During the course of the debate yesterday afternoon, four things became clear. Firstly, that there is a shortage of accommodation—not only in Pietermaritzburg, with which I am directly concerned, but throughout the Republic. That this is so is being brought forcibly to our attention by the fact that the Minister is now forced to purchase blocks of flats rather than perform his true function and provide accommodation for the people by the provision of the necessary number of housing units.

The second point which became clear from yesterday’s debate is that the Minister and his department are either unable or unwilling to alleviate this position. Why, Sir, is he not building his own accommodation to provide accommodation for civil servants? After all, it is his responsibility, and that he has accepted. All of us accept that under certain circumstances, as in the case of Pietermaritzburg, it is his responsibility and that of his department to provide accommodation for the medical personnel of the Edendale hospital. He must have known for some time that this is his responsibility because it was some time back that the Department of Bantu Administration took over Edendale hospital and that the Provincial Administration of Natal notified the personnel that they could no longer occupy the accommodation which they are presently occupying. But yet he has done nothing to find alternative accommodation except to move in and buy a block of flats in Pietermaritzburg and to eject the people concerned.

The third point which became clear from yesterday’s debate is that no protection is afforded to tenants of rent controlled flats if their flats are purchased by this Minister’s department. But what did the hon. the Minister say on the 5th February in reply to a question from the hon. member for Durban (Point)? He was asked by this hon. member whether “tenants in expropriated buildings were not accorded the fundamental protection granted by the Rents Act once ownership was taken over by the Government”. The reply of the Minister thereto was “Yes”.

Of course!

Well, Sir, the answer cannot be “Yes” and “No”. On the 5th February he said they were accorded protection whilst in reply to a question yesterday he said they were not. He even went further and said that it was not the intention of his department to attempt to afford them that protection. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must make up his mind.

I am the fairest Rent Board there is.

Fairest Rent Board —my eye! I want to say once again that I do not believe that any single flat-dweller is safe from that hon. Minister and the machinations of his department; not a single flat-dweller today can say that he is safe because of the protection afforded him by the Rents Act. That hon. Minister and his department can move in, purchase a block of flats and immediately the protection afforded by the Rents Act is gone. So, no one is safe from his department.

But there is still a fourth point, and perhaps the most iniquitous of all. It is that after having removed the protection of the Rents Act the hon. the Minister does not want to accept the responsibility of finding suitable alternative accommodation.

We do.

The hon. the Minister now says they do, but yesterday he told us that they did not.

For all those people falling within those groups for whom my department has to provide housing.

Yesterday he told me that only those tenants falling within the financial restrictions of his department’s regulations would be helped. He said that all he was interested in was their financial status. The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Of course …

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of ethics. Here he has removed the roof over the heads of a family through his own inability but yet he does not accept the responsibility of finding suitable accommodation for them. [Time expired.]

In an attempt to defend the charge made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) in regard to the desperate housing conditions before 1948, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) accused us of not knowing what it is to wage a war. He is correct— since 1948 there has been no war, and we are grateful for that. But, and this I want to tell him, we know what it is to wage a cold war. Ever since the National Party had to take over the virtually insolvent estate of the United Party in 1948, we have been involved, year after year, in a cold war with a negative Opposition, an Opposition which has been trying year after year to hamper this Government in its attempts at ensuring growth and stability in South Africa. The Opposition has tried to thwart all the attempts made by this National Government; Iscor was opposed, Sasol was opposed. An attempt was even made to oppose our becoming a Republic in South Africa. Now it seems as though the other side of this House also wants to thwart the Government in its attempt to combat inflation. Sir, I say that we have been involved in a cold war for 23 years. It is no wonder that we are saddled today with an Opposition numbed with cold. [Interjections]. I shall deal with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in a moment. The hon. the Prime Minister was justified in asking: What would the world have thought of South Africa if it listened to the United Party only? During the no-confidence debate hardly a single good word was put in for South Africa on that side. That was the position not only in that debate, but also in this debate.

In the past the United Party did co-operate—I can think of one example only —when an appeal was made to the people to be thrifty. Last year, the Water Year, another appeal was made to the people to save, and in that respect the United Party co-operated beautifully, but why? They co-operated because they knew that it would have fatal results for them at the polls if they opposed that appeal for economy in their customary manner. This year, when an equally important appeal is being made to the people to save, the United Party is making a farce of it. In this debate up to now hon. members on that side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Durban (Point), have been trying to make a mockery of this appeal. Yesterday afternoon he referred here to the emotional speech made by the hon. member for Worcester, but in an equally emotional, dramatic speech he himself put a question which he asked the Government to answer. The question was: Does the Government expect the old age pensioners and the lower income group to save? Sir, this side of the House does not expect every group to deposit hard cash in a savings account, but this National Party Government has no hesitation in asking every person in every group to practise thrift, even in regard to the essential necessaries of life. Sir, because we in South Africa have been experiencing such a large measure of prosperity, a tendency has developed for some of our people—I do not say all of them—to indulge in being wasteful. That wastefulness, in many spheres—from food to soap, from motorcar tyres to electricity—is a disgrace, but it is more of a disgrace when a member on that side of the House asks in this House by way of interjection: Why should we save? Sir, we must save for the sake of the future of South Africa.

The youth was mentioned by several speakers on this side as well as that side of the House. The hon. the Minister of Community Development rightly said that the young people had to learn to live within the limits of their own income. I myself also fall under that group of young people, and I am grateful to be able to say that there is still a group of young people who are prepared today to build their future in South Africa in a systematic and planned manner, who do not have the urge to start doing everything at once. In fact, I would like to make an appeal to these young people: Let us always hold up to ourselves that adventure of saving in such a manner that we can buy the essential things in cash, in the knowledge that such things are our own and are not being shared with a finance company. Sir, when that adventure, that ideal to be realized one day, no longer exists for our young people, there is a danger that they may become frustrated, and frustration is an ugly thing. It is something we see on the other side of the House every day.

Let us ask the United Party to help us in this attempt to save. Let them help us to save instead of going ahead with their manner of solving the problem: Throw open more gates to the non-Whites; throw open more gates to the male non-Whites and also bring their families to the cities so that they may lead normal family lives. Let them help us to save instead of saying at the polls, as they did in Randburg, “If you want servants, vote for the United Party.” We are in fact living in a time which is inclined to make one feel concerned and to examine oneself, concerned about the danger of inflation and what the future may hold if inflation is not checked in time, and examination so that each of us will make an effort to make, from his own modest station in life, his small contribution towards guaranteeing this country of ours a sound and stable economy.

Today I should like to try to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to a sphere which also causes one concern, i.e. a certain part of the agricultural sector. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to give consideration to granting assistance to the Land Bank in order that this bank may proceed to providing a more differentiated service. I want to tell you, Sir, that to my mind this concern stems from the possible danger that the agricultural industry may degenerate or may develop into an old industry, an old industry in the sense that the majority of the people practising this industry, are middle-aged or even elderly. In the economy warnings are continually being sounded against stagnation as well as excessive growth, with the ideal of a sound and vigorous growth. We should be thankful to our farming population for the sound growth they have been maintaining over the past number of years, at times even under the most impossible conditions imaginable, but from now onwards we shall have to think of helping this industry and ensuring that it will have vitality in the sense there will be a sufficient number of young farmers. It is gratifying to know that the Land Bank has a sympathetic ear for the young farmer, but this institution may, in fact, only take such steps as fall within the framework of what it is permitted to do. This afternoon I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance for the young farmers, and I am doing so on behalf of all the young farmers as well as the prospective young farmers, namely that the Land Bank should be assisted financially in order that it may, particularly in regard to its mortgage insurance scheme, proceed to a differentiated scheme as far as the premiums are concerned. The position at the moment is that a young farmer pays the same premiums as a farmer who is 60 or 65 years of age. Once a differentiated scheme can be introduced, it will involve a tremendous saving for our younger farmers, especially up to the age of 40.

I should like to quote from the Land Bank reports from 1955 onwards to show what a good and reasonable claim the younger farmer has to a differentiated scheme. In looking at the number of deaths and the claims paid out, one finds the following figures: From 1955 to 1965, i.e. a period of ten years, there were under this scheme, under the age group of 30 years, only 11 deaths out of a total of 2,741. The claims paid out amounted to R80,530 as against a total of R12,845,000. Even when one raises up the age limit to 40 years, one finds that there were only 61 deaths out of a total of 2,741, and that the claims amounted to R429,000 as against just over R12.8 million. Percentage-wise the deaths represent 2.2 per cent of the total and the claims paid out approximately 3.4 per cent of the total. We find these figures throughout, every year. I have now referred to the period from 1955 to 1965, but when we take it over a shorter period, we find that from 1965 to 1966 there were, under the age of 40, only four deaths out of a total of 270; the claims paid out only amounted to R16,950, which comes to an average of approximately R4 240 per claim. From 1966 to 1967 there were eight deaths out of a total of 325. From 1967 to 1968 there were ten deaths out of a total of 355, and from 1968 to 1969 there were only four deaths out of a total of 325. Therefore, from 1965 to 1969 there were 26 deaths out of a total of 1,285. I think that these figures speak for themselves and that they constitute a very good reason for asking the Minister to give consideration to granting the Land Bank the right to introduce a differentiated scheme on the basis of age as far as the tariffs are concerned.

Then there is another field I should like to embark upon, which I know is of a very drastic nature, but I have no hesitation in merely submitting the thought to the Minister. Any farmer, and particularly the prospective young farmer, finds himself in the difficult position today that, if he does not have land which he inherited, or if he does not have a fairly large amount of cash which he can obtain by other means, he is faced with the problem of raising out of his own savings the amount required for the purchase of land, the contribution he is required to make personally. I said at the beginning that we should try to keep our agricultural industry a young and vital one, but at present it is difficult for these young men to accumulate that nest-egg.

In addition, there is the problem of land prices which are still rising every year. The following passage was taken from the annual report of the Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank for 1965—

It is in this pattern, which is still going on, in which the young man has to assert himself if he wants to farm. In the past there were, to an even greater extent, opportunities for being financed by private institutions. But in the report of the Land and Agricultural Bank for 1969 the following is said—

The young lad who is so inspired with the ideal of being a farmer one day, does manage to do so, but only at a stage when he has already reached middle age. He will therefore be middled-aged before he will have been able to save this 20 per cent of one-fifth of the purchase price.

I do not want to plead today for everything to be handed to these young men on a tray. But for the consideration of the Minister I should just like to ask whether it is not possible to make concessions to a young man who has trained himself in an agricultural school or college, or better still, a person who is in possession of a degree in agriculture, in the sense that his learning, his knowledge and his experience should be looked upon as forming part of the security required by the Land Bank. I know that what I am asking does not quite fit into the pattern of combating inflation. However, these two thoughts which I have mentioned to the Minister, will have very little or no influence on the inflation pattern against which we are guarding at the moment. One cannot expect these people, who apply for assistance, to be granted that assistance immediately, but consideration can be given to expecting them to remain for a period of, say, 10 to 15 years in the direct service of the agricultural industry as officials of the Department of Agriculture. When they apply subsequent to having rendered such service, it would be possible for the Minister to consider regarding their experience and agricultural training as a measure of security. At the moment the agricultural industry finds itself in a period of changing over to mechanization, which is exceptionally expensive. The longer one waits, the greater the leeway that will have to be made up. This is so much the greater for those who still have to save in order that they may eventually raise the required 20 per cent of the purchase price out of their savings. I know that the request I am making to the hon. the Minister is a drastic one. But of the approximately 114,000 White farmers in South Africa at present, only about 32 per cent are under the age of 40. This is a percentage which, with a view to the anticipated high demands of the future, will simply have to be pushed up.

I want to conclude by saying that on a certain occasion ex-Minister S. P. le Roux said that a country that was looking after its agriculture, was looking after its future. Let us make sure now that we are looking after the future by guaranteeing the agricultural industry an energetic group of young men, who will have to see to it that the agricultural industry in South Africa will never become an old industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Bethlehem will understand if I do not reply in any way to his speech. He was largely concerned with the future of agriculture in this country. I have a very different subject indeed that I want to raise in the House this afternoon.

The subject which I should like to raise is something rather far from the economic and financial aspects of the Part Appropriation Bill. I should like simply to say as far as that aspect is concerned, that the hon. the Minister is levying a very heavy additional indirect tax on South Africa. This method of raising money for the State, I believe, is only justified in a country where there is a fairly even spread of income. This cannot be said of South Africa where there is a large concentration of income in the hands of a small percentage of the total population. But the indirect taxes imposed by the hon. the Minister will be felt by everybody in this country. Therefore, I profoundly disagree with this method of raising the additional tax that the hon. the Minister needs. I want to say one other thing on the financial aspect, and that is that I hope in drawing up his estimates for the Budget in view of the increased cost of living in respect of all manner of goods which will be a direct and indirect result of the sales tax, he will consider reviewing pensions and more particularly the old-age pensions presently paid to the Africans in South Africa. The miserable R5 per month which is the maximum that an old-age African pensioner may receive, paid every two months, that is R10 paid every two months, is hopelessly inadequate for anybody to sustain himself at even the barest subsistence level. That is all I wish to say about the financial aspect of the Part Appropriation debate.

I want to take this early opportunity of raising a subject with the Government and more particularly with the hon. the Minister of Justice. This is the granting of amnesty to prisoners on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Republic of South Africa. I asked the hon. the Minister the other day … [Interjections.] I wish hon. members would go and talk outside. I asked the hon. the Minister the other day whether he was considering this and, if so, whether he intended including the so-called political prisoners among those persons who will be qualified to get amnesty? He replied that the matter is still being investigated and it is therefore not possible to provide particulars thereof at this stage. I am hoping very much that the argument that I will put forward this afternoon will persuade the hon. the Minister that the decision which is to be taken as regards the amnesty to prisoners should not be the same decision that was taken both in 1961 when the Republic came into being and in 1966 on the occasion of the 5th anniversary of the formation of the Republic. On those two occasions political prisoners were excluded entirely from the amnesty that was granted to other persons.

They were not the only ones.

No, of course they were not the only ones. There were other categories of people who were also excluded. But irrespective of the case, the political group was excluded entirely. I hope that this will not be the case on the 10th anniversary. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I am not of course asking for a general amnesty for all political prisoners. That is quite obvious. However, what I am asking is that this class of political prisoner should not be excluded en masse when he considers the granting of amnesty and that each case will be treated on merit. That is what I am asking the hon. the Minister. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of something; not that I think he needs reminding, but perhaps the House needs reminding. Perhaps the House does not even know that most classes of ordinary criminals, although not all, are entitled to remission of sentence and to parole. However, political prisoners as a class are excluded from remission of sentence and from parole. They serve their full sentences except in very exceptional cases when the hon. the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, allowed one or two of the younger political prisoners to be released. It seems to me as a general rule that it is much better to be a prisoner who has been found guilty of all sorts of crimes such as attempted murder, assault, robbery and rape. Prisoners convicted of these crimes, under certain circumstances, are not excluded from remission and parole. But if one has committed and been convicted of a political crime, then all thought of remission of sentence is apparently put right out of the hon. the Minister’s mind.

I should like to give the House some figures for the present situation. At present, according to the latest figures that I was able to obtain, namely the figures for September, 1970—and there have obviously been changes since then—there are about 800 persons serving sentences for so-called political offences in South Africa. At present there are 11 White political prisoners. They range from people like Bram Fischer and Goldberg who are serving life sentences, to others who are serving sentences of seven years and more. Two of these prisoners are in any case due to be released this year, one of them quite shortly and one of them towards the end of this year. The one due to be released towards the end of this year is Lewin whom the Minister knows and on whose behalf I have already made representations. This man has served six of his seven years, which were imposed on him in the courts of law. Under any other circumstances, if he was not a political offender, he would long ago have had remission of his sentence. He is an A-grade prisoner and I ask the hon. the Minister seriously in all the circumstances of this case in which he is well versed, to consider whether he will not grant amnesty to this prisoner. On Robben Island, as far as I have been able to ascertain, and according to the last information I have received in this regard, there were between 400 and 500 political prisoners. Of course they are non-Whites because Robben Island is a non-White prison.

Why use the term “political prisoners”?

That used to be the term and it was even used by the Prison Department.

Surely you know that they are not political prisoners.

Well, they are convicted of political crimes, let us rather put it that way. Some of them are convicted of sabotage …

Crimes of violence.

Not all of them, by any means.

Most of them are crimes of violence and they are all contraventions of the law.

Some of them have committed no violence whatsoever. Some of them are serving sentences and pretty severe sentences as the hon. the Prime Minister certainly remembers from when he was Minister of Justice.

It is altogether misleading to talk of political prisoners.

No, I am not misleading anybody. A number of them are serving long sentences for crimes such as belonging to a banned organization.

Yes, communist organizations.

Yes, these organizations were banned, in retrospect incidentally. People belonged to that organization when it was still a legal organization. They were then found guilty of being in possession of pamphlets. These are not crimes of violence.

Of communist origin, yes; of subversive origin.

Coming from the hon. the Prime Minister, all I can say is it is quite ironical to hear that from the hon. the Prime Minister, especially when one thinks of his past.

I am prepared to compare mine with yours.

Oh, mine is very blameless.

Especially your communist friends.

I have all sorts of friends. I even have Nationalist friends, but I will challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to find me guilty of one single crime in this country. He would have the greatest possible difficulty to do that.

You are an agitator.

