Arising from the hon. Minister’s reply, why then did he supply the information last year in reply to a similar question?

It is no longer in the public interest.

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, is the Minister undertaking a mass immunization scheme in that area?

The hon. member must please table that question.

When I was speaking last night at the time of the adjournment there was a roar of protest when I said that one of the causes of the rising cost of living was the ideological policies of the present Government. I feel, as most of us do, that too much money is being spent and wasted on trying to carry out these ideological policies. One of the main culprits in this regard is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Sir, he is one luxury that this country can do without. He is responsible for a lot of muddled thinking and a lot of irresponsible expression and I think he is also responsible for the fact that many people in this country do not know what their position is, especially the industrialists. This is the type of thing that we get from the hon. the Deputy Minister, and this report comes from his favourite newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail—

“Any businessman who believed that the Government was not serious in carrying out its policy of stopping the flow of African labour into the metropolitan areas was living in a fool’s paradise.”

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that at Vereeniging during the week-end. He went on to say—

Now this part is very good—

[Laughter.] The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the days of talking are over and I sincerely hope that we won’t have to wait for the time when he has to repeat that a thousand times. We know also that one of the main causes of the spiral of increasing cost of living is, in South Africa at any rate, the shortage of manpower—there are too many jobs for too few people. But should that be the case in our country where we have so much manpower? Why should we be in this position in South Africa? Why should we have all those people in the Bantu reserves, people who are unable to perform the simplest form of work in the industrial field? Why have we not during the past 20 years taken sufficient interest in these people and made some attempt to train them? Now all of a sudden it is decided to have border industries. The hon. the Deputy Minister is part of that scheme. Where is he going to get the people from he wants to train? He says he is going to get them from the metropolitan areas and is going to bring them down to the border industries. But who is going to follow the Bantu to the border industries? Remember this is in white South Africa. So it must be the white man who will follow him. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is decentralizing because he is trying to move industries from the metropolitan areas to border areas. But what is he in fact doing? He is simply establishing another Johannesburg in the border areas—that is all he is doing. He is taking industries and putting them down there and white people must follow them. Who follows the industrialists?—the people of commerce. And who follows the people of commerce?—the people who work in the factories, the white people and their families who work in the factories and in commerce, and so on.

What is wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with it at all. Only, the position is that for every white man that goes to work in the border industries we will soon find two or three Bantu there as well—just as we have in the metropolitan areas at present. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to cause all this disruption? Is it necessary? It is costing the country a tremendous amount of money. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that it will not cost the country any money, but who, for instance, will pay for the transport or housing of the Bantu worker? Is he going to travel free of charge now? Is the Minister of Transport going to give them a free lift to the Transkei?

What is the present position in Johannesburg?

Wait a minute. How many man-hours are wasted to train a man in Johannesburg and how many man-hours will be required to train the replacement of that worker? The hon. the Deputy Minister says it will not cost the country any money. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that in every phase of our life to-day job reservation is breaking down and it breaks down because we need the blackman to help us. It is breaking down all along the line. The other day the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking about migratory labour and wanted to know what was happening about migratory labour on the mines. That is his favourite topic. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister now tell me why it is necessary to let the Bantu do more responsible work on the mines? Has he read the relevant report? Because there are not enough white people to do the work—that is the only reason.

Are you against migratory labour for the mines?

This hon. Deputy Minister has recently put his foot into it again. He believes in separate development, in apartheid. Over and over again he has said that there must be parallel separate development.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong in providing the Bantu in the reserves with all amenities. We should make it as attractive as possible for them to be there. The hon. the Deputy Minister should get a new slogan. He should say that the Bantu reserves should be made an attraction so that Bantu need not be coerced to go there. But no! He says that in the townships adjoining the metropolitan areas people should stop giving the Bantu luxuries and amenities. The Bantu have it too good, he says.

If you say I said the Bantu should not get any amenities then what you say is quite untrue.

You said that they were having it too good; they were getting used to luxuries. [Interjections.] That is what you said. The hon. the Deputy Minister can get up and deny it if he wants to. But he said that people should not make it too good for the Bantu because then they would not want to go back to the reserves again. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to retain the reserves as they are at present? Does he not want to give amenities for the Bantu in their reserves? Does he not want to make the reserves as attractive as possible for the Bantu? How can we have separate development if we are going to deny the Bantu these basic necessities in the reserves? [Interjections.] What are these “luxuries”? A road with a light in it, is that a luxury? Is it a luxury for them to have an occasional beer hall? Is it a luxury for them to have a football field or the Orlando stadium? Are these luxuries? Who is responsible for denying the Bantu in the Atteridge-ville area the right of accepting a gift of R350,000 odd from a white man for the provision of amenities? Why were they stopped from giving these amenities to Bantu in the Pretoria area? That is what I want to know. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is sincere then he should tell me why the provision of these amenities is being stopped. The hon. the Deputy Minister is, therefore, not only interfering with the local authority but also with private persons as well. He is preventing them from spending money for the Bantu.

And I will continue doing so.

That is not the way to create a contented country because that can only cause disruption and dissatisfaction amongst the people in our country, Black and White. [Interjections.] I feel the time has come for our Prime Minister to do away with this piece of luxury which has been foisted upon us. We do not want that type of luxury and we can do without it. If this is to be the way in which we are going to progress in this country, by having that type of Deputy Minister, then our future is indeed very very black, whether he moves the Bantu or attempts to move them to the reserves or not. But the hon. the Deputy Minister is letting many in through the back door whilst shunting a lot of them out again through the front door. He has got a chess-board policy. For those people who are being affected—the industrialist, the businessman, the man in commerce and the Bantu himself—I think it is a disgrace that they should be kicked about and be used as pawns on a chess-board as the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, when the time comes hon. members opposite will get what they want. The hon. member for Rosettenville, who has just spoken, expressed so many peculiar views that it is difficult to make a selection on which to react. I just want to react to one point. I think the hon. member does not even deserve that, but I nevertheless want to do so. He said that he could not understand for what reason industries and new large complexes had to be established in the border industrial areas. I think his exact words were, “What sense is there in building another Johannesburg at such other place?” That is the most childish statement I have ever heard from a person who gives out that he is not a child. I want to reply to the hon. member by asking a counter question to which any child will be able to give a sound reply. Where does the hon. member want to allow the thousands of Bantu workers to live by day and by night if they work in factories? In the heart of the white area, as at Johannesburg and Soweto, or within the Bantu homeland opposite a border industry?

What is wrong with Soweto?

The hon. member knows what is wrong with Soweto. Everything is wrong with it as the only place where development is to take place, but according to the integrationistic views held by the hon. member it naturally is, as far as he is concerned, the right place, because he does not care to what extent that area becomes blacker, for those people can integrate with the white people. However, I have given enough attention to these childish remarks. Actually, I am on my feet to react to what two speakers opposite said yesterday. The hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Green Point—he is not present at the moment, but that is not my fault—as other speakers opposite did earlier during this year—I now have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in mind—and other members outside this Chamber, referred several times to the necessity, according to their views, of white capital and white skill being allowed into the Bantu homelands, and becoming vested there. I should like to say something about that.

I want to commence by saying that I think that that is a very superficial and secondary way of approaching the entire matter. I am pleased that the hon. member for Green Point is present now. To give out that all that it involves is that white skill and white capital should be allowed into the homelands is a very superficial and secondary way of approaching the matter. A much more fundamental view has to be taken of the matter. What it actually involves is that there must be economic development within the homelands. That should not be presented in the way in which hon. members opposite did so. That should not be presented as though such economic development within the homelands can only come about if outside interests—Whites from outside—are able to set such economic development in motion. That is how hon. members opposite put it. I say that that is a very secondary view to take, namely as though everything depends on white initiative and white capital and, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said earlier this year, on freely allowing white capital into the homelands. We must have clarity about what is involved. Economic development must take place in the Bantu areas. But what is really more fundamental than that is the fact that the people and the nations of those Bantu areas should be activated and developed as nations so that they may become more and more able to manage all affairs, including economic affairs, on their own behalf. At the same time, in these affairs, assistance must come from outside. That is quite right, but there are matters in connection with the development of the Bantu areas in regard to which, as the Bible tells us, we must do one thing and not omit the other. It does not merely involve white skill and white capital. It involves something much wider than that. In this regard we have to guard against one thing. Hon. members opposite apparently do not realize that at all. What we have to guard against is that such intensified development will not be set in motion by factors outside the Bantu areas, by outside interested parties, that such development within the Bantu areas will outstrip the people of those areas, their absorption capacity and what they themselves are able to produce, so that they themselves will not be able to catch up with that development ever again, because then we would be breaking a nation and not making and building a nation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may shake his head three times if he wishes to do so. I do not mind. I know that he does not want to understand it, even if he is able to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon. members should just pay some attention now. Let us look at the way in which any country develops. How does any area develop? What are the normal phases of development of any country and nation? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) must listen. Then he will learn something. The first and most fundamental phase of development of any area anywhere in the world is its agricultural development. Only then does the development of its mineral deposits and mineral resources and any other raw materials follow. Along with that come commerce and industry. Those are the three major phases of development which we encounter all over the world. Agriculture is the primary thing. Then comes the development of mineral resources and then commerce and industry which develop simultaneously. The second and third groups mentioned by me can develop simultaneously. Then there is a fourth phase which I want to mention. I am not mentioning it now because it takes fourth place. As far as importance is concerned, it most probably takes first place. In such a country an entire network of services has to be established, something which we nowadays call the entire infra-structure. An entire infra-structure has to be established for the development of that country. That too is a very important matter. The development of this infra-structure also takes place simultaneously with the other matters. As a matter of fact, it is extremely beneficial to bringing about the development of mineral resources, to the establishment of commerce and industry and, of course, also to agriculture. People who do not realize these things are as stupid as those people at the U.N. who said, “The only thing one needs in South-West Africa is to open up a few gold mines there, and then one will have all the money required”. As if one can open up gold mines at Oshanas, where there is no gold to be found. That is exactly the same mentality. Industries cannot be established precipitately without the raw materials being available. Nor can industries be established without there being water, electricity, roads and all such necessary contributory factors to development. Even if we do have abundant white skill and abundant white capital available, industries cannot be established if the other factors are absent. That is the entire picture which hon. members must see. [Interjections.] The hon. member should try to behave himself to-day. He should now give me a chance to speak. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to remain on my feet for two hours and to reply to all interjections if hon. members want to make it possible for me to do so, but they know that I have limited time. We all know from experience why, as I put it, agriculture is so extremely important. The reason is that agriculture is such a basic thing for the provision of food for those people and because agriculture itself provides raw materials for the second and third phases of development, namely for industrial development and for commerce.

Let us glance at what happened in the Bantu areas of South Africa. What happened there? What was lacking in the Bantu areas of South Africa? Were there white enterprises which wanted to undertake all the enterprises which had to be established there? What is the policy of the National Party in this regard? Is what we have here not merely tendentious political talk and an echo of cheap journalism which we find in many respects from members opposite? Let us now approach the matter fundamentally. The development of the Bantu areas must follow exactly the same pattern as that mentioned by me—agriculture, mineral resources, commerce and industry, and, along with all these things, the infra-structure must be provided. What was happening in the Bantu areas? By nature the Bantu originally knew something about agriculture. I say something, not everything, and that was just in respect of animal husbandry which was virtually bound up with their religion. About crop farming the Bantu knew nothing, nor did he want to for a very long time—even to-day many of them do not want to know anything about crop farming. About commercial crops, for example, the cultivation of cotton, trees, fibres and all those things, crops which are not edible, the Bantu did not want to know anything for a long time, and even to-day many of them do not want to know anything about them. The infra-structure, too, was entirely lacking there. For the Bantu it was equally necessary that that development had to be there along with agriculture, the provision of water, the opening up of sources of water, the construction of roads, the putting up of wires, telecommunications and transport schemes. All these factors were wanting.

The demand for agriculture is great and if agriculture cannot be developed with the provision of these services, who is to provide it? Let us see who came forward to provide agriculture. Did white initiative come forward to provide agriculture in the Bantu areas? No. There was no interest in that. Agriculture is so extremely important that we as a government have always had to accept that responsibility. Up to the present time the South African Bantu Trust has been the only large initiative factor in the provision of Bantu agriculture and in leading the Bantu to agricultural activity.

Is that not reserved land? Are those not reserves? Is it not true that Whiles cannot own land there?

Not all land is reserved land. The hon. member does not know South Africa’s Bantu geography. Agriculture is so extremely important, also in the present time in which we are living, that I gave instructions for special and close attention to be given to greater intensification of agricultural development in our Bantu areas. That is something with which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, the hon. Mr. Vosloo is concerned, and I know that he himself has already brought the Bantu Commissioners and other officials together around conference tables. In addition to what has been done much more attention will be given to activating agriculture. That, of course, is not the only thing required. Over all these years we have had to provide those other essential things, namely the infra-structure. Sir, I am not going to burden you with a large number of figures. I only want to mention two figures to you in order to prove certain things. Do hon. members opposite realize that in respect of smaller dams and boreholes only, we had to provide nearly R5 million for the provision of those services in respect of the five-year plan which ended last year? In respect of local roads and bridges an amount of nearly R3½ million was spent. These are the amounts which were spent in respect of two single factors of the infrastructure only, and what about all the rest?

Let us now analyse what the interests of this white skill and white capital were in the Bantu areas in the past. I told you before that as far as agriculture was concerned, they did not come forward at all. That is quite understandable, but for another reason than that which the hon. member for Yeoville insinuated a short while ago. When agriculture began to make progress and some buying power developed there, however slight that was, white initiative did in fact show some interest—do you know in what, Sir?

In making profits.

Yes, in the commercial possibilities. White initiative then came forward on account of the commercial possibilities which existed.

What is wrong with that?

Now the hon. member asks what is wrong with that. As I go along I shall tell him what is wrong with that. I shall make my speech and if he listens he will get his reply. When the provisions had to be sold, when the products, whether they were skins, maize or anything else, had to be disposed of, there was in fact initiative on the part of Whites who were interested. That was for human reasons and I understand it. However, as regards industrial development, that same white initiative and white capital did not come forward. They did not come for that. Why not? The reply is very simple: Because the infra-structure was not there. Similarly they did not come forward to provide the infra-structure. They did not provide that. Besides, it is not really the duty of private initiative to do so. Other reasons why they did not go there are that the raw materials were not there, and, of course, that there were sufficient possibilities for industrialists to realize themselves in the large urban complexes.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member keeps on chattering and asking what is wrong with that system. The system is wrong of course because the Bantu areas are not there as areas of prey to which Whites may go to enrich themselves. Hon. members opposite always want to question us about the morality of our policy. Now, what immorality lies behind the hon. member’s question? White skill and entrepreneurs were reluctant to set about industrial undertakings; they were reluctant to set about agricultural undertakings; they were understandably reluctant to set about the infra-structure. They went to commerce. We can understand that. Now I want hon. members opposite, every one of them and also that talkative member there, to tell me this: I want them to give me the name of a single White entrepreneur who wanted to set about exploiting a proper, real, existing mining possibility or a proper, industrial undertaking and who wanted to come to an agreement with us, the Government, in that regard and who tried in vain to do so. Furthermore they must tell me what large mineral resources or other raw material possibilities there are in our Bantu areas, the exploitation of which is obvious to all of us and which no one is allowed to exploit. They must give me these two replies. Not a single member opposite will succeed in doing so. I am going to prove as I go along that there were in fact such possibilities, and that we have always allowed them to be exploited. I am going to prove that to you now. The fact of the matter is that we have allowed Whites to undertake mining operations on a large scale within the Bantu areas throughout the years according to our pattern upon the payment of royalties to the Bantu authorities or to the Bantu Trust or to whomsoever was the interested party, even to Bantu individuals. That depended on whoever was the holder of that land and rights. Valuable deposits of various minerals have never been ignored if there was white interest in the development thereof. The reason for that was that Bantu entrepreneurs were not able to undertake that. At present there are nearly 90 mining lease concessions which have been awarded to white initiative, with white capital which undertakes various kinds of mining in the Bantu homelands on the basis laid down by us and which we call the “agency basis”.

Have you torn up the White Paper?

