Mr. Speaker, I should like, with your permission, to make a statement in regard to this matter. The Government is disturbed at the strikes which have taken place recently as a result of the internal disputes in a trade union. The strikes in these cases did not concern matters which had any bearing on the relations between employer and employee and were merely directed at the management and administration of the trade union. Such strikes do not fall within the ambit of a strike as defined in the Industrial Conciliation Act, and steps cannot therefore be taken in terms of the Act in regard to such strikes. Yet these strikes have the same crippling effect on the economy as any other strike, and they also have the further disadvantage that they mar relations within the trade union and impede the smooth functioning of the conciliation machinery. There is no reason therefore why these strikes should be allowed, while others are prohibited until the prescribed requirements have been complied with. As Minister of Labour I can understand only too well that serious dissatisfaction amongst the rank and file of a trade union can arise if the management of the trade union does not act satisfactorily. It was for this very reason that the Government inserted specific provisions in the Conciliation Act of 1956 so that new elections could take place when there was any serious dissatisfaction. In addition to that the Industrial Tribunal recently, on instructions from the Government, instituted a special investigation into dissatisfaction among the members of the Mine-workers’ Union. The investigation led to an overall agreement in terms of which new elections could take place to the satisfaction of all, and were arranged for the 18th and 19th of this month. The internal problems of a trade union are therefore matters which ought to be solved in terms of the constitution of the trade union and the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act without the need for any strikes. In the light of all the foregoing and present occurrences, the Government has felt itself compelled, in the interests of our national economy and the establishment of peaceful inter-relationships, to introduce this Bill to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act in such a way that a prohibition will be placed on strikes which have no bearing on matters affecting the relations between employer and employee. A similar prohibition will also apply in respect of lock-outs by employers. The existing machinery for bargaining for conditions of service with the right to strike after the prescribed requirements have been complied with, remains unchanged.

The Bill is of course without retrospective effect and no action will be taken against any mineworker who is already involved in the strike, but I am once again appealing to the striking workers to return to their work so that their grievances can receive attention in a constitutional way and strictly according to the provisions of the Act.

I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Appropriation Bill always heralds the ending of a Session. In this case it heralds the end of a Session which has been marked by a sudden, dramatic and tragic event which has had and will have a profound effect upon the political life of this country. What those effects will be, of course, is not yet clear because we have a new Prime Minister who obviously has not yet had time to impress his own personality, his own interpretation and views, on the administration of the country. Quite understandably there are question marks about the courses that he will follow as new situations arise for South Africa both internally and externally. But I think I can say that already it is clear that there are certain fields of agreement which should be stated and should be admitted, and there are other fields too in which, if the statements of Cabinet Ministers must be taken as the final statements of policy, there are differences which are sharp and very acute. I believe that perhaps I should start by stating some of the fields where I believe that we agree and we should admit that we agree, and because the matter is topical and is urgently with us I make no apology for dealing first with the United Nations debate over South West Africa. I think it is evident from previous debates in this House that there is agreement on both sides that we are not prepared to tolerate external interference in the domestic affairs of our country, either from individual countries or from international organizations. I think it is also clear that our team at the United Nations Organizations is having a torrid time but at the same time it is acquitting itself extremely well. I do not in any way want to embarrass their position by discussions here at this very delicate stage of the proceedings. I want to wish them luck and I want to indicate quite clearly that when our Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a warning to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organizations, as he did a few days ago, to the effect that South Africa “would resist with all the power at its disposal any attempts which endanger the safety of our country or of the peoples committed to our care”, he was speaking not only for the Government but also for the official Opposition and thus for the whole of South Africa. Having said that, Sir, I want to express the hope that there will be no further discussion on this matter at the present stage.

There is a second matter which I believe is also in the field of agreement and that concerns the attitude of the Republic to Rhodesia in the present difficult period in which matters seem to be approaching what one might call a difficult and a delicate stage, and here I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that should matters arise during the recess of a crisis nature, then I want him to know that I as representing the Opposition will always be at his disposal and available for consultation if it is felt at any time, as well it might, that a bipartisan approach to this problem could strengthen South Africa’s position. I say that expressly because of the talk of mandatory sanctions at the present time, a situation which I am sure all of us on both sides of the House hope will not arise in respect of this matter. In this connection I want to add something else and that is how gratifying it is to see that there are powerful people and powerful influences in the United Kingdom counselling caution in connection with this matter at the present time, powerful people and powerful influences which are anxious to keep British hands on the helm in the stormy seas which may lie ahead and people too who appreciate how great the tragedy would be if the long-standing links, economic and otherwise, between Great Britain and South Africa should be endangered as a result of the actions of others.

Sir, the third matter which I want to raise, which I think is also in the general field of agreement, concerns the position of Simonstown. I want to say in that regard that I am very sensible of the appeal of the hon. the Minister of Defence that this matter be not further discussed at this stage, but I do want to say at the same time to the hon. the Prime Minister that what has been allowed to leak out already has caused uncertainty and concern among many South Africans, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. gentleman will give an assurance that as soon as any finality is reached the public will be taken into his confidence with the minimum delay.

Sir, quite outside the field of foreign affairs there is another matter which is worthy of note and which seems at last to have moved into the area of agreement between the parties and that is the unequivocal acceptance by the hon. the Prime Minister that to be a good South African it is not necessary to accept the policies of a particular party. The hon. gentleman stated: “I have never adopted the attitude that a person is patriotic only if he joins the Nationalist Party.”

Surely that must have been obvious to you.

Sir, it has been obvious to me for a very long time, but it has not been obvious to certain people on the other side of the House. It has not been obvious to certain hon. members from time to time.

You appear to have got a clean bill of health.

Sir, if I have been subject to security investigation, I have no doubt that I got a very clean bill of health, I believe cleaner than some other gentlemen sitting in this House. If we are to deal with this matter, I want to say that I think it is a very healthy development indeed and one for which the hon. the Prime Minister should be commended. I think it is now accepted by the people who matter on both sides of this House that we face each other as South Africans and patriots seeking the best for our country, but we differ as South Africans and patriots in canvassing our differences, and we differ because on each side we seek to serve the best interests of South Africa, and in so doing we accept each other’s bona fides in that regard. So much for the topical matters within the area of agreement. Now perhaps we can come to the topical matters within the area of disagreement. Naturally I cannot deal with those exhaustively, but I do intend dealing with some of the topical matters in the area of disagreement which are dominating the scene at present. I think I can best summarize them by reading the amendment I propose to move—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill unless and until the Government undertakes, inter alia, to provide for—

1. (a) realistic plans to ease the burden of the rise in living costs;
2. (b) better methods to ensure adequate and economic provision of food, water and housing for all the people of the country; and
3. (c) better methods of planning for the future requirements of the Bantu in the reserves and in the urban areas”.

All these matters obviously are going to be dealt with in some detail by speakers who follow me, but I do want to make some general remarks concerning these matter which I think should be brought to the notice particularly of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I think the first of these is that since the budgets of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport the wage-earner and the housewife have received nothing but shocks over the last two months. It is becoming increasingly clear that what this Government has been dealing with has been the symptoms of inflation and not the causes of inflation. I do not propose to deal with these matters exhaustively, but I do want to say that only last week the Public Servants’ Association held a conference at Sea Point. There we found a very large number of speakers expressing their dismay that increases in the cost of living were devouring the benefits of the salary increases they have recently received, devouring the salary increases they had received before the election. I was interested to look into this matter and I found some figures of the position on the Witwatersrand in regard to certain ordinary items in the cost of living before and after the budget. I found that premium petrol had risen by 5 per cent, soft drinks by 20 per cent, a pint of beer by 12 per cent, super lamb and chops per lb. by 11 per cent, boerewors by 16 per cent, cheddar cheese by 9 per cent, butter by 8 per cent, cream per pint by 40 per cent, milk per quart by 6 per cent. Then, and I know this is going to meet with the disapproval of hon. members opposite, cigarettes had increased by 10 per cent, gin by 14 per cent, brandy by 14 per cent. We know that many municipalities have found it necessary to put up water and electricity charges and we know that responsible trade union leaders, of whom I mention only one, Mr. Liebenberg of the Koordinerende Raad, have warned that unless rising prices can be arrested the workers are going to be forced to initiate a new round of wage demands. That does not come from me but from one of the most responsible leaders of the trade union movement. I think hon. members opposite know that if we are faced with that sort of thing we may well be faced with a new wave of inflation. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that what the Government does to protect the value of the salaries and wages of the ordinary people of South Africa in the next few months is going to be one of the major tests he faces on his assumption of office. I think that people outside will support me if I say that what we want is evidence that the hon. the Prime Minister is passing those tests, and we want that evidence before the commencement of the next session of Parliament. You see, Sir, the remedies have been obvious for a long time and they have been canvassed in this House on many an occasion. They have been proposed in this House by the Opposition. First of all, the hon. the Minister of Finance was told quite frankly that he had not curtailed expenditure enough, that he had not disciplined himself enough in that sphere. Secondly, it was quite clear that insufficient steps were being taken to combat the manpower shortage in South Africa. We have heard great plans for education and training in the future, but the results of that education and training are not yet available in the economy. Various steps are being taken and are under consideration which may delay the availability of that manpower for certain periods as well.

I want to say that we feel quite definitely that this question of the sort of education and the provision for a horizontal flow from one type of education to another type of education, which is so much a characteristic of other industrial countries or countries developing in the industrial sphere, has not been sufficiently attended to here in South Africa. I do not think, either, that we have canvassed sufficiently the contributions which can be made by the women of South Africa, a contribution which they possibly would be more ready to make if the hon. the Minister of Finance were prepared to consider other methods of assessing their earnings for income tax purposes. I do not think enough attention has been given to preferences in granting Government contracts to firms employing a percentage of older people who might otherwise not be retained in the employment of the firms concerned, or employed to the benefit of the industries concerned. I have suggested before in this House that in awarding Government contracts consideration should be given to preference for firms who employ a certain percentage of people over a certain age. That would help a great deal towards solving our manpower problem. These are some of the suggestions that have come forward.

The other great problem with which we are faced, after the questions of Government expenditure and manpower shortage, is the question of productivity. Here again, what attention has been given to giving preferential treatment to firms that have training schemes to meet the shortage of semi-skilled or technically trained people in their spheres of industry? What has been done to encourage training methods of that kind? What incentives are being given by the Government to increase productivity among the labour corps of South Africa? These are all proposals which have been put before the House, but the reaction so far has been entirely negative. We have raised also the question of the creation of an export market so that we in South Africa could benefit more from the advantages of large-scale production. Large-scale production brings costs down. There are many things in which we compete. What steps are really being taken by the Government to find export markets and to encourage exports? It seems that the Government has turned a deaf ear to most of the plans we have put before it. There is now no doubt after two months that the effect of these two Budgets of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Transport will definitely be inflationary as far as our economy is concerned. It will be inflationary as the result of the cost pushes which are the direct result of these two Budgets. I believe that I am not incorrect in saying that there are some very high economic authorities in South Africa who support that view. So much for the area of disagreement in respect of the cost of living.

What about adequate steps for food, water and housing and better methods to ensure adequate economic provision of these essentials for all the people of our country? When one speaks of food, one naturally thinks of the contribution made by the agricultural community. One is aware of the fact that by the year 2000, if present population forecasts are accurate, we will have to produce four times the amount of food we are producing at present. That means that within the next 30 years we will have to quadruple our production. That will call, first of all, for a Government with sufficient foresignt to plan for the endemic droughts which exist in South Africa. I think we have all heard the news of rain in the interior with the greatest sense of gratitude and thanksgiving. We all know what those people have gone through. But droughts are nothing unusual in the history of South Africa. They have happened before and they will happen again and they will have serious effects on our economy unless the Government steps in and assists in planning to combat future droughts and their effect. Quite honestly, the record of that side of the House in dealing with this matter is nothing to be proud of. The tragedy is that the drought struck at a time when the agricultural community’s economy was not in a very sound condition, because of the price policies followed by this Government over the years. The result has been to undermine the stability and the efficiency of the farming community. I am not going to take the matter any further at this stage. We have made our proposals before as to what should be done in the agricultural sphere. But I cannot pass on without saying something about the lack of attention to soil conservation over the period this Government has been in office. The situation is becoming more and more serious. We are losing more and more of our topsoil and we will not be able to meet the demands made upon us unless proper and enthusiastic attention is given to this matter.

There is another matter which is worrying me on this issue of the production of food, and that is the question of the livestock of South Africa, our domestic animal population. The indications are that we are not adopting sufficiently enlightened breeding methods. Some of the experts in that regard who have been out of the country for 15 or 20 years have come back and said that we have made virtually no progress. That is a very serious matter, and something to which a great deal of attention will have to be devoted. Of course, we cannot produce without water. Water in South Africa is even more important than oil, however important oil may be. While we give thanks for the rain that has come, what are our plans for the future? We know that with our present knowledge the Government cannot make rain, but by the same token there are methods which are being investigated in other countries in respect of assisting precipitation by the seeding of clouds and by various rain-making methods which do seem to be aoproaching the stage where they are worthy of investigation and consideration by a country which has the continual problems that we have in regard to droughts and the shortage of water. One wonders, Sir, whether the Government is satisfied that it is keeping pace with those experiments elsewhere, whether they are doing sufficient about it at the present time. Sir, what are they doing to conserve the water which we are getting from the rains which we do have in South Africa. Let us take the history of what happened in the Vaal Triangle. If you look at the whole situation in respect of the Vaal Dam, then it seems to me a terrible example of lack of foresight and lack of planning that landed us in the position we were landed in during the serious drought during the last few months. Sir, there are many learned men in this field who tell us that they have issued warnings over the years, many officials of the Rand Water Board have warned over the years. The Government has been extremely slow in tackling plans for the expected natural foreseen extension of demand in that area. You see, Sir, what we do need here in South Africa is not only long-term planning. What we need here is something more, and that is co-ordination of our river systems so that one catchment area can supplement other catchment areas, as happened under the Tennessee Valley Authority of the United States of America. We very frequently have droughts which are limited to certain areas, good rains falling at the same time in other areas. Sir, it would be a wonderful thing for the carrying capacity of our country, it would give a great deal more stability if we could correlate those catchment areas in much the same way as the supplies of electricity to the various groups, to the various schemes are co-ordinated, so that a breakdown in one place is met by a heavier load in another. I believe that expanding on those lines is vital to the future of South Africa. That is why I was so interested to see the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs in this House recently in connection with the Oxbow scheme, when he said to us how could he consider a scheme of that kind when one saw how irresponsible had been the action of the Opposition in the new Lesotho Parliament. Mr. Speaker, has he considered that the sources of almost all our big rivers in South Africa are in what are at present Bantu reserves, and under the policy of this Government reserves which are going to become independent Bantu states? What are we planning for the future in connection with those sources, and what are we planning for the protection of the catchment areas, and what agreements and understandings do we have in view with those people?

Can they keep the water there?

It would not be easy, but they can do a lot to make it difficult for us to enjoy it, and there are certain areas where the water could be diverted to our disadvantage. These are things that have got to be thought of and worked out now in respect of the future planning for South Africa.

The third matter I wanted to raise under this head was housing, and here I concede at once that the effort has been significant, but it has nevertheless been overtaken by demand. We have impressive plans, I know, but the shortage persists at the present time. According to authorities in the housing sphere, it seems quite clear that we will have to do as much work in the next 30 years as we have done in the previous 300 years to keep pace with developments in South Africa. One of the big troubles is that as a result of Government policies, the cost of housing has outstripped the ability of the average man to pay for a house. We are faced with the continuation of that position, unless there is concentration on efficiency and training and some attention is given to long-term planning in this sphere. So far there has been little or nothing. I want to say that in all three of these spheres, the sphere of food, the sphere of water and that of housing, what has been significant over the past years in which this Government has been in office, has been the lack of adequate planning and the lack of realism in dealing with these problems.

Of course there is just this realism that is lacking in the treatment of race relations in South Africa. Let us take a few examples of this lack of realism. First of all, Sir, there is the attempt of hon. members opposite—take the attempt of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—to deny that economic integration is taking place between Black and White because there is no equality of opportunity of Blacks in White areas or Whites in Black areas. But how do you reconcile that statement, Mr. Speaker, with the statement of the hon. the former Prime Minister, when he accepted that because the Coloureds had four representatives in this House, that was a measure of political integration? There was no suggestion that that representation was on an equal basis with the Whites, Mr. Speaker. It is quite evident that that is an unequal basis of representation. The hon. gentleman accepted unequivocally that that was political integration—not complete, but a measure of political integration. Now we hear from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that there is no economic integration because there is no equality of opportunities. Sir, any economic student—and the hon. the Prime Minister has confessed to us that he did spend a couple of years studying economics—will tell you that the factors of production are capital, management, labour and land, and it is only by integrating them that you get adequate and sufficient production. So you see, Sir, that to me was a most fatuous barren argument. It was merely used for political purposes because hon. members opposite are afraid of the word integration. Why not accept that that integration is taking place, and let us settle down to control it and direct it in the interests of South Africa? There was another statement from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development not so long ago which gives some idea of the lack of realism with which race relations are approached. He said—

That is what the hon. gentleman said. I want to be absolutely fair to the hon. the Minister. As I understand his argument, he means that if you divide the Bantu in seven or eight ethnic groups, then the White group is the biggest; therefore there is no question of minority government. It means that in the future he hopes each group will govern itself and therefore there is no question of minority government. If he makes that statement in respect of the dim distant future, that beacon for which he is steering but will probably never reach, then I have no complaint, but to say that there is no minority government in South Africa at the present time is of course ridiculous, because here one group is ruling all the other groups in South Africa—quite rightly too, they will continue to do so until independence is granted to certain groups, and possibly thereafter. To make statements of this kind is merely confusing the argument and it is like an Alice in Wonderland situation where you give to words meanings that happen to suit you for the time being.

There is a third example of this lack of realism. The hon. gentleman argued the other day, I think before Sabra, that had Britain retained control over what are to-day the Native reserves, she would have led them to independence as she is doing the Protectorates, and therefore we should do the same. Sir, how unrealistic can one become? The Protectorates never formed a constituent part …

I did not say that. I asked why it was wrong if we did it, but not wrong if Britain did the same thing.

I will deal with that as well. It is a distinction without a difference. Mr. Speaker, the Protectorates never formed part of the four Provinces which constituted the Union, at the time of Union. They were not part of those Provinces, they were not administered by the Provincial Governments administering the Provinces.

They were intended to be part.

“They were intended to be part”—what a pity they did not become part! Then the temptation would have been removed from these horn gentlemen of feeling that they must grant independence, then they would have looked to retaining the whole of South Africa under one Government, and they would not have been misled by the bad British example.

Sir, they were administered by the Imperial Government, by the Imperial authorities, and Britain provided in the South Africa Act that she would agree to their incorporation, or might agree to their incorporation, but was never prepared to do so without consultation, and later without consent. Britain setting them free is one state of affairs. Their relationship with those territories is totally different from our relationship with the Bantu reserves inside the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Those reserves are protected by our own legislation, by our Native Trust and Land Acts of 1912 and 1913. Read the speeches made by the leading men at the time when that legislation was put on the Statute Book. This was something South Africa did to protect the interests of its citizens.

What did Botha say?

Botha said: “Ons sal altyd toesig oor hulle hou, maar hulle sal onder die toesig van die Sentrale Regering bly.”

He said “eenkant”.

What a pity that the hon. gentleman did not follow the example of the commandant-general of the Boer forces in the Boer War. “Eg Suid-Afrikaans,” Mr. Speaker.

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Must I deduct from what he has said that he is in favour of the White man retaining everlasting “baasskap” over the Bantu in their territory? That is what it amounts to.

I anticipated that question, long before the hon. gentleman got up. I shall deal with it. I am coming to my own statement. I want to say very clearly that not only were those areas demarcated by the Act, but their boundaries were changed. We promised in the 1936 Settlement to give them, I think, an additional 7,000,000 morgen of land. In some cases those territories and their inhabitants were represented in this Parliament, and a measure of economic interdependence developed between those Bantu territories and ourselves that could never possibly have existed between Great Britain and the Protectorates which are being led to independence at the present time. Our basis of relationship is different. How you can say that because Britain is setting the Protectorates free, therefore we should be happy to set the Bantu areas free, is based on entire fantasy.

That is not what the hon. the Minister said.

The hon. the Minister said “if it is not wrong for Britain to do this, why is it wrong for us to do it”. The answer is perfectly simple: The whole basis between us is a different one. Sir, this is fantasy, and I think we should examine at this moment what our basic differences are in respect of this question of the treatment of the Bantu in the reserves and outside. I think first of all that members on the other side stand for the independence of these territories. The members of the Government stand for the ultimate independence of these Bantu areas. We would like to see them retained in a federal relationship with the Republic of South Africa. That is my answer to the hon. members.

On an equal basis?

Under such a relationship they must be independent.

That does not follow. It is not a question of being independent. The States of the United States of America are not independent. There is a federation in Switzerland consisting of three parts; they were never independent. The provinces of Canada are a federation, they were never independent. Australia is a federal State.

But all of them have equal status.

The hon. the Minister says that all of them have an equal status. How can the hon. the Minister say that, because any study of the position in respect particularly of the constitution of the United States of America will show the hon. gentleman that they have not an equal status. They have a status of equality in the Senate, but not in the Congress. It is completely different.

But is your race relation idea a parallel to that?

I wish hon. members would listen.

The second fundamental difference between the Government and ourselves is that it is becoming increasingly clear, as the hon. the Minister has in fact now admitted, that the end of the road for him is geographical partition and geographical partition means that there must be consolidation. When you talk about the consolidation of the various Black areas into wholes, do you realize, Mr. Speaker, how many little areas are being talked about? Do you realize what work of history has to be undone in order to achieve that consolidation? I believe there were something like 131 separate areas in the Transvaal at the time of the Tomlinson Commission. I believe there are more than 80 in Natal. I have for the moment forgotten how many there are in the other provinces. Mr. Speaker, have you thought about what it is going to cost? The hon. the Minister admits these difficulties. He says there are financial difficulties, difficulties in persuading the Europeans to accept the necessity for consolidation and difficulties in persuading the Bantu themselves to accept the necessity for moving. These are difficulties which are going to go on through the years and are going to get more and more serious until such time as hon. gentlemen opposite realize that they can never achieve it. [Interjections.] That is why in the policy for which we stand the dispersion of these territories is perfectly possible and fits perfectly into our scheme.

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry. The third fundamental difference between us is that we believe it is vital that these reserves should be developed. We also believe that that means that industries must be established inside those reserves as soon as possible. We also believe that it is impossible to get such development without allowing private White capital and initiative to play its vital role in the development of those reserves. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that is happening. Mr. Speaker, you know it is very difficult to get clarity on what the policy of the other side is. The hon. the Minister told us the other day that White capital was being employed in the reserves in two ways: Firstly on a corporate basis and secondly on what he called the agency basis. He explained that the agency basis meant the department was using the Central Government’s Department of Forestry to manage the forests of the Bantu Trust. He mentioned that as an example. But this is the use of State capital and not private White capital. Then the hon. gentleman also spoke of the corporative system of loans to the Bantu Trust but here, once again, this capital is being supplied by the State and is State controlled. Private White capital has not been allowed in as entrepreneurs’ capital to develop these areas with the aid of private White skill and initiative.