My past is a lot more blameless than that of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Order! Did that hon. member call the hon. member an “agitator”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Apart from people who are serving sentences for crimes against the State—I hope that pleases the hon. the Prime Minister although the Department of Prisons used to use the expression “political offenders”; however, they are now known officially and technically as persons who are convicted of crimes against the security of the State—there are people whose lives have been severely restricted by banning orders. No courts have come into this at all. They have never been found guilty of any crime; not of any crime of violence or of any other crime, but they are banned by ministerial edict. I submit that these people should also be considered when amnesty is granted. According to the latest consolidated list which was gazetted on the 30th June, 1970, there are some 280 people who are still banned. I am not talking of listed people now, but banned people. They do not all live in South Africa, but there are large numbers who still do.

Restricted people.

Restricted people then. I do not know why we are arguing about terminology, because everybody knows what I mean. When one talks of a banned person in South Africa it means a person whose movements are severely restricted by a banning order. Some people have since come off this list of 280 and, of course, others have come on, including the 19 people who were recently acquitted under the Terrorism Act. They have been given restrictive orders, some more severe than others. These restrictions extend from the simple restriction, prohibiting the attendance of meetings or entering certain premises, to the all-encompassing house arrest. The last list that was tabled in the House a couple of weeks ago reveals that at least 35 people are presently under house arrest in South Africa. People under house arrest and also those who are banned or restricted have all sorts of attendant difficulties, particularly in finding employment. Originally, when the house arrest clause was introduced in this House one of the explanations was that this was much kinder than sending a man to gaol, although he had never been tried or convicted, in that he would at least be able to continue with his employment.

We take that into consideration every time.

All the same, it means that employment opportunities are severely restricted. Whether the hon. the Minister knows it or not, when any person on this list finds employment they very often find that they are without it again because the prospective employer has been visited by the Special Branch who have warned the employer that the prospective employee is somebody whose political affiliations do not exactly meet with the approval of this Government.

While I am on the subject of people who are restricted or banned and under house arrest I would like to make a very special plea for one person, namely Mrs. Helen Joseph. She was the first person to be placed under house arrest in South Africa after the passing of the 1962 Act. This means in effect that Helen Joseph has been under home arrest for more than eight years which is more than 3,000 days, which is a very long time by anybody’s reckoning. Under house arrest, she has to live completely alone and is not allowed to have visitors with the exception of a doctor. She has to be at home every night between the hours of 6.30 p.m. until 6.30 a.m. and on weekends from 2.30 p.m. on Saturday until 6.30 a.m. on Monday. The hon. the Minister has granted her two concessions. She is allowed to attend mass on Sundays and she was also allowed to take employment outside the magisterial district of Johannesburg. Other than that she has to report to the police every single day. Helen Joseph is 65 years of age today. If the present order runs its full length she will be 67 years of age when it expires in 1972. I say there is something singularly ugly about the spectacle of the Government appearing to bully and pursue an ageing woman like this. By all stretches of the imagination I find it very difficult to imagine that a woman of 65 years of age can be a danger to the Republic of South Africa or to the National Government.

Now what has this woman done? Has she ever been convicted in a court of law for breaking any law in South Africa? No, except for one. She was once sentenced to a suspended sentence and spent four days in gaol for which, I might add, she has been disfranchised for life. She spent four days in gaol because she forgot to report at the police station. That is the only time she has ever been convicted by a court of law. She was tried in a court of law but was found not guilty at the original Treason Trial. She has never even been declared to be a Communist and in fact she never was according to what she says and according to what was said by the Government agent, Ludi. He said that she has never been a member of the Communist Party. But she did belong to two Communist front organizations. [Interjections.] She admits this and makes no bones about it. But she belonged to those organizations when they were still legal organizations. It is only in this country, as far as I know, that people are punished in retrospect for belonging to organizations that are subsequently declared to be illegal. For the rest she has a history of service to South Africa. [Interjections.] I will tell the hon. member that it is a lot better than his record of service to South Africa. One of the things, for instance, is that she served in the South African Defence Force between the years 1942 and 1946 as a full-time welfare officer. She is a qualified social worker. She worked as a social worker for the South African War Memorial Fund after the war. Then she served as secretary for the Medical Aid Society of the clothing industry for 15 years. She was banned in 1957 and restricted to Johannesburg. She has never been a member of the Communist Party and she has never—this is the important thing—been convicted in a court of law. I believe that what the Government really has against her is that she has taken an interest in and has visited all those people who were banished under the Native Administration Act of 1927. I am coming to those poor people quite soon. I think it is a sickening story of harassment of a woman, who as I say, is no longer young. Her case is known throughout the world, and I want to say quite categorically that I cannot think of a single act of mercy or compassion that this Government could do which would do more good for South Africa than releasing Mrs. Joseph from her house arrest order. She can be watched if the Government is nervous. I am quite sure that she will commit no crime. I think that she should be released now after eight years from the crippling house arrest and other bans that have reduced her life to a twilight existence of loneliness. That is exactly what it is. I ask the hon. the Minister to give special consideration to the case of Helen Joseph.

Now what about the people that Mrs. Joseph made her special concern? What about the banished people? This, I know, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I am glad to see that the Deputy Minister is here. Maybe he will convey this plea to the hon. the Minister. As far as I know, there are 19 people who are still in banishment under the 1927 Native Administration Act. I know these cases are meant to be regularly reviewed, but I must say I find this very hard to believe when one considers the details about some of these cases. There are two people, the Mopelis, a husband and wife. They were banished from Witzieshoek to the remote trust farm at Frenchdale. The man has been in exile for 21 years—quite a long time to be punished for whatever the sin was that he committed. It could be fighting against the tribal authorities or rebelling against some Government edict or a chieftain who was imposed on the tribe. I do not even know what the original sin was, but 21 years is a life time. Indeed, it practically is this man’s life time, because he is today a very old man. His wife has been in banishment for 17 years. They are both very old people, indeed. For the rest, there is another one that has been in banishment for 17 years, one for 13 years, two for 11 years, three for 10 years and the remaining ten from six to nine years. I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education will see whether some of these cases, anyway, cannot be reviewed in terms of an amnesty, and see whether they cannot for their remaining years be sent back to the areas from which they were banished so long ago. As I say, nobody really knows what their sins were. They have never been tried in any court of law. They have been banished by ministerial edict. They have never been given a chance to defend themselves. As far as one can gather, their sin appears to be mostly that their presence was detrimental to peace as regards of tribal authorities. It is generally some internal tribal dispute that causes these people to be banished. How do they live, if one can call it living? They are all banished to these remote farms. They either live on food or rations given to them by the Government if there is no work available. Mostly there is no work available in these areas. The allowance is R15 per quarter. On this amount these people are supposed to live. Many of them are already old and many of them are sick. As a matter of fact, some of them have died in banishment. It ought not to be too much to ask the Government when it is considering clemency to other people on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Republic to extend it to these people as well. While doing that they may also use their influence with Chief Matanzima to see to it that some people who were banished years ago—some of them as long as 10 years ago—under Proclamation 400, which is still in force in this nearly independent Transkei receive amnesty. This peace-loving Transkei has one of the most encompassing enabling Acts enabling the chiefs there to banish people. At the present moment there are 19 people under banishment in terms of that proclamation. Perhaps the Transkei would like to join in our Republican festivities and do something about these people as well.

Finally there is one other group of people whom I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and to ask him to remember when he is considering amnesty. These are the people whose punishment is never ending. After having served the sentence which the courts of law thought fit to impose on them, they have another sentence served on them immediately they come out of prison and are banished to remote areas—not banished, but sent away to remote areas in the Transkei and elsewhere where there are no opportunities of earning a livelihood. These people are not banished under the Act of 1927 and are not allowed to return to the cities where they were before. Many of these people are educated people and the most they can earn by doing road work is R16 per month. The result is that many of them are in dire straits indeed. I get many pitiful letters from people who have come off Robben Island after having served a sentence of imprisonment to find that their sentences are in fact never ending. The idea of rehabilitation, which I understand is one of the prime aims of our penal system, as it is the prime aim of every penal system of any modern country in the world, does apparently exclude this class of person entirely. Therefore I should like to ask the Minister to consider these as well.

I have no doubt that I will be called a sickly humanist, or perhaps something even more sinister—indeed, the Prime Minister himself, with great subtlety, even hinted this afternoon in the House that I am something much more sinister. Well, I want to tell him and the rest of the House that I really do not care what people call me.

I know it.

I am glad to hear that and I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister has learnt something from the years that we have grown old together in this House. A touching thought, isn’t it! The Prime Minister and I entered this House together, not hand in hand but at the same moment during 1953 and since then we have grown old together here and yet this is the only thing he says he has learnt from all the speeches I have made in this House! In any event, never mind about that.

Why are you in such a fighting mood?

I am in a fighting mood because this is a subject which requires being in a fighting mood. I should like to remind the House finally that there have been many cases in the past in South Africa where clemency has been shown to people who opposed the government of the time and I hope therefore that what I have said this afternoon will have some influence on the Minister of Justice when he considers extending clemency and an amnesty is declared, as I presume will be, for the 10th anniversary of the Republic.

South Africa must take cognizance of the speech made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton. Of course, I may not say that her speech was an inflammatory one, but it was very close to being one. Here we have a person who is supposed to be a responsible member of this House, and here she actually pleads for the continued existence of the peace-loving citizens of this country to be threatened. That is what the hon. member did here today. I am beginning to wonder whether democracy should not be reviewed so that this type of speech may be prohibited. We had here today a plea on behalf of those people who threatened the existence of every peace-loving citizen. She mentioned the names of Abram Fischer, of Mandela and of Mrs. Joseph, and if Harris had still been alive, I wonder whether she would have pleaded for him too, in spite of the innocent lives he took and the injuries inflicted at Park Station. Would she have pleaded for him too? I think it is shocking that we should have here a plea of this nature, a plea that amnesty should be granted to people like this.

What about Robey Leibbrandt?

His was quite a different case.

What about the Benoni post office murders?

If this request of the hon. member is acceded to, the peace-loving citizens of South Africa will revolt, that is what will happen. All the people whose names she mentioned here were properly tried by the Bench of South Africa, a Bench which is known in the world as one of the fairest, one which does not make a mockery of law and justice. Has the hon. member forgotten the 21st March, 1960—I happened to be in the middle of that trouble—when we had those problems at Sharpeville, Worcester, Vanderbijl Park and Langa, when the hordes were incited by these very people for whom she is pleading now, when they flocked into the White areas in their thousands and refused to carry passes? Is the hon. member pleading again today for that sort of thing?

Who shot whom?

Who shot whom? Unfortunately it was necessary to go to such lengths. One can only speak with admiration of the manner in which the Police behaved at that time. The hon. member is talking of something about which she knows nothing; she only read about it in her poisonous Press. If she is such a very good South African, why does she not speak to her friends, such as Kaunda, in regard to their attitude towards South Africa? Then she would be acting like a patriotic citizen. On whose behalf is she pleading in this House? She is not pleading on behalf of the electorate of South Africa, but only on behalf of a small number of agitators, enemies of the Republic. What the hon. member should have done in this regard was to devote a speech of praise of the hon. the Prime Minister for what he as Minister of Justice did in this country, for his having seen to it that we could go on living in peace and prosperity. That is what she should have done. But the hon. member must forgive me for not devoting any more of my time to her.

I want to come back to certain announcements made by the hon. the Minister. Like political vultures the Opposition immediately fell on them to see whether they could not make some political capital out of the position prevailing in the country today. They paid special attention to two aspects in particular. In the first place, they intimated their displeasure with the measures taken by the hon. the Minister to reduce consumer spending in the country in an attempt to control inflation. The solution, as they see it, is to accelerate the growth rate, as they put it, through the more effective utilization of our labour potential. Sir, how do they want to do it, and what does it imply? It implies one thing, and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put here last year; he sees the solution in a “crash programme”. He said, “Utilize 20 million people and never mind the outcome of it.” Sir, this is just what the United Party is like; let matters take their course. But at the same time they want to exploit this position, and when the hon. the Minister comes forward with proposals to raise the sales duty on certain luxury items, they think they can make party-political capital out of it. That is precisely how we know them—a real parasitical political party. Sir, perhaps they are on to something, for if you touch the individual’s pocket, he immediately is incited to some sort of revolt. But we know that that revolt is of a temporary nature, because any responsible citizen realizes, when he thinks the matter over, that the measures which have been taken are in his own interest and in the interest of his people and in the interests of his continued existence and that of the country. They think they can make some political capital out of these temporary levies. They hope to gain from the ranks of this 20 million protestors, as the mover of the amendment put it here, the votes of a few discontented persons. Sir, that is what they are yearning for, because they are satisfied with very, very little. Sir, as I know the voters of South Africa, I can tell you that they will drop the United Party like a hot potato because the vast majority of voters in South Africa are much more intelligent than the lot of rotten United Party members sitting here.

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir, I mean the Opposition sitting here. I want to refer, in the first place to the statements made here in regard to the increase in the sales duty. The Opposition must tell us straight out whether they want to return to the old system of direct taxation. No, they are keeping quiet. The hon. member for Florida proved in this House in 1969 that 85 per cent of the normal householder’s monthly necessities were not affected by the sales duty, and up to today not one of the Opposition members has been able to refute that. When the sales duty was introduced, certain important concessions were also made to the tax-payers of South Africa. With the introduction of the sales duty those concessions were in fact made to the lower-income groups, to married couples, in cases where both parties are working. But the U.P. supporters are conveniently forgetting about these things. Take the scale of taxation as it was in 1947. I am taking the example of a married person with two children who earned R3,000 in the Transvaal. In terms of their system he would have paid R200, and after these concessions he is only paying R94, virtually 50 per cent less. These are the concessions that were made. Of the concessions that were made in 1969, 29 per cent went to the person who earned less than R5,000, and 42 per cent of those concessions went to the person who earned between R5,000 and R14,000; that is the married couple. And then the Opposition says that these concessions were not made to the person in the lower-income group. Yesterday the hon. member for Maitland said here, “It is a pickpocket tax.” Sir, every tax payer can exercise control over this tax.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sir, my time is very limited. As I said, it is being called a “pickpocket tax”; I say it is a tax over which every tax payer has control. The pensioner to whom they referred, does not buy a stove or a refrigerator every day; nor even a blade or a small cake of soap. They hope to catch votes in this manner. Sir, this is a non-recurring tax, but in making these concessions the State did in fact do what it was expected to do. They have made certain concessions which have assisted indirectly in enhancing productivity. Encouragement has now been given to that married couple, that professional man, the man who had a certain income and came onto a scale in which there was that bulge in our curve, i.e. encouragement to work again, for these people felt that everything they earned went to the tax collector. A concession was made in respect of married couples with an income of up to and including R8,000, but this is not being mentioned.

I say that members of the Opposition are of the opinion that they will be able to derive benefit from this dissatisfaction, but it will merely be of a temporary nature. If they think that they can ever come into power in that way, I may as well tell them now that they are still going to plod along in the political desert for a long time. I say that these gentlemen who are so concerned about the growth rate—the hon. member for Bethlehem referred to this— never showed any interest in the grow rate before the Republic of South Africa was established. No, at that time they saw South Africa as the milch-cow of the British Empire. [Interjections.] In 1927, when the Iscor legislation had to be placed on the Statute Book in order that we might manufacture our own steel, these people fought that move. It was rejected twice in the Senate, and it was necessary to have a Joint Sitting in 1928. No, at that stage growth did not matter, because it suited them at the time. At that stage they were the people who curbed growth, but today they are riding the horse of inflation. This applied not only to the steel industry, but also to Sasol. At a certain election Mr. Graham Eden issued a pamphlet to say that £11 million was being wasted. But when the Republic came into being, when this young Republic was established, what was the attitude they adopted to growth? No, when the world was threatening us with boycotts, when we had these riots to which reference was made, they sat here and wanted to know what the world opinion would be. They said we would have unemployment. But at that stage there was no mention of a “crash programme”, and they did not want to take part in the growth and the stimulation of the economy of this country. At the time their only hope was that the National Party would come to a fall because of these boycotts and these riots. That was their only germ of hope. They thought they would be able to come into power in that way.

We know that the attitude adopted by this Opposition is that they are merely thinking of themselves and not of South Africa as a country. The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know here what we intended doing with that R47 million. He said the State was unfit to spend it. It was to be left to the private sector, but in reply to an interjection he laid a charge sheet against the State and wanted to know why we had not built the Hex River Tunnel and why we had not raised the walls of the Vaal Dam. No, one minute they say one has to take the money out of the economy, and the next minute they say that we should pump money into it again.