I have torn up nothing. At the time when that White Paper was drawn up, this system was in operation under this Government, something which was said in those debates. Nor have we only allowed mining leases and rights in respect of mineral deposits. There are also other forms of enterprise by Whites which have been allowed into the Bantu areas, in our way, namely, as we put it, on an agency basis. Various kinds of light industries, for example grain mills, sawmills, blacksmiths, etc., have been allowed. Large numbers of these industries are being conducted by Whites in the Bantu areas on this agency basis without those Whites being entrenched there permanently and without having been granted ownership rights in land and various other rights in perpetuity. Commerce, too, has been allowed into the Bantu areas in this way. Unfortunately commerce and industries have been allowed into certain areas in the wrong way as well. That happened in the past—they were not allowed in by us. And I am also going to refer to that in a little while. Those businesses we have in fact allowed in the right way, namely on an agency basis, are there, and why hon. members give out that no white initiative or capital has been allowed into the Bantu areas, I do not know. That is a deliberate misrepresentation. However, white capital and initiative are not allowed into those areas on the United Party’s basis of integration, and as long as I am here that will not be allowed. The basis of the United Party is that such white initiative and capital should be allowed in on a basis of permanency, and I now challenge the members of the United Party to tell us that if they were in power they would allow white initiative and capital into the Bantu areas on the express condition that that may not be permanent and that they must hand that over to the Bantu.

What about the Good Hope Textiles?

I am asking for a reply to my question. For the Bantu areas we developed the system according to which we also established the corporations, the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Transkei Development Corporation, which undertake the extensive development of Bantu enterprises by the Bantu themselves. That is always primary; the Bantu himself must undertake that. In so far as the Bantu is not able to undertake that himself, and in so far as his knowledge and experience of economics which we impart to him through the educational work of the corporations are still inadequate, there may be direct undertakings by the Bantu Investment Corporation itself on behalf of the Bantu; both those corporations also have the power to mobilize money from Bantu sources, and to take up money on loan from Whites. The Bantu Investment Corporation has been in existence for nearly six years. How many Whites, how many of those saints who say that White capital should be allowed in to develop the Bantu areas, have ever offered money to those corporations? How many of them have ever told the corporations that they would lend them so many thousands of rand to assist in the development of the Bantu areas? [Interjections.] Sir, all of us cannot make a speech at the same time.

Order!

[Interjections.] The hon. the Leader ought to know how rates of interest work. They are not static. They are fixed from time to time by means of agreement. He should not ask a question like that, he who earns much more in interest than I do in salary! [Laughter.]

I have already dealt with the Trust. I have given you a brief outline of the corporation method. In passing I have also referred to the agency basis on which we allow economic development in the Bantu areas. In the past it was pretended too often that Whites were not allowed there. The question of development on the agency basis has been stated repeatedly both inside and outside this House. In this House it was stated by the previous Prime Minister himself in 1962 and in 1963. In the past I myself stated it in this House when I said that white capital and initiative were allowed in on this agency basis, and that this system would still unfold itself. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I shall see to it that the system of development on this agency basis will unfold itself in the right way, on the right basis. What is the fundamental principle? There is a variety of methods in which it may be implemented, but let us examine the principles. Now I do not want to go into the various methods, into the rates of interest and into this smaller or larger concession. Let us examine the fundamental principles.

The agency exists in the Bantu area and does not operate there to its exclusive advantage. That must be very clear. The agent there plays a secondary part. Therefore he cannot obtain rights of ownership and other permanent or entrenched rights there, nor can he take over rights of ownership from his principal, be that the Trust or the Corporation or the Bantu authorities or whoever gave him his agency. He receives good remuneration for the service he has to render for his principal, and the agent, the entrepreneur, may even be assisted by his principal in various ways, but never in such a way that the agent becomes a co-owner of the locality-bound possessions of the principal. That is very clear. These are the principles on which the agency operated in the past and these are the principles on which I am going to do everything within my power to promote that by welcoming those people who have a bona fide interest to operate on that basis. But we shall not first allow the most wealthy with the largest capital or the most clever with the best skills to undertake the development of the Bantu areas on the basis of integration of the United Party. For that reason, because that is the principle on which we allow those people there on an agency basis, they merely obtain the right of occupation and they pay rent and royalties or commission for the opportunities they have been given to operate there, and for that reason all those things of which I have already given several examples are in existence and for that reason they are not given perpetual entrenchments as unfortunately were wrongly given in, to be specific, the Transkei in the past and in which the Government, thank heaven, had no share. In the field of commerce in particular and to a certain extent also in the field of industry, white initiative was allowed in with rights of ownership in land and various other rights, and at the present time our Government has to spend something like R3 million and perhaps more per annum on purchasing the vested rights of Whites there because they have to go over into the possession of the nation or into the individual possession of Bantu in those areas. Should we now allow Whites in on a large scale and allow them to entrench their capital there, to build up large assets for themselves, to acquire rights of ownership in land and other rights and then five or ten years later,; when those assets have to go over into the j possession of the Bantu, do we have to undo j those things which we ourselves have allowed by buying out the Whites? Is that logic? Is that a healthy basis? Yesterday the hon. member for Pinetown spoke here of “a healthy basis”. Is that a healthy basis for the economic development of the Bantu homelands? As we see matters, it definitely is not.

To summarize, it is quite clear that under our policy it is possible for white capital and initiative to go into the Bantu areas, but in a secondary way, as I have already said, namely on an agency basis or through the agency of the corporations or to supplement the S.A. Bantu Trust. That in fact is the healthy basis. All these things are controlled by legislation and by a constellation of organizations which we have. We have the S.A. Bantu Trust and the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation, and according to law we may establish other corporations. In recent times I have been in a position to make a particular study of the statutory structure of these things and I now want to tell this House that I am not quite satisfied with the practical working of this statutory structure. I am making a point of going into this matter specifically and, if necessary, I shall approach this House with the Government’s approval to effect amendments to those things because I should like to see that this statutory structure of the working of the corporations—also to be able to employ and utilize people properly on an agency basis in the Bantu areas— be extended and implemented in a flexible and effective way.

More concessions.

The hon. members are making politics of this matter, as that interjecting proves. They are making deplorable politics of this. They are engaged in politicking, and as the hon. member for South Coast said outside this House a few months ago, if he was reported correctly, when he predicted—and we know to what extent his predictions came true in the past, everything from marching to commerce—that the Government would come forward, and to use the words which the hon. member for Green Point used yesterday, and would adopt and implement their policy and would allow white capital and initiative into the Bantu areas on a large scale. I want to make this prediction here to-day: Hon. members opposite, on account of their political bankruptcy, find themselves in such a position that whatever we do will be presented by them as if it was their policy. The political farce which we are experiencing at present is that we as a governing party have the major disadvantage of no longer being able to tell the Opposition, “This is what you did when you governed”, because it is such a long time since they have been in power that it really would not have any practical value to say that. The Opposition again finds itself in the farcical position that it says in regard to everything we do, “But we suggested that the day before yesterday or last year”. [Time expired.]

The somersaulting Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who has made a gallant effort here to reconcile the conflicting views of himself, the Deputy Minister, Mr. J. A. F. Nel, the White Paper on the Tomlinson Report and various other views, has emerged proving the old, old story about the Nationalist Government. That is that they try to make words mean exactly what they want them to mean. When they pinch our policy then it becomes a new natural development of their own policy. Year after year since the White Paper on the Tomlinson Report which categorically and emphatically repudiated the use of white capital in the Bantu reserves, we have pleaded that white capital and initiative should be used as the only basis on which proper development can take place in the reserves. Year after year the Government and the Cabinet have attacked and criticized our appeals for the use of white capital.

Without any restrictions.

We have never said “without any restrictions”. We now find a smokescreen of new meanings being given to words; we find the hon. the Minister saying that “white capital and initiative in the reserves” means an agency basis; it is agency “initiative” and agency “capital”. A small thing like interest rates does not matter. Of course, the white man can invest his money in Bantu areas; he simply has to lend it to the Bantu Development Corporation and it does not matter whether he gets interest or what the rate is. That is the new sort of entrepreneur who is going to lend his money to a Government agency …

It is not a Government agency.

… or to the Xhosa Development Corporation or any of the other statutory bodies which the Minister is going to set up. To the Minister it does not matter what the entrepreneur is going to get; he shrugs that off as a minor detail. He is going to draw capital on the basis of investing it in a statutory body. And then, Sir, we are going to find a new sort of initiative, a new sort of entrepreneur in South Africa who is not going to work for development for himself but who is going to become the agent of the Bantu. He is going to work for the Bantu Industrial Corporation or for Bantu landowners. In other words, we are now to expect white entrepreneurs to go into the reserves and develop them as labourers, as agents, on behalf of other people. Sir, that is not initiative; that is not white initiative; that is white employment; that is trying to buy the labour of Whites in order to make an unworkable policy work. The Government knows that its policy cannot work without the Whites. They must have the assistance of the Whites. In order to try to form a smokescreen by which it can gradually adopt the United Party approach to this matter, the Government is now making a stepping-stone by hiring initiative and calling it “white capital and initiative”. The hon. the Minister holds this up as the new Nationalist Party vision. We keep on getting one new vision after the other. We have just had 40 minutes of a new vision, a new vision of “white capital and skill”. But, Sir, was there not a Good Hope Textile factory in the days of the United Party Government? When the hon. the Minister was asked about that he was “zipped”, to use his famous word. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to throw out challenges; it was the United Party that developed Good Hope Textiles. It was the United Party that built up that industrial activity and, Sir, what is wrong with it? Let the hon. the Minister tell me what is wrong with it.

He says: “Oh no, we are not just moving Johannesburg from one place to another; this is a new deal, a new vision; we are going to build up ‘Bantu nasieskap’ ”. But, Sir, where are these new industrial giants going to be; where are these industrial Johannesburgs of the Bantu going to be? Where are they? At Hammarsdale where there has been an outbreak of typhoid? Session after session we have attacked this Government for building up industry without providing the necessary housing and other facilities, and now when typhoid breaks out the hon. the Minister of Health has to take emergency measures to deal with the situation. That is not only where the new centres are. There is Rosslyn, just outside Pretoria, next to a white city. Rosslyn, because it happens to bring in labour from a Bantu area is now a border area, but Umlazi, which has provided labour over the years to industry in Durban, is not a border area. The Bantu living there are just Bantu living on the borders of Durban, but the area is not a border industry area. The Bantu are in a border area but the industry is not a border area industry. They are border area workers who work in industry which is not border area industry! Sir, it becomes absolutely incredible. Rosslyn is a border area and so the industries there receive benefits and privileges and all the rest, but Mobeni, which draws its labour from a Bantu area, is not a border area, and the industries there get no privileges. Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith are border areas and East London is a border area, and then the Minister says that they are not simply transposing integration! Of course they are; it is simply taking integration away from point A and placing it at point B; it is still integration.

What a sorry tale we had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development: what a sorry tale of development! We are going to have agricultural development first and then after that mining development, and then last industrial development. But, Sir, he can build factories on the borders of the reserves; he can employ the Bantu there and then only the third step is to transfer the industries into the reserves. In the meantime what is he practising? He is practising economic colonialism. He is making the citizens of those Bantustans economically dependent on industries outside their own areas, and then he talks about building up independent economies within the Bantu areas. But, Sir, he is deliberately preventing it. He is creating industry on the boundaries of the reserves and making the workers come out to work outside the reserves. They remain dependent on white capital, dependent on white direction and leadership in so-called white South Africa, and he is making no difference to the overall pattern. It is still white factories employing those people. Sir, I want to come back to that in a moment in reference to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s thousand times …

“No”.

No, it is going to be a thousand times “yes”. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a great fighter for the things in which he believes. He is going to say this a thousand times. And I know how sincere he is. He will fight for this and he will probably say it a thousand times. But he will have got no further than when he said it the first time. I remember the hon. the Deputy Minister believing in something when once he spoke on it for five and a half hours. He said a thousand and one times that he was fighting for a principle. He was fighting for the right of the parent to choose the language in which his child would be educated. [Interjections.] He spoke for five and a half hours. He spoke until he collapsed on the floor of the Transvaal provincial council, fighting to the bitter end for a fundamental principle—the right of the parent to choose the language in which his child would be educated. Then we had him voting here the other day without a word—no, not quite without a word—he spoke two sentences. He got up to say that he knew nothing about education. [Interjections.] But he once spoke for five and a half hours on education and then he got up here to say that he knew nothing about education when the Education Bill was before the House. I am not impressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s thousand times “yes” that he is going to get rid of the Bantu, because we have seen his own arguments blown to pieces by the hon. the Minister. We have seen an attempt to create a breakthrough point for adopting some of the positive proposals from this side of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some other aspects of the problems which we face in South Africa. I want to reply firstly to the parrot cry which we have had from Government members, member after member, namely: What do you want us to cut out of this Budget to provide finance for all the things you ask for? I think the hon. the Minister has given us a few of the answers, but I want to test them. We asked for certain things in this debate. We have complained and criticized and protested about a number of issues. I want to ask the Government members—the members who have attacked us so strongly and who have said what a wonderful Budget this was and is, the hon. member for Queenstown and others and members who have not yet spoken—whether they are satisfied with the situation that exists at the moment as far as it affects the working man in South Africa— the family man and the working man in South Africa who has to exist, day in and day out, fighting against rising living costs. And I now want to hear the unequivocal “yes, we are satisfied”, from Government members. Are they satisfied with the Government which they have sitting in power here and with the situation which that Government has created and which we now face in this country?

Yes.

Yes, they are satisfied. They are satisfied and it comes from all round. [Interjections.] And I want it on record, Mr. Speaker, so that we can go to their voters and tell their voters that they are satisfied with the situation which faces South Africa at the moment. [Interjections.] They are satisfied with the Government and with its administration. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to be specific and I want to put it in specific points. Are the Government members satisfied that the average family man in South Africa can cope with the rising cost of living and can bring up his family under decent conditions, in a decent home, and at a decent standard—the average man throughout South Africa to-day? Are they satisfied? [Interjections.] “Zip,” Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of interjections but not one now says that he is satisfied. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, the hon. member for Klip River is satisfied. [Interjections.] No, he is not satisfied. [Interjections.] There is not one member here who is satisfied that the average working man can cope with the cost of living. [Interjections.] A minute ago they were satisfied with the Government but now they are not satisfied that the average working man can meet the rising cost of living. [Interjections.] No, they are not satisfied. Not one of them said that he was satisfied. Now, let them get up and join us in pleading with the Government to improve the position of the working man and not sit there dumb and silent while we fight for that working man. [Interjections.] We have to fight alone for the worker when they on their own admission admit that they are not satisfied. Or are they satisfied, Mr. Speaker? Let us get it clear. Are the members satisfied? [Interjections.]

Yes.

Yes, there is one satisfied member. The hon. member for Benoni is satisfied. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein is also satisfied. We have two members in this House, two Government members, who are satisfied that the average family man can cope with the rising cost of living. [Interjections.] The rest are dissatisfied. Now I call on the rest of the members, Mr. Speaker, to join us in our fight against the Government to alleviate the problems of the common man in his daily struggle to exist. [Interjections.] Because, only two members feel that he has no struggle and can exist … [Interjections.]

Order!

We have advocated the introduction of cost of living allowances to meet the rising cost of living for all public servants and railwaymen in South Africa. We have said that one way of helping the public servant and railwayman is that he should get a cost of living allowance adjusted as the cost of living rises to meet such rise. I want to ask the hon. members whether they want it. [Interjections.] Let us deal with who pays for it afterwards. Do they want it? I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Transport.

I am not in favour of it and you know it.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is in favour of it?

I am not in favour of it.

I thought the hon. the Minister was a convert. I thought the hon. the Minister of Transport was going to set an example to the Government in this regard. The hon. the Minister has always told us that he is very sympathetic towards the problems of the railway worker. And the railway worker has asked for a cost of living allowance. But this hon. Minister is apparently not going to grant it. He is sympathetic until it comes to doing something about the sympathy. In the same way these hon. members would probably say, if they had the courage, that they are in favour of a cost of living allowance for the public servant but that they do not think they can fight the Government to get it. [Interjections.] We, Mr. Speaker, want a cost of living allowance. And all we get when we plead for it is: Who is going to pay for it? [Interjections.] We have pleaded for a national contributory pension scheme so that ultimately you can abolish the means test and thereby every person may get a pension. Do the members on that side of the House want it?

No.

They do not want it. Let us then tell the people of South Africa, loud and clear, that the Government does not want a national contributory pension scheme. [Interjection.] A Deputy Minister says that they do not want it. [Interjections.] We are getting it clear, Mr. Speaker. What about a national medical aid scheme? What about abolishing the means test for the 1914-18 war veterans? Do they want it or do they not want it?