But the Bantu Investment Corporation can borrow money from anybody!

It can, but it still remains the Bantu Investment Corporation.

What about it?

The hon. gentleman asked “What about it?” But that is not the use of private White capital in the reserves on an entrepreneurs basis. Once again they are trying to give words a different meaning on the Alice in Wonderland basis.

But there is yet another big difference between us and that is that we on this side of the House accept the necessity for the decentralization of industries on a basis of strategic and economic considerations but we do not accept the decentralization of industries on an uneconomic basis for ideological reasons.

Who accepts that?

The hon. Deputy Minister asks “Who accepts it?” The other day the hon. the Minister gave us figures in this House to the effect that they had spent something like R62,000,000 in establishing border industries and he also gave us the number of Bantu who had been given employment as a result. That works out at R3,600 per job created.

And what does it cost on the Witwatersrand? There it must be in the vicinity of R6,000.

All I can say is that this is uneconomic and it remains uneconomic for labour intensive industries of the kind the hon. gentleman is trying to see established on the borders of the reserves. [Interjections.] We are being told that they are going to reverse the flow of Bantu from the reserves into our White areas and that they are going to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas.

Why do you talk about the reserves and not about Bantu areas?

I do not know why these hon. gentlemen are becoming so excited, Mr. Speaker. They are eternally making interjections which have nothing to do with the argument. One wonders sometimes whether the hon. member for Heilbron understands the language that is being used. But I think it is due to frustration, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Krugersdorp is getting very sensitive about the outside world. Well, Sir, I do not know why. Surely he is supporting this policy that they are going to reverse the flow of Bantu from the reserves into the White areas and that they are going to get them to flow in the opposite direction? But what have they done after 18 years? What evidence is there that this flow is being reversed? Do you know, Sir, that this business of reversing the flow of Bantu into the White industrial areas is not long-term planning but short-term bluffing which is going to result in an economic disaster.

Hon. members have evinced a great deal of interest in what I have said at Britstown in respect of the policy of the United Party on non-White affairs. I have the notes here, Sir. They are in Afrikaans.

Are they the right notes?

Yes, they are the right ones. I do not propose to read them in full but there are some things in them which I said and to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. members opposite. I said—

What member of the audience was prepared to get up and say that he was safer to-day than he was 18 years ago? [Interjections.] I told them how much talk there had been and how they went from platform to platform saying that they had the solution. I told them how the Bantu population in the White areas had increased under this Government, both in the urban areas and in the rural areas. I told them about the White depopulation of the platteland and of the Bantu repopulation of the platteland, I told them about the second largest black town in Africa next to Johannesburg under the Nationalist Government. I went on to say to them that the only solution as far as the Whites in South Africa were concerned—

I showed that that would require the development of the White race to its fullest potentialities—educationally, economically, politically and spiritually—so that it could become so strong in numbers and quality that it would be able to maintain its position. I said the United Party was offering the country a policy based on two pillars—

I then went on to deal with the dynamic development of the Whites and showed that if we were to develop we would need real national unity in South Africa. I showed that if we were to develop we would need a strengthening and increase of the White population through immigration, through increased births and through maintaining the Coloured people as our friends. I showed that it would be necessary to have a revolutionary adjustment of our whole educational and training system to raise the standard of service to South Africa and I showed how important it was to have rapid and increasingly rapid economic development in order to get the maximum advance in the shortest possible time. I also showed how valuable it would be if we could have a philosophy which those who wished to be our friends could defend before the nations of the world.

I then dealt with the second pillar, namely that of the planned advance of the Bantu people and I mentioned certain things in connection therewith. I said that the number of Bantu in the White areas should be kept at the minimum in order that the numerical relationship between Whites and Bantu should not be too unfavourable. I also spoke of the dynamic development of the Bantu Reserves to carry the maximum Bantu population and to maintain them at a high standard of living. I spoke of the use of private White capital to that end. I said how this Government would not allow that. I then spoke about the planned uplift of the Bantu people so that they could appreciate the fruits of Western civilization and I asked for special attention to their political training so that with the passage of time they would have greater control over their own affairs in their own reserves and in their own industrial townships in our own areas. I hoped on a federal basis. That is what I said, Sir. Surely, Sir, that is evidence of planning; surely that is evidence of realism; surely that is evidence of foresight?

Did you also speak about their representation in Parliament?

No, I did not. The people attending that meeting were intelligent people. They knew what the United Party policy was. This had been explained in our pamphlets for years. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister knows that. However, I did stress one thing and that is that the basic difference between ourselves and the Nationalist Party was that the policy of the Nationalist Party was based on fear and prejudice and that the policy of the United Party was based on confidence, faith in the future and realistic planning. [Interjections.] The trouble with this Government, Sir, is that its policies are so riddled with inconsistencies and unrealistic elements that it simply cannot plan for the future. Unless these unrealistic elements are removed we will have no secure future and we will have no guarantee that there will be advance. Neither can we have planning in accordance with recognized economic principles. In fact, it will be very difficult to have any planning at all. These basic inconsistencies of the policies of this Government are, first of all, that they think you can have racial separation coupled with maximum economic growth. They think they can have White unity and narrow Afrikaner nationalism; they think you can have security and alienation of the racial groups from one another even to the extent of impoverishing the country economically.

Let me give you some examples of what racial separation does to our economic growth. Here you have the economic development five-year plans based on the increasing use of non-White labour. Something like 400,000 more Bantu are to be taken into the economy within the next five years. At the same time you have the Deputy Minister talking of drastically reducing the Bantu labour supply. How do you reconcile those two? Then you have some Ministers talking of making more efficient use of better trained non-White labour in the White areas. And having said that, they refused the Chamber of Commerce permission to start a non-White commercial College in Soweto in Johannesburg. They gave instructions that certain of the Bantu literacy schools in that area must be closed down. They pegged the contribution to Bantu education at the 1958 level, namely R13,000,000. They concentrate all non-White training facilities in the border areas. How do you get the maximum use of trained non-White labour?

Why don’t you do something?

Why did you ban the commercial college?

Why don’t they go somewhere else?

Don’t ask why they do not go. Why did they not get permission to establish it in Soweto?

For very good reasons.

Sir, for very good reasons. That is not a Bantu reserve; that is a good reason. They wreck our hopes of building up a modern highly industrialized economy in South Africa because they keep thinking in terms of the skills of only 3,000,000 people when we have a population of between 16,000,000 and 17,000,000. They are not making provision for those 3,000,000 to supply the skills, the leadership, and the necessary productivity for the whole population. They talk of economic advance and they stifle economic development of the key points of the separate development programme, namely the reserved, by refusing to allow development with the aid of private White capital, private White skill and private White entrepreneurs. They talk about the moral benefits of the apartheid policy, and they flounder hopelessly when they have to face the problem of consolidation of those Bantu areas. They preach job reservation and in practice they grant exemptions from it every day because of the unrealisticness of the policy. They talk in theory about geographic separation of independent Bantustans which may or may not in the future join with the Republic in a commonwealth. The hon. member for Florida says, “In hierdie benadering beskou die Regering die hele Suid-Afrikaanse mark as een ekonomiese eenheid; daar is gevolglik geen sprake van die versnippering van die Suid-Afrikaanse mark soos sommige weet te beweer nie.” You are giving them independence, Mr. Speaker, but you are not dividing up your market. I ask you, Sir, how can you reconcile that sort of thing? How can you plan in the future for your economy when you have these inconsistencies? Hon. gentlemen talk about national unity. You get the hon. member for Primrose addressing the Sabra youth conference and saying: “As die nuut verworwe blanke eenheid in Suid-Afrika die beginsels van Afrikaner-eiesoortigheid sou aantas, sal die eenheid geen seen wees nie, maar ’n vloek.” That is what the hon. member said. How are you going to get national unity on that basis? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why that hon. member should have the privilege of shouting at every speaker. I think his behaviour is most shocking. I want to say that what the hon. gentleman is offering, is co-operation on terms—not national unity in South Africa. Then there is the clash between security and the policies of the party which can result in economic stagnation. Look at the position we have. We all know that no country can be strong militarily or otherwise without a healthy and wealthy economy. We have the Minister of Economic Affairs only the other day speaking of border industries and saying that even if the ideological aspect were removed, he would still favour these industries because it was economically desirable to bring industry to labour. But if an economy did not serve ideological objectives, it was barren and senseless. When there are greater needs than your economy, he declared, then you bend your economy. That is what we have heard in the past. He was prepared to bend and break the economy for ideological reasons.

Who spoke about breaking it?

I think, Sir, not only on this occasion, but he said it previously in this House.

He did not speak about breaking it; he spoke of bending it.

No, he spoke about bending and breaking it in this House on an earlier occasion. While we have these inconsistencies in the policy of this Government South Africa will never go ahead. I believe that if we are to have healthy development and proper planning we must accept instead first of all White unity based on full equality of status, mutual respect and undivided loyalty of all citizens of the Republic to this Republic, and to no-one else. I believe, secondly, that we want a level of economic integration that will ensure an adequate supply of efficient labour to meet the requirements of an expanding economy here in South Africa and the natural expectations of all our people for a higher standard of living and a better life. I believe, thirdly, that we want security based on co-operation of all races and dynamic progress for both White and non-White. I believe that we are getting none of those things from this Government, and that is why I want to move the amendment which I have already read out to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been easier for me if I could have replied to, say, the hon. members for Constantia or Pinetown or Parktown. I listened attentively to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say, and I am glad that he staked off the debate widely. I am very glad that he staked off the debate on both the economic field and, away from the economic field, on various other important fields, specifically this great problem in South Africa, the problem of solving our Bantu question. I think he can expect other speakers from this side of the House to enter the debate soon and carry the points he mentioned in the last part of his speech further and debate them to a conclusion with the Opposition.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition covered two fields and he began by saying that he wanted to offer the hon. the Prime Minister every support and all the help the Opposition could offer if a crisis should ever arise in South Africa. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very good to hear that, it is very welcome. But I ask myself the question: Is it not in any case merely the duty of the Opposition to stand by the Government during a crisis?

Did you fulfil that duty during the war years?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to the second matter and said that it had now been established that they were just as good patriots as we are. I would be glad if the hon. member for Wynberg would remain. He said: “To be a good South African it is not necessary to join the Nationalist Party”. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this direct question: “If one joins the National Party, is one then also a good South African?”

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily! If one does not join, one is always a good South African, but if one does join, then one is perhaps a good South African. In other words, the hon. Leader is now stating in his reply from his bench there that he agrees with the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just walked out of this House, when she said that the English-speaking people who voted for the National Party in the election were betraying the English group. In other words, he is now agreeing with the hon. member for East London (North) sitting behind him who wrote a letter to a English-speaking businessman in which he stated that the people who were joining the National Party, these Ministers in particular, were “yellow” Englishmen. Now, the mask has fallen from this fine story we heard here this morning. It has now been unmasked. Then there is also his lieutenant sitting right next to him who, on 9th March, said in Grahamstown: “Time would show that the Nationalist Party would not for long be able to tolerate English-speaking members as equal South Africans”. The hon. member for Wynberg said here in the Cape: “The Nationalist Party was frantically trying to woo English-speaking voters, yet its only cohesive factor was its hatred of the English and its fear of the Black man”. I am mentioning these things, Sir, because he spoke about national unity. This side of the House has a very clear basis of national unity. During the election in March we stated it to the voters of South Africa on one platform after another, in every town in South Africa, in the same way, just as the hon. the Prime Minister recently stated it here in this House. That is our basis of national unity which differs from the deeds, when it comes to the proof of the matter, of the hon. Opposition there on the opposite side. That is why I cannot take too much notice of these words which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition uttered here to-day.

But to proceed, Sir. The hon. Leader said here to-day that he had always stood for this important, golden principle in our foreign policy, this corner-stone of the foreign policy of South Africa, i.e. that there may be no intervention in our domestic affairs. Fine words, very fine words. In the days to come, in all circumstances, I believe that he will ultimately take his Party with him on that basis. But a little to his right-hand side sits the hon. member for Yeoville who said and wrote that our foreign policy was in any case doomed to failure on account of our reprehensible domestic policy. A little further along sits the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who has said in this House that we appeal to the principle of non-intervention but that our racial laws are unacceptable in eyes of the world. In the same paragraph in Hansard he said that Hitler had appealed to the same principle to justify his pernicious racial laws but that the world had found therein a casus belli against Germany. Do you see, Sir, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopts this attitude, which on the face of it is a fine and pure attitude, then one need only draw the curtain away to ask what lies behind it. It is then time for him to rise and repudiate totally those things which have been said and indicate that those things will be eradicated. He spoke to-day about how we must help the non-Whites. But how were we not criticized in the recent election, how did they not try to bring this Government to a fall, how did they not try and oust me from Queenstown by claiming that we were doing too much for the non-Whites? And do you know, Sir, that what was for me the biggest joke of all was that it was said that it was being done by our own people. I am referring to that candidate which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sought so arduously and so far afield to stand against me in Queenstown.

And where did you come from?

But the irony of the matter is that this time there were candidates available in Queenstown. I did in fact come from somewhere else but this time there were candidates available in Queenstown; the hon. member for East London (North) was available and there was also his great friend, Mr. Ivor Hillhouse, who lives in the constituency and who would very much have liked to stand as candidate. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sought far and wide and brought one of his “bright boys” there. That person not only stated, he went and put it in writing, that the Nationalist Government was spending R2,154 on a Black student …

That is a fact.

That hon. member says that it is a fact. He also went from one platform to another in my constituency. The United Party candidate wrote it out in his own handwriting. He said that the Nationalist Government was spending R2,154 on a Black student whereas it was only spending R584 on a White student, and then he wrote as a postscript: “The United Party will never discriminate against the White man in South Africa like this”. He signed his name to that, S. A. van der Heever, and he appended the date. That is what one sees when one draws away the curtain.

We then come to the scare story which is being spread, particularly in the eastern part in connection with the Black states and all the dangers which will develop. We go further and come to this old policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he would rather see— this is in any event what his policy would lead to—eight Blacks sitting in this Parliament than see eight Bantu states, or Bantustans as he calls them, being established.

And after that he spoke at Britstown!

To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here and talked about many things, to which he will certainly get replies, but did not say a single word about that old policy of his. He came here with his new idea of a federal state and did not breath a word about race federation. Is it a new concept or is it an old one? We shall have to decide that in this Parliament. Hon. members of the Opposition have come forward here and stated that in a federal state one does not, in any case, have equal units. Will the next member on that side to speak tell me that the federal state, the national units, which comprise the federation of Australia, are not equal? Do they want to tell me that the Canadian Provinces are not equal; do they want to tell me that the American States are not equal? That is in fact the sovereign principle in the American Constitution. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to state that he wants to introduce something entirely new in South Africa which does not exist anywhere in the world, which is what his race federation policy in fact is, then one could perhaps understand it, but surely it is absolute nonsense for him to refer to America and Australia and use those examples to prove how he wants to introduce the Transkei as an unequal federal unit in a South African federal state. Sir, Those are a few notes which I made on that first part of his speech, but I am convinced that the debate will be taken further by hon. members on this side in regard to all the points which he mentioned in his speech.

I come now to the second part where the hon. Leader of the Opposition discussed bread-and-butter affairs and I should like to begin straight away with water. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we were doing so little in regard to water. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that since 1948 R300,000,000 has been spent on water conservation by this Government?

Where is the water?

From 1910 to 1948 a mere R64,000,000 was spent on water. Does it appear from that as if this Government is neglecting its duty? It appears from these Loan Estimates that we are spending more than R56,000,000 on water this year.

What about the Vaal Dam?

Can you make rain?

I come to a second point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. He said that the Budget was inflationary, One of the new experts on that side says, “of course it is inflationary”; I hope he will get up to prove it to me. Mr. Speaker, this Budget makes provision for certain expenditure. Almost R27,000,000 more than last year is being spent on Defence; R13,000,000 more than last year is being spent on Social Welfare and Pensions; R14,000,000 more than last year is being spent on food subsidies; R14,500,000 more than last year is being spent on subsidies to the provinces; R30,000,000 more is being spent on increased salaries and other benefits to Public Servants; and R3,000,000 more is being spent on additional assistance to universities. We have disposed of the Budget in Committee of Supply. Can hon. members of the Opposition mention to us where they have proposed that the expenditure should be less? Why is the expenditure of South Africa in the public sector, the Public Expenditure, so high? It is an important question and the public outside must understand it. Basically it is attributable to the rapid growth of our economy. One simply has to render the basic services; one cannot lag behind. For example, we now have a refinery at Milnerton. Just look at all the services which have to be rendered, and without those services one cannot get development in South Africa. In addition to those services there are also administrative services. Just discuss the matter with one’s Public Servants; discuss it with the Secretary to every Government Department and ask him where he can cut down on his Department’s expenditure and where he can cut down on his staff. I challenge hon. members of the Opposition to bring me one secretary of a Government Department who does not inform one that he finds himself jn the unenviable position that the Cabinet wants him to cut down but that he does not know where to start. I admit the need for retrenchment. I say that if our economy is rising too high and we have to bring down expenditure in the private sector, then we must do our utmost to bring down expenditure in the public sector as well.

But I want to remind hon. members of the fact that it is not only the Central Government which spends money. Also spending money one has the provinces, the public state corporations and all one’s local authorities. Hon. members of the Opposition plead for reduced expenditure by the Central Government, but it is they who control the Johannesburg City Council. A United Party caucus is in charge of the Johannesburg City Council, and they go and pay their Town Clerk more than the hon. the Prime Minister gets. Their hands are not entirely clean in regard to this matter therefore. As I have already said, we have already disposed of this Budget in the Committee of Supply and this expenditure must be incurred, and now the money must be found to finance these services. Surely it was one of the fundamental characteristics of the hon. the Minister of Finance that he wants to finance this Budget on a non-inflationary manner, and that one is able to do by obtaining revenue and bringing about savings. After the Committee of Supply we disposed of the taxation proposals. Hon. members of the Opposition did not see their way clear to telling us that we had to spend less money but they did see their way clear to telling us that we ought not to collect all this money. They proposed that taxes be reduced …

They were worried about the tax on beer.

They stated directly that we should collect more than R8,000,000 less in taxes and they suggested another additional R6,000,000. To come back to saving, this Budget has many measures to promote saving. Time will not allow me to go into all of them but I just want to mention this one example. The man who employs himself and who purchases a life annuity from an annuity fund is allowed to deduct R2,000 from his taxable income instead of R1,200 as before. That is a saving measure. One of the hon. members on the opposite side pointed out that only a rich man can spend R.2,000 on a life annuity and he said that this Budget is therefore a rich man’s budget, but he did not add that the person making pension contributions is now allowed to contribute R1,000 to his pension and deduct it from his taxable income, and that up to now he has only been able to deduct R600. Much was said here about the man in the street, but nobody on that side of the House told us who the man in the street is. To-day the Opposition says one thing and to-morrow it says another. The conclusion I arrive at is that the man in the street is everyman; that all of us are ordinary people and when I look at the Opposition, then I am quite inclined to believe it. I want to point out, for the sake of the record, that this Budget is going to put R13,000,000 more in the form of pensions into our people’s pockets; I want to point out that this Budget is making a tax concession to physically disabled people who have to incur expenditures in order to be able to make a living. The allowance they will receive has been increased from R300 to R600 and the income limit below which they can receive the allowance has also been raised. I should also like to point out that the price of bread has been fixed; I want to point out that we are spending R14,000,000 on food subsidies; I want to point out that the Post Office is the savings bank of the poor man and that we have increased the rate of interest there and that we have increased the amount which is not subject to income tax by R200. I want to point out that we have in the past pegged the rates of interest, which are now a heavy burden, by means of the pegging of deposit rates, and that that has been directly beneficial to the less well-to-do people in the country, the houseowners and farmers. These steps were criticized and opposed by the Opposition. The hon. member for Parktown can contradict me if he is able to do so. Right from the outset the Opposition was opposed to the pegging of deposit rates, which has benefited our people directly. I want to point out that rents have this year i been fixed by this Government. I want to point out that the income limit below which people can qualify for sub-economic housing has been raised. I also want to say a few words about taxes under this Budget. There is no person who paid taxes last year who will, with the same income, pay taxes this year. Any person who fell out last year will also fall out this year. The rebate of 5 per cent was merely withdrawn. Consequently every person who qualified for taxation last year and who falls under the same scale this year, will pay 5 per cent more in the new financial year. I just want to point out that a man with two children and an income of R1,826 does not pay any income tax. If he has three children then he does not pay income tax until he earns R2,314; and if he has four children he does not pay income tax until he earns R2,802. Therefore, the man who is really poor is not affected by these proposals. I just want to show you what people will pay this year in comparison with last year. I just want to take the case of a person with three children; time will not allow me to mention further examples. A person with three children paid R27, as regards all forms of taxation, on an income of R2,000. This year the same person will pay R24, R3 less therefore. A person with an income of R2,500 and three children paid R46.02 last year; this year he will pay R46.95. I just want to point out that I have included the provincial tax and personal tax in these figures. The figures which I mentioned here apply to the Cape. A person with an income of R3,000, with three children, would have had to pay R97.40 last year; this year he will pay R100.15 an increase of R2.75. That is the total taxation for a taxpayer in the Cape, including the Central Government taxes, personal taxes and provincial taxes. In regard to the increase in the cost of living which the hon. member spoke about, I do not want to comfort people with this, but it is a fact that there is not a country in the Western world which does not have this problem. Just let me furnish a few figures. In the United Kingdom the cost of living from May, 1965, to May, 1966, increased by 4.4 points. In West Germany, from March, 1965, to March, 1966, it increased by 4.6 points; in the Netherlands, for the last six months only, it increased by 4 per cent; in Belgium it was in March of this year 4.65 per cent higher than in March of last year. In Austria it was 5.1 points higher in March this year than it was last year and in South Africa it was 3.2 per cent higher in June of this year than it was in June of last year.

If everything is so wonderful, why are we not all driving about in Cadillacs?

