children’s school books; they get them free. He also knows that they get their boarding free if they live in a rural area where they cannot be educated. They also get their transport free. What is the position of the African pupil? He has to pay for his boarding. His primary education is free but if he has to go away to a boarding school he has to pay for his boarding. Every day in the Transkei you see Africans borrowing money to send their children away to boarding school. These African children walk for miles and miles to attend school. It cannot be said that the Africans have an easier time as far as taxation is concerned than the other groups. In fact they are the ones who will feel the effect of this Budget most. I pointed out to the Minister of Transport the other day in the course of the Railway Budget debate that he was hitting the Africans hard by increasing their fares, not on guaranteed lines but on all other lines. Those Africans who come from the reserves to go to work have to pay higher fares, if they themselves pay their fare, and if their fares are paid by their employers, the employers are not going to pay it out of their own pockets; they are going to add that extra amount to the cost of their product or the price of the service they render. These increased fares will therefore have the effect of increasing the cost of living. Sir, the Africans are the most abstemious of the race groups in South Africa. The Secretary for Justice in his latest report says that the actual per capita consumption of liquor in the case of the Bantu is extremely low in comparison with that of the other race groups. Those who do drink the alcoholic liquor favoured by the Whites and Coloureds pay the same indirect taxation on that liquor. They are going to pay the increased duty on brandy and beer and kaffir beer. This report from the Secretary of Justice says this—

The Africans are switching from natural wine and hard tack. The Minister of Justice wants to change the pattern of drinking. He wants the public to drink natural wines instead of hard tack and beer. The Minister of Finance presumably wants them to do the same thing. He supports the Minister of Justice and he does it by increasing the tax on other liquors, leaving out natural wines, so as to get the beer and brandy drinkers to drink natural wine. The African who has switched from natural wine to beer is going to be the hardest hit if he drinks beer; he must go over to natural wines. But if he drinks his national drink, he finds that that too is unpopular with the Minister of Finance, because the Minister is now going to tax Bantu beer, or kaffir beer as it is commonly known. I think this must be the first time in the history of South Africa that kaffir beer has been taxed.

They will not be allowed to increase the price of kaffir beer.

Why not?

I will not allow it.

Sir, the Minister talks in ignorance.

It has to be fixed by us.

What is the Minister talking about? Who fixes the price of kaffir beer made in the kraals?

They do not make that kaffir beer from malt.

Of course they buy kaffir corn. It is sold to them by the traders.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. If that is what the Minister intends let him make it clear then that the tax will only apply to kaffir corn sold to the municipal and tribal beer halls.

The tax is on malt, you should know that.

The tax is on the kaffir corn.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course it is; it is not on the malt alone. Sir, here I have the Minutes of Proceedings in which the tax proposals are contained. It says here: “Kaffir corn malt.” [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. members opposite are laughing at. This beer is made from kaffir corn malt. Is it not?

At last you are right.

Well, that is the point. The beer is made from kaffir corn malt and therefore the beer must cost more. I want to ask the Minister of Bantu Administration to tell me what kaffir corn malt is.

The tax is not on kaffir corn; it is on the malt.

Sir, no matter how the Minister may argue, the Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech that he was going to make the Bantu pay more for his kaffir beer. He said that since we have to pay more for our beer the Bantu should also pay more for his. I ask the Minister of Finance: Did he or did he not say that?

It is in his Hansard.

If the Minister refuses to reply let him just nod his head then. “Speak to me not only with thine eyes.” Of course, he said that he was putting up the tax on kaffir beer.

You are on the wrong track.

Sir, I am afraid I have diverted too much, but the point I want to make is that the Bantu, the African, is being called upon to pay an additional tax, thus increasing his cost of living. The Minister must realize that kaffir beer is not only a beverage; it is also a food, and in taxing kaffir beer it is almost like taxing the Bantu’s bread. Of course, it is going to cost the Bantu more now. The tragic part of it is, of course, that the African cannot live cheaply in the reserves; he is compelled to go out and work because of the conditions in the reserve. He is compelled to become a wage-earner and he is compelled to buy the ordinary foods that we live on, and this Government is doing absolutely nothing to make it possible for the reserves to support the African who is at present working in the towns. With the development which is taking place there now the reserves cannot even support the natural increase in the population. We see in the Budget this year that less money is being set aside for the development of the reserves—over R1,000,000 less for purchasing more land. One would have thought that more money would have been set aside for developing the reserves. The Government should be doing something active to develop the reserves, when one bears in mind what the Tomlinson Commissioner found and what the 1932 Native Commission found. More money should be spent on the development of the reserves, not less. I suppose the Minister will get up here and quote a whole series of figures to us about miles and miles of contour ploughing that has been done, about dams that have been built and about dipping tanks that have been built. Sir, that does not help us; that is not going to enable the reserves to absorb the present population, let alone the increase. What is needed is industrial development in the reserves so that the Africans can be employed in their own homelands. What is happening in Hammarsdale? Some of the Bantu employed there come from Qua Mashu, a Native township in Durban. Natives from the Transkei are going to work in Hammarsdale, not people living in the native reserve alongside. Unless the Government changes its policy and allows the White man to take part in the development of the reserves the reserves are not going to provide a home for the Africans. If the African has to go out to work, then special arrangements should be made so that he will not be forced, on the meagre resources at his disposal, to meet the increased cost of living.

The hon. member for Transkei, who has just sat down, made the statement here that the Bantu child found it more difficult to obtain an education and that Bantu parents had an additional burden in that they had to pay for the education of their child. It surprised me to hear him make such a statement. Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we heard the very same argument from the United Party as we have just heard from him, except that at that time they said that it was the child of the White parent who was finding it more difficult to obtain an education and that the White parent did not have the same privileges as the Bantu. In my constituency even previous Estimates of Expenditure were produced as evidence of that statement, and the amount appearing in the Estimates on the Education Vote was compared with the amount spent on Bantu education without taking into account the amount spent by the Provincial Administrations on White education. People asked me virtually with tears in their eyes: “Will you not please see to it that an equal amount is spent on White education as on Bantu education?” That was the type of propaganda which was made during the past election. At that time I predicted that such propaganda would cease to be made on 30th March, which it did and here to-day we have the same old accusation that we are the suppressors of the Bantu; that the child of the Bantu is not receiving a free education, etc.

They are chameleons.

The hon. member came along here and made the statement that the Bantu’s opinion could not be heard in this House because he had no representation here. Let me tell the hon. member immediately that the Bantu’s opinion has never been heard more clearly than precisely at the present time—now that he has his territorial authorities, his regional authorities and his tribal authorities.

Who speaks for them here? Your side keeps absolutely quiet.

It is not necessary that anyone in this House should speak for them; they speak on their own behalf in their own territories and what they say comes to the Government and the Department. But there they speak much more clearly; they do not come along with agitations. There they state their needs in very clear terms. No, also that argument of the hon. member does not hold water.

The hon. member also made the statement here that the poor amongst the Bantu had to pay for their books but that the poor amongst the Whites need not pay for their books. He made the statement that the poor amongst the Bantu had to pay for all their education. Where does the hon. member get that from?

I did not say that; I said they had to pay for their books and accommodation.

The hon. member no longer remembers what he said: he is somewhat confused. Funds are voted for the education of the child of a Bantu who cannot afford to pay so that he may in fact receive free books.

That is not true.

The hon. member should inquire from the regional authorities, which receive funds which are at their disposal, and which in turn supply money to the tribal authorities who also render assistance in the purchasing of books.

But now I come to the statement which the hon. member made in connection with Bantu beer. It is true that there is a levy of 1 cent per pound on malt. But does the hon. member know how much Bantu beer one can make from one pound of malt? Now I want to give the hon. member, who doubted the word of the hon. the Minister when the Minister informed him that the price of beer sold by the beer houses would not be increased by a single cent per gallon, that assurance once more.

That was not what the Minister of Finance said.

He has now received that assurance from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but the hon. member does not want to accept it because it does not suit his argument. But now I want to ask him where does the profit made on beer go? If a profit is made, does it go to the treasury? Does the hon. member know that any profit on Bantu beer is ploughed back for the Bantu themselves?

Who does not know that? Of what use is that to the Bantu?

If the hon. member knows that, then he should not make such statements.

What does he really want?

Where does the money go?

The hon. member made a further statement. He said less funds are voted for Bantu development in this year’s Estimates. Did the hon. member say that?

I did not say “less funds”. I was talking about the reserves.

Development in the reserves?

You yourself may look at the Estimates.

The hon. member should bear the fact in mind when he goes through the Estimates that there are also Loan Estimates apart from the Estimates for general expenditure.

Yes.

If the hon. member would check the relevant figures he would see that he was wrong, but these are things we may discuss when the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration is under discussion. If he takes the two figures given on Revenue Account and on Loan Account, I now want to challenge him to prove to me that expenditure on the development of the homelands under the Vote Bantu Administration and Development is lower this year than last year. That was the statement he made and I hope that he will accept my challenge.

I accept.

Let the hon. member prove that less funds are appropriated for development this year.

I sat here and waited to hear what attack the hon. member would make on the Government’s policy in respect of the Bantu, but apart from replying to these few incorrect statements I do not think I need reply to anything else in the hon. member’s speech. However, since Monday a few other statements have been made here which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. The hon. member for Houghton, who unfortunately is not present, wanted to create the impression here the other day that Bantu wages had not been increased for 14 years. She wanted to leave people under that impression. When I challenged her on that point she said: “Yes, but for 14 years the Wage Board has not increased the minimum wage for unskilled labourers employed in the industries.” I have her own words here. The impression she wanted to create was that Bantu wages had not been improved for 14 years. This is the type of message which hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Houghton who continually agrees with them and supports them, would like to send out to the outside world from this House in order to show how we on the Government side are the suppressors. Because now the elec-of being “kafferboeties”. But now the election the biggest liberals on earth. We were accused of being “kafferboeties”. But now the election is over and once more it is said that we are suppressors. Let me give the true facts here.

What does Brown say?

From 1959 to 1966 wage increases to the amount of R42,000,000 have been effected for 1,100,000 Bantu. I am now speaking about people receiving minimum wages. In recent years the Wage Board reviewed all determinations in respect of unskilled labour made in terms of the Wage Act, and the increases which I have indicated here were effected. But what is the true state of affairs, even if there had been no increase in the minimum wage scales? I have caused random tests to be made. Unfortunately I do not have the time at my disposal to go into those tests in detail, but one is particularly interesting. In the Johannesburg complex—and that is where the hon. member comes from—the average monthly income per Bantu family was R38 and per male productive unit R25 in 1953. Ten years later in 1962—these are the latest figures at my disposal—the income per Bantu family in the same Johannesburg complex was R58.97 and per male productive unit R34.14. In other words, the increase from R25 to R34.14 during these ten years as regards the male productive unit, expressed as a percentage represents an increase of 36 per cent and per family the increase from R38 to R59 represents an increase of 55 per cent. Why should attempts now be made to make such misrepresentations? Why should the impression be created that the wages of the Bantu have not been increased over the years? I think hon. members are rendering South Africa a disservice by making statements such as this.

I should also like to come to another matter raised by the hon. member for East London (City) during the debate on the motion of censure. That hon. member allowed an irresponsible remark to fall from his lips which may do South Africa a great deal of harm. The hon. member said here that he himself had visited certain transit camps of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and that conditions there were very bad. He even went as far as saying that the houses in that camp were only shanties measuring 8 feet by 8 feet. He said that he had visited several of those camps. Like other hon. members, the hon. member for East London (City) gave a ready ear to misrepresented Press reports regarding the Bantu township Sada which appeared in the East London Daily Dispatch of 28th July. I want to challenge the hon. member or other hon. members opposite who come from the Ciskei area to say that that remark by the hon. member was not based on that report.

I am not rising to participate in the debate, but to furnish the hon. House with certain information. Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on previous occasions, and last year specifically, I informed the hon. Senate and this House that as the two main subversive organizations in South Africa were being cleared up and as certain persons left the country from time to time, as hon. members are aware, to receive training as saboteurs and guerrilla fighters in Africa and other countries, we might find ourselves up against the third phase of subversion in South Africa. Hon. members will recall that on those occasions I said that it would take the form of infiltration by well-trained, sophisticated saboteurs who would be equipped with heavy weapons, automatic weapons. At the time there were those who believed us; there were others who were sceptical in regard to the matter.

Now it has happened, Mr. Speaker, that a number of these trained saboteurs have already entered South Africa in the past. Thanks to firm action by the South African Police Force we were fortunate enough to arrest those people as they entered the country and to bring them to book.

So it has happened again that a while ago such saboteurs came in, following a route from Tanzania, through Zambia and South Angola until they finally entered Ovamboland, in the north of South West Africa. Some of those people were not armed at that stage but were caught and were examined by experts in that field. It was found that they had knowledge of the use of explosives, that they had reached an average degree of proficiency in the art of guerrilla warfare, that some of them were proficient in the art of map-reading and that they knew how to handle a variety of weapons, including automatic weapons. After that, information was received that a group, which according to information was eventually found to number 16, had crossed the border in the same way and that they were heavily armed with automatic weapons, presumably of Russian and Chinese origin. Their task, as it appeared from information, was to infiltrate into South West Africa with the object of murdering Ovambo chiefs and other well-disposed Whites and to provide training to members of certain subversive organizations, and in that way to instigate murder and armed revolt. Police attempted to arrest these persons without bloodshed or violence. When it appeared that these attempts would not be successful there was no alternative but to resort to the use of force.

Since early this morning, and starting at daybreak, a fight between these persons and a detachment of the S.A. Police Force has been taking place-» Hon. members will understand that communications are not very good, that reports have to be sent over great distances and that at this stage I cannot give hon. members a complete picture of what has happened, except to tell them that there has been firing with automatic weapons. I am very glad to be able to inform hon. members that up to this moment—the fight is still in progress—none of those doughty policemen has been injured in the fight. On the other hand, two of those persons have been killed, eight have been captured and some have been wounded. At this stage it is difficult to determine the exact number. It has been established conclusively at this stage that, together with certain weapons, the police have come into possession of two machine guns, similar to those which have already been used by the guerrillas and saboteurs in Rhodesia.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that since we expected this to happen, we have been preparing ourselves very thoroughly to protect the population of South Africa against these terrorists. I want to make it very clear that there is no reason for panic. However, I also want to state that it is clear to us that we have to do with a vanguard here and that the possibility is not ruled out that more such groups will try to cross our borders there and at other places as well. I say that because I want to be realistic, and not because I want to cause anybody to panic. But I also want to state very clearly that when one is dealing with such unscrupulous and dangerous people the possibility of somebody getting hurt in the process can never be excluded. On behalf of the S.A. Police I want to state very clearly that as far as it is humanly possible they will protect the population of South Africa against attacks of this nature at all times.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that not only this House but the population of South Africa, all of us, wish to convey, on an occasion such as this one, our most sincere congratulations and appreciation to General Keevy and the officers and men, not only those who participated in this skirmish, but all of them who have dedicated themselves to their task in this connection in the past and who will also carry out their task in the future.

As more detailed and clearer reports come through I shall inform the House, and we shall furnish further information in this regard. May I, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, make an appeal on this occasion to the Press not to inundate our police officers and myself in particular with inquiries over the week-end in an effort to obtain information. The information will be supplied from one source, and the Press need have no fear that one newspaper will scoop the other as far as news in connection with this matter is concerned. We shall furnish the information as it becomes available.