You won’t have anything left for Worcester.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the members of the Government sitting here in Parliament in a debate dealing with the money for financing the running of South Africa. I am telling them some of the things we are pleading for, and not one of them supports us. We get the giggling Minister for Sport who sits there and giggles about Worcester but he has not the courage to get up and plead with us for the 1914-18 war veterans in so far as the abolition of the means test is concerned. [Interjections.] Ah, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will plead for it if we pay for it. Right, I will tell him how to pay for it. And so one can go on. Are Government members satisfied with the housing position, with the position regarding rents in South Africa, with an 8½ per cent interest rate when borrowing money for buildings? Are hon. members on that side of the House satisfied with the housing situation of our people? They are “tjoepstil”, Mr. Speaker. But they will not get up and fight with us [Interjections.] I can assure them that I won’t be hurt if I get interrupted by a gentle interjection from somebody who is going to help us fight for these practical things which the people of South Africa want.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister asks how we are going to pay for them. I want to mention one or two possibilities. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration spoke about border industries. He said that the Government was financing that type of industry. [Interjections.] The Government is basically financing it. It is getting a little money for investment from the Bantu, and it is getting a bit more from others. But the Government is spending R3,300 per worker to establish them in border industries. [Interjections.] I am taking the amount spent by the I.D.C. and by the Government in creating border industries and services and dividing it by the number of workers in those industries. These figures are taken from Government statistics. Let us make it a round R3,000. [Interjection.] The Minister cannot refuse to accept this figure. That money is coming basically from the taxpayer. If private enterprise were employing those people normally it would be coming from their initiative—from entrepreneur capital—money which the Government is so anxious to pull out of circulation. That money would be providing the jobs for the people and for services, and all the Government would have to worry about would be housing.

I do not have time to go into detail, but I ask hon. members to look at the Loan Estimates for this year. On page 60 R1 million is provided for border industry development, but a lot more is provided through the Industrial Development Corporation. In this debate we will hear of the globular figure that has been spent. What about that money going towards housing, pension schemes and all the things which this Government is not able to offer? In the same Estimates we have money voted for housing. R40 million is voted for the National Housing Fund, but R16½ million is voted for the Community Development Fund. In other words, one-third plus of the money which is being spent is not to provide people with new housing. It is to shift people from one point to another. It is to play chess and to shift people like pawns simply because the Government does not like them in this position and is moving them to another position. R16i million goes towards moving people. The Community Development Fund is the fund for buying houses where group areas have been created. The National Housing Fund and the various funds which go to make up the total are a different matter. My point is that at this time of housing crisis we should stop shifting people around like pawns and spend those millions on some of the positive things which we in the United Party plead for.

We have heard from the hon. the Minister that R3 million is being paid out to compensate Whites who have been kicked out of the Transkei by Government policy. Those people were not doing any harm. They were the lifeblood of the Transkei. They were the people who made the Transkei exist, and yet they must be kicked out. R3 million is being spent just this year to compensate them in the carrying out of an ideological dream—another R3 million which could go towards these ten points on which I have challenged hon. members to get up and support us. There is the money the Deputy Minister wants. There is the money which could be helping to provide the things we plead for, and which those members treat as a joke. They laugh and giggle like a lot of teenage schoolgirls in a huddle when we are dealing with the bread-and-butter problem of the ordinary people who must struggle day after day and week after week.

There is another field, and that is the field of wastage at the top. In 1948 we had a population of 12 million in South Africa. To govern that population we had 12 Ministers. To-day we have some 18 million people, but now we have 18 Ministers and six Deputy Ministers—24 of them. This is a 100 per cent increase to administer 50 per cent more people. There is a 50 per cent increase in the population and a 100 per cent increase in the Cabinet. [Interjection.] My hon. friend here says that may be because they only have half the brains, but I am sure that there are sufficient South Africans who could manage as well as the United Party Government did. Let us look at taxation. Under the United Party Government, to run a country of 12 million people, we took R96 million in income tax in 1948. To-day R683 million is taken just in income tax—an increase of 700 per cent. In 1948 the total revenue was R242 million. Today it is R1,380 million, 570 per cent more to govern an increase of 50 per cent in the population. What do we get for it, Sir? Longer Cadillacs, that is all. Bigger tail fins and more red lights on the back, but not efficiency in government. We do not get a better government.

If I had the time I could go on and quote instance after instance in department after department where the money of the taxpayer is being thrown away—frizzled away in absolutely unnecessary wastage—wastage designed to keep in power the power monolith of this Nationalist Government. It is a Government which has been in power too long. It has been in power so long that it has become arrogant towards the people and contemptuous of the needs of the people. It has become insolent towards the electorate which put them there. It is a Government which looks upon itself as the masters of South Africa instead of the agents—the real agents the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration should be talking about. He and his colleagues should be the agents of the people, acting on behalf of the people to govern South Africa, not the bosses, treating the people and their problems with contempt. It is in order to maintain this power and to boost the contempt with which ordinary people’s problems are treated that we have to suffer year after year, the wastage, the incompetence and the inefficiency of the Government. It is high time we got them out of the saddle, so that our Government can once again govern South Africa for the people.

Mr. Speaker, personally I shall be sorry when the hon. member who has just sat down ceases to be a member of this House. You know, Sir, the hon. member has the ability to entertain this House in a very witty way, and he actually does that in order to conceal the bankruptcy of his party. If his party lands in difficulties, as was the case here to-day, then this hon. member is used to steer the matter in another direction with his wit. That is what the hon. member did. He started by replying to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and very soon after that he resorted to generalities in connection with the Estimates. I want to say to the Minister of Bantu Administration that he probably did not think that his words would come true so soon. I am referring to his prediction that it would not be long before hon. members of the Opposition would pretend that what the Government was doing at the moment and what the Minister was also elaborating further here to-day, was actually part of the United Party’s plan.

The hon. member who has just sat down made one or two observations to which I feel I want to reply. One of them concerns Rosslyn and Hammarsdale and the disparagement of the attempt to stimulate development at a few points. Well, there was a reason for selecting three points only, namely Phalaborwa, Hammarsdale and Rosslyn. We must realize that when the Government started with this plan, it had to select places which would simultaneously be within easy reach and which would easily offer all the facilities; in other words, places which could in the shortest possible time serve as models of the successful development of those areas which will be known as points of growth. That is why these points were selected. If the hon. member goes further, as he has done, and says that the development of border areas is actually economic colonialism, then I want to tell the hon. member what I told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on a previous occasion, namely that it is dangerous to use the words “economic colonialism”. It is not only dangerous, but also wrong. It is probable that the hon. member does not realize that. I hope he does not realize that, but if he does, it is actually a crime if he used those words deliberately. The words “economic colonialism” do in fact have a bad connotation. They are being used as such, and all over Africa they are being used to disparage countries which are trying to do good by those means. If there is something which can be detrimental to South Africa and the implementation of its policy, it is the incorrect and deliberate abuse of these two words by hon. members on the other side. It is a crime against South Africa. We are but a small country. We are trying in all sincerity to tackle a major problem with small numbers and to solve it successfully with the means at our disposal. Hon. members on the other side may attack this side of the House, but they should not harm South Africa in that process. They are doing so by using these words, words which they know are calculated to do incalculable damage to the image of our fatherland abroad. [Interjections.] Fine—I did not want to do that, but now I shall also make the second point in this regard. I want to tell the hon. member that he is not only wilful, but also wrong. I shall tell him how wrong he is. Economic colonialism amounts to this, namely that, as a result of the actions of people outside, the development which takes place in the country of such a Bantu nation is merely calculated to exploit that nation without giving its people a share in the profits and to call forth a hostile reaction, a reaction which is wrong, namely one of hostility towards the benefactor. But this is in fact what happens here. The Bantu lives in his own country. He is being afforded the opportunity to develop socially, culturally and also economically in his own territory. He is afforded the opportunity to become mature. He is afforded the opportunity to sell his labour outside his own territory. Such a state of affairs is not at all analogous with the numerous cases in Africa where the words “economic colonialism” are being used, because there these words are being used against the Bantu in their own territories, whereas here in our country the Bantu lives in his own territory while working in the territory of the Whites.

When we started in 1960 with the broader implementation of our policy of border areas development, it was a statement of policy on the part of the Government. It was part of its greater policy in respect of the non-White peoples, and this policy had two objects. One object concerned the Whites in the country and the other concerned the Bantu. The object in respect of the Whites was to bring about a spread of its economic development, a spread in respect of its transport and water resources. It was also attuned to affording opportunities for development all over the country, in all its areas and as regards all its people. That is the case as far as the purely economic aspect is concerned. The second object as regards the Whites was to enable the latter to settle the non-Whites in such a way and to meet their responsibility as guardians of the non-Whites in such a way so that it might be possible to have parallel development of nations, nations whose parallel development in the future might take place on a permanently friendly basis.

As regards the Bantu the object of the implementation of this policy was that they would be afforded the opportunity to develop economically, culturally and politically in such a way that they would, over a period of time, be afforded every opportunity, in a friendly and peaceful way, to emerge as a nation within the geographic frontiers of a country which would ultimately be their own. There the Bantu would for countless years be able to develop as a nation in its own right. When this was conceived on such a wide basis, it was the Government’s intention to accept the full implications of the implementation of its plans.

But, on the other hand, there is a very great difference as regards the point of view of the Opposition. When the Opposition discusses these matters, it is never their intention to afford the Whites and the non-Whites every opportunity to solve this major problem, because what the Opposition has in mind in all their calculations is merely the economic advantage to a small group of industrialists. No matter what the occasion, this is all they had in mind whenever they discussed this policy.

The United Party has never taken an interest in the political development of the Bantu. They have never taken an interest in the social development of the Bantu. Nor have they taken an interest in the future economic development of the Bantu. I shall go further by saying that when hon. members of the Opposition discussed these matters, they were selfish in their motives. It is for that reason that we have never been able to pin the United Party down to a clear policy. I want to add to this that the question of the development of border areas and also the development of Bantu homelands is not a question of economic development only. Nor is the Tomlinson Report, which is so easily quoted here, an economic report. It is a socio-economic report which deals with the human being as a whole, with all his needs and the circumstances of life. That has never been the point of departure of hon. members of the Opposition. Now I want to say that as regards the political implications of our policy, the United Party has, in contrast, never had a policy with a serious long-term political effect which would provide both the Bantu and the Whites with security in that respect. For this reason the United Party is prepared, when they talk about these matters, to grant the Bantu in the White homeland two basic rights in exchange for the right of a group of industrialists to erect a factory anywhere in South Africa and to accept no responsibility in connection with the settlement of these people. I want to add to that that in this debate as well as in previous debates the United Party has very cautiously steered clear of their federation plan. The federation plan is part of their policy of which we no longer hear any mention. The policy of the United Party in all its implications is actually implied in that.

As far as the federation plan of the United Party is concerned, they are prepared to grant the Bantu in the White homeland two basic rights in exchange for the right of a group of industrialists to erect a factory anywhere in South Africa and to accept no responsibility in connection with the settlement of these people, and merely to make money out of the Bantu, to entice the Bantu to come to the cities in large numbers and then to push the responsibility of caring for these large numbers onto the Government. That was the attitude adopted by the United Party, but for this very dubious right of a number of industrialists, the United Party has consistently adopted the attitude that it will grant two basic rights to the Bantu in the white areas. One of them is to grant them the right of ownership in white areas. Why do we no longer hear anything from the United Party about that right of ownership? It is a right of ownership from which demands for further rights must necessarily arise. The second is that above and beyond that, the United Party is prepared to grant the Bantu in white areas political rights as well. That was the only interest they took in the Bantu.

But I say that we view the development of the Bantu in their homelands as socio-economic development and not merely as economic development. Hence the fact that we also differ fundamentally from the United Party as regards the social development of the Bantu. The United Party is not interested in the social development of the Bantu in the regions to which they want to entice them to work for them. We on this side of the House have never heard of any concern being expressed about the settlement of the Bantu in the Peninsula or Johannesburg or any other region; the only thing we heard of was the right of industrialists to attract as many industries as they please. But the United Party was in power, and when it was in power it could also have provided the Bantu in the metropolitan areas with social services, and it could have placed them in a social environment, but what did it do? At that stage we saw the most extensive shanty towns we had ever had in South Africa, shanty towns we had to clear at very high cost. That is the social misery which developed as a result of the settlement of the Bantu in White areas when they were in power. That was their social interest.

But they are not interested in the economic rights of the Bantu. The only interest those hon. members have, is to regard the Bantu as an article, and now I want to quote the words of a few of those hon. members. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow will pardon me if I repeat the words he used in a previous debate, namely that Bantu labour was an article. One of the most mobile articles in the economy. He does not regard the Bantu as a human being, but as an economic article which is mobile and which can be taken and moved around like goods being loaded on a truck and despatched. The hon. member may read it in his Hansard. That is the point of departure. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke here, he started from the assumption that a large number of industries in the Western Cape and in our metropolitan areas were waiting for the opportunity to develop, and he wanted to know what was being done about the 75,000 workers we would require shortly for the new industries which were still to be established. The hon. member is merely interested in labour as a commodity. Other hon. members also spoke in that vein. The hon. member for Pinelands made the following observation: As far as we and our policy are concerned, there is no such thing as a ratio of numbers; it does not matter whether the ratio is one to two or one to four. What I want to conclude from that is that, when hon. members on the other side pretend to be serious about helping to keep these numbers down— as the Leader of the Opposition pretended to be at Britstown—they are in fact not serious, and therefore we do not believe them. They should not create the impression that they, too, want to restrict numbers. The hon. the Leader was very vague. He said that he wanted to restrict numbers to a reasonable minimum. What is a reasonable minimum? It is bad enough to talk about a minimum, but it has absolutely no meaning to talk about a reasonable minimum. That is what the hon. member said. In other words, when we argue about these things, I say that we differ fundamentally from hon. members on the other side because, as regards the utilization of Bantu labour, they want to bring numbers of Bantu into the White areas in an unrestrained manner and they regard these numbers of Bantu as nothing but an article which may be kicked around; they are not interested in the political, social or economic development of such Bantu labour. Hon. members should therefore be satisfied if we specifically charge them with that.

I want to make a few further points. Apart from the ridicule and the doubts which were created here and the wit of hon. members on the other side, there are nevertheless a few arguments which they consider to be economic arguments. Now I also want to give credit to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Of all the members I heard here, he is the only member who tried to build up an objective argument when he spoke about the development of the border areas. But I want to tell the hon. member that I differ entirely from him as regards his point of departure. I want to reply to this simply because I am convinced that these are the real arguments those hon. members have in their thoughts and that these are the arguments they want to put forward as a point of view to counter our policy. Therefore, when points of view are being assessed, it is necessary for us to take note of the sort of arguments they used in a previous debate. The hon. member said that the development of border areas could never really be an important part of the pattern and that it could never assume large proportions. The hon. the Minister stated very clearly to-day how the development in the Bantu areas would take place in the years ahead, how an infra-structure will have to be established first, how it will take time, and how the State itself will in the future, just as it did in the past, contribute its share in establishing such a structure on which the development is to be based.

But the hon. member for Hillbrow said that the development of border areas could relatively speaking never form a large part of this pattern. In the year 2000 the gross national product will probably be R40,000 million. much more than at present. If the Government were to continue with its policy, we shall probably have the situation that in the large urban areas there will be development subject to the improvements effected in industrial production as a result of automation and mechanization and more efficient manpower. But let us assume, therefore, that of the R40,000 million a considerable share will be produced by Whites in capital-intensive industries in the white areas. But somewhere there will be millions of Bantu who will be employed. They will probably be employed in the border areas and also in the Bantu homelands. But the development in the border areas will be considerably more extensive than is probably being foreseen by the hon. member, and the reason for my saying that is the following. The first reason is that the border areas development will probably be much more rapid than the development in the Bantu areas themselves, because that which the hon. the Minister mentioned here to-day, namely the establishment of an infra-structure, is still to be established in the Bantu areas. I want to say that in the border areas, as they are selected—I am referring to points of growth —that in the already selected places as well as those under consideration and those that fall within the scope of the major power generating plan Escom is undertaking, the water development plan the Minister of Water Affairs is undertaking, and the transport development plan the Minister of Transport is undertaking, which will increase in momentum and which will therefore show an appreciable increase in carrying capacity in the years ahead, the rate at which the curve of development has risen over the past six years, is small in comparison with the rate at which the curve will have to rise in the years that lie ahead.

That will have to happen, and it will happen because the Government itself will have to stop the flow of Bantu to areas in which it does not want the Bantu to preponderate. It will therefore have to encourage the flow of Bantu to areas in which it does in fact want the Bantu to preponderate. We should not adopt the attitude that development in the border areas will necessarily be slow and small. Let me mention one example only, namely Phalaborwa.

