When this debate was adjourned last night I was about to reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg. I want to say immediately that having been a very proud member of the United Party group in the Johannesburg City Council, and having a very intimate knowledge of the very outstanding record of this group in the Council, a record which I make bold to say cannot be approached by any other local authority in the Republic of South Africa, I want to say that I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not react to some of the uncalled for criticisms levelled at the Council by the hon. member for Rustenburg. Before doing so, I should like to give the hon. member some very friendly advice and suggest to him that before he gets up to speak in this House he must be certain that the matter he wants to raise is one he knows something about. I hope to prove a little later on that he has certainly not done his homework and that what he has said is completely inaccurate. I want to quote from the Hansard of the hon. member. This is what he said yesterday—

And then, referring to the United Party, he said—

Of course, Sir, when we look at the facts, the officials who drew up this particular report said nothing of the sort. The hon. member for Rustenburg has obviously read a newspaper report and has taken everything out of context and then he got up here and because he was short of words to complete his speech he has made all these inaccurate statements.

The position is that the Management Committee of the Johannesburg City Council, a very responsible committee, a body of realists, decided that they should look into the future and see what the needs of the Bantu population in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg are likely to be. As the result of this, the Management Committee asked the two senior members of the staff of the Johannesburg City Council, the City Engineer and the manager of the Non-European Affairs Department, to draw up a very comprehensive forward planning report. It is very interesting to see what the terms of reference for this report were. The terms of reference were as follows: (a) To provide factual information regarding the growth and structure of the Bantu population; to indicate the land available for housing and to highlight the deficiencies; (c) to provide information regarding the opportunities for and extent of employment for the Bantu; to discuss the problems of transportation from places of residence to places of work; and (e) to recommend action that should be taken to overcome present and future problems. Because the Council had done this, this hon. member gets up and accuses the Council of things which they never said at all. I want to say that the hon. member himself brought in the political angle by referring to Johannesburg West. I want to remind him that some very strange things have happened lately. We know that for the first time in many years Nationalist Party candidates have lost their deposits, and do you know where this happened, Sir? It happened in Johannesburg when these people were opposing sitting United Party councillors. [Interjections.]

But we won five seats.

I hear a cackle there about five seats being won, but the hon. member should know that these five seats were given to the Nationalist Party because of favourable delimitation. [Interjections.] He knows, too, that in some of their biggest strongholds some of the Nationalist candidates came back with very small majorities. [Interjection.] I mention this because the people of Johannesburg have taken a decision and they have put the United Party group back into the Council for a further five years. [Interjection.] There is a very good reason for this, because when you compare the record of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council with that of the Johannesburg United Party Council, we know why people voted the way they did. I want to say, too, to the hon. member for Rustenburg that I wonder whether he has ever been to Soweto. I do not think he has because if he had been to Soweto he would know what the Johannesburg United Party City Council has done for that particular area. I want to quote very briefly from a magazine called “Happy Living”—and I should like the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education to listen to this too—because I think this sums up the whole position in regard to the Johannesburg City Council and Soweto. This is what this magazine says—

Under which Government?

It goes on to say—

This was accomplished by a United Party Johannesburg City Council.

Mr. Speaker, I feel quite honestly that I have used up enough of my valuable time in replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Rustenburg. But for his reference to Johannesburg I would not have bothered about it at all.

Coming back to the Budget, I want to say that I listened carefully to speakers on that side of the House because I wanted to find out their reaction to this whole question of inflation. I want to say that after listening to them very carefully, one cannot help feeling that hon. members on that side certainly spoke with their tongue in the cheek when they mentioned inflation, because they know that South Africa to-day is very firmly held in the grip of inflation. I want to be fair and say that only two hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. members for Queenstown and Florida, have the courage to admit that the Government was in fact facing a very difficult task in combating inflation, but they did qualify their remarks by saying that they were confident that the Government could overcome the problem. I want to say to hon. members that they do not have to go very far to see whether we have in fact inflation. Let them go to any one of the thousand people who have had to stand in a queue and wait for an hour or more for their bus in the last few days and ask them whether they are feeling the pinch of inflation. We have heard the views of economists but let us see what the people of South Africa, the people of Cape Town, the workers feel about inflation. We have here comments by Mr. Benåde, Secretary of the Busmen’s Union. This is what he says:

What is more, Sir, he says: “The union fears that this trend will continue.” There is no doubt that there is inflation in this country although hon. members opposite have tried very conveniently to gloss over that fact. I want to say that at least the hon. the Minister of Finance has drawn up this Budget with an eye to assisting the Government in the fight which it will have to wage against inflation in this country and it is obvious too that the hon. the Minister himself regards the whole question of increased productivity as one of the major factors in the fight that is being waged against inflation in this country to-day. One does not have to be an economist to appreciate the importance of increased productivity when the national economy is being threatened by the vicious spiral of inflation. I want to be honest and say that I have no real quarrel with the appeal made by the hon. the Minister to the people of South Africa to I work harder and save more. But it is very difficult for me to understand how the hon. the Minister can expect the man in the street to find the money to save when we know that because of the incredibly high cost of living to-day, he has the utmost difficulty in making ends meet. Then too, I wonder how long the Government is going to delude itself into believing that it can bring about this increased productivity without taking steps to ensure that greater and better use is made of the non-white labour force in this country. Make no mistake about it, Sir, up to the present time the Government has made no constructive move whatever to ensure that this vast labour potential in South Africa is properly exploited, and this, Sir, at a time when we know that there is an acute shortage of labour being experienced in every sector of the South African economy, and when we know how important it is to increase productivity. It is very interesting to see what an economist has to say about this question of productivity. We have heard the stories on that side of the House, but it is very interesting to see what Dr. Louw, the Chairman of Trust Bank, has to say about increased productivity. I quote—

If we take the position, for instance, of Bantu labour in the Johannesburg metropolitan area, we find just how badly the Government has fallen down on this very vital issue of using non-white labour in South Africa to the best possible advantage. We know too that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy have said quite openly that their intention is to decrease the flow of Bantu labour to the metropolitan area of Johannesburg. Sir, I want to say this: I think many people have said it before but I make no apology for saying it again: I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is living in dreamland. In any case, if this is going to be the position, there is an even greater need to use what non-white labour there is to better effect. Sir, despite the fact that there is a constant and urgent need for Bantu labour by all sectors in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg, an area which after all is the industrial and commercial hub of South Africa, we find, according to a census taken by the Bureau of Statistics in 1960, that out of a total potential labour force of 649,033, no fewer than 304,606 were classified as not economically active. Sir, this is a truly startling picture and one which should give cause for concern when we realize that this position applies to other urban areas in the Republic of South Africa as well. When we accept the economic fact that in order to increase productivity, there must of necessity be an adequate pool of skilled labour, it becomes very difficult indeed to understand why the Government has done so little to provide the facilities and the encouragement for the Bantu to develop into a more skilled worker. This reluctance on the part of the Government is very difficult to comprehend. This reluctance on the part of the Government is very difficult to comprehend because we all know that the skilled white worker in this country is to-day adequately protected by existing legislation.

In a social-economic study, conducted by the University of South Africa for the purpose of determining the nature of the employment of Bantu household heads in Soweto, a township from which Johannesburg draws the bulk of its labour supply, certain figures are given, figures which show without any doubt that far too little is being done by this Government to encourage the Bantu to develop into a more skilled labour unit. Under occupation, for instance, we find that in the professional category the percentage is only 1.8; proprietary and managerial, 4.8; skilled labour, a meagre 1.1; semi-skilled labour, 22.2; unskilled labour, 56.8; administrative and clerical, 3.9; pensioners 2.5; and housewives 6.9. These figures show that more than 80 per cent of the Bantu labour force in Soweto is classified in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories. The same survey also shows that only 6.5 per cent of the household heads in Soweto have a standard of education higher than Std. VI. It therefore becomes obvious that unless the Government adopts energetic means to improve the standard of education of the Bantu in order that he may be trained as a skilled worker, the Bantu’s contribution to both the skilled labour problem and increased productivity would be a very minor one indeed for the foreseeable future. When studying the latest educational figures it becomes apparent —Soweto again being the guide—that the new generation of Bantu will not have the required standard of education to make it possible for them to be trained to do skilled work. Of the 77,364 Bantu children attending school at the 31st June, 1965, only 3,754, or a very meagre 4.8 percent, were attending high school.

The examples I have used here are related to the metropolitan area of Johannesburg but I am quite certain that these figures give a fair indication also of what is happening in the country as a whole. One wonders, consequently, how long South Africa can afford to tolerate this gross wastage of manpower. The Government on numerous occasions have stated that non-Whites should be encouraged and trained to serve their own people wherever possible. As a matter of fact, they have even gone further and said that that was in line with declared Government policy. Therefore I want to ask why, under the circumstances, the Government is not itself setting a better example by itself making more use of nonwhite labour in its departments? Let us take the S.A. Railways as an example. We know that during the last Railway Budget debate the hon. the Minister of Transport himself stressed the fact that one of the most important factors which was hindering the growth of the S.A. Railways was the critical shortage of manpower in all sections of that department. Yet we find that nothing is being done by the S.A. Railway Administration to train non-white crews eventually to serve their own people on the non-white passenger train services in the Republic. To demonstrate this let us use the Railway passenger service between Soweto and Johannesburg, a service carrying 186,000 passengers each way between Soweto and Johannesburg as an example. This service will, despite what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has said, eventually have to carry more than 250,000 people daily between Soweto and Johannesburg. And yet not a single non-white crew member is employed on those trains nor does there seem to be any plans to train non-white crews for this particular work. Surely the Government must realize that even with the best will in the world they are not going to find the necessary white personnel to cope with this increase and additional demand for non-white passenger services throughout the Republic. Yet they have to accept as a fact that eventually non-Whites would have to be trained to assist operating these services.

There will, of course, be a terrific amount of opposition to the idea of non-Whites serving as crew members on trains, even when they serve only their own people. The hon. the Minister of Transport in this House in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville, i.e. whether in the light of the reactions of non-white passengers in times of accidents, the Minister would indicate whether he deemed it advisable to employ non-white crews, said that the white personnel would never agree to it. But “never” is a very long time and, what is more, we have many things happening in South Africa lately, things which we were told would never happen in this country. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Government should get to grips with this particular problem in cooperation with the bodies concerned. That this type of problem can be overcome by negotiations has been proved by the United Party City Council in Johannesburg. A few years ago when the City Council of Johannesburg was faced with the prospect of its transport services coming to a complete standstill, they made a bold and constructive move to train non-white crews to man non-white services. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was terrific opposition to this on the part of the Nationalist Party in the City Council. There even was a certain amount of opposition from the trade unions. But despite this opposition the United Party City Council negotiated a perfectly satisfactory agreement with the trade unions. The result is that the non-white services in Johannesburg are to-day being very efficiently manned by non-white crews.

We have heard all types of stories—for instance, that a Bantu would never be able to drive a bus in a busy city like Johannesburg; that they would not be dressed properly, etc. Well, I want to mention here that the safety record of the non-white crews on those buses is equal to the safety record of the white crews who used to work those buses. I am, therefore, quite certain that if the hon. the Minister ensures that the present and future white personnel are adequately safeguarded, he will get the co-operation of these bodies and will in time be able to institute nonwhite crews on non-white services. I want to say that nobody expects—we are all realists —the Minister to make these radical changes overnight but, surely, one can say to him that the time has now come at least to start thinking in that direction. Even those bodies who are opposing such a move must realize that eventually such a move is inevitable. Therefore, the sooner the Minister and the Government face up to this problem the sooner the Bantu services in the urban areas of the country will improve and benefit the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I would never have thought it possible that the hon. member who has just sat down, as one of the chiefs in the professional sporting world, could be so sporting as to allow five seats in the Johannesburg City Council to be given to the National Party with his co-operation, but the appearance or complexion of that kind of sportmanship we saw in its truer colours in his remarks about the clearance of the slum conditions in the Witwatersrand area. If the hon. member wanted to present this picture in its proper perspective, he should have told a much longer story and a much more complete story about the clearance of slum conditions as far as Native housing in Johannesburg was concerned. Not only did those conditions arise under the management of a United Party Government in the country as well as under a United Party Government in Johannesburg, but it was against the strongest opposition from that same United Party City Council of Johannesburg that this Government eventually got them as far as doing the necessary. [Interjections.] Sir, so unsporting we shall not be towards the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member pleaded here for our non-White labour force to be employed to a larger extent. That he presented in the light of being the short-cut solution to the question of productivity, and via productivity, also to the question of inflation in the country. I want to differ from the hon. member. I want to put a question here to-day. Are many of the problems in regard to productivity which we are experiencing in this country, and particularly in our industry, not perhaps the result of the misconception that Bantu labour—non white labour—is cheap labour? I want to go as far as saying that whatever interpretation hon. members opposite may want to attach to the Government’s policy of arresting, diverting and reversing the black stream to our urban complexes, I am convinced that that policy will be instrumental in, inter alia, promoting productivity in this country. That policy puts a higher test and a more formidable test to our industries and to our factories to draw the best from our white manpower and here in the Western Cape from our Coloured manpower. It induces them to do so, and those who cooperate with the Government’s policy, are already reaping the fruits of utilizing the greater advantages of higher productivity.

I do not want to spend any more time on what the hon. member said. I want to come back to the question of the budget and our struggle against inflation. The hon. member who has just sat down said that with the exception of two members on Government side we denied that inflation existed and that it was a serious danger. Where does the hon. member get that from? Not one of us denied the existence of the problem of inflation. According to him the hon. the Minister does not know about the existence of inflation. The hon. the Minister’s entire budget is indicative of the struggle against inflation. But this is where the difference between the two sides of this House is to be found. We are realists. We see a problem, even if it is far in the future, and we are prepared to tackle that problem. But hon. members opposite are not able to see it. Nor are they able to see what part inflation plays in the present circumstances and what the meaning thereof is.

In summarizing the debate which we have had up to now, I want to say that the criticism of the Opposition on the Government’s handling of our financial affairs follows a very monotonous pattern year after year. It does not demand a lively imagination to predict what pattern it will follow in such a debate every time. It will always follow the pattern of being wise after the event. After the event they also want to be more wise than even the country’s best economic experts and economic specialists. If, as a result of the means employed by the Government, the Government succeeds in achieving its object, it is always said that that happened because the Government followed the Opposition’s advice. In the meantime, however, there is very little evidence of practical proposals from the side of the Opposition, proposals which are their own, as is once more the case in this debate. Their criticism is always of a negative nature and nothing suits them better under all circumstances than to give a dark picture of the country’s economic position. That was the case in the past. That was the case during previous debates and is once more the case in this debate. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. members of the Opposition in their financial criticism are on the same level as a certain type of cricket spectator we got to know during the latest test series. I prefer not to say “authorities on cricket”, because in this respect I do not regard hon. members as being authorities on the financial position. They are on the same level as a certain type of cricket spectator we got to know, who time and time again blamed the Springbok captain for having taken, according to them, a wrong decision when the Springbok team ran into some difficulties. These hon. members display a smaller degree of the spirit of cricket when the Government’s handling of financial affairs meets with success. The cricket spectator to whom I referred does at least have one virtue, and that is that he forgets about his destructive criticism of the cricket captain at the moment victory is achieved and then praises the captain’s wisdom. The Opposition, however, claims for itself the honour for any financial success achieved, or alleges that things could still have gone much better.

Let us now come down to earth in connection with this matter and approach it from a practical point of view. Let us ask the question, “What are the basic characteristics of the struggle against inflation?” In the first place one of those characteristics is that cyclical movements in our country’s economy form an integral part of a free economy. As regards the question whether we should then have a free economy in this country or a fully controlled economy, as in a socialistic state, I do not believe that there is any argument between the two parties. In a free economy such as we have, the authorities, with their political and economic policy, are able to bring about and promote prosperity. Prosperity, however, often, and more often than not, brings in its wake the danger of inflation. We may describe that as being the price of prosperity. In a free economy which embraces trade with the rest of the world the economy will of necessity be influenced by adverse economic phenomena in the economies of trading partners, with the result that corrective measures, however good they may be, which the Government of the day applies, cannot succeed at all times, because there is no control over measures in the countries of the trading partners. In the fourth place I want to say that the entire world with which we have commercial relations now, is experiencing conditions of inflation at the present time and has been experiencing them for a considerable time. The best expert knowledge in the world as well as in those countries have not been able to keep that completely in check. So where do hon. members of the Opposition get it from to say that this Government’s handling of the struggle against inflation is ineffective? If it is necessary to do so, I want to remind hon. members of a quotation made earlier this year by the Minister of Finance. Earlier this year he quoted from the Financial Times which made some kind of “Oscar Award” for the handling of financial affairs in various countries in the world. As regards the question of “the best and worst disinflation policies”, they awarded the first prize to South Africa. The publication said, “The award for the best goes to South Africa for grappling with a difficult inflation problem in particularly trying circumstances in a manner calculated to cause minimum interference with the flow of desirable economic activities”. That is what people abroad think of this Government’s handling of the struggle against inflation. Hon. members on the Opposition benches, however, say that things are going quite wrong. Without taking these basic facts I have just mentioned into account, one cannot argue wisely about the problem of inflation with which we are faced. The Opposition’s big point of criticism is that the time at which the Government took certain measures was too late and that certain decisions taken in the past had allegedly been the wrong ones to take. From the hon. member for Constantia, who, to our regret, is not present here to-day—I hope that he will have a speedy recovery so as to resume his seat here—we have the remark which has already become proverbial. On more than one occasion in this House the hon. member blamed the hon. the Minister of Finance, to be specific, and said that his medicine was the wrong medicine. The hon. member said that the Minister had said in 1961 that we must “spend for prosperity”, whereas his and his predecessor’s clarion call was and is that we must save for prosperity. The Opposition maintains that that was a wrong step, that that was the wrong medicine to prescribe. But people who make this kind of allegation reveal, in doing so, a total lack of knowledge of the situation with which we are faced. Those people reveal a total lack of knowledge of the means which the State has to apply, namely monetary and fiscal measures for keeping the economy on a more or less even keel. In his speech here the Minister of Finance referred to what happened in 1965. In September of that year a situation arose in which our reserves of foreign exchange reached an absolute low mark of R304 million. Certain monetary measures were announced at that time and it was also decided to apply fairly drastic import control. Those measures worked and worked very well. As a matter of fact, they worked so well that by July, 1966, our reserves of foreign exchange reached a new high-water mark of R604 million.