I would be failing in my duty if on this occasion I omitted to make an appeal to those countries in regard to which we have information in our possession and the names of which I shall mention. According to our information, which appears to be accurate, these people received their training and are still receiving training in Egypt, Russia, Algeria, North Korea, the Congo-Brazzaville, Ghana, Red China and Tanzania. We know that a few hundred people are being trained in this way. I want to make an appeal to countries and organizations who are concerned with this training, to put a stop to it. They will not bring South Africa to its knees in that way. But what they will succeed in doing is to send these incited people to a certain death if they send them to South Africa. I conclude by repeating once again that as far as the Government is concerned, and in particular as far as the S.A. Police are concerned, we shall protect the population of South Africa against attacks of this nature with all the means at our disposal and shall safeguard our nation against this kind of attack on its people and on its way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice is to be commended on reporting so speedily and so fully to the House in connection with this unfortunate episode on the northern border of South West Africa. It seems indeed, Sir, a tragic state of affairs that countries claiming a measure of civilization should give opportunities for training to people of this kind with the direct intention of overthrowing responsible and organized Government in this country and causing chaos if they can. I would like to associate myself and this side of the House with the remarks of commendation and gratitude made in respect of the police whom the Minister has mentioned. But I want to go further than that. I want to say, as I have said before, that when it comes to unprovoked aggression on South Africa, either in connection with infiltration of guerrilla bands or on a larger scale, anyone connected with that must appreciate that they will be facing a united nation and that as far as the Opposition is concerned, they will support all necessary and reasonable measures to deal with any activity of this kind. I want to say, and I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here, that in so far as we are able to assist in anything of this kind, we will regard the invasion of the integrity of South Africa in the most serious light and as a matter of life and death, both for the Government and the Opposition in South Africa. Many possible comments could be made as a result of this experience, but I do not think this is the time or the occasion to carry this matter any further.

I rose, Sir, to participate in this debate to raise more especially two particular matters, one a political matter that has arisen in the course of this debate, the other a financial matter.

The political matter that has arisen in the course of this debate is the uncertainty that has been created owing to rumours in the Government Press concerning the future election of Coloured representatives to this House. The matter has already been raised by the hon. member for Peninsula, a Coloured Representative, but so far there has been no reaction from the Government side, and it seems to me a most unhappy state of affairs that these rumours should be allowed to persist at a time when the election for Coloured Representatives should be already in sight. Apparently the lives of the existing parliamentarians who represent the Coloured people expire in a relatively short time, in October, I believe, and it seems to me a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that the Coloured people should be beset by rumours coming from sources believed to be Government inspired as to the question of who shall be eligible to be candidates for election, and in fact as to whether those elections are going to take place as laid down by the law. If there is anything that can cause frustration and unhappiness amongst these people, if there is anything that can cause them to feel that they are treated in a shoddy manner, then it is a suggestion that something of this kind is being kept from them at a stage so near the elections concerned. I think the time has come when it behoves the hon. the Prime Minister to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government and himself in connection with those elections and in connection with the eligibility of candidates of whatever kind who make themselves available for election. It is not right that at this stage when the election campaign should already be under way this uncertainty exists, and it leaves the impression that these people are being denigrated and not treated as part of the proper electorate responsible for the election of representatives in this House. Their loyalty is important to us, perhaps more important in the light of the sort of information we have had from the hon. the Minister of Justice to-day, and it seems to me that they should be treated with the courtesy and respect which becomes a loyal and important section of our population.

I said that a second matter had arisen, and that was the sort of reaction there has been in this House to the financial measures introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think I could perhaps sum up what I believe to be the result of the debate over the last four days in five propositions. The first of those propositions is that the cost of living in South Africa has recently been rising at a rate which the Minister himself says is too high and is clearly harmful to the economy. The second proposition is that this rate of increase is symptomatic of the inflation that exists in the country at the present time. I want to suggest that the Opposition has made its case that that inflation has been contributed to largely by the Government’s own spending spree over a period of years.

The third proposition I should like to place before the House is that this Government has shown, as the result of the measures of the Minister, that it is prepared to combat inflation to the last cent of the ordinary man in the street and to the last rand of the private investor in South Africa, but that it is not prepared to cut its own expenditure or to discipline itself financially adequately to deal with this situation. I think, fourthly, from what we have heard from the hon. the Minister, the efforts of the Government are almost certainly doomed to failure and are more likely to aggravate the inflationary state of the economy than to correct it. I think, fifthly, that as the result of the four propositions I have stated it can be said that the ordinary man in the street, owing to the Government’s ineptitude, is not only going to be expected to pay higher taxes but is also going to be subjected to ever-rising living costs under this Government’s policy as set out in this Budget. I should like to deal with those five propositions in turn.

I think it is common cause that the cost of living has risen in a manner that is harmful to the economy. I have the authority of the Minister himself for that, but I do not think he made it quite evident how serious that rise was. He told us that the consumer price index had risen from June to June in 1964-5 by 4.1 per cent and in 1965-6 by 3.2 per cent, but he did not tell us how it compared with the calendar year 1964 or the calendar year 1963. Then the rises were 2.4 per cent and 1.3 per cent, as set out in his own White Paper attached to the Budget. That makes it clear what a big increase there has been in the last two years. He also dealt with the wholesale price index and again he dealt with the periods June to June of 1964-5 and 1965-6, and he said that the rises had been 3.6 per cent and 3.5 per cent, but he did not tell us that in the calendar year 1964 the rise had been 2.5 per cent. So that we are faced with a very serious increase, a very big rise, and one which I agree with the Minister is harmful to the economy and has to be checked.

I suggested that that rise has been due over a period of years very largely, although of course not exclusively, to the Government’s own spending spree and the tremendous expenditure in the public sector of the economy. In other words, we have had too much money chasing too few goods. We have had the Government competing for the limited manpower with the private sector of the economy. The result has been too much money also chasing too few jobs. It is not always easy to establish a proposition of the kind I have stated, but I am considerably assisted here by what the Minister said in his own White Paper on page 4, where it states—

The hon. the Minister says it is a high level, and I agree. It is a very high level indeed When one goes a little further, one finds that there is further evidence coming from the annual economic report of the S.A. Reserve Bank and I quote from page 21, where this is stated—

Then there is a section in this report which deals with the capital market. I do not want to weary the House by reading from it at length, but it speaks of the tightening in respect of the position and says—

I think that puts the position very clearly indeed. What was happening was that the hon. the Minister of Finance was putting his hand in the till of the national exchequer, and taking the money away and putting I.O.U.s back again. Those I.O.U.s have to be met some day. If you look at the figures you find an interesting situation. While the monetary authorities were exhorting the businessmen to revise their investment plans, the Governor of the Reserve Bank himself said in August, 1965—

While that was happening, the public authorities and the Government were increasing their expenditure on capital sums by very large amounts indeed. The public authorities pushed up their own spending by 27 per cent and the spending on current account by the public sector rose by as much as 14 per cent, at a time when the private sector had reduced its spending from 21 per cent to 5 per cent. But there was more interesting evidence in the speech made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, which was reported verbatim in the Press last night. This is what he said—

That is after February, 1966—

He deals with the three factors. He deals with the rise in gold and foreign exchange reserves. He deals with the continuing high level of expenditure by public authorities, and then comes the third one, the continued large short-term borrowing by the Government from the banking sector to finance its essential expenditure. Sir, when I said that what the Government had done was too little and too late I was taken to task by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs yesterday. What better evidence can we have that what the Government did was too little and too late, and probably the wrong thing as well? I know that the excuse will be that they did not expect the inflow of capital from overseas. They have not that faith in South Africa. But what did they expect when they were restricting the credit of local subsidiaries of parent companies overseas? Did they really not think that there would be capitalization, that there would be funds sent in from overseas?

Are you suggesting that all the capital inflow comes from that?

I am not suggesting all the capital inflow comes from that, but I am suggesting that if the Minister of Finance knew his job he would have anticipated to a very large extent the capital inflow which took place and he would have been able to act accordingly. The Minister can give us the figures; he is the one man who should have the figures. The situation is that the Minister should have anticipated some inflow of capital in the light of what was happening overseas, particularly in Britain. To come along and tell us that they were completely taken by surprise and did not expect it, and that this is the reason why their measures were unsuccessful, is to me just evidence of the ineptitude of the Minister and the Government.

I said that the evidence so far is that the Government is prepared to combat inflation to the last cent of the man in the street. We all know about these new taxes, and I also said that the Government was prepared to combat inflation to the last rand of the ordinary private investor, but is not prepared to cut its own expenditure or even to discipline itself adequately in its own spending. What did we have from the Minister of Finance when that accusation was made by the hon. member for Constantia? He told us with great pride of how he had persuaded his colleagues in the Cabinet to cut their demands by some R60,000,000. Of course, but we all know that that was merely to hide the fact that Government spending this year is even higher than it was last year. He told us that they agreed to an additional 1 per cent cut, but despite all that we are still in a position where expenditure on Revenue Account must be up close on R140,000,000, and expenditure on Loan Account is up, and he and the Minister of Transport between them are going to take a very large additional sum out of the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa and the railway users, possibly as much as R100,000,000, and they are going to spend it again. They are going to put it back into the economy. It is quite clear that they expect the private sector to make sacrifices, but they are not prepared to make sacrifices themselves and to set an example to the rest of the country.

I know I will be asked by the Minister where do I suggest that he should cut his expenditure. You know, Sir, submitting a budget and looking after the financial affairs of the country, like looking after the financial affairs of any company, is a delicate matter. You have to know, if you cut here, what the effect will be there. You have to know what the interlocking effect will be in the various sections with which you are dealing. The Minister knows very well that no Opposition can hope to have all that knowledge. But it does seem to me that there are certain aspects on which we should like to have a deal of further information from the Minister. Last year the Minister had R48,000,000, voted for Defence but not spent. Is he going to give us a guarantee that everything voted this year will be spent, or will it be paid into the Special Defence Equipment Account? He has made provision for R25,000,000 there. That means that sum will not be spent this year, in all probability. How much is really going to be spent, and how much is he over-budgeting? And then, Sir, what about the R10,000,000 that is to be spent on border industries? That, Mr. Speaker, is an ideological concept. It is strictly speaking not economic expenditure. I will show at a later stage what it is costing us to create a job in border industries. One wonders whether in present circumstances the national economy could afford luxuries of this kind. And, Sir, how urgent is the Orange River scheme compared with certain other priorities with which the country is faced. I could go on, Sir, making suggestions. I do not propose to do so. Because, Sir, I feel that what has happened is that the hon. the Minister has not been firm enough with his own colleagues. There has not been that all-round saving on spending which one would have expected in circumstances like these. And. Mr. Speaker, if we go on in this way then the efforts of the hon. the Minister are almost certainly doomed to failure. The ordinary man in the street is not only going to be called upon to pay more in taxes, but he is going to see his cost of living rising materially in the months and in the years that lie ahead.

Do you think these measures are not drastic enough?

I think that the probability is that they are ill-conceived because the hon. the Minister does not appreciate the interplay of forces that are facing us to-day. I think, Sir, that when one looks at the whole economy that it could have been tackled in many other ways.

Do you approve of these measures or not?

I have had this type of cross-examination from the hon. the Minister before. He knows that I am far too old a fish to be caught on that hook.

You must say whether you approve or not. It is an easy question.

Well, I will give you one of the answers. Here I have the answer from the Financial Times of yesterday. It reads as follows—

This is the Financial Times, which is often very complimentary to the hon. the Minister. I never know why, Sir. I think they are getting confused with the hon. member for Houghton who is their darling. But, Sir, this is what the Financial Mail has to say—

May I point out, Sir, that last year it was expected that the Public Debt Commissioners would produce R150,000,000, other than through the banks, for the Loan Account. They managed to produce only R16,000,000. They point out, Sir, that this year they are expected to produce R140,000,000 from the same sources. The only difference is that the rate of interest is up by 1 per cent. Is the hon. the Minister going to get his money? The suggestion is if he does not that this may well be an inflationary Budget. And then they go on to suggest that the total financial operations will mean R40,000,000 more in the economy than before he started. I do not know whether that sum is correct or not. But that is the effect his financial plans are having on people whom the hon. the Minister regards—and also some of the hon. members opposite—as having some knowledge of the financial situation. And then I say, Sir, that this is bound to lead to failure. What about the position of petrol, the tax on petrol, if this is coupled with the Railway Budget’s effect on the price of petrol? It has to push up costs. That is expected to bring in, Sir, approximately R4,200,000. But there are people who say, Sir, that you can multiply this sum five times to get the ultimate effect on the manufacturers’ cost structure in South Africa because that will snowball and have a snowballing effect. I think, Sir, that there are various reasons why it should be said that this Budget is not going to succeed in its objectives. And I think the man in the street is faced with an unhappy position. And I say that he is going to have to pay higher taxes. There has been quite a lot said about that. But what about cost of living, Sir? It looks to me, Sir, that cost of living is almost certain to rise, because here we have increased public spending which is now going to be added to a still higher level of aggregate expenditure and a liquidity which has caused the present situation. And I fear, Sir, that the consumer price index is going to rise even further. And I think that the heavy reliance on indirect taxation is bound to increase the pressure on the cost structure in the country. Now I know, Sir, that it is possible that private demand will fall below the present level because of the present taxation. It may be that the entire Budget is being based on that assumption. It may be the underlying assumption. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether that is justified in the present circumstances. I am afraid that all the man in the street can expect now is higher taxes and a higher cost of living due to the ineptitude of this Government in managing the financial situation in South Africa. We heard from the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and of Water Affairs this morning what a garden of Eden South Africa had become for the farming community under this Government. The hon. the Minister was almost like a guide showing us round the new garden which he had just taken over. I think, Sir, he saw all the flowers in bloom but he did not know what hard work had gone into making that garden. And, Sir, what is the situation? The hon. the Minister talked about the welfare of the farming community. Why is it that the total number of farmers is falling at such a great rate in South Africa? Why is it that the population of the platteland is being reduced as far as Whites are concerned and increased as far as non-Whites are concerned? Why is it, Sir, that after 18 years in office this Government for the first time is seeking long-term planning for South African agriculture? Mr. Speaker, how can this hon. gentleman paint a picture of that kind? I do not think he has had the time to get around to make the acquaintance of the difficulties of the farming community. [Interjections.] We know what has been happening before. We saw the attempts to deal with this matter, such as price manipulation. And look what he did to the dairy industry and one or two other industries. Then there is this business which is called the rationalization of farming, that is trying to get rid of what is called uneconomic units. Another plan is that of fewer farmers. Mr. Speaker, they have an awful lot to make up before the hon. gentleman can justify a speech of the kind he made. And there is nothing in this Budget which brings any happiness to the farmer that I can see, except one or two minor matters such as allowances in respect of establishing markets overseas through co-operative societies.