I am now coming to another aspect, i.e. the third leg of their motion, which says that the Government should adopt a more realistic approach to the Republic’s labour problems by promoting the more effective use of the country’s labour resources. The hon. member for Parktown said that protests were heard against the National Party as the National Party no longer had a labour policy. This was said with reference to the recent exemptions in order to allow Coloureds to practise certain trades—i.e. those of the bricklayers and the plasterers —at the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and in certain parts of the Free State. We have never denied that there is a shortage in certain skilled trades. We know that. The hon. the Minister mentioned it here last year. The hon. the Minister and his Department of Labour have gone out of their way to meet the demand. In exceptional cases exemptions were granted. Recently more exemptions were granted. As I have said, I know that there is a shortage of certain artisans. But why is that? In the industrial areas the bricklayers have left the building trade. They are going to the industries, where they have a guaranteed income, for in the building trade, their income is subject to the whims of nature. Whenever it rains, they earn no money. Then they have to stay away from work, whereas if they work in industry, they receive a guaranteed wage every day. There are, in addition, certain fringe benefits in industry. That is why many of the White artisans have left the building trade. This Government has introduced certain exemptions. It has come forward with encouragement by way of trade tests. It has granted adults the right to take certain steps in the industry. In spite of these things and in spite of the fact that the number of artisans in the building trade increased from 18,900 in 1962 to 35,000 in 1969, there is still a shortage of 4,700 artisans in the Transvaal, approximately 80 per cent of which is in the wet trades. The alarming fact is that during the years 1967 to 1969 only 30 bricklayers and six plasterers joined the trade as apprentices in the Transvaal. That is why it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to grant certain exemptions. I think it is necessary to emphasize that this is not to be regarded as a general exemption, but that it is being done subject to certain conditions. Because of certain exemptions having been granted, the United Party now accepts that job reservation has failed. The member for Parktown said, “Give us the tools and we will do the job.” What tools does the hon. member want? I shall tell you, Sir, what he wants. He wants to use the spade of integration for opening up the channel of Black labour in order that it may flow into the stream of White labour and swallow it up in that manner. That is the tool they want to use. That is the spade of integration they want to use. The United Party believes in growth with an uncontrolled influx of non-White labour. As against that the policy of the National Party is the controlled employment of non-Whites in the White sector. The Government will always continue to protect the White workers, and job reservation will, just as in the past, be implemented when circumstances require. We know that these exemptions are being granted subject to certain conditions, i.e. that no White person may be replaced, that there may not be any mixed working conditions, and that the Whites may not work under the supervision of non-Whites. I know that they will immediately ask me what job reservation implied; it is being said that 3.5 per cent of the people derive benefit from it.

Let us see what was said by one of the greatest leaders of the trade unions, namely Mr. Lucas van den Berg, subsequent to a charge having been made by Tucsa’s Director of Economic Research, Mr. R. L. Kraft (translation)—

Of his 173,000 members more than 100,000 are non-Whites. Therefore, the tail is still wagging the dog. But what does that leader of a responsible trade union, the Confederation of Labour, which represents approximately 200,000 Whites, have to say? I quote (translation)—

That is the guarantee which the worker wants. That is what the worker pleaded for. It is for that reason that the worker is so grateful for the fact that section 77 has been embodied in our Industrial Conciliation Act.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City complained that the White worker did not believe their policy because we were distorting their policy. How would they believe their policy? He went on to say (translation)—

In terms of their policy the White worker will be pushed by the non-Whites, because the non-White workers will flow in from behind. Now I want to ask this question: What worker can believe the United Party? What guarantee can the United Party give the worker that he will not be ousted? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a possible leader of the United Party. If that hon. member regards the Immorality Act as being the pettiest example of petty apartheid, I want to ask him what his views are on labour integration. No, a thing of that nature is obvious. The White worker cannot rely on that party. A party which wants to remove section 77 from the Industrial Conciliation Act, cannot have the support of the worker. They cannot have that support, for the United Party’s Leader has said that they will repeal that section. It is the guarantee of the White worker. It is the protective measure for the Whites in the industry. The National Party will definitely never repeal that section in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

The struggle against inflation and its control lie in the hands of every citizen in South Africa. They lie in the hands of the worker. All that is being asked, is a little sacrifice—not much, just a little. If each of us would only be a little less ease-loving, if each of us would only work a little harder, if we would strip away that snobbery and certain status symbols which we have set for ourselves, it will be much easier to win this fight. Over the years we have set ourselves certain norms. One must necessarily have two motor-cars and a swimming bath, and there was even a time when one had to have one’s prostate gland removed in order to have so-called status. What I am saying, is that we should do away with those status symbols which have contributed to inflation. By saving a little more, inflation would disappear like mist before the morning-sun. If the choice lies between survival and growth, the choice is unambiguously survival with controlled growth. It is in that light that the worker of South Africa sees the solution. If we were to accept the United Party’s policy of integration, we would have the greatest industrial unrest there could ever be. This party has brought us industrial peace, and I want to give hon. members the assurance that the workers will not allow themselves to be misled by this cheap propaganda which the United Party is trying to hold up to them or by the dissatisfaction which the United Party is trying to create in their ranks. With those tactics they will not get very far.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was not addressing us this afternoon, but he was addressing the workers on the Witwatersrand who have such mistrust in the actions of this Government. In the no-confidence debate I spoke at length about the chaotic state of affairs in the pelagic fishing industry in South Africa. I referred to the reports of the South-West African commission as well as the three interim reports of the South African commission to support my arguments. The Deputy Minister replied in detail the following day. Today I want to reply to the main points which he made at the time, and I want to go further by discussing the mismanagement of the rock lobster industry in South Africa by the Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister told me that many of the facts on which I had based my conclusions were not correct. I challenge him today to reply in writing and in full to my main allegations. Then we shall thrash out the matter later in this House. Secondly, he stated that I was referring to things which had happened in the Republic before he became associated with the Department of Economic Affairs. He said that consequently it would be wrong for him to attempt to pass judgement on the things which had taken place in the department at that time. What I want to know is who is going to speak about that, because I have made very serious accusations. Is the Minister of Finance going to speak about it, because he was Minister of Economic Affairs for a number of years? Are the hon. members for Piketberg, Moorreesburg, Parow and Paarl going to speak about it? Are they going to speak specifically about certain of the allegations which I made? With all respect, I want to say that it is not necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to pass judgment. All we on this side of the House are asking is that he should furnish all the necessary data and information to us and to the people outside. The people outside will pass judgment on that. I actually feel rather sorry for the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I believe him to be an honest man. I believe him to be someone who is interested in protecting our marine life. He has inherited a mess from his predecessors and he does not want to get involved in it. The hon. the Deputy Minister is, however, a member of the Cabinet and consequently he cannot avoid co-responsibility. The hon. the Deputy Minister was also a member of the Executive Committee of South-West Africa and he cannot be exonerated of all blame for what has happened in South-West Africa. He says he has no knowledge of the allegations I made or of what happened in his department. I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister some advice today. Firstly, he can consult his own Minister of Economic Affairs, because he was a director of a very successful fishing company for some time. Secondly, he can consult his own Minister and ask him to tell him what happened in South Africa in the days of the previous Deputy Minister and Minister of Economic Affairs. Thirdly and lastly, he can ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for information about the sad state in which the fishing industry in South Africa has been over the years. The present Minister of Finance carries a very big responsibility for what is happening in the fishing industry of today.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that I had made use of disgusting information when I asserted that the South-West African Administration had granted fishmeal licences to the Trust Bank at Luderitz and to Volkskas at Walvis Bay. In one respect the hon. the Minister was right and I was wrong, and I want to put the record straight today. Volkskas did not get a fishmeal concession at Walvis Bay. I therefore want to apologize to Volkskas for my allegation. However, Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor got a fishmeal concession at Walvis Bay. The hon. the Deputy Minister asserted that the Trust Bank, Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor only supplied the financial backing for the two fishmeal concessions. What are the facts? I am referring to the two fishmeal concessions which were granted, i.e. the one at Walvis Bay and the other at Luderitz. The particulars which I am going to quote now the hon. the Deputy Minister can go and look up for himself in the share registers of the companies concerned. In Walvis Bay the first fishmeal concession was granted to a company by the name of South Kunene, which still had to be formed, an undertaking being given by the company that 40 per cent of the shares would be made available to bona fide South-West Africans. The second concession was granted at Luderitz to a company by the name of Angra Pequena, which still had to be formed, on the understanding that 45 per cent of the shares of that company too would be made available to bona fide residents of South-West Africa. On the basis of these promises the South-West Administration decided that the guaranteed preference to South-West Africans was satisfactory. This was something for which Adv. Niehaus had pleaded in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa for years. But what actually happened? In the case of South Kunene there were two million shares of 50 cents each. One hundred-and-ninety persons, mainly prominent members of the Nationalist Party, members of the House of Assembly, Senators and members of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa obtained 330,000 of the 755,000 shares offered. 1.2 million shares went to Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor. I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this was not in fact a concession to Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor. In the case of Angra Pequena there were 1.8 million shares of 50 cents each. Fifty persons, also prominent members of the Nationalist Party, got 80,000 shares, and 1,209 million shares went to the Trust Bank. The registered address of the Trust Bank is No. 136 Adderley Street, Cape Town. Preference shares were issued as well. Every one of the 400,000 preference shares offered were obtained by Santam. Two years later the share capital of Angra Pequena was increased by 550,000 shares. Every one of these 550,000 shares went to the Trust Bank Nominees (Pty.), Ltd., of the same address in Cape Town, on behalf of the original shareholders of Wesbank Fisheries. Wesbank Fisheries was a company which had obtained a rock lobster concession at Luderitz the previous year. A while ago this concession was withdrawn, for very interesting reasons. I shall come to these reasons shortly.

Which concession was that?

They relate to the capital increase of the Angra Pequena company. I shall return to this shortly.

I should also like to say something in connection with factory ships now. Firstly, there is the Willem Barendsz.

Do hon. members in this House not remember that the South-West African Administration refused a licence to the owner of the Willem Barendsz in the first instance? But according to the Deputy Minister’s reply the then Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr. Diederichs, flew to Windhoek and advanced different reasons, which, according to the Deputy Minister, are not relevant in this debate. Why are these reasons not relevant in this debate? I should like to ask the Deputy Minister what good reasons the then Minister of Economic Affairs advanced for a licence to be granted to the owner of the Willem Barendsz by South Africa. I now want to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us in this House why he, as Minister of Economic Affairs, had to fly specially to Windhoek in order to put in a word on behalf of the factory-ship owners. Even worse, Sir, shortly afterwards the same Minister of Economic Affairs granted two more factory licences, if my facts are correct. The first one was to the Zuiderkruis and the second to a ship which had not yet been bought at that stage. The Deputy Minister said that the Executive Committee was not happy about that. Then they sent a deputation to Cape Town to consult the brand-new Prime Minister and call in his assistance against the action of his own Minister of Economic Affairs. What was the result? Drastic legislation was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa against the factory ships which had been licensed by the Government of South Africa. Secondly, the aid of the Police was called in to protect the territorial waters of South-West Africa against the factory ships. As recently as this year the Minister of Defence offered the assistance of the Navy for taking action against the factory ships in the territorial waters of South-West Africa. I challenge the Minister of Finance, the Father Christmas who granted these concessions, to tell us why he granted three factory-ship licences, with disastrous consequences for the fishing industry in South-West Africa and at enormous cost to the taxpayers of South Africa and South-West Africa.

Lastly I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister something. In replying to my speech he asked, “What did the Opposition do?” He said the Opposition also had a duty in this connection. In his maiden speech in this House more than 20 years ago, the Leader of the Opposition warned against the over-exploitation of the pilchard resources of the West Coast and South-West Africa. For the last five years I got up in this House every year and warned the Government against over-exploitation of the rock lobster industry, and particularly the pilchard resources, in South Africa and South-West Africa. I introduced a private motion in 1967 and called for a commission of inquiry, because over-exploitation was taking place. Have there been no further warnings? Just take a look at the Fishcor reports since 1965. Every year there were cautious warnings to the Government that over-exploitation was possibly taking place. What about the 1966 report of the South-West African Commission? The report indicated danger signs in the industry. Dr. Lochner submitted warnings and a theory to the commission of inquiry three years ago. Sir, what became of the theory and warnings of Dr. Lochner? Were they tested by experts? No, Sir. They were referred to a sub-committee of the Fishing Commission. Sir, a sub-committee under the chairmanship of a man who is a director of one of the controlling companies of the Zuiderkruis factory ship! This is not gossip. This is the official reply which the Deputy Minister recently gave me in this House.

†Now, Sir, I want to deal specifically with the mismanagement of the rock lobster industry, first of all in South Africa and then in South-West Africa. It is common knowledge in the industry that in 1959, after the industry was consulted, the then Director of Fisheries expressed grave concern at the trend that was developing in the rock lobster industry. Size and composition was falling and unit of effort was rising. Those were obvious danger signs. The industry of its own volition agreed to a cut in quotas. They agreed to a cut of per cent in 1960 and a further cut of per cent per year for the following three years. The result would have been to have reduced the quotas from 365,000 cases of rock lobster tails to 310,0 cases per year, but what happened? The Government overrode the advice of the Director of Fisheries and overrode the voluntary abandonment of a portion of their quotas by the rock lobster industry. This is what the Government did: In 1962 it announced that as from 1st January, 1963, the existing quotas of the old established quota holders would be reduced to 290,0 cases, but at the same time 21 brand-new concessions were given, amounting to 45,000 cases, to brand-new concessionaries. In spite of the warning of the scientific advisers of the Government 25,0 cases per annum more than the Director of Fisheries was prepared to authorize were in fact authorized and granted by the Government. One should not forget that in those days the quota system applied only to rock lobster tails for export. There was no limit on the amount of rock lobsters caught for internal use. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister of Finance was at that time Minister of Economic Affairs. At the same time as this concession spree was taking place, 6 further concessions were granted for the export of live rock lobsters, without any quota limitation whatsoever. None of those concessionaries had any connection with the rock lobster industry whatsoever. These lucky people were given right royal treatment. Their production was not limited. Established rock lobster industry was directed to make supplies of live rock lobster available to the lucky six concessionaries for export purposes. Around this time, Natal was not excluded from this spree. Sixty-odd quotas totalling 600,000 20-lb. cases, were granted to concessionaries in Natal. The best year that the Natal rock lobster industry had ever experienced to that date had been 30,000 cases per annum. No resource research whatsoever had been undertaken in Natal and the persons and firms granted these concessions generally speaking had no connection whatsoever with the industry. Today there are no more rock lobsters in Natal.

What were the consequences of the Government’s policy? Emergency steps, advocated by the fishing Commission last year, have to be taken this year. In terms of these steps, all rock lobsters now have to be brought under a quota system. The overall production quota is 175,000 cases, or 5.5 million pounds weight. Contrast that with the position a year ago before the new system was introduced. At that stage the export quota alone was 6.5 million pounds and there was unlimited local market production, with no quota for the export of live rock lobsters. Now suddenly, because of over-exploitation, emergency steps have to be taken. There have been 7 or 8 years of unlimited exploitation and assault on the rock lobster industry of the west coast. Those long associated with the industry have had their quotas cut in some cases by as much as 70 per cent over a period of 10 years. The people who benefited are the newcomers, the privileged newcomers. They have benefited at the expense of the old concession holders.

Now, Sir, let me deal with the South-West African rock lobster mismanagement. From 1922 to 1963 two large companies fished at Luderitz. There were good years and there were bad years and the average production quota was about 3,800 lbs. per annum. But in 1963 the South-West African Administration awarded the Trust Bank/Angra Pequena fish meal licence, that I have already referred to, at Luderitz. Sir, do you know what they said? They said that because the existence of pelagic fish at Luderitz was somewhat doubtful they would give Angra Pequena a rock lobster export quota of 25,000 cases to ensure the profitability of Angra Pequena. In 1964, the next year, the South African Government—not South-West Africa —awarded a 80,000 case rock lobster tail quota to Wesbank Fisheries; that is the concession to which I referred just now. Sir, listen to this concession: It was subject to certain conditions. The rock lobster were only allowed to be caught in the vicinity of islands off the South-West African coast. There were certain other peculiar features. First of all, the South-West African Administration was never consulted in this matter at all although all the islands in the area off the South-West coast are in the area fished by the Luderitz crayfish industry. Secondly, one island for which this concession was given was even in the middle of a sanctuary proclaimed by the South-West African Administration and where South West registered boats were not allowed to fish for crayfish.

What a scandal!

Not unnaturally people were upset, and I believe a deputation of the S.W.A. Administration came to see the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. The whole matter was raised with him and a compromise was arrived at. I would rather be a compromised participant than a shareholder if this is what a compromise is!

The Trust Bank company, Angra Pequena, was awarded a 94,000 case quota, bringing its total rock lobster quota to 1,880,000 lbs. per annum, and Wesbank’s quota was withdrawn. One would naturally feel sorry for Wesbank for having its quota withdrawn. But I said earlier that at much the same time Angra Pequena made an issue of shares, and the people who received the shares of Angra Pequena were the people who were the shareholders in Wesbank, whose concession was withdrawn. Sir, the compromise was this: Angra Pequena had been established to exploit a fish meal quota at Luderitz of 90,000 tons where the presence of pelagic fish was doubtful. Instead of that, it received an enormous rock lobster concession. Secondly, the compositions of the boards and the names of the shareholders of Angra Pequena and the Mid-west group are, to say the least of it, very similar. I am told that the controlling interest is the same.

Mr. Speaker, what has been the consequence of the Government’s rock lobster policy? They permitted crayfish exploitation at Luderitz to be raised by 50 per cent in that one year alone. Sir, one need not plead for those unhappy shareholders from Wesbank. They received a quid pro quo in the special issue by Angra Pequena the next year.

Sir, in this speech I have dealt with the wreckless mismanagement of the South African and South-West African rock lobster industry by the Government. Proof of my allegations is to be found in the fact that the rock lobster report of the Fishing Commission urges emergency measures to be taken, and further proof exists in the fact that the quotas have been slashed. In the no-confidence debate I referred to a crisis in the pelagic fishing industry. As proof that what I said was correct, I want to point out that there has been a slashing of the pelagic fish quotas by this Government in the last few months. The Minister referred to slashed quotas for the factories in South-West Africa of 45,000 tons in his reply to my speech. I understand there has been a further slashing to 30,000 since he made his speech. Sir, the Government is panic-stricken; it does not know what to do with the rock lobster industry and its own mismanagement. It does not know how to handle the pelagic fish industry mess after its own years of mismanagement. The Government alone is responsible for the ten years of unbridled assault on the marine resources off the South African and the South-West African coast by their political pals and their business buddies. Never in the sphere of government over the last 10 years has there been greater mismanagement and greater political nepotism than in the fishing industry.