The measures did, in fact, work very well. In the meantime, however, another element made its appearance. No one could foresee that this state of affairs would reverse itself completely, that imports would shrink to such an extent and that on the other hand there would be such a large inflow of capital that that would heighten our problem of inflation. For that reason the medicine, the means which were right in 1965, was no longer effective in July. 1966, a period of less than one year, and other means were required. As a result import control had to be lifted. Certain measures were announced in July, 1966, and they were followed by certain fiscal measures, as announced in the Budget late last year. Therefore I maintain that if hon. members were to argue like the hon. member for Constantia, namely that what the Minister said five years ago was wrong, they would be wide off the mark. I agree that if the Minister had to say to-day what he said at that time, he would definitely be wrong. But at that time that was the right medicine, those were the right measures to apply.

That brings me to the point which the Minister of Finance mentioned at the end of his speech, namely the possibility of—let us say—interim fiscal measures for controlling the economy by means of increased or reduced rates of taxation or loan levies. To this, hon. members of the Opposition object most strongly. They object not only by way of what they said here but also by way of the amendment which they moved here. Now, I want to put the following question to-day. If the economic situation develops in such a way that it is so delicate that it is possible for shifts— such as those which have occurred now—to take place within one year, which means that there is not sufficient time to apply the necessary fiscal measures by means of a subsequent Budget, is it not desirable that such powers be given to the Minister of Finance? The Minister put that forward in the form of a question. It is interesting to note that this point has been supported by a well-known financial publication—the Financial Mail. This publication is not in the least well-disposed towards this Government. On 23rd March, this publication stated the following—

That is what the Financial Mail wrote. As I have just said, this publication is no supporter of this side of the House. I want to accept that they adopt this attitude because they regard that as being desirable. The period of a full year is under the present economic conditions in the free world, too long a period to wait with new fiscal measures if it is necessary to effect adjustments from time to time. As I said before, the Minister raised this matter in his speech merely by way of a question. If such a system were to be introduced, it would—I take it—have to be introduced by means of legislation. I want to mention the possibility today that if something like that is being considered, an indication may perhaps be given in the Budget by the Minister of Finance of certain limits within which he, apart from the specific taxation proposals of the Budget, may operate in the course of the year. In reply to the purely negative attitude adopted by the Opposition in this regard, I nevertheless want to mention that the prospect of what the Minister is holding out here does not merely mean increases in taxation or levies. It may also mean the reduction of taxes or levies so as to suit the changed situation.

I want to come back to the point raised by the Opposition, namely that certain measures were applied too late and at the wrong time. I have already said that steps which were fine at one stage were not necessarily fine at another stage. Let us consider what the hon. member for Constantia said in 1961. In that year the then Minister of Finance said, “spend for prosperity”. He wanted to give our economy a new lease of life. Confidence had to be created, not only locally but also abroad, where we had to find the necessary capital. At that time the hon. member for Constantia, as well as other hon. members of the Opposition, said that there was no confidence in the future of South Africa. In other words, the medicine prescribed by them was the wrong medicine at that time, in the same way as their present attitude, is also the wrong attitude to adopt for present circumstances. This is what the hon. member for Constantia said during the Budget Debate in 1961—

He continued in this vein. Later in that year he said that the prospects of any new investment capital in the country had apparently disappeared completely. Now I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition the following question. If we had followed their advice and directives at all times, where would South Africa have found itself to-day?

Now the Opposition is alleging that the Government has, with its fiscal and monetary measures, not succeeded in curbing inflation at all. It is not able to curb inflation. We heard this accusation being made time and again here. But what are the facts? The facts which we find, such as those contained in the Financial Times, which I have already quoted, as well as in other sources, are that the Government’s measures have in fact succeeded in achieving their object, although they may not perhaps have succeeded to the full extent. Where they did not succeed to the full extent, it was because of the fact that there were circumstances over which the Minister of Finance and the Government had no control and which developed at a later stage. Let me read to you what the Bureau of Economic Research of Stellenbosch has to say about the prospects for 1967. On page 46 of a report which appeared earlier this year, the following appears—

People who know what they are talking about say that the steps taken by the Government were the right steps, unlike hon. members opposite who are wise after the event and allege that the wrong steps were taken and that they were taken too late. The same attitude as the first-mentioned was also adopted by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, which said the same about the struggle against inflation. However, I once again want to set up the test for hon. members of the Opposition. Last year when the Government, in pursuance of the monetary steps taken in its Budget in July, put into operation certain fiscal measures, namely the taxation proposals, so as to combat inflation, what was the attitude of the Opposition? The Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch said earlier last year (translation), “The authorities ought to try to educate the public about economic realities in a clear and unambiguous way”, in other words, bring home to the public an understanding of the struggle against inflation, and did the Opposition assist in doing so or did they use the language used by the hon. member for Constantia when he said, according to Hansard, that the Minister of Finance reminded him of the Hebrew king who said to his people, “My father hath chastized you with whips but I will chastize you with scorpions”, and that the proposals presented by the Minister, the medicine for combating inflation, was definitely infested with scorpions? That is the language used by that side of this House, the people who are now maintaining that the Government takes the wrong steps at the wrong time. However, that was the language which they used to inform the outside public about the nature of the struggle against inflation. In this way I can make many other quotations to illustrate how the Opposition views this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself spoke of over-taxation and the same language was used by the hon. member for Constantia and others. They alleged that the State—and that is still the complaint to-day—was the main cause of inflation by spending too much money itself. In pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) I too want to say, but in a wider context, that no one on this side denies the existence of the problem of inflation. However, if in respect of Government expenditure hon. members opposite cannot tell us where the State is to cut down some more …

But we told you yesterday.

No, we are still waiting to hear where we have to cut down. If they cannot tell us where we have to cut down, it is not fitting of them to level this accusation at the Government. It was said here, by hon. members opposite, in regard to Government expenditure, that various Government Departments were engaged in “empire building”. It was said here that when we took over in 1948 there were only 12 Cabinet posts and that there were 18 at present, with six Deputy Ministers. That is the picture which is presented to the outside public, as though there is reckless expenditure, and to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, as though a spending spree is in progress.

But that is quite true.

I may tell that hon. member that there are many things which are quite true. It is also quite true that the hon. member’s Party has shrunk tremendously. However, one should see facts in their proper perspective, and I now want to ask that hon. member and other hon. members opposite, “You are saying that the Cabinet has expanded too much and that too much money is being spent, but will you get up to say what departments are to be abolished?” I now want to mention a few Cabinet posts which have been created since 1948. When we came into power in 1948 Foreign Affairs was under the control of the Prime Minister himself, but in those days we were a member of the Commonwealth of course, and according to the ideological views of that side of this House, we were merely an appendage of a foreign power, and it was not really necessary for us to arrange foreign relations, because those were arranged for us by another power. Those hon. members are maintaining that we are isolating the country, but are they prepared to suggest that the Department of Foreign Affairs, which now falls under its own Minister, should be abolished? Are they prepared to say that the tremendous foreign services, diplomatic missions and consular missions, should be decreased to the level of 1948? [Interjections.] Do hon. members want to suggest that the representation which has been given to South-West Africa should be withdrawn? Do they want to suggest that the extent to which South-West Africa is represented here to-day should be removed? [Interjection.] I want to ask hon. members whether they are prepared to suggest that the Department of Immigration, which came into existence, should be abolished? [Interjections.] Are hon. members opposite prepared to suggest that the Department of Information, which came into existence, should be abolished at this very moment when South Africa is spreading its wings over the world and is carrying knowledge of South Africa and goodwill into the outside world? Are they prepared to suggest that the Department of Coloured Affairs, which came into existence, and has done such a great deal for uplifting the Coloured, should be abolished?

That is unnecessary.

What about the Department of Sport?

The hon. member for Wynberg refers to the Department of Sport, but she has a great deal to answer for, for she was the one who, after the creation of that Department, announced to the world that that Department was intended for the indoctrination of our young people, and she also reminded the public that the Nazis too had a department of sport. I do not think she ought to join in the discussion, because she has a great deal for which to apologize. In this way I can go down the line and mention a variety of new departments which have been established since 1948 and I want to challenge the hon. members to tell us which of them should be abolished. That reminds me of the ridiculous propaganda made by the hon. member for Yeoville at Worcester when he said that the Government was only looking after itself and was engaged in a spending spree; it wanted the man in the street to pay, but it was not prepared to cut down. Now, speaking of the man in the street, the hon. members for Rosettenville and Durban (Point) also spoke of the man in the street yesterday. What is being done in the Budget for the man in the street? One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. I think that everything contained in this Budget is for the man in the street, and therefore the man in the street says, according to The Cape Times of 23rd March, that he welcomes this Budget—

These are the views of the man in the street. I believe that the hon. member for Rosettenville, who yesterday arrogated to himself the right to speak on behalf of the man in the street, does not fall in the category of the man in the street at all. [Time expired.]

It seems to be my fate in this House either to follow the hon. member for Stellenbosch or for the hon. member for Stellenbosch to follow me. I must say that it is something of an unholy alliance.

I do not like it.

With regard to his reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) on the question of our Bantu people, the hon. member said that practically nothing was done for the Bantu under the United Party Government but that everything was being done for them by the Nationalist Party Government. Let me remind that hon. member, in case his memory is a little bit short, that every single thing that the United Party did for the Bantu during the war years was bitterly opposed by the Nationalist Party.

They called us “Kafferboeties” (negrophilists).

You are still “Kafferboeties”.

Whatever we did for the Bantu, whether it was in the City of Johannesburg or whether it happened to be in the Transkei or in the reserves or anywhere else, the Nationalist Party always opposed it.

Now suddenly, the boot is on the other foot; hon. members opposite now have a programme of their own, and when the hon. member for Stellenbosch says rather smugly that they are the realists to-day, I would say that that is a masterly over-statement because in terms of this debate there is a lot of humbug over this question.

Sir, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his appointment and say to him that I hope he is going to be sympathetic to my main appeal to him to-day. On the sound propaganda basis of repeating a thing often enough in the hope that in the end somebody will believe it, I want to raise the question of the taxation of working married women and the taxation of single women with dependants. [Interjections.] Sir, if hon. members on that side are bored, they can go and have tea. I am perfectly entitled to make this plea. Sir, in dealing with his fiscal policy in his speech, the hon. the Minister made two important statements of principle concerning productivity. One of them was this—

That, Sir, is an almost unexceptionable statement. Under the heading “Productivity” he went on to say—

Sir, the women of South Africa, if I may speak for them this afternoon, are producers, of course, in more ways than one. We produce the children which the country so badly needs and we are producers as skilled and as technical and professional people as well.

You must have a little help over the children.

We need no help from the hon. Minister of Sport. The fact of the matter is that there are between 60,000 and 70,000 more women voters in this country than male voters, so I hope the hon. the Minister will pay some attention to my pleas to him this afternoon. Last year the hon. member for Germiston (District) gave us his support over this question of taxation on the incomes of working married women, so the plea that I make does not only come from one side of the House; it comes in fact from both sides of the House. The previous Minister made a concession in 1965 which represented a small saving on the taxation paid; this hon. Minister has made another concession, a rather different type of concession. Let me quote what he said—

Sir, we welcome that concession, of course. Such as it is, we welcome it very much indeed. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in fact a new principle has been established here, a very interesting principle, because whereas a married woman has no status in law at all as a taxpayer, she has up to a point been given a status of a kind by reason of this concession. But I must say that we are not at all happy about the whole taxation system where women are concerned nor that really enough reforms have been introduced in this regard. There are so many anomalies and there is so much old-fashioned thinking that I do hope the new Minister will bring a fresh mind to bear upon this whole business. The hon. the Minister stressed the need for increased productivity and, quite rightly, it was the key note to his Budget speech. But how do you achieve greater productivity? There must, of course, be an incentive. That is the important thing. The hon. the Minister is in very good company. Mr. G. S. J. Kuschke, managing director of the Industrial Development Corporation, made a statement in November last year on this subject of productivity, and particularly on the employment of women in South Africa. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister what he said. This is an extract from Die Burger of the 5th November. 1966—

Then the report goes on to say—

Of course, Sir, I think that he is perfectly correct. I think that we are largely bound by old-fashioned traditions and methods of thought with regard to this whole question. In the interests of productivity there is a very great need, as Mr. Kuschke points out, for more and more women workers to become involved in the South African economy. Sir, I want to support my contention by quoting briefly two further experts. All three of these experts are advisers to the Government in one form or the other. I want to refer to a statement made by Dr. P. J. Riekert, Deputy Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister. Dr. Riekert is very worried about the productivity rate where taxation is concerned and about the wastage, particularly with regard to the employment of women. Dr. Riekert made a statement on the 10th March, 1965, which was reported in The Cape Argus and in which he said—

He was addressing the Institute of Professional Management. Sir, this is very relevant to the Minister’s concession of assistance to university students. Dr. Riekert went on to say—

Then he goes on to say—

I hope the Minister will take note that he says it is the income tax structure specifically which is responsible for this. He says further—

Dr. Riekert ends his statement by making four specific proposals, proposals which I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister. He says—

Then he goes on to talk about part-time work, either in the mornings or in the afternoons only. This is an obvious thing and has also been referred to by the previous Minister of Labour, who wanted that as well. Then he goes on to talk about home jobs being offered to women with typing and clerical qualifications, and then he makes this important proposal—

That, then, is what Dr. Riekert has said. He is,

I have no doubt, a friend of the hon. the Minister, who, when he was still Minister of Economic Affairs, must have known Dr. Riekert very well. In any event, there are a great many things preventing women from taking the part they should in the economy of South Africa.

I now come to the views of Dr. Anton Rupert on this subject. He is one of our leading industrialists. I quote his views together with those of the other two gentlemen in order to prove the unanimity there is between businessmen in high places as far as this particular matter is concerned. Last year Dr. Rupert said—

Dr. Rupert is, of course, entirely right and I agree with him entirely that what we need also in the private sector, and not only in the public sector, where a lead is already being given, is the introduction of the principle of equal pay for equal work. I must say to the private sector that if it does not wake up, it is going to find itself in intense competition with the public sector in this regard. So, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to listen to my own recommendations in this regard, I suggest that he might study these statements by these three eminent gentlemen.

It is one thing to talk about stepping up productivity and quite another thing to achieve it. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that in South Africa’s potential women workers the Minister has an almost untapped source of supply. It is almost untapped because the percentage of economically active women workers is very low at present. Therefore. I should like to say to him that if he starts off on the right and not the wrong foot and does all he can to encourage them by means of fair, and not unfair, taxation the support that he will get from these women will be astonishing. He will, however, have to use his influence with a number of his Cabinet colleagues because a great many things still stand in the way of women in the economic field.

Let us examine for a moment some of the things in the Government’s fiscal policy that stand in their way. I would say that by taxing the family unit, which is the recognized thing, you do absolutely nothing to keep that family unit together—quite the reverse. Husbands are becoming increasingly irritated over this whole business and the wife becomes irritated because of the rate at which she is taxed under the P.A.Y.E. tables, which are fixed entirely arbitrarily. She pays double the normal rate. The husband becomes increasingly irritated because when the joint income is assessed for tax purposes at the end of the year he often finds that in spite of his basic P.A.Y.E. deductions a further sum of money is demanded from him to make up the joint assessment at the end of the fiscal year. The average young couple takes a very dim view of this. I found a letter in Die Burger of the 28th May, 1965, under the pseudonym “Diep Getref”. This letter says what a young man and his wife feel about this type of thing. He writes—

Well, this is what the Government is in faet encouraging. The writer continues by asking—

He is perfectly right, Mr. Speaker. Take the case of a young couple like this who are struggling after they get married. Suppose they want to buy a house under existing conditions and then they find the mortgage bond interest as high as 9 per cent? How can they get a house for themselves, how can they afford it, let alone start to create a family? The Minister’s present concession, while we welcome it, unfortunately only concerns the case of the working wife where the husband is disabled or earns no money at all, because of age or of disability. This does not, therefore, affect young couples, neither does it encourage women to go into the labour market. The realistic way in which to tackle this is the way in which they do it in the United Kingdom. We have mentioned this before and I hope the hon. the Minister will think about it again. There two-ninths of the income of a working married woman is tax free from the start. Furthermore, there they have separate tax assessments on an individual basis. That is what we want here in South Africa as well. Even on the little island of Singapore, which achieved its independence from the United Kingdom only as recently as August, 1965, one of the very first things they did when they achieved their independence was to abolish the system under which husbands’ and wives’ incomes were jointly assessed for taxation purposes, and to introduce the system of individual taxation, because the other system was so intensely disliked.

Well, if they can do it, I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why we in South Africa cannot do it as well. The Minister may say to me that there is more in it than meets the eye from a revenue point of view. I suggest that this joint method of taxing is a rather sly way of getting a little more revenue. But it is a singularly unproductive way, in an economic sense, of getting more revenue. It seems to me that in general the shortsightedness of modern administrations throughout the Western world, as Dr. Riekert rightly said, towards this whole business, is quite incredible. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of some of the disadvantages under which women have to suffer in the economic field, quite apart from taxation. Women are forced to resign from the Public Service on marriage. They are forced to resign from the service of the Provincial Administration on marriage. They are forced to resign their positions as teachers on marriage. All this means is that the money and the care and the manpower that have been spent on training them is in effect wasted. I would say without hesitation that the choice as to whether a woman should resign on marriage is something which should have nothing to do with the State.

It should be left to her and her husband to decide. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is such old-fashioned thinking that the State should have the right to make this decision. We are never going to run an education system, the Public Service, the Provincial Administrations or any of these bodies in South Africa with the assistance of single women alone. It is an impossibility. There will always have to be a percentage of married women employed. It seems to me on this basis that we really ought to face the realities and face the facts. It seems to me that no woman should be faced with the disadvantages which face her at the present moment, namely that if she marries, produces her family and looks after them and then goes back to work, she immediately finds herself penalized with regard to pension rights, which she is not allowed to have on the same basis as other workers. She also finds that she very often cannot be appointed on a permanent basis. The exorbitant taxes which a married woman has to pay and the fact that she is penalized when she goes back, at any rate into certain sections of the public sector, with regard to pension rights and the permanency of her job constitute no inducement for her to go back at all. When it comes to talking of productivity, there we have a gross wastage which, I maintain with respect, is totally unnecessary.