Now, Sir, if you look at the problems of this country, what are they really? I think the big problem here is that we need greater productivity. The big problem is that we have to do something about the manpower shortage. And one of the big problems is that we should have an export drive. What is there in this Budget, Sir, to advance any one of those objectives? Let us deal with the question of greater productivity. Surely, Sir, that and the manpower problem mean that we have to make better use of the labour that is available and that we have to have better educational and technical training. You know, Sir, that the Europeans as one minority racial group cannot provide the manpower—male and female—to do all the work that has to be done in South Africa. And we know, Sir, that ordinary conventional education is not adequate at the present time. There is a shortage in the teaching profession, in all Government Departments, such as the Post Office, the Railways, the Police and in the administrative and clerical fields. This shortage is also experienced in managerial fields and particularly in the technological fields. And how has the Government sought to meet the situation? Well, Sir, we have seen a vigorous immigration policy pursued all too late and attempts by the hon. the Minister of Immigration to meet those shortages. But this is not succeeding because immigrants commensurate with our needs are not available and because the short-term effect of immigrants very often is to increase your difficulties. These people need housing and additional services which have to be supplied by those already there. The main solution obviously lies in the optimum use of our own existing manpower. In this regard, Sir, it has been pointed out time and again that there is a lack of co-operation between the large technical colleges and the universities in South Africa, compared with other industrialized countries like Holland, Germany and the United States of America. They point out, Sir, that there should be an opportunity for a horizontal flow. There should be an opportunity for people to change from the one to the other and to be given the benefit of the courses and the study they have already undertaken. They pointed out that this is one of the bottlenecks we have got in our manpower situation at the present time. We see all sorts of inefficiencies in our use of manpower. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that 80 per cent of the apprentices doing courses at our technical colleges fail those courses? 80 per cent of the apprentices attending technical colleges as part of their training as apprentices fail their courses. What is wrong? Is it the apprentices that are wrong or is it the courses that are wrong? Surely something must be done about that, Sir? And then, do you realize, Sir, that we have between 3,000 and 4,000 engineering students at our universities? And each engineer needs three or more technicians. But we have less than half of the 3,000 or 4,000 studying as technicians to assist our engineers, at our technical colleges. So the work and the studies and qualifications of those engineers are being wasted. It seems, Sir, that we have room for at least eight or ten large technical colleges in South Africa. How should we tackle this problem, Sir? Probably there should be short-as well as long-term efforts made. But I believe in the short-term there must be greater emphasis on the availability of technical and university training for every child able to benefit from it in the interests of South Africa. And I think in the second place we will have to step up our immigration as far as we can. And I think also that we will have to consider a modification of our rigid Colour bar which is applied in certain industries on the basis of agreement between employer and employee organizations, on the basis of the rate for the job. But I think also that we have had examples in that regard from certain of the Ministers on that side of the House. The hon. the Minister of Railways is using more and more non-Whites. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is using more and more non-Whites. And it seems, Sir, that it will be of advantage if we had training facilities for our non-White youth to improve their physical fitness and to make them fit for more productive employment. I wonder, Sir, if we could not do more about using females and if this hard-hearted Minister could not be persuaded to perhaps consider separate tax assessments for income tax purposes for married females in real need in the industrial field. And quite obviously, Sir, there has to be a greater diversification of work which is one of the things that goes hand in hand with mechanization. I see that the hon. the Minister is smiling. How would that affect his Budget? Would it not be an idea to give allowances for firms that have training schemes? Would it not be to the advantage of the country? Would it not be a constructive suggestion to arrange preference in Government contracts, or special allowances for firms employing a certain percentage of people over a certain age, normally the retiring age? Would it not be perhaps to the advantage of the country to have tax relief for private individuals, donating to universities and technical colleges? There are many ways in which the Minister can help if he really had this matter at heart. But it does not seem to me as if it has been tackled with any enthusiasm or any real appreciation of the problems with which we are faced. What is there in this Budget to ensure a more efficient use of the labour forces at our disposal? We are going to spend R10,000,000 on border industries. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us the other day that there has been spent on border industries over some period he gave recently, something like R60,000,000, and that this had given jobs to 17,000 people. I worked it out, Mr. Speaker. This comes to approximately R3,600 spent per job. Can we afford that rate of spending to create jobs here in South Africa at the present time? The interesting thing here is, Sir, that when the Tomlinson Commission’s Report came out we on this side of the House backed it to a large extent. We warned that the costs of establishing border industries per job was likely to be between £1,500 and £1,600. We put it too low, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House thought we were ridiculous. We put it too low, but we knew what had happened in Italy. This is becoming a most expensive luxury, an ideological luxury which is not leading to the best use of the manpower we have available. What has the Government done to encourage productivity in industry? It has halved the allowance on new machinery so that the shock should not be too great. It proceeded to impose an extra tax on the most productive brewers in the country. Is that how productivity should be encouraged? I said that there should be imagination used. What incentives are there for long-term overseas investment? The hon. the Minister’s capital inflow last year, according to him, from January, 1965, to June, 1966, amounted to R327,000,000. But R192,000,000 of that represents shorter term funds. Only R135,000,000 therefore represented long-term funds. Surely, Sir, one of the biggest things we could export is investment opportunity? And what did we have? The only thing we have had was an increase in non-resident shareholders’ tax. Mr. Speaker, there has been very little imagination in this Budget. What has the hon. the Minister done to encourage an export drive which is so vital to South Africa. You need not take my authority for it, Mr. Speaker. Here is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said last night—

The Minister of Economic Affairs in a message he gave to the Argus two days ago said this—

Mr. Speaker, what is the hon. the Minister doing in this Budget in regard to the creation of export incentives? What is he doing to encourage it? How many of the recommendations of Safto has he applied? Where are his trade representatives in Africa? Where are his trade representatives between Athens and Tokio and the whole of the Middle and Far East? Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a government that was failing in its duty in regard to the future economic development of South Africa, it is this Government. Mr. Speaker, the trouble is that they cannot make up their minds. Here I have a balance sheet I saw in a newspaper only two days ago. It contains statements on the Government’s economic policy. In 1962 the hon. the Prime Minister said: “Spend for prosperity”; in 1965 the Minister of Finance said: “Save for prosperity.” In 1962 the Prime Minister said: “Domestic spending will have to rise faster than during recent years”; in 1965 the Minister of Finance said: “Unless banks and financial institutions acted to tighten up on easy credit, he would step in with controls”; in January, 1963, the Prime Minister said: “In the industrial field new ventures have been both started and planned. Expansion of existing ones are the order of the day”; in August 1966, that is this month, the hon. the Minister of Finance said: “Every effort should be made to postpone less essential capital projects for a while”; in 1963 the Prime Minister said: “The climate is ripe for economic expansion and the prophets of doom dare not raise their voices as loudly as before”; the hon. the Prime Minister in July this year said: “The day of testing has come. They are not great sacrifices that we demand. All we ask is the readiness to prepare for a greater future”; in February 1965 the Minister of Economic Affairs said: “Employers in the private sector could co-operate by not acceding to demands for higher salaries. Private employers also should not compete with one another by offering higher wages”; that was in February 1965, but in October, 1965, Railway employees were granted pay and pension rises totalling R35,000,000. So I could go on, Mr. Speaker. The trouble with this hon. the Minister is that he does not know where he is steering the ship. He does not know what port he is trying to get into. And the ordinary man in the street is going to suffer as a result of the ineptitude of himself and his Government of the present time.

Mr. Speaker, the economic life of the major industrial countries of the West has been characterized during the past five to eight years mainly by four phenomena, namely a high economic growth-rate, a sustained condition of full employment, an unstable balance of payments from time to time, and then the problem of which we have heard so much, namely that of the rising cost of living. The great economic growth all over the world was mainly the result of an extraordinary growth in the field of factory industries. In that regard our country has gained a remarkable achievement. Next to Japan, South Africa, with an average real industrial growth-rate of 8.7 per cent per year, has been the second highest in the world. Japan’s growth-rate was 10 per cent per year. This boom period and this great prosperity which our country has been experiencing, has created certain problems, but in the process of considering those problems we should not lose sight of the very important benefits they have brought our country. I want to mention a few of those benefits. From 1960 to the end of 1965 our standard of living showed an average increase of 161 per cent per person. That was achieved despite the fact that our population showed a fairly rapid increase, namely an increase of 12 per cent over the same period.

In addition, we built up a great economic power in our country during that period, and there was considerable progress on the way to greater economic self-reliance. All of us appreciate the value and the importance of that, particularly in these times, when as we know the economic weapon is readily wielded, in particular to bring smaller nations whom the world does not like and whose policy they do not like, to their knees. This prosperity, Mr. Speaker, has also brought our country another great benefit, and that is that it has enabled us to build up a great military force. The most important asset needed by our men in the army is good equipment. That determines their efficiency to a very large extent. Our economic power and our economic prosperity has enabled our country to supply them with that proper equipment. Our prosperity has been a particularly strong draw-card for immigrants from abroad. In the past three years we have had a total net increase of more than 92,000 immigrants, and that increase is still continuing.

For the first six months of this year the net immigration totalled 20,685, as against 11,885 for the same period last year. In other words, the number was virtually doubled. That was in fact largely due to our prosperity and also to a good Minister of Immigration. The last example I want to mention is that unemployment decreased to a minimum in our country. Mr. Speaker, there can surely be no greater frustration to any person who wants to work and who can work than unemployment. The boom restricted that frustration to a minimum. That prosperity, Mr. Speaker, must be attributed in the first place to a good Government and a sound economic, financial and labour policy. But it is also attributable to the initiative of our employers.

To-day I should also like to express special appreciation towards our workers corps, which has played such an important part in achieving that progress for our country. And I want to add this. Our immigrants are at present responsible for approximately 371 per cent of the annual net increase in our economically active population. I thank them for their contribution, not only as employers but also as employees. We have recently read a great deal about efficiency. I should like to bring it to the attention of the House how we have progressed in this field over the past few years. For the year 1958-9 salaries and wages amounted to 59.3 per cent of our gross domestic production. For the latest year in respect of which information is available, it decreased to 55 per cent. That was during the year 1963-4. In other words, over that five-year period there was an increase of 6.3 per cent in efficiency as regards labour. That is not a very large increase, but I think it puts paid to any allegation that our worker community’s efficiency has decreased. In fact, there has been a notable increase. I further want to point out that we achieved this great prosperity without placing a heavy tax burden on our community, and without imposing a heavy burden in the form of interest payments on future generations.

Over the past ten years, South Africa’s national debt, as a percentage of its gross domestic production, has decreased from 48.7 per cent—that is, from 1955-6—to 43.1 per cent in 1965-6. Over the same period our overseas debt, expressed as a percentage of our total national debt, decreased from 7.8 per cent to 5.1 per cent. But what do we find if we consider tax pressure? Comparisons have already been made in this House between our personal taxes and those of other countries. I do not want to deal with that again. Let me refer you to another source of taxes, namely that on companies. In South Africa we have been paying 30 per cent for years. That has now been increased to 33⅓ per cent. That is the percentage assessed on the taxable amount. In New Zealand and Australia it amounts to 42½ per cent; in Canada 47 per cent, and in the United States of America 48 per cent.

The prosperity we have enjoyed, has brought our country great benefits, but we are also aware of the problems that have been created by it, and I want to refer to those briefly. The first problem, which South Africa has experienced on two occasions during the past five years, is an unfavourable balance of payments, but as a result of the measures taken by the Government and as a result of the recent inflow of capital, our country has been so fortunate to surmount that problem relatively soon. We know that countries like America and England, on the other hand, are still struggling with that at present. England, for example, has been placed before her greatest economic crisis since 1948 by that very problem. The second resultant problem is a shortage of manpower. I think it speaks volumes for our economic image that our country has succeeded in drawing a record number of immigrants during the past few years despite the fact that the world has been experiencing a shortage of skilled manpower, particularly in those countries from where we also get immigrants, and despite the fact that many countries prohibit publication of advertisements by overseas undertakings to prevent foreigners from drawing away their labourers, and despite the fact that in general our country did not enjoy a favourable Press abroad.

That brings me to the third problem, that of the rising cost of living. That is indeed a problem, and nobody will deny that. But I should point out the following. I have checked the cost of living of 21 of the major Western countries—because no particulars are available for countries like China and Russia—and what is the position? The cost of living in those 21 countries, in virtually all the relatively developed countries, increased by an average of 28 per cent from 1958—and 1958 is internationally accepted as the basic year for purposes of that kind—to March-April 1966. In South Africa the increase amounted to 17 per cent. In other words, the average increase for those 21 countries was almost 65 per cent higher than for South Africa. To show that other countries are facing a much larger problem, I want to read to you from an article which appeared in the Journal of Commerce, the international edition of 20th June, 1966. They report as follows—

It is therefore a problem which is much larger in other countries, but apart from that we have to take the following into consideration: The larger the growth, the stronger the pressure of inflation. If we take into consideration that South Africa’s industrial growth-rate is the second highest in the world, if we take the real growth—Japan is first, but its cost of living has risen by 47 per cent while South Africa’s has risen by 17 per cent—if we take the two and if we take the average-coefficient for the effect on the economic life, then I think we may claim that during this period South Africa’s economy has functioned the best in the world.

That brings me to the last point on which I want to say something, and that relates to the South African economy under these circumstances. The position is that we have to have a rapid growth-rate in our country in order to ensure employment for our rapidly growing population. We have to have rapid growth, and that growth is put at approximately 5½ per cent per year, but if we have rapid growth, we have the problems of inflation and balance of payments, and the middle-course which is adopted as a result of special circumstances in our country, is a relatively narrow middle-course, and it is humanly impossible to adhere to that narrow middle-course at all times. Sometimes it branches off to one side, to the side of inflation, and at other times to the other side, to the side of deflation, and for that reason it is very important that the Government should give a great deal of attention to the matter, as it is in fact doing. But I should like to emphasize a few points.

The first is the necessity of achieving a correct diagnosis of the economic position at all times. The measures taken by a country to meet that problem, are determined to a very large extent by that diagnosis; not only by a diagnosis of the present economic situation, however, but also of the expected economic development, which is the more difficult of the two, because the one is a pure diagnosis which one can achieve on the basis of data, provided of course that such data is available, and the other is a pre-estimate, and because the economic life is so incomprehensible, it is very difficult to make that pre-estimate. But that does not detract from the fact that a government should be guided to a large extent by that diagnosis and by that pre-estimate in the measures it takes to combat that problem. That is why a great deal of attention is so important.

But the second point I should like to mention is of a long term nature. The economic prosperity of a country is determined by its ability to produce, and its ability to produce is determined in turn by its natural resources, by its labour and by its capital. We know that South Africa is fairly well-endowed as regards natural resources, but what is important is that we should achieve the maximum economic exploitation of those natural resources, for if one does not do that, it means that some of the valuable mineral resources in particular are lost. It is alleged, for example, that as regards coal, two-thirds of our coal remains unexploited and that we extract only one-third; the rest remains unexploited in the form of pillars, ceilings, etc.

I should like to state here that it is in our country’s long-term interest in particular that proper research should be undertaken to ensure that those valuable mineral reserves are exploited in the most economic way, and that research can be undertaken by the mining industry itself, perhaps in co-operation with the Government, because the Government has a material interest in the matter on account of the fact that those minerals have become an important source of foreign exchange for our country, and also from the general point of view. But it is not only a question of the most economic exploitation, it is also the refining of those minerals and raw materials. What do we find at present? We find that the raw materials percentage of our total exports, excluding gold, is still increasing. For the year 1957 our exports of raw materials totalled 49.4 per cent of our total exports, and that increased to 56.8 per cent in 1964. Even the White Paper of the previous year mentions that in spite of increasing industrialization, there has been only a slight increase in the export of processed or manufactured goods, and that raw materials were mainly responsible for the increase. It has improved over the past year, but the position is still not right. The refining of our minerals is important for three reasons.