I do not know precisely what the intention of the hon. member for Simonstown is with this question of fish which he is repeatedly raising. I want to tell the hon. member that if there is genuine concern regarding the future of our fishing industry, I have no quarrel with him in that regard, and he can also accept that it is not possible for him to be more concerned than I am about the future of the fishing industry.

But you were not concerned in time.

Because I know better than the hon. member to what extent it would affect the economic conditions in South-West Africa in particular if the industry there were to fail. But the one thing in regard to which the hon. member must understand me clearly now —and perhaps I did not make it very clear on the previous occasion when we discussed this matter—is that I am only prepared to accept responsibility and to answer for decisions in South-West Africa in which I was involved, and I am prepared to answer for decisions here in the Republic in which I was involved in my capacity as Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] Hon. members are not going to budge me one inch as far as this is concerned. I am not prepared to go snooping about into the past of whatever it is that happened. That is not my task. My task is to view the situation as it is today, and to try to do my best. It is not my task to snoop into what was done in the past. I indicated to the hon. member in the previous debate why it would even be foolish to try to go snooping about in this way, because it is never possible for one to get the same set of facts before one, when you begin snooping into the matter a year or five years later, as that man had before him at that time. In other words, you may then be lending yourself to arriving at conclusions which may be totally incorrect because you do not have that same set of facts before you as the man previously had before him. Therefore I am not going back into that past history. I do not regard myself as being equal to it. I am not going to do that snooping about. It is not my task.

The hon. member began by saying that he would be glad if I could furnish him with a full written reply to his main points. I replied to those main points to the best of my ability during the no-confidence debate. I did not reply to the points which I regarded as being of lesser importance. But the hon. member is at liberty, if he wants more information from me than I was able to give, to raise this matter with me, whether in writing or orally, and we can discuss this matter or we can conduct a correspondence in regard to it. But there is nothing as far as I am concerned which I am trying to keep quiet.

In addition the hon. member also said —I think these are the few points which he raised and which I feel I ought to reply to—that I had alleged in my speech during the no-confidence debate that the F.V.B. and the Trust Bank had only acted as guarantors, in this connection. I think the hon. member must read my speech again, because I did not allege that and that was not the position. I made it very clear that day that the Executive Committee had mentioned a few points which it would take into account in the consideration of applications. One of the points which was mooted in that debate, was that the Executive Committee would look for strong financial resources in the undertaking to whom the concession was made. [Interjections.] The financial resources of the company or group of companies to whom the concession was being made would be taken into consideration. There was never any mention of surety. The Executive Committee wanted to be certain—and I have advanced the reason for this—that if we were caught by trade boycotts, which at that time seemed very real, such a company would have resources other than its share capital which it could fall back on if it became necessary for it to do so. Those are the financial resources which the Executive Committee was looking for.

I indicated very clearly how a group of persons in Luderitz—and I even mentioned why the Executive Committee were sympathetic towards them—liaised with the Trust Bank in order to look for that strong capital backing. They submitted a joint application. They did it as a group. That is as the position was.

Who received the most shares?

I shall come to that. The same applies to the application of a group of persons from Windhoek who liaised with Federale Volksbeleggings. I said the other day that I assumed it was with Federale Volksbeleggings, but was not quite certain. The hon. member also mentioned Bonuscor. That is possible.

One of the other points laid down by the Executive Committee which they would take into account was how much of the share capital the group which was making application would be prepared to allocate to bona fide inhabitants of South-West Africa. That was the other point. This was not relevant the other day, and I did not mention it. Those applications were made. I do not know any more now how many there were. There were 20 or so, or perhaps even more. The applications were made by various people who had formed themselves into groups, taking into account those four, five or six points which the Executive Committee had said in advance they would take into account. I shall try to satisfy the hon. member since this whole matter apparently has a fishy smell about it to him. The Executive Committee gave that pile of applications to a committee of officials and said: Look, sort out these applications in order of merit according to your judgment, taking into account those points which the Executive Committee indicated it would pay special attention to. That group of officials sorted out the applications in order of merit. The Executive Committee was satisfied with the officials’ first and second choice. It was consequently accepted thus. Without any further ado the concessions were allocated to these two groups, which the officials had indicated as being their first and second choice.

The hon. member also spoke about members of the Legislative Assembly and the subdivision of shares. Why should a member of the Legislative Assembly not have applied for shares? Why should a member of the House of Assembly not have applied for shares? It was not these people who decided on those concessions. The body that decided on the concessions was the Executive Committee. Neither the Executive Committee nor individual members of the Executive Committee applied for shares. Of that I am absolutely certain, in so far as I can answer for this situation. They did not apply for shares. That is the whole story. I hope the hon. member will now be convinced that although this matter concerns fish, this matter, has figuratively speaking, no fishy smell about it. I feel absolutely convinced about that.

The hon. member is putting pressure on me in regard to the Willem Barendsz and the reasons which I said were not relevant. As far as I am concerned, the Opposition can put as much pressure on me as they like, but I am not going any further than to say that those considerations satisfied the Executive Committee that it would co-operate in the case of the Willem Barendsz under those conditions. Those considerations, which were mentioned by the then Minister of Economic Affairs, were confided to the Executive Committee. With that this matter, as far as I am concerned, is closed, no matter how much the Opposition wants to discuss it. The fact of the matter is that the Executive Committee was satisfied, seen from the point of view of South-West Africa, that it would fish under those conditions.

Then the hon. member came to Dr. Lochner’s theory.

What about the licences of the two other factory ships?

The Zuiderkruis and the other one.

[Inaudible.]

This I said in the previous debate. I said that, a few days after the concession became known, I visited the Prime Minister here in the Cape, and I told him the whole story. There is absolutely nothing I can add to what I have said. I told the hon. member candidly that the Executive Committee did not feel happy about those concessions. What more does he want in this regard? In regard to Dr. Lochner’s theory, I have already explained to the hon. member that it does not help to submit Dr. Lochner’s theory to scientists if an agreement cannot be reached with him in regard to those scientists. I said in the previous debate that my information was that the Department cannot reach an agreement with Dr. Lochner in regard to the scientists to whom it could he submitted for consideration. After all one would want, if that committee of scientists were to reject the theory, Dr. Lochner to accept that rejection. If he is not satisfied with the Committee which is appointed in this way, then one is really achieving nothing and then the same situation as we now have simply continues. I said that I myself should very much like to have absolute clarity in regard to Dr. Lochner’s theory, because once we know that that theory is correct and can be accepted, then it is not only a very important scientific breakthrough for South Africa, but, then we have something into which we can really get our teeth, and on the basis of which we can plan for the future. At the moment it is very difficult. One cannot merely say: Cut down as Dr. Lochner says should be done. For example, if we think of Walvis Bay …

But it has almost reached breaking point.

We have no proof of the theory. With our own observations we are now very close. We still have approximately 70,000 tons beyond his quota, as far as pilchards are concerned.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Are you satisfied that it is Dr. Lochner’s fault that his theory has not been tested?

I stated emphatically that my information from the Department was that an agreement could not be reached with Dr. Lochner in regard to the scientists who should test his theory. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that one cannot simply cut down. The position with the Walvis Bay industry is that it has a quota of 30,000 tons of pilchards—I think I mentioned in a previous debate that the quota had been reduced to 30,000 tons—and perhaps a further quota for 30,000 anchovies, which is uncertain. This means that the fishing industry at Walvis Bay will be cut down by at least one-third. This affects not only the industry; it affects not only the fishermen. It also affects the local authority there, as far as its financial revenue is concerned, and it affects the entire community of Walvis Bay, as far as its normal activities are concerned. In other words, one must be very careful how one cuts down. One must consider both points of view. One must try to keep an economy going, and one must try to restore an industry. One cannot merely take decisions lightly in this regard. We cannot merely decide that Dr. Lochner’s theory must be accepted, for we do not know whether it is correct.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also referred to the concessions of crayfish licences to Angra Pequena and specifically to the allocation which was made at the time to a certain group of companies, the name of which I cannot remember any more, to catch crayfish in the vicinity of the islands off-shore from Luderitz, which is Republican territory. This does not belong to South-West Africa. Before that concession was made, the concession was made to Angra Pequena, to which the hon. member referred, for very good reasons. When that concession for pelagic fish was made—let us sort this matter out candidly now—the Executive Committee had the recommendation of the Fisheries Division there. After an investigation had been launched by the applicants, they eventually obtained a concession. A further investigation was instituted by our Sea Fisheries Division—this is on record—which came to the conclusion that the allocation of a further pelagic fish factory there was possible. The Executive Committee had reservations in this regard. At that time the Executive Committee did not have reason to believe that crayfish was being over-exploited. There were signs of that, but then there were improvements again. There was proper control. The Executive Committee felt that it would have disastrous consequences for the little town of Luderitz if a licence were granted, the development were to take place there and the licence were withdrawn again. Hon. members who know Luderitz will understand the whole position. The community adjusts to such activities and it would have had disastrous consequences if those activities had been terminated. Consequently, to obtain more stability, the Executive Committee decided to grant Luderitz a crayfish quota as well, a smaller crayfish quota than the normal quotas. This would be something to keep it going. This is how it worked out, and there were no problems. Then the concession was made in the Republican waters off-shore of Luderitz. These are grounds where South-West Africa have been catching crayfish for the last 20 years. It is true that part of that concession comprised a conservation area. The result was that the Executive Committee of South-West Africa came to Cape Town to discuss the matter with the then Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs.

Did it help?

Yes, it helped. We discussed the matter with the then Deputy Minister and the upshot of that discussion was that he was unable to cancel the concessions. But we agreed on an amalgamation between the two concessions, with a considerable reduction of the joint crayfish quota added to that. That is what we were able to achieve, and that is what was achieved. Afterwards some concern was felt, and the indication today is that over-exploitation of crayfish is taking place. Corrective measures are being taken in this regard.

I think that is as far as I was able to take notes while the hon. member was speaking. I think I have replied to the points raised by him. I now want to say to the hon. member in conclusion that I have had a lot to do with fish in my lifetime, and the hon. member is also interested in the same thing. I have learned that if one has anything to do with fish, you must be very careful of the smell which is usually to be found in the vicinity of fish. The hon. member can bear that in mind as well.

Mr. Speaker, we had a very strange phenomenon here this afternoon, and this is that a member of the Government stood up and refused to accept responsibility for the actions of his Government, and told us that he was not prepared to discuss the policy and the actions of the Government of which he is a responsible member today and in respect of which he is responsible to this House.

He has a very good reason for it.

There must be reasons for it, because it is a most unsatisfactory and unprecedented situation. It detracts from the basic principle of joint Cabinet responsibility on which this Parliament is founded.

Does the hon. member really want me to go and ferret around?

Of course. We on the Opposition side cannot let the matter rest here. Here we have to do with the second largest industry in South-West Africa. Next to the mining industry it is the largest industry in South-West Africa, and it is one of the most important industries of the Republic of South Africa. And as such it was regarded by the United Party Government which preceded this one when they came forward with the Fisheries Development Corporation and the legislation regulating these matters. However, this Government came into power and today there is nothing but chaos in this industry. Practically nothing remains of the industry, and now the responsible Deputy Minister says he is not interested in what happened.

He does not want to ferret around.

Yes, he does not want to ferret around. But the people have the right to know what is becoming of their assets. The people have the right to know why the Government is squandering their assets. We, as the representatives of the people, cannot accept this flippant and happy-go-lucky attitude of the Minister. He will hear more about this.

It is something which is causing one concern in South Africa today, this tendency one finds in the Government to refuse to accept responsibility for its actions. The same goes for the Government in general. It also goes for the hon. the Minister of Finance. Among the people there is a growing protest against the mismanagement of this Government, a growing protest against the policy of the hon. the Minister of Finance and his actions as they affect the ordinary man in South Africa. The Government shrugs its shoulders and tries to blame the outside world. Furthermore it tries to blame the ordinary man for being too extravagant, meanwhile proceeding recklessly on its course of penalizing the man who can least afford it for the evil consequences of the Government’s own actions and its own policy. Therefore we on this side of the House are protesting against this Government’s failure and against the Government’s neglecting to protect the interests of the citizens of South Africa.

Their sins are legion. The most striking of the sins of this Government is their inability to combat inflation and the way in which they first promote inflation and immediately afterwards come forward with attempts in the form of penalizing the ordinary citizen in order to combat the way in which they themselves have promoted it. Equally striking is the way in which they grant voters large salary increases before general elections and even by-elections, and then, when the election is over, blame those same people and say that they are extravagant. Then they are called irresponsible because they spend their increased salaries on things which they believe they need. Then the Government again has to introduce punitive measures to take that money away from them and to curtail the spending of the increases which they themselves granted. On account of its own debt the Government is today applying punitive measures to curtail the income and the spending power of the people, without considering the persons who are being punished. In these proposals for new sales tax increases the people who earn least, pensioners, the people with small regular incomes and those who have to turn over every cent before spending it, are taxed in the same way and on the same scale as the richest in our country. No discretion is applied. Neither the hon. the Minister nor any other hon. member on that side has yet replied to the assertion made by this side of the House that it is not the less well-to-do who are extravagant. However, these people are taxed as if they are the ones who are extravagant. When the hon. the Minister replies to this debate, I hope he will give us a guarantee that the money which is being taken away and will probably be taken away by means of further taxes on 31st March, will not be spent by the Government in a way which will promote inflation. We all know how Government expenditure has increased. When there have been inflationary tendencies in the country, Government expenditure in the public sector has on occasion increased even more rapidly, proportionally, than that of the private sector. We want the Government to guarantee that, if it wants to reduce the people’s buying power, it will restrain itself as well.

While the hon. the Minister of Planning is present, I just want to say in passing that we as members of the House of Assembly take it amiss of him that we had to read a very important report on the economic development programme up to 1975 in the newspapers this morning, while it was not yet available to members of this House and is still not available. We take it amiss of him that he stated outside what the Government’s reaction is to this important report dealing with matters we are at present discussing, while the report is not yet available to members of this House. One gains the impression that the Government is quite indifferent to the public of South Africa. One gains the impression that the Government feels it is appointed by a higher authority and is not elected by the people and does not have to account to their representatives. One gets the feeling that the Government is high-handed, presumptuous, arrogant, unsympathetic …

Anything else?

A lot of other things too. That hon. Minister should not talk. We protest against this new technique of the Government, i.e. to conceal what it is doing to the people.

What is it concealing?

I shall tell you now. I am thinking of taxes, for instance. There was a time under this Government, when it was more responsible than under its present leadership, when the people knew that when they were going to be taxed, they would be taxed in this Parliament in a Budget which could be discussed as such. However, as the Government now realizes that the burdens it is imposing on the people are so heavy and will have such a tremendous impact if they are imposed all at once, it is trying to spread them over the year. The United Party Government and the Nationalist Party Government that preceded it always announced increases in postal rates in the Budget. Now these increases, ranging from R20 million to R30 million, are usually announced when Parliament is not in session. They cannot be announced at the time of the Budget, because then they would have too great an impact on the people. The people would realize what was being done to them. Now, for the first time, a tax of R47 million has to be announced in the Part Appropriation, a month before the main Budget, so that the main Budget will appear a little more favourable. After all, R47 million less will now be announced in the main Budget. This is a clever way to approach the people. Why cannot the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs come to Parliament when he wants to put up his rates? The hon. the Minister of Transport usually does. The hon. Minister of Finance has always done so too, but even he now wants the right to increase taxes during the recess in a stealthy and underhand manner, so that when the Budget is introduced the people will not realize what is happening under this Government. And it is pitiful that a Government should govern so badly that it has to devise all sorts of schemes to try to evade its responsibility towards Parliament and towards the representatives of the people. Even the way in which they charge the system of taxation is aimed at concealing from the people what they are doing to them. Do hon. members know that during the election I came across the rumour in the Free State that the sales tax had been introduced in order that income tax might be totally abolished by this Government? I am not saying that the Government was responsible for it, but these are the stories which were spread by Nationalists among the public of South Africa. Still, the fact remains that the sales tax was introduced with certain sound objectives and that income tax was reduced. Income tax is something you know you are paying. You feel it when you pay it. It hurts when you pay it. But you are not aware of the sales tax. Furthermore, the Government does not make known to the people what they are paying as a result of the sales tax. It merely announces the percentage which the Government takes of the factory price or the import price. But the people do not realize what they are paying. The middleman and eventually the retailer at the point of consumption all make a profit on the sales tax which is levied at source in South Africa. One cannot blame the businessmen. They invest the money. They pay it to the Government immediately and they are entitled to a profit, but the public does not know it. The public may think it is paying 20 per cent or 30 per cent on an article, while in fact it is paying 40, 50 or perhaps 60 per cent on the original price of that article.

But then the trade is cheating the public.

No, Sir. But I am very glad now I am not saying it, but the hon. member for Brakpan would, after all, not say something like that if he were not concerned about the situation himself. Now I want to ask him: Would he support me if I were now to ask the Minister of Finance in the interests of the public to adopt the course being followed in Germany, England and America, where these taxes are in operation? There, if a man is given an invoice for anything he buys in the retail trade, the price of the product and the tax paid on it are indicated separately on that invoice. I am almost sure the hon. member for Brakpan is going to support me.

I will support you.