I want to make two more points. The one concerns the Minister’s concessions to university students. We know that there are study grants, bursaries and loans from various quarters for university students. These facilities are provided by the State and provincial education departments. There is now a very welcome rebate in this Budget for taxation purposes, which becomes claimable up to the age of 26 years instead of 24 years for students who are occupied with full-time study at our universities. This is to encourage them to achieve higher qualifications. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that between 30 and 40 per cent of these students to whom he is giving this rebate will in fact be women? The percentage of women at our universities to-day is as high as that. The majority of them certainly will get married, but later on, when they have reared their families, ten or 15 years later, are their qualifications to be entirely wasted? I think our thinking is a little outmoded in regard to this subject, particularly at university level. It is precisely at university level—the higher professional level—that the Minister’s tax rates on working married women are absolutely exorbitant. Why should women not be taxed on an individual basis? Can the hon. the Minister produce any valid argument as to why they should not be? If a woman is married by ante-nuptial contract, she is entirely responsible for all her own debts. If she goes out to work she is entirely responsible for the payment of her pay-as-you-earn deductions. I would say that this family unit basis of taxation is purely artificial and does not really get us anywhere at all. It may mean the grabbing of a little extra revenue, but if that is offset against the loss of production because these women are not attracted back into the open market, I think you will find that you would have more revenue from people who went to work then from people who stayed away. In 1965 the hon. the Minister’s predecessor made a minute concession in respect of tax savings per couple. I want to tell the House that any couple with a joint income of between R1,000 and R1,600 in fact receive no savings at all under that concession. With a joint income of R2,000, a couple saved R3. With a joint income of R3,000 they saved R4. With a joint income of R4,000 they saved R8. What does all this amount to? It is absolutely nothing.

What did they pay?

I shall tell the hon. member the amount they pay. On a joint income of R4,000, the husband earning R2,800 and the wife earning R1,200, the rateable amount is R3,400. They previously paid R184. The reduction allowed them to pay R176. The interesting thing is that the rebate gets higher, the higher the income up to a maximum joint income of R8,000, with the husband earning R5.500 and the wife earning R2,500. The proposed taxation was R840 and the saving was R240, in other words a 22 per cent saving of R240. Therefore, right up to a joint income of R8,000 there was a 22 per cent rebate. From there onwards the figure begins to drop. What do you find in the case of the joint income of R9.000? You find that the savings on their joint incomes are R9. In other words, when you get to the university level—to the professional classes—this bulge suddenly begins to go down again. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. The lower income groups get nothing. The middle income groups get a certain amount. Those with a joint income of R8,000 get the most, but when you get to R9,000 the tax saving drops to R9. The whole position is ridiculous. I do not know how the hon. the Minister can justify this.

I want to end by saying a word about divorcees. I want to make a very special plea to the hon. the Minister to lift the tax burden from women who have been divorced and who are receiving maintenance payments but who, unless they were divorced in 1962 or after, are obliged to pay income tax on their maintenance grants. I have a whole sheaf of protesting letters on my desk upstairs from women who were divorced before 1962, who are allowed anything from R50 to R100 in maintenance grants. They have to go out to work to help keep their children and to maintain a decent standard of living. They are then taxed as single people at the maximum rate. They pay their pay-as-you-earn deductions and then their maintenance grants are subject to income tax as well. I would say that this is grossly discriminatory and unfair. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that whole position. If I may, I should also like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. Where the husband is normally allowed rebates for children in the case of a divorced couple, I would like to suggest that a divorcee should be allowed the privilege of claiming rebates at the widowed rate, from the time of her divorce, with all the accruing rebates, where it can be proved that she is in fact liable for the maintenance of her children. It seems to me that that would be a much more equitable method.

In conclusion let me say that I would like the Minister to think seriously about the whole system of taxation of women in South Africa being investigated and some major amendments being made. I would like to suggest that income tax should be imposed at a single basic rate on all people, irrespective of marital status. Rebates only would then make the necessary adjustment in the amounts of taxes, instead of the muddled system which we have at the present time. Then I would like married women to be legally declared taxpayers and regarded as individual taxpayers. Before I leave the previous point, I should like to say that we are aware of the contention that has been made here before by the Minister’s predecessor that a basic uniform rate of tax would mean a serious loss of revenue to the State. I suggest that if the hon. the Minister were to undertake trial calculations in this regard, these calculations would prove a fiscal advantage and not a disadvantage, because of the increased productivity. The one would more than balance the other one out. My last point before I sit down is in regard to dependants. I think that all dependants should attract the same rebate to individual taxpayers, married or single, that is to say whether they are children, handicapped persons or those advanced in years. I do not like the argument at all that this would give more work to the Department, because if people were taxed individually, we would find that the Department would simply open a file for each individual person, and this would make for less work than at present. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member who has just resumed her seat will take it amiss of me if I do not follow up on her argument which she raised here this afternoon. I think that, generally speaking, she simply raised a plea in regard to various matters and I think the hon. Minister will probably take great pleasure in reacting to them.

Before I come to the matter which I should like to deal with, i.e. the points raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—he is not here at present and I hope he will be called in the meantime—I just want to say that if we look at the Loan Estimates and consider the subsidies and loans which have been made to the provincial administrations for capital expenditure I want to say that, in the light of the knowledge of the requirements and the major burdens which are now being placed on the shoulders of the provinces, particularly now that we have accepted the education measure here, I hope the Central Government will in future make a much larger contribution to the provinces for these essential services. We are aware of the fact that there are heavy burdens resting on the shoulders of the provinces. If we take their sources of revenue into consideration then it is clear that the Central Government will in future have to make major contributions to the provinces. I am one of those people who believes—and believes strongly—that our provincial system as it exists to-day forms a very essential part of the government of the entire country. That is why I should like to see the provinces being developed strongly and never being crippled for want of funds so that they cannot perform properly those essential services which are their responsibility, particularly the question of education which now rests to a very large extent on their shoulders. I am making this plea here and I hope and trust that we shall see our way clear to making far more funds available to our provincial councils.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I am sorry that the hon. member is walking out now, but he will probably return. In any case he can read in Hansard what I am now going to say. The hon. member spoke here and delivered a long panegyric on what the City Council of Johannesburg are doing for their non-white population and how they have contributed to the rectification of the unsightly conditions which prevailed there in the past. But I want to remind the hon. member and this House how refractory the United Party City Council of Johannesburg was when it came to the removal of the black spots from the white areas of Johannesburg. They simply stopped dead in their tracks and refused in any way to make a contribution towards solving that problem. I want to remind hon. members of the removal of the black spots from Sophiatown. Who were the people who fought day and night against Sophiatown being removed? In those days the champion in the United Party was the hon. member for Houghton who is now sitting here. She was the instigator, she was the liberalist in the United Party who took them in tow, so much so that this Government had to come forward with a Native Resettlement Act to make the removals compulsory and to establish a statutory body for removing these Bantu. When the non-Whites had to be removed from Pageview, who were the people who fought against it? Who opposed it? It was the U.P. What did we find? After the Native Resettlement Act had been passed, we got a fine Native residential complex in Meadowlands. I can go further. There were the slum conditions and unsightly squatter camps surrounding Johannesburg near Mufula, Shantytown—the so-called “breeze-block” complex, etc. The then Minister of Native Affairs, the late Dr. Verwoerd, asked the Johannesburg City Council to remove those squatter camps. Who opposed that measure at that time? It was the U.P. City Council. They fought it tooth and nail. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was also one of those who opposed the Government.

It was over a principle.

I shall come to the principle in a moment. The hon. member and his colleagues fought us into the early hours of the morning. Motions had been moved that we had to lend our support to the removal of those people. In this Parliament legislation was introduced to make the site and service scheme possible, to levy funds, to render these services so that the Native areas could develop. All this made it possible for Soweto to develop. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—I do not know whether this term can be used in this House —has the political temerity to boast unashamedly here of what they have allegedly done to solve this problem. I know the brochure which he had in his hand earlier on. In that brochure they boast about and want to claim for themselves all the credit for the establishment and development of Soweto and those areas. They say that it is thanks to the U.P. that those places have been established, that they are achievements which they have attained. When the National Party introduced legislation here on a site and service scheme and Native Levy Funds, it was that self-same United Party which fought that legislation in this House tooth and nail. When the National Party came forward with the first site and service scheme—the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will recall that occasion, we were together that morning—the opponents of the steps being taken by the Government said, while ablution blocks were being constructed and water was being laid on and the first people from the squatter camps were moving in there: “Do you see, you are the creators of super-squatter camps here in our neighbourhood!” When the scheme began to develop, when one family after another began to move in there into the beautiful houses which had been built for them while the evacuated squatter camps were being demolished—and, Sir, there are rows of houses standing there to-day which are well fenced-in, and there are good roads; the people are living happily there—the U.P. had the political temerity to state here and before the entire world that it is they who had achieved all that. But it was as a result of pressure and compulsion on the part of the National Party, and of Dr. Verwoerd, that those townships came into being. [Interjections.] I want to mention one matter which does redound to the credit of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and to the United Party. When it came to the removal of Shantytown, as that complex there was generally called, the Government stated that they had to remove it at their own expense because they had allowed that squatter camp to be established there. They then went to the Chamber of Mines and borrowed R3 million, and with that money they removed those Natives to the Soweto complex. But what did those people then do? It shows you how much recognition and how much gratitude they have displayed to the people who had made it possible for them to accomplish those things there. What did they do? They took those ash-bricks and built a tower on top of a little hill and called it the Oppenheimer Tower. [Laughter.] With a fanfare of trumpets they take all the tourists coming to Johannesburg, put them in a bus, provide them with a guide, take them to that tower, and say, “Look what we, the United Party, have done for these people”. Sir, what these people are doing amounts to a shameless political confidence trick, because they know very well that they fought the establishment of those houses surrounding the tower, which came about as a result of the site and service scheme, tooth and nail, and that they were very reluctant to do those things. But to-day, after they have seen that it works very well, they are claiming for themselves all the credit for what has been done; they issue a brochure such as that one and boast about it. I just want to tell the United Party that they should be grateful to the people who accomplished all those things, and that it is a good thing if they want to erect a monument to Oppenheimer but that no word of thanks or gratitude has been expressed to Dr. Verwoerd for what he did for those millions of people, for that brilliant idea of his in coming forward with a site and service scheme and making available levy funds to make it possible for local authorities to resettle their Natives properly in their own areas. But to-day the United Party is trying to make this House believe that it was they who accomplished all those things.

As far as slum clearance is concerned I do not think there is a city council in this country or in the world which has so much discredit on their record as the United Party

City Council of Johannesburg has. I challenge the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) to show me one single area in the entire Johannesburg complex—I shall afford him an opportunity of doing so; he can do it by way of interjection—where the United Party City Council has lifted a finger to clear the slums in Johannesburg. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that Soweto is a slum area which they cleared! [Laughter.] Let us leave the non white areas now. The hon. member simply cannot get away from the subject; he must always be talking about the Bantu areas. But I want to talk about the white areas of Johannesburg where one finds the worst slum conditions in the world. I have made it my task to go and look at these things. I have seen nothing worse than what I saw in Pageview and Fordsburg. I want to state today, so that it may appear on the record of this House, that when we began with the removal of the black spots in Johannesburg a survey was made of the slum areas in Pageview, and the hon. member knows how many times he and I have crossed swords in regard to Sophiatown and those other places. When we had a survey made we found, and I want to lay this at the door of the United Party, that in Pageview there were areas where one had sites measuring 50 by 50 ft. on which 68 people were living. These people had one tap, which was locked, and at a certain time every day the “slum landlord” would come along and unlock that tap so that the people could fill their buckets with water. That took place under the control of the United Party City Council of Johannesburg; it happened with the knowledge of the city council as well as their health inspectors who were continually there. At that time those people paid the “slum landlords” £2 per month. The City Council of Johannesburg were the protectors of the greatest “slum landlords” in this country, and they still are today, because this kind of thing is still happening. I want to say that if it had not been for the fact that there is such a shortage of manpower I would have said that the National Party should have taken over these things a long time ago. But these people have no love for these kind of things. In those slum areas one found that a four inch wall was dividing a white family from a non white family, and it was these people who were unwilling to help clear up those conditions. But the National Party came forward with the Native Resettlement Act and they saw to it that these problems were solved and that the Whites were separated from the non Whites. They must not come along now and tell us that we are doing nothing. No, these people stand accused before the nation of South Africa for their maladministration. [Interjections.] But the writing is on the wall. We saw what happened at the last City Council election in Johannesburg. How the U.P. can say, if the National Party has obtained five additional seats, that the U.P. has won and that the National Party has come off second best, is something only the United Party mentality can understand. If the number of voters increase to such an extent that one has to have delimitation and if one wins more seats as a result of that, they say that there have been corrupt practices in regard to delimitation. But the people do not really take into consideration the fact that there has been a change in the views of the electorate, something which did in fact happen in the last election. The hon. member makes a great fuss of a few National candidates who lost their deposits in the municipal election in Johannesburg. But that happened in the reddest United Party wards one could imagine—redder than Natal— where Nationalists still had the courage to stand. But the hon. member does not say anything about that. I take off my hat to those Nationalists who stood in those wards. But that is enough of that.

I hope that we shall in this debate, once and for all now, obtain finality in regard to what the colour policy of the United Party is. I am a relatively young member in this House. I should like to see a clear demarcation between the policy and aims of the one Party, as opposed to those of the other Party. If one reads the newspapers and one listens to the statements, one asks oneself where the United Party stands. I want to ask the United Party a simple question today. I want to ask them whether they still adhere immovably to their integration policy or whether they adhere to the old standard policy which all our great leaders in South Africa have followed in the past. I am glad that the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Orange Grove are present here this afternoon.

Give us your policy in writing.

I think those hon. members are honest enough to give me a reply to my question. Mr. Speaker, recently I got hold of a work entitled The Speeches of the Honourable J. C. Smuts. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is acquainted with this work, and I also think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is acquainted with it. This work was published in the year 1941 by an organization known as the Truth Legion. It was an organization which the United Party established during the war years to keep people informed of what the United Party’s attitude in respect of certain major questions actually was. Amongst other things this book published there is also a long speech in which General Smuts expresses his opinion in regard to the “White man’s task in Africa”. I am quoting first from what was written in the introduction (translation)—

This work was published by the Truth Legion.

The Khaki Knights.

It was their action front.

The Truth Legion was an organization which supported the United Party. They are quoting here from a speech which General Smuts made in 1917. In other words, in 1941 the United Party subscribed 100 per cent to everything contained in this work and published it as their Gospel. General Smuts stated—

He goes on to say—

Read page 59.

I shall afford the hon. member for Durban (Point) an opportunity of reading it himself. General Smuts stated further—

In 1941 they created the word “apart”, and now they have made apartheid a term of abuse.

Here you have a policy statement which General Smuts accepted in 1941. This is a speech which he made in the Savoy Hotel in London in 1917.

Is that the United Party policy which you are now implementing?

I am now asking the United Party: Do they still adhere to this policy? Does the hon. member for Orange Grove still adhere to this policy? He says “yes”. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adhere to it?

We support the majority report of the Tomlinson Commission.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must not be stupid now; I am not reading from the Report of the Tomlinson Commission; I am quoting General Smuts now. No, I shall tell the United Party and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what has happened to them since 1941. They were taken in tow during the war years by people such as Helen Suzman and Jan Steytler and Sakkie Fourie and Alec Gorshel, as well as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). He has allowed himself to be dragged in by those ears of his into this thing. These people have taken the United Party in tow to such an extent that General Smuts later abandoned this policy altogether, and then the United Party came forward with this Satanic race federation policy of theirs. I want to say this to the hon. members for Orange Grove and Bezuidenhout because I know that they were disciples of General Smuts …

I was always a Hertzog man.

Mr. Speaker, here you see now what the policy of the United Party was before they were taken in tow by the liberalists and the progressives in their Party. They are still on that wrong track. Is it not time they told us clearly and unequivocably whether or not they still adhere to that, and whether they still want to struggle on with that race federation policy of theirs? I should like to know. Let us get clarity in regard to this question. I hope that the hon. members of Orange Grove and Bezuidenhout, who are frontbenchers on that side, will give us a clear, unequivocal reply in regard to this matter.

This is not the maiden speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, of course, but I cannot refrain from congratulating him on it. If he had not been so short and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) such a big, hefty wrestler, I would have called him a bully. I would even have gone as far as asking the Rev. Punt to join the hon. member for Durban (Point)—who had so much to say about “come and join me” yesterday—in singing lustily “come and join me” at the funeral of the United Party. There are some of them, like the hon. member for North Rand, who are even playing the ghost and answering from the grave.

I have heard that according to our well known Afrikaans saying an ass does not bump his head twice against the same stone. This hon. United Party has now bumped its head against the same stone—apartheid—so many times that I verily believe one of these days the stone will walk.

I have never seen anything equal to the performance put up by the hon. member for Hillbrow yesterday when he called for a long term fiscal policy. That was really a case of the hand of Esau and the voice of Jacob. Can you imagine it, a long-term fiscal policy at a stage when the Minister of Finance envisages the possibility of having to effect changes to his fiscal policy from day to day because this spectre of inflation is such a progressively and rapidly changing phenomenon? The hon. member talks about a long-term fiscal policy. Is it not this Government which appointed a council of financial experts for the Prime Minister? Is it not this Government which appointed that council to plan the finance, the fiscal policy and the monetary policy for the moment and for the future? Is it not this council which in November, 1965, found that inflation was under control? Is it not this council which in February, 1966, came to the same conclusion while only in March inflation got out of hand all over again? Now the hon. member comes along with a long term fiscal policy.

Speaking of a long-term policy, are these not the people who are always having trouble with a long-term policy? Is it not the hon. member for Newton Park who during the past week had trouble with one of his candidates who has also joined the National Party? Why? Because the hon. member for Newton Park told him that he could lay down a nonwhite policy for South Africa only as far as the “foreseeable future”. This “foreseeable future” is actually only as far and as shortsighted as those people are. And you know how shortsighted these people are. They are myopic.