In the first place it affords greater exports; in the second place it enables the population to do more skilled work, and thirdly experience has shown that when there are economic slumps, the countries that export mainly raw materials and basic materials are harder hit by price decreases than countries that export processed goods, and that is of very great importance, not only to our mining industry but also to our agricultural industry. As the Board of Trade and Industries is not concerned so much with protection at this stage, because we are experiencing a boom, I want to ask in all humility whether the Board of Trade and Industries cannot, in co-operation with I.D.C. and in co-operation with the Department of Mines, try to determine how more extensive refining of our minerals and of our agricultural basis materials can be effected.

The third point to which I want to refer briefly is the following: The greatest asset of any country is still its manpower, and if we speak of refining minerals, basic materials and raw materials, then there is no more important refinement than that of manpower. It remains the basis of all economic progress, because it determines the economic exploitation of those minerals and the efficient utilization of capital, and it is therefore the centre, the axis of economic progress.

We are aware of the fact that this Government has spent vast and increasing amounts on the training of our manpower, and in recent years also on the training of manpower in the technical field. My hon. colleague here has referred with appreciation to Port Elizabeth; may I refer with appreciation to the Bill relating to the University of Johannesburg? I regard that Bill for the establishment of a new Afrikaans university in Johannesburg as one of the most important steps taken in the past 20 years to refine our manpower. Then I want to make this further plea, that where industrial decentralization is accepted throughout the world, no matter what one calls it—because industrial decentralization is in fact accepted throughout the world—and where the quality of one’s manpower is one of the most important factors that determines the success of that industrial decentralization, it is so important that our Government should give more and more attention to the establishment of training facilities in those decentralized areas which have a good growth-potential. In my opinion that is one of the most important measures the Government can take to promote industrial decentralization.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Government will succeed in increasing our economic defensibility, in strengthening our military defensibility, and if it can do that with reasonable price stability, and if it can do that in conjunction with the building and the reinforcing of spiritual defensibility, which is after all very important, then I believe—and that can be done and is in fact being done—that our country faces not only a stable and a bright future, but also a secure future.

I did not intend participating in this debate, not because I did not feel inclined to afford myself the pleasure of also replying to some of the nonsensical criticism of the Opposition, but because my Department was not involved in the Budget and there was consequently no reason for me to reply. If I had known, however, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to put certain questions to me I would notwithstanding the fact that I was extremely busy in my office, have shown him the courtesy of being present. But I have just learnt that he saw fit to accuse the Government in the first instance of not making information available, that speculation was rife and that the people wanted to know what was going on. There is speculation in the newspapers and it is being said that the Government, and in particular myself as Minister responsible for this portfolio, is leaving the House in doubt and do not want to inform hon. members in regard to the Government’s plans in respect of Coloured representatives. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went even further. While he was referring to speculations in the newspapers he insinuated that those speculations, those conjectures, were Government-inspired. I want to ask him straight away what right or what grounds he had to make such allegations. According to what has been conveyed to me the hon. Leader said by implication that it could even be Government-inspired.

That is not what I said.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he made no such insinuation …

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker. I said that the reports had appeared in newspapers which were normally regarded as being Government-inspired.

That is merely a more diplomatic and a more political way of making the same sort of accusation. I now want to ask the hon. Leader whether he did not also see speculation in the English-language non-Government newspapers? Was it he who inspired them, or did we inspire them?

After the Beeld had said it for the first time.

It appeared in June already. I would like to set the hon. Leader of the Opposition right. Surely he knows that it is the general practice of newspapers—and nobody wants to deny them that right or privilege—to indulge in speculations, particularly about those things in regard to which they have a reasonable indication that something is in fact going to happen. I want to admit quite frankly that they were able to descry those indications last year already when the vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs was being dealt with here. Even prior to that the hon. the Prime Minister had expressed his concern in a public speech over certain activities which in the opinion of the Government was damaging to the nation and which was in conflict with the policy of the National Party.

And now you are so innocent.

That was a year ago. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is expecting that the Government is going to do something in this regard, but he is already worked up to such an extent that he wants to specify his own actions quite prematurely because he is in trouble.

Why?

We shall still see in what kind of trouble he is. He is in trouble. Now he wants to make the nation believe that this Government, through their craftiness, or political skill, or in order to benefit themselves, or whatever the reason, are acting contrary to the best practices of democratic government and do not want to say what they are going to do. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is wrong if he thinks this Government will react to speculations and conjecture in newspapers, Afrikaans or English, pro- or anti-Government, and will refute their conjectures—whether they are totally incorrect and whether they are partially correct, or even if they are quite correct, because that can also happen. The Government will not allow its hand to be forced in that way.

In the second place the Leader of the Opposition asked whether there was going to be an election of Coloured representatives in this House. I deduce that he also wants to know when this election will take place.

I was speaking about the election and qualifications of candidates.

Apparently the hon. member wants to create the doubt that the Government has certain plans or ideas and that the Coloured Representatives and certain White political parties which are also interested in these elections are being kept dangling on a string. But the mere fact that no statement is being issued ought to enable any person with sound common sense to deduce that things are going to take their normal course. There is going to be an election. I can say further that the Government is not going to tamper with the form which Coloured representation takes in this House. If the Government did intend changing this representation, it would have been its duty to have informed the nation about this well in advance and in good time. But if we have no such intention, surely it is not necessary to do that? Why should the Government issue a statement that there is going to be an election before it is necessary? Mr. Speaker, there is going to be one. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows. Furthermore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also wanted to know when the election is going to be. The election will take place at the normal time. I understand that the hon. Leader also wanted to know whether the Government was going to take any steps in regard to the concern which we expressed and the warning which we issued in regard to the fact that we, as a Government, were thinking very seriously of putting a stop to political interference on the part of various population groups in the politics or in the elections of other population groups. My reply to the hon. member in respect to that question he must contain his impatience a little. It is the intention of the Government to enlighten the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that regard soon, but in its own time. Whether we do want to do something in this regard or whether we do not want to do anything, he will have sufficient time to study our plans and intentions and express his opinion for or against them.

When is the election to be?

Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member has made his maiden speech, the next speaker must congratulate him on that speech. In this case I have kept back the congratulations as dessert. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Florida very sincerely on his maiden speech here this afternoon. I think it was very clear to all in this House that the hon. member is still going to make very positive contributions in this House. I really want to advise the Opposition now to get some of their members to make a special study of economic matters, otherwise they will not be able to judge the value of or appreciate the hon. members’ speeches in future. I wish the hon. member a long and fruitful sojourn in this House in the service of his nation.

Mr. Speaker, the debate is nearing its end, and I only want a few minutes, inter alia, to reply to what the hon. the Minister of the Interior has said and to the statement made here by the hon. the Minister of Justice earlier this afternoon. One of the main objectives of the Budget is, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance, the safety and security of South Africa. The hon. the Minister placed this objective first in his Budget Speech. It is an admitted fact that we are in difficulties at present, and it does not look as though our difficulties are becoming smaller. Never before in our history have we been the uncomfortable butt of so many countries as is the case at present under the administration of this Government. Never before have we been stripped as naked of allies as at present. Never before has our country had to suffer such humiliations as we have to suffer under the present Government to-day. Never before have Western leaders made such threatening noises against South Africa as is the case to-day. And never before have leaders of a South African Government been talking so openly about the possibility of aggression and armed attacks against South Africa as is the case at present. In such circumstances one does, of course, have no option: Whoever may be responsible for that, all of us are in trouble, whether we want it or not, and all of us will simply have to help to counteract the position. For that reason no objection was raised by this side in the course of the debate to the building up of our Defence Force and to the high expenditure connected with that. But what this side of the House does in fact object to, is the fact that the Government is stating that is objective is the safety and security of South Africa, while it is destroying by its deeds that which it is trying to build up by its words. On the one hand the Government imposes heavy burdens on the people to expand our Defence Forces in order to ensure the safety of our country, but, on the other hand, nobody is as actively creating insecurity for the Republic as this very Government. Let me mention an obvious example. Look at the titles of the bills lying on our desks.

Mr. Speaker, precisely at this time a number of countries are meeting in Brazil for the purpose of enquiring into the race policy of our Government. At the same time a Committee of Congress in the U.S.A, is instituting a similar inquiry with a view to determining that country’s attitude towards the Republic. Within a few weeks the U.N. has to meet again, and we know that owing to the verdict of the World Court on South-West, the atmosphere there will be emotionally charged against South Africa. The U.N. will meet under circumstances which hold the greatest measure of danger for South Africa. I wonder whether the searchlight has ever been focused as sharply on our country as at this very moment? And what is the Government doing, Mr. Speaker? The Government chooses this time of all times, a time which may be a time of crisis for South Africa, to make a further onslaught on the franchise of the Coloured population of our country. That is what I deduce from what the hon. the Minister of the Interior has said a few minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, this side is not interested in the Progressive Party. [Interjections.] The Progressive Party opposed me in my constituency, but they did not oppose that hon. member … We are not interested in the Progressive Party. What this Government is doing, and what the hon. the Minister has announced here this afternoon, are steps to interfere with the free right of the Coloureds to elect whom they want to. The Coloured population is being penalized all the time. They have only four representatives. [Interjections.] Well, I shall feel very honoured if the Coloureds consider me to be a person who looks after their interests. As a White South African it would be an honour to me. The Coloureds have only four representatives. They have been prevented from electing their own people. Now the Government wants to go further still and it wants to tell the Coloureds whom they may elect and whom they may not elect. In Russia they also have elections. But there the electorate is told whom to elect.

In Germany it was like that, too.

The already meagre franchise of the Coloureds is once again being interfered with, and that is being done in this difficult time of all times. It is interference with the meagre franchise and the freedom of the Coloureds to elect whom they want to. That is not all. Here on our desks we have bills—race laws dealing with universities, beaches, yes, with all conceivable kinds of amenities, even churches, shops, and what not—legislation which will evoke the strongest repercussions in the world. What will the Government gain by imposing heavy taxes on the people because it “Wants to preserve the safety of South Africa” on the one hand, while, on the other hand, it is pre-eminently responsible for the fact that South Africa’s safety is being jeopardized all the time? The hon. the Minister of Finance may say that the safety of the country is the main objective of his Budget. But, Sir, if one looks at the Government’s deeds, then they are like Captain Branch of the Seafarer in that they are wilfully and with open eyes steering South Africa into insecurity.

Drums full of poison-gas.

If we live to see the day when armed action is taken against South Africa, what hope shall we have—in the light of the actions of the Government—of gaining the loyalty of our Coloured and Bantu population? This afternoon we heard a very serious statement made by the hon. the Minister of Justice. We all know what is behind the invasion. Everybody knows that it is easy to deal with a handful of people trying an insurrection in South Africa, but what is the objective behind it? What did the chief of the South African Army say? That is precisely what should be expected. They themselves are not out to achieve anything. The invaders are out to see whether they can affect the intervention of the world outside against South Africa. That is the objective of such small-scale invasions.

And what are you doing now?

I am trying to issue a warning. We are not in office. We are not making the laws which are lying on the Table here. We are not always upsetting the racial apple-cart and presenting the country in the worst possible light overseas, which is what happens as a result of these laws. No, in the light of occurrences of this kind the Government will have a tremendous responsibility, and let us tell the Government now that we shall fight this further curtailment of the rights of the Coloureds to the maximum of which any Opposition is capable. We shall oppose all unfair measures, because it is our view that if a man is a true patriot, if he really places his country above his party, he will not do such a thing. I know that hon. members on the opposite side are strong party-people, but still, there comes a time when one has to place one’s country above one’s party. We shall constantly point out to the Government what its duty is so that in times of crisis it will have to act with greater responsibility towards interests of South Africa than it is doing at present.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose to his feet a few moments ago and in the dying stages of the debate he tried to chase up a hare. But when that hon. member gets up and addresses the House he takes great delight in speaking of the enemies of the Republic of South Africa. He is so grateful when he speaks of our being totally discredited and having no friends left in the outside world. He revels in that and it fills his heart with joy. But I want to ask this to the hon. member, that he prays every evening that this country of ours should come to a fall. That is the patriotism shown by him.

You are a fool (sot) …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “fool”.

I am sorry; may I address you, Sir?

No, the hon. member must just withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to withdraw for such a pig as he.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, he says that I pray every evening that South Africa should come to harm. I am not prepared to apologize to him.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout blames this Government for its race policy. He says it is because of our race policy that we no longer have any friends in the outside world to-day. But is that the true position? If that hon. member analyses the policy of the United Party, does he think for one moment that if we had that policy the pressure on us from outside would be less? Does he think for one moment that they will satisfy the outside world with their policy? On the contrary, if it had not been for these various Acts which have been placed on the Statute Book by this Government, there would have been no racial peace in this country. It is that very legislation on race matters which has achieved racial peace for us, and then the hon. member comes along and makes those remarks.

I want to proceed and say that where we are now reaching the dying stages of this debate, we find that the people of South Africa have survived many crises already and it was the National Party each time which saved the nation from a downfall. The year 1966 is being regarded as a crisis year in the history of our nation. This is the first time we are being faced with the problem of inflation. Our nation has known poverty, famine, oppression and unemployment, but the National Party has always helped the nation out of all these difficulties. Now we are faced with a brand new problem, i.e. inflation, a problem which is not peculiar to the Republic of South Africa but one which is taking root throughout the entire Western world, and which we are experiencing because our way of life and commercial pattern is so closely intertwined with the commercial pattern of the entire world. The problem of inflation arose from the enormous prosperity which our country has been experiencing over the past four years, and since every inhabitant of our country benefited personally from that prosperity, it is now the task of each individual to realize that inflation is not a matter which the Government should struggle with on its own. A duty rests on each individual to make his own contribution towards solving this problem, no matter how small it might be. Love of country can at the present stage be revealed in no better way than that each individual should participate in the struggle against inflation. The scope of the taxation proposals must be seen against the background of the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance, i.e. that inflation is the common enemy.

What is the hon. member quoting from?