I am not saying that everything is wonderful. But the other side of the picture must also be shown. The other day I paid a call on a certain student in Stellenbosch and I called at two hostels and you would be astounded at the rows and rows of motor cars standing there. One can enter anybody’s house nowadays and find that they not only have one radio, they have three or even four. That is the other side of the picture, and we do not begrudge our people having that. There has been the increase in rates of interest. In America to-day the rate of interest on money lent out by the banks is the highest since 1930. In Britain the rate is 7½ per cent, in Germany per cent, in the Netherlands 7¾ per cent, and so I can go on. I want to say the following about the cost of living before I conclude. I admit that living is expensive. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) finds it enjoyable, let him do so. I admit that living is expensive and that I have a hard time coming out on my Parliamentary salary, but I have to do so. But it is the result of the prosperity which we have in South Africa and of the development which we have, of the far-sightedness of this Government, which saw in what direction we were moving and took steps to ensure the economic and military defensibility of South Africa. The hon. member need not think that our people outside are so politically stupid that they cannot understand these things, and we are going to tell them about these things in the recess; the Opposition may as well decide to remain in the Cape during the recess. We have seen to the development and the defence of South Africa, to roads and water and Sasol, and we have, as it were, moved too quickly because time was against us. In a certain sense time is still against us to-day and we must move quickly. We are practically taking what I previously called a calculated risk, and because we have to spend so much money in such a short time, with so few people to do the work, our cost structure has gone up and we have experienced this threat of inflation. But our people outside have all had good work to do. Not one unemployed person walked the streets, and now we must in an orderly fashion try to put on the brakes, to try and return to a more moderate course without sacrificing our prosperity or retarding our growth. That is what the hon. the Minister of Finance is trying to do through his monetary measures and this Budget, and I want to express the sincere hope that he is succeeding. In fact, the Governor of the Reserve Bank said in his address that the economy is moving forward at a slower pace. If that happens, but want to ask the hon. the Minister, if rt is possible, to take steps as quickly as possible when it happens, but not before, to amend our rate of interest pattern so that the burden which is being borne by our farmers and retail dealers in the rural areas can be alleviated.

I feel that we on this side of the House are entitled to receive from a more responsible source on the opposite side of the House than from the hon. member for Queenstown a definite reaction and an official reaction to the offer which was made by my hon. Leader, repeated again to-day, that we on this side of the House are prepared to assist the hon. the Prime Minister in every field in which a bi-partisan approach can be found to deal with our foreign problems. [Interjections.] When I listened to the hon. member for Queenstown and to the interjections, partly inaudible, from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, it seemed to me that their remarks and the way in which they were received in some quarters in this House made a very hollow thing of the appeals we have had since the advent of the Republic to find national unity in this country. I trust that later in this debate we will hear from the Minister concerned whether he similarly regards as insincere the offer which my hon. Leader made on behalf of members of this side of the House.

Until the hon. member for Queenstown spoke to-day, L. had believed, as the result of what I have regarded as a stimulating experience, attending my first Session of this House, that a measure of success had been attained in: the attempt to find the largest field for common endeavour in so far as we in this House are concerned; that there had been some success in our attempt to determine the maximum extent of common ground on which to co-operate for the benefit of our country, the maximum field for combined effort in the interest of all the people of our country, not only for to-day but for to-morrow and for all time, and that whilst there were radical differences in the policies of the Government arid the party on this side of the House, those problems would be isolated and dealt with. I; think the common ground which has been found and established in regard to foreign affairs has been dealt with by my Leader, but I think in the domestic sphere we are on common ground in the maintenance of law and order in this country of ours, the need for the advancement of our non-White population and the need to secure our own standards of living and our own way of life. There are many others but I think these are issues which are relevant to the amendment which my hon. Leader moved to-day, I think the measure of the success of our endeavours during this Session to find fields for common endeavour gives us the opportunity of viewing these problems and judging the method in which these problems are being tackled, the attempts which are being made to find solutions and the efficiency or’ otherwise of the implementation of the policy of the Government.

I should like to remind the House of the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he introduced his Budget. The Minister commenced by referring to the “objectives which my fiscal plan will strive to promote”, and which he summarized as follows. He summarized four objectives and I want to deal with the fourth one—

He went on to say the whole future of South Africa in every respect that counts, depends on the continued realization of these objectives. The hon. the Minister then concluded, after dealing with his Budget, with this fourth objective, namely his plan to enable the citizen of this country to meet the rise in costs. He said—

Now, in the short period of time which has elapsed we have the evidence around us in all spheres that the attempt to stabilize the prices of foodstuffs has not succeeded, the measures envisaged by the Minister in his Budget. I want to say that when we look at the position in this country, and I deal particularly with the first leg of the amendment moved by my Leader, when he considered that group of persons who have a fixed income, the salaried man, the wage-earner, the pensioner, the man who is unable to talk about having a good month in the shop or a bad month. The man who must balance his budget on a fixed income month after month. Those are the people who are not faring very well under this Budget, and in fact I feel that we at this stage and in the light of present-day conditions, are entitled to say that the Government is failing the man with a fixed income. The Government is failing to assist the salaried man in the very objective the Minister stated in his Budget.

I want to relate some aspects of this accusation without going into a large number of figures. I think the facts speak for themselves. The hon. member for Queenstown conceded that living costs were high. But there are methods by which this Government could have assisted these people, by which they could have been given some practical assistance to combat the cost of living. There are some fields where the Government has been totally ineffective in dealing with this problem and assisting these people. Let me, for instance, refer to the White Paper issued in connection with this Budget. In dealing with and reporting upon the economic position in 1965, the very satisfactory fact is recorded that employment remained at a high level, that the number of registered unemployed, Whites, Coloureds and Indians, stood at 10,851 at the end of December, 1965, and that this was the lowest figure for any month since 1951. Now, if that is the state of the employment in this country, that there is so little unemployment, and at the same time we find every industry and every Department of State and every commercial undertaking complaining of a shortage of labour, what earthly reason is there for this Government to persist in penalizing the state pensioner, who wants to go out and work, by taking away his temporary allowance?

What inducement is there for a pensioner to go out and work when the first R30 that he earns he has to pay back to the State by way of a tax against his temporary allowance? After all, Mr. Speaker, why do the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport persist in depriving these people of the right to implement their pensions? The Minister of Transport went even further, when he said that he could not re-employ all those pensioners who had been in the Railway service and wished to re-enter employment. So that if any one of these unfortunate people finds a job with an engineering firm, he has to pay a tax of R30 a month to the State. What inducement is there for him to take up work outside when he cannot be re-employed by the Railways? Sir, when these pensioners’ services are used they are services which will increase productivity, and at the same time these pensioners are helped to combat the rising cost of living with which they are faced. Sir, these deductions that are being made from the temporary allowance are unjustifiable. Why was the temporary allowance given in the first instance? Surely it was given because these people who had served the State for long periods, had been employed by the State, were because of the laws receiving a pension which was an inadequate reward for the services which they had rendered. So the temporary allowance was given to them to help them meet the cost of living. They had earned their pension and if they had earned their pension, the temporary allowance was given to help them in view of the rising cost of living. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions knows that they have a good case, but he is having difficulties with the hon. the Minister of Finance to release this source of revenue, because it is only a source of revenue …

You must also take into account that the Minister of Transport has to balance his Budget.

To grant this concession, I suggest, would not cost the State one cent more. If these men sit at home and do nothing, they will be paid this temporary allowance. They can sit at home and will be paid. Why must the man if he goes out and takes on a job of work, be penalized? The man who says: “No, I cannot sit idle,” why must he be penalized? Why must the State take R30 from him every month because he goes out and earns a little extra? The State will pay him if he sits idle smoking his pipe on the stoep, but if he wants to serve his country and take up employment, he is penalized.

Have you worked out what it will cost us in loss of revenue? After you have done that, come and speak again.

Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. the Minister of Finance has turned a blind eye to this particular problem, but I think it is a very real problem and there is no justification for the position that if a man sits at home on his stoep and smokes his pipe and listens to the S.A.B.C., or Current Affairs all day, he should be entitled to keep his R30. while the man who does a job of work should not be entitled to keep that amount.

The other point which I cannot understand as far as the Government is concerned is why it consistently and persistently rejects the appeals which we have made on this side of the House to evolve a system whereby salary increases to the Public Servants and the salaried men can be related to cost of living more promptly than is done at the present time. Sir, it is a fact that just as prosperity takes a long time to trickle through to the working man, so it is a long time that must elapse before the working man has his wage or salary increased to keep pace with the spiralling cost of living. I can see no reason why the Government should not accept what has been suggested …

But your leader complained that the Minister of Finance was not curtailing expenditure sufficiently and you ask for further expenditure.

The position is that the labourer is worthy of his hire and if the Government cannot control cost of living, we have no right to expect of the public servant that he should work for an uneconomic wage or salary in relation to that cost of living.

Even before the hon. Minister of Finance presented his Budget, Mr. Robert Botha, the president of the Federation of Salaried Staff Associations, complained about the rising cost of living. That was as far back as June. He said—

Then he went on to say—

This will go on, Sir, until a formula is accepted by this Government whereby salaries are related to the cost of living index on an automatic basis.

Then I come to a further aspect and that is the question of the allowances for Income Tax purposes in regard to insurance premiums and pension contributions, to which the hon. member for Queenstown also referred. Sir, it is all very well to say that the man who can afford it can deduct a larger amount from his taxable income to enable him to purchase an annuity, an increase from R1,200 to R2,000. It is all very well to say that the man who is a contributor to a pension fund is helped in that he can write off his pension contributions. But what is the position of the young salaried man who is married and as a matter of Drudence decides to insure himself, insure his life in case of anything happening to him during his young age? What does he get? He is allowed R25 deduction in respect of premiums which he pays on his life insurance. That is all. Surely the hon. Minister does not have to look far to find out what small insurance cover a young married man can get by paying a premium of that sort from the age of, say, 30. So the young married man who is prudent and takes out an insurance because of the non-existence of a pension or other fund to which he can contribute, is not going to get the benefit, but a man who can spend R2,000 a year buying himself an annuity can write the whole lot off, and then he can go further and invest R10,000 in the Post Office free of income tax. But that does not help the small family man.

I want to come to a final point and that is the question of the cost of foodstuffs. When the Housewives League approached the late hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs earlier this year, it is reported that the hon. the Prime Minister assured them that unjust exploitation would not be allowed and that the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs was keeping a close watch on commodity prices, and that any price rises which appeared unjustifiable would be investigated by his Department. In view of the price rises that are self-evident, I think the housewife is entitled to know from the Government what price rises have been investigated, what is being done to control these price rises. All we have heard is that the price of ginger pop and a few other minerals are being controlled, the price of mineral waters is being controlled, a semi-luxury, and even then the price has gone up. But there is no indication as to what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has been doing following this close watch which he undertook to keep on commodity prices. One finds the extraordinary situation to-day that the producer of foodstuffs has a justifiable grievance that he is not getting a fair price for his product, and at the same time the consumer has a justifiable grouse that he is being asked to pay too much when he purchases those particular products. There is something wrong. We have got bureaucracy in the extreme; a potato board, a mealie board, a chicory board, an onion board, and many, many other boards, but the fact remains that these prices are rising and that the producer still has a legitimate complaint that he is not getting a fair return for his product.

The disastrous aspect of this rising cost of living to my way of thinking is to be found in our towns. Sir, we have a Government with a policy that as many as possible of the Bantu must be removed out of the Western Cape. But I want to say this to the hon. the Minister that there are many homes where the retention of a Bantu servant is essential so that the young mother can go out and work and help supplement the income of the family; otherwise the family could not make ends meet. And those domestic servants of a reliable type are not to be found to-day amongst the Coloured population in the Cape; they are going into industry. The Coloured girls are entering factories, working in clothing factories, etc. They are not available for domestic help. It is not only necessary that these people should be retained to do this kind of work, but it also means that the family life that should be a foundation of our society is being disrupted by these young mothers having to go out to work to supplement the income of the family.

I believe that we are entitled to say to the Government that we see no signs of a movement towards achieving the fourth objective which the hon. the Minister of Finance set himself in his Budget. In fact, all tendencies are in the opposite direction, and until we feel that the Government can assure us that steps will be taken to arrest the ever-increasing cost of living and that steps will be taken to assist the salaried man and the wage-earner in order that their incomes can be equated to the cost of living—until that is done, we on this side of the House cannot do otherwise than to support the amendment moved by my hon. Leader.

The hon. member who has just sat down had quite a lot to say but there was not really much in what he said. I just want to tell him that we do not appreciate the remark he made at the start in respect of the hon. member for Queenstown. I do not think it was fitting for the hon. member to make such a remark, particularly since he was speaking as a back-bencher.

There are two points on which I should like to say something. The one is the so-called patriotism of the United Party which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here. When one’s Opposition, the alternative Government of our country, comes along and says, as it did recently when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion, and as it did again to-day: “Look, we are good Afrikaners, we are very good patriots and you must accept us as such …”

We have always been, but what about you?

When they say that I want to point out that they have all their lives stood with one foot overseas, but now they come along and inform this House and the country outside in their speeches that they are the loyal patriots.

Did your future not depend on the defeat of Hitler?

I shall begin straight away with that hon. member. If we as Afrikaners are patriots, I want to go back a little in history. The United Party is asking us to-day to give them a testimonial. If a clerk has been in my employ for three or four years and asks for a testimonial I am prepared to give him a testimonial to the effect that he has behaved himself well and that he is this, that and the other. If I go into the past of the United Party, I cannot give them a testimonial to the effect that they are good patriots. In December, 1958, the hon. member for Yeoville was overseas. He held a Press conference there and according to the Transvaler of 1st December, 1958, he said at that I Press conference (translation)—

That was just after the time, i.e. in 1958, when the U.P. had suffered such an overwhelming defeat in the election. The hon. member for Yeoville went further on that occasion and said (translation)—

You ought to feel ashamed of yourself. I have denied that I ever said anything like that and the then Minister of Foreign Affairs ascertained, after an inquiry, that I did not say anything like that.

But who is going to bring the United Party into power?

I never used those words.

The hon. member said it overseas and now I want to know how countries overseas can help to bring the United Party into power. Why does this hon. member say such things overseas?

But he never said that.

Was he then being a good South African and a good patriot?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not obliged to take my word for it when I say that I never used those words?

Order! What we are dealing with are words which were used outside this House.

If the hon. member maintains that he did not use those words then I accept that, and then I leave him at that. I then proceed to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition addressed the Constantia branch of his party in Maynardville on 4th March, 1963, he said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said according to the Burger of that date.

What is wrong with that?

Those are the good Afrikaners and the good patriots!

It is done in order to remain well informed.

Let us have a look now at what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said before his Transvaal Congrëss in Pretoria in August, 1963. There he said—

He was referring here to the race federation plan of the United Party. He spoke there about the “responsible” nations of Africa and Asia. Later on I shall quote what these nations said at that time and it will be interesting to compare it with what the Opposition said at that time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition proceeded to say at that congress—

What was the “cause” of the United Party? It was that they wanted to take over the Government of the country. And if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and states that they should enlist the services of all the races and all the nations, both here and overseas …

Did S. E. D. Brown help you with this speech?

Is it patriots who want to enlist the aid of countries abroad to be able to come into power here? Let us now look at what Ghana had to say at about the same time. We must remember that when the question before the electorate at that time was whether South Africa should become a Republic or not, the Leader of the Opposition said that we should first go and ask Dr. Nkrumah whether he would give his permission for us to remain within the Commonwealth. In the Burger of 17th March, 1963, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the delegate from Ghana to the United Nations had said the following (translation)—

Those are the leaders with whom the Opposition kept in touch. [Interjections.] But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that he was keeping in touch with Asia, but let us now have a look at what India had to say before the United Nations at that time (translation)—

That is what India had to say at that time and that is what the United Party is still saying to-day, i.e. that the Government must change its policy. Let us listen now to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said before his Party’s Congress in Bloemfontein in November, 1963. In the Transvaler of 22nd November, 1963, the following report appeared (translation)—

A certain Major De Wet of Lindley then stood up and said (translation)—

That is what one of their own people said at the Congress. The report goes on to state that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in reply to that, reacted as follows (translation)—

When an Opposition comes along and states that it will do everything, both at home and abroad, to bring the Government of the day to a fall, what right do they have to ask for a testimonial to the effect that they are patriots? I certainly cannot give them such a testimonial. Is that the right thing to do? The other day the hon. Chief Whip of the United Party in this House made an attack here on English and Afrikaans, and so on. But I should like to read what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said in October, 1963, when he was addressing a meeting in Durban (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said. Was he pleading for national unity there? Is that a patriot, somebody who wants to come along and ask us for a testimonial?

Now I should like to say something in regard to finance. During the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister the hon. member for Pinetown referred to what I had allegedly said on 22nd August in regard to banking in South Africa. The hon. member wanted the Prime Minister to say whether we were against foreign banks and foreign investments. It is all good and well to come along here and discuss a few minor matters, a few bottlenecks here and there. We should like to demonstrate to the Opposition how well things are going in this country. Surely we know what we had when the Opposition was still in power—there were days when we had no meat or bread and when we had to stand in queues all day long. But what I would like to tell the hon. member for Pinetown is that we have never been opposed to foreign investments in South Africa. Neither have we ever been opposed to foreign banks as such. The hon. member deliberately linked up the two matters so that a picture was painted from which it could be concluded that I had meant something quite different from what I said. That is why I want to state my attitude clearly again so that it cannot be wrongly interpreted and as such disseminated abroad. What the hon. the Prime Minister has said is correct, i.e. that we are not opposed to foreign investments. On the contrary, we welcome foreign investments. Neither are we against the foreign banks as such. But what we are against, is domination from outside—whether it is political or economic. We will not allow our country to be controlled or dominated from abroad.

I want to tell the hon. member something about banking. If we go back in history we shall see how banking originated in Europe. The hon. member knows that history. He knows the history of Rothschild and how he sent his two sons to Europe and other countries to establish banks there. What do we find when we look at our own banking in South Africa to-day? There are nine commercial banks and one general bank registered here. If we look at the picture as a whole, we find that 74 per cent of the shares capital of these banks is in the hands of foreigners, people abroad. That is the extent to which foreigners control these banks therefore. If we look at the deposits which these banks have at their disposal we find that 65 per cent are in the hands of those six foreign companies. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two of those banks, the Barclays and the Standard, alone control 63 per cent of all the business done by commercial banks in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Pine-town whether it is right and sound for such a large percentage of the business of the commercial banks in South Africa to be controlled from outside? We object to that and it is in that regard that we have said that the shares of these banks must gradually be sold here in this country, in the same way as the Netherlands Bank has done. This also fits into the pattern of the insurance companies as the hon. the Minister of Finance stated it the other day.

You can go and purchase Standard Bank shares in the share market.

It is as the hon. Minister of Finance put it the other day in respect of the insurance companies. A company can open a branch here, it can develop further, but ultimately one would like to see that company become a domestic one.

Is that Government policy?

Now I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he can tell me whether he wants the banks to be South African controlled or not? We have nothing against those people. We appreciate what they have done. We appreciate foreign investments. We give them credit for the development and for the financing which they have promoted here, for the sound economy and all the institutions which they have helped to build here. But we do not want to be dominated from outside. I want to give you a good comparison as far as Canada is concerned. There the Royal Commission on the Banking and Finance expressed itself as follows—

There is one thing which we must have very clear in our minds and that is that since banking is as strategic an element as defence, one cannot allow oneself to be made vulnerable to-day in South Africa. If the Opposition tells us that they support the Government as far as all these matters are concerned, they must also support the Government so that we can gradually over the years, with the co-operation of these people, achieve what the Netherlands Bank has done.

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown whether he is against those two banks doing the same that the Netherlands Bank has done? No, he is not against that; he cannot be against that if he wants to be honest and if he wants to see to it that it is only the best for South Africa which is of importance.

I just want to make a few remarks here about what the hon. member for Green Point said in regard to the cost of living. And if we argue about that it is not always necessary for me to give more details. We have discussed the matter here in detail this year and we have quoted figures. But the hon. member has now come along and told us that the cost of living has soared. But why does the hon. member not tell us that the salaries have, on a percentage basis, soared to a far greater extent? Now the Opposition comes along and tells us there are certain things we must make good and also certain concessions we must make; we must accommodate the people. But when this Government granted salary increases to its Government officials, the Railway officials and the teaching staff, the Opposition objected to that—they said it was propaganda for the election.

It was too.

No matter what we do, when this Government increases the salaries of its people it is propaganda. Were those officials not entitled to receive those increases?

Long before that.

Long before that there was not enough money. Now that those increases have been granted the Opposition comes along and objects because certain taxes have been increased. Why do those hon. members object to the increase in certain taxes? We cannot give our officials and Railway men any increases if we do not get extra taxes. It has been proved repeatedly in the past with figures—I have them here but I do not want to quote them all again—that where the cost of living has gone up a notch, the salaries and other allowances have gone up much higher. Where do we get cost of living from; how does it arise? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated just now that wages and salaries were also one of the elements of production. Do we now want greater production so that we can pay our people higher salaries? The whole world has a shortage of capital, in other words, rates of interest have had to go up—and they did. Concurrent with that, one’s cost also increased. We could not get past that. In the whole pattern of making provision for salaries provision has in fact been made, and we cannot get past that. What are we finding to-day in all fields? There is full employment in South Africa. There is not one industry where people are saying they do not have employment. We are finding—particularly in the building industry—that we actually have too few employees. Where this Government is promoting immigration in order to help that situation then we must also ensure that those people can find a good means of subsistence here. That is being done. They receive good salaries which are higher than they are in England or in other places. As far as housing is concerned, hon. members already have the figures. All the figures have already been quoted and I do not want to repeat them here. Adequate provision is being made for housing, for health and for pensions.

I want to conclude by saying that if this Opposition wants to prove to us that they are patriots, then they must stand by the Government now, not only as far as the two aspects which their hon. Leader mentioned, but also as far as the following few points are concerned. In the first place they must make it very clear to the public and the world outside that salaries and the incomes of companies, individuals, and businessmen have all proportionately increased much more than the cost of living has increased. That is the first and only request I want to make to the Opposition, namely to reveal these true facts to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon. members for Sunnyside and for Queenstown, because they expected this to be a financial debate and they came prepared for a financial debate. Then they found that the Leader of the Opposition raised general matters and the hon. member for Queenstown did reasonably well for his side. But the hon. member for Sunnyside found himself in great difficulties and tried to play the role of an all-rounder. In the first part of his speech he was struggling very hard with some newspaper cuttings which were put in his hand at the last minute, and then he turned to his prepared financial speech which followed up a speech made in the Budget when he wanted to reply to me on a Budget speech.

Now, the hon. member came back to his old hobby-horse, namely the question of Barclays Bank and the Standard Bank. The last time I did not mention the banks, but as he has mentioned them by name I will refer to them. I want to quote the hon. the Prime Minister. He is virtually repudiating the Prime Minister. He is criticizing the establishment and the control of these banks in this country.

That is not so, that is definitely not so.

He was criticizing the control of these banks in this country from overseas, and I want the Minister of Finance to answer the specific question: Does he agree with the hon. member for Sunnyside and, if he does agree, will he allow Barclays Bank and the Standard Bank to repatriate their funds from this country? That is the question he must answer.

I did not ask that.

If he objects to this control, will he allow them to repatriate their funds? Because I understood the Prime Minister to say quite specifically he welcomed these banks in this country, he welcomed overseas capital. Does the hon. member for Sunnyside appreciate the influence which these banks have in the overseas markets in recommending to their clients that they invest funds in South Africa? Does he appreciate the amount that has been invested in this country? The Minister of Finance knows that recently one of the big overseas insurance companies, when they had an amalgamation scheme, were asked not to repatriate a certain proportion of their capital out of South Africa. They were asked to leave their funds in this country, otherwise it would embarrass the Government.

You are twisting my speech—I did not say that.

The Government prefer those funds to be invested. When a Government member dealing with finance discusses a matter of this delicacy on the Finance Vote, I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to deal with it, and deal with it adequately. I hope he is going to say what his Government’s attitude is with regard to Standard Bank and Barclays Bank, and let them know whether their funds are going to be welcome in this country. If they are not welcome, let us know whether they will have to be repatriated from this country.