A moment ago you heard the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) say that they had objected to clearing up those areas, which he is cheering now it has been done. I am referring to the clearing of the squatter areas in Johannesburg. They objected in principle to that clearing. What is that principle? The hon. member will not tell what the principle is. The principle is freehold rights, in other words, that the non White should own his land within the white area. In other words, that means integration. That is what they are presenting to us. That is why they are trying to throw dust in our eyes in such a covert way. That Party’s covert way of throwing dust in the eyes of the public of South Africa will no longer succeed, even if they have to explain afterwards that if one loses five seats you have nevertheless won. If the United Party continues along these lines I can also foresee its future. Their problem is that they are sitting there, and that they are sitting there dishonestly. What the Rand Daily Mail said after the last election is correct, namely that “the Opposition has been reduced to a whisper and Helen Suzman”. They are propagating the same policy as that propagated by Helen Suzman, but they do not have the courage to say so.

Yesterday the hon. member for Hillbrow made a lengthy plea for the gold mines, with special reference to the rise in costs. All he wants to say is that this Government should allow the Whites to be replaced by nonwhite labour. That is what he wants. Why does he not say so? The days when the hon. member for Hillbrow and I went to school together at Fauresmith are long past. I could go back to my people. At the moment I would advise him to join Helen Suzman, because that would also be more to the liking of Master Harry.

So many pleas are made for the goldmines. The United Party’s problem is the following: The hon. member for Houghton usually speaks to get into the newspapers. The United Party cannot speak unless the newspapers speak. Now it is their problem that the entire Press —the financial Press as well as the daily Press —had very little to say about this Budget which was not favourable. They make so many pleas for the goldmines. They have so many complaints about the future of the goldmines. Do you know what the Sunday Times said about these goldmines and about the Stock Exchange? I quote—

That is what the goldmines themselves say. The chairman of the Stock Exchange regards this Budget as an instrument to control inflation. That is why the gold shares on the Stock Exchange did not drop one point, but rather rose. Now they tell us that nobody admits that there is inflation except the hon. member for Queenstown and the hon. member for Florida. The chairman of the Stock Exchange agreed with the hon. the Minister that the Budget proposed by him would curb inflation to a certain extent. The following was also written, amongst other things—

The problem of the goldmines is that the gold price has been fixed for years. We are aware of all the attempts the Government made to have it increased. The Government is not to blame for its fixing. The one thing the Government could do for the goldmines, i.e. to try to curb inflation, this Government has done. It will continue doing that.

The Opposition is always asking how we control inflation. They say the Government should spend less. There is a list indicating in respect of which items more is being spent. Not one of them has said that there should be a decrease on any of those items for which more is provided in this Budget than was provided in the past. Not one of them said that. The hon. member for Durban (Point) got up and said: “Come and join me”. He asked whether we did not want the people to get higher salaries. Mr. Speaker, who is there who does not want the people to get higher salaries? Everybody wants more money. If this Parliament decides to give me more, I will also take it. Nobody will not take it. Thus he continued and tried to make political propaganda. Hon. members have by now made 11 suggestions in the course of this debate in respect of increased expenditure and higher taxes. They said: Stimulate the mines. Do not tax them. The hon. member for Kensington pleaded for a larger State contribution to the Bantu Education Fund. He pleaded that the loan levy on persons over 70 years of age should be payable only after a total taxation of R500. He pleaded that the means test for veterans of the 1914-’18 War who receive pensions, should be abolished. The hon. member for Durban (Point) pleaded for cost of living allowances for Railway officials and public servants. He also pleaded for a national contributory pension fund. All these the Government has to contribute. But not one of them said where the Government was to pay less and what it was to abolish. The hon. member made the ridiculous suggestion that we should reduce the Cabinet to economize. The hon. member for Stellenbosch took the hon. member thoroughly to task in this connection. The hon. member also spoke of concessions in respect of the National Health Services, but then it occurred to him that on Monday morning the hon. the Minister of Health introduced a Bill establishing a national health scheme, and then he switched over very quickly. That was still in the old election pamphlet.

The hon. member cannot even read. The Minister will draw you a picture.

Then the Minister will draw me a picture of a point. It will be a blunt point. It will be the United Party’s point of Durban (Point). Hon. members continued along these lines. Now they may ask: What is the long-term policy of the National Party? I do not want to go into that any further. The hon. member argues that the hon. member for Benoni lost his election, but the hon. member for Benoni set out the National Party’s long-term policy most effectively. To summarize it in a few words, I may just say that it is the long-term policy of the National Party—this side of the House—to see to it that the future of the white man in this country, South Africa, shall be secured at any cost.

The hon. members for Fauresmith and Benoni both paid me the compliment of referring to me as the apparent reason for all the changes in United Party policy. I am not going to deal with that. I have no doubt that the United Party will do so itself. I do want to say one or two things about what those hon. members have said. Firstly, the hon. members for Fauresmith and Benoni both referred to the removal schemes in the Western Townships and they commented on the fact that the official Opposition—then including myself—had fought this tooth and nail. They are quite right. This scheme was fought tooth and nail. It was fought tooth and nail because of the principle mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith, namely the deprivation of freehold rights from people who had had those rights in the so called white area for well nigh 60 years. These were rights granted to them way back in Paul Kruger’s day by the Transvaal Republic. Therefore there is no question whatever that an enormous principle was involved with the removal of Sophiatown and the Western Townships. I for one would fight that just as vehemently if that very same measure were brought to the House today. I cannot speak for my former colleagues but I certainly would fight that as hard today as I fought it then, because there is no doubt that Africans were by those means deprived of a right which they had enjoyed for a long time. [Interjections.] There is no reason why slums could not have been removed and why the houses could not have been rebuilt, ether in exactly the same area or even in Soweto, providing that the same right of freehold had been granted to the people who had those rights before.

The hon. member for Benoni—I am sorry he is not here; I did ask him to stay—had a great deal to say about what the City Council of Johannesburg had neglected to do as far as African housing is concerned. I want to tell him that I agree with a good deal of what he said. There is no doubt that the rise of those shanty towns in and around Johannesburg in the war years and the immediate post-war period can be directly laid at the feet of the Johannesburg City Council, which did not spend one cent on housing during those years. I admit that. But the hon. member need not preen himself so much on that score. After all, he has been a member of the Executive Council of the Transvaal Province for a long time. I want to ask him what he has done in that capacity as far as Johannesburg Hospital is concerned. Let me give him an example. He comes along here with a plea to the hon. the Minister of Finance to grant more money to the Provincial Administrations so that they can provide better facilities for the people under their care, but for years now the Johannesburg population has suffered grievously from the complete neglect of the provision of proper hospital facilities. There is a skeleton of a building, a disgraceful, shabby old skeleton. I am glad the hon. member has come back, because I was saying that he ought to take some of the blame as an ex M.E.C. of the Transvaal Province for the scandalous neglect of the hospital services in Johannesburg. I am glad that he has arrived to hear those final words that I have to say to him.

The hon. member for Fauresmith and other Government members are, I think, justified in saying that by and large the hon. the Minister of Finance’s budget has been well received. I think there is no doubt about that. It has been well received. I want to tell them that to a great extent this is because there has been a considerable feeling of relief in the business community and on the Stock Exchange, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith that the hon. the Minister of Finance has not found it necessary to take even more drastic steps as far as the curbing of inflation is concerned. People perhaps expected worse than they got and therefore there is this feeling of relief. This is one reason, as I have said, why the budget has been fairly well received by the business community. The main criticism so far in this budget debate has been directed at Government spending and at the fact that the Government has failed to curb its own expenditure although of course it has asked the private sector to do so. I think this is a justifiable criticism because in the critical years when the Government should have been doing everything possible to curb inflation and curb its own expenditure, which is one of the prime causes of inflation in this country, Government spending rose by no less than 26 per cent. This has been a large contributory factor to inflation. Again, quite justifiably, hon. members on the other side have said that it is all very well to criticize Government expenditure, but then we must say where Government expenditure can be cut down. They say that so far very few suggestions have been made from the Opposition side. Well, I want to suggest a number of ways in which the Government could curb its expenditure, and they are closely interlinked.

The first, of course, is to call a halt to the ever increasing expenditure on the implementation of apartheid, one of the most unproductive of all Government ventures. The machinery which is now required to implement apartheid is fantastic. Statutory bodies are multiplying like rabbits—I would say that that is the only productive thing about apartheid. Hundreds upon hundreds of civil servants are engaged in the sterile job of trying to implement apartheid. They sit in offices, examining applications for permits—permits to do practically everything. In the Bantu Administration Department there are permits for employers to take on employees; there are permits for employees to take up jobs; permits to stay in the urban areas; permits to occupy houses; to live with their families; to travel to the rural areas. There are hundreds of civil servants engaged in this utterly unproductive job. I think that the total number of manhours wasted would be stupendous if anybody took the trouble to add them up. In the Department of Planning and the Department of Community Development hundreds of civil servants have to examine applications to occupy premises; to own premises; to carry on any sort of entertainment which might have some sort of multiracial basis. Here again we have hundreds of civil servants engaged on these jobs. In the Department of Labour we have staff examining applications from industrialists as to whether or not they may have exemptions from job reservations. Others have to examine applications from workers to take on certain jobs. In the Department of Education we have staff who examine applications from nonwhites to attend White universities. And so on, ad infinitum. We have one department after another each employing hundreds of civil servants in utterly unproductive jobs. What a vast army of civil servants busy with a mountain of unproductive work in a country which is short of skilled manpower! I say, moreover, that if we scrapped all these trappings of apartheid we would not only release people for productive work in South Africa but we would effect an immediate improvement in our relations with the outside world and with the rest of the African Continent. This is the interlinking that I speak of. If we would change our attitude in one respect, immediately the tension as far as the outside world is concerned would be lessened. Then we could effect savings on a department which is costing this country the most individually as far as percentage expenditure is concerned. I am talking about Defence. Why are we building up this vast Defence Department, and I might say Police and Prisons Department, because they all go together to a large extent? It all has to do with the whole question of the tensions between South Africa and the outside world. I wonder if people realize that between them the Defence and Police Departments take up R365 million of expenditure and account for just on 20 per cent of the total budget? These are some of the suggestions I make to the hon. the Minister as far as reduction of Government expenditure is concerned. We would not need to be stockpiling arms; we would not need to be leasing tankers at enormous cost if we had a better relationship with the outside world.

A lot has been said about the other main way in which inflation could be curbed, and that is, of course, the better use of labour resources and greater productivity as a result. Of course, this is basic. I do not want to go into any of these details. I have reiterated this over and over again in this House over past years, and other hon. members have again repeated these arguments today. So I leave that on one side, except to say that basic to everything I say is the need to increase our use of manpower resources and productivity. I want to say in this regard that one of the few hopeful things that has happened in this country is the recent announcement in the Press of the sweeping changes that are taking place now in the coalmining industry.

These changes have resulted in a great increase in the salary scales of White workers on the one hand, and greater employment of African workers in the coal-mines on the other. In other words, the Africans have been admitted to fields of employment which, up to now, have been denied them. I only hope that this will give the Government the necessary courage to reconsider the whole question of the gold-mining industry in this regard and the employment of labour, particularly African labour, in a more productive way. We all know about the experiment which was doomed to failure, and it was doomed to failure because of political manoeuvring in the trade union movement, and the Government was hoist by its own petard there. Because for years now, nay, for decades now, it has told every white worker that if the standard of work of the African is raised, this must mean an immediate deterioration in the white worker’s position. This is so much nonsense, of course, because they are complementary and not competitive at all. Anyway, I hope, as I say, that the successful experiment which is now being undertaken on the coalmines will give the Government the necessary courage once more to give its attention to this issue, one which is very important for the goldmines, because this is one way in which the life of the goldmines can be extended. I do not believe that there is a single member in this House, be he pro or anti apartheid, who does not realize the enormous importance of extending the life of the goldmines, caught, as the hon. member for Fauresmith correctly said, in this inflationary spiral—something about which they can do very little because the end price of their product is fixed. In stressing this I should like to point out that the goldmines, apart from anything else, are yielding R815 million worth of foreign exchange every year.

I want to point out also that, unless we do something about this, we are going to find ourselves in great difficulties because, in any case, the goldmining industry is now on the decline and it is a question of stretching out its lifespan and not saving it for all time, because that we cannot do by virtue of its very nature as a wasting asset. We know that the growth period which the gold mining industry has experienced over the past 35 years has now reached its peak and what we can expect for the next 35 years is a decline. Gold mining experts anticipate that, unless new goldfields are discovered, by about the year 2,000 most of the goldmines will have ceased working. This means, of course, that we have to devote ourselves to planning ahead as regards the development of alternative sources of income and revenue for South Africa, and alternative means of production and employment, of course, for our growing population.

Unfortunately we do not hear a word of cheer from the Government in this respect. We do not hear a word from the hon. the Minister of Finance who should be applying himself most vigorously to this particular problem. All we hear is the discordant voice of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. We hear him say, ad nauseum, “I will stop, I will reduce, I will turn back the flow of Bantu labour to the Witwatersrand and the other White industrial areas.” It is his favourite tune. He uses these words at every possible opportunity, whether he is addressing a conference of the F.C.I., opening a beer packaging venture in the Transvaal, or whether he is visiting brickworks in Cape Town, we hear the same old theme. In fact, it should be put to music and made his signature tune and played every time he enters a room. We will then all be able to know where the Deputy Minister is. [Interjections.] It would be funny if the Deputy Minister were not in deadly earnest. I think that he is in more deadly earnest than his colleagues really. I think—and I should like him to think about this in the dark watches of the night—that he has been made the “fall guy” by the Cabinet. As the Americans say, he is the “fall guy”. He has been given a policy to carry out which everybody knows perfectly well is incapable of fulfillment. [Interjections.] This policy has absolutely no meaning in terms of the realities of life in South Africa, and it has absolutely no meaning in terms of the economics of South Africa.

Now, I want to give the House a few examples of what I mean when I say this. Less than a month ago, I think, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration spoke to the F.C.I. in Cape Town and he said that it would be tantamount to suicide for the White nation —good dramatic words—if the trend which had resulted in the doubling of the African population of the Witwatersrand region during 1936 to 1960 were allowed to continue, and whereby the African population on the Witwatersrand now exceeds the white population by over ½ million. He referred to the in flow of black labour irrespective of social consequences, to the alarming rate of increase of Bantu in the Witwatersrand and other industrial areas in the last few decades. He also referred to the dreadful shanty towns which had grown up on the Rand during and after the war when there was no influx control and which became, as he says, cesspools of illness, crime and violence. All this was, of course, only the overture to his main theme, the theme he is always preaching, namely that the future employment opportunities for the Bantu had to be created elsewhere—in the reserves, in the border industries—and that no further labour intensive industries would be permitted on the Rand. The expansion of existing industries, he said, was in jeopardy if increased utilization of African labour was required. And, I might say, in the process he gave leading industrialists of South Africa a lecture on economics, on efficiency, on mechanization and almost, but not quite—he stopped just short of it—on patriotism. These industrialists are the leading men in South Africa. They provide the vast bulk of the money that goes into the coffers of the hon. the Minister of Finance. They provide the money that keeps this country running. Their energy, their initiative and the risks they are taking are the factors which have resulted in the growth of the South African economy. But this hon. Deputy Minister comes along and lectures them in this way. He gave them a good old talking to. And yet without the tax paying ability of these people the hon. the Minister of Finance would not be able to pay anybody’s salary, not the salaries of public servants who have to implement apartheid, nor the salaries of members of Parliament and nor that of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

King Canute!

No, he is not King Canute. Everybody has this story wrong. King Canute did not think he was going to keep back the sea. It was his followers who thought he would be able to keep back the sea. King Canute himself was wise enough to show his followers that by ordering the sea back, the sea did not listen to him. Well, this hon. Deputy Minister certainly does not do that. He does quite the opposite.

Has he got any followers?

I might say that the little lecture he read to the Federated Chamber of Industries was equal to the cheek displayed by him when he instructed urban officials in Sharpeville the other day not to provide luxury amenities for the African in the townships. He did not say “ordinary amenities”, and I will not do him the injustice of saying that he did say so. He referred to luxury amenities. It must not be made too comfortable for the Bantu, he said. Now, he was saying that about a community in which the average unskilled wage is less than R10 per week and where the poverty datum line today is R55 a month for a family of four. And yet the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking about luxuries! Mr. Speaker, once those families have paid for their food requirements, for their transport and have paid their rent they will be lucky to have a few cents left over to buy themselves the necessary clothing and one or two little, tiny luxuries of life. And yet the hon. the Deputy Minister talked about not providing them with luxuries! It really is quite ridiculous.

I want to know what he means by the so-called suicidal nature of the increase of the African population on the Rand between 1936 and 1960. What does he mean by these dramatic terms? Let me tell him that far from being suicidal, it was this influx of Africans to the Rand that enabled the whole war effort to be carried out. He knows perfectly well, because in those days he was pro-war, that the entire war supplies effort was carried out on the Witwatersrand. It was as a result of those industries which grew up there during the war, industries which could not function for a single day without African labour, that we have been able to develop further industries and build up technical and other ties with other countries and industrialists overseas, ties which have stood us in good stead up to this very day and are still standing us in good stead. The development of other areas, such as Vanderbilpark and Vereeniging, were made possible thereby. It helped to develop our growth factor in South Africa. What is dangerous about all this, might I ask? The shanty towns? I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that these should never have been allowed to grow up. But I also agree with the hon. member for Benoni that these shanty towns grew up because the City Council of Johannesburg did not spend a bean on Native housing, to their everlasting shame. But there is no intrinsic reason why these shanty towns should have grown up because if the authorities had provided the necessary funds for housing they would not have developed. Moreover, it is a normal phenomenon in countries in the period of transition to industrialization—people come in from the rural areas, housing springs up and communities are established. There is no reason why we should not meet these demands, with goodwill and with the provision of the necessary funds.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that if Africans were to be allowed to live in white areas they would sooner or later have to be granted political rights. But does this not apply also to Africans on white farms? Do Africans vanish the moment they leave the urban areas? Ironically enough, it was one of the members of the Federated Chamber of Industries who pointed out that the ratio of Black to White was the most favourable in the highly industrialized areas in the Transvaal, and best of all on the Witwatersrand. In the Transvaal only .9 per cent of the total area has this so-called favourable ratio of White to Black, of almost 1:1. This happens to be largely in the Johannesburg area, Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and Pretoria—the main industrial centres of South Africa. For the Transvaal as a whole the ratio is 32 White to 100 Blacks. In the established industrial areas it is 62 Whites to 100 Blacks. As far as the white/black employee ratio is concerned the Deputy Minister himself gave us some interesting figures. For the central Witwatersrand it is 1:1.9; for the West Rand 1:2.4; for the East Rand 1:3.9; and in the Vanderbijlpark area it is 1:1. But I wonder what is the ratio on white farms—one White to how many dozens of Africans? And in the so-called border areas, one White to how many hundreds of Africans? Sir, this whole concept is nonsense —from beginning to end. It is all based on the ridiculous idea that if we could only banish the black people from our white cities they would disappear altogether, or at least lose every bit of political significance they have ever had. This is nonsense because they are still there; they are still in South Africa. As I have said, the ratio of White to Black is far less favourable in the rural white areas of South Africa and in the border areas than it is in the highly industrialized white areas. These are the facts and hon. members should deny them if they can.