Does the hon. member want me to give him my speech? Inflation is the problem of each individual. It threatens each one of us and that is why the Minister announced that steps must be taken on a broad front. It is being envisaged that each individual must contribute within his own scope to the solution of this problem. We find that the Minister is resolved to root out this great problem of inflation relentlessly. This Budget which the Minister introduced must not be regarded as a political Budget or a popular Budget with which he would like to catch votes. It is a national Budget, because this Budget which he submitted to our nation, ensures the future of the Republic of South Africa. The purpose of this Budget is to fight inflation and at the same time to incur the essential military and other expenditure in order to safeguard our country. The Budget also provides for certain basic services which we are short of at the moment, so that our economic prosperity may continue. But where everyone is prepared to contribute his share in this Budget, however small it might be, we find that the Government must see to it that certain basic requirements are met. That is why we find that this Budget makes provision for our Defence Force being expanded so that it can be prepared for any eventualities. We also find in this Budget that we have to be on our guard against threatening sanctions and boycotts. We must strengthen our economy in all fields. That is why the citizen will find that unusual expenditure in regard to the establishment of an aircraft factory, and for our own tankers, is being incurred. Provision is also being made for the establishment of industries in the border areas, something which the Opposition is criticizing. But since we are a multi-racial country and there are four different ethnic groups living in our country, it is very essential that there should be racial peace. That is why one will find that R10,000,000 is being provided for the development of the border industries. We regard it as being imperative that, as far as the border industries are concerned, we must make provision for the expansion of those industries, for therein lies the key to the future of the Republic. We also have provision in the Budget for the accelerated development of the Bantu homelands. We know that it is essential that these things be done. The United Party of to-day is saying that we are spending this money unnecessarily on border industries and that that is encouraging inflation, but we feel that it is only possible to carry out our policy properly if we develop border industries properly so as eventually to stem the influx from the Bantu homelands to our cities and send them back. In this way we find that, as far as this Budget is concerned, every person who does not see it through political glasses will find that it is just the right medicine to help us to recover from this serious illness of inflation, which the country is suffering from. For me there are two passwords in this Budget: Economizing and higher productivity. The man in the street may easily ask one: What do you mean now? How can I economize and be more productive? I want to mention a very simple way in which I see the matter. If we as Members of Parliament would contribute our share and would get up earlier in the morning to prepare our coffee or tea and sandwiches at home and bring it to the office to enjoy here, the result would be that the waiters would be without work, but at the same time those waiters could in turn be taken up in another industry where there are bottle-necks and where they are very necessary. In that way our wives would be much more productive. Members of Parliament would be economizing and we would in that way be enabling people to work elsewhere. We find here that the man in the street is prepared to contribute his share, that he is going to take this greater burden on his shoulders and that he wants to do so, knowing that a country with a sound economy is his most important asset. The man in the street knows that it makes a tremendously great impression on the outside world if our country is economically strong, and he will willingly contribute to do his share. But if we consider the Budget and see what proposals occur in the Budget, then we find that, as far as the taxation proposals are concerned, the Minister has increased the company tax by 3⅓ per cent. We found that immediately after the Budget was announced, trade and industry pointed a finger at the Government and asked that it should bring about greater productivity in its various Departments. They said that the Government should be more efficient. If we consider these matters, we ask ourselves whether trade and industry have really contributed their share towards counteracting inflation; did they proceed judiciously with their expansion programmes? Did they make a positive contribution to the manpower problem, or did they merely pay higher wages to certain people whom they had coaxed away from Government employ? Where we find that the company tax has been increased, we also find that the hon. the Minister has placed a tax on motor vehicles. We find that a tax has been placed on motors, R40 on small motors and R60 on large. In this regard there is something which is troubling me and that is why I would bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In future when a salary earner purchases a motor car he must pay the additional R40 or R60, according to the size. He is not unwilling to pay this additional amount because his motor car is essential for him as he must use it to get to his work and back. When it comes to the end of the tax year, he does not have the right to deduct the expenditure which he incurred from his income tax. But on the other hand there are the companies. Of course, they will also have to pay this additional amount, but when it comes to the end of the tax year we will find that this additional amount which the company paid for a motor car, enables it to deduct that amount from its income tax. In the region of 10,000 new motor cars are sold in the Republic each month, and I maintain that 40 per cent of these purchases are made by companies. I also want to maintain that, as far as the purchasing of motor cars are concerned, companies are to a certain extent evading the tax-collector. That is why I want to make a plea here to-day for the working-out of an entirely new system. This will entail a motor car which is being used by a company having to display a specific disc, while the motor car belonging to the private person will display another disc in such a way, of course, that they can be distinguished apart. Additionally companies must be requested to state for what purpose their motor cars are used and whether there are any individuals who are benefiting from the use of such motor cars. If the Post Office can appoint an inspector to ascertain whether the scholar, the pensioner or the salary earner has taken out his radio licence, and if local authorities can appoint inspectors to ascertain whether people have paid their dog taxes, then the Treasury can also appoint inspectors to ascertain for what purpose all these motor cars are being used. It must be established whether the motor cars of private companies are being used solely to benefit the relevant company. It must also be established whether they are entitled to the amount which they claim as rebate when it comes to income tax returns. If we had this system of inspectors, I am certain that we would find that on certain days, particularly on Wednesdays and Saturdays, many of those motors would be found at the golf- and race-courses.

How many from your side would also be there?

It will not only be our people. There will be as many from the side of those hon. members. But I maintain that if we were to do this, we would be treating the salary earner fairly and he would then willingly contribute his share as far as this additional tax on motors is concerned, provided, as I have said, that proper supervision is maintained over the use of the motor cars of private companies.

Maj. J. E. LINDSAY: Hon. members from this side of the House have in respect of all the facets of this Budget shown how utterly and completely the Government has failed to manage the affairs of this country properly. The climax of this I think was reached by the speech this afternoon of my hon. Leader during which I felt almost as the Minister of Finance must have felt. I felt as if I should tear up my notes as the Minister must have felt he should tear up his estimates. But unfortunately I, like him, could not do so because I would not have had enough time to write them over again.

Mr. Speaker, charges have been made against the Government, charges which have been left unanswered. Where an attempt was made to answer them such answers have been conspicuous not for their content but for their contradictions. Some of these contradictions have been dealt with and I do not intend mentioning them other than just to refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance in this connection. As an object for his Budget he mentioned that his aim was to provide funds for the economic and military security of this country. Then, however, we had the Minister of Defence getting up and stating that the expenditure on defence was nothing more than normal growth, and that this increase in expenditure was not due to the race policies of the Government. Yet we are told that this growth is drawing to a close. Would it then not be normal to accept that next year the country will be growing and that there will then be a further growth even in respect of defence? The Government uses circumstances, circumstances of their own making, to warrant its actions. And when we from this side dare to attack the policies of the Government then we get a reaction such as that of the hon. member for Brakpan just now when he accused the hon. member for Bezuidenhout of praying every night for South Africa’s downfall.

He ought to be ashamed of himself.

What a shocking statement to make. But here as in so many other aspects of our lives the Government seeks to attack the effects of its policy instead of getting down to the fundamentals, to the basic causes and eliminating them.

There are two ways in which we could provide security for South Africa. The most important, the most secure and the most lasting of these would be the making of friends, as many friends as possible. My hon. Leader dealt very clearly with the attitude of this side of the House towards outside people and their interference in our affairs. In fact, when we were in power we set an example, an example which this Government may follow in dealing with people who wanted to interfere in our domestic affairs. But while we dealt with their interference, we also saw to it that we retained our friends. But this Government has had to wave goodbye to one friend after another and to-day we have no friend whatsoever amongst the outside world. The second way in which we can attain security for South Africa is by means of a well-equipped and well-trained Defence Force. But naturally this has a limited scope and it provides limited security because even if we use all the means at our disposal we are only limited to so much. I should like to ask whether one friend is not equal to or can replace an Air Force squadron, or even a wing, perhaps a regiment or even a brigade? Do you not think that one treaty would do infinitely more? May I in this connection ask the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister whether they in recent years have concluded any treaty or any agreement of mutual aid with any other country? Or will we be palmed off, as so frequently happens these days, by a statement that that is not in the public interest to disclose?

In order to provide this limited security, we have, naturally, to be taxed and we have to pay. The effects of this Budget have been dealt with by other hon. members from this side and I do not wish to repeat their arguments. I do, however, want to draw attention to one particular sphere, i.e. that relating to the Bantu. The hon. member for Transkei has already to a certain extent dealt with this aspect. What group in South Africa will feel the effects of this Budget more than the Bantu? I admit that their contribution in terms of figures is minimal but then we must also appreciate that where this minimal amount comes from, there is also a minimum. These people, like all of us, at some time or other like luxuries and is it not a fact that it is just this occasional indulgence in the odd bit of luxury which keeps a man going under the stress and strain of daily living? But what worries me and what is more important is the extent to which the development of the Bantu areas is going to be affected by this Budget and by the saving which the Minister of Finance has called upon his colleagues to make during the coming year. It is possible that these measures could to a certain extent have been excused if the people concerned were given the opportunity to find the necessary work and to be enabled to exploit their abilities to the full. It is no use answering that there are very few unemployed. We know that the statistics relating to the employment of Bantu are to-day completely insufficient. And yet what is the policy of this Government? The hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration for the purpose of carrying out the Government’s ideological programme has tried to revive 1978. The other day he addressed an association of brick manufacturers and said—

This is typical of the actions and policies of this Government because everything they do is in reverse. The cart is being put before the horse. They first cause unemployment and then they start looking for employment. I commend to the Government the way in which this side did things when it was in power. We first established Good Hope Textiles at King William’s Town and then we put Zwelitsa there. The Government, however, is putting that process in reverse. The hon. the Deputy Minister even went further and said that in all industries it was essential to replace manual labour by mechanization but then went on to contradict himself by saying that if that was impossible industries should be taken to the labour. The hon. member for Pinetown pointed out that there was nothing impossible about it. With the new techniques and methods which are known to-day there is nothing impossible in this age of ours. But what I am concerned about is this. In the United States the President’s commission oh automation warned that with the coming of the scientific revolution unskilled workers would become more and more redundant. Indeed, Sir, with these new developments the labour market must contract and thus we will find that fit and able-bodied men will be without employment. As a matter of fact, a position is rapidly developing in which only a college graduate can be sure of being placed. I know of a major concern here in Cape Town where as a result of a computer having been taken into service 2,000 labour units on its employment roll became redundant. But we do not see the effects of automation as yet because we are still expanding and what is saved on the one hand by automation can be put to use by another department in another direction. But the hon. Deputy Minister is very thrilled with the effect automation will have in this country. He mentioned that a certain brick industry reduced its Bantu labour from 300 units to 110, another from 250 to 50 and a third from 600 to 60. This means that a total of 1,120 labourers was reduced to only 220.

What I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is what has happened to these retrenched 900 labourers. Has he sent them back to the reserves? That is, of course, his stated policy. If he has returned them to the reserves have they gone to a transit camp or rural village, such as Sada, there awaiting the Government’s pleasure to place them in one of the reserves where they know no one and where they will be unfamiliar with the way of life there? Where they shall have to re-adapt themselves to a standard of living which they in the process of progress have left behind long ago. Or were they fortunate enough to be returned to their homelands, a part they have left earlier in order to earn some money so as to be able to make both ends meet and to be able to contribute their share to the national income? To what have they returned? If they were Ciskeians, and they could easily have been because there are something like 16,000 migrant Ciskeians in South Africa, they would have been part and parcel of a population of some 424,000 people. This is according to the 1960 census. Of this number 375,000 are rural and settled on 1,130,492 morgen. This area is, generally speaking, probably the best developed as far as planning is concerned. I know it is the intention of the department concerned to complete this planning within the near future and that of the 237 locations only 40 remain to be planned. But from many precedents in our country we also know that even if the planning is completed it is still a long way to the stage where the area will be operating efficiently.

We are talking in terms of economic units. But what is an economic unit? An economic unit is a Bantu who is fortunate enough to have enough capital, in the form of livestock, and an agricultural holding. Granted that this agricultural holding is his in the sense that he alone ploughs and plants it, then there is still the fact that all grazing is communal. So what is the effect? We have an economic unit within a total uneconomic whole. Let me draw the attention of the House to what these people produce. 375,000 of them produced on an average during the period from 1960 to 1965, inclusive, 131,000 bags of maize, 12,000 bags of wheat and 23,000 bags of kaffir corn, i.e. 166,000 bags of grain per annum, a product constituting their staple diet. By means of simple arithmetic we can establish that 2f persons have available to them only one bag of grain per year. This can of course be augmented by stock sales but this has yielded them for the same period only R83,000 or 22c per person per year. From dairy products they have earned during this period R38,000, i.e. an income of 10c per person per annum. So if it were not for the migrant worker, where would these people have been; how would they have lived and how would their families have lived? Yet the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to reduce the number of labour units by automation and that only to save his political reputation.

Great play has been made of the amount of money which is being spent for Bantu development. We do not quibble over the amount but we quibble with the way in which it is being spent: the millions that are being used to consolidate as against the provision of means for millions of people to live decently. I think I have shown conclusively the need for the development of these areas. Why must this be achieved only through the taxation of the people of South Africa? It is completely beyond the ability of this Government to bring about a meaningful development by means of public funds and by utilizing the abilities of the Bantu in his own areas. If progress is to be significant, it can only be achieved with the aid of the White man and then only if he is allowed to enter the area. It is not only his skill and his money that he takes to these people but, and this is most important of all, his way of life that he takes along with him. In the Transkei we have a certain position today but who else than the White trader has brought the Transkei to its present state of development? It is only through his contact with the Bantu people and the contact of the Bantu people with his way of life, it is only through him using his capital in that area, that thousands and thousands of Bantu were put on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to supply a little aperitif to my speech which I shall continue on Monday. I think it is necessary to place what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here in perspective. That is why I regret that he is not present in the House at the moment. It is very easy to present one part of the picture and then think that one is thus creating an accurate image of the whole. The hon. member had far too much to say about the question of rising costs. However, nobody is arguing the fact of the matter with him. Neither is it something which is restricted to South Africa only; it is being experienced throughout the world. If one talks about rising costs, however, one must at the same time mention the increase in the real income of those people who have to cope with those rising costs. We know that during the past year when there was supposed to have been this great increase in prices, the real domestic product increased by 5 per cent, i.e. after deduction of the increase in prices. If we were to compare South Africa’s position with that of other countries we would find that the increase in the real income of its people does not compare at all unfavourably with that of other countries. Of course that is something which is in South Africa’s favour and we have learnt not to expect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to mention a thing like that. Allow me to furnish the latest available figures in this regard to the House. The average increase during the years 1960 to 1964 in the real gross national product per capita was 3.3 per cent in the case of Canada, 2.7 per cent in the case of the U.S.A., 3.9 per cent in the case of France, 3.5 per cent in the case of Germany, 3.2 per cent in the Netherlands, 3 per cent in Switzerland and 2.7 per cent in the United Kingdom. In the case of South Africa this figure amounted to 4 per cent. That then is the other side of the picture.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke here about the tremendous spending spree of the Government. He implied that this Government spends merely for the sake of spending. I shall go into this fully when I continue my reply on Monday, but at this stage I just want to say that if we consider what the percentage of State expenditure is in relationship to the gross national product in other countries, in other words the current spending of the State, then one finds that the percentage in the case of South Africa was 12.2 per cent. We only spent 12.2 per cent of our national income on current expenditure. In the United Kingdom the figure is 16.6 per cent. A greater portion of their national product is spent by the Government there on current expenditure. In the Netherlands it is 15.2 per cent; in Italy 16.5 per cent; in Germany 15 per cent; in the U.S.A, it is 18.5 per cent and in Canada 14.4 per cent. The only country where the figure is lower than that of South Africa is Japan. That is the only country where the percentage of current State spending is less in proportion to the national product than in South Africa. I shall furnish more details in this regard later but I just want to put the matter in its correct perspective, because we have now learnt that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition enters the financial field, one must be very careful and one needs more than just a pinch of salt if one wishes to realize the true value of the matter.

I would just like to inquire whether those figures for Britain and the other developed countries include social welfare in the welfare state?