There we are! I highly appreciate it. It must be a very good standpoint. It is a valid standpoint, because one of the more intelligent members of the Nationalist Party immediately agrees with me. Is it fair towards the public that they have to blame the retailer, as the hon. member there has done, for the fact that the Government does not have the manpower to do with this tax what it ought to do, i.e. to levy it at the point of final consumption? Because they do not have the manpower, because they have only 1,300 points to deal with when they do it at source, they do not want to levy the tax at the retail point so that the people may only pay what they have to pay. Therefore I shall be very glad to learn from the hon. the Minister whether he will in future make provision for the public being informed, by means of invoices or labels, as the member for Durban Point suggests, of how much it pays towards the normal price of the product and how much towards tax and profit on tax. I think this is the least to which the public is entitled. It is done in most countries which apply this form of taxation.

If the Government does not do this, it is because it does not have the courage to let the people know what it is taking out of their pockets. It conceals what it is doing to the people of South Africa. I doubt whether the Minister will say “Yes”. It is a simple matter. The Government has made one thing clear—it has no mercy at all for the ordinary man in South Africa. The Government is itself responsible for extraordinary expenditure in South Africa. On a previous occasion my hon. Leader gave a whole list of the things on which they are spending money unnecessarily. In 1938 I reported on Mr. Havenga’s Budget from the Press gallery. Then he asked R80 million on the ordinary Revenue Account for governing South Africa. After the war, in 1948, the United Party Government asked for about R260 million to govern South Africa. And now, Sir, what will this Minister ask this year? It will not be calculable in tens of millions or hundreds of millions. It will be thousands of millions. We know it. How much of it is necessary? How much of it is spent on ideological things? As my hon. Leader said, that money will be required because we have a Government which is itself a luxury and an extravagance in South Africa under present circumstances. Just consider what the laxity and delays of the Government are costing South Africa. Just consider the fact that the Orange River Scheme might have been completed long ago, at the prices of 10 or 15 years ago. How much more is that scheme not costing us now, because for 16 years the Government talked nonsense about its being an impossible scheme and an extravagant United Party plan? Just think of the citizens on the banks of the Orange River in the Eastern Cape who are dead and who, had this Government not been in power, would have lived and enjoyed the benefits of that Orange River scheme.

Why didn’t you build it when you were in power?

We were planning it. We had started doing the surveys, but then we had a change of government in 1948 and the new Government killed the scheme, just as they killed the far-sighted plans of Mr. Sturrock for the Railways— and now the Railways are again in a crisis. [Interjections.] Sir, just look at the extravagance and the foolishness of the Government. How they ridiculed Mr. Sturrock for wanting to have the Railways build hotels in South Africa! Who is now building the hotels? Now it is costing three or four times as much as it would have cost if they had built those hotels 22 years ago. If they had only had the foresight to know that 22 years ago Mr. Sturrock was seeing farther than they can see now. These are facts, Sir. One cannot forgive the Government for this. In particular one cannot forgive the Government for trying to hide what it is doing to the people. One wonders: Is the Government doing the obvious thing to end this unfortunate state of inflation? I do not want to discuss the labour policy again at this juncture. We have done so already and we shall do so again, but is it not strange that the Government members now respond to the sound proposals made by the United Party in regard to labour with a story which is untrue? They say that in terms of our policy we want to flood the urban areas with Native labour.

But you do.

Sir, there you have it again. We ask for two things. In the first place we ask for the existing labour to be better utilized. We are supported by experts all over when we say that there are few countries in the world where labour is used as lavishly and applied as uneconomically as in South Africa. However, that aspect of the matter is being concealed. In the second place we ask for industries not to be forced to decentralize today merely for ideological reasons, which are often uneconomical. We realize that decentralization may be necessary for economic and sociological considerations, but they should not be forced to decentralize merely for ideological reasons. We cannot understand why the Government wants to multiply the administration of urban and industrial areas at this juncture, when there is a shortage of manpower. At 10 of 12 new places they now want to appoint new administrative officials, new Native officials and new labour officials, and establish new authorities, while these things could be done much more thoroughly and effectively in the existing areas until such time as the inflationary pressure has disappeared.

†Then, Sir, in the few minutes left to me I want to deal more specifically with one aspect of inflation. I want to suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that he can act immediately to limit the incidence of inflation in South Africa. A few days ago I asked the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs about phase III of the local content programme for passenger motor vehicles in South Africa, and I was told that it would require by 1976 a total investment of R110 million by the manufacturers of cars and R50 million by the manufacturers of components in the new manufacturing processes to meet phase III of the local content programme. It is a matter of pride to us all that South Africa should produce her own motor cars, if possible; it would be a prestige achievement for South Africa; but it is also a question of timing, Sir. If it was necessary for urgent strategic considerations one would think differently; but we have seen that strategic considerations are not important in this context. Is it right, Sir, at a time when we are short of labour, when we are short of the skilled labour, which would be required in this third phase of the local content programme more than in the first and second phases, to embark upon this programme, to invest another R160 million which is not urgently necessary and to make greater demands on our labour force and generally to increase the price of a very important product such as a motor vehicle? I want to say at once that I cannot think of a section of our community which is more heavily taxed than the motorists. Sir, I do not have the time to go into it now but we have shown before that the taxation on the South African motorist is completely disproportionate to the tax on the rest of the community. I have managed with some difficulty to get hold of figures to show how the gap in the price of the passenger motor vehicle in the country of origin compared with the price of a similar vehicle in South Africa is growing. I must admit that these figures which I give for the country of origin do not include the purchase tax there. [Interjections.] No, it is not important because in Germany, for example, the purchase tax is only 11 per cent.

Then your figures are not reliable.

I have not been able to allow for the fact that a tax rebate is one of the important incentives given to the South African manufacturer for increasing the local content; so there the price of the South African vehicle is disguised. This is what happens. The ordinary Volkswagen in Germany in 1962 cost R868; it now costs R1,075. In 1962 in South Africa it cost R1,315 and it now costs R1,876. The difference has increased from R447 or 51 per cent, in 1962 to R801 or 74.5 per cent in 1971—I repeat an increase in the price difference from 51 per cent to 74.5 per cent.

Do you not know that the cost of labour has gone up?

Of course, Sir, in Western Germany labour costs have not gone up and they are not experiencing inflation in Western Germany as well! Sir, they are experiencing inflation in Germany to an unprecedented extent. The hon. member is always very helpful to me but he must study his brief. Sir, take the Olympia Rekord. The Olympia Rekord cost R1,368 in Germany in 1962 and in South Africa R1,783. The difference in price was R415 or 30.3 per cent. Now it costs R2 643 in South Africa and in Germany R1,594, a difference of R1,049 or 65.8 per cent between the price in Germany and that in South Africa. With regard to the Mercedes Benz in the lower price range the difference was R973 in 1962; it is now almost double, i.e. R1,784. The difference was 53.4 per cent in 1962 and it is now 73.1 per cent. These are inescapable facts. I have similar figures for the Fiat and the Volvo and other cars. That is what is happening. [Interjections.] No, I do not have the figures for the ministerial Cadillacs. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he is serious about combating inflation and if, for ideological reasons, he cannot accept any of the other sound and necessary remedies proposed by the United Party, whether he cannot then do what has been suggested as possible by some of his officials and that is to postpone the next stage for a year or two until we have arrested the decrease in the value of our money, until we have checked the present inflation. I think the Minister should make a statement as soon as possible. This is as urgent as the higher tax on purchases which he applied in his Part Appropriation. He can in his reply to the Part Appropriation announce a postponement of Phase 3 of the local content programme in order to avoid the inflationary effects of this programme, because it is inflationary. I have given the prices. It is inflationary because it competes for labour which we have not got, and it is inflationary because it affects the cost of transport. Here we have a Government which is failing the cities of South Africa by not enabling them to deal with their transport problems and by making the ordinary motorist more dependent on private transport to get to and from his work. They are pushing up the price of transport for every citizen in South Africa. If I had time I could tell you, Sir, how some of these duties to protect the local content of motor-cars are levied in South Africa. I could tell you there was a duty for five months on the axles of heavy duty vehicles which increased the price of a double axle heavy vehicle by R450. This was applied for five months and even today the company concerned cannot supply an axle and it is doubtful whether even with a protection of 30 per cent they can do it more cheaply than the imported article. I can tell you about diesel engines. [Laughter.] No, not those, Sir. Diesel engines are becoming a saga in the history of the Nationalist Party. I can tell you about propeller shafts, where because of protective duties, the South African manufacturer has to pay more for the propeller shaft. He is willing to buy the South African product and has accepted the price of the South African product, but months and months and years have gone by without shafts being delivered, in spite of this levy to protect the South African article.

But I do not want to go into details. This is wrong, and it is wrong that it should happen at a time when everybody is warning us against the dreadful consequences of inflation. This is inflationary; it can be postponed and it should be postponed. It can harm nobody and can only benefit South Africa. There are so many other things I can mention, but my time has unfortunately expired. I cannot speak about the immediate effect of this on foreign exchange, where we have problems too. I cannot deal with the fact that commercial vehicles, even light delivery vans, are exempted from this programme, with the result that today you have an interchangeability of parts between vehicles, one of which can be freely imported and the other which is prohibited by heavy taxation and for other reasons. Sir, I can also tell you about the danger of the limitation of models. I can warn you about what has happened in South America, where in one country for example they have not been able to change the models of their vehicles for many years. They are all driving obsolete cars. There is no incentive to buy, as in Russia, although the country concerned is not a communist state, and a motorcar there costs exactly four times as much as a more modern and efficient vehicle costs in the country of origin. There are dangers attached to this and I would say that in view of the inflationary danger we face, and because this programme must be inflationary, this should be postponed for a year or two. Let us give ourselves a chance to adapt to the new circumstances. Let us help the motor industry to comply efficiently with the 52 per cent local content which more than 40 models have achieved already, and let us give South Africa a break.

The hon. member for Yeoville leaves me speechless. The tunnel through the mountains should have been built years ago. He said the timing was wrong. Now that we have reached the third phase of motor vehicle development, he again says the timing was wrong. The hon. member for Yeoville must excuse me for not being able to spend much time on him. I just want to say that what the hon. member had to say in respect of the motor manufacturing industry here is something which we should very much like to discuss with him on some other occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if there is any person in this House who is competent to discuss this matter—and I am saying this without being immodest—it would probably be me. Hon. members on the opposite side may as well accept that what the hon. member had to say here this afternoon was absolute nonsense. Hon. members opposite acted in a petty manner in regard to the anti-inflationary measures which the hon. the Minister has now announced—I cannot find any other words to describe it. For that reason we want to avail ourselves of this opportunity of dealing with this whole matter and the problems with which we are faced today to the best of our ability in the hope that hon. members on that side of the House will see the light.

It is in the national interest that private consumer spending should be restricted. Over the past two years there have been clear signs of wasteful spending which in the long run can only have a disrupting effect on our economic growth. In the years 1964 to 1968 private consumption grew at an annual rate of approximately 8 per cent. But in the year 1969-’70 this growth increased by 2 per cent to 11 per cent. The most important reason for this was the sharp increase in spending on durable consumer goods. This comprises plus-minus 15 per cent of total consumer spending. During the years 1948-’68 consumer spending increased by plus-minus 9 per cent per year. In the year 1969-’70, however, we find the alarming phenomenon that over those two years there was a growth of 33 per cent, that is an annual increase of 16½ per cent. In other words, it is equal to twice the normal growth rate in the early sixties. It must be borne in mind that consumer spending is also the most important component of our gross domestic spending. It represents approximately 60 per cent of the total spending. It is this rapid increase which has been primarily responsible for the short-term overspending problem and all the accompanying woes of balance of payments problems, inflation, capital, labour scarcity, etc.

Over and above this overspending problem the increased rate of consumer spending has curbed savings. This is a very important factor. Not everything was caused by increased incomes. Savings from personal incomes, calculated as a percentage, decreased from 11 per cent in 1964-’68 to 6 per cent in 1970. This decreased in personal savings resulted in a shortage of investment capital which in its turn, in the long term, was responsible for the higher interest rates with which we have been faced. It is true that the restrictive measures which have now been adopted in respect of stricter hire-purchase conditions, increased and expanded sales duty, have a discriminatory effect in this sense that it will affect certain sections of society more than others. It is true, and we do not hesitate to say this, that it sometimes happens that certain sections of the public are also harder hit than others. Sometimes those, whom we would not like to see this happen to, are hit hard. We are referring specifically now to the third phase of our local content development in the motor industry. We want to endorse here that in the third phase of this development with its higher costs, which we are now entering, will be accompanied by certain problems. But what we want to add, and bring to the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville is that no curbs can be unaccompanied by sacrifices. There is no painless solution for wasteful spending. We must now have the courage, although this will sometimes be painful, not to hesitate at this stage to do these things, so that we may reach a solution sooner.

Such measures should not be judged in terms of the interest of this or that section but should in the very first place be viewed from the standpoint of the national interest. That is why I say that it is in the national interest that these steps be taken, although certain groups will be hit hard by them. This is only the first of a number of steps which will be taken to remedy the general problem of overspending. It is not only private spending which will be affected in this way. The hon. member for Yeoville, quite rightly, also referred to the fact that Government spending will also have to be carefully scrutinized. We know that everyone will have to tighten their belts a little. I am predicting now that it will once again be the hon. member for Yeoville who will kick up a great fuss when these curbs are introduced, that too little is being spent here and too little is being spent there. I just hope that the hon. member will remember this when such curbs are introduced.

If these steps are not taken the end result of the matter will be ever increasing inflation with sharp rises in the cost of living in the years which lie ahead. Now we have a non-recurrent increase in the prices of consumer goods with the prospect of general prices becoming stabilized in the near future. If we can suggest anything to encourage saving, then we want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will not be possible to make it more attractive for people to save. If it is possible it would be appreciated if the amount in regard to tax-free investments could be increased. We just want to suggest for consideration the idea that we think that serious consideration will also have to be given to making interest earned on our savings free of tax as well, and to increase the amounts which can be invested free of tax.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Newton Park introduced a motion in this House in regard to the depopulation of the rural areas and the concomitant problems. I am a person who represents a rural constituency. In the 1969 little Budget the introducer of the amendment referred specifically to two problems here, namely the problems of the old-age pensioners and the problems of the agriculturalists or farmers. But with the collapse of the wool market in this year, 1971, and taking into consideration the fact that the drought has continued unabated during these two years and is still prevailing, the position of the farmers has become infinitely more difficult than in 1969. In the introductory remarks of the Prime Minister in his no-confidence debate he also referred to this as being a serious matter as far as the Government was concerned. That reassuring statement meant a lot to us. The hon. member for Newton Park and the agricultural men on his side are not so concerned about the farmers. Why should he be concerned? After all, he represents Port Elizabeth. But in 1969 it was important to them, because it was just before an election and what they did was simply an attempt to catch votes. Now, with this motion which he introduced this afternoon, the hon. member must excuse me if I say that he made a speech which was completely unscientific and completely inept, but which was very popular with a small group of people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. That is why we begin this afternoon by saying to the hon. member that there is a large group of us on this side of the House who have over the years been continually engrossed with the problem of the depopulation of the rural areas, but only on a totally different basis. We begin with the first premise which the hon. member for Fauresmith stated so clearly yesterday, viz. that in any developed country we have the phenomenon of a migration of the rural population to the metropolitan areas. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

Further to the statement by the hon. member for Fauresmith, I just want to mention two figures in this regard to the hon. member for Newton Park. In the entire Western Europe there was, between 1955 and 1965, a movement of 25 per cent of the farmers away from the rural areas to the metropolitan areas. In the 20 years between 1949 and 1969 there was in America a decrease of 6 million to 3 million in the farming population. South Africa has now become a developing country, and why should the position here be any different? In other words, what we cannot change, we must accept. Against that back ground we must do the best we are able to do. That part of the world where I was born, grew up in and still live, is perhaps the most rural part of the Orange Free State and the north-eastern Cape. I can just mention in passing that the Orange River is no longer a boundary for that region. It is no longer a separating factor; it has now become a unifying factor. That is why we must realize that we will have to tackle this problem in a scientific way. In this way, for example, we have established regional development associations there.

Merely to talk at random, as the hon. member for Newton Park did, means nothing. No, we called in the assistance of a university. The University of the Orange Free State, with the assistance of this Government, firstly from the Natural Resources Development Council and subsequently from the Department of Planning, have made a socio-economic survey of that region, that is, the south-western Free State, and after that of the north-eastern Cape. Now we have in our possession eight bulky reports in respect of every facet of that which occupies our time in that part of the world. From that, certain matters became very clear to us. The hon. member for Fauresmith yesterday gave hon. members an idea of the difference between a scientific approach and an approach based on popular opinion. In the first place we realized that since we lie in the catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, further steps would have to be taken to ensure the future of that water scheme. So we set to work in a scientific way and with the knowledge at our disposal persuaded the University of Pretoria to make a survey of something which had for the first time in the history of South Africa happened on such a scale, to an extent for which we are deeply grateful today.

Because we had the scientific knowledge, and I should like to tell the hon. member for Newton Park this, we were able to persuade the former hon. the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, to make available to us that main catchment area conservation unit at Aliwal North. From there we went further. We realized that we could do nothing through boasting and in this way we established, with the knowledge at our disposal, a development corporation on which, inter alia, the hon. member for Aliwal North and I serve as directors. The directors of that development corporation are leading figures in every walk of life. To mention only a few, there are four or five professors on the board of managers who are connected with faculties the activities of which have a direct bearing on the problems there. The corporation was established and we are now coping with this problem of depopulation in a planned manner.

I can inform the hort. members that the first task we tackled was the consolidation of farming units. This will have a salutory effect on the soil and will increase production, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our second ideal and task with which we have already achieved a measure of success is the creation of avenues of employment for our people within that region, and this does not necessarily apply only to the agricultural sector. We also have a third ideal, however, and we are already working on this. Thank goodness there were people who had been working on this problem for a long time prior to that. We must offer the people in that region every opportunity to receive proper training so that, if they are required to leave that part of the world, they can hold their own in the developing parts of our fatherland.