Let us now look at the economics of this whole proposition. The hon. the Deputy Minister says “mechanize”, “automate”. But if it would pay the industrialist to mechanize, he would do so; if it does not, he cannot afford to do so. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to subsidize him? Of course he is not. “Automate” he says, but automation is a very expensive process. Automation and highly mechanized transitions only take place in completely industrialized countries and South Africa is not yet this. At present it still has a dual economy although it is becoming a highly industrialized economy. But as yet it is not yet fully industrialized. But does the hon. the Deputy Minister think that those countries who have mechanized have just banished their workers? No, they plan, they retrain them, they redeploy them in other occupations. In England and America, for instance, there are enormous programmes devoted entirely to the training and redeployment of labour which goes from handcrafts into the mechanized and automated industries. But the hon. the Deputy Minister just waves a wand and tells the industrialists that they must automate and mechanize. He is not interested in those sectors that cannot mechanize. There are jobbing factories which cannot mechanize. All sorts of difficulties arise. But the hon. the Deputy Minister does not think about them.

I must say this for the hon. the Deputy Minister, that he did not just say that the labour should be kicked out and left there. He said he realized that influx control was a negative instrument and he said that we would have to provide some incentive in the rural areas to attract the Bantu labour which he was going to stop and turn back from the highly industrialized areas.

Let us have a look at what has happened so far as a result of these incentives. The Bantu Investment Corporation has since its inception, about eight years ago, invested R4.25 million in industry, in projects inside the reserves, and thereby it has provided work for 631 Africans. Now that is really progress! No wonder the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said he was not satisfied and that he would reexamine the whole thing. Unless he changes his mind and adopts what the Tomlinson Commission recommended, and allows white capital in the reserves, he will continue to have this ridiculously slow rate of development, an investment of R4.25 million, giving employment to 631 Africans.

Then there are the border industries. This is the great white hope of the Government. The Minister says these people are. happy because “they sleep with their families at night and they are in their own cultural environment and do not have any of the difficult adaptations that the raw Bantu labourer has when he comes to the Witwatersrand”. Well, I am touched by his concern for these people, but I can tell him that if the African people are given the choice they would still prefer to go to the industrial areas where they are paid decent wages, or at least something more approximating to decent wages—I would not say they are entirely decent, by any means—than the wages they get paid in the border industries.

Why do you not tell that to Harry Oppenheimer?

Why does the Minister not lay down a minimum wage rate? That is the important thing. The Government has to set the lead, and I have moved a private member’s motion in this House to that effect. It is the Government’s job to set decent minimum wages, and it is not the job of the individual industrialist. [Interjections.] So far R300 million have been invested in border industry and it has provided jobs for 41,000 Africans. At this rate we will have to invest R3,000 million to provide half a million jobs, not to mention the unfavourable ratio of Whites to Blacks which will be created in what is, after all, white South Africa. Now I know about the additional jobs that have been created, the fringe jobs resulting from the employment of 41,000 workers. That is said to have amounted to 100,000 jobs in five years, but I want to remind the Minister that the natural increase of Africans into Johannesburg alone, let alone influx, means that we will need new jobs for a minimum of 100,000 Africans in the next five years.

I want to say that this meeting of the Minister with the Federated Chamber of Industries as far as I can see served one good purpose anyway, and that is that the Minister can at least no longer stand up in this House, as he has done time and again, and tell us that he has the approval of the industrialists for his plans to decentralize. He says they approve of decentralization, but they have made it very clear to him that the only form of decentralization that they approve of is the form which everybody in this House obviously approves of, and that is economic decentralization, when it is done on an economic basis; and then it is not done for one ethnic group only, but for the whole of the labour force in that particular industry, because industry is a corporate body and it does not deal with ethnic groups.

You cannot just move one part of the labour force and leave the other. Decentralization on an economic basis has taken place in South Africa. Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging are a form of decentralization from Johannesburg. Sasolburg is a form of decentralization. Phalaborwa of course will develop, not because the Government was so clever as to put a Bantu reserve next to a copper deposit, but quite the other way around, because the Government was lucky enough that South Africa found copper deposits in an area adjacent to a Native reserve. That is why Phalaborwa will develop. Hammarsdale is developing, despite the lack of facilities provided by the Government. The least it can do is to provide some sort of incentive in the form of transport and power and other facilities. But Hammarsdale has only developed because it happens to lie between two big industrial areas, at Maritzburg and Durban. Rosslyn has only developed … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton complained here because the Bantu were receiving such low wages. Is there a maximum wage determination in this country? Why does Mr. Oppenheimer and his industrialists not pay their Bantu workers more? Who is preventing them from doing so? No, I shall tell you what the position is. If we were to determine a minimum wage, the industrialists would be the first ones to say that they can no longer operate economically. But I shall tell you what part is being played by this hon. member and her companions. Fortunately they are playing their part openly and the others are playing it secretly. The part played by her and her friends in this country is that they want a free inflow of Bantu labour into the urban areas so that they may become millionaires, and they do not care about what happens to those Bantu.

If the late Dr. Verwoerd had not bullied them into providing housing for those Bantu they would still have been living in those shanties. But then the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) talks about incompetence. Not only did they have to be bullied into building those houses, but at the moment Soweto is working at a loss of almost R800,000 a year to the Johannesburg City Council, and why? Because they do not manage it properly. But next to Soweto, Meadowlands and Diepkloof are situated, and we do not show a loss on Meadowlands and Diepkloof. To tell you the truth, if we were to transfer Meadowlands and Diepkloof to the Johannesburg City Council we would be giving them a present—as regards expenditure over the past few years up to the present moment—of more than R5 million. Then one would really see shambles. But it is because they do not collect their rentals and because they do not care about what they are building there or how they are carrying on, that they are showing that loss, and the ordinary taxpayer of Johannesburg has to pay for that. Then this hon. member objects to permits which have to be issued.

It stands to reason that she will object to that, because she does not believe in influx control and she does not believe in separate residential areas or in separate social amenities. As far as she is concerned, there should be no permits, because she has the advantage that she is in a position to buy her apartheid, she and her friends. That is why they want to have so many Bantu labourers in the urban areas. That is why they want to have a pool of loafers in Johannesburg, so that they may enrich themselves. But I shall tell her what I regard as a deadly hazard and as suicide, and that is allowing this stream to enter the urban areas, which she and these hon. members intend to allow in an unrestrained manner, and I shall prove it. This hon. member openly admits and says that she knows that there will be a black government in South Africa. Does she want to deny that? Her leader rose in this House and said that there would be a black government in this country, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

But I have forgiven her that, because she believes in that; that is her point of view and she admits it openly. Therefore I am not going to argue with her. Why should I? She is a fine lady, and in addition it is quite useless to argue with her. I can think of other things which will not be as useless. She is a narrow minded liberalist, as I call it. She believes in old economic theories which have become obsolete long ago. She believes that economic theories and laws are there to do with people just as they please, but, surely, economic theories are not the master of man; man and the nation are the masters of economic theories and laws, and man harnesses them as he deems fit. The hon. member says that I want to stem the tide with a broom, that I shall have no success, but for the past three Sundays, the Sunday Times has been complaining that I have landed the industrialists in the Cape in a crisis because they are unable to obtain workers, because I am removing Bantu workers from the Cape at too fast a rate. According to them I have already put a stop to the inflow of Bantu labourers into the Western Cape. According to them I have already reversed the flow. But what does the hon. member for Rosettenville say? He says that I am letting many in through the back door whilst shunting a lot of them out again through the front door, but he complains that I am killing the industries of the Cape. Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you precisely what is happening in the Cape. What has happened now is that the industrialists and all other employers of Bantu labour have taken the Government seriously where it says that Bantu labour will no longer be available on demand. Their acceptance of this fact has had a few very good effects. Never before have industrialists and other employers in the Western Cape looked harder for Coloured labourers than is the case at present; they are even recruiting them in the Transvaal, and we shall help them and the Minister of Coloured Affairs will also help them. A second effect this has had, is the following: Never before have employers in the Western Cape and especially industrialists rendered more assistance in training Coloured labour than is the case at present. At present they are exerting themselves to train Coloured manpower and to recruit Coloured labour. I shall tell you how far they have gone: The very same Cape Chamber of Industries about which the hon. member inquired, has appointed a special committee which has no function other than to advise industrialists on how to obtain Coloured labour, how to train them better and how to manage with less Bantu labour. I regard that as a major victory. But they are going much further. At present those very same people are planning industrial townships in the Western Cape, and they are agreeable to the insertion of the following condition in the conditions on which those industrial townships are to be established, namely that any factory which opens there, may never employ Bantu. That is a very great step forward. What does the Cape Town City Council say? According to Die Burger of 20th December, 1966, the Cape Town City Council adopted a special motion in which they say the following (translation)—

In other words, what the Cape Town City Council is pleading for is that Bantu labour should no longer be used here. It was Mr. Goldberg, the Chairman of the Chamber of Industries itself, who said at that meeting, which I had convened, that they supported the Government’s policy in respect of the removal of Bantu labour from the Western Cape, because, according to their own survey, by 1980 there would be 800.000 Coloureds in the Western Cape who would have to be given employment, and where would they find employment if we did not remove the Bantu from the Western Cape? That is what was said by Mr. Goldberg, the chairman of the Chamber of Industries, and then the hon. member says that I do not have the support of the Chamber of Industries. But the announcement of this policy had a second favourable effect, namely that at present Bantu labour in the Western Cape is being used on a much more economic basis. I shall mention to her two examples. I have already made mention here of the large milling company which asked me for 80 contract Bantu because they had employed 80 contract Bantu the previous year. I told them that they could not have 80; that they could have 80 minus 5 per cent—in other words, only 76—but on one condition and that was that they themselves provided those Bantu with housing. They agreed and we asked them to submit their plans for approval. The following week they submitted their plans along with engineers’ reports, but at that stage they did not ask for 76; they asked for 42, and we have not heard a word of them since. I shall mention a second example: Another industry at Kuils River asked me for a permit for 35 additional Bantu. The argument they advanced was that they had planned their new factory before this announcement was made. They employed 15 Coloureds and 10 Bantu and they wanted an additional 15 Bantu. I told them that if they already had 15 Coloureds in their employ, they could recruit additional Coloureds. I refused to grant them 35 Bantu. The following week they wrote me a letter in which they asked whether I would be so kind as to let them have 20 Bantu, and they also guaranteed that they would decrease their number of Bantu workers by 33⅓ per cent every year. Mr. Speaker, I say that here in the Western Cape and in all the urban areas and amongst all industrialists there has been an appalling waste of Bantu labour, because industrialists and other employers could obtain as much Bantu labour as they wanted. But I am going further; I think that my Department and I have achieved a very great deal of success in the past three months during which we have been engaged in doing this, because during the past three months my Department and I —and the highest credit is due to the Chief Bantu Commissioner—have kept out of the Western Cape 1,500 Bantu in respect of whom permits were requested—1,500 Bantu who would otherwise have entered the Western Cape.

How many factories are bankrupt?

Yes, I wonder how many factories are bankrupt. On the contrary, they have all increased their production. If the United Party had been in power, they would have allowed those 1,500 Bantu to enter on a family basis, and a family basis of five—which is a very low basis amongst the Bantu—would have meant that if I had not taken action, if I had not put my foot down, there would have been an inflow of an additional 7,500 Bantu into the Western Cape during the past three months. I am making no secret of that; I am proud of that achievement. As the hon. the Minister has said, there is not a single factory which has gone bankrupt or which is producing less as a result of this. To tell you the truth, their production is increasing. I can quote numerous examples to prove that their production is increasing. Take, for example, Hume Pipe’s quarry here at Bellville. They employed 300 Bantu. At present they employ 46 and they produce 300 per cent more stone than they produced when they employed 300 Bantu. In which respect does production suffer? I want to mention another example, namely that of the Nasionale Pers which decided 10 years ago to replace all their Bantu labour by Coloured labour. At present there is not a single Bantu in the employ of the Nasionale Pers in the Western Cape. Did their production suffer as a result? What sheer nonsense! I realize and my Minister realizes and Deputy Minister Vosloo realizes that the steps we are taking are not sufficient. We realize that we cannot leave the matter at merely removing the Bantu from the Western Cape and from other metropolitan areas; we realize that it has to go hand in hand with creating opportunities for work in the border areas and within the Bantu homelands themselves; hence our policy of border industries. We have already achieved a great deal within a short period. The permanent committee has not been active for longer than five years and an amount of R300 million has already been invested in it—not Government funds, but R300 million which came from the I.C.D. and from private industries.

[Inaudible.]

I have found out that hon. member who made that interjection. He talked a lot of nonsense. I am not including the factory of Sappi at Tugela, in which undertaking alone R50 million has been invested; I am not including the factories of the Frames group; I am including factories which applied to the permanent committee for assistance, because these are the only factories of which we have any record. They are already employing 50,000 Bantu, and the future looks promising; new points of growth are being established in border areas throughout the country. Industrialists are becoming increasingly convinced that they should go to the border areas. I am giving away no secret in saying that Anglo-American is planning a factory on the borders of Natal and the Transkei, a paper factory in which they will invest R25 million shortly. They are going to apply for border industries benefits. It is growing by the day. Yesterday the hon. the Minister referred to legislation which will be introduced. I hope that that legislation will still be piloted through this year. That legislation will provide, inter alia, that certain Bantu labour-intensive industries may not be established in certain metropolitan areas. Where may they be established then? There is only one place where they may be established and that is in the border areas, and, under certain circumstances, in the Bantu homelands themselves. I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) the following question: Does he have any objection to the fact that such industries as are prohibited from being established in the Western Cape, should be established in East London instead? Come on, speak up! Does he object to that? His Chamber of Industries has no objection to that. The hon. member for East London (City) should at least start telling us what his views are. What does the hon. member for East London (North) have to say? Does he have any objection to factories which may not be established here, being established in East London? What does the hon. member for King William’s Town have to say? Does he have any objection? What do the two hon. members of Pietermaritzburg have to say? Do they have any objection to the fact that such industries as would have been established on the Witwatersrand and are now prohibited from being established there, should be transferred to Pietermaritzburg?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Transkei is being honest for the first time in his life; no, I beg your pardon, for the second time. [Interjections.] Yes, quite a few times. He says that he would welcome it if they were to come to the borders of the Transkei. I am asking him whether he would welcome it if they were to go there.

Have you ever been honest?

Yes, ever since I joined the National Party. Before that time I do not guarantee anything. [Interjections.] I anticipate—and this is a logical consequence— that when we introduce this legislation, we shall see fantastic expansion in the border industries and also in the homelands. Let me repeat what the advantages of border industries are. Those people are sleeping with their families. They may purchase the land on which they live. The industries serve as a catalytic agent which brings other things. Every-penny a Bantu earns in a border industry, he spends in his homeland and amongst his own people. As a result shops, and so forth, will be provided and all these things will belong to the Bantu. It will create more opportunities for work. [Interjections.] That hon. member should go and see what is happening there. What does he know? The trouble with that hon. member is that if one brings him on this side of the Drakensberg and one spins him around three times, he does not know where he is. If those Bantu who are spending their money in their own homelands, were to work in urban areas, they would spend 99 per cent of their money in the white area. That is why hon. members are so eager to have them here. I want them to be there where they may spend their money amongst their own people and where it is possible for their own people to own shops, fish-shops, and so forth.

Another reason is that it is much cheaper to employ Bantu in the border industries. Land is much cheaper. [Interjection.] What is the price of land in Johannesburg? May I just explain this to that hon. member. Land is cheaper and services are cheaper. It does not cost much to construct a tarred road at Rosslyn, but consider the cost of flyovers in Johannesburg at present. They cost a thousand times more. What is it other than a part of the infrastructure which is being necessitated by the over-concentration of people there? It stands to reason that it costs more. Those hon. members should ask the hon. member for Hillbrow. He will admit that to them. After all, he does know something about the economy.

The most important advantage of border industries is that those industries will, in the first place, assist in absorbing the natural increase in the population of the Bantu homelands and later also the surplus Bantu that will be there as a result of ever-increasing mechanization. The hon. member for Houghton may scoff at mechanization. If she knows what is happening in this country, she will not scoff at it so. It is exactly the same economic process which took place in England, in London, in Greater London, in Paris, in Milan, and it will also take place in this country. But we are going further. We do not merely leave the matter at border industries.

When is all this going to happen?

It is already happening. [Interjections.] In addition to the border industries greater development should take place in the Bantu homelands in all fields, namely as regards agriculture, mining, commerce and industry. Tremendous progress has already been made, as my colleague will point out later. But we realize, as the Minister said yesterday, that that development has to take place at a faster rate. He explained yesterday how that might be done. Then those hon. members said that it was their policy which we had taken over. What is their policy in regard to white capital in the homelands? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it had to be free capital. Am I correct?

Yes.

Yes, in other words, uncontrolled capital. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that there should be a measure of control. What measure of control should there be? Should there be more control than there is in respect of industries which are being established in Cape Town? Should there be more control than there is in respect of industries which are being established in Johannesburg, or should there be the same measure of control? [Interjections.] No, Sir, they also made a pretence of wanting control, but they do not know how much. I shall tell you what their policy is. Their policy is to allow white capital and white initiative into those areas in an unrestrained manner, to allow industrialists, traders, farmers and attorneys into those areas. Our policy makes provision for the utilization of white capital and white initiative, defined very clearly on the agency basis. The agency basis can mean many things. It is a basis of an agreement previously agreed to by the industry in question and the B.I.C., the X.D.C. or the Trust. Such an agreement may differ from industry to industry, but there are two hard and fast conditions which we lay down, namely no ownership of land and no permanence. Permanence is also an elastic term which will differ from industry to industry. However, there is nothing new here. It is precisely the same policy Dr. Verwoerd announced in 1962, and we are simply elaborating it further. This morning one of the largest contracting firms of South Africa approached me—not at my request, but at their own request—volunteering to act as our agent in the Bantu homelands on conditions laid down by us. This matter is as yet only in its initial stages. At a later stage we can discuss it further.