Yes, it includes social welfare in the case of countries which have it, but not all countries have it. But on the other hand the hon. member must bear in mind that we have expenditures on current account which other countries do not have. We have it in respect of our Post Office for example. But in general it gives one perspective in regard to how South Africa compares with other parts of the world.

The third point which the hon. member made here was in regard to indirect taxation. He intimated here that we are being heavily burdened by indirect taxation in South Africa. I do not have the latest figures available at the moment—they will probably be a little higher but the difference is so great that I want to give you another comparative picture and place what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said in its proper perspective. Indirect taxation, as a percentage of the net national product, is 19.3 per cent in Canada, 11.5 per cent in the U.S.A., 23.5 per cent in France, 18.6 per cent in Germany, 17.3 per cent in Italy, 16.8 per cent in the United Kingdom, and in South Africa indirect taxation is 8.9 per cent of the national product. It is all very well to present one side of the picture and say that we are being heavily burdened by indirect taxation, but if one wants to be fair towards South Africa one must also add that in South Africa it is not exceptional and that in reality South Africa is one of the fortunate countries in the world.

The hon. member displayed lack of perspective in a fourth way. When he dealt with the Budget he apparently did not take the monetary steps, which we have been taking since July already, into consideration at all.

Those steps were mentioned in the Budget speech. The Budget speech was merely the finishing touch to the four-point attack on inflation, and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that we are still waiting to hear from the Opposition whether it approves of our making this attack on inflation! I shall have more to say about this matter later, but at this stage I just want to say this: One’s attack on inflation—and the kind of inflation we are experiencing here is in the first place a monetary one—must be supplemented by fiscal methods, and that is what we have used here. Apparently the hon. member and most of the Opposition members did not realize this, and I am using these words merely to correct their perspective a little.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that in 1962 the Minister of Economic Affairs had made an appeal to the public to “spend for prosperity” and in 1965 the Minister of Finance was making an appeal to the public to “save for prosperity”. He wanted to point out what he regarded as being a contradiction, but anyone making a point like that betrays his own ignorance of the actual position. If it rained in 1962 and one had to take an umbrella, must one still walk under it in 1965 when it is no longer raining? One’s use of one’s umbrella depends upon the weather. In 1962 we had a very sluggish economy which we had to try and stimulate, and in order to try and stimulate the economy we had to encourage greater spending, and it succeeded. It more than succeeded. Because since 1962 we have had this amazing growth in South Africa, and at that juncture one was quite justified in making an appeal to the public to spend money for prosperity. But in 1965 it was once more time to apply the brakes and to let the emphasis fall, as I said last year in my Budget speech, on stability rather than on growth. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is totally unaware of that. He thinks that one must always carry an umbrella, irregardless of whether the sun is shining or whether it is raining!

I then come to a fifth point in regard to which I also want to place the matter in its correct perspective. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the poor man and how he was now having to suffer and experience hardships, but he forgot to indicate on the other hand that it would be the poor man in particular who would have to suffer more and suffer longer if these steps were not now being taken. I must admit that it is unknown territory which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is venturing into here, and I do not know whether his skating ability on this slippery ice is quite up to the mark. I think he should be better prepared for this subject, or else he must leave it in the hands of other people who are better prepared for it.

He also had a lot to say about this incompetent and incapable Government.

Hear, hear!

Does the hon. member and those hon. members who have just cried “hear, hear”, realize that these problems of prosperity are also being experienced in all countries where there has been dynamic progress in the past five years. Are all those governments also incompetent and incapable? Must they also try and import members of the Opposition to teach them wisdom? Mr. Speaker, I am acquainted with a few of those financial leaders and I must say that I have much more confidence in their financial judgment than I have in that of the Opposition. I cannot help recalling even now what the Opposition said in 1961 when we were experiencing a balance of payment crisis as a result of lack of confidence in South Africa. To-day our crisis arises from the fact that there is too much confidence in South Africa. What did hon. members of the Opposition say at that time? The hon. member for Kensington waxed almost lyrical. He composed a little poem for us. He said: All the king’s horses and all the kings’ men can never put Humpty Dumpty together again. He said that capital would never enter South Africa from abroad again. If there is one simple test of the ability of this Government to handle its economy and its finances, if one requires a testimonial to that effect, one should merely look at the amount of capital, short- and long-term, which has entered the country within the last twelve months, after it had not happened for six years. I notice that the Financial Times of London, a very important financial publication, had the following to say—

But then the Financial Times goes on to say, quite rightly, that it is proof of great confidence in South Africa but that at the same time it is also a mixed blessing because it has brought its own range of problems to South Africa. That is precisely what we are stating. It brought us difficulties, and the very purpose of this Budget, which includes the monetary measures which we have taken, is to overcome those difficulties. But if we had to be dependent upon the assistance of the Opposition in combating inflation in South Africa, we could just as well forget about it. It would never happen.

I want to conclude by pointing out the other side of the picture, which is a further testimonial for South Africa. Apart from the confidence which financiers have in this country I also want to say this: Look at the number of immigrants which have come to South Africa recently. In 1964 there was a net influx of 32,773; in 1965 it was 29,113. and in the first half of 1966 it was estimated at 17,783. Mr. Speaker, immigrants do not go to unstable countries; they do not go to countries in which they have no confidence. It is exactly the same as in the case of capital, and hon. members must bear in mind that this influx of immigrants and of capital took place in spite of the somber clouds of the South West Africa case which were hanging over us. It was during this very time that the capital and immigrants entered the country. That is why I say it would perhaps be a good thing if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and later on I may have more to say about this matter, this is merely a foretaste—were to maintain a more South African perspective when he delivers a speech. He would then fare better. Sir, I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to talk on the third reading of this Bill. We on this side welcome this Bill as a consolidation of existing legislation. Perhaps we can say it is a consolidation which is long overdue, but it is nonetheless welcome. We hope that this Bill will streamline procedures and that it will expedite the giving of assistance to the farmers. We also hope that it will cut red tape which has for long hamstrung the approval and the giving of assistance. We hope that at last farmers will no longer have to suffer the frustrations of the past where they have been held up, sometimes for years, from the time of planning a measure, particularly measures undertaken under the provisions of the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the actual execution of these plans. They have been held up because of unnecessarily long delays in the granting of the necessary assistance from the State to enable the farmers to carry out these measures. We are, however, extremely sorry that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to accept our proposals regarding the representation of organized agriculture on the Agricultural Credit Board. We appeal at this stage to the hon. the Minister to consult with the S.A.A.U., to consult with organized agriculture regarding the appointment of members of this Board, so that we will have a Board which will have the interests of agriculture at heart and which will benefit agriculture to the fullest extent.

I am also extremely perturbed, Mr. Speaker, at one aspect of this Bill, a Bill which has been introduced as a consolidating measure, namely the introduction of discrimination. I can find no mention in the Acts which are being amended of any restriction in the granting of assistance or the provision for the granting of assistance to persons of other than the White group. In terms of this Bill, however, non-Whites are now specifically excluded, and I am perturbed at this discrimination. I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure other members of this House are also aware, of the contribution which is made to agriculture in this country by particularly the Coloured farmers in the Cape Province and the Indian farmers in Natal. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs respectively will take cognizance of this, and that they will make provision. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do one of two things immediately or as soon as he can. I want to appeal to the Minister either to amend this legislation at the first possible opportunity by removing the word “White” where it appears …

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to the Bill as it reads now.

I ask the hon. the Minister to bring what influence he has to bear on the hon. the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide assistance for these farmers. As I said, Sir, this side of the House supports this measure. In conclusion I wish to say that we have accepted it as the best that we can get. We have said repeatedly that it comes a bit late, that it does not go quite far enough, and that it does not give enough. But we do support the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this measure now before the House is very important. I regard it as one of the most important bills relating to agriculture that has been dealt with by this House for a very long time. In the first place this Bill will have the effect of financing a certain category of farmers specifically. That has been a long-felt need, a deficiency that has existed for a long time, and now this measure is meeting that deficiency. This legislation comes up to expectations, and will be of great assistance. In the second place this measure will have the result that farmers who until now could not be assisted by Government advances or by the Land Bank, can now also be assisted and can also be economically rehabilitated. It will be possible to help them financially. In the third place it will have the result that there will be co-ordination as regards future loans. The applicant concerned will be a very important person and his application will be dealt with on its merits. It will also result in savings on administrative costs, because applications will be disposed of sooner. In the past there were often delays, but those delays will now be eliminated. As I have already said, it will be aimed specifically at the person who applies for a loan. As regards the merits of the applicant for a loan, this measure will provide. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that as far as applicants are concerned, there will be far fewer unsuccessful applicants. In the past applicants’ applications were often left hanging for a considerable time. This new measure makes provision for much more regard to be had to the person concerned in the matter and ensures that there will not really be any failures, unless such a person eventually goes wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words. I welcome the support which this measure has received from both sides of the House. However, I cannot understand that hon. members on the opposite side have so much confidence in the Minister that, in spite of the fact that this Bill grants the Minister all the powers that could ever be required, they want to grant him even more powers. The Opposition usually complains when a Minister introduces legislation in which he is granted too many powers. And now I have come forward with a Bill which, within the framework of the measure, grants me virtually every power imaginable. However, hon. members should distinguish between powers contained in a measure and the policy which is applied in administering an Act. The powers are there. All the powers are there, many more than are required, and many more than the hon. member is concerned about. Does the hon. member now want this measure to be used to assist very wealthy people? That can of course be done under this legislation. Very wealthy farmers who are large land-owners can be assisted under this legislation. The powers to do so are contained in the measure, but it will not be our policy to do so. Such a policy will not be adopted by the Government and the Minister, because it is specially intended to assist a certain category of farmer under this legislation.

The hon. member said that it was a pity that this measure did not make provision for rendering assistance to Coloured farmers. He also regretted the fact that Indian farmers would not be assisted in terms of this legislation. He said that that was a new principle. But it is no new principle, Mr. Speaker. This legislation consolidates the Land Settlement Act, the Farmers’ Assistance Act, and the State Advances Recoveries Act. The Farmers Assistance Act and the State Advances Recoveries Act contain the principle that assistance is only available to Whites, and not to Coloured persons, Indians or other race groups. It is not a new principle which is being introduced here. It is already contained in existing Acts.

[Inaudible.]

State advances excepted. This measure deals with the allocation of land. The United Party are always talking about the decrease in the number of Whites in the rural areas. But now they want to use this measure to place Coloureds there. The hon. member should not hasten to criticize this measure for that reason. As I have said, provision will be made for assistance to be granted to those groups by the Departments which have control over the land that is available to them.

Who is helping the Coloureds now?

In the past they could be assisted under the State Advances Recoveries Act, but not under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. I said in my second-reading speech that that would be done by the Department of Coloured Affairs in future.

The hon. member deplored the fact that the S.A.A.U. would have no say in regard to the appointment of members. Of course they will have a say. We recognize the Agricultural Union and the Advisory Board as bodies representing the farmers and they will be consulted. They will be consulted in regard to the appointment of the committees and the boards. But nothing in this measure places any obligation on the Minister to allow them to nominate the people on the board. But there will in fact be consultation. Consultation takes place every day. This entire measure was introduced after consultation with the Agricultural Union. There has also been consultation with the farmers’ associations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the measure of support which both sides of the House have given to this measure. I believe this measure will help to make the rendering of assistance to our farmers more expeditious and easier in the future than has been the case in the past. I move.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment—

This matter was discussed when the previous Bill was before the House. We maintain that the board will be a better board if the S.A.A.U. has the right to appoint at least one member. And we ask for only one member. The S.A.A.U. is a body consisting of farmers, it is an organization of farmers, it is an organization which knows the needs of farmers, and it is an organization which knows the financial needs of farmers. Mr. Chairman, it is a highly responsible body. Therefore I maintain that people appointed by the S.A.A.U. will be the very best people that could possibly be nominated to the board and I can only say that my amendment will be an improvement on the Bill in its present form. As was said on a previous occasion, this side of the House welcomes this measure. But we feel that the amendment I have proposed will improve the Bill and will be in the interests of agriculture in general and of the farmers of this country. The arguments which we advanced when the previous Bill was discussed also hold good for this measure, and we do not wish to repeat them. I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, we want to ask the hon. the Minister to reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). I ask that on the following grounds. Nowhere in our legislation is it provided that any organization shall have the right to make recommendations in respect of statutory boards to the Minister. In this case the hon. the Minister has made an exception in that he is giving organized agriculture the opportunity to make recommendations in regard to the appointment of district committees. And yet hon. members opposite are not satisfied with that.

They may only make recommendations.

For that reason, Sir. I think it is unfair of that side of the House to ask the hon. the Minister for something like that. But it goes further than just that. It amounts to hon. members on that side doing organized agriculture a disservice. The hon. the Minister has already said that the S.A.A.U. was consulted in connection with the drafting of this legislation. If this aspect was raised at the time, we may accept that the hon. the Minister gave a conclusive reply. What right does the United Party have to associate itself with organized agriculture in this way? For that reason this side asks the hon. the Minister not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply further to what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park. In a previous speech he said that that side of the House welcomed this legislation, subject to certain reservations. One of the most important arguments he advanced in favour of this legislation was that farmers farming on an extensive basis would be enabled by this legislation …

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that this is the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I may just say that I am referring the hon. member to this particular clause. According to the hon. member the board appointed under this clause is also empowered to enable the farmer who has an economic unit to obtain a small irrigation holding in order to build up his own fodder bank. That is very laudable. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention of this legislation at all to provide for the needs of those farmers. The purpose of this legislation is to render financial and other assistance to those farmers who cannot obtain assistance in any other way. I feel it is also necessary for us to examine the powers of this board further, and we recall the powers the Department of Lands had in terms of the legislation being repealed by this measure.

I trust, Sir, that you will allow me to deal with that briefly. Under the Acts which are being repealed now we had the position that we did not have absolutely effective control. We hope that once this board is established more detailed attention will be given to specific matters. On a certain occasion an hon. member made a very good speech here and the theme of his speech was that land did not increase. Mr. Chairman, we want to make the statement to-day that land is certainly becoming less. I do not want to go into the aspects dealt with by previous speakers when they referred to, inter alia, erosion conditions, but we are very conscious of the fact that agricultural land in particular is very limited in South Africa. We trust that the board to be established in terms of this clause …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member is dealing with the right clause now.

I was on the point of telling the hon. member to make his speech when the next clause comes up for discussion.

I wish to abide by your ruling, Sir. Am I not allowed to discuss the functions of the board under this clause?

No, it may be discussed under the next clause.

Mr. Chairman, for obvious reasons I am. not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). The hon. member stated his reasons why the S.A.A.U. should be consulted. But in reality this Land Tenure Board has nothing to do with farmers or assistance to farmers. The function of this board will be to purchase land, to make valuations of land, to prepare land which is intended for settlement purposes, to redivide State land for selling purposes, etc. This board has nothing to do with the financing of farmers. We shall consult the S.A.A.U. in order to get the best people on the agricultural side to the board. That goes without saying.

Will you consult with the S.A.A.U.?