May I ask you a question?

Let us know where we stand. Or will the Minister treat that allegation with the contempt it deserves by ignoring it altogether.

May I put a question to you?

No.

He is afraid; he knows it. [Interjections.]

On a point of order. Sir, the hon. member for Pinetown is not prepared to answer a question by the hon. member for Sunnyside, and the hon. member says, “Hy is bang.” Should the hon. member not withdraw it?

Order! Will hon. members please not make so many unnecessary interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

Must the hon. member not withdraw that, Sir? Should he not withdraw that remark?

The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, it has been ruled in the past that if a member refuses to give way to a questioner, the questioner may not say, “Hy is bang.”

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that you have allowed the hon. member to say that I am afraid, in terms of the rules of the House.

Does the Netherlands Bank have its funds …

Order! The hon. member has made his speech. Can he not now allow the other hon. member to make his speech in peace?

I hope that if the hon. member for Sunnyside continues to be a member of this House he will adopt the same standards of courtesy as his own Prime Minister. Perhaps we will have some hope for him if he adopts that standard. I hope also, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of this debate when the Minister of Finance replies he will indicate what the Government’s policy is with regard to Barclays Bank and Standard Bank, as those two banks have been specifically mentioned by the hon. member for Sunnyside. If he does not refer to them then we will know that the Minister is treating the member for Sunnyside with the contempt he deserves. If he does mention them, we will be very interested to hear his reply.

Weren’t you here the other day when I said what the Government’s policy was?

No, Mr. Speaker. I specifically ask that the hon. the Minister of Finance deal with this matter in his reply as the matter has been raised again by the hon. member for Sunnyside. Either the hon. member for Sunnyside is speaking on behalf of his side of the House, or he is running a personal campaign.

My opinion still remains the same.

The country is entitled to know specifically from the Minister of Finance in the course of his reply what his attitude is, and I am not satisfied if he gives his reply by way of interjection now. I hope that he will give it in the course of his reply at the end of the speech. We are jealous of the good name of South Africa in the financial world. Speeches of that kind do South Africa’s name no good. They undermine overseas confidence in South Africa which we want to see maintained at a high level. Irresponsible statements of that kind must be repudiated, not only by this side of the House but must also be repudiated by the responsible Minister of Finance. I hope that the Minister will deal with this matter because it is essential that he deals with the matter in the interests of South Africa’s credit-worthiness in the outside world. I know the Prime Minister’s speech and his reply to me the other day when I raised the matter was reported in the financial papers in the outside world, both in New York and in London, and he was given prominence. For the matter to be raised again by the hon. member for Sunnyside will only result in further headlines overseas—I hope not nearly so prominent as those of the Prime Minister —and I trust that the Minister of Finance will deal with this because it is essential. It is well known that this speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside will be reported for overseas, it will be reported in the financial papers, and just as the Prime Minister’s words were publicized widely in the financial papers of both London and New York, so these words of the hon. member for Sunnyside will be publicized again.

Are you not over-estimating the importance of … [Interjections.]

It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker.

You are actually rating it higher than that of the Prime Minister.

I want to ask the Minister to deal with this matter specifically in the course of his reply in the interests of South African credit and South African banking.

I come now to the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We have come to the closing stages of this Session, Mr. Speaker. We will soon go back to our homes. Our constituents and other people are entitled to ask, “What has been achieved in this Session of Parliament so far as the ordinary problems of the every-day man are concerned?” He is not concerned with the headlines he sees in the newspaper when we play politics but when we talk about the ghost of Communism or which churches are or are not supporting Communism and all the “spook” stories which go around, he says: What have you done about the cost of living. The old age pensioner looks in vain for any help from this section of Parliament as far as food costs are concerned, or in so far as the cost of shelter is concerned.

Why use the words “in vain”?

I say it is so. He looks in vain in so far as costs are concerned. Will the hon. the Prime Minister argue that the price of food has gone down?

But why use the words “in vain”?

But he does look in vain because the costs have not gone down.

Look at the amount on the Estimates …

I have the Government’s own bulletin of statistics concerning the consumers’ price index. This is official. The latest figures in regard to the consumer price index for foodstuffs, on the basis of a hundred, show that the cost of living figure for Cape Town is 119.4; Port Elizabeth, 115.00; East London, 117.00; Kimberley, 118.8; and Pietermaritzburg, 116.4. The year of the basis is 1958.

You know very well that pensions have gone up by more than 19 per cent. It is nonsense.

I said in reply to the interjection by the hon. the Prime Minister that the old-age pensioner looks in vain with regard to food prices after the end of this Session of Parliament. That is true. Because food prices have not come down. The hon. the Prime Minister said: Why do I say they look in vain.

Have these pensions not gone up?

I said specifically the old-age pensioner looks in vain as far as food prices are concerned. The hon. the Prime Minister made this interjection and he now realizes that he has made a mistake. I said the old-age pensioner looks in vain in so far as food prices are concerned. He looks in vain as far as the cost of shelter is concerned. Young people starting out in married life look in vain as far as any easing of the burden of cost of living is concerned. They find it more difficult to rent houses, more difficult to borrow money to start off in their married lives. The artisan finds it more difficult. He finds that the cost of living has gone up. We find that the Housewives’ League went to see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. They told him that there were too many luxury flats being built and too few for the wage earner in the lower and middle income groups. They told him that there were too many petrol filling stations. They might have added a dozen other examples of over-trading in our cities. They said they were concerned about the disappearance of the half cent and that they were concerned about the increased price of food. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told these housewives that he was watching the position. But we have seen no action during this Session of Parliament. There was no action as far as foods were concerned. There was published recently in the Press a comparison of the purchasing power of the rand between 1960 and 1966. In 1960 the rand would buy 18 pints of milk whilst in 1966 it buys 14 pints. I answered the hon. the Prime Minister’s interjection with that point.

In 1960 the rand would buy 30 lbs. of potatoes, in 1966 it buys 15 lbs. In 1960 the rand would buy 3½ lbs. of cheese, in 1966 it buys 2 lbs. 14 oz. In 1960 the rand would buy 3½ lbs. of rump steak, in 1966 2½ lbs. In so far as vegetables are concerned comparative figures show 20 lbs. in 1960 and 12 lbs. in 1966. Jam reflects 8½ lbs. in 1960 and 6½ lbs. in 1966. Mealie rice shows 33 lbs. in 1960 and 30 lbs. in 1966. And so the ordinary housewife, the ordinary man as referred to by the hon. member for Queenstown in his remarks recently, look in vain for any hope in easing the burden of rising living costs in so far as the past Session of Parliament is concerned. They see no help in so far as the cost of food and the cost of the necessities of life are concerned. We find too that this is evidenced by the rise in debt. I will quote from a press report of the 28th July last. The number of insolvency cases discharged in the Cape Supreme Court this year was likely to be the highest in five years. Present figures indicate that there will be an increase of 25 per cent over the number of cases discharged last year. The number of cases in the Western Cape as far as companies and individuals were concerned —discharged in the Supreme Court up to last week—show a sharp increase over last year. So far this year 170 individuals have been compulsorily sequestrated and 18 have voluntarily surrendered their estates. I now quote from the newspaper report—

This is real evidence of the increased burden which the ordinary man has to carry. And it is not only in so far as food costs are concerned where the Government has failed. The Government has failed in so far as housing is concerned. It failed lamentably as far as housing is concerned. I have a report from the South African Boilermakers’ Society which described the current position as being a great housing scandal. The Boilermakers’ Society which is a trade union representing the artisan class, said in August of this year—

With that sort of money, said the report, he might be able to build a small rondavel but not much more. It has also been shown that the land could not be developed for less than R2,000 per half-acre for sale to the public. There they gave evidence of the difficulty which the ordinary person is experiencing in regard to housing. If inquiries are made with land and estate agencies in Cape Town or in the leading cities of this country you will find that they have more men out looking for properties for sale than they have men selling properties. Make inquiries at any of your leading cities. You will find that there are more men out looking for properties for sale than selling properties. It is true of course that there are some fortunate people that have been able to buy properties from Community Development, houses in condemned Coloured areas. They have been able to buy these houses, spend a bit of paint on them and do them up. The Coloureds were denied their right to live there. They have done them up and they call them the so-called Chelsea houses. They have done them up with a bit of paint, put a bit of furniture in them and sold them at a substantial profit. When they are in the know and in a privileged position they are not only able to sell them at a profit but because it is an isolated transaction that profit is exempt from income tax. So they get it both ways.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

When the House adjourned, I had dealt with the failure of the Government to deal with the rising living costs and I had started to deal with the question of housing, with the Government’s failure to provide adequate housing for the people. I want to refer to a recent address given by Mr. J. D. Roberts, whom I think all members will recognize as a leading industrialist in the building industry. He said this—

Dealing with the housing shortage, he said—

This is an admission by an authority that still much has to be done as regards housing. Recently, Mr. A. G. Byrd, speaking at a meeting, referred to the need for some form of national planning in the building industry, and said—

This illustration is well-known to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. There is a rapid rate of construction of African housing in Natal and Zululand. Brickmakers have been called upon to meet the demand for bricks by expanding their production capacity. With new plant coming into operation they were concerned when advised recently that due to shortage of funds no further bricks would be required until some time in 1967. Subsequently, the position was met in a temporary measure by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education giving permission to use levy funds to keep these Bantu employed. However, there is still a shortfall in housing, and the whole housing programme had to be substantially reduced for the time being. So the provision of housing not only for Whites but also for non-Whites is still lagging behind the apparent demand for the community.

We find that the Government is failing not only to meet the rise in living costs, not only failing with housing, but they are failing to arrest the cause of inflation. In any instance where any action by the Government, in implementation of its policy increases costs, it contributes to raising living costs. And here we come to a matter on which there will be dispute, namely, the question of border industries. The hon. member for Queenstown asked this morning whether we could give any example where we had criticized the Budget and where we had said expenditure should be reduced. I can give you one example now, and that is that R10,000,000 for border industries. We have criticized that because we are satisfied that the establishment of border industries is uneconomic. It is uneconomic because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has indicated to the House that if the country does not follow the Government’s directive it will, if necessary, introduce legislation. It is quite clear that it is not economic because …

Why do you say it is not economic? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education made a fair interjection. He says: “Why is it uneconomic?”. It is uneconomic for this reason. If it was economic industry would need no inducements to go there; it would Need no concessions to go there; it would need no compulsory legislation to go there, it would go there because it was in their own financial interest to do so.

Of course you have to offer inducements, of course you have to offer special terms, of course you have to offer special tax allowances, and special inducements of various kinds. Of course you have to offer special railway rates. Of course you even need to threaten to have legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister put a question to me, and I have answered the question fully. As soon as you introduce inducements, it is an admission that it is not economic.

The hon. member says that, as soon as you give an inducement, it is uneconomical. Could he mention to me one developed country in Europe that does not give inducements for industries to go to certain areas?

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister mention one country in Europe which compels people by law to establish industries in certain areas?

Yes, France, Italy, England.

The very fact that the countries in Europe offer inducements to go there, is an admission in itself that it is uneconomic.

It is to meet their transport problem.

The whole economic history of the modern Western world shows beyond any doubt at all that people in economically developed countries go to certain areas because they feel that they can make a success by mobilizing capital, labour, material and land, and that as a result of the organization of those four units of production they can organize them efficiently and they can make a profit. That is economic history.

Why do you say that?

I have answered two questions of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I hope he will not continue abusing the rules of this House by making running interjections. It is obvious that we have developments in all parts of the world, developments effected by mobilizing those four elements of production. As soon as a government offer inducement by way of special tariffs, special railway rates and other special inducements it is uneconomic. If the Minister wants an example of an uneconomic industry and of a mess he should go to one that he knows perfectly well and that is Hammarsdale. Most of the factories there were well designed and well built, but the conditions under which the people there are living, are a disgrace to any country that calls itself civilized.

I agree with you.

As the result of that there is inefficiency. There is inefficiency because of the high labour turnover, and there is a high labour turnover because the people are tired and weary because of the unhygienic conditions under which they live. As a result of that, you get inefficient industrial production, and when you do not get efficient industrial production, you get an inefficient industry. The industries are not doing as well as they should do because the people are not properly housed. What does the Government plan to do in this connection? Sir, yesterday we passed a Bill dealing with the financing of European housing, but nothing is done in connection with non-European housing. Are we surprised that crime is growing in that area? Let me quote a report which appeared in the Star on the 4th August, 1956—

The position to-day is that these Africans are living under unhygienic conditions. The Government was supposed to have planned the Hammarsdale area but it was not planned at all. The Industrial Development Corporation was only brought in afterwards to plan and to clean up the mess. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education knows the evil conditions under which these people are living. He knows too that not only did they plan inadequately but that they built the factories before they had sufficient water and then they built a dam. [Time limit.]

By this time this story about the lack of housing has really been ridden to death. Therefore I am not going to quote whole series of examples to illustrate what this Government has done in the field of housing. I am going to mention only one example to the hon. member for Pinetown: Every time one enters Cape Town from the North, one sees a beautiful housing scheme with a large number of nice, neat houses and then one thinks back to what that area looked like a number of years ago, in the days when the United Party Government was in power. At that time there was a number of shanties— a terrible sight for people entering the Mother City from the North. Go and see what that place looks like to-day. There we have a splendid example of what this Government is doing for all sections of the population.

Mr. Speaker, there is an Afrikaans proverb that “a donkie stamp nie sy voet twee maal aan dieselfde klip nie” (an ass does not bump his foot twice on the same stone). [Interjections.] I wonder with what one should compare the Opposition, because I have been hearing this story about the Government’s indifference to the interests of the average man and woman at least 20 times from that side of this House during the past nine years. We hear this story each year in the debate on the no-confidence motion; we hear it for a second time each session in the Budget Debate; we hear it for a third time each year in the debate on the Appropriation Bill.

And why do you not remedy these things?

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the two latest examples of this story to you. I am referring to Hansard, Volume 14, Col. 3595. The hon. member for Constantia moved the following amendment in the Budget Debate—

That was in March, 1965. Then I read to you the following example from Hansard, Volume 15, Col. 8383. Then, during the same session, the hon. member for Constantia moved the following amendment in the debate on the Appropriation Bill—

The Opposition then entered the election with this cry. From one platform to the other it was advocated how this Government was failing to look after the poor man, after the average man and woman, and what was the result of all that propaganda? Just a tiny handful of Opposition members remain.

Thirty-nine, not out.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that an ass does not bump his foot twice on the same stone. We, and the South African nation, have now heard this story 20 times and what was the result? The Opposition suffered a crashing defeat in the latest election.

We all admit that there is inflation; it is a world-wide phenomena and it is promoted by certain irresponsible elements. It is also true that food prices have increased. I am now thinking of the figures mentioned here before lunch by the hon. member for Pinetown. He said that his rand could buy so many pints of milk and so many potatoes in 1960 and that it could buy so much less in 1966. Of course, he stopped in good time and did not come to bread and mealie meal. Incidentally, bread and mealie meal are staple foods; bread is the staple diet of Whites in the lower income groups and mealie meal is the staple diet of our Bantu population. The hon. member did not come to that, because in this respect this Government is ensuring by means of food subsidies that prices do not increase. This story has been ridden to death to such an extent that it seemed to me this morning, when I saw certain hon. speakers opposite standing there with their notes, that their notes were rather yellow. Therefore I do not want to reply in detail to all the allegations made here, but I want to express a few ideas on how we can restrict this inflation which is destroying the value and purchasing-power of our money. The first idea I want to express is that we should all try and live within our means, and in this connection I am thinking how the Opposition has been insisting for many years, during the budget debate each year, that the hon. the Minister of Finance should distribute the surpluses on Revenue Account amongst the tax-payers. Mr. Speaker, where on earth does one find a more powerful inflationary stimulus than distributing one’s surpluses, one’s savings, amongst the taxpayers? Is that not precisely one of the quickest ways of destroying the purchasing-power of our money? The hon. member for Green Point exclaimed here this morning: “When are we going to have a system under which salaries and wages will be adjusted to the increased cost of living regularly?” Is that, too, not extremely inflationary? Is it not the right method to increase one’s own productivity before one may expect to receive higher wages or salaries? Will this not assist in destroying this dragon of inflation? Should we not first see to it that the productivity of every man and woman in the country is increased before we request increased wages and salaries? Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hand a booklet compiled by A. J. M. de Vries which was published by the Bureau of Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch just recently. From this book I want to quote a number of very informative figures which I want to use here this afternoon for removing the ground from under the fallacious reasoning of hon. members of the Opposition. Since 1961 our gross national product has increased to a tremendous extent until it reached a high water mark in 1963 when it increased, in real terms, apart from increased prices, by 7.8%. In 1964 it began to slow down slightly and increased by 5.8% only. In 1965 it only increased by 5.0%. Mr. De Vries stated that he expected it to decrease still further in 1966.

But in the next six months it was 6.8%.

I shall come to that shortly and I shall give the correct figures to the hon. member for Green Point. Whereas the gross national product increased by 7.8%, 5.8% and 5.0 % during the past three years, gross national expenditure increased by much more; in 1963 gross national expenditure increased by 13.9%; is that not proof that the South African nation’s expenditure has increased more rapidly than its production? Its production increased by 7.8% and its expenditure increased by 13.9%. Is this not an extremely dangerous sign? In 1964 when the gross national product had already decreased to 5.8% the increase in gross national expenditure still was 14.1%. In other words, during that year we spent more than we earned. In 1965 the increase in gross national expenditure was 11.4% as against a production of 5%. Let me quote salary increases to you. In 1964 all salaries and wages in the Republic increased by 10% as against an increase of 5.8% in the gross national product. Wages and salaries increased by 10% as against an increase of 5.8% in production, and then the hon. member for Green Point comes along and asks for a regular adjustment of wages and salaries to the increase in the cost of living. Do you know what would have happened then? Then all of us would have earned less.

But they ought to get nothing.

Do you believe that the wage earner is spending more than he earns because he wants to do so or because he has no option?

It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Durban Point is a very able speaker on the Liquor Act, but knows preciously little about economic affairs. However, I shall reply to the hon. member. The entire South Africa spent more in 1964-’65 because credit was so readily obtainable. Now, we all know that when it is easy for one to lay one’s hands on money one also spends it more quickly. The hon. member for Durban Point is implying that the wage earner is compelled to spend more in order to maintain his standard of living on the same level. But is it not true that all of us, with a few exceptions, are maintaining a higher standard of living than we did a number of years ago? This is not only so because food prices and other expenses have increased; it is also because we are living on a higher level.

I want to come back to the increase in wages over the number of years. I have said that wages increased by 10% in 1964 as against an increase of 5.8% in production. In 1965 wages increased by 9.3% as against an increase of 5% in production, but towards the end of 1965 the wages of public servants and railway officials were increased to a large extent and it is anticipated that the total increase in wages in 1966 will reach 10% as against an increase of 5% in production. If we consider the anticipated growth in production in the future, in reply to the question by the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that according to this work of the Bureau of Economic Research it is anticipated that the increase in production in real terms will be between 4% and 4.5% in 1966, and between 4.5% and 5% in 1967, and between 5% and 5.5% in 1968. The Leader of the Opposition said that what the Government was going to do within the next two months with regard to wages and salaries he would regard as a test. Yes, it will be a test, but I do not have the slightest doubt that the Government will pass the test with flying colours. The difference between the approach of the Government and the Opposition in respect of wages and salaries is the following. The Government is acting in an extremely responsible fashion because it knows that if it is not very careful as regards this question of wage and salary increases the purchasing-power of the rand will erode more and more until it is on such a down-grade that nothing will be able to stop it. In contrast to this I want to refer to the so-called new patriotism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. (Interjection.) This new patriotism also demands conscientious responsibility in this regard, with regard to wages and salaries. No election is to be held in the immediate future. Why try to exploit the public now with these stories that they are not earning enough? Before the next election the United Party would have made so many blunders that it would have disappeared from the political scene completely. (Interjections.)

Order! The hon. member for Transkei should control himself now.

The hon. member for Transkei may say that they do not only have a policy prior to an election, but actually they have already been looking for a policy for the next election, because during the session last year they tried to present a policy to the electorate, the policy that the average man was not receiving enough. What was the reply of that average man in the election? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again launched a double-barrelled attack on the Government this morning. On the one hand he strongly criticized the high food prices and the increasing cost of living which made it impossible for the average man to make ends meet on his wage or his salary, but no sooner had he said that when he criticised the Government, namely, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, that its price policy was such that the poor farmer could not make ends meet on the prices he obtained. On the one hand the farmer should receive more, in other words, food prices must be increased, but on the other hand he complained because food prices were increasing and the average man could not make ends meet on his salary. This is a typical example of his double-barrelled attack, but it has been ridden to death. In pursuance of the offer made by the Opposition this morning, namely, that we should stand together in solving the problems of the country, let us admit that there are differences between us, but let us also admit that there are bona fides on their part, and now I want to ask the Opposition to prove their bona fides. I want to ask the Opposition to join us in appealing to the nation during these times of inflation when the purchasing-power of the rand is decreasing more and more, during these times when inflation has progressed to such an extent that the nation’s thrift has suffered a serious setback. In view of the Opposition’s new patriotism and their offer to cooperate, I want to make a serious appeal to them. Let us all make an appeal to the public outside and at the same time to ourselves, to work a little harder for the same salaries and wages. (Interjection.) In the second place, let us also make an appeal to our companies to adjust their price policies in such a way that they do not make unnecessarily high profits, because if one forces prices up one is only giving impetus to the spiralling costs. Once again I just want to quote a few figures to illustrate what I mean. In 1965 the increase in the total profits of all companies, including gold mining companies, was 19.8%. What result did this have? A tremendous demand for higher wages and salaries, with the result that the anticipated increase in these profits of companies for 1966 no longer is 19.8% but only 4%. This is the type of action which destroys itself. If one wants to pocket too much, one destroys one’s own object. For that reason I once again want to appeal to the Opposition to join us in appealing to the nation outside to do more work for the same wages and to induce companies not to pursue unnecessarily high profits in their price policy. Then I want to make a third appeal to the public. Let us all try to save a little more and spend a little less of our earnings. I am saying that we should all save more, because it is very nice to raise one’s standard of living continually. We are all striving “to keep up with the Joneses” and it is not easy for the lady of the house to make do with an old carpet when her neighbour gets a new one. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) is simply making a farce of this House. He must control himself.

The average standard of living of every South African no matter of what race, has increased by 20% since we became a Republic. I have asked that we should make an appeal to the public to save a little more, because if we do not do so we are going to start slipping and we shall soon find ourselves in the same position as England, namely that we have to freeze wages and salaries, and who of us is looking forward to the day when we have to do so? Let us rather of our own free will work harder and save more, because if we do not have more we shall definitely not be able to find the necessary capital for the expansion which our economy needs.

What about the old people who have nothing to save?