To conclude, I want to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon to break a lance in respect of this matter for that part of the world from which I hail, i.e. the south-eastern Free State. I want to do so because it is imperative that our people should occasionally give attention to this matter. Those depopulating areas do not find it so easy to have industries established there. I almost want to say that it is impossible to situate industries there, to see chimneys arising there. The result is that we in the manufacturing industry can do very little, the exception being the few light agricultural industries. In other words, we are not a region which can export consumer goods, as are obtained in other complexes, but these rural areas have an export product. These are the people whom this area has produced and who have received their training there. There sits another one, namely the hon. member for Hillbrow, who comes from Fauresmith. In that way those regions to which I have referred have had to produce people for both this and that side of the House. I am thinking of Dr. Frans Cronjé who also comes from that part of the world. This afternoon, when the hon. member for Houghton was kicking up such a fuss, I thought again of the old Free State because she was pleading for Abram Fischer and he is also a son of that part of the world. We must produce people for the whole of South Africa. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of National Education is also present. We have the strange phenomenon in South Africa that we have enormous schools in our metropolitan areas. Most of them are good schools, but they are overcrowded. I do not doubt that they have the best teachers, both male and female, in South Africa at their disposal. In our rural areas, and I am sneaking in particular now of the south-eastern Free State but this also applies to other towns, there are some of the best school buildings. And these schools are staffed by some of the best teachers both male and female one can find. There are some of the best hostels and hostel facilities, which are second to none. The only difference is that the boarding fees at these hostels are ridiculously low. At these schools there are teachers, both male and female, with the best qualifications. On the one hand, however, we are concerned about the fact that the good German teacher, for example, must hold classes for three pupils, and that an excellent mathematics teacher, for example, must hold classes for five or six pupils. On the other hand, we are grateful for that because those teachers have the whole day in which to give each one of those pupils separate attention. In this way those schools are succeeding, as in my own town, in accomplishing things for which the larger schools do not afford opportunities. In the school at Rouxville there were, for example, 11 matriculants. All 11 passed, six of them with a first class with six distinctions in their subjects. The same applies to all the other schools. We in the rural areas would still like to inform parents, particularly in the metropolitan areas of the Transvaal, that the infrastructure there is perfect. The south-eastern Free State can very easily be reached by means of a fine tarred road or convenient railway services. By means of these fine educational facilities and hostel facilities we have in 1971 and in future as well an opportunity of affording our young girls and boys an education in rural surroundings. I have no doubt that every hon. member in this House would like to retain this system of decentralization which we still have in that part of the Free State, i.e. that every town still has its own high school. We want to afford every parent the opportunity of getting his children to school easily. We do not want to see the children there as pupils only, but also want to absorb them into those communities. In those smaller communities there are opportunities for each one of those boys and girls, if they have the qualities of leadership, to allow these to develop and to use them. That depopulated area in our part of the world has many problems, but thank goodness I can swell out my chest with pride at the people whom that area has produced. We hope that circumstances will be so favourable that we will in future be able to produce the same kind of product as we have done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield must have had a long sleep since yesterday. The speech that he made should have been made yesterday afternoon. We spoke about the depopulation of the platteland yesterday; it has nothing to do with this debate. I wonder whether he thinks that he is coming in with the stop-press and we must make special way for him.

But I want to get back to the hon. the Minister of Finance for a moment or two. I want to tell him that he reminds me of a boxer. He has been trying to soften the under-belly of the taxpayers. He comes along, nicely and quietly, with his blows in installments at a time when he should not be taxing and he softens up the taxpayers. He is taking R47 million from the taxpayers from the time that this Bill will be passed. He does it in the form of a purchase tax or a sales tax. His tactic is that as soon as the taxpayer gets used to paying the taxes that he is imposing now, supposedly on luxury items and non-essentials which are really essential items, he comes along with the next installment. This is going to be in articles which are essential. He thinks that we will get used to paying taxes in this form, but he still will not reduce the income tax. He will keep the income tax going and still impose, and widen his scope of taxing through, the sales tax. This type of taxation is hitting a particular class of people today who can ill-afford to pay it.

Some weeks ago there was a hue and cry throughout the world as a result of one or two television films that were shown in England. I have not seen them, but to my mind and from what I have read, they appeared to be very biased against South Africa. They did not tell the whole truth of the matter. But these films showed damning evidence of malnutrition existing in our country. I asked through the Press at the time whether the hon. the Minister of Health would make a statement and tell us whether malnutrition was as widespread and as severe as was reported in these films. I was hoping that he would come forward with a statement and tell the world that it was not severe. He has not done it. I am hoping, for our good name, that he will find time, perhaps in this debate—I do not know if he will find time in it, but then surely under the Health Vote—to tell us what is being done to combat malnutrition. I am perturbed when I read reports to the effect that in Tswanaland Dr. Nurse has reported and Dr. Wallaston has confirmed that malnutrition in this homeland is extremely rife. He says—and again it is confirmed—that in June of last year there were 287 patients in his little hospital and of these patients no fewer than 35 children and eight adults were suffering from malnutrition. I cannot believe that these are isolated cases. The hon. the Minister knows and I know that malnutrition can be combated, especially in South Africa where we have the food to give to the people. It could be combated because it costs far more to treat the patient suffering from malnutrition or one of its subsequent diseases like kwashiorkor, pellagra, scurvy or tuberculosis than it would cost us to supply people who are suffering from malnutrition, with food. I have heard over and over again that the difficulty of distributing food is the reason why food cannot be taken to these affected areas. Surely it is not beyond the ability of the Government to devise ways and means to overcome this difficulty and to use either trucks or trains or lorries to take food to these people. Sir, what does it matter if we give it to them for nothing? We should supply them with food if they have not the means to buy it. It may cost several million rand to supply them with food but the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that in his Vote he provided R12 million to combat tuberculosis alone, besides other moneys that were voted for our health services. Sir, we must do it. This is the thing that gives us a bad name.

Surely tuberculosis is not a deficiency disease.

No, I said that it was the result of bad feeding, and the hon. the Minister knows it. This little hospital, St. Michaels, is providing a service for 100,000 people, and through their agency alone we could be sure that 100,000 people would be given food. I have heard of surpluses that farmers are not being allowed to produce—surpluses of mealies, milk and citrus. The farmers should be encouraged to produce these foods and we must find ways and means of distributing them to people who are less fortunate than we are.

You know that that is not the main reason why they suffer from malnutrition.

I am coming to that. It is not only a question of not having the necessary food, but unfortunately these people are not educated to use the food which they do have an opportunity of getting. They do not buy the right food when they have the money to buy it and they do not use it properly; so we need an educational health service but there are no people for this health service. We are short of labour. We are short of labour throughout our services, right throughout the country. This goes on and on and it is allowed to go on while people are dying. It is estimated, as the hon. the Minister probably knows, that something like 80,000 to 100,000 people will die from gastroenteritis, and gastro-enteritis, malnutrition and kwashiorkor are all bound up in one group. The hon. the Minister knows that. We cannot allow this to go on. It is no good our grumbling afterwards if somebody makes propaganda out of these things which are happening in our country. These people are waiting for an opportunity to use this sort of thing against our country; they take this so-called evidence and splash it all over the world. I ask the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet to find ways and means of stopping this. They must do it.

Sir, talking about the distribution of food, it is very interesting to know—my farming friends here will be interested to know this—that Santa paid as much as 30 cents a gallon at Fort Beaufort for skimmed milk; that oranges have been bought by the Bantu in Soweto for one cent each. There was a terrific demand for them; there was not a pocket of oranges left. The people want them but they have not been able to get them. These oranges were brought there through an agency and were sold immediately. It is a great thing for these people to be able to get oranges and other citrus fruit. I was told that in Zwelitsha a poultry farmer sold 10,000 birds in one and a half days at 70 cents each, and he was left with not a single bird. The people want to eat but the food is not coming to them.

We have malnutrition in Soweto. The hon. member for Langlaagte challenged a member on this side of the House to show him one single case of malnutrition in Soweto. Sir, I have worked in Soweto and have dealt with these cases. The census that was taken there show that the distribution of milk and the facilities for purchasing it, were quite shocking. The distribution of milk in Soweto is in the hands of 40 Africans. No White dairyman is allowed in Soweto. We can buy a pint of milk in Sea Point for 7 cents; in Soweto they are paying up to 11 cents for a pint of milk. There is no competition there and there is no fixed price for milk there. It is estimated that there are 400,000 people living in Soweto. We all know that this is probably half the actual figure of inhabitants in Soweto. At the moment the consumption of milk in Soweto works out at half an ounce per day per person. It is possible that in some families three or four pints of milk may be consumed. Sir, that is the sort of thing that is happening, and it is not because they are spending their money on other things; it is because they are not able to buy milk there.

They spend a lot on kaffir beer.

There is not enough milk being distributed in the area. These 40 dairymen have a monopoly. Sir, the strange thing is that under the Government’s apartheid legislation the dairymen in Soweto must be Black. They will not allow a White person to distribute milk there. But the doctors there must be White. It is only under permit that a Black doctor is allowed to be there. Sir, it is a topsyturvy situation that we have in our country.

Sir, talking about food, brings me to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Some of our super market stores decided that they would keep the price of bread lower than the price suggested by the Minister, and the Minister actually threatened to take these people to court because they wanted to give the pensioner the right to buy a loaf of bread at the old price.

Scandalous!

This is absolutely scandalous.

That is combating inflation.

Does he mean to tell me that he is going to fix the price of every article on the shelves of the supermarkets and say to them that if they sell at less than that price he is going to sue the owner? That is ridiculous. He threatened them. I am very pleased that he withdrew his threat, but fancy treating people in that way! His excuse was that these people were using bread as a catch-line to attract other customers to come and buy other things. What about it if they did use it as a catch-line as long as people got their bread more cheaply? That is the important thing. Would he have done the same if a tin of caviar was reduced as a catch-line, and would he have wanted to sue the supermarket owner then? Now I want to leave this matter for a moment and go on to shortages in the health services which tie up with malnutrition.

For years now I have been telling the Minister and the House that we are not meeting the shortages and not preparing to meet the shortages in the medical and health services of our country. Because of this lack of preparation for the population increase, today we find that we are hopelessly inadequately staffed in almost every hospital in the country. We do not have enough doctors or dentists or nurses or people in the para-medical services, and the position today in regard to the production of doctors is virtually the same as it was years ago, including the fact that we now have a Faculty of Medicine at Stellenbosch, at Pretoria and at Bloemfontein. We will have to wait a long time for the students at Bloemfontein to qualify, and this Government should have instituted a medical school at Bloemfontein 20 years ago when I suggested it here, but they would not do it. The hon. the Minister then, Mr. Jan de Klerk, refused point-blank to have another medical faculty, and the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, also refused point-blank to introduce another medical faculty. The hon. the Minister now shakes his head when I say that they said no, it was not necessary and it would cost too much money.

You were not here 20 years ago.

When I brought it up here Dr. Verwoerd shook his head. I can give you the Hansard reference. This is the type of thing which is happening at our universities. At Pretoria University in 1968 —and these are the latest figures I could get—in the first year of medicine 464 students enrolled. In the second year, out of that 464, only 176 remained. In the final year, out of the 464, 107 doctors were produced. At Stellenbosch 66 entered and 39 qualified. At Cape Town University 170 entered and 80 qualified. At Witwatersrand 149 entered and 84 qualified. These are the figures for males alone. There are a few extra women students. There was a total entrance of 849 students and 310 of those became doctors. That number of doctors is not sufficient to catch up with the number we need. We have shortages all over.

What must we do?

I will come to that. The same applies to the nursing profession, but there we are faced with another difficulty. Not only is there a shortage of women going in for the profession, but on top of that we have competition from outside, from the nursing homes, and we cannot keep our nurses at the provincial or State hospitals. We have some loyal ones who stay with us, but why should a nurse work for a certain salary when she can get twice as much in a private nursing home? The result is that you have to go into competition. The wards today are denuded of nurses. There are wards standing open without a single patient. The beds are there, but there is not a patient lying in those beds because there are no nurses to look after the patients. What are we going to do about it? The demands of the nursing homes become heavier and heavier. Those people who belong to medical aid schemes are finding the demands on their schemes becoming heavier and heavier because these people have to be admitted into nursing homes today and the fees at nursing homes, as the hon. the Minister knows, are in most cases out of the reach of the middle class patient.

What is the remedy?

The first thing is that we have to open up some of those wards in the hospitals again, and if we do not have White nurses I suggest that we use Coloured nurses. That is what I suggest. That is the first thing. If we can have Coloured women …

Is that what you want?

Yes, I want that. Coloured nurses can work in the wards, in the European wards.

Is that your policy?

What are we going to do? Are we going to let patients die rather than have Coloured nurses coming in?

The hon. member refers to nurses in White hospitals. Is he only referring to Coloured nurses, or also to Bantu and Indian nurses?

I said particularly Coloured nurses, and if we cannot get enough Coloured nurses we will have to go further. It is no good our hiding this fact. [Interjection.]

Order!

We must be allowed to do it. I am not afraid to say that. What is wrong with it? The Minister will allow Bantu women to go in and do the domestic work in the hospitals, and they do it. They walk into the male wards and bring the patients’ food and they bring the medicines on a tray. In the children’s ward, who changes the napkins of the little White babies?

I just want to know what your policy is.

Some of my verkrampte friends there throw up their hands in horror, but their own children are being nursed by Bantu. We have seen it. What happens on Saturday afternoon at their sportsfields? Their nannies bring them there. [Interjection.]

The hon. the Minister speaks to me about pay. I condemn the discrimination that the Cabinet—not only this Minister but the Cabinet—applies in the pay of people who have the same responsibility with the same degrees and with the same qualifications and doing the same work. They promised that they would look into the question of narrowing the gap in the salaries in the medical profession.

Do you want equal pay? [Interjection.]

I want the Minister to hear this because I do not think he knows it. At intern level a White doctor gets R4,050 a year. A Coloured or an Indian doctor gets R2,880 a year, and an African doctor gets R2,520. The Bantu doctor gets almost R2,000 less than the White doctor.

Now, remember where the Bantu doctor is working. Remember where he is qualified and what qualifications he has. Who looks after more patients? The Bantu doctor at Baragwanath or the White doctor in the general hospital? What is the turn-over that goes through a Bantu doctor’s hands at a Bantu hospital? He has to work many more hours during the day. It is not a job from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. as the hon. the Minister well knows. They go on till they finish their work.

But that applies to everybody.

Of course, it does. But who does the most work?

In the Bantu hospitals? Surely they do not do more.

They do as a matter of fact. Does it justify a difference of almost R2,000 in salary between these two groups of doctors? Surely the hon. the Minister knows that in no other part of the world will this be tolerated. I will give you the reason advanced by a previous Minister of Health, Dr. Albert Hertzog. He said that the cost of living was lower for the Bantu doctor. That may be one of the reasons why he was thrown out.

The living standard.

Yes, the living standard. Let us go into that. Let us take the living standard. Does he pay more or less for his food? Does a Bantu doctor pay less for a fridge than a White man? These are living standards. These are essential things.

He pays less for his house and not for his land.

I want to know from that hon. member whether a bricklayer takes less from a Black man to put up a house than he takes from a White man?

Yes.

He does?

Then he takes less from you.

Of course.

Then he takes less from you too.

And the land?

He pays less for the land. Now, how many times does he build a house and how many times does he buy land? Once only.

What are you advocating?

I am advocating a narrowing in the salary gap.

Equal pay?

You cannot equalize it straight away. I am asking for the narrowing of the gap. We keep on telling you this. I have asked you to open up the White universities to let more Bantu go in there to study.

To study what?

Medicine. What do you think I am talking about?

But you said these were already overcrowded.

Yes, that is the point. I have asked the Minister over and over again to increase the physical space at the medical schools. Nothing was done about it. They dilly-dally with a medical school at the University of Witwatersrand. They change plans a dozen times. How many times have your provincial councillors not changed their ideas about the Johannesburg general hospital? And how can the medical school do without that hospital? They were going to move it here and there and with what result? It is still where it used to be and it can still only accommodate 200 students in the first year.

They won’t take more than that.

They won’t take more because they haven’t got the space. The hon. Minister knows that. [Time expired.]

I should just like to refer here to a few statements made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, who has just resumed his seat. Firstly I want to refer to the question of milk. He spoke of the high price paid for skimmed milk. The one example mentioned was that of Beaufort West, where 40 cents were paid for a gallon of skimmed milk. We must now give the matter careful thought. Beaufort West is in the hard grip of a very serious drought. There is probably no skimmed milk available at all. Now this example is wrenched out of context in order to create the impression that this is the position in our country. I am very certain that water could perhaps also be sold at some stage. That is surely not to say that we do not have water in our country. These are exceptionally serious drought conditions that are being used here as an example.

It is also said that in Soweto they pay 11 cents for a pint of milk. I can give the assurance that every Bantu township of Soweto has a milk depot where milk is delivered daily at the same price as it is delivered elsewhere. In addition there is a Bantu feeding scheme which daily sells two slices of bread with peanut butter and a half a pint of milk for one cent. These conditions are then exploited in order to show how bad matters are and what a maldistribution of food there is. I believe they do it to let the people outside hear what they allege is going on here in our country, thereby bringing our country into disrepute and blackening our name.