I want to conclude by telling the Opposition that they are becoming a disgrace to the political scene in South Africa. They refuse to state an alternative policy so that one may argue about it. They are too lazy to think. All they can do is to try to make our policy ridiculous and to poke fun at it, to scoff at it. They have become the foolish mockers in South African politics. Think of the ridiculous questions asked by the hon. member for Durban (Point). What did he ask yesterday? Then he thought that he had scored a terrific “bull point”. He asked, “Are you satisfied with the position of the workers in South Africa?”. The answer is obvious. I am satisfied and we are all satisfied that the position of the workers in South Africa under this Government is better than it will be under any other Government. For that reason not only us, but also the workers are satisfied. [Interjections.] But, of course, we are not satisfied with their position. That is why we are trying to improve it every day. We are satisfied with nothing that can be improved. Who is satisfied? I am not satisfied with my Department as it is. It has to be improved. Things I have to do, have to be done better. That applies to every Department of this Government. There is not one of us who is satisfied with the position as it is. It has to be improved further every day and every year. The only people who are satisfied with themselves, are those 39 members who are sitting on the other side. They are satisfied with a musty old policy with which they no longer know what to do. They are satisfied with playing the fool instead of thinking. They are satisfied with scoffing instead of being constructive. They are satisfied with seeing the Black man overrunning the white areas. They are satisfied with seeing the white man exploiting the Bantu as much as he possibly can, and they are satisfied with remaining the Opposition. That is why they are the only people who are satisfied with themselves, but nobody else is, and that is why they will shrink and shrink and shrink.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has finished bullying the United Party in respect of the Western Cape situation. But I want to try to take a calm further look at the Western Cape situation. I want to take up the argument where it was left off by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that it is a fact that the United Party wishes to blacken the Western Cape. That is the basis of the attitude of the United Party in the Western Cape at present. That makes it a party of doom in respect of the situation in the Western Cape, here where the cradle of the white man is standing, in this region which is exclusively the dwelling place of the white man and the brown man. Here the United Party wishes to lend permanency to a black majority in South Africa. That, I say, makes the United Party the Party of the worst doom we have ever known in South African politics. I want to examine this situation in the Western Cape somewhat more calmly. The fact remains that the future development pattern here in the Western Cape in respect of certain basic aspects has in recent times been placed under the spotlight repeatedly. Coming from what I want to call the “oldest environment”, from which the Republic of South Africa originally grew, this is a noteworthy fact, and I shall tell you why. It reflects the spirit that here in the Western Cape we seek purposefully to create and plan our own future, and that we do not want to leave it to fate in this region, which is the cradle of the white man.

Now I want to mention some aspects in respect of the future development pattern of the Western Cape which have been under the spotlight in recent times. I just want to mention them, without detailed motivation. Firstly there was what I would call this dramatized attempt on the part of the Government as regards the policy to reduce and eliminate the Bantu in the Western Cape gradually. In recent times this clear stand taken by the Government also compelled the Opposition in South Africa to take a clearer stand in respect of the Western Cape. And as I have said, what does the stand taken by the Opposition in the Western Cape amount to? As though the white-brown confrontation in the Western Cape does not tax our wisdom far enough in this region, the United Party is virtually set on entrenching in the Western Cape what I would call a threefold symbiosis, a threefold symbiosis in which white man and brown man and black man are destined to permanent friction. For note this, Mr. Speaker, the United Party does not believe in boundaries. It does not believe in boundaries for the establishment of good neighbourship. That is why I say it is a fact that this is the effect of the United Party’s attitude in respect of the future pattern in the Western Cape.

Here is a second aspect I want to mention. During the past session we passed legislation here to lend greater effective power to the labour of the Coloureds, who form a permanent minority group here in the Western Cape. This is important legislation which affects certain basic aspects in respect of the creation of a new pattern for the future in the Western Cape.

I want to mention a third matter. In fairly responsible circles it has been mooted whether it is not possible to concentrate semiskilled white labour in the Western Cape. I merely mention this as a fact which amongst others has been mooted in the process of thinking about this new pattern for the future. I leave it at that. The Slater report was published. It was released and it had the basic effect that the perspective of Cape Town within the entity of the Western Cape was restored. In particular the analysis of the population makeup of the Cape Peninsula in years to come points to new social tension unless we deliberately create new patterns with a view to the future of this area.

Finally, urgent representations and evidence have been directed to the Water Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Professor S. P. du Toit in the Paarl Valley in respect of the water supply, which affects our basic existence in this region, from the Berg River Valley. In these representations the emphasis was placed among other things on one very important aspect, namely the fact that sincere alarm has been expressed about the indications that Cape Town wishes to make even greater inroads on the water resources of the Berg River. A closer analysis of only a few of the basic aspects affecting the future pattern of this important area confronts one involuntarily with the situation that one question must most certainly be asked today in respect of the future pattern in the greater Western Cape entity. What is that? It is, namely, this pertinent question: Has the time not come that even at this stage we should purposefully meet the problems of excessive industrial concentration in the complex surrounding the Cape Peninsula, with a view to the industrial development pattern of the Western Cape? Decentralized regional planning to meet the symptoms of overdevelopment in the Peninsula even at this stage cannot be left in abeyance any longer. Why not? It is quite clear that the attraction of the Cape Town in the Western Cape entity is at present much larger than the combined attraction of the surrounding Western Cape towns. This snowball effect at the focal point there in the Cape Peninsula will have to be stopped by means of balanced development at other points of growth elsewhere in the Western Cape. In this process, through the creation of new points of growth on the industrial level in the Western Cape, a more serious effort will have to be made to achieve the wider national objectives of separate development, particularly in respect of eliminating Bantu labour; the question to what extent our future economy in the Western Cape will eventually be built solely and exclusively on Coloured labour, and afterwards greater participation by the white man himself in respect of the development of a future pattern in the Western Cape.

To motivate my plea for the deliberate creation of new points of growth, particularly on the industrial level, I want to elaborate somewhat on some of my statements. In the first place, let us consider the future population makeup here in the Cape Peninsula. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred to this. An analysis of the population trend in the Peninsula shows very clearly that within one generation in the future we are going to concentrate a million people, of whom less than half will be White, in the industrial centres of the Cape Peninsula and within a radius of less than 20 miles. The Slater Report predicted that the Peninsula population would grow to more than two million within the next 35 years. That is in the Cape Peninsula alone. As regards the Coloured potential in the Cape Peninsula I have here in my hand a statement issued last year by Mr. J H. Niemand, Secretary for Community Development. In it he tries to present a picture in respect of the development of the Coloured as part of the Peninsula complex. Here he pictures what will be done in respect of Coloured housing within the next five years in the Peninsula alone. This is what he says (translation)—

You will therefore see, Sir, what is developing here in the Western Cape. Within a few years the number of Whites in the Peninsula region are going to be in the minority. Here a metropolis—a new Coloured stan—is actually developing. I want to drop this argument for the while—I do not want to pursue it any further at this stage.

The next point I want to deal with is the question of over concentration in the Cape Town area. It is true that some seven, eight years ago we told each other here in Cape Town—and I was one of those who said that —that we were falling behind as regards industrial growth in this region. We urged the Government that a new stimulus should be provided here. And how different things are today! Note, Sir—we have received no large projects from the State in recent times. It appears as though the Rietvlei project, to which all Cape people looked forward, has gone by the board. But apart from that the fact of the matter is that in 1959 and 1960 there were 1,577 industrial undertakings in the Peninsula alone. At present they number more than 1,600, and this number represents more than 11.52 per cent of the total number of undertakings in the Republic. Only Johannesburg has more industrial undertakings than the Peninsula. Having regard to the fact that the Western Cape received no large projects from the State, it is a compliment to the initiative of our local industrial leaders and technicians here in the Peninsula.

And now they are being deprived of their labour.

No, I am coming to that. That is the very point I want to deal with. Let us consider the next basic aspect of our future pattern here in the Western Cape. Let us consider our water. Water is the sine qua non for all future development in the Western Cape. It appears to me—or in any event rumours suggest—that the situation in this regard is going to become more and more difficult here in the Peninsula. At the moment it is planned and the future pattern is that additional water will be brought to the Peninsula complex from a dam to be built at Assegaaibosch, and the wall of the Voëlvlei Dam will also be raised. By these means additional water will be brought into the Peninsula. Let me say at once, Sir, that I have certain misgivings on this score. It makes it more difficult for posterity to maintain a balance between water consumption and water supply if in principle we allow water to be conveyed on a large scale from one area to another. It is not correct; in principle it is not the correct thing to do. Consider, for example, what is now happening in the Vaal Triangle. There we now have trouble because there was no timeouts planning in respect of the future pattern of that important complex. Now water has to be brought from other areas on a large scale to make the future pattern possible in that area. We shall have to decide more and more for what purposes we are going to utilize water in future, once the State has conserved it. There is the popular scientific calculation that if 1,000 gallons of water is conserved and used on the industrial level it is provided on the utilization pattern of R5.60 per 1,000 gallons. By irrigation farming 1,000 gallons of conserved water yields only 10c. Dry land and grazing farming yield R3.80. In other words, in South Africa we have reached the situation that when we consider water planning, we should first plan very purposefully for what purposes we are going to utilize that water. Here in the Western Cape it has become more essential than ever that we should determine how we are going to utilize water. It is clear that particularly in respect of irrigation in the Western Cape we shall have to analyse much more clearly where we are going to utilize water on the irrigation level. Here I have a portion of a speech made by the former Minister of Planning. His speech was made in pursuance of the report of the auxiliary committee of the N.R.D.C. He saw the future pattern here in the Western Cape as follows (translation)—

Then the hon. the Minister made the following important observation—

I repeat the last few words: “… or whether it should be expanded or amended.” I suggest that when we consider the future pattern in the Western Cape we should have regard to this last statement, “or amended”. I say that this pattern should be amended for if we are going to utilize water in the Peninsula, which is the sine qua non of our entire future pattern and our future existence, then I maintain that in the towns in these regions which are indicated here, in the northern direction, water should not be concentrated primarily on the industrial level. In the above mentioned area the effective force of water should be utilized primarily in agriculture. Now the question arises, when we analyse the entire future pattern of the Western Cape, where the new industrial point of growth should be created. For let me just repeat that it is easier to create new points of growth and to develop those points of growth correctly in respect of the labour pattern for the future as well, then it is to reform, to change the old areas where the labour patterns have become deeply rooted. I say that in the Western Cape we have reached a situation where a new point of growth should be deliberately created by the State. We should decentralize the Cape Peninsula drastically, and we should work to create a new point of growth which should be situated to the West. It is a point of growth which should actually centre on a dam in the lower Berg River at Misverstand. There you have the new industrial future of the Western Cape. That is the direction in which it should develop, and at this stage we shall have to think very quickly and plan more effectively in respect of this pattern.

To summarize, it has become more than time to analyze and direct the urge for expansion in the Western Cape more thoroughly. In this regard I maintain we should have regional planning, a new science which has developed in the hand of mankind in recent years—on the scientific level it is called ecistics; it is a new instrument for the creation of new patterns which Western man has nowadays taken up. In respect of regional planning in the Western Cape we should plan much faster than ever before. It is an instrument which we should use much more effectively in a young country like South Africa, where we have to create new patterns within a divided government structure, for as I said, it is easier to create anew and to create correctly from the outset than it is to reform old and deeply rooted labour patterns.

As I was listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, and now also to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I got the impression that they had lost their faith in the basis of their own policies. As I understood that policy, as formulated by the previous Prime Minister, it was that there should be political segregation of White and Black in South Africa, but that for the rest economic interdependence would remain; and that it would not matter how much migrant labour there was or where people worked, because it would be necessary with a view to our economic interdependence, but that the segregation would be political segregation. Whence, then, this rabid crusade to “clean” the Western Cape of black labour? How does that tally with the policy as expounded hitherto by Government leaders? Let me tell the Deputy Minister what the attitude of this side is. No one on this side is in favour of wastage of labour. That is the wrong principle, and where it exists it should be combated. Nor has anybody any objection to industrial decentralization. It is something which is done throughout the world and it is a sound policy, and we have no objection to that principle. But what we do object to is the blunt approach shown by the Government whenever it handles race affairs, an approach which is of no benefit to the Whites. The entire concept of the “removal” of the black people, of driving the Blacks from the Western Cape, is a negative and repugnant approach. If the leaders of a black state in Africa say that they are going to drive out the Whites, we shout that they are savages. We should stop measuring by two standards. We object to the negative approach of the removal of people. Our attitude is that all people in South Africa, every inhabitant, is entitled to work and to find a decent livelihood for himself and for his family.

Wherever he wishes?

Give me a chance. I shall leave no question unanswered. Every citizen is entitled to a good living, and if he cannot find it in one place, he should surely have the right to do so somewhere else. Therefore we on this side have consistently adopted the attitude that we should not adopt a negative line of action but that we should create the possibility of a proper existence for people in the Bantu areas. That is the difference between the two sides. They are behaving as though all white civilization depends on removing a small group of people from the Western Cape, while there are millions in the vicinity of Johannesburg. Why do they not start there? The Government’s approach is to tell a man bluntly that he must get out. We adopt the positive approach of creating opportunities for people in the Bantu areas; of developing them naturally. The approach of removal, and even the use of the term “removal”, will give rise to tremendous bitterness against the white man. That is why we on this side plead continually that the Government should eliminate repugnant elements from policy, and that we should not employ measures which will incite people unnecessarily against the White man.

Do you agree with removal?

No, we do not agree with removal. [Interjections.] I said that every man is entitled to make a living, and if one wants him over there, one first has to create jobs for him there; not drive or force him out; one creates work for him over there. This makes all the difference; we advocate the natural development of the Bantu areas along the lines projected by the Tomlinson Commission. [Interjection.] When I listen to some people it appears to me as though they do not believe that their policy will ever be realized, for is the Transkei not going to become independent shortly? But the Minister says that he will never allow this or that there. Are we not to take the Government’s word that the Transkei will be independent one of these days? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, please, I have very little time and I want to reply to quite a few speakers, but I am being interrupted.

Order!

Does the Minister think for one moment that if the Transkei becomes independent tomorrow they will not adopt the same course as Lesotho and admit foreign capital? What, then, is the object of all these restrictions? Free capital does not prohibit the protection of local interests; on the contrary, we have advocated consistently that local interests should be protected. Free capital enters South Africa from other parts of the world, but that does not mean that in admitting foreign capital South Africa does not also safeguard its own interest. When speaking of free capital we mean capital which is not Government canalized to the extent to which the present Government seeks to control it, for in that way they will never get enough and the policy of developing the Bantu areas will never come to fruition. There is not one student of Bantu affairs who does not hold that one should admit white capital in the normal way if one ever wishes to develop those areas. From the opposite side we are always hearing the story of “prey territories”. If white capital is used in such territories, it signals exploitation and those territories become “prey territories”. Mr. Speaker, that is the language of the socialists. The socialists adopt the attitude that the profit motive means exploitation. The profit motive does not mean exploitation. Our Western capitalistic system, our entire economy, is based on the profit motive. I find it extraordinary that of all governments this should be the one to introduce socialistic terms here and to talk continually about exploitation of the Bantu if we suggest that white capital should help them to develop. We reject that view. We believe that there is nothing wrong with the profit motive; on the contrary, we believe that it is the only basis on which one can hope to develop those areas.

Allow me to say a few words about the Budget. Year after year we come here and listen to the Budget speech, and one need not be an economist to realize by now that it is quite beyond the abilities of the Government to relieve the tax burden borne by the average man. I do not think any reasonable person could deny that the taxes paid at present by the average man in our country are exorbitant. I am not speaking of central taxation only. Taxes are paid to the State, to the provincial administrations, to the divisional councils and to the municipalities. One’s motor car is taxed, and one has to pay a tax even when one buys a house, something which is quite unforgivable. That is something which should not exist in a modern state at all. House buying should be encouraged, not taxed. For the past years the whole theme of the Budget has been increasing burdens on the average man, and it appears to me that taxes which go up—always on the pretext that it is temporary —simply do not come down. The result is that although we are continually boasting of the country’s wealth and prosperity, the average man finds himself in the position that he has to bear heavier and heavier burdens and consequently derives less and less pleasure from the prosperity of the country. By now we have become used to two lines of approach by members on the Government side. The first is that they defend everything done by the Government. It is a pity that Government members should adopt that attitude. No matter what burdens the Government imposes, the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side is to defend them. Surely it does not follow that a man who supports the policy of the Government should take an uncritical view of every from of implementation and should never voice a word of criticism on the implementation of policy. As it is, the Opposition alone have to fulfil the task of critics in Parliament, nowadays. The second line adopted by hon. members on that side is to come here, as the hon. member for Queenstown did the day before yesterday, to wave the Budget book at us and then tell the Opposition: “Tell us where we are to cut expenditure.” Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer that question. What hon. members on that side forget is, firstly, that bad policy costs good money. If one follows the wrong policy, one has to pay good money for it, and a great deal of the expenditure incurred by the Government at present is the result of a wrong policy which another government would have avoided from the outset.

Name an example.

I am coming to that.

Name an example; do not run away.