We always do that. We are not going to have any restriction in the legislation. The hon. member will notice that provision is also made here for the co-option of members. The co-option will take place only when somebody or other has an interest in the valuation or the purchase of that land. That means that not only the S.A.A.U. will be consulted with. If, for example, this board has to purchase land on behalf of the Department of Defence, persons or officials of that Department will be co-opted to the board. That will also be done when land is purchased on behalf of the provincial council or whoever. Consequently there will of necessity be consultation when such a person is appointed to the board. I think the hon. member is unnecessarily afraid that consultation will not take place with the persons or bodies affected or interested in the case. However, I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment to make provision for that in the Act.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 1 as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the proposed board will deal with certain aspects of matters which in our opinion did not always receive sufficient attention in the past. We are aware of the fact that agricultural land in particular is very limited in South Africa. There are various reasons for this. I therefore hope and trust that this board will be jealous of its duties as to how it should deal with agricultural land and particularly with valuable land under irrigation. I refer to irrigation land in particular, because it is a fact that irrigation land is land which is smaller in extent and more expensive on which a small farmer with a small capital investment can make a living. It is true, too, that there are persons and bodies that are guilty of using agricultural land injudiciously. In this connection I am thinking of local authorities, for example. One quite often finds that a local authority uses certain land for establishing a township, land which could, indeed, have been reserved for agricultural purposes. The township could have been established on other land which could not be used for agricultural purposes. It is also true that some of our Government Departments often have little respect for agricultural land. When the State is dealing with town establishment schemes, mild objections are often raised against the use of certain land which allegedly is unsuitable for that purpose. For that reason I trust that the board will act very scrupulously in such cases in order to ensure that, if at all possible, agricultural land will not be used for any other purpose. It is also a fact that there is State-owned land to-day which is not being put to the proper use, and there are specific reasons for that. We trust that this board will see to it—even if only on a temporary basis—that all State-owned land is put to proper use. It is a fact that we should be particularly careful in all cases as far as the fragmentation or division of land into smaller or undersized, uneconomic units is concerned. I believe this to be one of the purposes of this legislation, and we trust that the board will keep a watchful eye in that regard as well. For that reason we trust that this board will pay particular attention to the manner in which it is going to carry out its responsibilities in this connection.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the main object of the Bill which I move is to facilitate the administration of the Agreement entered into between the State President and 16 insurance companies in terms of Section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942 (Act No. 29 of 1942), as amended.

The amendment of Section 1 of the Act is a consequential amendment arising from an amendment to the Insurance Act, 1943, and the sole object of the proposed provision is to bring the definition of “insurance company” into line with that.

For the present Section 22 (1) of the Act provides that the driver or owner of a motor vehicle which is involved in an accident which causes bodily injury to or the death of persons (other than the driver) shall “as soon as may be” after the occurrence inform the registered company which insured the vehicle of the occurrence and shall furnish all information regarding any injuries or deaths which may have resulted from that accident.

It is an everyday experience that various interpretations are given to the concept “as soon as may be” and consequently it is rather the rule than the exception that accidents are either not reported at all or that the company is only informed long after the accident has occurred, with resultant problems for the company in so far that the necessary information which is available immediately after an accident has occurred has at that stage become vague or can no longer be traced at all. The proposed amendment as contained in Clause 2 is designed to improve this position by making it compulsory for persons to give notice of the occurrence “within 14 days”. Persons who are unable to comply with this provision as a result of unavoidable circumstances over which they have no control, are protected from criminal prosecution by the proviso to Section 22 (3) of the Act which reads as follows—

After the Bill had been introduced in Parliament representations were received from the owners of vehicles to the effect that they would possibly experience problems in complying with the provision concerned as drivers sometimes failed to inform them of accidents which entailed that they in turn could not inform the insurance company concerned.

Consequently it has been decided to request leave from this House to introduce an amendment to the Bill by which owners of vehicles who find themselves in such circumstances will be afforded an opportunity of proving that they have been unable to comply with the provisions and that such inability was not due to their own default.

This amendment will have the effect that the right of recourse for which provision is made in Section 14 of the Act will not automatically follow on any default to comply with the provisions of Section 22 (1).

Section 24 (1) (b) in the present Act empowers the State President to enter into an agreement from time to time with one or more insurance companies and to empower such insurance companies to undertake insurance during a period and “at premiums defined in the agreement”.

As hon. members are aware, an agreement such as contemplated in Section 24 was entered into on 4th March, 1966, and promulgated in Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 1349 on 9th March, 1966.

Although the tariff of premiums was announced in said agreement, it is foreseen that the tariff will have to be altered at some time or other in order to adapt it to prevailing circumstances. Under present circumstances, however, every such adjustment of the tariff will involve an amendment of the agreement which will entail unnecessary administrative work.

Consequently the amendment in Clause 3 has the effect that the determination and adjustment of the tariff of premiums will be delegated to the Minister of Transport after consultation with his premiums committee.

The proposed amendment of Section 24 (3) (a) of the Act is merely designed to suspend the provisions of Section 2, parts of 2bis, 2ter, 2quat and 2quin which deal with the registration of insurance companies, the determination of the tariff of premiums, the establishment of a Motor Vehicle Insurers’ Contributions Fund and compulsory membership of the Motor Insurers’ Association of Southern Africa, respectively, all of which aspects, owing to aforesaid agreement, cannot be carried into effect while the agreement is in force. The suspension of said provisions involves no risk to the public as the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund (M.V.I. Fund) has accepted responsibility for any damage arising from accidents which are caused by uninsured vehicles and from hit-and-run accidents.

The new sub-section 5 empowers the Minister of Transport to determine the tariff of premiums, to subdivide the country into insurance areas and to classify vehicles into various categories.

As regards the tariff at present, I may inform hon. members that approximately R8,000,000 was collected by the Fund during the insurance year 1st May, 1965, to 30th April, 1966.

For the new insurance year which started on 1st May, 1966, approximately R15,300,000 was collected by the Fund.

These amounts do not include the amount of 25 per cent which is paid to companies at the rate of 20 per cent for administrative expenses and 5 per cent commission.

Interest earned on the investment of the amount of approximately R8,000,000 in the year concerned (1965-6) amounted to R211,219.

As regards expenditure it is heartening to be able to announce that only R176,881 was paid out during the insurance year 1965-6, of which amount R141,757 was paid out in respect of third-party claims and R35,124 in respect of administrative expenses of the Fund which included all non-recurring establishment expenses.

From the foregoing it is clear that the premium income for 1965-6 has not been touched and that expenditure at this stage is still covered by interest earnings.

I want to issue a warning, however, that one must wait until all claims which arose during the year 1965-6 or which will still arise—there is a prescription period of two years—have been finalized before making any hard and fast conclusions. An amount of approximately R1,000,000 will be received by way of interest on investments during 1966-7.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will remember that the consortium really owes its creation to the chaos which arose during April, 1965, when some companies placed all kinds of obstacles in the way of the public in connection with obtaining insurance, because they wanted a 20 per cent upward adjustment of the tariff, which the Minister of Transport refused. The refusal during 1965 has already saved the public R8,000,000.

Clause 3 (2) (a) merely states the date on which Section 24 (5) comes into operation, namely 1st May, 1967, while Clause 3 (2) (b) makes section 24 (3) (a) applicable with effect from 18th February, 1966, i.e. the date on which the Motor Vehicle Insurance Amendment Act, 1966 (Act No. 14 of 1966), came into operation. The attention of hon. members is drawn to the proviso to Clause 3 (2) (a) in terms of which any alteration by the Minister of the tariff of premiums as laid down in the agreement between the State President and certain insurance companies, will not found a claim for damages to the companies concerned.

This provision is necessary because a reduction in the tariff of premiums will entail a reduction in the revenue of companies as they receive 20 per cent of the existing premium as administrative expenses to deal with claims on behalf of the M.V.I. Fund.

Where it is at present incumbent on the Minister to announce the tariff of premiums at the same time as he announces the terms of the agreement as contemplated in Section 24 (1) (b), this obligation is now being removed by the provisions of Clause 4 (1) (a) of this Bill. The tariff of premiums will in future be published in the Government Gazette, in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (5) of the principal Act, as amended by this Bill. This is merely a consequential amendment.

Clause 4 (1) (b) of the Bill empowers the State President and the registered companies that are parties thereto, to alter the agreement as entered into in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (1) (b) of the principal Act and makes it incumbent on the Minister of Transport to publish such alteration in the Government Gazette.

Clause 4 (1) (c) is merely a consequential amendment.

Clause 4 (2) makes the proposed Sections 25 (1) and 25 (2) applicable with effect from 1st May, 1967, as the 1966-7 insurance year has already started.

Before the hon. the Minister resumes his seat I wonder whether he will be so kind as to furnish us with a little more information regarding the further amendments to be proposed by him?

The position is that owners of vehicles have made representations to the effect that their drivers might not inform them in good time of accidents which occurred while they were driving the vehicles, and in order to keep such owners out of trouble the concession will be made to them that if they had been unaware of the accident because they had not been informed about it they may advance reasons and if such reasons were found to be sound ones, such owners would not find themselves in trouble. I hope that is clear now.

The Deputy Minister has outlined all the main provisions of this Bill, and I think he has indicated to us that most of them arise out of the very unsatisfactory situation which exists in relation to the administration of motor vehicle insurance. Sir, this is not the forum to canvass the situation which arose before the law was changed earlier this year, and this is not the occasion to voice again one’s disagreement with the legislation which was then passed. But it is quite clear that many of these amendments which are being presented in the Bill are amendments which arise because of the existence of this consortium, and it is of course our duty, in looking at this Act, which bears very little resemblance to the original 1942 Motor Vehicle Act which was passed by the United Party Government of those days, to bring this to the Minister’s attention. Nevertheless, in looking at this, we have to have regard always to the public, and to whether the public’s interests are going to be served by these amendments. So far as premiums are concerned, the Minister has indicated why he wants the law changed, that the changing of premiums should no longer be part of an agreement, that is that this can be done by the Minister without having to enter into an agreement with the consortium of companies. He will hear something about premiums from hon. members on this side.

But the point that the Minister made here today is perhaps the real point of this Bill. The point which worried us was something which obviously had not been catered for in the Bill, and that is the right of recourse in terms of Section 14 of the Act which insurance companies may exercise against the owners or the drivers of motor vehicles in certain circumstances. This, we had assumed, was an oversight; it was something which had been forgotten when the Bill was drafted, and this apparently is confirmed by the Deputy Minister. So long as one has a consortium, the question of the right of recourse and its exercise is. I believe, slightly different from the position which obtained before there was in fact a consortium, for the reasons of course that before the consortium, third party insurance was part of the normal commercial practice and business of insurance companies which transacted all sorts of other business.

In those days the question of exercising the right of recourse against an owner was something which was not done very lightly, and obviously it was not done very lightly because the insurance company had to have regard to its own goodwill; it had to have regard to the question as to whether, if it exercised its right of recourse against an owner, it would chase away some business. In these circumstances, of course, where one has to deal with a consortium in any event which has a sort of built-in protection, the question as to whether insurers go to someone else or not, does not arise in the same way.

Nevertheless it is a pity that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not, before introducing his Bill, put his amendment on the Order Paper, which I understand he, as a Deputy Minister, is entitled to do before the second reading. We find ourselves at this stage in the position that we do not really know what the Deputy Minister is going to produce and we do not really know at this stage what the Bill is. We have a Bill before us which makes no provision whatever in relation to the right of recourse, to which Section 22 (1) obviously relates. In those circumstances we find ourselves in some difficulty in debating the principles which are now contained in the Bill. What the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated he will introduce later is something rather different again: it is in fact a whole new principle in relation to this. I am not so sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made out a case; that is something that one would like to discuss but, of course, one would like to discuss it knowing what the contents of the Bill are. One would like to discuss Clause 2 in relation to the amendment that the Deputy Minister is going to propose. The Deputy Minister has said that he wishes to bring about an improvement in the wording; that “as soon as may be” was considered to be a little vague, and it is therefore suggested that “14 days” should be substituted. Sir, you see the trouble. Once one starts amending one part of an Act, one ends up having to amend all sorts of other parts of the Act. If it is necessary, then obviously this is something that has to be done, but if it is not in fact necessary, then there may be other difficulties. Here we have an example showing that the hon. the Deputy Minister was not aware, when the Bill was presented in the first place, that it had repercussions in another part of the Act, and, goodness knows, there may be other repercussions which we do not know about. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he gives notice of his amendment will give not only to us in the House but to the persons who are concerned, the public at large, sufficient time to appreciate what the consequences of that amendment are going to be, because this Bill has been before us for some time and we have had all the time we need to deal with the Bill as it stands at the moment.

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister say that “as soon as may be” is a very vague expression. I think “as soon as may be” has been very well defined. Let me put it this way: The courts have had no difficulty in determining the meaning of “as soon as may be”. It means what it says, that is to say, “as soon as possible”, which is a circumstance to be determined from time to time. The Legislature, in my humble opinion, very wisely did not provide for a restricted or specific time for the reason that there are so many circumstances which could make even 14 days too short or which could even make 14 days too long. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to the question as to whether this is in fact really necessary when he considers all the other amendments which may in fact have to flow from this amendment. Sir, let me give you some idea as to how strictly this has been interpreted. In the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court there was the case of Union Guarantee and Insurance Company Limited v. Potgieter. No, I do not think it was the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side. This case was reported in the S.A. Law Reports of 1959 (3) at page 881. The head-note reads—

We are here proposing 14 days—

It was held by the court that “it would have been the simplest matter for the respondent to have asked one of the nurses to telephone the appellant and convey the three simple and most essential facts, namely the collision, the place where and the time when; that respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of the section within a time which was as soon after the occurrence as was reasonably practicable in the circumstances”. I myself feel that this is being a little hard. It is true that the proposed amendment is not going to be as hard as this judgment, but the point of that judgment is this: If the reason for this is to give some protection to the insurance companies, as I understood from the Deputy Minister, when these accidents are not reported soon enough, then I think quite clearly the sort of interpretation given to the expression “as soon as may be” is a very expansive and a very favourable one, if anything, to the insurance companies concerned. If one takes, for example, the judgment to which I have just alluded, the person in that case would, of course, have had more time under this Bill but the man was actually concussed at the time, which I think shows the wisdom of the Legislature in appreciating that after an accident all sorts of things can happen and that it is not wise to lay down a specific period of time. Any right of recourse which has to be exercised can obviously only be exercised in a court, and the court in these circumstances will be able to decide whether or not, in the particular circumstances of the case, the accident was reported as soon as possible or not. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this his consideration.