Once one has retired one no longer needs to save, but as long as one is working one must save for one’s old age, for one’s children and for the State. If we do not learn to save the purchasing-power of our money will decrease to such an extent that we shall subsequently no longer have any incentive to save, because what good is it to invest one’s money on fixed deposit at a rate of interest of 5% or 6% while the value of money is decreasing 4% annually? Then, in actual fact, one is only receiving 1% or 2% on savings which does not make it worthwhile to save. Then one joins the old philosophers in saying, let us rather eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Once again I want to appeal to the Opposition, in view of this new patriotism, that we must co-operate in working harder and saving more so that we may have the necessary capital for our expansion.

Finally, I just want to address a single word to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance very nicely. Our economy still has to grow a great deal and much pressure is brought to bear on our available skilled labour force, something which has the affect to push salaries and wages up even more. When the demand for trained men exceeds the supply the natural tendency is for wages and salaries to increase more. For that reason I want to ask very nicely whether it would not be possible in future budgets to place the emphasis on the training of our people—training in our schools, training at our universities and training at our technical colleges. Every emphasis should be placed on the better training of our people so as to enable them to play their full part in society. There is only one other small point I want to mention in this connection. The biggest expenditure by parents on their children is not incurred when the children are still at school, but when the son or daughter goes to a university or to a technical college to prepare himself or herself for life. This usually happens at the age of 18 which is the year from which income tax deductions no longer apply in respect of them, except, of course, if such children are entirely dependent on their parents. Now, we find, however, that if such a child has a bursary of R240 his parents may no longer make any deduction for income tax purposes. Can the hon. the Minister not keep this in mind when he draws up his next budget?

The hon. the member made a number of appeals this afternoon and said he was making these appeals in terms of the new spirit of patriotism. But he is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This is no new spirit of patriotism. The patriotism of this side of the House is as old as South Africa itself. Only it has taken hon. members opposite a long time to understand that spirit. The hon. member made a number of appeals. First of all he appealed to people to work harder for the same salary. In this I think he is right. As a matter of fact. I think we in Parliament are setting a very good example.

This side of the House.

Yes, this side of the House is setting a good example. We are even working all day this Saturday for no extra salary. Then the hon. member appealed to companies not to work for greater profits. But the hon. member knows as well as I do that profits take care of themselves, because as soon as any organization or any company makes profits which are exorbitant, competition will, under normal circumstances and without a host of controls, take care of the situation and profits have either got to come down or somebody else bites into them. Consequently the hon. member does not have to worry on this score. Then the hon. member appealed to everybody to save more. This is a very commendable appeal and I am sure it is an appeal everybody would like to answer. As a matter of fact, I know of nobody who does not want to save.

I know of many.

The hon. member is mixing in strange company. I know of a lot of people who would like to save but who cannot because they do not have the income which enables them to save. This is the problem. There is, however, a tribute I should like to pay to the hon. member for Paarl and that is that he at least is facing the problems we have and comes forward with suggestions for certain things to be done. He is, in other words, mindful of the problems. This cannot be said of many of his colleagues on that side of the House, because they seem to believe that there are no problems and that we can just go forward in a laissez faire sort of fashion and everything will come right. That is why I say that at least the hon. member for Paarl appreciates the problems, problems which we have been fighting about since the first debate in this House this year. The hon. member also said that people to-day enjoyed a higher standard of living. This is a relative term, because 50 or 60 years ago it was not an acceptable thing for the ordinary person to have a bathroom, for instance. Furthermore, 150 years ago in Great Britain people did not bath more than once a month. That was their standard of living at that particular time. So, when you talk of a higher standard of living you must relate it to the context of the present time. What people want is not a higher standard of living, but a reasonable standard in the higher standard we are enjoying compared with the standard 100 or 50 years ago. The hon. member also said that incomes had increased faster than the cost of living. That may well be true but the important question is in which sectors have incomes increased most? Has it been a general increase or has it been an increase limited to a small section of the population? If the hon. member for Paarl has listened to the debates which have taken place in this House during the past two years, he will know that one of the points we have been making constantly is that this boom has not been a fair one and that it has not spread to the lower income groups. Most of the benefits of the boom got stuck in the top echelon. It is a question of the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer. This is the problem: There has not been an even distribution of the benefits of the boom. My hon. Leader has made this very point on three occasions in this House, namely, that it is the low-earning groups who have had no benefit at all from the boom. All they are called upon to do is make greater sacrifices.

The hon. member also said that salaries should be dependent upon production. This is very good economic theorizing, Mr. Speaker. All economists would accept that this is correct. There are. however, certain fundamentals necessary for increased production and one of the most important of these fundamentals is that the industrialist should have relative freedom of action. He should not, in other words, be faced with the position that there is some labour which he can employ and some labour which he cannot employ; that to-day he can import goods and to-morrow he can’t; that to-day he can have new machinery and tomorrow he can’t. He wants a stable economy in which to plan so that he can increase production which will be to the benefit of his employees. They will then produce more and thus become entitled to greater salaries. This is the point made by the hon. the member and it is a good one. But he should create the climate and the necessary machinery for this to be achieved. The problem in this country is that there are so many bars to greater production, that the poor salaried man cannot produce anymore himself. There are too many hindrances and as the cost of living has risen he has found himself in the position where he has to demand a greater salary, otherwise he would have been unable to maintain himself and his family.

When my Leader dealt with the cost of living in his speech this morning he mentioned that one of the factors in reducing the cost of living was the question of our exports. As he quite correctly said, as you export a commodity there is greater production of that commodity and, consequently, you can expect the cost of production to drop. But in order to be able to export, you must first reduce the cost of your product. Exporting is a tough business and the world is very competitive. The world is very penny-minded and will only purchase from you provided your product is good and your price is right. So the incentive to export creates the incentive to produce more cheaply at home and in that way helps to reduce the cost of living.

When we consider this question of exports it is the Department of Economic Affairs which becomes of paramount importance. It is with this department that I want to deal briefly now because this department is cardinal to the economic development of the country. This department is a very vital department. It deals with our exports, export credits, foreign trade representation and is going to have to deal with GATT. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs dealt with this aspect during the session. There are many things brewing in GATT. The department also has to deal with the question of the European Common Market. From the latest reports it seems more probable now than ever before, that Great Britain has a change of being admitted into the Common Market, with all the problems which that is going to create for us in South Africa, in view of the fact that Great Britain buys as much as 75 per cent of our total exports in some commodities. This problem has to be dealt with by the department. Then there is import control and the varying policy which gives people a lot of trouble; there is price control in respect of which we seem to be moving into a new era, which has also to be dealt with by the department. In addition, our entire industrial development has to be fostered and encouraged, with or without the I.D.C., through this department. Let us admit that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his department have an extremely onerous task and we sympathize with them in their task. How is this department functioning? I should like to deal only with one aspect of our exports falling under this department. In 1961 the Government decided to send three commissions overseas with the object of exploring further possibilities for exports. These three commissions presented reports. One commission was sent to North and South America and consisted of three extremely able gentlemen, namely Dr. van Eck as the leader, Mr. J. Berry and Mr. Philip Frame as members, with Mr. J. L. Pretorius as adviser. These are gentlemen of undoubted calibre in the industrial world and were recognized as such by the Government when they sent them on this mission. After they came back they produced a report m September, 1961. On page 14 of that report they had the following to say about South America—

That is what they reported in 1961. On page 25 of that report they stated—

I raised this matter in 1962 when I brought these facts to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Then he had very little to say about it. I think I have raised this matter three or four times since 1962. I think the hon. the Minister did, however, mention that it was difficult to trade with South American countries because they had financial problems of their own, had an unstable currency, etc. But the point is that trade is always difficult, whether it is overseas trade or whether it is local trade. It is difficult whatever business you are in. And the job of a good businessman is to overcome the problems, not to say they are difficult and sit down and do nothing about it. I told the Minister last year what the position was in South America. Trade may be difficult, but the Argentine was importing over 1,500,000.000 dollars’ worth of goods per annum. And Brazil was doing very much the same. But the Minister did not seem very keen to do anything about it.

Now, suddenly there has been a change. This year, following a visit of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, there is suddenly a hum in our association with South America. Suddenly the value to us of the. South American countries as potential customers has become apparent. We are told that there is going to be an exchange of bursaries between the two countries. We know that a small trade mission arrived here, I think last week or the week before, about a fortnight after the Minister of Foreign Affairs had returned, and according to the Press we have already appointed two additional trade commissioners to South America. This is very interesting. Because I complained last year that in 1964 we had two posts for South America on the Estimates and they were not filled, and in 1965 we removed the posts altogether. Now suddenly, out of the blue, two new posts are created. The point at issue is this. Why was it that it took from 1961 to 1966 for us to get any action from the Government? Because, Sir, this is only a start. It has taken us six years to make a start. We told the Minister practically every year to get on with the job of exploring South America. Now what was the reason for this delay? Is it that the attitude of the Government is not really attuned to getting on with the job of exporting, particularly the Department of Commerce and Industries?

I want to quote fairly extensively from a report which appeared in The Manufacturer of August, 1966, which is headed, “Exports—a few rockets from Mr. Shield.” We have understood for some time that a report was floating around somewhere between the Chamber of Industries and the Department of Commerce and Industries regarding exports. But we have not heard much about it. This report says—

And now I have a nice word to say to the Minister of Finance—it is not often that I get an opportunity. The report continues—

Now, this is the important factor—

These are the words of the Secretary—

The Chamber of Industries said—

They ended off by saying that “it was opportune for Government to eliminate red tape and to re-assess its thinking on this vitally important subject in order to enable Government to make a more positive contribution to South Africa’s export trade.”

Unless we get a change of thinking in the Department regarding exports, if its thinking continues to be based on the lines set out in this report, it is obvious we are never going to get anywhere. But maybe there is another reason. There is perhaps a reason which appeared in the Financial Mail of the 23rd September and was headed: “Tired Team Needs Help.” In this article it describes the number of the people in the Department, and so on. and said as an introduction: “Is the Department of Commerce and Industry adequately staffed to do its job, not to speak of doing it well?”

I said at the beginning, and I repeat now. that the Department of the Minister of Economic Affairs has a very onerous task on its hands. It has much to do. There are problems cropping up day by day which require the greatest attention. We used to have a Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, but we lost him somewhere along the road. Perhaps we should have one again. Because the battlefront of an export drive is not really in South Africa—the battlefront is abroad. You have to be abroad to do things, you have to be on the spot, you have to be able to estimate the potential; you have to get on with the job abroad. We have GATT to be dealt with abroad, we have the common market, as I have mentioned, we have a host of new territories. There are areas in the world which will take our products if we will only go after them. I mentioned South America three years ago when I came back. I was in the Lebanon last year. I am sure there is a potential in that area. We have a representative in the Lebanon fortunately, doing a first-class job. as all our representatives are doing. But they appear to be almost lone wolves. I asked the Minister some years ago how long it had been since a representative of the Department had visited some of our own outposts of empire, and the reply was that in some cases nobody had been to see them for ten years. It is amazing that when we South Africans go and have a chat with our representatives and discuss some of their problems with them, how keen they are to talk to us, how keen they are to see us. We must expand this effort. “Export or die” is an old phrase. But it is still as true now as it has ever been. I have told the Minister of Economic Affairs on many occasions that private enterprise is only too willing to help the Government Department to get things done. At one time he told us that he had taken two people from private enterprise and was using them. I hope he will use more, because one thing is essential: we have to have a determined, enthusiastic and dynamic Department of Commerce and Industry under a dynamic Minister of Economic Affairs if we are going to solve this question of our exports.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown mentioned two matters with which I should like to deal briefly before I proceed to deal with the main attack of the United Party.

The hon. member referred to two points. The first is that the worker has not had his due share in the general prosperity of our country over the past five years. If the hon. member had been in the House and if he had listened well to what the hon. the Minister of Labour said some days ago, he would have known that what he said was not correct, The fact of the matter is that wages and salaries have increased much more rapidly than the cost of living. The problem is in fact that wages and salaries—which also affect the common worker—have increased more rapidly than our productivity. The Opposition has said repeatedly that the productivity has not increased rapidly enough in terms of our wages and salaries. They may go and check that. Now he alleges the opposite. The Minister quoted figures that may be checked in Hansard—because I am not going to repeat them—to show that in respect of wages and salaries there was a considerably more rapid increase—I think he mentioned the figure 27 per cent—in the eight years since 1958, as against an increase of 18 per cent in the cost of living. That statement made by the hon. member is therefore not correct.

The second point to which he referred is that of exports. As far as that is concerned, we agree with him that it is a matter to which we cannot give too much attention, not only in respect of South America but also in respect of Europe and North America. But that is what this Government is doing. For what were the results? During the first seven months of this year there was a considerable increase in exports. Surely results provide evidence of your work. In the first seven months of this year there was an increase of R25,800,000 in exports to Africa. In exports to Europe there was an increase of R43,300,000 and to America an increase of R23,300,000. It may be concluded that the export of goods established a new record in August this year—calculated on an annual basis—of R1,430,000,000. That proves that the work of this Government as regards its exports is producing results. We agree that we must not relax in that respect, but that we should continue increasing those exports to the best of our abilities and in proportion to our existing resources.

But the main charge from the other side of the House to-day was most certainly that in respect of the cost of living. In the first place that proves one thing, namely, that they could bring no complaints in respect of other basic economic matters. They could not bring a complaint against our balance of payments, because it is strong as never before. They could not bring a complaint in respect of our prosperity, because our problem is in fact too much prosperity. These are important matters. They could not bring a complaint in respect of unemployment. The point is in fact that if the unemployment figure had been somewhat higher, it would have meant less labour pressure. Then the problem of inflation would have been slighter.

When speaking of inflation, hon. members on that side should at least be fair. They should not merely select items that suit them and then point to percentage increases. That gives one a completely erroneous impression. One should have regard to the general pattern, then one would see that it does not correspond with the story they have been telling. And I shall come to that in a moment. But before I come to that, I want to say this. Some hon. members suggested means by which we could overcome this problem. But I should not be blamed if I tell them that they miss the point entirely. This is a short-term problem, and the measures they propose are mainly long-term solution. If this Government were to act on the advice given by the Opposition, this problem of inflation would be much larger. Then one would have trouble.

But apart from the fact that they do not place their data in the correct perspective, they do not compare our position with that of other countries either. Because it would have been a valid comparison if they could have stated that it is lower in overseas countries than in South Africa. We have told them repeatedly in this House that it is just the opposite, namely that the average in respect of 22 other countries was 27 per cent, as against 18 per cent in South Africa. I could quote numerous examples of foreign countries where the cost of living has risen much more rapidly than in South Africa. And it is a feather in the cap of this Government that it could succeed, despite the tremendous economic growth-rate, in keeping the cost of living within reasonable limits. But let us consider the long-term solutions that have been suggested. We subscribe to those in respect of greater productivity. Then there is the employment of female employees to a larger extent. We subscribe to that. It is being done. There has been a surprising increase in the number of female employees. The problem of the present is a short-term problem. And what is actually the problem? The problem is mainly one of a too high liquidity in our banking system, and do you know what is the cause of that problem? It is this prosperity we are enjoying. This prosperity is one of the most persistent booms we have experienced for a long time. And what is the reason for this prosperity? It is exceptional confidence in the economy of South Africa. In the first place there is exceptional confidence abroad. A year ago that side of the House laid the charge at the door of the Government that it did not enjoy the confidence of the world abroad, and they made the following satement. I shall read it to you. They made the statement that the absence of a flow of capital to South Africa was attributable mainly to a lack of confidence. The previous hon. member for Jeppes said that the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was not to blame for that, but that it was lack of confidence in the National Party Government of this country. That was said on 19th May last year. The following was then said—

So far I have not heard that side of the House say that they attribute the great inflow of capital to South Africa at present to confidence in the Government. In the 18 months from 1st January last year until 30th June of this year there was a total inflow of R325,000,000 in foreign capital. Of this no less than 41.6 per cent is long-term capital. The inflow of short term capital in recent times has hampered our task of combating inflation considerably, because it was one of the major reasons for the excessive liquidity in our banking system. And by their criterion it is the result of confidence in South Africa on the part of the world abroad. As regards local confidence, this is reflected in the tremendous expansion of our economy and in the establishment of important works on the part of the Government. The works undertaken in the past number of years afforded this country the most important basis on which to silence all mention of boycotts and sanctions. Because it is only if our position is strong, it is only if we make ourselves independent as regards the basic requirements of our country, that the world abroad will realize that it will be of no avail to employ boycotts or sanctions against us. They will simply not succeed. That is the best shield against sanctions. And we have been able to bring that about by means of that confidence on the part of the Government and on the part of the private entrepreneur. But let us come back to the question of our position as regards the cost of living. The latest quarterly of the Reserve Bank, of 30th June last year, shows that in the period December, 1964, to December, 1965, the increase in the season-adjusted consumers’ prices, on an annual basis, amounted to 3.2 per cent. From December, 1965, to August, 1966, it was 3.1 per cent. You must bear in mind that during that period there was a considerable increase in wages also in respect of the Public Service, and despite all those stimulating factors our economy could nevertheless succeed in reducing the increase in consumers’ prices by .1 per cent in respect of this year, as compared with the previous year. But now we should look further afield. This Government has taken certain measures to combat the problem of inflation. Where do we stand at present? The problem is frequently that one cannot bring the data up to date. But let us look at the data that are in fact up to date. And the most potent factor encouraging further inflation is once again the liquidity of our banking system. During the past four months, from April to the end of July, the amount of money and near-money increased by R186.000,000. It increased by R186,000,000 over a period of only four months. That is equal to 30 per cent of our gross national product. It is the highest in our history. It is also 1 per cent higher than last year. By the end of August the controlled credit of the commercial banks was R120,000,000 higher than prescribed by the Reserve Bank: that still allows us a tolerance of 10 per cent, despite the fact that the Reserve Bank stepped up its credit-restricting measures to the maximum the Act allows it. We still have R120,000.000 at our disposal for lending. The acceptance banks and general banks still have a 13 per cent tolerance. That is our main problem. On the other hand, we find that there has been a considerable decrease in building activities. In the past seven months approved building plans decreased by 28.8 per cent. Approved building plans in respect of non-dwellings decreased by 38.8 per cent. Their supply-demand ratio has improved; in other words, there is a lower labour pressure. Unemployment of Whites, Coloureds and Indians increased from .8 per cent a year ago to .93 per cent on 31st August.

It is a better ratio.

Yes, it is a better ratio. It represents a lower labour pressure. There has been a decrease in the growth-rate of retail turnover. And there has been a decrease in the fixed capital outlays by the private as well as the public sectors. And here I want to quote once again from the latest report of the Reserve Bank. The report states—

Then I want to mention one further point, namely, the following. The accusation has been levelled against the Government that in the past, particularly during the period January to June, it indulged in inflationary financing. It did that because it had no option. But in July we found that the Government had reversed that policy. In July the commitments of the State—and these include Government, provincial administrations, etc.—decreased by R27,000,000. It may be concluded that the Government is already in a position, and will be even more firmly in that position in future, to do its financing in a deflationary way. There are strong forces or trends that work towards deflation. We also admit, however, that there are certain factors working towards inflation. These include in particularly the liquidity factor to which I referred and which I attributed to exceptional confidence on the part of the world abroad, by the criterion of the Opposition. It is, therefore, sound and correct that this Government has increased taxation in order to combat that problem. Let me read to you what the Barclays Bank trade survey of December last said in this regard [Translation]—

I want to refer again to the works undertaken by the Government in order to achieve further growth and upsurge in our economy. That side of the House has repeatedly brought the accusation that water conservation received inadequate attention. They are now saying that we should plead for more and more expenditure and less and less taxation. Of course these two things cannot be reconciled. They are inconsistent. But listen to what one of their members said two years ago, when this side of the House pleaded for more water conservation. The previous member for Benoni, Mr. Ross, said the following—

He then went further—

They are therefore in favour of a restriction. But where was that “foresight” when this Government pleaded for water conservation? Then this representative said—and it was not repudiated—“there is no cause for undue concern”.

In all humility I want to raise a few matters which in my opinion are important. We are still experiencing the problem of inflation because there are forces that are still working in this direction. In this regard I want to mention three points. Firstly, although expenditure has been approved in principle, the Government cannot go wrong if it stretches that expenditure as far as possible during the coming year. Any Department that can possibly stretch its expenditure should do so as far as possible. Secondly, although there has been a large improvement in the availability of statistics, we should try to bring our statistical service even more up to date in order to enable us to sound the course of the economy as soon as possible. In the third place, I want to plead for greater flexibility in our fiscal policy. There are three types of measures by means of which one can combat inflation. The first is monetary measures, the second, direct control measures and the third, fiscal measures. In recent years the importance of fiscal measures has become more and more prominent, particularly because monetary measures—although they, and in particular the bank rate, are generally employed except in countries like Switzerland, Norway and Italy—frequently hit at sectors of the economy which are actually not responsible for the inflation, for example, our agricultural industry at the moment. It is frequently they and the smaller middleman, as well as the mortgagee, who are affected because the measures cannot readily be applied selectively. As a result of that, more and more attention has been devoted to greater flexibility in fiscal measures. I want to read to you what was said by a certain Mr. Maddison, who has been connected with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development since 1953— first as head of the economic section and later as director of the development department. He said the following—

That was in Europe and in North America—

You will find that England already has the powers to increase its indirect taxes and tariffs to an amount equal to approximately 1 per cent of its gross national product. America even has the power of changing its direct taxes between budgets. The Netherlands are also doing that. In particular, Sweden changes its investment concessions, savings concessions and savings levies.

They do so for the very reason that it is important to introduce tax changes at the right time, and not a year later. This should be done within limits, of course. I should like to leave this thought with the hon. the Minister of Finance, particularly as this House has given him the power to pay back loan levies when it suits him during the year; this is a principle and a development along the right lines—in the months ahead the hon. the Minister of Finance will have to take serious steps to inquire whether we cannot also make the application of our fiscal policy more flexible and thus bring it into line with the general practice in Europe and in North America at present, in order to be able to maintain economic stability to the best of his ability.