There we have an example illustrating the potential, the development potential, of the border areas. There we also have an example of development which disposes of all the arguments the hon. member for Hillbrow advanced here the other day. I want to mention a few of his arguments. The hon. member for Hillbrow said, for instance, that there was no such thing as an industrial tradition in South Africa and for that reason the border areas could not be developed. What folly! In modern economy there is in fact no such thing as an industrial tradition, because an industry, adapted to modern development, has to start training its whole labour force from scratch. What difference is there between the industrial tradition of a factory which is being established in Cape Town and which has to attract workers from the Transkei to work here, and the industrial tradition of a similar factory in Phalaborwa? The hon. member’s second argument also falls away. He advanced the argument that major urban development and industrial development must necessarily go together. The hon. member says that a large city is like a dam to which water is flowing; industries flow to those places where most labour is available. In South Africa that is not the case. In South Africa industrialists establish their industries in a place such as Paarl or in a city such as Johannesburg and then they direct the flow of Bantu workers to those places. That argument of the hon. member also falls away, because the social set-up in South Africa differs entirely from the social set-up in countries such as England and Germany where there is already a process of crystallization. The workers are being brought to the industries. In other words, there is no such thing as an industrial tradition in South Africa which has to be taken into account to such an extent. The fact of the matter is that a cotton-gin, which the hon. the Deputy Minister saw in Louis Trichardt, works more efficiently than its counterpart in Kempton Park. A further argument advanced by the hon. member was that there was a lower percentage of skilled labour in the border industries and that for that reason those industries could not develop properly. That is just as wrong because, after all, if an industrialist has to train the people who have to work for him, he can train them just as well in Pietersburg as in Johannesburg; there is no difference.

And even more cheaply.

But there are two other important arguments in this regard, and one of them is that in the major urban areas we have already reached the stage where it is so tremendously expensive to add to the existing infra-structure that it will be much cheaper to establish the industry at a place where water and electricity are cheaper. Surely, the hon. member can understand that. A further argument advanced by hon. members of the Opposition was that the development of border industries according to a system whereby the Bantu lived in his own homeland and worked in the white area would not promote the economic development of the Bantu. What foolishness! Whether a black man works for a master in a factory in his own country or whether he works for a master in a factory outside the border and spends his wages in his own area, it still amounts to the same. It is being calculated that of border areas development in general, 46 per cent of the development in terms of industrial development and associated development will take place within the border areas themselves, and that 54 per cent will take place outside the borders in terms of services development. What is going to happen outside the borders? All available revenue will be spent on services provided immediately outside the borders. In other words, border areas create opportunities for the Bantu to earn money quickly and to live in their own homelands, and they create the opportunity for the establishment of all services within the Bantu areas. These services are very extensive. For instance, there are transport services which are already being developed by the Bantu themselves. Transport services which are being developed by the Bantu themselves are beginning to assume very large proportions. But this does not only relate to transport services; it relates to all the services the Bantu cannot develop in the white area and which he is now able to introduce in his own area. If all these factors are taken into account, this is the only sensible policy, and in this respect I also want to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister was very clear in this respect; he pointed out that the pattern of development was based on two factors, namely the development within the Bantu area which would take place according to a pattern and which would take place under his guidance according to the pattern which is now being laid down; but in addition to that there was also the rapid development of the border areas. Mr. Speaker, one should not talk disparagingly of the “few points of growth”, because at the moment there are quite a number of points of growth which are being planned. We know that careful planning is taking place and that it is also being planned to spend a very great deal of capital, for instance, on the development of the Empangeni-Richard’s Bay complex and the Colenso-Ladysmith complex, and to bring about development in Queenstown, etc. We know that in my own constituency, for instance, there are great possibilities for development at Tzaneen. In other words, the original three points of growth may become ten and 20 and 30 and 50, with the further possibility of developing existing points of growth at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the policy of the Government as opposed to the policy of the United Party is one which, on the one hand, makes provision for the development of man as a whole with all his needs.

In contrast to that the United Party policy is a selfish policy which merely benefits a small number of industrialists. In addition the Government’s policy implies the possibility of linking up the greatest number of people over the largest possible area in the shortest possible time with active economic development, so that they may work in one place but will immediately be settled in such a way that they may at once start contributing towards the development of their own by establishing their own services; that is indeed what it amounts to. It will perhaps do hon. members of the Opposition good to pay a visit during the recess to these points of growth in any of the border areas so that they may indeed realize and see how development is taking place and unfurling there. They will then realize what tremendous possibilities are implied in the development of the border areas. What is wry important is that part of the policy is supplementary to the development of the Bantu areas themselves. We have no doubt that, as the years go by, the arguments advanced by hon. members of the Opposition will fall away, just as the arguments they advanced in the past—arguments in regard to all the other things we did and in which they did not believe—have fallen away.

It is becoming increasingly clear to us, as it has done in all the previous Budget debates and in all the major debates in this House, how bankrupt the policy of the Opposition is. It also became very clear in this debate that there was a complete lack of clarity in regard to what the Opposition really wants and what they advocate. I expected them to present to us a concrete, clearly demarcated, economic policy; I expected them to come forward with concrete suggestions; I expected them to suggest measures which could be applied by the Minister or the Government to combat inflation more effectively. But we are still waiting for that to happen. Sir, I am not an economist and as an ordinary member of the governing party I have no alternative proposals to make, but I do at least expect that the official Opposition, the alternative government—although I do not believe that they will ever come into power again—would come forward with concrete proposals in a debate such as this one and in a time such as this when we are dealing with inflationistic tendencies. One would have expected them to come forward with concrete proposals to indicate to the country and to the voters what they would have done to tackle the problem and to solve it if they had been in power. The question which one is quite justified in putting to them is whether they want stricter monetary measures applied, measures stricter than those which the Government have already applied? Do they want to go to extremes as far as fiscal steps are concerned? Where do they want greater savings? Where should the Government restrict its spending to a greater extent than it has already done? I wonder whether the reason why they are acting so cautiously in this regard is not that some of their own interests are involved? Where precisely should the Government have made more concessions? Speakers on the opposite side who still have to participate in the debate must furnish us with an explanation on these aspects. The speakers of the Opposition who have up to now participated in the debate have not progressed any further than a man who has to demolish a large building and who has not progressed any further than scratching at the plaster work with a trowel. More than that they have not really been able to do.

It is much worse when we come to their colour policy, a level which indicates the most fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition has shied away from colour attitudes—they have been doing so for quite a number of years. In fact, they have developed this shying away from adopting an attitude in respect of colour policy to a fine art. They get up to all kinds of tricks in order to prevent one getting down to the actual, basic points of difference. That is why it is necessary for us to challenge the Opposition again to creep out of its shell because it is remarkable how they avoid every opportunity afforded them of making policy statements. In this way, for example, we should like to know whether the Opposition still adhere to their stated policy of race federation, a policy to which the newspapers which supported them particularly in 1961, devoted many pages. We on this side of the House would like to know, and the voters would like to know, whether the Opposition still stand or fall by that policy. In fact, their own supporters want to know, they want to know whether they can proceed further with the Opposition and whether they can continue to support it. I have a few direct questions which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to which he or the hon. member who will speak after me can reply. In a speech which was reported in the Weekblad of 3rd May, 1963, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated very emphatically (translation)—

Is that still the Opposition’s standpoint, even after the verdict of the voters in 1966? Do they still say that most right-minded people in South Africa think as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated so emphatically they do? One should really like to know and that is why I should like to draw them out to discuss and argue that point. Do they still adhere to the notorious three-phase policy? In actual fact they only furnished an explanation of two phases and did not dare to say much about the third phase. Do they still adhere to there being in the first phase an investigation into all the alleged discriminating laws which this side of the House has placed on the Statute Book in regard to the orderly regulation of relationships between Whites and non-Whites in the country? Do they still adhere so strictly to their intention of revising and altering the pass laws, the Population Registration Act, the Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, the Group Areas Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, the General Laws Amendment Act, the Immorality Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to fit in with their race federation policy? These are matters on which we should like to hear some small measure of comment again. That is why I challenge the next speaker to give us a reply. Do hon. members on the opposite side still adhere to their intention of amending our Constitution in such a way that Coloureds will immediately be restored to white voters’ rolls? Are they going to reverse the direction in which the Government is sending its Coloured policy, right up to the already constituted Coloured Council, and begin again from scratch with the Coloureds together with Whites on the same voters’ rolls? These, and others, are questions to which their own supporters want replies. The Coloureds themselves want to know. Coloured leaders want to know precisely where they stand with the Opposition. That is why I challenge them to give us a clear reply to these questions. We now come to the Indians. When they explained their race federation policy they did not want to say much about the Indians. But they did nevertheless venture to say (translation)—

Do you still adhere to that? What is the attitude and what is the future attitude in regard to residential separation going to be? A clear reply to this ought to be very interesting. As far as the urban Bantu are concerned the Opposition stated very emphatically in this statement of policy (translation)—

Does the Opposition still adhere to that? Do they still adhere to that in spite of the tremendous growth in the number of Bantu as a result of natural increase and as a result of the demands of industry in our industrial areas? Are they willing to let the situation continue to exist on the basis of their policy that the Bantu are here and are here to stay? They state here that their policy for the urban Bantu is aimed at encouraging the development of a middle class group who will have proprietary rights and who can enjoy an undisturbed family life in their townships. What they really want to do therefore is to multiply the number of Bantu even further. Do they still adhere to that? Do they think it is possible to apply it here in the Western Cape for example, to encourage family life amongst Bantu here in the Western Cape with all the means set out in this policy? These, and others, are questions to which we want replies. In this era in which we are living it is necessary because the formulation of plans and the application of those plans to bring about the orderly regulation of good-neighbourliness and peaceful co-existence of the white and non-white races is at present a very real question. I want to go a little further with this question. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular. The hon. member for Orange Grove waxed eloquent when he was elaborating on and explaining the race federation policy to the country. He held meetings and wrote articles, particularly in the Weekblad. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) has finished speaking, otherwise he could have replied to me now. He could have done it in Zulu as well, because I would have replied to him in that language. The question is concerned with the idea of a race federation. This plan has always astounded me, because a person who has knowledge of the constitution of the Bantu population in our country and in Africa knows that they do in fact all have black skins but that they are divided into ethnic groups which sometimes differ tremendously from one another. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying that this federation should not be misunderstood. It is not a federation of states or areas or provinces or countries. It is a federation of races, of people who differ from one another on racial grounds. They must be brought together. The hon. member for Orange Grove explained the matter, as I am now going to quote, and it has not been repudiated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or by anybody on their side. He stated (translation)—

But here comes the actual sting—

It must be the self-same House of Assembly, for the various races. What races are meant? Will there be differentiation? I am addressing this question to the hon. member for Sea Point in particular. Will there be differentiation between the Xhosa, the Zulu, Tswana, Ovambo of South West and the Bavenda of East Transvaal? Will there be differentiation, and if there is differentiation, how many representatives will there be?

May I ask the hon. member whether the conjunction of these various races under the National Party policy is going to take the form of a confederation or a commonwealth?

The National Party is taking the autogeny of each ethnic group into consideration and are developing them on that basis. When they have reached a certain level of development we shall decide … [Interjections.] Actually we have already decided and will, at the appropriate time, make further statements. I should like to know what this self-same House of Assembly will look like if there were to be differentiation. If there is to be no differentiation then I put it to the Opposition that it will be equally impracticable and unpractical to group the various races together as a unit. It does not succeed in Africa. From time to time various tribes, the members of which all have black skins, decimate one another. The Turks and the Greeks massacre one another because they do not want a race federation in Cyprus.

The Pakistanis and the Indians are doing the same thing in India. How is the Opposition going to group these different ethnic groups together and then bring them into this Parliament, possibly with a Zulu to represent Tswanas or a Tswana representing the Basotho, etc.? It is impracticable. That is why I should like to know, why the country should like to know and why the Zulus should like to know what the views of the Opposition are in respect of the racial constitution in an integrated House of Assembly. The Zulus are, according to themselves, the royal race. They regard the Basotho as dogs. I wonder whether they will allow themselves to be represented by a Tswana or by any other tribe in this House, which, as was stated so clearly in this statement, will then be an integrated House of Assembly.

It is very interesting if we read on. The Bantu subscribe to the communal system of land tenure. I would rather not read it because it would take too much time but it is stated very strongly in this document on policy that this communal system will also be drastically changed, so that each Bantu will obtain his own land in the Bantu homelands or in the reserves. I wonder how the other land of the joint land-owners will be expropriated? How will the land belonging to those who still own tribal lands be expropriated? That is what the Bantu would also like to know. I am sorry that I have had to sacrifice so much of my time in questions to the Opposition. In contrast to this the National Party, whether it is in respect of its economic policy, or whether it is in respect of the measures taken against inflation, takes positive and constructive steps. As far as I am concerned I would rather tread on the verge of a precipice of inflation which has arisen as a result of a rate of growth in our economy which is too high, than on the verge of a precipice of a decadent economy and a depression. I would rather wonder on this side of the precipice and stay away from that danger by means of sound measures taken by competent economists instead of moving on the other side near the precipice of a depression. As far as our colour policy is concerned we are clear on that point. We state it clearly. It is not necessary for us to state it every day. We are putting it into practice. We are putting it into practice successfully. We are developing the Bantu homelands. We are leading the Coloureds and the Indians into separate channels and offering them separate development possibilities. We are establishing border industries. We are reversing the blackening process in our industrial areas and the rural areas. We are doing nothing behind a curtain. We are coming forward. We are doing it before the entire world. We are convincing the world that our great experiment is succeeding. If we could only get more help from that side we would perhaps be able to move more rapidly. We must rectify what had been commenced and developed in the wrong way for many years. We must rectify it in a short space of time but we are putting our shoulders to the wheel of this separate development wagon and pushing it up and over the Drakensberg. We shall succeed in getting it over, in spite of all the obstacles placed in our way by the Opposition, and in spite of all the attempts being made by a hostile world, we shall bring the application of this policy to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to follow the trend of thought of the hon. member for Marico, but I should like to congratulate him on one thing, and that is that he reads the Weekblad. His political education is coming from that newspaper and he is naturally improving from year to year as he reads that particular newspaper. In time he may become a good United Party member. The hon. member was telling us how busy the Government was in doing various things. They are so busy that they have completely forgotten the man in the street—the man who pays.

That is not the answer to my questions.

The hon. member posed questions and then answered them. He read the newspaper and answered his own questions. He has it all in the newspaper. He has been reading the articles by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He has the whole answer there. The hon. member for Soutpansberg gave us a lecture on the Bantu policy of the Government. As he went on he worked himself into a trance, and I believe that he really thinks that what he said is going to happen and that we will eventually find the Bantu in the border areas and that our great cities will be, with the exception of a few Bantu, run either by mechanization or automation. He said that that was what would happen. Of course we know that that will not happen and that it is just a dream. To get back to the budget, we have discussed the Transkei, the Bantu territories and one thing and another, and it is most noticeable that on the Government side the budget has been left severely alone. The hon. member for Queenstown said that the budget has been accepted by everybody. But the position is that all the financial papers in this country had been predicting a very severe budget. I know that the Minister of Finance reads these papers very closely. So, when we were let off, shall I say, with a “milder” budget, everybody was quite satisfied. One may say that the Minister was faced with a doctor’s dilemma when he had to introduce his budget. In one breath he said that South Africa in 1966 experienced one of its most exceptional years economically, and then went on to say that we have an undesirable feature in inflation. Has the Government now suddenly woken up to the fact that there is inflation in this country? The Opposition have been telling them for years of the growing inflation and have requested the Government to do something about it. Now, with the position being what it is to-day, they are forced to do something, and we are faced with the measures that have been referred to in the budget. The Minister said that his theme is “Work and Save”. He used the word “work”, but I think that what he really means is that he wants greater productivity. He also said that he will teach us how to save.

When it comes to work, greater productivity, the Minister is in very great difficulty here. His economic advisers and his own common sense have to contend with the Government’s ideological programme and they have to fit that into the economy of the country. Thus the Minister in effect has a political economy. If one listened to the speeches made here this afternoon, amongst others by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, one can realize the very great difficulties with which the hon. the Minister of Finance is faced. He has to fit a sensible economic plan for this country into the ideological measures facing him here in his own country.