Give me a chance. Secondly, a government should not slumber in the tents of its fathers. An alert government should be continually looking for opportunities to tighten up and modernize state machinery. Let me give a practical example. Seventeen years ago Parliament introduced population registration. We know that it is an expensive process. Expensive palaces—one may call them card palaces— were built to implement the administration of this general registration of people in South Africa, and hundreds of officials are engaged in the process. But in addition there is a second card palace, the registration of voters. There is actually a third, the registration of able-bodied men. There is even a fourth, the registration of municipal voters, in some of the provinces where they do not use the parliamentary list. Now there is also going to be the registration of Coloureds. I want to confine myself to the registration of voters. I have raised the matter before. Has the hon. the Minister ever checked what it is costing in offices, what it is costing in paper work, what it is costing in time and in an army of officials to operate the system of continuous registration of voters, while people move about in thousands and the list is in any event never more than half up to date at any stage? Recently we had the case of the municipal elections in Johannesburg. In certain wards of 5,000 voters, 2,000 people had moved away. The question that occur to one is whether all this expense is necessary —all the manhours, all the officials and all the paper that is used. One could eliminate the entire machinery by having a general registration a month or two before every general election. The system is followed in other countries. Consider what the State would save by doing so. It is the modern system. Take our elections. We have one system for general elections, one for the House of Assembly and another for the provincial councils. It has happened in our country that a general election was held for the House of Assembly, and three months afterwards the same process was repeated for the provincial councils. A government which wishes to modernize will abolish this system and see to it that we get a system under which voting for both the provincial councils and the House of Assembly takes place on the same day. Why not? Hon. members on the opposite side are slumbering in the tents of their fathers. There is no positive attempt on the part of the Government to modernize matters. [Interjections.] I did not hear that interjection, but I know that there is a problem as regards the Free State and Natal. It is, however, a problem which can very easily be solved. The system there can be brought into line with the system followed in the case of South-West Africa, where the election for the House of Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is held on the same day. It can be done very easily.

One will still need the same number of officials.

If one had an alert government, one which tries positively to find opportunities to tighten up and modernize the State machinery, great savings could be effected in State expenditure, if only one wants to.

I said that the hon. member for Queenstown had forgotten two things. When he asked where we could cut expenses he forgot, in the first place, that a government should always look for ways of modernizing the state machinery. If the Government seeks, it shall find. But what the hon. member is also losing sight of is the fact that the implementation of bad policy costs good money. I can think of many expenses which are the result of the wrong policy and which would not have been incurred under a United Party Government. Just think of the many white elephants of apartheid which will in any event not endure the test of time. Just think of the way in which the Government is continually interfering in the affairs of local governments and is duplicating functions. Just think of the army of officials who are employed to issue permits with regard to who may attend what. These are things which a new government would eliminate. We on this side are therefore fully justified in saying that we will be able to relieve the burden on the nation and that we will spend the money collected by the State on more constructive lines. Let me give a practical example. Just think what expenses the State has incurred in connection with the Government’s interference in sport, its political interference in sport. What has all this cost the country? I mean in terms of money namely State expenditure. I do not want to discuss the details of policy now. That is something which we may perhaps discuss next week. But let us take the financial aspect. What happens time and again is the following: The Government takes a decision, as it took on the issue of overseas sport. It does not think far enough ahead, and a few years later it has to come back and change it. But in the meantime 101 things happen. Not only, for example, are we barred from the Olympic Games in Tokyo or is the rugby test in New Zealand almost wrecked, but the Department of Foreign Affairs has to intervene at great expense. State information has to step in to put out flames. Delegations have to scurry to and fro and everywhere people have to lend a hand to put out flames and to save our country from the follies of the Government. I do not think one could ever really calculate, in terms of money, how much energy, time and money is wasted by Government offices here, by overseas staff and by the staff of State Information in an attempt to help to gloss over faulty decisions by the Government. In recent years it has cost the taxpayer millions of rands. And that is what the hon. member for Queenstown forgets when he waves the Budget book at us. Bad policy which has to be changed afterwards is nothing but a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Government members do not like us saying that they have taken over our policy. I shall formulate it somewhat differently. In Johannesburg we have had the tragic sinkhole incidents. Now, in Westonaria, we have again had the case of two beautiful houses with a tarred road in the middle, where a sinkhole appeared suddenly and the people had to move out. Nowadays sinkholes are developing everywhere in the Government’s policy, and more and more sinkholes are going to develop in the field of Foreign Affairs, in the field of Coloured Affairs, in the field of Bantu areas and the use of White capital. Many sinkholes are going to develop in Government policy in the days ahead. It builds its house, and despite the fact that we warn it that it is on the wrong ground, it pretends to be made of granite. And then a year or two passes, and the next thing one knows there is a sinkhole which brings the granite tumbling down. And then it has to move out and camp on the grounds of the United Party. In the years that have passed considerable amounts of money have been wasted in this way. I say that in years ahead many more sinkholes will develop in the Government’s policy. The pity of it all is that the taxpayer has to foot the Bill for the mistakes made in the meanwhile. Before my time expires I just want to pass this cordial hint to members on the opposite side: Government members become bitterly indignant if anybody, particularly abroad, misrepresents their policy; then they call shame on the heads of those people. How could people misrepresent their policy! But we are always finding that here in this House and outside they take no pains to present the policy of this side correctly. [Interjections.] Yesterday I listened to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) and today to the hon. member for Benoni. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) made the statement that this side advocated the creation of one nation of all races in South Africa. Surely that is not honest politics. South Africa is and always will be a multiracial state. It cannot be anything else. A Zulu will not become a Xhosa nor a Xhosa a White man. It will remain a country of many nations, and nobody on earth will change that. Nobody can change that. Our entire federal concept is in fact founded on two premises. One is the acknowledgement of diversity. We have adopted the federal concept because we acknowledge diversity and its existence, and, secondly, because it is the only way of avoiding domination of one by the other. That is not only the premise adopted by the United Party. It is the premise of countries like Switzerland and South Slavia, in fact, more than half the population of the world lives successfully under federal systems. Because there are numerous countries …

Geographically.[Interjections.]

Yes. Included in the federal concept is the principle of contact and of understanding. I ask members on the opposite side, how do they see contact? Do they regard contact and consultation as integration? Do they consider co-operation as tantamount to fusion? [Interjections.] But I want to give them this cordial hint. We on this side are getting somewhat tired of being slandered continually as integrationists and liberalists in the bad sense. They cannot expect only this side to adopt a responsible attitude. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the level of contact we advocate, on the basis of diversity, signifies integration, then the level of contact, even social contact, which the Government is making is also integration, and then we shall begin to say so.

Hear, hear!

This Government has just decided to allow our sportsmen, White and nonwhite together in one team, together under the South African flag and in the same uniform, to take part in sport overseas. Am I to assume now, according to the arguments directed against us, that this is integration? Are we to assume on these grounds that the Government are integrationists? Do they want us to speak in the same idiom as they do, and to hit back in the same language? Am I justified in arguing along the same lines as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) and in saying that the Government is now advocating the creation of integration? I think the Government should get away from that old type of politics. In some cases we have the whip-hand now. [Interjections.] O yes. We are getting tired of the integration talk. If they want us to be a responsible Opposition in the new area they are entering, we expect them to be responsible, too.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

But I do not think that hon. member is entitled to speak for the Government. But, quite cordially, I say that we are rapidly getting tired of the integration stories and the deliberate misrepresentations of our policy. And if the Government wants us to play the game according to their old rules we say, very well, henceforth we shall do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Benoni asked us about our policy. He read part of a speech by General Smuts. But why did he not read the complete speech made by General Smuts? You see, that is the kind of thing we deplore. [Interjections.] Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, territory such as the Transkei was not created by the National Party. Under the United Party Government there was the Bunga. This Party has always advocated the development of the Bantu areas. In principle we accepted the report of the Tomlinson Commission. In fact, we advocate a much more rapid development than the Government. The Government will never succeed in implementing its plans unless we drive it. [Interjections.] General Smuts expressed it in clear-cut terms, and we do not disagree with that. But what did he add? He said the following—

After he had said all this on page 50, the following is said on page 51—

That tallies with our federal concept. [Interjections.]

Order!

We believe that one may promote the highest degree of territorial separation, but that somewhere above them there should be a place where we must have contact and consultation. Hon. members on that side are so quick to say that this or that policy has never succeeded or will never succeed in Africa. That may be. But what right have they to say that, when the policy of separate development has not yet succeeded? What has actually happened so far? We are as yet in the Sub-A class of the policy of separate freedom. Nowhere has it come to fruition. Nowhere has it come to the point that one could say it has succeeded. The entire policy of separate freedom is founded on a presumption, namely the presumption of acceptance by the Bantu. At the most the Transkei was told, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has now told the Ovambo: “You will be granted the right of self-determination; you can now decide for yourselves whether you want to become independent.” But have hon. members ever considered what would happen if the Xhosa were to say: “No thank you, we regard ourselves as South Africans. We are not going to cut ourselves off from the sources of wealth. We do not accept your restrictions. We want to remain South African citizens.” Are we then back at the policy of baasskap? In South Africa you will find that no policy will succeed unless you get the cooperation of everybody involved.

Yes, we say so too.

Yes, that is what you say. [Interjections.] But where has the policy come to practical implementation? If it were to happen tomorrow that the Xhosa, all the Xhosa in South Africa, decided that they were contented to renounce their broad South African citizenship and to regard only the Transkei with its own citizenship as their country, then the policy would score its first success, but then it would have travelled only one-fifth of the way. The other territories remain. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said yesterday that one cannot have different nations in one political allegiance anywhere. Is he trying to tell me that the Government intends creating a separate state for the Coloureds, as a separate nation in South Africa, an identifiable group? And where? Or for the Indians, or the Chinese group? We shall always have a state of diversity in South Africa. But the difference is that we, as practical politicians, acknowledge the necessity not of fusion but of co-operation and contact and of consultation, because we know that no policy will succeed unless it enjoys the goodwill and the co-operation of everybody. [Time expired.]

today the hon. member for Bezuidenhout really was as meek as a lamb. He made a few statements, however, which one cannot allow to pass with out saying another word about them. Many of the statements are of a similar nature as the interjection he made when the hon. member for Benoni was quoting from the book containing the speeches of General Smuts and put the question to him whether they still believed in General Smuts and his leadership. He then said that he was not a Smuts follower but that he was in fact a Hertzog follower. Now I wonder what he was doing in the United Party from 1939 to 1949 when General Hertzog was not the leader. The hon. member said here that we had announced a new direction in regard to the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. That is a very wrong statement. We announced this policy many years ago. It was announced at a congress of the National Party at Port Elizabeth where the previous Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, was present and he himself announced it as the policy of the National Party, not only with regard to the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape, but from all white areas. Now, in his meekness, the hon. member nevertheless used the dagger. He could not restrain himself from doing so. He was speaking of removal and then, with a great deal of expression and with dramatic gestures he used the words “drive out”. But surely the hon. member knows very well that this Government announced—and for that very reason this process is a slow one—that the Bantu would not be removed from the Western Cape and dumped at another place if there were no employment opportunities for them. [Interjections.] For that very reason the border industries are being established to take these people to those areas. There is no question of people being driven out. That has a bad motive. For whose consumption did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout use the words “drive out”?

For your edification.

No, the hon. member did not use those words for my edification. Here in South Africa those words, i.e. “drive out” are not used in everyday language. The hon. member used them so that they might be used against South Africa somewhere else. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked why we did not make a start in Johannesburg. He said that there were many more Bantu in Johannesburg than in the Western Cape. He said that we should make a start in Johannesburg. We are, however, making a start in the Western Cape for the very reason that we have alternative labour here. We have Coloured labour. We are making a start here. The hon. member ether has not considered the matter very thoroughly or he does not know his geography. We are making a start here in the Western Cape with the removal of Bantu, because once 200,000 Bantu have been removed one would have cleared one half of the white residential areas in the Republic. But there is also another reason. We are doing so because we want to break the contact between the Bantu and the Coloured. We want to put an end to the mixing of these races. I may tell the hon. member that we are doing so with the full approval of the Coloured population in the Western Cape. That is what they too would like to have. They no longer want that mixing of the races. The hon. member asked whether the Transkei was not going to become independent one of these days. With a tremendous gesture he asked, “Is the Transkei not going to become independent one of these days”? Where does the hon. member get the idea of “one of these days”? Where does he get that story of “one of these days”? The hon. member and his Party with their policy of a free inflow of white capital and Whites to the Transkei want to make it impossible for the Transkei ever to become independent. They want to make that absolutely impossible. What we are dealing with is a normal process of growth and the Transkei will become independent when it reaches the natural stage for independence.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the House adjourned for supper, I was still dealing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He made two statements with which I should like to deal. With extravagant gestures he suggested in what way the Government would be able to save money, and he then referred to registration. At the present time, he said, there were three systems of registration in the Republic and the Government could change that into a single system of registration. Let me now tell the hon. member that some years ago, when I was still a member of the Provincial Council, I proposed that the system of the Cape Province be changed, because the Cape Province followed a different system. In the Cape Province municipal voters are not taken from the Common Voters’ Roll as is done in the Transvaal. These rolls are drawn up on the basis of ownership and on the basis of tenancy, etc. Many years ago I introduced a motion in the provincial council—the United Party was in the majority at that time—to the effect that we should change over to the Common Voters’ Roll also in regard to municipalities in the Cape Province, something which his Party opposed and why did it do so? The reason is that his Party cannot even win a municipal election in the Cape Province without the Coloured voters. We are making progress, but unfortunately this National Party Government has to achieve everything the hard way. We shall arrive at the stage when we will also have uniformity in registration, namely when the Coloureds elect their own municipalities in their own areas. But we have to achieve that the hard way, in the face of severe resistance from the Opposition. This then is the type of suggestion the Government gets from the United Party for effecting savings. It means absolutely nothing.

However, the hon. member made another statement. What he really did was to complain, and to see him do so was really a pitiable sight. He said that we did not present their policy correctly. That was his complaint. Which policy of the United Party do we have to present? Where does the United Party stand or where does it lie? I do not think it is standing; I think it is lying on its back. Which policy do we have to present? The Bill of Rights or the Graaff Senate Plan or race federation? But the hon. member made an important announcement today. I have always been under the impression that the United Party’s policy was race federation, but the hon. member said that it was geographic federation. Which policy of the United Party do we have to defend? We shall put it to the electorate; we have never been afraid to put also the United Party’s policy to the electorate, but which one? Is it the sixpence policy or which one? They must please tell us and we shall see to it that justice will be done to them. We shall not allow any injustice to be done to them. We do not allow any injustice to be done to any population group in the country, nor shall we allow any injustice to be done to the United Party “population group”. While listening to the United Party in this Budget Debate, one would swear that we find ourselves in extremely distressing circumstances, in a depression. Sir, the opposite is true. South Africa is and remains the land of milk and honey. All persons who want to work are able to find employment at a good remuneration. The white in South Africa who does not own a car is the exception. One has to look for him. South Africa’s prosperity is visible in our houses, in our offices, on our streets and on our roads. There are very few people in South Africa who are not properly dressed and properly fed. It is in fact for the man in the street on whose behalf they are complaining that provision is being made in this Budget. As regards social and disability pensions, South Africa takes second place to very few countries in the world. But what is more, it is ahead of most countries. Let me now tell the United Party this. It need not have any concern about the man in the street. We on this side of the House represent this country’s man in the street, because we too are men in the street. In our ranks there are no lords or sirs or counts or royalty. They are sitting on that side. Once upon a time they governed South Africa, and what did they do for the man in the street? They employed cheap Bantu labour and made a poor-white of South Africa’s man in the street, because there was no place for him in the industries. They employed cheap Bantu labour and at present they are still pleading for that. The man in the street will never trust them. He trusts the Government and the National Party. The man in the street put the Government in power and will keep it in power.

I do not want to say that we have no problems. This Budget makes provision to combat inflation, a problem we do have. But we only have two problems in South Africa. The one is the big expenditure on Defence. The Government regrets that that is so; that we have to spend so much on defence. We still have poor people in South Africa. I admit that. The Scriptures tell us that we will always have the poor with us, and we do have them. We should like to do more for them but as a result of world conditions we have to pay for our safety. I want to tell the United Party that that is the reason why they do not get anywhere. The man in the street is also prepared to pay for his safety. He is also prepared to make the sacrifices which the National Party Government asks him to make for his safety. For that reason they cannot win through to the ordinary people. The ordinary people see the danger, and United Party members are the last ones who ought to open their mouths. During the last war they made promises to South Africa’s man in the street and promised him a paradise, but what did he get? Hatred and enmity and violence. When he asked for bread, they gave him those things.

But I want to refer to the second problem which this National Party Government has. That is the United Party. The Opposition with which we are saddled is the biggest problem of the Government and the country. The Opposition may say what it likes, but it does form a recognized part of our system of government. As the Opposition forms a recognized part, so does the Leader of the Opposition form a recognized part of our system. In 1946, under the Smuts Government, it was decided to give recognition to the Leader of the Opposition by paying him a higher salary. At that time that could have meant one of two things. The Smuts Government ether realized prophetically that it would not be returned to power, or they wanted to give recognition to a leader of the opposition who had value and could make a contribution to the country’s progress. I think the latter is true. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is not present now. I should have liked to speak to him. The Leader of the Opposition is the highest paid ordinary member of Parliament in this House. Whereas an ordinary member of Parliament is paid R4,000 per annum, the Leader of the Opposition is paid R7,000. He is paid that because the Opposition forms part of our recognized system of government But, like the Government, the Opposition has responsibilities. It has a function to perform; it has a responsibility to the nation, and the Opposition has to keep abreast of the will of the people. Do you know, Sir, that on 29th May, 1967, the present Opposition will have been occupying the opposition benches for 19 years?

In 1948 the nation expressed its will and showed what it wanted in South Africa, and the verdict of the nation was this; we want separate development. In election after election the National Party was returned to power with larger majorities on the basis of that policy and the United Party with smaller numbers, so much so that the United Party at present no longer occupies one side of this House; it occupies a small corner. To-night I want to give some advice to the United Party, and that is that if one wants to fight against the will of the people one will lose. The United Party is on the road which will lead to its total disappearance. We should not like to see that happen. We should like to retain our system of government which has been built up in South Africa at great pains. They are the people who are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. They must stop doing so and only then will there be any hope for them. At each election and at each by-election they tell the people in this country, “Return us to power and then we will show you how we are going to put the Kaffirs and the Hottentots in their place; we will show you that the white man will be master within the framework of our policy of race federation”. But what do they tell the outside world? They tell the outside world that a policy of race federation will give equal rights to every one in South Africa. They are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The United Party is a double-hearted party; a double-barrelled party; for that reason people no longer believe them.