I want to deal this afternoon with a subject which I have discussed in this House before, and with which certain of the Ministers are very familiar, and with which many members of the House are probably familiar too. I am referring to the diamond concessions in Namaqualand. I feel that the time has come when something should be placed on record as to why the Coloured community is so distressed about the trend of events in regard to the allocation of these concessions in Namaqualand. I raised this question somewhat pertinently in February, and again on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Mines during this Session, and the Minister of Mines was at considerable pains to explain what the policy of his Department was. He gave certain indications as to what the decisions had been. Let me say quite frankly, that according to the information at my disposal the Department of Mines seems to have made an effort to treat the Coloured community fairly, because according to a statement on the 23rd October, 1964, the hon. the Minister of Mines said that certain concessions had been allocated, and that among these, the concessions for the Coloured areas had been given to certain companies and groups of companies and consortiums and that the Department of Mines, or he, as the responsible Minister, had decided, by way of a Cabinet decision, that the development of the Coloured areas would be to the benefit of the Coloured community. The way that the Minister decided that that benefit would accrue and flow to the Coloured community was by way of a percentage, namely 5 per cent, of the gross finds during the prospecting stages and subsequently, if a mine were discovered, by dividing the spoils, so to speak, on a basis to be decided by agreement. I want to say right away that the Coloured community were highly delighted when they saw that the Minister had decided to give them sole prospecting rights on the farm Leliefontein, because Leliefontein was a farm about which very little was known. It was unknown whether there were diamonds or not, and it was conceded that the prospecting would take a considerable amount of money and effort. There was, of course, a condition attached to Leliefontein. Apart from the fact that the members of the company would all have to be Coloured, they would be required to develop the concession as such, in collaboration with the Coloured Development Corporation, but it was added, of course, that the Coloured Development Corporation did not have either the funds, nor the technical know-how to develop the concession, and the company to be formed was more or less directed to negotiate with other companies. Well, so far so good. Subsequent to that, the Coloured diggers held a meeting at Barkly West. As you know, Sir, that is the part of the country where most of the Coloured diggers reside and make a living. The diggers advisory committee at Barkly West, which has two sections, a White side and a Coloured side, held a meeting, and a certain gentleman by the name of Prof. Samuels of the firm of Samuels, Dekker and Viljoen, took a very active part in the proposition to float a company. His proposition was, according to my information, that shares of R1 each should be subscribed to by the Coloured community. The diggers themselves decided that they would subscribe RIO each, that is to say, 10 shares of R1 each, making RIO. They selected three men whose names were O. E. Fortuin, R. D. Keeble and Mr. D. A. Tobin. These gentlemen were to negotiate on behalf of the Coloured community to see how far they could get. In the negotiations which apparently took place with the Coloured Development Corporation, they discovered that not only was there no technical advice available, but also that the money would be restricted to a sum of about R50,000. It has since been brought to my attention that that is denied by the Corporation and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But the fact remains that for a matter of nearly 12 months the Coloured diggers could make no headway under the guidance of Prof. Samuels. Many Coloured people wanted to know what this gentleman’s powers and functions were in connection with the flotation of this company; they wanted to know how he came into the picture. I was informed that the Coloured Development Corporation also denied knowledge of this man although he was in possession of all the papers in regard to the flotation of such a company and the desirability of doing so. At any rate, the position arose that no progress was made and the hon. the Minister of Mines himself somewhat sarcastically said to me that all that the Coloured diggers had been able to raise was R240. But, prior to the hon. the Minister making that speech in the House, these Coloured diggers had approached a well-known mining company to see if they could not get some support, a company which had the technical knowledge as well as the finances to develop a proposition of the size and magnitude of Leliefontein. The hon. the Minister, in response to a direct question from me in the debate on the Mines Vote, as to why De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited could not get a concession, more or less chided me about my interest in De Beers Consolidated Mines …

He flattered you.

You are wrong.

The hon. the Minister said—

That is to say in Namaqualand—

Quite right.

Prior to that, in February, the hon. the Minister also slyly referred to the fact that I might know the source of the money of the one applicant for a concession in Namaqualand, a Mr. Fortuin.

That was last year.

No, let me correct the hon. the Minister; it was in February. The position is that these Coloured diggers, being in some difficulty about the provision of funds, approached the De Beers company on the 12th November, last year. Mr. Fortuin and Mr. Keeble approached De Beers, who replied on the 17th November, within five days, that they would be prepared, if the Coloured diggers could float the company in which they would share equally, to finance the deal, pay the pre-production expenses and lend all the money that was required at per cent interest, until such time as the capital was repaid, either over a period of years or as quickly as the company wished to pay it. That was all that they wanted, and they said that the profits, if any, would accrue entirely to the company.

A fine gesture.

On the strength of that the Coloured community registered a company which was called the Leliefontein Mining Company Limited, and they wrote to the Minister of Mines on the 3rd September, 1966, and told him that they had come to this arrangement with De Beers and that they wanted more or less approval to go ahead. Out of courtesy to the Coloured Development Corporation they sent a copy of their letter to them. On the 15th September the Minister’s Department replied, that is to say 12 days later, that the matter was receiving attention. But on the 13th September the Coloured Development Corporation wrote, not to Leliefontein Mining Company Ltd., but to Mr. Fortuin and Mr. Keeble, the people who had originally been appointed to investigate the whole thing, and in that letter there is rather an astonishing statement. The letter is dated 13th September and this is what it says—

What year was that?

September, this year; last month. What is more, it gave these people three months’ notice, from the 13th September, of its intention to cancel the concession unless they floated a company. Sir, that is not the only thing that concerns me. I want to say here quite emphatically that in mentioning De Beers Consolidated Mines I am prompted only by the desire to assist the Coloured community whom I represent. In confirmation of what De Beers Company’s attitude has always been, I have correspondence indicating the basis on which De Beers was preparated to assist the Coloured persons to look for diamonds. The basis has always been that De Beers would be prepared to advance all the money that is required at the current rate of interest and that if the proposition is a success, they will ask for the money to be paid back to them, and in the case of these Coloured concessions, the profits are to go to the Coloured community and to the Coloured people as a whole, and, in addition to that, that where Coloured companies are formed the profits should go to those companies for their own benefit. The only condition stipulated by the company was that they would have the right to acquire the diamonds at a price which would be no less than that paid by the Diamond Producers’ Association to members of that association, which means the current market rates. Sir, I would have thought that when this proposition was submitted to the Department or to the hon. the Minister, knowing him to be so fair and just, that instead of the Coloured Development Corporation writing as they did to these people, they would have got together around a table, pointed out the snags and difficulties, if there were any; given these people advice, and come to an agreement with De Beers and with the Coloured Development Corporation, because I say without any fear of contradiction that the one company competent to prospect for diamonds on the scale that would be necessary is the De Beers company and I hold no brief for that company. They are capable people and they have the qualified, skilled personnel to do the work. I do not understand—and that is why I raise this matter with the Minister —why there is a dead set against De Beers, because there does appear to be one.

Who wrote that letter in reply to the request to allow De Beers to assist?

According to my information the letter is from the Coloured Development Corporation to these two gentlemen, Fortuin and Keeble. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Mines was sincere and genuine in his intention to see that the Coloured people were given a break at Leliefontein. I believe further that the Coloured Development Corporation intended to assist where they could and my complaint is not in that direction.

They are the concession holders.

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a statement which he himself issued on the 23rd October, 1964, a statement which was to be released at midnight, which is a nice time of the day to get a concession. Let me quote the exact words—

I want to ask the Minister why these particular people were selected as the persons with whom the Coloured company had to work in order to get the concession?

You are not reading the full statement. There is a statement which says that the concession is granted to the Coloured Development Corporation. They are the concessionaries; they hold the lease, and the Coloured diggers were to work it. You are omitting that part of the statement.

Well, let me read it out again—

That is to say the Coloured Development Corporation …

Start before that. Start where it says that Leliefontein is granted to the Coloured Development Corporation.

That is not in the front page; that is at the back—

You have still not read the vital portion.

Why are you so worried?

I want to get the true facts on record.

Sir, let me quote what the hon. the Minister said at Col. 1188 of Hansard on the 7th February 1966—

Not ‘should’ or ‘must’ but ‘could’—

What the Minister did not say was that they had already applied to that Coloured Development Corporation; that they had negotiated with them and that the manager of the Coloured Development Corporation had indicated that the funds would be limited to R50.000. They then thought that they would do better and they approached De Beers. They approached De Beers as far back as November, 1965.

When did the Coloured Development Corporation advise them about the R50,000?

There is some dispute now, as I said in my opening remarks, as to whether anything was said about R50,000 or not, but the Coloured people who were involved in the issue tell me that it was definitely said at the meeting at which certain lawyers were present. But that is all by the way; that is not my complaint. My complaint is that when they submit a proposition to the Minister and it is acknowledged by his Department they get a letter out of the blue from the concessionary, who has not got the ability or the financial facilities to do anything, and these people are then told that their concession is going to be cancelled.

Who was going to get it?

That is what I think is unfair. I do not know who is going to get it; I am not up to date as far as that aspect is concerned, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do one thing: Here we have a concern which is prepared to assist these people and to give them the entire benefit of the profits derived from that particular discovery, if there is one …

No royalties.

… and if there is no discovery and the thing is a failure, as the hon. the Minister well knows it may be, De Beers company will write off their money and not the Minister of Finance.

Is De Beers taking any security?

No security at all. De Beers are prepared, and have always been, to work these concessions, and they have said the same thing in regard to Komaggas, that they would do it on that basis. They made an offer for all the Coloured areas, to work on a basis that all the profits would go to the Coloured people. That is why I have had arguments and discussions and have queried the Minister and said that the amount of money which was being paid by these concessionaires to the Corporation is totally inadequate, because furthermore, the concessionaire, in this case the Coloured Development Corporation, is supposed to have the deposit, if there is one, worked by a White company. As the Minister knows, the Coloured diggers are quite competent. They have worked for years on alluvial diggings, but if it is a mine it is a totally different proposition. But the most telling reason why De Beers should have got the concession is that De Beers was prepared and undertook to train Coloured people in advance and to employ only Coloured personnel as far as possible and gradually to hand it over to them. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the concessionaries who are working it to-day are prepared to give that undertaking, and are they prepared to employ only Coloured men. and are they prepared to train persons in advance?

Who are they?

I gave that information the other day. It is a consortium of Naskor and Seeland Mynbou, who have now amalgamated into Buffelsbank Diamante.

They did not form a consortium then.

That is quite in order. I have come to-day to raise this matter with the hon. the Minister, because I want to intercede on behalf of the Coloured diggers that the Minister should use his kind offices to negotiate with the Coloured Development Corporation and with De Beers, and to work out a proposition which will be acceptable, firstly, to the Coloured community, and that every Coloured digger, of whom there are 85 to 100, will have an opportunity of sharing in whatever prosperity may flow from the Leliefontein deposits or discoveries, if they exist. If the Minister will tell me that he will do that, I will be quite happy to let the matter rest there. But I want to say to him in conclusion, on this particular point, that the dissatisfaction which I have maintained in this House, is rife amongst the Coloured community, has stemmed exclusively from this, because the persons who wanted to float this company, and proceeded to float it, are people who have been most anxious to collaborate with the Government and to take advantage of the good things the Government said they have for the Coloured people. They are people who are experienced in prospecting for diamonds. They are persons of integrity, of good standing and of good character. Finally, I want the hon. the Minister to accept that my plea is on behalf of the Coloured community as such, and the Coloured diggers in particular, and that I have no association or connection in any shape or form, financial or otherwise, with De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited.

The hon. member who has just spoken will pardon me if I do not follow up his arguments, because I know nothing about the matter which he discussed. The hon. the Minister will in all probability reply to him. I want to start with a point which was raised during a previous debate and which has once again come to the fore in this debate, namely, patriotism. [Laughter.] I hear laughter, but patriotism is nothing to laugh about; one should be proud of it. I am very pleased, as I stated the other day, that a feeling of patriotism has also arisen on the other side of the House. I said the other day that the Opposition had certainly matured in this respect since the days when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout found himself in hot water with his own party in regard to such basic things as a national flag of our own and symbols of our own, and one welcomes this. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is honest in his intentions, but when, as happened here to-day and as has happened previously, we test their patriotism, they must not blame us for doing so, because we want to find out whether that patriotism is genuine in all respects.

“At thy will to live or perish.”

I fear that if I have to test the patriotism of the hon. member for Transkei, I shall have to do so somewhere else. We have on occasion mentioned cases in which they did not show patriotism. We mentioned cases in connection with foreign policy, the principle of non-interference in our domestic affairs, and we pointed out how the Opposition had in the recent past offended in regard to these particular matters. The hon. member for Queenstown referred to the action of the hon. member for Wynberg, and I referred the other day to the fact that in connection with the establishment of the new Department of Sport and Recreation, she had said that her audience should remember that the Nazis had also had a minister of sport, that she believed that the idea of the new department was not to make young people physically fit, but to indoctrinate them so that they may become supporters of the National Party. These are examples of unpatriotic actions because these things are used against our country abroad.

Do you want to stop us criticizing the Government?

No, the hon. member is too sensitive. He may criticize as much as he likes, but I say that there are certain ways in which one should not criticize, and this is one of them. We have in the past referred to the former member for Benoni, and the Opposition themselves know how he acted. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Transkei has been carrying on a running commentary since the debate began this morning. That must stop. The hon. member may proceed.

Without doubting their inborn patriotism I want to mention a further example, and I mention it specifically so that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that he will have to act if his supporters do this sort of thing. Take the hon. member sitting next to him, the hon. member for Yeoville. Earlier this year Mr. “Soapy” Williams dared to show his teeth to South Africa. The late Prime Minister was very quick to take action on behalf of South Africa and to address the American Government on Mr. Williams’s action. But the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville was different. He said, no, the Prime Minister wanted to make political capital out of the incident. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was sensible. He responded a few days afterwards and said that in such a case, in a case in which South Africa’s honour was at stake, he supported the Prime Minister. I do not want to suggest that the hon. member for Yeoville’s action in that case was one of hostility towards South Africa, but nevertheless his was an unpatriotic action in that he put party interests before the interests of South Africa. He wanted to see whether he could not score a political point in the matter. It is in this context too that one has to test the actions of politicians. Unpatriotic actions are not always accompanied by emphatic side choosing against South Africa in foreign politics. They may also take the form, as in this case, of the adopting of attitudes which place party political interests before national interests. The hon. member for Musgrave said earlier this year during the Budget debate that “the tactics of the Government members is, first of all, to beat as hard as they can on the patriotic drum” in connection with the Budget. He accused us of appealing to the public on behalf of the Government to bear willingly the burdens which might be imposed upon them by the Budget, in the interests of our country. But he found fault with us and criticized us for having made an appeal to the patriotism of our people. In the same way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a patriotic appeal this morning for us to present a united front to the outside world in the interests of our country. We made exactly the same appeal in connection with the Budget, because it affects our currency.

It affects the incompetence of the Government.

That may be the hon. member’s interpretation of it, but that is not the case. I want to ask, what wrong is there in one’s making a patriotic appeal? The Leader of the Opposition did so this morning. The appeal which this Government has made with regard to the Budget is that we must work harder. The hon. member for Paarl said the same thing this afternoon.

It does not look like it when one looks at the empty benches!

Some hon. members may be doing their work elsewhere. I know of hon. members who work very hard during the lunch-hour. The Government’s appeal is: Save more, even though it may entail temporary sacrifices. What is wrong with that, particularly when one does so for the sake of the continued prosperity of the country? Is it not patriotic of the Government to put its cards on the table as far as the public are concerned and at a time of inflation to explain precisely what our problems are in regard to our country’s finances, and not, as the Leader of the Opposition alleged this morning, to deal merely with the symptoms of inflation and not its causes? The appeal of the Government in regard to this Budget was precisely to tell the people what the factors were which had given rise to this inflation, and how we could overcome it. As the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, the Opposition stands by the Government in regard to our country’s interests abroad, and we are very grateful to know this. I feel that everyone in this House and in the country can affirm that all of us believe in private enterprise as being the basis of our economy, and an economy of this nature can nowhere in the free world hope to run smoothly at all times. Hon. members talk about the maladministration of the Government, but nowhere in the world can a free economy hope to run smoothly at all times. It is a law of a free economy that there will be cyclical movements, and as international trade increases, so foreign trends influence one’s domestic economy more and more. Fortunately, the State has monetary and fiscal remedies available to it which it can use to apply corrective measures, and that is what this Government did this year when such action was necessary. If we want to retain a free economy and prosperity—and who of us do not—we would be unrealistic if we did not face up to the ever-present danger of inflation and of falling money values, particularly during. a period of growth such as we have experienced. These problems which we encounter are the price one always has to pay for prosperity. If we want to have continued prosperity, the Government of the day must have the courage to diagnose and treat the ailment, even though this action may result in temporary unpopularity. The hon. member for Yeoville may tell me that it is the maladministration of the Government or it is this or it is that, but I say that this Government has had the courage, in the face of possible unpopularity, to diagnose the country's ailment and to take the steps required to remedy it. What we very definitely want to avoid is a chronic condition in this regard. It is this fact which is appreciated in the business world and by economists in the country, namely, that we have a Government to-day which is not seeking popularity but which knows how to act in the right way.

But this year’s budget has another message as well. Not only has it appealed to us to work harder and to save more; it also has this message for us—that if we follow this path we will be sure that our economy, which is basically very sound indeed, in contrast with what the hon. member for Constantia stated earlier this year namely that we were sitting on the ruins of a boom, will be given the opportunity of experiencing further growth. What I have said is further supported by a publication of the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch, in which it is stated that the growth tendencies are still there; that although we experienced a temporary retrogression this year when our rate of growth dropped to 4 per cent, and in spite of the necessary anti-inflationary measures taken by the Government, our rate of growth will continue to rise over the next 2½ years at the rate of between 4.5 per cent and 5 per cent next year and at the rate of between 5 per cent and 5.5 per cent the following year. We find proof of this wherever we go and I cannot but in this connection refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Constantia in regards to the ruins of a boom, and link these remarks up once again with my observations regarding patriotism. I also want to include the other remarks which the hon. member made in the past when he said in 1961; “The Budget constitutes a serious threat to the financial stability of the future”—how wrong did he not prove to be!—and when he said: “I can see another cloud threatening”. Those observations of the hon. member could have had the effect of undermining confidence in our economy, both at home and abroad. Again I want to admit that he perhaps did not mean these things to have a detrimental effect upon South Africa, but they were nevertheless unpatriotic in the effect they had upon our country. If we are prepared really to do what we are asked to do in this budget, then our country is headed for further progress, as appears from the fact that, in the first place, in spite of extremely poor years for agriculture over the past few years because of the unprecedented drought, the average standard of living of South Africans has risen by 20 percent over the past five years. In discussing the standard of living, I want to tell the hon. member that one does not measure it against what it was 50 years ago, but against what one was able to afford the previous year. One sees an improvement in the standard of living in the fact, inter alia, that people to-day have a surfeit of the things which formerly were a luxury to them. Consider the ’thirties, when very few homes had radios; nowadays, in most homes, one will find a radio in every room. Consider the old days. The hon. member spoke of 60 years ago, when we did not have electricity. At that time each home had only a few lamps. To-day there is electricity in every home and there is an electric light in every room, even next to every bed and every settee. These are the things one has to consider when one speaks about an increased standard of living. These are the things which people can afford. As one’s income rises, one can afford more and more of these things, and one eventually becomes accustomed to them.

South Africa’s gold and foreign exchange reserves are at the moment at their highest level, namely, in the vicinity of R600,000,000. Even though we may be saddled with temporary problems of inflation, we are proud to know that our reserves are strong, because in them lies our guarantee against difficult times. The loss in respect of the export of agricultural produce over the past years as a result of the drought has been more than compensated for by the exports of our manufacturing industry. Safco anticipates increased exports to the extent of about R160,000,000 this year. We must also remember that as far as agricultural produce this year is concerned, we shall not even be able to consider the export of maize. A few years ago—I think it was in 1964—we earned no less than R61,000,000 in foreign exchange through the export of maize alone. If henceforward nature returns to normal and the agricultural sector is once again capable of producing its normal output, we can imagine just to what extent our exports may yet increase. Our gross domestic production, in real terms, continues to increase slowly. Last year it was 5 per cent and this year it will be slightly lower. It is nevertheless envisaged that it will continue to grow in the years to come. There is also the question of savings, an item which forms such an essential part of our continued growth. In 1965 our savings increased by 13 per cent, as against a mere 3 per cent in the previous year. This increase consisted mainly of personal savings. Our public debt, expressed as a percentage of our gross national product, dropped from 48.7 per cent in 1955-6 to 43.1 per cent last year. We can consider ourselves very fortunate indeed that our public debt is decreasing as our income is rising. The position is so favourable that the time is even coming when we shall be able to consider financing our entire domestic development virtually exclusively from local sources; in other words, that our possible domestic savings will be able to meet our capital requirements in full.

A great deal has been said about the problems of our farmers. The greatest problem in agriculture at the moment is the drought which still prevails. Though we were to tackle twice as many water schemes as are being built at the moment, we would not be able to avert a disaster like the drought which we are currently experiencing in our country.

We would at any rate have been better able to withstand it.

The agricultural price index shows that over the past two years these prices have risen more rapidly than have the prices of agricultural requirements. The hon. member for Newton Park shakes his head. The hon. member is not happy unless he can complain about the prices of agricultural produce. If he will make a study of this matter he will realise that the price index has risen more over the past two years than the prices of agricultural requirements. In normal times agriculture will not only make a great contribution towards our exports, but will also help towards lessening the pressure of inflation. One must bear in mind that the result of the drought is not simply that our agriculture can no longer assist us with our export effort, but that we even have to import certain agricultural products which are in short supply. The fact remains that no matter what hon. members may say about a steady economy, a Government can plan prosperity. as this Government has in fact done. Owing to factors beyond its control, however, it cannot prevent cyclical fluctuation from occurring. One of these factors is the tremendous inflow of capital. When we reached the stage where we were overcoming the pressure of inflation, we experienced a great capital inflow—precisely because of the confidence which the outside world had in us—to such an extent that the pressure of inflation was aggravated. Another factor is the drought to which I have already referred. The drought has resulted not only in our no longer being able to export agricultural produce, but in our having to import certain products. Moreover, assistance has to be given to farmers in drought-stricken areas without there being a commensurate increase in production on their part. This serves to promote inflation even more.

In the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition it is contended that in its Budget the Government has neglected to peg the cost of living. But what causes the cost of living to rise? Does the cost of living not tend to rise when our monetary system is under the pressure of inflation? And when the Government now endeavours to counter this inflationary pressure, is its action not at the same time an attempt to check the rise in the cost of living? If only hon. members of the Opposition will realize that this is so, they will not make an allegation of this nature. But apart from measures for the direct combating of inflation, the steps being taken under this Budget serve another very good purpose. In my opinion they serve to restrict the excessive movement of labour from one employer to another, and it is high time that something of this nature happened in South Africa. Because the demand for labour exceeds the supply, it is very easy for labour to move from one employer to another, even for the sake of a small increase in salary. This is not only economically unsound, it is also mentally unsound as far as our people in South Africa are concerned. This tendency does ensure that our labour works harder, something which at this stage is so essential to our economy. As I say, the measures which are being taken under the Budget will assist in halting this random movement from employer to employer.

I am of the opinion, furthermore, that this Budget will increase productivity. Hon. members of the Opposition have consistently contended that this Budget will not increase productivity. But I wonder how many people know what productivity means. In my opinion this Budget has the potential to increase productivity. I consider that this potential is further strengthened by the measures which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has in mind in regard to border industries and the development of the homelands. The measures which are envisaged in this connection will cause the industrialist in our established industrial areas who does not wish to move to the border areas, to find new techniques in order to reduce his costs. The same thing holds good, of course, for the industries which are going to be established in border areas.

There, of course, they can make use of semiskilled Bantu labour.

Yes, that is so. These are all things which are calculated to increase productivity. That is why I am convinced that, in spite of what hon. members of the Opposition have had to say about this Budget, it has already succeeded partially, and will still succeed further, in combating the enemy of our country, namely, inflationary pressure, and keeping us on the road of continued prosperity.