Then there is the question of nurses. As far as I know the training of nurses is conducted by the Provincial Administration. The whole matter boils down to the fact that in all branches of our society we have a very great shortage of labour. I do not know whether it is the United Party’s policy, but the hon. member declared here that we could simply use Bantu, Coloureds and Indians as nurses. If it is the Opposition’s policy that where there is a shortage the gates should be thrown open and non-Whites let in, then I wonder what is going to become of us.

Where did he say that?

Here another voice is raised. They know what the implications of the hon. member for Rosettenville’s statement are. He stated it very clearly and unequivocally. First he qualified it. First he said he was speaking about Coloureds. He said that Coloureds should be used as nurses. Subsequently he said that Bantu and Indians could also be used. Now there is the noise coming that indicates they did not listen to what their people said. What actually are the implications of this statement? I shall come back to that.

I just want to mention another matter, which the hon. member for Rosettenville touched upon, i.e. that doctors do not receive the same salaries. But when the question was asked specifically he said that there must in fact be a difference. Then what must this difference be? Now it is a question of degree. He agrees that there must be a difference. It is therefore not a case of the hon. member pleading here for equal pay for all persons. He wants to discriminate. He wants a difference, but his argument is that the difference must now be less. I should like to know how big the difference must be. I am afraid the hon. Opposition is keeping silent now.

Here we are dealing with a Little Budget and with a debate that has already been in progress for the past three days. We heard quite a lot here about financial matters. I think we are all agreed that there are things in our economy that must be put right, just as the necessary medical help must be given when a person is not altogether healthy. In such a case one surely goes to a doctor, and he gives one a prescription. And that is our present economic position. We realize that over-spending is our biggest evil. As far as I am concerned that is one of the shortcomings in our economic system. The United Party is dissatisfied about the fact that a purchase tax was announced in a Little Budget. They would prefer to have had it done in the general Budget. I believe that it is a fault in our entire system. If I become ill up-country I cannot wait until parliament is in session to be treated then by a doctor down here in the Cape. In that way I also believe that the powers should be in the hands of an hon. Minister of Finance to take the necessary steps immediately, if he thinks it necessary, even though Parliament is not in session. He must have the power to declare an increase in taxation when he regards it as necessary, so that the matter can be put right as quickly as possible. He is, however, responsible to Parliament and he must submit such measures to Parliament when it is in session. I really think this is necessary. It is already the practice in other countries. In my opinion it is necessary for us to place those powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister so that he will be empowered to institute monetary or fiscal measures when he regards it as necessary, and so that it will not be necessary for him to wait until Parliament is once again in session.

On looking back we realize that our country’s growth took place gradually. Since 1948 we have seen that gradual growth in our country year after year. If we look at the statistics we see that our gross domestic production in 1948 was R1,500 million. In the past year it was more than R12,000 million. The growth over the years has therefore been a gradual one. The Economic Advisory Council also determined that we should strive for a growth rate of 5½ per cent. Yesterday on the radio I heard that the Economic Advisory Council once more recommended a growth rate of 5½ per cent. There is nothing seriously wrong at the core of our country’s economy. It is just that a wild spirit of excessive extravagance has taken hold. There is a tremendous spending urge amongst the public. Our savings in the past three years have decreased by half, to 6 per cent. That is why it is essential for the necessary monetary and fiscal measures to be used to put this matter right.

During the no-confidence debate the United Party was already making a great fuss here about their ability to take over the Government, and they declared themselves prepared to do it now. I believe it was only an attempt to conceal the division in their own ranks, the splits and cracks that there are, because they see that the National Party, after having cleaned out its own house, after having plucked the few scales of the Hertzogites from its bosom, stands as a strong unit.

What about the other scabs that are coming?

Yes, any moment from now I shall show that hon. member a few scabs. The United Party is not consistent. Once again we have just heard how resounding was the protest when the hon. member for Rosettenville advocated a certain matter. They know they do not all agree with the liberalism that prevails in their ranks. We think back to the hon. member for South Coast who, during the previous session, objected to the fact that Bantu are doing unskilled labour that was earlier done by Whites. I can quote the hon. member’s allegation from Hansard for you. In the same breath, however, the United Party opposes us because we want to maintain the colour bar. The United Party’s solution is specifically the removal of the colour bar.

The United Party’s recipe for the over-spending and for our unfavourable trade balance has three main points, which are propagated by them. The first is that more labour should be brought in. The second is a “crash training programme” and the third is the 10 per cent growth rate. In all humility I want to try to prove today that if their policy is carried out, and if they were to come into power tomorrow and could implement these main points, South Africa would be sitting with a black government within the space of 10 years. Hon. members may laugh, but I shall prove to hon. members with figures what the implications of that policy of a “crash training programme’ and a 10 per cent growth rate will be. If one wants to maintain a 10 per cent growth rate one must also calculate the labour potential this would require, apart from where we are going to get the capital. We know that last year in its election manifesto the United Party gave a guarantee to the White worker. It guaranteed the White worker the same salary for 10 years. That sounds very good. In the meantime we have, of course, given a 12½ per cent increase to the officials, and this they would not have received if the United Party was in power, because they want to maintain that status quo. They want to guarantee them the same salary for 10 years. What would be the further consequences?

If that policy of theirs, a policy in which they carry on about the so-called petty apartheid, which an hon. front-bencher gave a definition for, is implemented, these discriminatory acts will be done away with. All the measures and acts that give offence must, according to them, be done away with. In other words, they mean, inter alia, that these separate residential areas must be done away with, because they give offence. This also includes the separate facilities on trains, and they must also be done away with, according to them. On the sportsfields all the facilities will have to be placed at everyone’s disposal. This would also entail the abolition of job reservation.

But you are abolishing it now.

Yes, it is a very good thing that the hon. member is saying this now, hut why the objection? That hon. member now seems to me to be altogether satisfied with the National Party.

The only trouble is you are going too slowly.

The United Party believes that it will check this overspending by achieving a higher growth rate. They do not want to obtain it by developing border areas, they want to obtain it in White areas. This would, however, bring in a stream of non-Whites and result in a very costly infrastructure. But the big question is, and I want to make it very clear here, that in order to obtain a 10 per cent growth rate we need 275,000 trained White workers annually. Those 275,000 trained White workers will, of course, have to be immigrants. We shall therefore have to bring immigrants into the country. In order to obtain 275,000 trained White workers, with families and all, an annual total of more than 800,000 immigrants will have to be brought into the country. And that is not the worst of it. If one employs that number of Whites in order to maintain the additional growth rate of 4½ per cent, one must employ 1.1 million more Bantu annually. If a Bantu family consists of five people, usually it is much more, it means that an additional 5.5 million Bantu are being brought to our White areas.

But there are already 8 million.

I am not talking about ordinary circumstances now. These people are necessary if an additional growth rate of 4.5 per cent must be maintained. However, in order to have a growth rate of 10 per cent many more Bantu are necessary. Now I come to the point I want to make. Let us see where we will be in 10 years’ time if the United Party were to come into power today. What would the picture be then? Eight million immigrants would have to come into the country.

Is that wrong?

Is it right? Hon. members opposite make a great fuss because this Government allows 30,000 to 40,000 immigrants to come to South Africa annually. They say that the Government is carrying out the United Party’s policy. We hear these stories every day in the platteland, and they were also used before the election. This story is as far from the truth as all the other stories they tell every day. The fact is that when the United Party, after the Second World War, wanted to bring immigrants to South Africa in their thousands, we did not even have enough food for our own people. Our people queued in front of the butchers, and mielie-meal was mixed to make bread with. But the fact that there was not enough food was not the worst of it. There was no housing either; material for housing was not available at all. Every immigrant that was then brought in by the United Party was placed in a house from which one of our own people was turned out. Our own people then had to live in shanties in back yards. But worse even was the fact that our own people did not have work. Every immigrant who entered the country then took the bread out of our own people’s hands, took their work and took the roofs from over their heads. Our own people were then pushed into the street. Those are the conditions under which the United Party brought immigrants into the country. Now, however, they speak of comparable circumstances. Today this Government also brings immigrants into the country, but there is sufficient work, food and housing. The circumstances are not in any way comparable. I mention these things just to put the matter straight for the record. If the United Party comes into power, South Africa will have a black Government within 10 years. Within 10 years we shall have eight million immigrants in our country, as well as at least 55 million Bantu in our White areas.

Where do we get them?

The United Party now sees for itself that its policy is impracticable. That is the United Party policy. They want to maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent. That is the implication of it, and now they are trying to evade it. If we now have those eight million immigrants in our midst, together with 55 million Bantu, what snowball’s hope has a White South African to come into his own? For me it is as clear as daylight that if we accede to what the Opposition suggests, it would mean the destruction of the White civilization here on the southern tip of Africa.

Our present problems with the balance of payments are a direct result of our rapid growth. While we should have been growing at the rate of 5½ per cent, in 1969 we grew at the rate of 7.6 per cent. That was a mistake; perhaps we were pressured to such an extent by the United Party. But the fact remains that all available means were subject to pressure. I am now thinking of the available labour and our investment capital. Demand exceeded supply. Wages and salaries increased and so did interest rates. In other words, capital became more expensive. Increased growth is therefore directly responsible for the increase in our production costs, and the increased demands for labour brought about a decrease in the productivity of our workers. Higher wages and salaries created a greater measure of prosperity and are responsible for a greater demand for consumer goods. This greater demand for consumer goods brought about greater imports. Unfortunately our productivity did not keep pace with that. Greater imports cause an unfavourable balance of payments and also greater pressure on the creation of the necessary infrastructure. From this it appears that a high growth rate is wrong. Therefore the entire argument of the United Party and all its pleas are wrong. We can argue as we like, but there is only one thing that can put the matter right. The people of South Africa, every person, must in the first place exert himself to save more and spend less. We are living beyond our means. Then we must also increase our production. At this stage we must increase our savings to form extra capital and create the necessary infrastructure with it. It is necessary for us to increase savings. This purchase tax that is aimed at doing that is one of the fiscal measures taken to cure the disease. We may allow this wild spirit of excessive extravagance to rage on. We are living at an altogether too high level. Everything we do is too luxurious. Our own homes, our furniture and our motor vehicles are too luxurious. Therefore, in all humility I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in future he makes provision for particularly the lighter motor vehicles, perhaps those costing less than R2,500 or perhaps less than R3,000, to be taxed more lightly.

What kind of car do you have?

I have an expensive car and I am prepared to pay for it. A man that wants to own a luxury car must pay extra tax. I feel that people should be encouraged to buy lighter vehicles, for which the running costs are less. If my suggestion is accepted it would virtually free those people who are finding things difficult from this extra taxation.

Sir, I now want to come to prestige buildings. We can go where we want to and all we see are prestige buildings. I refer here to banks, building societies and monetary institutions. I feel that restrictions should be placed on the construction of prestige buildings. The aim of these institutions is surely to supply a service and not to furnish a display. I think that the State and the provincial authorities should introduce restrictions in this connection in order to ensure that there is less extravagant construction and more efficiency.

Sir, we have just listened to a remarkable speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District, who dealt with the question of Coloured and Bantu nursing. Apparently in his constituency there are no hospitals, or he is out of touch with the nursing and the medical profession. I think the hon. the Minister of Health should tell him exactly what the position is as far as the use of Bantu, Coloured and, I understand, Indian nurses is concerned. Sir, I think you will find that most of our hospitals in this country today including our teaching hospitals, with the shortage of manpower, they are making full use of Coloured nurses. We have a training school for Coloured nurses here in Cape Town and we are now building a new one. There is a very large hospital being built on the Cape Flats and its main source of nurses will be from the Coloured community. I think the Government themselves have recognized the fact that we cannot do without Coloured and Bantu nurses in the hospitals. Take the big institutions that we have on the Witwatersrand. They could not run those hospitals without the assistance of Bantu nursing staff.

Sir, in the course of his ramblings the hon. member mentioned the question of increased taxation by remote control. The hon. the Minister of Finance reminded us at a previous session that he would like to have the power to increase the pay-as-you-earn taxation without having to come to this House beforehand for approval; he would then merely lay the papers on the Table of the House the following session. That, of course, is in line with the policy which this Government seeks to adopt. We have other measures that we are dealing with at the moment where this House is being relegated to a secondary position. Sir, I think when it comes to taxation this House should decide what people should pay. The Minister should not have the right to come to us afterwards and say that he has increased the tax by so much. We are rather upset and disturbed at what is happening in the Post Office, as has been mentioned here today, and we would not like to see the hon. the Minister of Finance coming along with measures such as those which the hon. member for Bloemfontein District seems to be proposing.

Sir, the hon. member talked about the house-cleaning undertaken by the Nationalist Party in order to get rid of certain elements. I wonder whether they have. I think we should leave it at that because we feel that there are still big troubles in the governing party, and if they want to get rid of their troubles they should use a very much stronger vacuum cleaner. Sir, I do not want to go into the hon. member’s theory on colour; I just did not understand it, but I hope to deal with the question of immigration later on.

We have listened here today to the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. We are getting a little tired on this side of the House of being told what the Government has done as far as industry is concerned. We are always having “Iscor, Iscor, Iscor” flung at us. The foundation of our whole industrial empire was laid during the war years when we had to fight a war. The big industries in the hon. member’s own constituency of Vanderbijlpark —I am sorry he is not here—were started during the war years under the inspiration of this side of the House. The Government therefore cannot take credit for these industries because they were established under the inspiration of the United Party Government. In the hon. member’s own constituency more war materials were produced during World War II than anybody will ever know. Those industries at Vanderbijlpark—the hive of industry—helped us to win the war. Listening to hon. members on that side, however, one gets the idea that we did nothing in our time to promote industry.

To come back to the Part Appropriation debate, you will have noticed, Sir, that none of the Ministers other than the Minister of Finance have so far taken part in this most important debate, the first debate we are having in this House after the general election in which the Government slid back, and the Provincial election in which they slid back further. In spite of the importance of this debate, no Ministers have come forward to deal with the policies of their particular departments. They have been sitting here without taking part in the debate. I have the impression that the Whips are looking for speakers on that side in this particular debate.

I want to say a few words on the question of inflation. You will recall, Sir, that the former member for Constantia, Mr. Waterson, warned this Government for years of creeping inflation that we are experiencing at that time. The Government was warned by us to take measures against it. When those warnings were issued, Mr. Waterson was just laughed at. He was told that these stories of his were just so many spook stories to frighten the electorate. With inflation getting out of hand to the extent to which it is today …

Your whole speech is a “spook story”.

Yes, I know …

So you agree.

That is what the hon. member thinks. The Government apparently has no answer to this problem. When one examines the measures suggested in this Part Appropriation Bill to slow down the economy and to check inflation, one gets the impression that they are hit-and-miss measures; that the Government is living from day to day and that they have no real policy to halt inflation. One gets the impression that they are simply hoping for something to turn up.

Sir. take the serious state of our export market at the moment. This has resulted in the adverse balance of payments that we are faced with today. We are also going to have to contend with the effect of Great Britain’s joining the European Common Market. What is the effect of this going to be upon us? We have not heard what the Government intended doing; we have not heard what the Government is going to do to stimulate the export market. It has shown a complete lack of initiative in devising plans to help this country in its present state. Sir, when we had a boom period, the Government did not know how to handle it. Today we are faced with the problem of inflation, and what do we get? We get these hit-or-miss measures which have been put before us. Where other countries have been faced with similar situations, their Governments have got down to it and dealt with the problem, but in those countries they have the advantage that the governments have the people behind them. Unfortunately this Government has not been able to mould the White people of this country into one nation.

They have done everything to upset the two groups in this country and we have not been able to weld this country as one and as a unit in order to pull this country right. Take, for instance, our exports. One does not like to see raw products such as iron ore go out of the country unprocessed, but in the meantime these could earn us considerable revenue. But what has the Government done? They have invited overseas countries to come and examine the position as to whether they should build a railway here or a port there, but when we see what happens in Australia where industry and mining have been encouraged and new railways have been built approximately 18 months after they opened a mine they are exporting the ore through new ports and railway lines. We are still talking about which port to use. Here we have the most wonderful opportunity of exporting coal through our ports, but now we find that the railways do not have the capacity. We will deal with that matter later, but it shows up the lack of initiative by the Government to do something to put us on the export market. I am not satisfied that the market overseas is saturated to such an extent that there is very little that we can sell over there. I do not think that is the case because at the present moment many countries are importing from other countries and we are also importing. One only has to see what happens in Japan.

The hon. member for Yeoville was telling us about the third stage in regard to the production of a South African car by the motor industry. I think the Minister of Economic Affairs knows about the warnings that have been sounded over the years. They have been told to hasten slowly because this country has a very small White population. Therefore a small market will have to bear the burden of our producing our own car. We do not have the volume market. The dies and the other equipment required are very expensive and today we are paying for it by paying a lot more for our cars. The hon. member for Yeoville has appealed to the hon. the Minister to give it second thoughts, and at this stage to slow down the application of this third phase. I think if we had an export market for our motor manufacturist in S.A. components we could probably produce a car as cheaply as any other country in the world. But at the present moment we just do not have that market and it makes our vehicles very expensive.