The Minister is faced with the Government’s restrictive labour policy as far as industry is concerned. There is the matter of job reservation. The country is not allowed to make use to the full of the labour force available in the country. As against that there is a severe shortage of skilled labour. On the one hand the Minister has this available labour which he is not allowed to use, whilst on the other hand he has to contend with a severe skilled labour shortage. Over the years the policy of this side of the House was rejected. I am referring to our immigration policy. Yet when the Government found themselves getting into a muddle, they had to re-introduce the policy of this side of the House and start a major immigration scheme. The position is this. I think that it is accepted both by the Government and by industry that, notwithstanding the fact that we are bringing in large numbers of immigrants into the country, they will never be able to make up for the great shortage of skilled labour which we experience in South Africa. The Government has been so concerned about its colour ideology … [Interjection.] Yes, we heard it here this afternoon. We have not heard a speech on the budget by Government members this afternoon. All the speeches we have heard have been the colour policies of the National Party. Government members did not reply to the Minister, nor did they criticize the budget. When the hon. member for Point put certain questions to them, they sat quiet. As the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration has said in the past, they were “zipped”. One or two of them had the courage of their convictions and said that they were in favour of certain points. The Government has failed as far as technical education is concerned. Only just lately the Government has woken up to the fact that we require technical training to equip our youths so that they can take their place in industry. The Government knows that we can import the “know-how”, but at the same time we require highly intensive training of our youth in order to overcome the difficulties which we have.

Greater productivity cannot be obtained unless we have a settled labour force. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has said that Bantu will be returned to their homelands, and this has also been propounded by the hon. member for Soutpansberg. Well, nothing will kill productivity more than this scheme. Industrialists just cannot plan from year to year on contract labour. They just cannot do it. As I said, the moving of the industries to the border areas is a dream. The hon. member for Soutpansberg told us where industries should be created. He criticized the Western Cape. He mentioned Phalaborwa. Now, one does not find industries growing haphazardly. They grow where the markets and the raw materials are. They have to consider the question of costs, inter alia costs as far as exports are concerned. One finds that in the U.S.A. because of the rising costs of transport enormous steel works are going to be sited near the coast to save the extra railage. There is a possibility that in the near future we might see steel works here in the Cape. Of course, the Cape is very far from where the coal is mined. But if we become an exporting nation, as I hope we do, the Cape will be a desirable point. The same applies to Durban for that matter. Not new lands, where one has to transport the finished material for another 1,000 miles. Industries are located where the markets are. Now, the Government want industries to be located near the border areas, because they want them there. But one does not just establish an industry. One has to sell the finished article. One does not just put up a factory and manufacture something. The article has to be sold economically, and that is what the Government forgets.

Have you ever heard of the decentralization of industries?

Yes, I have heard of that, but border industries is not decentralization of industries. They are two different things. Decentralization, as far as Europe is concerned, consists of the moving of industry to where the people are. Here in South Africa the Government is moving the industries and also moving the people. That is what the Deputy Minister intends doing. He wants to move the industries and the people to certain areas.

The Deputy Minister has told us about mechanization. He has told us that mechanization and automation will cut down labour wastage. But the perfect robot has never yet been invented, and I do not think that it will ever happen. The human factor still has to play its part. You will still have to have the labour where the industry is. You cannot move the mines or the fishing industry. Where these great industries are you will have this labour force, Bantu or Coloured or White. The Government has to wake up to this fact that the Bantu and the Indian and the Coloured man are here to stay and we have to plan accordingly. But the Minister wants to move them somewhere else. If we do that, this country will never develop as a great industrial nation, even with all the raw materials we have. We will not be able to develop to the extent we should do. After the last war countries like Japan were completely destroyed. Germany was destroyed, and the whole of Europe was disrupted, but those countries have been able to make a comeback and they have become some of the most powerful nations in the world. [Interjections.] Those people got together and worked, but here this Government is so tied up with colour ideologies that it has forgotten how to work with the people. It was a shock, and I think we should be ashamed of this position, to read in the White Paper produced by the Minister, that the exports of the Republic still consist mainly of raw materials and intermediate goods, but exports of final consumers’ goods remain relatively unimportant. That was in 1965. We exported something like R461 million of crude materials, and semi-processed manufactured materials amounted to R478 million. But here is the shock, and this is what we should take note of. that articles ready for sale or for consumers’ use amounted to only R17.4 million. We are proud of the fact that millions of tons of iron ore and copper goes out of the country for processing overseas. We are earning dollars and overseas currency and we are proud of it. There raw products are processed in another country to be sold back to us. Are we proud of the fact that we were unable to produce sufficient rails in this country and had to import them? We do not want a small-minded Government, tied down to small thoughts. We want a Government with a more dynamic approach and a new concept. We have heard the Government say that South Africa should be the workshop of Africa. If they had a more dynamic approach, we would be just that, but unfortunately we are ruled by small, narrow-minded men and that is the reason for the muddle we have got into to-day. Now they are waking up. The Minister told us this afternoon of the restrictions that will be placed in regard to the development of the Transkei. I wonder what he will say when outside capital develops Botswana and Lesotho and Malawi? We have a trade agreement with Malawi. We have to import goods manufactured there. Malawi is looking for White capital to develop the country. They do not object to us investing capital there, nor will Lesotho object to any of us investing money there. In fact, they are going around the world looking for money, and we are sitting back. The Government has to wake up to the fact that 3 million Whites cannot continue to carry something like 12 million Blacks. We have to make use of them; we cannot carry them indefinitely. When the Transkei was formed, the then Minister of Finance said that they would probably be financed by overseas agencies. That has not happened. We should be looking to the rest of the world to help us to develop. The Government says it is doing something; it is uplifting the Africans. The rest of the world is trying to do the same, and the Government should ask them for help.

Now, the Minister has talked about saving, but when he says we must save at the same time he says: I do not trust you to save; I will teach you how to save, so I will take 15 per cent of your savings, of your pay packet, and I will put it away in a savings levy.

15 per cent of the pay packet?

It is 15 per cent of his tax, but it comes out of his pay packet. The Minister wants to fight inflation, but there is a shortage of skilled labour. So what happens? The worker finds that his weekly wage has gone down through added tax deductions and he then goes to his employer and asks for an increase because taxes and rents and rail fares have gone up. So what the Government is aiming to do is defeated, and because there is a shortage of skilled labour the employer has to increase wages. The employer is not going to work for nothing, so his commodity increases in price, and so the inflation spiral goes on and we have the position where you will not have control of inflation but inflation will increase. The Minister must know, that the key of the whole position is labour. Until the Minister and the Government can solve our labour problems, we will have this position. The Minister has tried. He has lifted import control, but I do not think he has lifted it sufficiently. He should look at the high protective tariffs we have. He has to introduce some form of competition if he wants prices to come down. This is a peculiar Budget. The Minister has come with one form of tax, but we have had other taxes too. Recently sugar went up by one cent. Last year we had the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs putting up telephone charges. We have had a Budget in dribs and drabs. The position as far as sugar is concerned is that the youngster in the street finds that his “tickey” line of sweets has gone by the board, so he will suffer. But we have not finished yet. The Provincial Councils must still have their sessions, and if they follow the advice of the Minister of Finance, what can we expect from them? Can we expect an extra companies’ tax from them? Sir, you will find that this Budget, instead of controlling inflation, will do just the opposite.

The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that the value of the rand is decreasing and people are finding it more difficult to live. The Minister must not think that there is money lying about. He may think that because few more cars are being bought and therefore there is this extra cash, but does he know how they are being bought. At the same time he is going to make it more difficult for the person who requires a car for his business to earn a living, because that man will have to pay more for his car. That is going to be the effect of this mild Budget. In my opinion, it will not reduce the cost of living but will send it up, because the Government has not solved the one problem, labour. Until it faces up to that, we will go on as we are going on to-day.

The hon. member for Salt River will excuse me if I do not follow up in full on everything he has said to-day, except to say that I am glad that the hon. member, together with his Party, has apparently been converted over the past few years to the point of view which the National Party has adopted over all these years, of South Africa first in the economic field. The hon. member stated that we should not export raw materials without processing them here, but he cannot pack the blame for that on the shoulders of this Government. It was the policy of this Party which laid the foundation for the fantastic expansion we have had during the past 30 years in the economic sphere. The hon. member said that he did not regard the border industries as decentralization, but I think that that is a fallacious argument. There are various reasons for decentralizing industry. One reason is that one wants to develop the underdeveloped areas of the country and not merely to concentrate the development in a few spots, because that creates all kinds of other problems. Another reason is that one wants to take the industries to the labour, instead of bringing labour to the industries. We are taking the industries to the Bantu labour. It is a form of decentralization if one takes the industries to the labour instead of concentrating the labour in a few spots. There are also other reasons for decentralizing. One of those reasons is minerals, another is water. In this way one can enumerate more, but the fact remains that border industrial development is a form of decentralization, whether or not the hon. member wants to admit it. I want to leave the hon. member at that and should like to begin with the Opposition.

To-day the Opposition have heard the policy of the National Party. In the past few years we have actually been in the position that we did not know what the policy of the United Party was. They have tested their so called race federation policy at three elections. That race federation policy of theirs was utterly rejected by the nation and towards the end of last year we had speculations in the public Press to the effect that the United Party was re-formulating its policy and that that re-formulation was in the direction of territorial federation. I want to ask the Opposition to-day to tell the country whether that is their new policy, because every policy which they have thus far adopted, as was the case with the 1954 policy, the so-called sixpence policy, has been rejected by the nation. After that they came forward with their Senate Plan of 1956-’57 and that was rejected by the nation, and ultimately in 1961 they came forward with their race federation plan.

Why do you not talk about “baasskap” and apartheid and separate development?

That race federation plan has already been tested at three elections. It was tested in 1961, and it was tested in 1965 at the provincial election. It was also tested last year at the general election, and the National Party emerged even stronger from the fray. Amongst their own ranks, in the Press which supports them, the idea has been expressed that the United Party must accept the result of the election, that it must accept that the white population of South Africa has accepted the policy of parallel development as its basic policy. To-day that policy is no longer the policy of the National Party only; I think I have the right to say that it is to-day the policy of the nation. It is not only the Afrikaans-speaking people who have accepted that policy; there are a great many English-speaking people who to-day support this policy and I am convinced that the number of English-speaking people who accept this policy is steadily increasing. My own calculation—and I do not want to argue the point to-day with the hon. members of the Opposition—is that at the latest election held last year 150,000 English-speaking people voted for the National Party.

Good Lord!

It is so. I do not want to argue about the numbers to-day because it would distract me from my argument, but I am prepared to argue about these figures at a later stage. I say that between 125,000 and 150,000 English-speaking people voted for the National Party.

That means that there are many Afrikaners who voted for the United Party.

Apart from the English-speaking people who voted for the National Party, I am convinced that there are thousands of other English-speaking people in the country who basically support this policy but who vote for the United Party for other reasons. In other words, I want to maintain that the policy of the National Party to-day is not solely the policy of the National Party but that it has become the policy of South Africa.

Why are you so afraid of us then?

I want to maintain that in the past elections held since 1948 the people of South Africa have indicated not only to South Africa but to the world in general that it has begun to move inexorably in the direction of separate development and that that policy has to-day become the national policy. The people of South Africa have intimated to the world that they are going to maintain this attitude of separate nationhood, not only separate nationhood for the Whites, but also separate nationhood for the non-Whites, come what will. I think that was the decision of the nation in past elections. That is why I say that even if the United Party were to abandon its race federation policy and accept the so-called territorial federation policy it would still not be taking into account what has happened in this country in the past few years, because both these plans, race federation and territorial federation, proceed from the assumption that there is only one nation in what I want to call the cartographical South Africa. Both these attitudes proceed on the assumption of the basic principle that white and non-white will ultimately be integrated into one nation; that there will only be one nation in South Africa. It is also the point of view of the Progressive Party that we are one nation in South Africa. That is the basis of their policy and that is the basis of the policy of the United Party. Opposed to that there is the policy of the National Party that, within this cartographical South Africa, we have different nations with their own languages, their own traditions and their own innate culture.

Such as the English for example.

No, the English and the Afrikaans-speaking people are becoming one nation.

Why do you want separate schools then?

Why do you have separate English schools?

I do not want to discuss schools to-day; We can discuss that later. I say that we in South Africa need not be troubled by our consciences.

Why do you have them then?

We in South Africa need not be troubled by our consciences, such as is apparently the case with the old imperial powers to-day, because South Africa adheres to this point of view that we not only claim nationhood for ourselves, but we are also granting it to the non-Whites in South Africa. We have maintained that point of view throughout our history. We did not wipe out the non-Whites in South Africa, we did not even Westernize them in the true sense of the word. The Westernization which did arise, actually arose as a result of contact with us, but it was not our positive policy to do so. In reality we protected them against aggression. We protected them from one another so that they could not decimate one another. We protected them in such a way that their numbers to-day actually constitute the greatest threat to the survival of our own nation. Neither did we deliberately miscegenate them. We accepted that they were innately separate types with their own identity, with their own language and with their own culture, and we have maintained this policy, as it has basically been accepted by the people of South Africa, even by the late General Smuts, throughout our history. I have never yet found a better exposition of that policy than the one made by the late General Smuts himself. General Smuts stated in London—

He went on to say—

In other words, throughout our history we have consistently adhered to this point of view and that is why I say we have no reason to be troubled by our consciences. I want to maintain to-day that this point of view which the United Party and the Progressive Party are adopting, is another relic of the old imperial way of thinking in South Africa—i.e. this point of view of one nation. There was a time in this country when the British Government wanted to denationalize the Afrikaner, and it could not succeed in doing so. To-day the United Party and the Progressive Party want to do the same. They want to denationalize the non-Whites in this country.

And the Whites as well.

If the population within a corporate state is absorbed into a unitary state then it means that everything which is peculiar to the non-Whites will disappear and everything which is peculiar to the Whites will disappear. I therefore say that these two policy directions, those of the United Party and the Progressive Party are the relics of the old imperial way of thinking in South Africa. The Bantu must become Westernized and they would like to govern the country together with the intellectuals amongst the Bantu; that is why they talk about white leadership or white government in this country for the foreseeable future. The Progressive Party wants to do the same thing. They want to take a handful of Bantu intellectuals and alienate them from their nation, and with that handful they want to try and maintain the white nation in South Africa.

It is a relic of the old imperial way of thinking in South Africa. They want to create a ruling class which they want to try and maintain by means of a constitution in South Africa, while they actually want to forget the masses on which the ruling class has to subsist. They are making the same errors made by the imperial powers in Africa. The imperial powers in Africa thought they could throw together a number of people of different races and languages within a cartographical state, that one could give them their freedom and that they would then become one nation. To-day it is becoming increasingly clear that that idea simply does not work. If one has different nations with different languages, even though they all have black skins, one cannot build them into one nation just like that. That is why I say that the United Party and the Progressive Party are making the mistake of wanting to build one nation out of this multiracial population structure which we have in South Africa. They have not learnt the lesson which is being learnt in Nigeria to-day, the lesson which is being learnt in the Sudan, in the Congo, in Somaliland and in Sierra Leone, i.e. that you cannot merely throw people together in an unitary state. The imperial powers made another mistake: They adopted the attitude that the political and cultural concepts of the West could simply be transferred holus-bolus to the non-Whites and that one could get the Bantu and the Negro peoples of Africa to accept them.

It is becoming increasingly clear to-day that the Africa states reject the democratic system of government. The democratic system of government is being overthrown everywhere and what we are getting everywhere is the concept of Africanization. We are to-day hearing such words as “Nigeriazation”, Ghanianization”, “Congolization”, Zambianization” which prove that the Negro and Bantu peoples of Africa are returning to their own cultural roots. They are not accepting the Western concepts but are developing in Africa on the basis of their own culture and their own identity. It is very clear therefore that on this basis of the United Party and the Progressive Party it will not be possible to achieve any measure of success in South Africa. If one considers the British nation today one sees that even after centuries the nationalism of certain constituent parts of the British nation has not been entirely suppressed; Scottish nationalism, for example, has not been entirely suppressed. Recently a Welshman was elected to the British Parliament on a national basis for the first time. The nationalism of the Irish has not been suppressed. Even if one has thrown a number of Whites together one cannot develop one nation without the nationalism and the separate identity of the separate groups coming to the fore. That is why I say that our policy is the only policy which can bring peace in South Africa.

Apparently the United Party is revising its colour policy. That is why I hope that in the process it is going to free itself of the remnants and relics of the imperial way of thinking in South Africa and that it will learn from what is happening in Africa. I want to go even further and say that the problems with which we are struggling to-day in South Africa, are problems which were created by the imperial powers which governed South Africa for more than 100 years. We are struggling with those problems to-day, problems which that imperial power left for us to solve. That is why we should no longer make the mistakes which were made in the imperialistic time. In past years the United Party has done everything to thwart and impede the policy of the National Party. But the United Party must accept as a basis now the fact that our policy has been approved by the voters of our country. Let us argue therefore about the application of that policy but not about the basis of this policy of separate development. I think the United Party must accept that, as its newspapers have already advised them to do. I want to go so far as to say that if the United Party does not accept this policy I am convinced that the time of the United Party as a relic of the imperial way of thinking is past in South Africa. Then it has become an anachronism in our politics. Then the United Party will find that these retrogressive steps which they have taken over the past few years are not a temporary phenomenon but merely milestones along the road leading to total disintegration. The United Party must not accuse us and state that we are becoming a one-party state. We are not to blame for that. It is so because the United Party has not learnt its lesson from what is going on in South Africa.