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down does not expect me to follow him in his rejoicings over the fact that the Government has managed to produce a certain amount of unemployment. I should rather like to turn to the effects of the large amount of money we are to-day appropriating. We are moving into difficult times and the country as a whole is being faced with difficult problems, not the least of which is the problem of South West Africa, a problem which is jumping into perspective again at the moment. It is incumbent upon us to meet all the troubles which are coming our way. I should like to pass a few remarks on the large amount of money which is being devoted to defence and then left in the air, so to speak, because we cannot criticize it. We have had some experience, as have many other countries, of what can happen with a country which takes away power from the civil authorities and concentrate it in the hands of the military commanders without there being any opportunity for criticism. Some of us are not yet old enough to have forgotten Mr. Pirow’s bushcarts which were so useful in the war that followed! In fact, it is common in any great war to find at least one nation who is lagging behind the others. We find ourselves in difficulty because of the limited opportunities we have of obtaining information. History tells us that the outcome of the Franco-Prussian War depended on the fact that the Prussians had a better riflle than the French. During the past war the know-how of the British people were immediately directed at the magnetic mine and from being a dangerous weapon it was rendered harmless. We also know that that war was won by the side which did win it on account of the fact that they could produce an atomic bomb before the Germans could perfect their flying missiles. All this brings me to the question whether we have enough information at our disposal and whether those who know are satisfied that we shall be fighting this war not only with guns and with young men but also with brains, in that way equipping the country to meet the problems which it shall have to face.

One of the things we can ask ourselves is how did we move from being a pastoral country into an industrialized one? We did so, as everybody knows, because of the demand for arms during the last war. We were asked by our allies and by the clients who bought from us to provide certain manufactured articles. They supplied us with the know-how how it should be done. With that we started the process of industrialization. We developed our industries not in the face of competition but under great favours. After the war had ended, however, we had to start competing with other nations and immediately we found ourselves struggling against financially more powerful countries, countries with greater know-how and greater skills in industry. That is what is likely to happen to us should we come to a contest with the Western powers Therefore we must ask ourselves, apart from other things, whether we really think that we can produce those articles which will give us that power and strength which will save us in times of trouble. I believe that the Government is not going the right way about it. Here I want to refer particularly to the way in which large sums of money are being diverted to the manufacturers of motor-cars and of aeroplanes. The countries already manufacturing motor-cars and aeroplanes have a long history in the study of the manufac-ture of metal objects. They came into this field early and over the years they were able to profit by their mistakes. The first motor-cars were full of defects. All of us have seen copies of Punch and we have seen on our own roads vehicles which are in the region of 50 years of age. I ask myself the question whether in the short time at our disposal and with our limited engineering knowledge and, which is even worse, our limited personnel and manpower in engineering, we can afford to divert from much more important and necessary things all our skilled personnel to try and develop at this late stage articles which we cannot hope to perfect in the time at our disposal. I asked myself what is the good of manufacturing a large number of motor-cars when there will have to be rationing of petrol on a large scale. Moreover, do we not already have enough motor vehicles in the country to carry us through a fairly long period, a period of at least three to four years? Furthermore, can we possibly hope within the next ten years to develop an aeroplane which can possibly compete against aeroplanes being manufactured by the Western nations or even by Japan? If these aeroplanes are meant to fight with, let me point out that we will have to face the best aeroplanes in the world. It is true that the pilots may not be from the Western world, nor the engineers, but the aeroplanes will be and our young troops will be expected to fly inferior machines against much faster and better-equipped machines.

Would it not rather be to our advantage to stockpile, even more than we have, the best aeroplanes that are at present available to us? I believe that the greatest mistake that the Government is making at the moment is this diversion of highly skilled men—because they must have the best people we have—from the ordinary work and the necessities of the country to try and develop industries which will never be able to compete and which may in the end be a sheer waste of money and thought. I would rather see the Government push forward with a second Sasol. This will increase our oil supplies, not to such a great extent, it is true, but it will increase our oil supplies, and particularly will it help our lubricating oil supplies which are likely to be our greatest weakness. I should like to remind the House that the whole greatness of German industry was built on an institution like Sasol, not built to produce oil from coal, but based on the destructive distillation of coal, on which the great chemical and dye works of the Ruhr are based. The German chemical industry which carried them through two great wars and which supplied them with an immense amount of chemical products during peace is based entirely upon the Ruhr coalfields. And we have coalfields which are probably among the greatest in extent in the world. Let us rather use our funds and our manpower to increase the output of the chemicals which we have at our disposal.

The Government appreciated as far back as 1957 that there would be a shortage of technical engineering manpower in the country, that the shortage was getting worse, and the Government instituted an enquiry by extremely eminent engineers as to what should be done. They only received the report in 1964, and I do not hold them blameless for not getting it sooner, because, after all, they could have asked for an interim report. They could have made some effort and so have been able to do something. And yet in 1966, nine years after the institution of this inquiry, showing that they were aware of the difficulties coming, nothing has really been done.

The Commission has recommended a crash programme of education to produce scientists, and nothing so far as we can find has been done. This is the greatest act of negligence that any nation could be guilty of, namely, that we should allow our livelihood, our mineral products in which we are very rich, to be wasted merely through lack of training. It is no good for the Government to think they can get technical manpower by way of immigration. It will not come, it has not come, and we have even lost many of our own trainees. They have not come back after going overseas to learn. But the Straszacker Commission has made it quite clear and they have given bold advice. They said that we must have a crash programme, we must start at the bottom, we must start in the schools. Is there any evidence that there has been any effort on the part of the Government really to get science taught in the schools to any extent? They went further and they said the engineers must be given proper standing, engineers must be appreciated and they must be adequately paid. The Government has now submitted at this late date to the universities a Bill suggesting how they could give engineers a better status. But nothing has happened yet. There is no sign of it coming forward.

The Commission recommended that every university should have a faculty of science, and that in the main universities the faculties should have no less than six to nine sub-departments of engineering. It also recommended that the subsidy for engineering students should be raised from R350 to R540. Has the Government done any of these things? The Commission recommended in particular that efforts should be made to persuade the Afrikaans universities to take more interest in engineering. Has the Government done any of these things? Has it, in other words, made any effort whatever to train more engineers—the one group above all which we lack in all its aspects?

The Commission went further, and it said boldly that the Government must teach the non-Whites to take a part in this work. There could be a few—they did not say a few, but they implied it. They said the open universities must open their doors to competent engineering students from the non-White races. I, Sir, personally have had some experience of teaching non-Whites in a profession, and Indians and Coloureds are certainly quite capable of becoming excellent engineers, as are a small number of the Bantu. But there are large numbers of Indians and Coloureds who could be professional engineers, and those who failed could fill up the gaps as technologists and technicians.

No effort has been made to train these people. And when the stress comes we will regret bitterly the years of training that the locusts have eaten.

Mr. Speaker, as a colleague of the hon. member for Durban (Central) I expected him to say something about the shortcomings—if there are any—as regards the provision made for the health of our nation, of all our people. But when I came in here just now, the hon. member was travelling about in a motor-car I was unable to follow him everywhere, but I saw that he had become entangled in this enormous industrial development we are experiencing. That confused him completely and he never came back to the matters which I felt he as a professional man was, in actual fact, better trained to discuss. I expected him to say something about—as we have so often heard in the past—the lack of research into bilharzia and about the old cry of divided control, which is supposed to be so harmful in our health and to our people. On the contrary, he decided to talk about industry and the alleged fact that we are lagging behind industrially. I find it rather peculiar that he should talk about lagging behind in the field of industry at a time when our industries and everything else are developing so rapidly. To a certain extent, however, he justified himself by mentioning the shortage of manpower, something for which this Government surely cannot be blamed. In the second place, he mentioned that this Government had failed to make timeous provision for the training of scientists. Now I want to ask him whether he has not noticed the enormous increases which appear in the Budget for the very purpose of carrying out scientific research? The Government does not have full control over the manpower and the type of person who shows an aptitude for science. The hon. member for Durban (Central) made particular mention of the suggestion that we should utilize the non-White manpower as well. But how many of the non-Whites do, in actual fact, come forward to be trained in, say, engineering? Have there been any specific requests from these people to be trained? I wonder whether there has been more than one. That is the information I have. Surely the Government cannot be blamed for that. It is a question of these people having to come forward to be trained. Seeing that he now wants to create the impression that the Government shows no initiative at all in training our people as scientists and particularly as engineers, I want to tell him that a very large number of bursaries are being offered to-day by Government Corporations such as Iscor and others, as well as by the universities. The value of such bursaries amounts to hundreds of thousands of rands in order to encourage students to become qualified engineers. The shortage of man-power may become more and more severe in future. I admit that. But to me it is quite unreasonable 4o come here time and again and to lay the blame for that at the door of this Government. It is only a small group of students who really show the aptitude to become engineers or great scientists. If one does not have the man-power, it is no use forcing the weakest man-power one has into that field. We are not a police state. Education should be free in that respect. The person who shows the ability should have the right to go into that field. I find the charge that the Government does not give sufficient encouragement to stimulate training in that field quite unfounded. On the contrary, approximately R8,000.000 is allocated to the C.S.I.R. and the appropriation in this year’s Budget has been increased. Much more than a R1,000,000 is is provided in respect of the universities. This, together with the money granted to State Corporations, clearly proves that the Government fully realizes, as do those who are aware of this man-power shortage and who have determined its extent, that provision should be made for this need. In addition, I want to say this to him. The Department of Planning, in conjunction with the Education Advisory Council, is to-day making a survey of our available scientific man-power. I believe that we shall soon be in a position to determine more accurately where the bottle-neck is and to what extent we are in a position to supplement the man-power shortage. It is very unreasonable to say that the Government is doing nothing. I am sure we can congratulate the Government on its efforts over the past number of years to supplement our scientific man-power.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gordonia tried to reply to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said in connection with the man-power shortage. The hon. member for Gordonia said that he could not understand why the Government was blamed for the man-power shortage. The Government boast that they are the ones who have planned the economic prosperity of South Africa. Surely the hon. member for Gordonia ought to know that. One of the reasons why our economic prosperity is being kept in check, is the very fact that we have such a shortage of skilled man-power. Had there been the far-sightedness and the crash programme requested by the hon. member for Durban (Central) we would have made much more progress in maintaining our economic prosperity here in South Africa. I should like to say something about the remarks made here to-day in this debate, particularly by the hon. member for Queenstown and the hon. member for Stellenbosch. They were the two hon. members who said that the United Party itself should set a test for its patriotism. I believe that one of the most important tests one can set to one’s patriotic feelings is most definitely the following: Whether one is serious about really having unity between Afrikaans speaking and English-speaking persons in South Africa. I think that if there is one yardstick which should be employed, it is whether the Government or any particular party can pass the test of what it has achieved to effect real national unity in this country. [Interjections.] I am not saying that the Government Party, too, is not in favour of national unity at present. They say it is their policy. It is their endeavour to effect national unity. But the national unity which is being effected by the Government Party opposite was born out of the fear we are harbouring. That is an entirely different basis than the one on which the United Party has built national unity. [Interjections.] Our endeavours for national unity are based on the fact that we really believe that there should be mutual respect for each other’s language, culture and traditions.

Do you agree with what the hon. member for Wynberg said and with what the member for East London North wrote?

The hon. the Minister of Finance should not be in too great a hurry. I am still going to quote a number of things to him. [Interjections.] I am only giving them some guidance.

First reply to the question before you start quoting.

I shall reply to the hon. the Minister. I am saying that the endeavours on the part of the United Party to attain national unity were not born out of fear. [Interjections.] The National Party’s feeling of patriotism is used as a shield because certain dangers are threatening South Africa. Hence the fear. They have never encouraged national unity because they believed in it from inner convictions. They have never had any feeling that mutual respect should be nurtured in this country. I shall immediately tell the hon. the Minister of Finance why I believe this to be true. In 1943, 23 years ago, when everyone in South Africa had the opportunity to demonstrate his patriotism, the Minister of the Interior opposed Major Van der Byl in Bredasdorp.

How old were you at that time?

In 1943 the hon. member for Pietersburg was a military pilot and I was a member of the Potchefstroom Youth Brigade.

That does not have any bearing on the matter. How old were you at that time?

It does have a bearing on the matter. In 1943 the candidate, Mr. P. K. le Roux, issued an election manifesto. He opposed Major Piet van der Byl. He issued the following election manifesto—

[Laughter.] This was the type of respect which existed even in those days, when we in the United Party were demonstrating our patriotism, when we were prepared to demonstrate how real national unity should be attained. At that time the Nationalist Party was prepared to allow certain of its candidates to issue this type of pamphlet. In the recent past there has again been an example of patriotism, or rather a lack of patriotism. [Interjections.]

Order! When the hon. member for Heilbron makes an interjection, he should at least keep his voice under control.

It is often maintained that we in South Africa should accept our flag as the only flag for South Africa and that hon. members opposite have always been the champions for the retention of that flag. A few months ago, however, an interview conducted with Mr. D. M. Carr was published in the Burger under the heading [Translation]: “English Cape M.P. requests a new flag”. The hon. member for Maitland requests a new flag. But not one of the prominent members opposite, including the hon. the Minister of Finance who is the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province, gave any reply to this request by the hon. member for Maitland for a new South African flag, while the Administrator of the Cape Province, the Administrator of Natal and many interested persons request us to hoist this flag at our schools so as to foster respect for that flag. But the hon. member for Maitland—the new member for Maitland—comes along and requests that we should change the flag and that there should be a new flag while the hon. the Minister of Finance as the leader of his Party in the Cape Province, does not say a single word about whether the hon. member for Maitland is correct and whether that flag should he changed. [Interjections.] What do I say? It is very easy to say. If we are now influencing our children to respect that flag should it be changed? If we want to foster national unity and if the flag is a symbol of our patriotism, is it necessary to change that flag at this stage? If one wants unity and wants to foster mutual respect, we say that this flag which has been accepted by English-speaking and Afrikaans speaking persons should most definitely be retained as part of the tradition of South Africa and that it should be retained as proof of the bona fides of everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The Ministerial benches should restrain themselves somewhat.

I should like to come back to the budget itself. I am of the opinion that this budget contained very little of which the farming community of South Africa could be proud and which could inspire them with confidence for the future. In pursuance of arguments advanced by members opposite and the Government’s policy as expounded by them, I must say that a constructive agricultural policy in South Africa is still lacking. Unless we in this country can find a constructive approach in respect of the agricultural industry I am afraid that confidence in that industry will not be inspired at all, but that we shall find larger numbers of people leaving that industry. There is only one reason why farmers are leaving the agricultural industry at present, namely, that the profitability of that industry leaves much to be desired. I recently read in the Rhodesian Commentary that the Rhodesian Government intended giving even more attention to the profitability of its agricultural industry. They are already doing a tremendous deal, particularly in times of drought, to increase their numbers of livestock and to inspire their farmers with confidence, because at present their economy is still based on their agricultural industry to a considerable extent. I feel that we here in South Africa may take a leaf out of their book and that it must definitely be our standpoint that we want to promote the profitability of the agricultural industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with proceeding from the premise that one wants to promote the profitability of the agricultural industry. It was said by an hon. member today that we wanted the cost of living to be decreased but at the same time wanted farmers to receive better prices for their produce. These two standpoints are not irreconcilable. It is easy to reconcile those standpoints. The consumer—and the consumer is also the taxpayer—must realize that unless he makes sacrifices to establish a sound agricultural industry now, it will cost him a great deal more to establish a sound agricultural industry in the future.

Are you now pleading for higher taxes?

I am aware that I cannot plead for higher taxes now, but we have often asked the hon. the Minister during the past number of years, when he had large surpluses, whether it was not possible to increase food subsidies.

Fourteen million rand this year.

Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to do so he must expect that more and more farmers will leave the land because the basic difficulty of this industry is that farming is not profitable enough. Everyone wants to earn more. People in the field of education, the professional men and the businessmen all want to earn more, but if the farmer wants to earn more it is a big sin. The profitability of his business may not be increased.

Where do you get that from?

If it is true that the agricultural industry is profitable enough why are farmers leaving the land?

Can the hon. member tell us how many farmers have left their farms without having sold their farms at prices which were actually higher than the economic prices?

If there are farmers who had sold their land, for various reasons, then I am certain that there are as many farmers who have sold their land because they were offered high prices by this Government itself which required land and increased land prices in this way. The hon. the Deputy Minister is putting me off my stride because the profitability of farming has very little bearing on the price of land. He knows that Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, the chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, told the Government two years ago that it should stop speaking about high land prices because that had no bearing on the profitability of farming. Fifteen years ago when the price of wool in South Africa was 100 pennies per pound and more, there were certain regions where one could acquire that land for £7 and £8 per morgen. At present the price of wool is 45 cents per pound and less but land prices have nevertheless doubled. The price of land is influenced by the fact that land in South Africa is not becoming more, it is becoming more and more scarce and for that reason the price is increasing continually. The problem of the South African farmer is due to certain facts, and I want to admit that one of the reasons why our agricultural industry finds itself in difficulty is that it is perhaps not able to cope with present circumstances because of the fact that a large number of the farmers have not had the necessary training, and even with the best training and with every will in the world any farmer who has to cope with the circumstances prevailing in South Africa at present will find the going hard. One of the reasons why the agricultural industry finds itself in difficulty, is because mechanization has taken place on a fantastic scale and it has made tremendous demands on the agricultural industry, financially as well as intellectually. We also know that the increased production, in spite of the droughts we have had. went hand in hand with higher production costs. We also know that in times of a tremendous increase in production we have been faced with the problem of surpluses. At present we are experiencing shortages in respect of certain essential agricultural products. To me it is quite clear that our agricultural industry has only received unsympathetic treatment instead of sufficient protection and instead of sympathetic treatment. The difficulties in the agricultural industry have been attributed to the fact that we have experienced a drought in South Africa. I want to make the point here that we should not take weather conditions into account in the planning of the future of the agricultural industry, because if one always takes weather conditions into account, if one must always take droughts into account, the argument will always be used that our agricultural industry cannot be successful because it is always dependent on weather conditions. We on this side of this House adopt the attitude that the first requirement is that those people who have been forced off their land, land which they still own, and who have moved to towns to make a living, should be returned to their land and should be rehabilitated. The hon. the Ministers of Agriculture will have a few months at their disposal during the recess and I think that they should use that time for planning the rehabilitation of the farmer who has been forced off his land. Unless they are prepared to give attention to this matter, they will not readily inspire the farmer of South Africa to have confidence in the agricultural industry again. The major problem to which we must find a solution is this very problem, namely, what we can do for rehabilitating those people. I am not so much concerned about the fact that that land should be rehabilitated; I am more concerned about the necessity of rehabilitating the farmer who has been forced to leave his land, and I believe that the hon. the Ministers should use these three months to make plans with a view to rehabilitating those people.

Do you have any suggestions to make?

On a previous occasion I have told the hon. member for Wolmaransstad what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said earlier this year in this House and since that time we have repeated in this House what he said on that occasion, namely, that steps would have to be taken and that a large amount of money would have to be spent on returning those people to the land and on rehabilitating them. How they are going to effect that the hon. the Minister and his Department will have to work out. I also believe that the three months lying ahead will have to be used by the Government for working out what steps to take for the more positive promotion of soil and water conservation in South Africa. I have no doubt that soil and water conservation will remain in abeyance even more unless steps for promoting these matters are taken on a large scale. If we are hoping that the farmer of South Africa will do these things himself, we are honing for something which can never be realized under present conditions, for the simple reason that farmers are not in a financial position to do so. It seems to me that the State will have to play a much bigger role in these matters than merely giving increased subsidies to the farmer to undertake soil conservation works. I am saying this in spite of the fact that there have been improvements in respect of subsidies for soil conservation works. Unless the State itself will play a much bigger role in these matters, I believe that we shall not be able to make up the leeway with regard to soil and water conservation. I trust that the bon. the Ministers of Agriculture will use this recess for working out plans and that they will announce those plans to us next session.

If there is one thing which is an indisputable fact, it is that an appalling depopulation is taking place, and that depopulation is, in the first place, the depopulation of United Party supporters in the rural areas and, in the second place, a depopulation of United Party supporters here in this House. That is the depopulation about which hon. members of the Opposition should be concerned; they need not concern themselves about any other form of depopulation.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Newton Park who has just sat down. He started his speech by referring to the question of productivity and that of manpower. Mr. Speaker, after all, we in this House should realize that at the moment we have a population of 3.500,000 Whites, who have to perform all of the skilled labour for the entire population of 17,000,000, a position which is different from that of any other country in the world. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that the only way in which one can distribute one’s manpower correctly so that the non-Whites may also perform skilled and semi-skilled labour in South Africa, is by establishing border industries in places where the non-Whites can be absorbed into skilled and semi-skilled positions, because the White trade unions emphatically asked that non-Whites should not be permitted to do skilled work in the White areas, but had to be restricted to semi-skilled work. That is why I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his two Deputy Ministers that the Bantu manpower should be used in the border industries, where the Bantu can make progress towards becoming a fully skilled labour force.

Then the hon. member went further and first of all he touched on the question of patriotism. He said that to him national unity was the symbol of patriotism, and that in this case national unity was born out of fear. Let me tell the hon. member that national and political unity is not patriotism. Loyalty to and love of one’s country, of one’s traditions, of the languages of this country, of the culture which originated in this country, this is patriotism. It is not patriotism towards South Africa to be the hireling of another country and to go and sacrifice oneself for another country, as it was so well expressed in the election pamphlet of Minister P. K. le Roux. The hon. member is talking about patriotism towards South Africa. I merely want to remind him of the fact that in 1939-40 his United Party Government took away 122 young people from the Pongola settlement and told them: “Unless you are going to sacrifice your blood for England, you will not be able to remain here.” That was the way in which the United Party Government depopulated the Pongola settlement when they were in power, and eventually offered it for sale to a large sugar company. It was this Government which once again populated the Pongola settlement. No, the patriotism of that side is a two-fold kind of patriotism. When Mr. Arthur Barlow proposed that the Union Jack be replaced by a purely South African flag, they expelled him from that party. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that we had to accept the Afrikaans business undertakings, but they said that he wanted to “Afrikanerize” the United Party. Patriotism of that sort we do not want. Let me tell the hon. member this. He said that there was nothing in these Estimates of which the farmer in South Africa could be proud, and then he came with the same old stories he had told in the debate on agriculture and the same stories he had used in the no-confidence debate, and he said a little in regard to water. I want to analyse this matter now. In the first place, let me tell the hon. member that if he would just look at these Estimates he will see that there is a new Department, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which is a new development in agriculture, for the very purpose of dealing with the financing of category III farmers in various spheres. Provision is being made for that in these Estimates. Up to now the Government has contributed approximately R5,000,000 per month in the form of loans and subsidies, merely in order to keep the livestock of South Africa alive during the drought. Provision has been made for that in these Estimates, but he says that there is nothing for the farmers in these Estimates.

But I should very much like to analyse two matters now. In his amendment, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make out a case in regard to the cost of living, and the hon. member for Pinetown followed his lead in that respect. The hon. the Leader said that he had the prices of sausage, cheese, chops, cream and liquor in front of him, and that they were far too high. Surely, those are all products for which the farmers have to be paid.

No, the farmers do not get those prices.