One can never look at anything in vacuo in relation to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. It begins to snowball or, to use the modern phrase, it begins to escalate. Once you move something in one part of it you find that the difficulties associated with it are escalated to another part of the Act and to another part of the whole complicated business of administering what is really a social security measure such as this is. Section 14 of the Act which the Deputy Minister says he is going to amend in some way—I do not know whether he is going to amend Section 14 or Section 22—provides in sub-section (2)—

I may say that this is a right of recourse for the recovery of any amount which has been paid out by the insurance company in terms of Section 11 to any injured person. It is provided that in some circumstances a right of recourse is available. The right is available to the insurance company to recover from the owner the sum paid out by it. This, of course, is the very thing against which the insured has insured himself in terms of the Act. Nevertheless Section 14 which deals with the right of recourse says, having first stated that a registered company has the right of recourse, that it shall not have any such right of recourse against the owner of the insured motor vehicle—

unless he was driving under the influence of liquor or driving without a valid driving licence, etc. Then, secondly, the registered company shall not have the right of recourse—

Various circumstances are then set out, and then lastly (and this is what is applicable here)—

That is to say in neither of the two instances with which I have just dealt—

Quite clearly these two were designed to go together, Sections 14 and 22. They dovetail together and they were conceived together, but this Bill has obviously not been conceived with a view to the right that members of the consortium have to have recourse against members of the public for moneys that they have paid out to injured people, an exigency which is the very reason why they insured themselves, an exigency in respect of which we have provided in law that it is compulsory that such insurance shall be provided for the drivers of motor vehicles. This connection at this stage is terribly important; in fact I think this is the only purpose of it. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would indicate to us for what other purpose Section 22 (1) is enacted and what the sanctions are which are provided for a non-compliance with the provisions of Section 22. That is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. In other words, if at the moment, for example, a person does not report an accident as soon as may be, or, assuming that this Bill were to emerge in the form in which it now is in this regard, what are the sanctions which apply to anyone who does not in fact report within 14 days? As far as I can see the only teeth that the law has to see to it that this is complied with is to say that if you do not do it then the insurance company will have a right of recourse against you. That is why I have some difficulty in appreciating how this Bill could ever have been presented in this form without any reference to Section 14 of the Act, and I hope that the Deputy Minister will indicate to us whether there is in fact any other provision which provides for a penalty for non-compliance with Section 22 of the Act.

The rest of the Bill is, I think, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated to us, concerned with amendments flowing from the establishment of the consortium, and with an adjustment of the premiums by the Minister without necessarily consulting the consortium, at any rate without having to make a new agreement. This all flows from the circumstances which arose after the legislation of the earlier part of this year, to which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, we were violently opposed. It is a commercially unhealthy situation which nevertheless is with us and these are the natural streams of amendments which are going to flow from that situation.

I should like to mention another matter before I sit down. In Clause 4 it is provided that an agreement entered into—that is to say a consortium agreement—may be altered by the State President on the one hand and the insurance companies that are parties thereto, on the other hand. But who else can be involved in such an agreement? One wonders why it has been phrased like this, and whether there is a purpose for it being phrased like that rather than on the basis that any agreement may be made or that any alteration of the agreement may be made and must be published in the Gazette.

At this stage, Sir, because of the obvious confusion which has arisen and the obvious dilemma in which we are all placed because we do not know what the Minister is in fact going to do, and we do not know what Bill we are in effect discussing to-day, we are not really in a position to assess the real effect of the amendment in Clause 2. One understands, of course, that this sort of mistake can happen, although this is a pretty big faux pas, Sir. For this reason, however, we are not at this stage going to vote against the second reading of this Bill. We should like to see what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to offer us. We should like to see how he is going to rectify this blunder which has appeared in this Bill. We shall, of course, at the Committee Stage, depending on what the hon. the Deputy Minister produces in the way of other amendments, certainly have quite a lot to say on Clause 2. We hope that between the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment and any amendment that we might propose, we might get a situation which is at least as good as the situation we have to-day. I hope that in the meantime the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider whether in fact this change is really necessary, whether there really is any difficulty and whether this might not in the end amount to rather more confusion than exists now. Our concern in regard to this legislation is and always has been that hardships to the public may result, where they are paying a compulsory premium every year.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member for Durban (North) and his party are in a most unenviable position to-day. If it had not been for the fact that the Opposition opposed this measure so strongly and violently at the beginning of this year, I am convinced that they would have said to-day that they supported these amendments wholeheartedly. What is more, I think they owe it to the Minister to apologize for their attitude earlier in the year, when this legislation was piloted through the House. They should have apologized and told the Minister: We realize that we were wrong and we want to congratulate you on the tremendous success you have had with this legislation. But now the hon. member is in the difficult position that at the beginning of the year, when the legislation was before the House for its approval of the consortium agreement, they adopted an attitude which is making matters extremely difficult for them to-day, so difficult that you have seen how the hon. member for Durban (North) twisted and turned in an attempt to say something against this legislation. In addition, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the only small point to which they might as a rule have objected, would be changed in the Committee Stage. That took all the wind out of the hon. member for Durban (North’s) sails. He hummed and hawed, and what he eventually said I do not know. I do not think he said anything worthwhile. As I have already said, the hon. members of the Opposition should thank the Minister to-day for the steps he has taken in the interests of the public of South Africa. The hon. member said that when we study those amendments, we should consider to what an extent they are in the interests of the public of South Africa. At the beginning of the year the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Minister had allowed himself to become precipitately involved in something. He said that the consortium idea was absolutely against the interests of the public of South Africa. He said that the measure adopted in that regard was the worst in the whole wide world. He said that in the whole world there was no precedent for legislation like that introduced by the Minister. He said that there would be chaos.

Order! The hon. member must not repeat that debate now.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the impression members of the Opposition created at the beginning of the year, was that there would be chaos if the Minister proceeded with his legislation. I now want to say that the agreement which was provided for in that Act, has been a tremendous success. There has been none of the hitches predicted. There has been no chaos. There have been no complaints. Insurance has been freely available. There has been no shortage of staff. No obstacles have been placed in the way of the public. What is more, as the hon. Deputy Minister also said, this legislation which the Minister submitted to the House earlier in this year, has saved the motor car owners of South Africa R8,000,000. The Deputy Minister is now moving amendments which to me are obvious. One of the most important of these amendments is the one that provides that the company must be informed within 14 days after the occurrence of an accident from which a claim may arise. I think that this is a much better provision than the previous one, in terms of which notice had to be given as soon as was practicable. Surely it is obvious that when a report of certain events is compiled, the best report is the one which is still fresh in the memory of the witness. Claims are arbitrated or settled on the basis of these reports and of this evidence. In due course a great deal of the circumstantial evidence becomes lost. Marks on the street, on poles or on trees vanish eventually. In the arbitration or settlement of claims, it is important that the best report is given when it is still fresh in the memory of the witness. I therefore think that this provision, namely that such notice shall be given within 14 days, is a much better provision than the previous one. Any reasonable man will agree to that, even the hon. member for Durban (North).

The other important provision authorizes the Minister to adjust premiums from time to time. In terms of the existing Act, an agreement has been entered into by the State President and a group of companies. In that agreement the premiums have been fixed for ten years. As before, the Minister is now authorized to adjust the premiums. Let me say at once that he is not only authorized to increase the premiums, but also, if necessary, to decrease them. Furthermore, he can only make the adjustment after he has been advised by and has received recommendations from the premiums committee. The premiums committee has to act according to statistics and figures. They cannot simply take an arbitrary recommendation to the Minister. They have to work according to statistics and figures, a stipulation which does not obtain at present. It is only after a recommendation by this premiums committee that the Minister may adjust the premiums as necessary.

Sir, I want to say to-day that the South African public is grateful to the Minister for this arrangement he has made. For the first time in the history of third party insurance the public has been guaranteed against losses. There is a very strong fund now. To-day the Minister gave facts with regard to that fund. There is already R23,300,000 in the fund. All the claims will be met from that fund, even when a vehicle is uninsured. If a company becomes disqualified, there is no fear that a claim will not be settled. It does not matter any longer whether or not a vehicle is in fact insured. The fund will meet every claim. What is more, the interest earned by this fund will be a stabilizing factor as regards the premiums. It will prevent the premiums from shooting up too high. We have already seen, according to the information furnished by the Minister, that last year’s claims, which amounted to R176,000, were lower than the interest of R211,000 collected by this fund last year. I therefore say that for the first time the public of South Africa has been guaranteed against losses, against exploitation and even against dishonesty. We should thank the Government for these arrangements they have made, and for lack of gratitude on the part of the Opposition, we have to do so.

I should like to mention one matter for the Minister’s consideration. Where he is making these amendments, I want to ask whether it is not possible, when third party premiums are adjusted from time to time as will be possible in terms of these amendments, to make the premiums conform to the comprehensive motor insurance premiums. Is it not possible to let a careful and safe driver enjoy the benefits of his responsibility when he has to pay his premium? Will it not be possible to load the reckless and negligent driver by means of his premium? In other words, Sir, cannot there be a provision as in the case of comprehensive motor car insurance, in terms of which a person who has driven without accidents for a number of years, may receive a no-claim bonus, whereas the reckless driver, the road-hog, has to pay and his premium may be loaded accordingly? I do not know whether that is possible, but I think it will be fairer towards the public if these premiums are adjusted from time to time, and that something along those lines should be considered, namely that the responsible man should enjoy the fruits of his responsibility, and that the man who cannot behave himself on the road, who drives recklessly, has to pay. Sir, we should like to support the Minister in these sound amendments he has made to the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member for Parow, in referring to motor vehicle insurance, would have directed his thanks primarily to the party which originally introduced the Act on which the whole system of motor vehicle insurance is operated. The difficulty in which the Deputy Minister has found himself this afternoon arises from the fact that he is tinkering with a provision in that Act which has been there since 1942 and has worked very well, namely the provision in Section 22 of the Act. Before I come to the proposed amendment, may I follow up what has been said by the hon. member for Parow with the suggestion that there might be a grading of premiums to give some reward to the careful motorist. Of course there is another anomaly in the question of the premiums which are paid, and that is that there is no variation in so far as the type or size of car is concerned. There is a variation from centre to centre, but there is no variation in so far as the type of car, or the use to which the car is put by the owner, is concerned. But that is a matter which is not directly before us under the Bill. It will, however, undoubtedly arise when it comes to the adjustment of premiums.

In the course of the Deputy Minister’s remarks when introducing this amending Bill, he made reference to the composition of the consortium in somewhat vague terms. He made reference to the fact that there were certain companies which had created some difficulties and some uncertainties and that as a result, the consortium was established. I wonder whether, having made those generalized remarks, he will be able to enlighten the House when he replies to this debate as to whether all companies that are willing to conform to the requirements laid down by the Government have been admitted to the consortium, or whether some of them were excluded, and if they were excluded, why they were excluded. How many companies which were not causing these difficulties to which the hon. the Minister referred, have been left out of the group which forms part of the consortium? But that is by the way.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties which we appear to have encountered with this amendment arise from the proposed departure from the basis of the 1942 Act, and also from a further proposed departure from the Bill as published, which we came here to discuss this afternoon. The obligation under Section 22 of the Act at present reposes on both the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle if he is not the owner. It is obligatory under all circumstances that the owner, or the driver, if he be not the owner, shall report the accident “as soon as may be after the occurrence”. Obviously those words were used because one can think of dozens of circumstances in which a limitation to 14 days, or to three weeks, or to any other period, would be inappropriate. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already made reference to the fact that they can and do exist, for instance where the owner has no knowledge of the accident if his chauffeur has used the vehicle. One looks to see what penalty is imposed under Section 22 if there has been a failure to report the accident. The Minister has referred to the penalties which appear in Section 22 (3). There it is stated that an offence is committed by a person who does not report an accident “as soon as may be”. As to whether or not a penalty should be imposed, the Act has from the commencement had an escape route, in that that person can show that there were reasonable circumstances which made it impossible for him to comply with the “as soon as may be” provision. What is the other penalty? The other consequence of the default is the consequence referred to by the hon. member for Durban (North). That is the right of recourse which then vests in the insurance company. That is an absolute right of recourse if there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 22 (1). It is an absolute right of recourse without any “ifs” and “ands” about it. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should not try to say: If you do not report within 14 days, you will have a right of recourse, but that right of recourse will not apply if you can show that you did not comply with subsection (1) because there are reasonable circumstances which prevented you.

I should like to suggest to the Deputy Minister that he drop this clause entirely from the Bill and leave the position as it is. The only effect which the changing of Section 22 can have, will be to the possible disadvantage of the insured person and it will be to the advantage of those people in the Consortium, the big people who have collected the insurance premiums and have an obligation to see that the person who is involved in an accident is adequately covered under his policy. I suggest that the Deputy Minister should drop this clause. However, when his amendment is published, we may find that instead of having the words “as soon as may be after the occurrence”, it may be possible to have the introduction of the common legal expression, “within a reasonable time of becoming aware of the occurrence” as far as the owner is concerned. He must then report “within a reasonable time” of becoming aware of the accident. I know, Sir, that there are several dissertations on what is reasonable. In a recent case a bachelor Judge was asked to determine the word “reasonable” in relation to a woman. It was suggested that any reasonable woman would do certain things. The Judge’s retort was: Is there such a creature? I think, Sir, that the courts have nevertheless been able to determine what is reasonable in a certain set of circumstances. I think the Deputy Minister will achieve what he wants to achieve if he uses the words “within a reasonable time” instead of “as soon as may be”, or alternatively, a course which we would prefer, if he dropped this clause altogether from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point, who has just sat down, has made a few points. I should like to reply to those before I respond to what the hon. member for Durban (North) said. Can the hon. member tell us why he is opposed to this provision, namely that notice shall be given as soon as may be? The hon. member said that it would be to the disadvantage of the insured person.

The Minister himself said it was unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has now told us that the clause, as it reads at present, will be to the disadvantage of the insured person. Did he say that?

It is to the disadvantage of the insured person.

The hon. member should at least tell us why he is opposed to it. It is certainly not to the disadvantage of the insured person. The hon. member cannot mention one case where it may be to the disadvantage of the insured person. “As soon as may be” may mean a day or six months. The insurance company must be informed of that accident. The old section could be interpreted as meaning three days, for example. Why is a period of 14 days laid down now? The matter is absolutely clear now. Not only does it assist the insured person, but it also assists the insurance company that has to undertake the insurance. There are many cases where such an accident occurs and is not reported immediately. A great deal of the necessary information that has to be obtained is then lost. People do not always know exactly what happened. If people have to wait a month, for example, a period which according to that member is a reasonable period, they do not always know where or how the accident occurred. If it is reported soon afterwards, however, it is to the advantage of the public if the company becomes aware of the accident timeously, so that it can investigate it. The longer it is delayed, the more complicated the matter becomes, and the higher the legal costs. That is the major factor in third-party insurance at present—legal costs. It is therefore to the advantage of everybody if such an accident is reported immediately.

As regards the other argument advanced by the hon. member, namely that there is no difference in the premiums in respect of various kinds of motor-cars, I think that the hon. member is wrong. We are not dealing with comprehensive insurance now. Whether I knock that member down with my Cadillac or with my small Fiat, makes no difference. He is dead. The third-party insurance is not aimed at insuring the car’s value. It is a human life that is at stake. It makes no difference whether an accident is made with a small or a large vehicle. It is the human suffering which is inflicted that has to be compensated for in terms of third-party insurance. Therefore it simply cannot be done. You may say: People who drive Volkswagens make more accidents. But that is not the result of the fact that it is a small motor-car. Because it is a cheaper motorcar, one finds a type of driver who is reckless. It is commonly held that certain kinds of motor-cars are more frequently involved in accidents. That, however, is the fault of the driver, and not of the motor-car itself. As the hon. member for Parow said, we should rather impose a higher premium on the driver. We cannot draw a distinction between the motorcars.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Durban (North). He spoke about the position as regards recourse. One of our other speakers will come back to that later. The hon. member made some insinuations to which I should like to reply. He and the hon. member for Green Point spoke about the consortium. They said that it was the Government’s baby, etc. Mr. Speaker, I think we would do well to consider the history of third-party insurance. Let us see what conditions were like in the past, and what they are at present.