Over the years the United Party has often raised the cry that we are creating a police state in South Africa, a dictatorship and a Nazi form of government. It was alleged last year and in recent debates in this House. The reason for those accusations are to be found in the United Party itself, in its own weakness, because it can no longer fit into the present status quo in South Africa. The result is that this Party is becoming stronger and stronger. To raise that cry means that a basic fact in South Africa is being denied, the fact that Afrikaans as well as English-speaking persons are democratic at heart. They would never allow a dictatorship in South Africa. When the United Party therefore, regardless of this, raises this cry, they are being prejudicial to South Africa—in fact, the cry is not being raised for domestic but for overseas consumption. I therefore want to make an appeal to the United Party to put a stop to this unpatriotic behaviour. The nation expects it of them, and history will call them to account for it. Before posterity they will have to justify their having sent this kind of propaganda abroad, propaganda which, particularly at this juncture, is doing us a great deal of harm, for to say that we are heading for a dictatorship is surely a denial of the basic fact that South Africa is a democratic country with a free Parliament, which means that what they have said in this respect they would not have been able to say if there had been a dictatorship. What is more, we have freedom of the Press and an independent judiciary. It is a denial of all these basic facts, just as it is a denial of the most deep-rooted and best characteristics of English as well as Afrikaansspeaking people in this country.

That is why I am making an appeal to the United Party to accept, in the reformulation of its policy, the verdict of the people, to renounce that old way of thinking, as well as to refrain from making themselves guilty of this kind of unpatriotic behaviour. We on this side are becoming stronger because we accept as a policy what the nation wants, and to accuse us therefore of heading for a police state or a dictatorship or a Nazi form of government is unpatriotic. I want to appeal to the United Party to stop doing that.

I have listened attentively to this debate over the past day or two and I find that very few points of criticism against the Budget have so far come from the Opposition side. Neither can one blame them for that. Unfortunately we had the Easter recess in the meantime and during that week all the wind was taken out of their sails in that all the recognized economists praised the hon. the Minister of Finance for this practical Budget which he has presented here. I in particular should like to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister. I represent a workers’ constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting during the past week, and I found that everyone there expressed his thanks to the Government for this practical Budget in which no consumer article has been touched and the cost structure of the country is not being upset. As I was listening to Opposition speakers I involuntarily recalled a certain joke. I hope my Jewish friends on the other side will pardon my telling the joke here. It concerns two Jews, Abe and Moses, who were partners in a business. For years they had been doing business here in St. George’s Street. However, their business was not doing very well, perhaps owing to inflation or depression. The two put their heads together and decided to do something about it. After consulting about the matter they decided that one of them should look for work while the other one would run the business. The one who had to look for work roamed the streets of Cape Town for a long time and eventually landed up in Roeland Street as a fireman. He was perfectly happy in his new job. Every time a fire-alarm went he was very quick in sliding down the copper pipe in order to get to the fire engine to go and put out the fire. One fine day the alarm went again. Abe quickly got onto the fire engine, which dashed through town as fast as possible eventually reaching St. George’s Street. When they arrived there, Abe saw that it was his brother’s shop that was on fire. He jumped from the engine and uncoiled the fire hose to put out the fire, but then Moses came running up and said, “Abe, please do not put water on; this fire is the salvation of our business”. Abe replied, “Moses, do you think I am a fool? This is not water, this is petrol”. The Opposition are also supposed to be partners in this country, but nevertheless they are not prepared to combat inflation. On the contrary, they want to stimulate inflation. That is what they regard as their duty as the Opposition. Yet these are the same hon. gentlemen who, in the session of last year, spoke about the new patriotism which had developed on their part. But as long as they can stimulate inflation and put a dagger into the future of South Africa they do not act as patriots or as citizens who love their fatherland. I want to refer to specific actions of theirs. We know that to combat inflation requires a great deal, it requires a great deal from the worker, the industrialist and the Government. The hon. member for Queenstown put a very clear and simple question to the Opposition. He said: “Please do tell us where we can cut down on Government expenditure”. Because these are the two horses which are being ridden to death in this debate, namely, Government expenditure, and productivity. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Durban (Point) got onto a horse, the horse would collapse. I just want to mention the two reasons which have been ridden to death so far, namely Government expenditure which is not being curbed and increased productivity. They have been given the opportunity and, as I have said, the hon. member for Queenstown asked them repeatedly, to show us where we can reduce Government expenditure, and believe it or not, after that question had been put to the Opposition, the irresponsible hon. member for Durban (Point) came along this afternoon and took part in this debate. The hon. member for Queenstown referred to the nine so-called “pledges” of the United Party. I also have the pamphlet: “Nine solemn pledges”. I do not know what is so solemn about it all, because the result was not so wonderful for them. The hon. member for Durban (Point) associated himself with these nine promises this afternoon, and even went much further. But of course we know them as a party of promises. In 1958 it was windmills and boreholes. That was the election promise with which they came to the small-holdings, thinking that they could peddle it for a few cheap votes on a platter. Of course, that is what we have to expect from a party which to-day looks as it does because it is forever peddling and does not place anything constructive before the electorate of this country.

Referring to the hon. member for Durban (Point), I continue. Now it is free hospitalization, national health schemes, and the abolition of the means test for those who took part in the First World War. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does he want to finance it with their ninth promise, namely “State lotteries, if desired by the voters”? I wonder whether that is where he wanted to find the money to carry out all these promises which they made to the voters. He too did not make any constructive suggestion and tell this House where we could find the money to carry out these promises which they throw across the floor of this House so wantonly. But then, there is an election coming in Johannesburg (West). Without being a prophet, I want to hazard a prediction. I think the United Party is going to get a blow in Johannesburg (West) on 3rd May such as they have never had before.

But they go further. The hon. member for Durban (Point) and others are now so worried about the wages and salaries of the white worker in South Africa.

As we have always been.

Have always been?I am glad my hon. friend says “have always been”. I have a little election pamphlet here which was issued by the United Party in 1958. Then, although they were concerned about the vote of the white worker, they were never concerned about his prosperity and well-being. Then they were concerned about his vote and in 1958 every possible bogey and spectre were held up to the electorate of the Republic. At that time they tried to frighten the voters on the Rand, in Vereeniging and vicinity, with the removal of some clothing factory or other to the border areas: “Can you see?” (in large black and blue letters) “the Nationalist Party says it is the friend of the white worker.” Then they go on to say: “Vote out the Nationalist Party, because it will bring unemployment.” Where are those prophets of doom of 1958? Are they not the ones who are now grumbling across the floor of this House day after day, evening after evening, that there is a manpower shortage? Is it not the same people? But then they were not concerned about the wages of the white workers in South Africa. In 1958 they were concerned about the white vote. But what has happened to them? The so-called “star on the horizon of labour”, the hon. member for Yeoville, who was the member for Vereeniging at the time, disappeared from Vereeniging like dew before the sun’s rays. That is what happened after they issued this pamphlet. What happened to them subsequently?

How many white clothing workers were there in 1958?

They tried to frighten not only the clothing workers, but all white workers. We know them. Mr. Speaker, so I can give you proof after proof of how they have always gambled with the prosperity of the worker in this country. What happened to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. member who day after day pleaded in the House of Assembly for the rate for the job? Mr. Speaker, he is no longer in this House. They no longer have any member who represents the white workers and salary earner in this House. That is how they tried to peddle their wares, but they have paid a high toll for that. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that in 1948 there were 12 Ministers, as against 24 to-day. If my memory does not fail me, there were 76 United Party members in 1948, as against 39 to-day. See what they look like now, Mr. Speaker. That is how they have deteriorated. The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke here about the number of Ministers having been doubled—how inconsistent! He based his calculations on the population figures. But in the same breath he says that the total income in this country has increased five-fold, but that that does not justify a doubling of the Cabinet. Now I ask: Where is the logic in their arguments?

I want to conclude. As regards this so-called plea of the United Party that we are not making proper use of all our workers and that only 30 per cent (the Whites) are being used to keep the economy going, I shall tell you, Sir, what is in the back of their minds: the integration of the black man with the white man on the labour market. That is what they want, but they do not have the courage to say so. And I can quote further examples here. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is a pity that one has to increase company tax and so retard the expansion in the country, but if that is the price which the white worker in this country may have to pay in order not to go under as a result of the policy of the United Party, then I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to tax the companies even more and not to make those heavy demands on the State.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the Budget. Apparently hon. members on the opposite side are very anxious to keep us away from the Budget. Nevertheless. I should like to deal with a few matters before I come to the Budget. I regret that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not in the House. Earlier to-day he stated that when all those investment corporations were established, the industrialists and businessmen did not have enough altruism to invest money in them. Apparently they pursued only the profit motive. Now I just want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Before me I see members of the Cabinet, people whose motives are pure in this regard. How many of them invested money in those corporations? From what we can gather they invest their money in all kinds of other business undertakings. Who are the people on that side of the House who invested money in the corporations?

There is a further matter to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Soutpansberg attacked me, and on a later occasion I should like to come back to what he said. He said that I had said amongst other things that the black people and other non-Whites in South Africa were just like commodities which could simply be shifted around. What did I actually say? I quote from Hansard—

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! Surely that is true. All day long we are told about Italians who go across to France to work there and about Germans who go to Switzerland, and so forth. It is easy to move untrained labour; it is mobile. That is so.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) also said quite a few things here which we should really like to take up with him at some stage or other. He told us how his Party was going from strength to strength and how it was gaining more and more votes. That is probably true, and perhaps they will get even more votes. But it is like a balloon—it will explode and burst into fragments when it reaches its maximum size. He quoted what Field-Marshal Smuts supposedly said. We are pleased with that. But let me also quote what Field-Marshal Smuts said when he was also in a strong position and when he also had a large majority. Someone then asked him: “General, how do you see the future? What is going to happen?” He then said: “I know I will go—they will kick me out.” He was then asked why that would happen, and his reply was: “Because nobody has ever succeeded in stopping the pendulum in the political clock of the time.” The same will happen to this Government unless that political clock comes to a standstill—and that danger exists. It is clear what has happened. The Whites in this country feel that their standard of living is in danger. What has this party done through the years with the colour prejudices of our people? They have exploited them. They have always instilled fears into the people. What is the inevitable psychological reaction in this situation? If I see a snake in that comer, will I approach it and stroke its head? No, the immediate reaction is to flee. I shall recede from the object of which I am afraid. That is why everybody agrees if one talks about apartheid under these circumstances. It sounds wonderful. But now I ask, Sir: Where is that apartheid? Do we see it in Adderley Street? Do we see it in Eloff Street? Do we see it in our factories? Why has the National Party fared so well? For 18 years they have spoken about apartheid and they have brought nothing to fruition.

Their policy is essentially that the various population groups should each have its own homeland and develop independently. Now we ask: Where is the homeland for the Coloureds? Where is the homeland for the Indians? What is actually the essence of the Government’s solution to the problem of the black people? They exploit the groups in the homelands, those who are backward, the blanket Natives, and what are they promised? They are promised independence. They will be able to go to the U.N. They will be able to send ambassadors there. But two-thirds of the black people are people who do not live in the homelands, who have never been there and who will never go there—what are they promised? They are told that they may go and vote in the Transkei. Other hon. members and I myself may just as well be told that we may go and vote in Holland or in Britain, because that is where our forefathers came from.

What also bothers us are certain things said by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I see the hon. member has left us again. Every time we criticize something, our patriotism is queried. What is the attitude of those hon. members? A Budget has been introduced. What was the immediate response of horn, members on the opposite side? According to them everybody should fold his hands and say that it is a wonderful Budget. It seems we should clap our hands and go home. They do that, instead of helping us to analyse this Budget objectively in order to see how it may be improved. But every time we say something about the Budget, our patriotism is doubted. Let me just repeat: As far as patriotism is concerned, we do not grant anybody in this country the sole claim.

What is actually in the Estimates as far as we are concerned? That is what is under discussion. Hon. members say our economy is strong. Of course we accept that. But why is that so? We have 50 gold mines, we have great mineral resources, and we have cheap labour. What is more, South Africa has reached a stage of development where we have gathered enough impetus to allow the entire economy to be maintained at a rapid rate. Now, Sir, as we listen to the Budget year after year, we find that the economic situation in South Africa is analysed, that there are indications of what went wrong in the past year and that proposals are made as to what should be done to improve matters. But the fact of the matter is that no business undertaking can be successful unless it has a sustained long-term policy or plan. Now I ask: Where is the long-term policy or plan as far as State financing is concerned? The Minister has never presented that to us. That is why we get the impression that we deal with ad hoc arrangements year after year, that we are performing patchwork on a gigantic scale, for the very reason that there is no such fundamental long-term monetary and fiscal policy. South Africa needs that. We have now passed the stage of development where economists say that we are entering a period of sustained economic growth. That is a generally recognized stage. America experienced that at the beginning of the twentieth century, and Britain experienced that even in the nineteenth century.

Apparently we are now reaching the stage where we have a choice of fields in which to invest our surplus economic energy. In the main there are three different courses we may follow. There is the course of mass consumption. That is the course chosen by America. The second course is that of the social welfare state, and among the Western countries Britain is probably the best example of this. Then there are the Russians, and under the régime of De Gaulle it appears as though the French are also moving in that direction, which is the third course, i.e. to pursue prestige projects. Now we ask: What is our course? Where are we heading? We also have to choose now. Will the Minister tell us what his policy is in this particular respect, because it links up with all the scores of concomitant technical monetary problems. What is his policy as regards the relationship between direct and indirect taxation? What is his policy as regards the balance between Loan Account and Revenue Account? What is his policy to ensure that there is complementary development between the Government sector and the private sector?

Here we ask what the Minister’s policy is, and he should present it to us. The impression we get is that there is no such policy, and that is why the Minister’s predecessor could change his role year after year. That is why he could undergo such rapid metamorphoses. One year he was an angler, and then he would go fishing. The next year he was a gardener, the following year a chef. Why was it possible for him to change his roles in this way? The reason is that there was no such fundamental policy. But every Budget should also have a central, cardinal aspect which forms a focal point, and in this case there is such an aspect. That is inflation. Now we ask what is done in this particular Budget to bring inflation under control? How do we present it to our people? It appears to me as though we are beginning to confuse them completely, or trying to confuse them. We say that the economy has become overheated and that it should cool off. We talk about money and about quasi-money, and we say that inflation came about because too much money was pursuing too few commodities and too few services. What does that mean to the man in the street? He cannot distinguish between money and quasi-money, because he has neither. Everything he sees in his daily life is contrary to what we say. He looks at the shop windows and sees that they are full of commodities, and then he looks at his own bank balance and finds that it dried up long ago. The man in the street is aware of the effects of inflation; all he knows is that his money buys less and less and that he has to spend more and more on commodities. Several years ago the Viljoen Commission indicated that the price level was rising by approximately 4 per cent a year, and at that rate of increase you find that the price level doubles itself every 17 years. That is what happens. That is why we ask in what respect this Budget can help the man in the street to buy more for less money. That brings me to the Budget itself.

What are the concessions made in this Budget? In the first place, a small concession has been made to our aged, the pensioners. We all welcome that. Those are the aged people who are now in the twilight of their lives, and to a greater or a lesser extent all of them have made a contribution. We say ours is a rich country; we are prosperous, and these people should also be able to share in that prosperity. We can only say we hope that all the non-Whites will also get something of that, and we also say that we hope we shall be able to pay these people something in future and to give them something which is really worthwhile. This is a question of conscience, and who is there sitting in this House who does not have a conscience about this matter? If we consider the payments we make at the moment and how small they are, I may just say that it does not redound to our credit.

Then there are the concessions regarding university students, in that the age limit is raised from 24 to 26. We approve of that, but we should have preferred some means of control. How do we know that under this system we shall not simply be subsidizing failures? Let us rather use it to encourage certain fields of study. Take engineering, which fits in so well with the productivity we are always discussing. How many engineers have we? In America there are 450 engineers to every 100,000 people, and we have a mere 50. To every student studying engineering in South Africa, there are proportionately 20 in Russia. Why could we not rather have seen to it that these concessions were used to aid students in particular fields of study? Otherwise we may run the risk of keeping people at the universities not because they do any noteworthy work, but merely because they can play rugby.