I am coming to that. The case the hon. member is trying to make out, is that the cost of living is too high, that the prices of farm produce such as these are too high. But at the same time these members are complaining, and yesterday they demanded a division on income tax and other taxes out of which these prices have to be subsidized so that they may not become too high for the consumer. They say that the taxpayer has to pay too much. The farmer must receive more for his produce, but according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Pinetown, who dragged in beans and all sorts of things, the consumer must pay less. The farmer must receive more and the consumer must pay less and the taxpayer must also pay less tax. How must all of this be effected at once? Let me tell the hon. member immediately that in these Estimates, as he ought to know, R14,000,000 was made available this year in order to make the price of certain commodities as high as possible to the farmer and as low as possible to the consumer. Just think of the subsidies on bread, on dairy produce and on maize, to mention only three examples. Here the consumer is given a subsidy in order to keep the cost of living as low as possible, but this is not done at the expense of the farmer. But then the United Party comes along, and one person advocates a higher price to the farmer and a lower price to the consumer, and the next one pleads for lower taxation. Where should the money come from for doing all of this? No, surely, one should at least be realistic. One cannot carry on in this way.

Now the hon. member says that the farmers are leaving the rural areas, and then, in that very same sentence, he also says that, while the farmers are leaving the rural areas, land is becoming less. Where has one ever before heard such an inconsistent statement? Farmers are leaving the rural areas and, because land is becoming less, prices are at the same time much higher. Surely, such a statement lacks balance. But at the same time he is saying that the Government is purchasing the land. To what purpose is the Government purchasing land? Is the Government not purchasing land at the Orange River scheme, for instance, in order to afford farmers better opportunities?

For Bantustans.

Is the Government not purchasing land, such as at the Orange River scheme, so that far more farmers may be settled there on an economic basis? Is that not agricultural planning on a long term basis? But by way of an interjection the hon. member says that the Government is purchasing the land for Bantustans. Did that party not decide in 1936. together with the National Party, that land should be purchased for the Bantu?

Yes, but not for Bantustans.

Did that party not decide, together with the National Party, on the total area of land which had to be purchased for the Bantu? They are making propaganda now by saying that the Government is purchasing that land for Bantustans. Hon. members should not argue in such a childish manner.

But first of all I want to return to the statement made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to agriculture. He says that no water planning has been carried out in South Africa; this Government has failed. Let us analyse that. From 1910 to 1948, over a period of 38 years, the State constructed 51 dams with a total capacity of 1,210,000 morgen-feet at a total cost of R27,500,000. But from 1948 to 1966, over a period of 18 years, 70 dams were constructed with a capacity of 6,213,000 morgen-feet at a total cost of R244,371,000. On what basis is the hon. member trying to make out a case that this Government has not planned?

Where is the water?

I want to tell the hon. member that no government and no minister can cause the heavens to shed water upon the land. He can merely create the means by which the water which has fallen can be conserved for use, and that is something this Government has done as no other previous Government has done in South Africa, and that is proved by these figures I mentioned. To come here and to try to make political capital out of the drought, like a vulture, is not worthy of the leader of a party: I think it is scandalous.

I shall go further. I want to tell you that we passed the Water Amendment Act in 1.956, and then we decided that all schemes would be described in White Papers. Since 1957—and I think that honour is to a large extent Minister P. K. le Roux’s due—we have commenced 15 irrigation projects for agriculture only. We have built 16 dams for urban and domestic use, six for industrial development and three for electricity only, and we are still engaged in building. [Interjections.] If one puts a case here, one should at least see to it that one’s facts are correct. One cannot merely make a statement just as one would set up skittles only to knock them down again. During the period I mentioned, we provided 40 dams for the purpose of stabilizing irrigation, dams for development, new development, for urban and industrial development and for power, a greater increase during this period than during the whole of the period from 1910 to 1948. No, the hon. member should not make a statement in regard to water without knowing what the facts are. I think it is a poor show if he merely wants to capitalize on the drought.

But then the Leader of the Opposition went further. He said that this Government had no long-term planning in agriculture to see to it that it would be possible to feed the population we would have in the year 2000. What is long term planning? Long-term planning is coupled to certain requirements, and I am going to analyse those requirements on the basis of three things. The first is that one should see to it that the farmer has the required knowledge so that he may farm productively without destroying his production potential. Let me tell the hon. House that over the past five years the Government has been spending an annual amount of R15,913,000 in the form of such knowledge only, i.e. research, guidance and training. Do you know how many research projects we are carrying out? If these hon. members want to see these projects, they may inspect them at any time. These are publications which exist. We are engaged in 1,474 agricultural research projects, and from 1963 to 1965 an additional 300 new projects were approved by us. In other words, in agriculture only we are engaged in 1,774 research projects to ensure that one has the necessary solutions to all agricultural problems. But we are not only engaged in those. We are seeing to it that this information reaches the farmer. We have scientific publications on this work, such as the S.A. Journal of Agricultural Science, Flowering Plants of South Africa, Botanical Survey, Entomological Memoirs, all of them scientific pamphlets, and agricultural reports on research projects and theses, and all of them can be found in the technical brochures which exist at present, apart from the ordinary publications such as Farming in South Africa and the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which will furnish one with this information. I cannot deal with all the reports and pamphlets now, because research is not the only remedy for agriculture, because once one has the knowledge one must also have the means. One must see to it that the farmer is provided with the necessary loan capital for carrying out soil conservation works, and so forth. But the hon. member says that nothing is being done. I want to tell him that in the past five years alone an annual amount of R11,545,000, recoverable from the farmers, was made available as loan capital. And in the form of subsidies, which are irrecoverable, this Government has over the past five years injected an annual amount of R42,471,000 into agriculture. All of this is being done to keep the prices of agricultural produce as high as possible to the producer and to subsidize the consumer so that the cost of living may not rise too much. But now hon. members are not only asking that the consumer should pay less and that the producer should receive more, but also that taxes in South Africa should be reduced. What I should like to know from those hon. members is where they were taught their arithmetic. How is it possible for them to bring these three matters together and to reconcile them? No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should put his case in a different manner. The bon. the Leader of the Opposition also made the charge that nothing was being done as far as the promotion of exports was concerned. The hon. member for Florida has already given us a very clear explanation as to how our exports have increased in South Africa. But let us see what is being done in the sphere of agriculture only. As far as agriculture is concerned, we have over the past five years spent an annual amount of R843.000 on research alone, i.e. research in regard to exports and establishing our export market. Those amounts are not recoverable. How can the members say here that as far as agriculture is concerned, the necessary steps are not being taken in regard to such research in respect of exports. No, Sir, I repeat that the hon. member did not make out a case.

Apart from that I said at the beginning that there were three requirements for success in the sphere of agriculture. The first is knowledge, the second is means and the third is a market. I furnished you with the figures in order to show what the Government was doing in this regard. Surely, this annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is not a concealed report; it is available to those hon. members. He says that he read it attentively. Why then does he not acknowledge that which is being done by this Government in regard to our agricultural schools and in regard to our short courses? Because now the hon. member for Newton Park says that if the farmer in South Africa had been given more training, he would have been able to meet these problems better, he would have been able to farm better. What did those hon. members do in regard to the training of our agriculturists in South Africa? They went and fought a war and closed down our agricultural schools and neglected our veterinary science so that Onderstepoort no longer had any students. Grootfontein and Glen were closed down. That was their patriotism. But if the hon. member had looked at this report, he would have seen what kind of short courses had been introduced and what study groups had been established for the farmers in order to provide them with that knowledge about which the hon. member is so concerned.

It is time you resigned.

The hon. member for Wynberg should not say anything here, because when she was asked what she thought of patriotism, she saw to it that she quickly left this House. When it was tried to quote to her what she had written and said here, she fled and her patriotism made her hoist the white flag. She must remain silent now.

The hon. the Leader also came out with an amendment, and he said in this House that this Government had neglected soil conservation scandalously, it had neglected to take the necessary steps in regard to soil conservation and to undertake the necessary soil conservation works. Surely, he is not a stranger.

But you do agree with me, surely?

Oh, no, I am saying explicitly that South Africa has a tremendous erosion problem because of its high-lying and low-lying lands, because of the shale which breaks on the mountains and comes down. I admit that. I admit further that South Africa is annually losing 400,000,000 tons of soil which is washed down to the sea, that that represents plant food— in the form of nitrogen, potash and phosphates—to the value of R590,000,000. That I want to admit. But that does not prove that this Government has not done anything. It merely goes to show how great this problem is. Let us analyse what this Government has done.

Six years ago it was 300,000,000?

No, it was much more. Let me furnish you with the figures. In 1947, the year in which the United Party was in power, this Act had not yet come into operation, and it therefore amounts to the fact that from 1948 to 1965, this Government paid out the amount of R14,616,000 merely in respect of soil conservation subsidies to farmers. I am going further. In respect of soil conservation work alone, the Government lent the farmers R7,642,000. But the United Party did not spend a penny. I am going further. Since 1948 up to the present, this Government has spent R11,399,000 on salaries for the staff it has made available for the purpose of carrying out extension work, farm-planning and soil conservation contour works. That amount was only for the purpose of dealing with and undertaking this soil conservation work. But that is not all. This Government is going further. You know that the Soil Conservation Act is one of the most democratic acts in existence, an Act which enables us to elect soil conservation committees, which consist of the farmers themselves, to undertake these tasks with the assistance of the extension officer—which they do voluntarily and well. I take my hat off to and I give credit to those soil conservation committees, which are carrying out this wonderful work along with our people. What is the extent of the progress made in regard to this work? Let me tell this hon. House that up to the present we have already proclaimed 99 per cent of our agricultural land in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. Planning in respect of 30 per cent of the farms has already been completed. Works to the value of R40,000,000 have already been completed. This Act has only been in operation for 20 years.

73 per cent of the farms have not been planned as yet.

No. Three per cent of the farms are being planned annually, and work to the value of R4,000,000 is being done very year. Let us look further.

After all, hon. members know that the reports in regard to this matter are available to them. We have already planned 9,741 farms and the area is 15,256,000 morgen in extent. If one looks at farmer works which have been completed, one sees that we have already completed 216,482 units to the value of R53,163,000. Those are merely farmer works which have been completed in that manner. Then the hon. member says that nothing is being done.

And the rivers running down to the sea are brown.

The hon. member for Yeoville is saying that the rivers are running down to the sea. But they are not running away as fast as he ran away from Alberton to Vereeniging and from Vereeniging to Yeoville. They are not running as fast as that. They are not running as fast as he ran away from one constituency to the other and will shortly be running from this House. Our rivers are not running as fast as that.

But the soil is being swept down to the sea.

The soil is being swept down to the sea, but you are being swept into the arms of liberalism … [Interjections.] That is your trouble.

The hon. member for Newton Park says that the farmers have problems as a result of mechanization, because with mechanization one has a greater production, but the necessary consumption has not been developed. Surely, he knows that it is not so. He knows that as a result of the phenomenal economic growth of South Africa and the progress of South Africa, consumption has increased tremendously. Let us look at the increase in consumption. When we took over in 1948, the value of the total agricultural production in South Africa was R376,200,000. At present the total production is valued at R1,000,044,000, and that is the position in spite of the droughts in the year 1965-6. That is the increase in production in South Africa. And there is a shortage. We must import wheat, we must import dairy products, we must even import maize and other products, in spite of the increase in production. In other words, because of the economic growth, because of the higher standard of living of both Whites and non-Whites, consumption in South Africa has increased to such an extent that we still have a shortage in South Africa in spite of this phenomenal increase in production. That statement which the hon. member made, is totally wrong, surely. Did the hon. member not say that we did not stimulate consumption?

I said that, but that position has changed into shortages at present.

Good. But the hon. member said that we had not stimulated consumption, that there was no increase in consumption. At present our production is five times more than it was in 1948, and we still have shortages. In other words, as a result of the economic progress in South Africa, our consumption was stimulated to such an extent that we simply cannot produce enough. (Time limit.)

Mr. Speaker, what has surprised me during this debate to-day, was that after the shattering attacking speech made by my hon. Leader, such weak resistance has been put up by the Government side. Because when the hon. member for Queenstown had to defend the Government against the magnificent address delivered by my hon. Leader this morning, I realized that they had lost the battle. Now, late this afternoon, the first Minister has entered the debate, namely the hon. the Deputy Minister, to try to defend the Government’s policy, and to try and make a case for their side.

I must admit that, having listened to the debate, I am quite convinced that the United Party is on the right road—especially after listening to my Leader here this morning—and that the Government does not have the solution to the problems facing South Africa. Some hon. members have mentioned shortsightedness on the Government side. It is true. But I do believe, having listened to the weak opposition put up by the Government side here to-day, that they do not have the solution and that they have in fact been bluffing the voters for 18 years.

I shall start off with the hon. member for Queenstown. I do not want to say much about him, but when I heard him digging around in the backyards of some of the hon. members on the Opposition side, trying to find what he could in our dustbins, then I realized what a weak case he had. I have here two volumes of Press cuttings. I could dig in his backyard too if I wanted to, but I thought he had had enough of the fighting he and I have had in the past. I do not want to waste the time of this House by delving into the hon. member’s speech which he made this morning. Possibly the hon. member and I can have it out next year, when we meet here.

I should like to know from the Deputy Minister why it is that immediately after the budget, prices went up so much. An hon. member on the Government side mentioned during the week that the price of petrol in Cape Town remains unchanged; that is not so. The wage-earner and the housewife have received nothing but shocks since the budget was introduced two months ago. I just want to mention a few items here. I will give the percentage rise in the case of certain commodities since the budget was passed two months ago. We see that premium petrol, not in Cape Town, but in Johannesburg, has risen by 5 per cent, that is from 40c to 42c. Soft drinks rose by 20 per cent, a pint of beer by 12 per cent, super lamb chops by 11 per cent, boerewors by 16 per cent, cheddar cheese by 9 per cent, butter by 8 per cent, cream per pint by 30 per cent …

„Vaal-japie?” [Interjections.].

Now, Mr. Speaker, you will realize why we are anxious to move the amendment to the Appropriation Bill, the amendment which deals with the rise in the cost of living. I have already mentioned, during this Session, the serious shortage of fodder for the agricultural stock farmer to-day. We have from this side appealed to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to help, to provide fodder banks. I am afraid that he has turned a deaf ear. When conditions are bad in South Africa then there is a scramble all over the country for feeding for stock and attempts are made by everybody including the farmers to find feeding for the starving stock, and the farmer is consequently forced to the role of a beggar. Speaking about fodder banks, I regard feeding to fall within three categories. First we have grain which is very easily stored in fodder banks, for instance mealies, in elevators and silos. Then we have high grade hay such as lucerne and ground-nut hay. This is also very easily stored. It can be stored away for years without losing its feeding value. And then we have the third category, namely roughage, such as maize stalks and veld grass. As I have said fodder in all three categories covering feeding can safely be stored away. I believe that the purchasing of this feeding could be done to great advantage if done in the correct way. I suggest that the Government should assist the co-operatives in building and making provision for silos and elevators to store this feeding. At the present time there is a frantic rush to find feeding. And what do we get? We are lucky if we find very low grade feed such as veld grass and maize stalks to-day. All the good feeding is just not there. I still remember something I saw about three years ago. just before the drought set in, when I was touring just above Upington on the Boegoeberg Dam Scheme. There I saw that lucerne was being ploughed under. The farmers there told me that they were going to establish cotton and sultanas. They were ploughing lucerne, the king of fodder, over, because it was not a paying concern.

You know why?

I know why, because it was not paying them to grow lucerne. That is what I am telling the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Lucerne takes more water than any other crop.

There was plenty of water at the time. That is not the reason. The Boegoeberg Dam was overflowing. [Interjections.] In other words, to-day the farmer can consider himself lucky if he can find fodder, even if it is rubbish, and he is paying excessive prices for it as well. The State should assist the farmer to help himself. And as I have said in this House before, the farmer is the co-op. and the co-op. is the farmer. And I believe instead of the State spending millions in subsidies and rebates to farmers in times of drought that it should also assist the co-ops. to provide shelters for feeding. At all times of the year there are certain areas in South Africa suffering under drought conditions. And there are other times when most of the country is served with favourable climatic conditions and good rains. The State must see to it, through the co-operatives, that whenever farmers are having a good season, that fodder be stacked away, stored away for the years when the droughts will be there. Why cannot the State assist the farmers so that they can sell the produce at an average economic price to the co-ops. over the years, instead of having in one year excessive feeding, too much, and not knowing what to do with it? And that is why they were ploughing the lucerne over at the Boegoeberg Scheme. They could not sell it. There was a glut in the lucerne market and they did not know what to do with it, and to-day money won’t buy lucerne. If we can see to it that we have a stabilized price over the years, whether we have droughts or whether we have good seasons, we will not land ourselves in the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day. I know that the hon. Minister will say: How do I propose to get this scheme to work, my suggestion of a fodder bank. The Government maintains that it is the farmer’s duty to build fodder banks. The farmers do build fodder banks. Most of those banks are something of the past because they were only done on a small scale. The farmer cannot do it alone. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can answer me later, if he will only listen to me now. It is the State’s duty to finance the capital required, on a countrywide basis, to the co-ops. to provide storage for our feeding and to enable the farmers to help themselves. This would eliminate the very high cost of feeding which we have to pay for to-day. There is another point I want to mention in regard to beef. I put a question to the hon. the Minister earlier on in the Session as to whether he had received representations for the adjustment of the price of export beef and, if so, from whom and what adjustment was requested. The answer from the Minister was to the effect that he had received no such request. And now I want to mention a resolution which has become a hardy annual over the years. It surprises me that the department has never received a resolution of this nature. I repeat the resolution—

Could the hon. member tell me what congress that was?

This was the Cape Province Agricultural Union.

Did you know that the Cape Province send their resolutions to the South African Agricultural Union?

That is correct. But why has the State never received that resolution, or why has the State never received those resolutions? That is the point I am trying to make.

That is a question for the South African Agricultural Union and not for the Minister.

That is what I want to know. If these resolutions are passed every year, why does the hon. the Minister know nothing about them?

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

In regard to beef and mutton, I want to say this. What worries us on this side of the House is that there is such a big difference in the price the producer is getting and the price the consumer has to pay. There is a tremendous difference in the price. That is a question in respect of which we should like an answer from the other side. Now I want to say something about the conditions at our slaughter markets, for instance, the one at Cape Town. I wish more hon. members in this House would go and have a look at the stock being sold at our abattoirs. You would have your eyes opened. You will see stock waiting in pens, sometimes up to three weeks, waiting to be sold and slaughtered.

No, you are wrong.

Oh no, I have seen it with my own eyes. Or do my eyes deceive me? More often than not they stand there for a week to ten days before they are slaughtered. They all have to be sold and while they are waiting to be slaughtered, they lose condition all the time. And who is paying for it? The farmer not only pays for the feeding, as they are being fed and watered whilst they wait. The farmer pays again when they lose in condition. I ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that when a farmer is advised to rail his stock to the market—let it be Johannesburg, Durban or Cape Town—that the stock is slaughtered and weighed without delay on its arrival at the destination.

What is his agent’s responsibility?

I ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the matter, if he does not know what is going on. But believe me it is happening and we are having dissatisfaction from farmers all over South Africa.

Before dealing with other aspects, I want to make a few observations on what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. First of all, I should like to say something about the fodder-bank question. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Government has made a vast amount of money available to cooperative societies for the building of grain elevators? I wonder whether the hon. member knows that? You are nodding assent. Then why did you plead that money should be made available to the co-operative societies in order to build large grain elevators for the storing and covering of fodder when necessary? It is being done, and the co-operative societies have to redeem the interest and pay the costs involved. In other words, the storing is not done uselessly. Maize, for example, or any other type of grain, cannot lie there indefinitely. It is perishable. It is also provided by the Government that a certain quantity of maize must be carried forward to meet the requirements of the following year. The hon. member is therefore pleading for things that are already in existence. They have been in existence for a long time. The plans he is suggesting have been in operation for a considerable space of time. I should just like to refer to the difference in the prices of meat which was also mentioned by the hon. member. I should like to refer to the extraordinary nature of this Session, to the hon. member for Newton Park and also to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have had a most extraordinary Session, apart from the tragedy we witnessed here. When we arrived here, the United Party blamed us in particular for, and simply could not tolerate, the fact that they had taken such a severe beating. They adopted the attitude that the electorate of South Africa owed them a victory. This did not transpire, however, and from the beginning of the Session they persisted in labouring under that impression. In the last part of the session they adopted a quite tranquil attitude, and that is the source of the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park and also of the great patriotism of the United Party and of the question about what the National Party had done for national unity. Let us toss this question back at the United Party. In all the years during which they were in power and in Government, and afterwards, the United Party said continually in this House that they were actually the ones who were in favour of national unity. In the course of time, however, their actions showed something quite different. Not a single step was taken by the National Party in the course of these years as regards national unity, without being opposed by the United Party. The hon. member cited the flag question. We may tell you that the United Party and the people who supported that party were the cause of the fact that the Union Jack was flying in South Africa until quite recently. The biggest step towards national unity was the coming of the Republic. Since then we have made real progress on the way to national unity. As proof of the success we have achieved, we need only refer to the victory we achieved in the recent election in Natal. In actual fact the United Party has been driven back to a few small corners in the large urban areas.

I want to come back to the agricultural industry and refer in particular to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely that as far as the Government’s price policy was concerned there was no incentive for production purposes. The Government’s price policy had supposedly not encouraged production. That the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, is proved clearly by the production results we have had in the course of years. If the drought conditions are not taken into account, more land has been put under the plough every year. According to the first results, which had been obtained the previous year, and the harvest estimates that had also been made, there would have been a record harvest of maize in the country if the drought had not closed in. The preceding, year we had had the largest wheat harvest South Africa had ever produced. If the drought had not affected production, there would have been a record production. This is irrefutable proof against the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the price policy of the Government is having an adverse effect on production. A moment ago the hon. member for East London (North) referred to the difference between the prices received by the producers and those paid by the consumers. The hon. members refer frequently to this matter of the difference in prices. The United Party has always advocated a policy based on the Marketing Act. Control in any respect involves expenditure. And if it involves expenditure, the costs may be borne either by the consumer or by the State or by the three parties jointly, of which the producer is one. Now there are a number of products in respect of which the State bears the total cost. Over and above that, the meat industry has developed a method in the cities which is tremendously expensive, because the love of ease which has developed in the cities is contributing a great deal towards increasing prices. Almost every housewife orders her meat over the telephone from the butcher, who then delivers that meat. The costs involved in that have to be recovered. There is a risk involved in the matter. I must say frankly that the attitude of the United Party in this respect, particularly with reference to what the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, was somewhat disconcerting to me to-day. They insist on higher subsidies. If we insist on higher subsidies, we should also remember that they involve certain responsibilities and difficulties which we shall have to face in future. We are grateful that the consumer in South Africa and the State have been so accommodating in this time of drought. I think relations between the State, the consumer public and the producers were particularly good in these times in which natural disasters in the form of droughts struck the farmers. In these times in particular we as farmers should appreciate that very highly. The accusation I want to level against the United Party as regards these circumstances, is that they can spoil this goodwill between the consumer, the State and the farmers in future by taking such a step.

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