I said in the beginning that I think everyone is disappointed, not only in this House but outside, that there have been no pronouncements of policy by Ministers of the Government in this first Session after the election. I know they may be feeling depressed by their losses in the provincial elections and it may be that they have troubles in their Party. I do not know. One can only sense that there is something wrong. But the country would have liked to hear what the Government’s approach is to the very serious labour position that exists in this country today. I do not want to use the word “crisis”, but we are getting very near it. One reads reports of various departments, invariably the report ends by saying that owing to the shortage of staff they cannot do this or that. One finds that position right throughout the Government Service, and not only there but also in commerce and industry. The Minister talks about labour piracy; he does not like to see labour piracy amongst employers, nor does he like to see outside firms taking away Government employees, but I can tell him that the position today is that the labour is just not available. If big businesses have to carry on, they must get experts somewhere and they have to pay them. That does not help South Africa because it becomes more costly to operate. The feeling is that immigration will help us but we have missed the boat through the Government cutting down on our immigration scheme, and today the immigrants are not available. One must understand that conditions overseas and the standards of living of technicians are very much higher than in this country in many cases. This Government has no social security policy, and there people have health services and pension schemes in the countries where they come from which we do not have here. We offer no incentive to the workers to come to this country. If you speak to the immigrant workers, they say they like the sun but there is no pension scheme here and there is no health scheme. Television is something like the bicycle in this country. We wonder whether the bicycle has come to stay, and we wonder whether we will ever get television in this country.

That is socialism.

I do not think television is socialism. I think it is a necessity. [Interjection.] Prominent financiers and bankers have tried to explain to the Government that there is a shortage of labour. The fantastic turnover in staff that industry has to face is having the tendency to lower productivity. Productivity in our country is very much lower than it should be, but you can only overcome this problem where you have a permanent, settled staff. Take the Western Cape, where we have the migrant Bantu labour system. You can keep your Bantu workers for a year. Then they have to go home and it may be that you will get them back, but no factory can operate on that basis. That is one of the brainchildren of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, having migrant labour and bringing the Bantu in and out, and you cannot expect to get anywhere on that basis.

What do you suggest?

I am suggesting a settled labour force and not what we have at present, this going backwards and forwards. We just have to see the difficulties our farmers have to get labour on their farms. They have to trek for miles to recruit labour the terrific cost to themselves of having to obtain that labour, and how they have to go out on the Cape Flats and sit there a whole week-end trying to recruit a handful of labourers to take to their farms. That is our labour situation in this country and we cannot carry on on that basis. Years ago this party suggested that it was time that we had a conference to find out what the position was in regard to labour and to make a concerted effort to overcome the difficulty, but nothing happened because the ideological policies of this Government are such that they are prepared to put these policies before the prosperity and the wellbeing of this country. They are obsessed with this idea of the small White state operating on its own and possibly being all White in theory. While you have those theories and those ideologies, your country will suffer where other countries have been able to go ahead by making the best possible use of the labour available. [Interjections.] This does not mean opening the floodgates and allowing all the Bantu in. That is just so much rubbish. We on this side of the House were responsible for introducing influx control. We recognize the difficulty involved in trying to house thousands of Bantu in and near our cities.

At the same time this Government, with its policies of decentralization and border development, has not succeeded. In terms of their policy one area is 12 miles from the centre of Pretoria, and one can hardly call that border development. There are other areas, too, but what happens when industrialists wish to go there because they cannot obtain labour in the cities? They are held up by inter-departmental red tape. So, Sir, we muddle on from one difficulty to another and this country has to suffer as a result. The Minister of Transport could teach this Government a few things. I do not know why they do not listen to him. When he is short of labour on the railways, he makes use of Bantu labour, whether the trade unions agree or not. We believe that if there is any change as far as colour in industry is concerned, there must be full consultation with the labour associations and the trade unions. We do not believe that these changes should be made without consultation.

What will you do if they do not agree?

Ask the Minister of Transport. He will tell you. Another point I want to make is that when it comes to overcoming our labour shortage, we are not going to get relief from outside, at least not to the extent that some people in this House think we are. We shall have to turn our attention to education in order to produce technicians from the available labour. We have to make the best possible use of our White, Coloured and Bantu labour. Therefore we have to look to the training of these people in order to ensure the best possible use of each unit. We do not do so at the present moment. The hon. member for Hillbrow introduced his Manpower Training Bill, which was aimed at just that, but it was rejected. I should like to tell the House that industry itself has funds, protected by legislation passed in this House, which it uses to train the youth in all possible ways, to produce better technicians, and to combat the brain wastage we have in this country. The mines and our large industries, such as the motor industry, have training schools in an attempt to retain every possible person, but the Government just sits back. Let us take the case of Westlake to illustrate this. As the hon. member for Simonstad will tell you we have the finest adult training scheme for trades at Westlake, but this scheme, for some reason, receives extremely poor support from the public. Let us not have various Ministers like the Minister of Bantu Administration destroying the whole foundation of this country’s growth potential. We have often heard that South Africa should be the workshop of the African Continent. It should be and it could be, but what is happening? We find certain Ministers and departments doing their best to slow down our development as the workshop of the African continent.

We in this country are very fortunate. We have heard from the hon. member for Simonstad about the exploitation of our fishing resources, and it is fortunate that we produce gold in this country. One wonders what would have happened had we not been a gold producer. That has been our saving grace. It is also possible that we have become too soft because of our reliance on gold. I do feel that the Government should take note of this. The gold is there, but this Government has to do something to build the country up as a large exporter. We cannot do it unless the Government unifies the White races in this country and works hand in hand with industry to build the country up. I can say this to the House that everybody outside is going to check on what the Government intends doing, and if the Government cannot do anything, they will have to get out and someone else will be put in power who can do it. The position in this country is very, very serious.

What do you mean by “everybody”?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand. I want to say that we cannot carry on, or muddle on, the way we are doing at the present moment. The Budget debate is nearing the end and we will probably not have a chance of hearing the other hon. Ministers. Maybe they have nothing to say. Maybe they do not want to say anything; maybe they have no case. We have not heard them yet. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance will tell us something about the position.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is a good idea that a maiden speech be made as a diversion in the heat of a political debate. I want to say that I am very honoured to take my place among the hon. members of this House and, in addition, that I regard it as a privilege to represent the Bellville constituency here. If I ask myself in what spirit I must perform my work in and around this honourable House, I want to associate myself with the motto on the civic crest of Bellville. It is an old French moto; Prendre sa Belle. This motto has three different interpretations. The more spirited ones among us, or perhaps the over-spirited ones, translate it as “Grab his pretty girl”, which we do not regard as being in quite the right spirit. The balanced ones among us translate the motto as “Retain the beautiful”. This is almost in the same sense as that in which a celebrated national leader once said: “Take from the past what is beautiful and noble and build the future on it”. If I could use that as the basis for my actions in and around this House, I would be grateful. There is a third interpretation as well, namely that of “Seize the opportunity” or, as the other Latin saying goes: “Carpe diem’’.

In the first place, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Jan Haak. He served his constituency, his Government and his country with distinction. Although I regard it as a privilege to be able to stand up here in his place, I still feel it is a pity that in his constituency and in the country as a whole we have had to lose his services.

I should like to return to the idea of Prendre sa Belle, or “Retain the Good”. I want to say that there are few hon. members who, when they come to the Cape for the Parliamentary session, do not have to drive through the constituency of Bellville in order to get here. This being the case, I would say that it is my privilege to be the first welcome hon. members who come to Cape Town in the Peninsula and to tell them about all the beautiful and good things which are to be found and which happen in and around this Peninsula. For example, there are the beautiful beaches of Clifton with the beautiful view of the sea. When we were there in our young days, we did not see much of the sea, but nowadays we see the sea! These days, when one goes there in the company of one’s wife, she would prefer one to wear blinkers. But I do not think blinkers add to one’s appearance—neither at Clifton nor in politics. In addition, there is the beautiful coastline of Simonstown, and the hon. member for Simonstown will recall that on two occasions he and I have already had the opportunity of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the coast and the voters of Simonstown. Those were pleasant days. We are grateful for the opportunity they gave us to become schooled in politics.

†Mr. Speaker, we also have interesting people in the Peninsula; people of all shades of political opinion. We have the sometimes nearly have young Progressives, one of whom wrote to me recently and congratulated me on my election. In his letter he said that he would rather speak to me than to anybody from the United Party. I do not know why he should say that, because in the past I always found dialogue with the United Party or the Progressive Party very interesting. In fact, I have taken part in quite a number of these discussions. The honourable and charming member for Wynberg will know that we shared a political platform on one or two occasions, putting forward the policies of our respective parties. The hon. member for Maitland will know that we shared the same sort of experience. While we were both members of the Provincial Council and sitting quite near to each other, we had a constant dialogue over the floor of the House. It was quite entertaining at times. I was grateful for the opportunity of discussing matters with members even of the United Party.

*In addition, there are people with other shades of political opinion, pleasant people and friendly people, in the Peninsula. Besides the hon. member for Maitland, who is a constituent of mine, I should like to refer to two other constituents of mine in this House, namely the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Malmesbury. They are good Nationalists. The old saying goes that you cannot quarrel with your bread and butter. My only problem now is to find out whether they are verkrampte or verligte Nationalists. In this respect I am in some difficulty. Furthermore we have some perfectly ordinary, wonderful people here in the Peninsula. We quarrel and argue with each other in the way that decent people should. But when we come together again, we attend Communion together. There are a few snobs and such like too.

But I should like to avail myself of the time of the House to address it briefly about the need for an investigation into the question of whether fire-brigade services in South Africa are organized as well as they can possibly be. My attention was recently drawn to this matter by an action committee for the promotion of emergency and fire-brigade services. This committee was composed mainly of persons from the Western Cape who had undertaken an overseas tour in 1970 to the Continent of Europe, Britain and Israel, where they had paid particular attention to the organization of fire-brigade services in those specific countries. They paid particular attention to training facilities, organization and administration, equipment and the very important aspect of civil protection. I hasten to add that it is not my impression that fire-brigade services in South Africa are in any way in a chaotic state or anything of that nature. On the contrary, I want to make the observation that with the available funds and facilities the standard of our fire-brigade services is exceptionally high. The question is simply whether the existing shortcomings should not be investigated and whether ways and means cannot be found of organizing these services on an even better and more efficient basis than at present.

An investigation could have regard to the following aspects. In the first place, there are the administration and organization. The question may be asked whether the present level of control, i.e. our local authorities, and especially the Town Clerk departments controlling it, is the best level of control. In the second place, what is the best way in which these services can be financed? Must they remain the burden of local authorities alone or should other ways and means be found of contributing towards the cost? There is the question of uniform training facilities throughout the country. At the moment training is given on a sporadic basis at each individual fire-brigade unit. It is true that the South African Fire Brigade Institute provides guidance to the fire-brigade services, but the training is given on a sporadic basis from one fire-brigade service to the next. The question is whether opportunities should not be created for this training to be centrally and uniformly controlled. There is the question of uniform salary scales. At the moment these do not exist, with the result that one fire-brigade service entices away the staff of another, thus creating an anomalous state of affairs. There is the question of staffing fire-brigade stations fully. My information is that in spite of the fact that the committee charged with emergency services in South Africa prescribed certain standards to the town councils in regard to fire-brigade services, few of the town councils are able, with the means and the staff at their disposal, to bring those services up to the standard required for our civil protection services. There are other important aspects to which I should like to return, and these are the standardization of equipment in order to ensure greater interchangeability and cost saving, and the extension of the fire-brigade’s function as rescue service and its integration with civil defence services. I should like to dwell briefly upon four aspects, namely the organization and administration, the financing and the equipment of the services and their integration with the civil defence services.

In regard to the organization and administration, it is generally known that most fire-brigade services are the responsibility of our municipalities. In addition, divisional councils, the Department of Forestry and the harbour authorities have certain limited functions. However, providing these services is mainly the function of our municipalities. This is also the position which obtained in Great Britain until approximately 1941. In that year of crisis during the war, the British Government found that the services were no longer functioning efficiently. Consequently, the fire-brigade services in that country were taken over by the State. Subsequently they were organized on a regional basis, with the result that the whole of Britain is today covered by fire-brigade services. This is not the case in our country. Here these services are simply organized from one town to the next. To my personal loss, I found that there was an inadequate fire-brigade service at a place like Betty’s Bay. Last year 23 houses burnt down at Betty’s Bay as a result of there being no adequate fire-brigade service. In the absence of uniform legislation, the municipalities are prevented from providing fire-brigade services outside their own areas. Sometimes they are in fact allowed to do so, but then only with the permission of the town clerk or the mayor. He must first be traced and telephoned, and by the time one has traced him, the fire has already burnt itself out In regard to these matters, namely the organization of the fire-brigade services so that they can cover a wider field and be placed on a regional basis, I am satisfied that they can in fact receive and enjoy thorough attention from the authorities. The question is whether a special department of fire-brigade services should not be created under the authority of the Provincial Council. It can be done in the same way as we have hospital services under that council. On the other hand, the question can also be asked whether fire-brigade services should not come under the Department of the Interior, although I am not really in favour of that at this stage. Most fire-brigade services in the European countries, however, fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Perhaps the Department of Defence can take the lead as well, especially with a view to civil defence. This is the position in countries such as Switzerland and to a certain extent in Germany as well. This is all I have to say in regard to organization.

In regard to the financial implications, I must point out that most local authorities find the capital and running expenses too high to maintain these fire-brigade services at full strength and at the maximum level of efficiency. So much so that when economies are introduced in a budget, one usually finds that they are introduced here first, with the result that the level of efficiency later borders on inefficiency. In most European countries fire brigades have their expenses subsidized to the tune of 20 to 25 per cent by the central government, which is not the case in this country. I am aware of the fact that the Civil Defence Services recently made a considerable donation to certain fire brigades in target areas. I know that these donations came to a considerable amount, but it was a non-recurrent amount and not one which is made available to fire brigade services for their maintenance. Moreover, few hon. members will know that the premiums which they pay on their fire insurance depend on the standard of the fire brigades in their particular home towns. Whether you pay 75 cents per thousand rand of the value of your property, as in Bellville, or 50 cents per thousand rand, as in the case of Parow, the premiums depend on the standard of the fire-brigade services in the various municipal areas. In this respect, too, there are a number of anomalies. I have found that some fire brigades which compare very well, nevertheless do not procure for the inhabitants of the municipal areas concerned the benefit of a low premium. This decision rests with a voluntary body which is known as the South African Fire Insurance Council. It is a voluntary body which apparently decides according to its own standards whether the premiums should be 50 cents, 75 cents or R1 per R1,000. This too is a matter which may be profitably investigated.

I now come to the last two points I want to make, namely the question of equipment and the integration of fire-brigades with civil defence service. Fire-brigades virtually rank equally with the South African Police in the second line of our home defence. We must accept this. We now find the phenomenon that orders for fire-brigade equipment take as long as two years to be delivered from abroad. This is an unnecessarily long delay. If one links this with the idea, which it is not a farfetched one, that fire-brigade equipment is in fact in the second line of defence, and one considers the spirit prevailing abroad in respect of the supply of arms to South Africa, one can easily visualize a situation in which the unnecessary delay might eventually lead to deliberate delay. It is my contention that South Africa should be self supporting and independent in regard to fire-brigade equipment. I believe that this aspect may be thoroughly investigated. My information is that fire-brigade engines are already being manufactured locally with imported chassis. Therefore it is not impossible for us to manufacture these engines. The fact of the matter is that unless we view this situation on a larger scale, we may later find that we are getting into difficulties because we cannot obtain proper engines.

In addition, there is the other important question of the interchangeability and standardization of fire-brigade equipment. The fire-brigade engines of Bellville and Parow, for example, which have certain linkages for their spraying equipment, cannot be used in the municipal areas of Cape Town and Milnerton unless alternative linkages are bought and other changes are made. I think the standardization of equipment in order to ensure interchangeability is a very important matter which must certainly be investigated. To talk about popular matters; there is the important question whether fire-brigade engines must necessarily be red. In Europe at the moment the tendency is towards a bright yellow, which is much more conspicuous. Furthermore, there is the other question whether uniforms must necessarily be black. We all know that black is heat-absorbing instead of heat-resistant. White is heat-resistant. These uniforms should therefore really be white. There is the question of sirens instead of hooters, etc. I believe there is a tremendous field which can be covered by a proper investigation.

But I should like to come to my last point, namely the question of emergency defence or civil protection. We know what the function of the fire-brigade is, that they pull children from sewage pipes and cats from trees, but moreover, in a period of crisis, they must ensure the safety of the population in my particular area. What is even more important, we are continually looking for an opportunity of placing our civil defence service on a sound basis. At the moment my information is that the civil defence service of the Department of Defence is trying to co-operate with the town clerks of various municipalities, but have not always had the greatest measure of success. According to my information, for example, there are only two members in one of my neighbouring towns who belong to this civil defence service and who have to attend to a population of approximately 16,000 to 20,000. If this is the voluntary basis on which our civil defence services are operating at the moment, I say that we lack proper civil defence services. Of course, I believe that the fire brigade, which exists in every town and has a military discipline of its own or is organized on the basis of military discipline and which is on duty 24 hours a day, can perhaps form the nucleus of a properly organized civil defence service. I believe that this matter may be very thoroughly investigated as well.

The plea I am making here for an investigation is not an isolated one. I am aware that the Cape Provincial Council recently sent out circulars to various municipalities to the effect that they must furnish certain data in connection with the state of their respective fire-brigade units. Perhaps this is the beginning of an investigation, but it is not being carried far enough. I believe it can be carried much further than this enquiry on the part of the Provincial Administration.

In conclusion, I want to point out that in discussing these matters in this House, I am very careful not to create the impression that we should take the matter out of the hands of the Provincial Council. I was a member of that Council and I have the highest regard for the way in which its members carry out their task. I believe it is a very effective and approachable governmental institution and I want to take care that we do not take this work out of their hands. But I believe that we, in the position we occupy here, can make it possible for the four provinces and South-West Africa to co-operate with one another in order to achieve uniformity and proper planning in this field, in the same way as our Department of Transport was the catalyst in regard to uniform traffic road ordinances for the four provinces. I believe we have a function to fulfil in this respect.

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