If we analyse the position somewhat further, we find that industries may now use more of their money to maintain study loans and bursaries. We consider this a mere technical concession, because the 2 per cent level remains. All we say is that we would have preferred to see it expanded, if the economy can afford it. In America these figures stand at approximately 10 per cent. Dr. Anton Rupert pleads every year that industries should be allowed to allocate more money to the universities for study loans.

Let them do that. Nobody is stopping them.

Yes, but they derive no tax benefits from that. What is the effect here? In America one finds that as far as the universities are concerned, 13 per cent of their income derives directly from industry, and here the comparable figure is only 1 per cent. Well, these are concessions which we accept, but now we should like to know where the Minister gets the money to pay for these things? In the first place it must come from the gold mines once again. We have gone into this matter before. We talk about the productivity of capital, and here we have a material example of that. We have already pointed out that unless certain concessions are now made to the gold-mining industry, there is the danger that gold to the value of R4,000 to R5,000 million will stay exactly where it is, 10,000 feet underground. But what happens? The Minister takes another 5 per cent from the gold mines. Do you know that what certain mines have to pay back represents more than two-thirds of their profits? Through all these years we have had the goose laying the golden eggs, but the Government is strangling her systematically, and we shall live to rue it.

Secondly, where can they get more money? From the companies? If one takes from the companies, what is the inevitable reaction? In the first place they will either have to maintain their profits, and that will increase their prices, which is inflationary, or if they cannot do so, they will have to go under, and that will be wastage. But here the major problem is in any event that these are the organizations which are responsible for capital growth in the private sector, and this is where the economic upsurge starts, but now they cannot have this capital growth because the Government is taking it away. The argument that their taxes are low does not impress us, for as the hon. member for Parktown indicated, at 40 per cent we find that it is equal to the British corporation tax.

I thought you had a much better grasp of the reasons for inflation than that.

Look what is happening to the profits in the manufacturing industry. Three years ago they rocketed by 29 per cent, two years ago by 20 per cent, and last year they had already decreased by 4 per cent. The Minister would have us believe that this is a deflationary Budget, but we see it quite differently. We see it rather as a Budget which is attuned to financing increased state expenditure in a way which will not be too badly inflationary. Because that is the essence of the matter. Look how State expenditure has increased. I do not want to quote a string of figures, but we know that this year the total State expenditure will increase by R166 million, and that brings it to 9.5 per cent. Even if one allows for inflation and deducts 3 per cent from the 9.5 per cent, which will probably be the case this year, one is left with approximately 6.5 per cent, and that is still higher than the projected national growth figure of 5.5 per cent. The danger is of a dual nature. Firstly, it is forcing out the private sector more and more because the Government share is larger, and it is the private sector which is usually not so inflationary, because the profit motive is the predominant one. But secondly there is the psychological factor. If State expenditure increases in this fashion, what does the man in the street say? He says that he may just as well also spend. That is what happens, and that is why we say that as we see matters this Budget will not succeed in combating inflation.

The question of productivity is once again basic to all these lines of approach. We are told that we should save more and work more.

Is the oracle going to make some suggestions now?

If only the hon. member would listen. All he does is to clap his hands and say that it is a wonderful Budget. What is the position as regards productivity? What norm can one use to determine that? Probably the per capita national product. If we take that as the norm, we find that the figure in America and in most of the Western countries is approximately R1,500 a year. In respect of South Africa and Japan it is approximately R450, and in respect of Asia and most of the black states it is approximately R150. What does that indicate? That indicates that we are three times as productive as Asia and most of the black states, but that also indicates that we are probably three times less productive than America and certain of the Western states. When we talk about productivity it is as though we are still thinking in terms of labour only, yet one of the most important factors in productivity is the productivity of capital. What are we doing about that in this country? What are we doing to keep inventories low; what are we doing to maintain our gold-mining industry? How do we know which are more productive fields in which to invest our money? What guidance do we receive from the Government in this respect? One would think we have never even heard about productivity of capital in this country.

If one takes productivity of labour, what are the important factors affecting it? Education and training, for example are two important factors. The other day the hon. member for Sunnyside gave us interesting statistics to demonstrate how many Whites were attending universities in South Africa. What he neglected to add, of course, is that in South Africa approximately half of the people who attend universities fail. Therefore those figures are not so rosy. But, secondly, what do those figures look like if we consider the non-Whites? Have you expressed that graphically? There is a long base, a long base-line which tapers into a thin point, like an awl. We all know that as far as the non-Whites in this country are concerned the training, and particularly the higher training they receive, is totally inadequate. But this is not only formal academic training; there is also the question of training in industry. What are we doing about that; what is available in that respect?

What is industry doing about that?

Last year I said that we should do more in this field. I pointed out that legislation was necessary; I pointed out that in 1964 Britain placed an industrial training act on their Statute Book, an act which is regarded as a model and which has been accepted by many other states, and what was the reaction of the responsible Minister? He shrugged his shoulders and said: It is not our duty; industries should undertake their own training. But industries cannot pass legislation; it is the responsibility of the Government, and what is the Government doing about that? They pass the buck to industry. But if it is ideological legislation it is a different matter altogether; then it is piloted through the House of Assembly as quickly as possible.

Our problem as regards productivity is that productivity actually comes from above; it comes from the high management, and we simply do not have the people for this. The economically active part of the population of South Africa is put at approximately 5½million people, and of these the white part represents approximately 1,200,000, i.e. approximately 20 per cent. How many managers and supervisors and other people do we need on our present economic basis? Dr. Meyer and others have formed an estimate of this, and they put it at almost 600,000 people. How many have we? If you look at the latest census figures you will see that if they are all added together—the managers, the officers and the professional people—the figure does not even stand at 300,000. That is a tremendous gap; we have only half the people we should have. This is of course due primarily to the fact that we are not prepared to make proper use of the human resources available to us in South Africa. It has been proved throughout the world that only 25 per cent of the people in any population group have the ability to act successfully in positions of this nature. What are we trying to do in South Africa? We want 3 million people to meet all these requirements for a population of 18 million. We agree with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark; we know that some Whites may fall by the wayside. We also want these Whites to be protected. But if one accepts that—and we all agree that there are Whites who should be protected—we may do so in a dozen different ways without imposing artificial limits on the full development of the potentialities of the vast masses of people in South Africa. Unless we are prepared to accept that, this entire question of productivity will remain an empty cry and will bring us no further.

We need more managers, because that is where productivity comes from. Take the question of standardization. The director of the Bureau of Standards says that by means of proper standardization we may increase our productivity in this country by 10 per cent. Who is to do that? It is the managers. It is not the workers. Take the question of simplifying tasks. During the past 20 years the Japanese have increased their productivity by almost 25 per cent in their shipbuilding industry, and what was the result of that? They are now selling more ships than any other country in the world. Quality control in one of our own large steel factories on the Witwatersrand, for example, was instrumental in reducing rejects from 13 per cent to 1 per cent, and by doing so they increased their productivity by 5 per cent. All these things may be done, but they must come from above, from the executive.

We have set ourselves the task of increasing our productivity by 2.8 per cent a year; that figure was projected by the Planning Council. It is a tremendous task; it is a gigantic, ambitious task, and we shall have to throw in everything to attain that kind of productivity progress. One need merely take a problem such as labour turnover and consider how it affects the business. The labour turnover figure in this country is approximately 30 per cent in most of our large industries, and every man that comes and goes costs at least R100. I said that just our white work group totals more than a million, and if you want to make a small calculation, you will see that labour turnover in respect of the Whites only is costing us more than R30 million a year. That is what we mean when we talk about productivity. Take absence from work. The usual figure in respect of absence from work in most of our industries in this country is 6 per cent, and if leave is added to that, it makes a further 9 per cent, therefore a total of 15 per cent. What does that mean? It means that if I want 100 workers in my factory, I have to sign on 115. Here again experts have calculated that the ordinary absence from work costs R25 to R50 a year in respect of every worker in employment, and if we make another small calculation we will find that absence from work, as regards the Whites only, is costing us from R25 million to R50 million a year. Take accidents. All these things affect productivity, both directly and indirectly. Authorities put the present cost figure at R100 million a year. Mr. Speaker, these are the issues we should deal with, but where do our managers come from? What training facilities do we offer them? One or two universities provide training in this field, but they take only postgraduate students, and that excludes 80 per cent of our managers. Why can we not have a Henley-on-Thames? Why can we not have a staff college such as that established by the French? These are desirable steps that should be taken by the Government, but it is doing nothing about the matter. The Government sits still and leaves matters to industry.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are taking sharp looks at me; I shall therefore continue on a later occasion.

After I had listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow I could not help feeling that he was to-day actually speaking to people in the wrong country. If he had made that speech in a country such as Russia, or in some other country where the state owns virtually everything, I would have said that he made a good speech, but we are not living in a socialistic state; the State does not own everything; the State is not the employer. We are proud of the fact that South Africa is a country where there is private initiative. We are also proud of the degree of efficiency attained by both our employers and our employees in this country. We may quote numerous instances of employers who come from abroad and establish factories in South Africa and who publicly express their surprise at the high quality work produced and at its efficiency, despite the fact that we have an employee class and also an employer class which have not the same degree of experience as those in the older countries. I think this side of the House may reject with contempt these constant accusations—for that is what they amount to—of inefficiency on the part of the employer and the employee. We can be proud of what we have achieved. We want to ask that side of the House to stop flinging those oblique accusations at our employers and our employees.

But you are the ones who are always saying that the farmers are so inefficient.

That side of the House should be the last to talk of efficiency. Nowadays it is acknowledged in all countries that the question of productivity rests primarily with the employer and the employee. In a country where private initiative is still predominant and is not controlled by the State it is the duty of the State to give guidance, and it is impossible for the State to give guidance on an individual basis to all the thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of employers and employees. It operates through organizations, and that is what this Government is doing. It operates through the productivity committee which has been established and through the National Development Foundation. That is the correct way of operating, and not the way which hon. members on that side of the House would suggest. They have hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as the whole question of productivity is concerned. It is high time they realized that. I do not want to go into the matter any further, except to say that it is long since I have heard so much random talk on that side of the House as I heard during the past two days. They do not mind and are not ashamed of contradicting each other, nor are they ashamed of making erroneous statements. Let me give an example. Two of the hon. members on the opposite side spoke about the large gap purported to exist between the 5.5 per cent growth-rate envisaged by the Government and the 9 per cent increase in State expenditure. They are speaking of things which are not parallels. They have forgotten that the 5.5 per cent represents a real growth-rate, and that the 9 per cent is calculated on the market prices. If one adjusts that 5.5 per cent—this is in the quarterly bulletin of the Reserve Bank—and applies it to the same prices, it is approximately 9 per cent. [Interjection.] There is no gap here. It does not happen every year that the two percentages are virtually parallel. If only that hon. member would read the quarterly bulletin of the Reserve Bank and would gain some knowledge, he would also be able to understand it. I want to give him the advice— and I think I may give him the advice as one colleague to another—that he is much safer in another field than in the economic field. He should keep to his field.

I should like to come back to the question of the Budget. Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in our country, and considering the economic conditions in the country, this Budget is one of the best Budgets delivered for a long time. Not once did that side of the House measure this Budget by the principles of a sound Budget. Why not? I presume they know what the principles of a sound Budget are. And if they do not know what those are, it is time they learned them. If they do know what they are, they should discuss this Budget on its merits—point by point. We have had no such discussion from the opposite side of the House. This Budget is moderately deflationary. They say it is neutral. It is not neutral. Even the Financial Mail, which is published by the Rand Daily Mail, said that this Budget was deflationary. If I tell them that they will not believe me, but I hope they will believe it if their own people say so. The financing of the Budget for the past six months was not inflationary either. The quarterly bulletin of the Reserve Bank, of March, 1967, stated the following:

The Minister said that circumstances were such that he would continue pursuing this important policy, with which we agree, during this financial year as well. The third point is that the increase in State expenditure is moderate.

We must have regard to the circumstances in which we and this world commonwealth of nations find ourselves, and we must take into consideration that few countries in the world are experiencing the dangers of threats and boycotts faced by South Africa and Rhodesia. That is what some of their own people say. I may read that to you. They say that in the past three or four years we have come face to face with some of the greatest threats in our history. In spite of that and in spite of the important strategic works it had to undertake and defences that had to be built up, the State could succeed in containing this Budget and the expenditure within reasonable limits. I shall later come back to that, because that is one of their accusations. I shall demonstrate to you how their record compares with ours. I also want to say that in general the burden of extra taxation and levies has been imposed on those who are best able to bear it. That is an important principle of taxation. Moreover, the taxes and the levies which have been imposed are easily collected. A very moderate share of the country’s total revenue accrues to the State, whatever that side of the House may say. I want to give you one example. In 1947, when that side of the House was still in power, the Government spent 22.4 per cent of its total revenue. I am now speaking of the Government in general. That includes everything. That money was taken from the public. That was after the war. In those years they had no defence expenditure. Under this Government it decreased gradually. In 1962 general Government expenditure represented 19.4 per cent. In contrast with what is happening elsewhere in the world, the percentage in 1966 was 21.3 per cent—still lower than that of the United Party in 1947. That is a great achievement. In other countries the average percentage of the national revenue spent by the general Government is 30.9 per cent. That was the position three years ago. I calculated this percentage on data relating to 12 Western countries. In other words, ours is at least 33½ percent lower than that of those countries. That side of the House should not talk about heavy taxation. Relatively speaking, they taxed the people much more heavily.

I should like to come to the question of inflation, of which there has been so much talk. We should distinguish between two types of inflation. I have never heard that side of the House mention that. Name me one country in the world where there is no inflation. There are two types of inflation. The first is the one we call creeping inflation, and the other is the one we call hipper-inflation or “run-away” inflation. Of course we also find many types between these two. One of the major problems in all these countries is the question of creeping inflation. At present it is acknowledged by all countries that no country has as yet succeeded in overcoming creeping inflation. Now you will ask: What is creeping inflation? In general it is put at approximately 0 to 1.5 or 1.75 per cent a year. If that side of the House accuses the Government of not being able to control creeping inflation, we have to admit that as yet no country has succeeded in doing so, nor has South Africa. But now we should take care that we do not smother creeping inflation in such a way that we also make the economy of our country stagnant. In Optima of December, 1966. Mr. Gordon Tether, financial editor of the Financial Times, said—

What has been the experience of countries where attempts were made to smother creeping inflation? Those countries were plunged into a depression. In Germany experts stated—

Greece, the U.S.A., Japan, Ireland and other countries have had the same experience. Of Japan Mr. Gordon Tether said the following, amongst other things—

I am not saying that this side of the House approves or is trying to defend creeping inflation. But we say that a distinction should be made between the two forms of inflation. No country has yet succeeded in solving the first problem.

I would accept that the main charge of the opposite side is directed against the second form of inflation. But what is our experience in this regard? As far as creeping inflation is concerned, the increase in South Africa from 1960 to 1963 represented 1.5 per cent a year. Then it rose to 2.4 per cent a year and then to 3.6 per cent and again to 3.6 per cent. We on this side of the House also say that this increase is too rapid. Our economy cannot afford it, and that is why Ministers of Finance tried everything in their ability to fight this problem tooth and nail. Let me outline to the hon. House how this side of the House succeeded through the years in curbing this inflation. Here I have a table from which I want to quote some interesting figures. The table is titled, “Fall in domestic purchasing power of currencies from 1956 to 1966”, and was compiled by a monetary expert in America, Dr. Pick. In Latin-American countries the increase over those ten years represented an average of 64 per cent; in Africa, 30 per cent; in the Middle East, 37.5 per cent; in the Near East, 33 per cent; in the more highly developed countries, 28 percent, and in South Africa, 21 per cent. Of all these countries South Africa, together with Belgium, was in the third best position. America came first, with 15 per cent, Canada second, with 18 per cent and then South Africa, with 21 per cent. This, then, is the extent to which the purchasing power of money decreased over the ten-year period from 1956. I challenge anybody on that side of the House to get up and say that South Africa fared badly in this respect. For my part, South Africa fared excellently, and that under circumstances more difficult than those with which other countries had to cope. We had to strengthen our economy and we had to undertake industries which we would not have undertaken otherwise. We also had to strengthen ourselves in the military sphere—in fact, in proportion to our revenue, we had to venture more than most other countries. In spite of that we have nevertheless maintained this degree of stability. This is indeed an achievement. Let us compare the achievements of this Government with those of the United Party.

May I ask you a question?

Not now. How does the achievement of this side of the House in this regard compare with that of the opposite side of the House in the same connection? Figures may be old, but they remain valid. Economists have always compared South Africa’s position with that of countries on a level of economic development which is more or less equal to that of South Africa. While South Africa was a member of the Commonwealth that was the normal method of calculation. For the purposes of my comparison I selected three countries which were our fellow-members of the Commonwealth at that time, namely New Zealand, Australia and Canada. I found that in these three countries there was an increase of 45 per cent during the 11-year period from 1937 to 1948, as against an increase of 53 per cent in South Africa. That was under a United Party Government. Thus South Africa’s position was 18 per cent worse than the average for the other three countries. Let us now take the achievements of this side of the House from 1948 until August, 1966. Despite the fact that we had to cope with problems as a result of the devaluation of the pound, the increase in these three countries was higher than that of South Africa—in fact, South Africa’s position was 21 per cent better than the average for the other three countries. If we now add the 18 per cent on the negative side of the position under their government to the 21 per cent on the positive side under this Government, we get 39 per cent. So let us give this side of the House 80 per cent in achievement marks, and we find that that side of the House failed hopelessly. If we therefore compare the achievements of this side of the House in this field with those of other countries and also with those of the United Party Government at that time, I fail to see how the Opposition can expect this side of the House to listen to them to-day. One is quite prepared to learn, but then one should learn from a person who fared better than you yourself did and who knows more than you do. That cannot be said of the present Opposition. They keep quiet about our achievements. We admit that we have not yet won the battle—we admit that—despite the measures that have been taken. But permit me to say that we have already made a great deal of progress. Allow me to quote what some experts had to say about this. On 8th February this year the director of the Kamer van Koophandel said that there were indications that the imbalance in the economy was being levelled off. In the Cape Times of 18th February, 1967, there was an article by Professor C. G. W. Schumann in which he stated—

Here I have the “Economic and Financial Review” published by Union Acceptances Limited, of February, 1967. Here it is stated—

Here is the “Economic Review of Southern Africa” of February, 1967, by the Economist Intelligence Unit. In it is stated—

That was even before this Budget was introduced. It may be optimistic, but that is what other experts think of the endeavours of this Government. Here is another quote, from a report by the Netherlands Bank of South Africa. It is dated February, 1967, and reads as follows—

I may quote numerous other examples to show how this Government has already succeeded in taking the worst edge off inflation. There were the uncontrollable factors, for example the influx of capital in the second half of 1966, and if it had not been for those factors this Government would have had the problem of inflation well under control. The new factors then arose, some of which were uncontrollable and unexpected, and under the changed circumstances the Government had to take measures anew to cope with the problem.

I now want to deal with two points which have been raised repeatedly in this House. The first relates to public spending. It has been alleged repeatedly that the Government is spending too much. Now I ask: In comparison with what is the Government spending too much? I now want to quote some figures relating to the period when that side was in power. I am sure you will find them interesting, Sir. In 1938 the Government’s current expenditure and capital expenditure represented altogether 23 per cent of the grand total of the national revenue. In 1948 it rose to 30.2 per cent. In 1966 it was 24.3 per cent. These then, are the achievements of people who want to play the tutor to hon. members on this side of the House. Can we take any notice of such tutors? Listen to what Dr. Waasdyk, a lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand, has to say—

I repeat: “A low ratio.” It is virtually one-third less than that of other countries. He added—

This is what Musgrave also said in his Theory of Public Finance—

In other words, increased taxes. That was also said by Mr. Hofmeyr, Minister of Finance of the United Party Government. He said he admitted candidly that the danger of inflation was greater after the war than during the war. Therefore hon. members on the opposite side should not say that the war was to blame. Mr. Hofmeyr admitted that the danger was greater after the war than during the war. He said that if the danger of inflation were to be combated, it could be done in one way only, namely by imposing taxes. Now the Government has not introduced higher taxes, but in fact savings levies. The Government is withdrawing money from circulation in order to give it back at a later stage, when the time is ripe. There is the taxation of the gold-mines. The hon. member for Hillbrow cannot speak in this House unless he also speaks about the gold-mines. There is nothing in this Budget that imposes a burden on the gold-mines. What the Government is taking from them now will be returned to them.

When?

Do they not believe it will be returned? Are hon. members trying to create the impression that that money will not be returned? If they are trying to create that impression, it is a false impression. The money will be returned.

When?

Do you know what our problem is? The Opposition urges us to fight inflation, but as soon as this side of the House introduces measures to fight it, they say we are going about it the wrong way. They just do not know what they want. It will be a glad day when they will know what they want. Immediately after the Minister had made his Budget speech they made a statement about a “feeler” which the Minister had put out—if I may call it that—regarding the question of an elastic fiscal policy. They issued a statement in which they expressed their opposition to it because it was supposedly contrary to Parliamentary tradition. I wondered what would happen if the Government took those powers in order to have such an elastic fiscal policy and the first result was not an increase in taxes but in fact lower taxes. I suppose they would think again and then say that they did not want to fight the policy as a matter of principle. At one stage, however, they said that it was not Parliamentary tradition. What do they say now? They are no longer talking about a decrease in taxes—they know that may happen—but they say they do not want any increases. Now I ask hon. members: How is one to have an elastic fiscal policy if one can move one way only, namely in the direction of lower taxes? I say that is mere political opportunism. I say that although they object that such a policy is not in accordance with Parliamentary tradition, they have nevertheless indirectly accepted the principle of an elastic fiscal policy because they say that they are in favour of a trend in one direction but not in the other. What is the actual position as regards an elastic fiscal policy? I want to refer you to what was written two weeks ago by the Financial Mail, a publication which does not support this side of the House, but that side. This financial publication said the Government should take the necessary powers, not to-morrow or the day after, but right now. That is why the hon. member for Pinelands was silent. He said that economists might disagree with him, but that the politicians did not disagree with him. Well, then there must be many stupid politicians in the rest of the world. A month ago Germany was the last country to take such elastic measures against inflation. Germany did not want to apply those measures, and for particular reasons, but economic conditions forced her to do so. Do hon. members on the opposite side know why we have such high rates of interest and banking rates? It is for the very reason that this Government does not have the power to vary fiscal policy and to adjust it according to changing circumstances. What it amounts to is that if the Opposition is going to fight this measure—if such a measure is introduced— they are in favour of higher rates of interest. I shall be compelled to come to the conclusion that they want us to employ forceful monetary measures to combat inflation, instead of direct measures and elastic fiscal measures. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to what Field-Marshal Smuts was supposed to have said, namely that the pendulum was swinging and that it was merely a question of time before the Opposition would be in power again. He also said that the pendulum might stop swinging. I just want to tell the hon. member the following. The hon. member has a doctor’s degree in psychology. If that is the only solution he is able to see, namely returning the Opposition to power, then it is a solution which will never be put to the test. There is a tremendous difference between the position at present and the position when the National Party sat in the Opposition benches. At that time the National Party as the official opposition acted in a mature way. We acted with singleness of purpose and inspiration. We were not afraid and we did not draw up an ill-considered policy. We were not ashamed of what we were fighting for. We were not ashamed to say that we believed in the development of this nation, that we believed in our own independence. That is why we left the political desert behind and assumed the reins of government, and to-day, after 18 years, we have elaborated an infinitely great deal on the principles laid down by our predecessors in bygone days. What is the position at present? Politically the Opposition is too obtuse to realize that they are not acting like a mature opposition. On the contrary, they are always acting opportunistically. As regards these Estimates, I should like to say that to my mind they are Estimates which the hon. the Minister laid upon the Table with singleness of purpose and in all sincerity. These Estimates give a clear indication of a new concept and of a new formula. In the no confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s main theme was to emphasize the struggle against inflation. Well, if they were in earnest about combating inflation, they would have identified themselves with these Estimates. However, they are not prepared to do that. On the contrary, they advanced the weak argument that the expenditure of the State was out of proportion with the expenditure of the private sector. Any member who looks after his own constituency, who works for the benefit of his constituency, knows that it is not so. Any member here knows what the actual position is. We know that in our constituencies there are numerous contemplated projects which cannot be carried out at this stage because of curtailments which are being applied. However, we are a responsible House and we accept the fact that these things simply cannot be done at this stage. The reason for that is that we are fighting a terrible enemy. But the Opposition has never regarded inflation as a real enemy. I thought that in this case at least they would accept it as an enemy. But what have they done? They have harnessed inflation as an ally in an attempt at embarrassing this Government. That is shocking. I challenge the Opposition to say under what Votes curtailment of expenditure should take place. I am fully convinced when I say that, if the U.P. had been in power, we would have had greater spending at present. Do you know why? In order to extend Soweto. The city council of Johannesburg is a U.P. city council, and I think that Johannesburg (West) should take cognisance of what the chief officials said in this regard. The officialdom of that city council said that Soweto had to be extended because the population there would increase by almost 50 per cent in the next 13 years. They are going further and they are saying that the State is responsible for this housing, transport, facilities and so forth. In other words, the State should not act in an idealistic way. The Opposition always has something to say about our ideals. They are always complaining about the things in which we believe. However, they are quite willing to let the State pay for the further development and extension of Soweto. Now, I do not know whether the Johannesburg City Council rules the Opposition here, or whether the Opposition rules the City Council. It is very difficult to determine what the actual position is.

Another aspect of the spending of funds in respect of which the Opposition is to my mind putting up a poor show, is that they are trying to make political capital by trying to create the impression amongst the general public, as they also did during the no confidence debate earlier this year, that the number of public servants has increased from 272,000 to 330,000. That is an increase of 17 per cent. That is not a true reflection, even though these figures are to be found in the report of the Bureau of Statistics. It should be clearly understood that our public servants are taken from all sectors of the community and, as far as the Government is concerned, they are solely responsible for those people who are employed as officials in the Public Service. Under the Public Service we include the Departments of Defence, Police and Prisons. The other subdivision is the S.A.R. and H. The other public servants are employed by the provincial administrations and local authorities, and they serve on statutory bodies, State corporations and numerous other bodies. Therefore, you can see what an extremely poor attempt it wason the part of the Opposition to complain about the Government spending too much money on public servants. At Worcester the other night the hon. member for Yeoville once again blazoned forth about unnecessary capital being spent in this field and the fact that such inefficient service was being rendered. That is a reflection on the officialdom. Do you know what the actual increase in the number of public servants was? In 1965 the increase was 2.5 per cent; in 1966 it was 5.1 per cent. The simple reason for this increase is that Indian Education was taken over from the provinces, and falls under the Central Government at present. If one takes into account the number of posts and the number of officials that were transferred, one finds that there was merely a conservative increase of 2.4 per cent. I think that the time has arrived for the Opposition to set this matter to rights in the minds of the people outside, because this accusation concerning unnecessary spending is a very unfair one.

As regards the revenue side of the Estimates, I challenge the Opposition to say that these Estimates are not excellent, not only as regards the combating of inflation, but also as regards the foundations which were laid to bring about an increase of 5½ per cent in our gross domestic product. That was done in a masterly manner, since this is the highest increase in taxation ever to be announced in the House of Assembly. The increase on the previous year of assessment amounts to R106.2 million. Yet the Minister introduced Estimates which do not really affect the man in the street, the salaried man, the low-income group. That is a major achievement; that is something unique. This was rendered possible because the fiscal system was employed in a masterly manner, and only those people who ought to have been taxed, were taxed. If we look at the profits of companies, we see what fantastic profits they are making. If we look at the stock exchange to see what effect this increase in taxation has had on companies, we see that it has not had any effect on them. On the contrary, their shares have gone up. Surely, that is proof that the companies did in fact make excessive profits. That is proof of the fact that the symptoms of inflation with which we have to contend, are not being caused by the man in the street. The sector which did in fact cause these symptoms, is the moneyed sector in our country. I am referring to persons with a very high income. They were the cause of the quasi-money and the “grey market”.

I thought that when a Minister in this House confirmed that it was his duty to uphold the integrity and the tradition built up through the years, a tradition which we South Africans know in our financial world, and when he suggests to us that there ought to be greater flexibility in our fiscal system, it would be welcomed by this whole House. For that reason I am very glad that the hon. member for Florida, who is an economist, spoke about this matter. I would have appreciated it if this thought had been put forward as a suggestion. The Opposition is entirely opposed to further powers being granted to the Government, and that in spite of the fact that it would be possible to control these powers and that there will be limits. They are solidly opposed to this greater flexibility in our fiscal policy. Well, it is true that the Opposition has never liked anything which is good. In other words, that in itself is already justification for our hoping that the hon. the Minister will put forward this suggestion as soon as possible. I shall tell you why, in my modest opinion, this is essential. [Interjection.] The hon. member may speak later. I should like to furnish my reasons now.

South Africa’s gross domestic product has improved fantastically over the past number of years. Is it not fantastic to think that we have an increase of 100 per cent? In 1960 the figure was R4,000 million, and in 1966 it was R8,000 million. Is it not essential for us to grant the Government the necessary powers to handle such a dynamic economy, to ensure that the Government has all the necessary powers for exporting manufactured products? It may be so that if we were to make certain further concessions, we might succeed in gaining extensive markets in a competitive world market. Is it not important to gain further export markets? Perhaps the Government will be able to make such concessions in the recess period of six months. The hon. member for Hillbrow is always harping on the gold mines. But I want to tell him that if his intentions towards the gold mines were sincere, he would have welcomed a flexible fiscal system for the simple reason that all of us are aware of the fact that the gold mines are having a hard time because of the price of gold, which has remained fixed for the past 30 years. That is the old story. The new story is that our mine workers are asking for higher salaries and wages with a higher productivity. One cannot take it amiss of them, because they have the right to demand higher wages and salaries. But if the higher productivity is not what it ought to be, the Government will have the power to make further concessions to the gold mines during the recess. Is that not a sound reason for granting more extensive fiscal powers to the Minister and the Government?

Another aspect is the various industries which are being affected by excise and customs duties. It may be found that an industry may be affected by an increase in excise duty and that sales may drop to such an extent that the producer in question, who produces his product for processing, as well as the entire industry may be affected by that. If the statistics are placed before the Government, it is no more than right that the Government should be able to take steps to safeguard the future of such an industry.

If the Opposition had made use of this debate for the purpose of accepting one principle only, namely that we are dealing with an entirely new concept as regards the development of our country’s economy and that we are not merely concerned about to-day’s balance sheet, it would have been a very good step, i am thinking of the words of Mr. Paxton, the chairman of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, as reported in Commercial Opinion. He said the following—

This article was written with the purpose of disparaging the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, the same thing which happened here to-day. A certain section of the commercial sector is hand in glove with hon. members on the other side. However, they are not prepared to mechanize. They are not prepared to pay R70 million to bring about a 5 per cent decrease in the numbers of the Bantu, so that Johannesburg may remain a white city. No, they are not prepared to do that. What they want is that the Government should even add on to existing locations, should build bigger locations, and that it should forget about an idealistic future. The Government should forget about any rights of the Bantu to make progress in his own homeland, to live with his own family and according to his own traditions. They are only interested in the balance sheet for to-day. As I have already said, it is a pity that the Opposition did not state here that we should undertake the development of our country together and that we should meet the future together. They should at least be honest and say, “These are our principles, these are our aims, and now we are going to fight about principles.” They should not yap, whine and run away only to repeat their attack from another direction. That happens time and again. Some hon. members of the Opposition conduct themselves like bantam cocks in this House. [Interjections.] Sometimes the hon. member for Transkei is perched in a tree and sometimes he is standing on a political dunghill. He is scratching all the time. But, on the other hand, in the Government and in these Estimates he will not find anything to scratch out. That is why hon. members on the other side are so unhappy. That is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) appears to have lost at least 20 lbs. in weight in the past few days They no longer know where to turn.

Are you satisfied with the position of the ordinary family man?

Let me make it clear that there is a future for the family man in these Estimates. He has a future in terms of the pattern which is being followed in these Estimates. What is more, I know why there is such a reaction. I have come to know them and if one watches them carefully, one sees what their reaction is. Do you know what hurts the Opposition most? It is the higher taxes on companies. That is a bitter pill for them to swallow. On the stock exchange they talk about “bulls” and “bears”. There are quite a number of Opposition members who play the stock exchange; they are playing “bulls and bears”. But let us leave it at that. To be serious: It is in all courtesy that I am asking the Opposition to give serious consideration in the direction of greater flexibility and granting more extensive powers to the Minister of Finance as far as the fiscal policy is concerned. The policy will not only be there in the event of increases. It will also be there in the event of there having to be reductions in tax. The Opposition will be responsible if such steps cannot be taken or if the goldmining industry has to suffer. The reason will be that the Opposition does not have confidence in a Minister who most certainly merits such confidence.