Many things which the Opposition opposed at first, it accepted at a later stage. They announced to the world that South Africa was on the road to becoming a police state. This term “police state” originated in the ranks of the United Party. I have checked in how many debates they used that term. They used it in the debates on the national anthem, in the debates on the flag, on citizenship and on becoming a Republic. Their refrain was that we were on the road to becoming a police state. Subsequently they accepted these things as their own. Some of their candidates issued pamphlets in which they referred to “our Republic”. We must give them credit for that. We want to pay homage to them for that. We are grateful for that. It is no disgrace, if one were wrong, to accept the right thing at a later stage, and in that way they have made a contribution to national unity in the country. However, they can make a larger contribution and it is their responsibility as part of our system of government to do so and my advice to them is this: Accept separate development and then you will be able to make a contribution in South Africa.

An Opposition must not walk behind a government; nor should an opposition walk alongside a government; on the contrary, an opposition must walk in front. If the United Party cherishes the hope of ever winning the confidence of the electorate in South Africa, of ever winning the confidence of the white man in South Africa, of ever winning the confidence of the nonwhite in South Africa— because they too accept this policy and not only in South Africa but this is happening in Africa, they are accepting the Nationalist Party Government—of ever being returned to power in South Africa, then they must assist us in the implementation of this policy, because it is no whim, as they want to make out, it is the policy of the white man in South Africa. It is the policy of the man in the street and even now the Opposition still has another chance to save our system. I want to give them this advice: Help us to save our system but be an opposition in the true sense of the word. It is no disgrace to accept the verdict of the electorate. The National Party under the leadership of Dr. Malan did so in 1943. In 1939 the National Party advocated the neutral point of view. It advocated neutrality in this House and on every platform. I want to ask hon. members of the United Party to read the motion which Dr. Malan as leader of the National Party in this House, moved after the 1943 election.

Peace with the Nazis.

No, that hon. member does not know history. What he is saying is based on hearsay. He has never made a contribution in this House to which it was worthwhile listening. He would like us to take notice of him, but if he wants to tell this kind of story about Nazis here, then one’s blood starts to boil. He has never made any contribution here. The kind of contribution he makes is always based on misrepresentations.

It was a republican motion.

I ask the hon. member to read the motion which Dr. Malan, as leader of the Opposition, moved in this House after the 1943 election. Dr. Malan said, “The electorate has given its verdict”. We all know very well what that verdict was and how it came about that the nation gave that verdict. Dr. Malan said, “My Party and I accept that, because the electorate has given its verdict and henceforth we shall criticize you on your war policy”. On that basis the National Party got the better of the United Party and in 1948 the National Party came into power. I want to ask the United Party to break away from the past, to break away from the rhetoric of the past, to break away from the history of the past and as the Opposition in South Africa to have their feet firmly planted on the ground, like the National Party and the National Party Government, and to deal with South Africa in the light of the present world situation. This policy which they are advocating has never succeeded in any country in the past; it did not succeed in Western Europe. Western Europe was the trouble spot in the world as long as it was the policy to unite people who did not belong together. In earlier days that was called Balkanization; it gave rise to hatred and enmity and war. Since they have drawn boundaries in Europe, there has been peace. [Time expired.]

I am in the unfortunate position to-night of having to follow upon an hon. member on my own side of the House and the reason for it was forecast as long ago as 1953 by the then hon. member for Namib. He spoke here in this House and this is what he said—

That was the prophecy made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am in the position to-night of having to follow upon a member on this side of the House because thousands upon thousands of the voters have supported this side of the House, causing our numbers to increase so overwhelmingly that we have to follow upon one another in debates.

I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here. I told the hon. member for Transkei that I wanted to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to-night, and I expected that the hon. Whip would have decency to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to be present.

When did you tell me that?

I said so during the dinner-hour and the hon. member knows it.

Not to me.

Referring to this side of the House the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used the image of sink-holes to-night, but he is by far the biggest sink-hole in this House. He is such a big sink-hole that two parties have already sunk away in him. On occasion he was the leader of two little parties, admittedly not massive parties, but both of them have disappeared in the sink-hole, and the actions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout lately have been aimed at trying to win a third leadership for himself, and if history should repeat itself, I can only see a major tragedy in the offing, because up to now history has proved that the leadership of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the kiss of death for any little party of which he is the leader, and if he succeeds in his aspirations to any extent, a third party is going to disappear in the sinkhole. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout to-night by way of interjection pleaded his adherence to the old Hertzog principles, in contrast with the Smuts principles. He said by way of interjection to-night that in actual fact he adhered to the Hertzog principles. I now want to judge by his own words to what extent the course set by Hertzog is being followed by the United Party. I refer to Hansard, volume 81, column 704, and I quote what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

He then came to the following conclusion—

That is the hon. member who now says that he is a Hertzog man, but who belongs to a United Party which he himself has said is no longer true to any of the Hertzog principles which they accepted in 1934. Where is the hon. member’s sense of logic? I can only deduce that the hon. member has identified himself with the foolish course they are following or that he was untrue to himself in this House when he said by way of interjection this afternoon that he still adhered to the Hertzog principles. It is simply not so. Sir, we ought to allow the hon. member for Bezuidenhout certain liberties here. His actions are obviously aimed at attracting attention to himself. [Interjections.] If the hon. political “golliwog” for Durban (North) will allow me to continue …

Withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, if you order me to withdraw I shall do so. Looking at him I think it is not really fair to say that he is a political “golliwog”. [Interjection.] The hon. member pleads his lack of hair; he says my remark was not really very fair towards him. If we look at the actions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout we can come to only one conclusion, and that is that his actions are based on one thing and one thing only—attracting attention. I want to say here to-night that the attention he wants to attract is not limited to his House alone, nor to South Africa alone. I have already referred to the fact that at one time he was the leader of two little parties. Now, it will be interesting to know what legacy these two parties of his have left—that is to say, if they left any legacy. Would they perhaps have had audited statements when they were dissolved as parties? And what has happened to the candidates who stood for election all over the country? Where are those candidates? The hon. member is a self-styled democrat and I do not want to deny him that. Just consider how democratically he was elected in his own constituency, Bezuidenhout. We may not deny him that, not the claim that he makes to being a democrat. But the hon. member also has other great talents that we have to examine for a moment. I have already referred to his prophetic talents. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has at last condescended to come and listen to this debate.

He has not missed much.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) says I am talking “claptrap”.

That is so.

But looking at the hon. member I wonder what kind of “trap” he is. I think he is the biggest “trap” for rubbish, political rubbish, one can get. In any case, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a prophecy at one time and I should now like to tell you what he prophesied. It was when he still sat on our side of the House. At that time he said—

Well, this prophecy of his has partly come true—the hon. member’s Party is already turning into a pillar of salt. As a matter of fact, they are solid up to the knees already.

But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is also a great Commonwealth man. He has on occasion expressed his views on the wonderful Commonwealth in which he would like to live. Let us look at some of his observations in this connection. Referring to his little party, one of those “flash in the pan” parties, as he called it himself, the hon. member told us the following, and subsequently followed it up with a political manifesto—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to say to the hon. member for Middelburg, “You are telling a lie”?

Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout use those words?

Mr. Speaker, I never spoke of my Party as a “flash in the pan” party …

Order! If the hon. member used those words, he must withdraw them.

But if I did that I would acknowledge that the hon. member is right. What would then be the position, Mr. Speaker?

Order! The hon. member may not say to another hon. member that he tells lies. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, but he told an untruth.

Order! That is another matter.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words, but I say that what he said is not true.

Actually I could have said that he said that it was not a “flash in the pan” party. That is actually what he said. In this connection I want to refer him to the Cape Argus of 15th February, 1960, in which the following report appeared—

The present hon. member for Turffontein was the chairman of that party! [Laughter.]

The report goes on—

But let us not go into the dark past of the hon. member; let us rather look what he did when he pretended to be a noble man of the people. You know, Mr. Speaker, at one time one could find no greater patriot than this hon. member. In 1952 he was the great patriot, the great man of the people. This is what he said at that time—

He went further and said—

This is the great man of the people, the great hero. This is the great sinkhole into which two political parties have disappeared.

Middelburg must have been hard up for a candidate.

Mr. Speaker, the time will come when the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I will cross swords again. We have already crossed swords indirectly on one occasion, when he brought a group of people wearing khaki coats from Durban and Pietermaritzburg, 250 of them, to come and break up one of our meetings at Glencoe with batons. The hon. member and I are therefore quite old political acquaintances. Therefore he should not try to adopt a holy attitude now.

That is untrue.

What I do hold against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the fact that many of his statements are not intended for the consumption of this House or of South Africa, but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Malmesbury this evening, for overseas consumption. The statements made by the hon. member are intended to find an echo abroad. His statements are dressed in the popular language which easily finds an echo abroad. The hon. member makes this kind of statement in this House from time to time. For example, he says the National Party has created “unfreedom”; that the National Party “undermines democracy”; he says “the powers of the courts have been curtailed, the processes of democracy have been suspended”, and he proceeds to compare South Africa with Nazi Germany. This is a very popular statement we get from the opposite side and it is not intended for domestic consumption …

Not South Africa, but the Government.

It is not intended for internal consumption, because the voters have already indicated on more than one occasion what they think of that kind of rubbish. His statements are intended for foreign consumption. His statements are intended to find an echo in the atmosphere which prevailed overseas towards Nazi Germany. For that reason his statements are dressed in a language which is often somewhat unknown to us, a language which, on the other hand, is quite often used overseas. That is why I say that many of his statements are intended not to harm the National Party as such, but to harm the name of South Africa.

Why do we get this hysteria from the other side? In the first place it is based on frustration. In spite of the so-called democratic pedestal on which hon. members opposite place themselves, the full democratic process in South Africa has cast them into the outer darkness, into the outer darkness of politics. And they are becoming more and more frustrated, hence this type of statement. And their hope of getting into power once again in South Africa in the future based not on democratic ways, but on what the hon. member for North Rand revealed in an unguarded moment, namely on a crisis from outside. During a by-election in Wynberg the hon. member for Wynberg said that they were waiting for a shock from outside. Their future expectations are therefore based on that and not on the normal democratic processes any more, because in spite of their election cry of 1953 “Vote for the right to vote again”, they have been rejected to an even greater extent by the people at every election, and democracy and democratic processes have turned their back on them. For that reason they now place their hopes on other means and they try to transform the image of this Government and to use statements such as those made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to discredit the Government in the eyes of the outside world.

He must have got under your skin.

That is why Senator Cadman, a colleague of the hon. member for Durban (Point), who is particularly talkative after a good meal to-night, spoke of “Death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa”.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said so in this House. Those words are recorded in Hansard and the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows it. The more noise the hon. member makes the more he shows that he is guilty. He knows that he is guilty. He knows that has been said. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave says that I know what I say is untrue. I leave him to your mercy, Sir. There are enough members on my side of the House who know it is true.

Order! Did the hon. member for Musgrave say to the hon. member for Middelburg that he knows what he says is untrue?

Mr. Speaker, I said he ought to know it is untrue.

And I say to you it is so.

There are enough members on my side of the House who know that the hon. Senator Cadman did say that. He was the member for Zululand in this House at that time. He said, “Death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa”. He even went further and said, “It is a matter for great hilarity for members on the other side of the House”. [Interjections.] They do not impress the voters of South Africa with that kind of talk. We have the election results as proof of that. They do not impress the voters of South Africa. They have tried at every election to drive in a wedge between the voter and the National Party as deeply as they could. They did not miss any opportunity of doing so. Therefore one can draw only one conclusion from this hysteria of theirs. When they refer to the S.A.B.C. as a “Zeesen transmitter” it only means that they are being consumed by their frustration because the voters of South Africa now get the true picture over the radio of what is going on in South Africa. This hollow laughter of theirs is heard only because they are afraid of the truth which is being, broadcast over the S.A.B.C. to the voters. They have not succeeded in luring away one single member of the National Party with those tactics. They did not even succeed in winning over any of that small group of traitors of the white man in South Africa during the election—even they were not prepared to make common cause with the Opposition. They want to impress the outside world. But I want to tell the Opposition that their ill-considered policy is not even acceptable to the outside world. If they hope to create sufficient chaos in South Africa, if they hope to create conditions here which will bring about a change from outside, they will not be the people who will be asked to form an alternative government in South Africa. Not even the hon. member for Houghton is red enough to be accepted by the outside world as an alternative. If chaos should come, the chaos they are trying to bring about with their statements, their irresponsible statements, then Mandela and Sobukwe will be asked to form the alternative government here. The Opposition will not be asked to do so. We are not concerned that they may succeed in their attempts: we have proof that they will not, we have the judgement of the highest court in this country, namely the voters of South Africa, who have declared themselves in favour of this National Party time and again.

Do you place the electorate above the court?

The electorate is the highest authority in South Africa. Time after time that electorate has declared itself in favour of this Party, and that is why the Opposition looks as it does to-night.

In the time left to me I want to refer to a few other matters …

To finance as well.

I do not necessarily have to discuss finance. If I were asked by an expert to talk about finance, I would not mind doing so, but if I am asked by a fellow layman to do so I surely need not comply with the request. In his speech in this House the hon. member for Pinetown referred to the unproductivity of the Defence portion of the Estimates. The hon. member made the following observations. He said, “It is not productive—it is wasteful expenditure”.

I did not say that; I did not say it was wasteful expenditure.

Those were the hon. member’s words as I noted them down, but if he tells me that he did not say that, then I accept it. But the whole tone of the hon. member’s speech was aimed at indicating that defence expenditure in South Africa was unproductive. He tried to show that it was unproductive. I am not so sure that the hon. member did not use the words “wasteful expenditure”. He went further and referred to the so-called wastage occurring in certain military camps. He referred to the education we have to give the members of our armed forces. According to him, if we educated them better, “there would not be so much waste in camps and such places”. I now want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown or any member of the Opposition to quote one single case of wastage occurring in any military camp anywhere in South Africa. I want him to tell us where wastage has occurred as a result of our military staff not being properly educated.

Are military vehicles stored indoors or are they exposed to the sun and the rain?

If the hon. member for Durban (Point) got a little more sun and wind on his body he would have a healthier mind. The amount provided for Defence this year is R256 million. [Interjection.] I am sure that if I land in the gutter to which the hon. member refers I shall find him there already—he will be there even before I get there.

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) must contain himself. The hon. member may continue.

As I say, an amount of R256 million appears on the Estimates for Defence expenditure this year. Of this amount R250 million will be given out on tender. The two tender boards concerned exercise control over this. Firstly, we have the State Tender Board and, secondly, the Defence Tender Board. The R6 million which will not be given out on tender will be scrutinized by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Every year that Committee has the opportunity of thoroughly scrutinizing each amount, however small. For that reason I say that the possibility of the Department of Defence incurring wasteful expenditure is very slender indeed. As a matter of fact, the possibility is almost nonexistent. We know the history of the tender boards; we know how they handle matters. Up to now we have had no complaints about them. Nether can there be any complaints about the Select Committee, a Committee on which hon. members of the Opposition also serve.

If Defence expenditure is being termed wasteful expenditure I want to make a few statements in the short time I still have at my disposal. In the first place, I want to say that as far as the safety of South Africa is concerned our Defence Force has a task today, such as it has never had before. One cannot dispute the fact that we are being threatened. We are being threatened through the U.N., which is a monstrous attempt to have a world government. It is an organization controlled by African states, states which in their helplessness grab every opportunity to try to bring South Africa into disfavour. We are being threatened from quarters from which in actual fact we deserve to get friendship. Why are we being threatened from Africa? We are being threatened for the very reason that we have become the symbol of power and strength on a continent which, owing to circumstances, is poor and backward. As far as those poor and backward countries are concerned, I want to say that I do not hold it against them. But that is the very reason why South Africa with its power and its strength stands head and shoulders above those other states which look at her in envy. Our so-called friends in the U.N. are using us as a pawn on the chessboard of the international game. If we happen to be sacrificed in the attempt it will be a cheap price for them to have paid. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that I should commence my speech by saying what a pity it is that the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa had to listen to such a petty, such a personal, such a horrid little speech as we have just had. It had no single redeeming feature, it had no single positive thought or point of view. It was unworthy even of that hon. member. That speech fills me with pity, and not with anger, for the hon. member, because it is an indication of the attitude of mind of the majority of hon. members on that side towards one of the basic democratic processes in South Africa, to parliamentary democracy throughout the world. Why are they in the N.P., why are we in the U.P.? Is it not because we hope to gain sufficient converts to our cause to become the Government? It we on this side get converts to our cause we are happy with them—we regard them as our equals. But now to-night you have heard in which way the Nationalist Party regards converts. They hold them in contempt. The political stone has been lifted. Let us put that stone back again, and I will continue with the other part of my speech.

We had a similar speech from the hon. member for Malmesbury. His speech too was a personal attack and I particularly deplore the vicious attack that he made on my Leader on account of the allowance he received as the Leader of the Opposition. If there is a man in South Africa who deserves over and over again his parliamentary allowance and his additional allowance it is the Leader of the Opposition, who works much harder than the vast majority of the members of the Cabinet. But if I were the hon. member for Malmesbury, I would not talk about parliamentary allowances and what is done to deserve them. By chance I have a Hansard here. I went through the index, and during this particular year the hon. member spoke only four times —four times for R4,000, which means R1,000 a speech. [Interjections.] His speech was not worth 1,000 cents, not one cent.

Order!

The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the common man having a good life. I will concede that there is little unemployment in South Africa today. But that is as far as it goes. He tried to strengthen his case by saying that, compared with the rest of Europe, South Africa was a paradise. Let him ask the hon. member for Benoni sitting behind him what happened a few years ago when the Transvaal Provincial Administration sent a special mission overseas to recruit workers for their Administration. They spent thousands of rand on it, and they spent weeks and weeks abroad in Europe trying to find people to come and work for the Transvaal Provincial Administration. How many did they find, Sir? Not a single one. What were the reasons given? The reasons were that the salaries in Europe plus the pensions plus the medical benefits were far better than those in South Africa. How different it was 15 to 20 years ago under United Party Government! [Interjections.]

Before coming to some of the outrageous statements made by members on the other side of the House, I want to deal with what I regard to be a very important matter, if not an urgent one. Actually I regard it as so important that if this had not been a Budget debate where we can raise any grievance, I would have done my best to persuade you or the House to have a special debate on it. I refer to these surprising and renewed subsidences and sinkholes in the Western Transvaal despite the firm assurances given to us by the hon. the Minister of Mines* that all the danger had passed. Yesterday a sinkhole occurred at Westonaria 90 feet deep and 40 yards from where a few weeks ago a similar one took place causing R30,000 damage. This is not the first or the second, but one of many instances. The new hon. Minister of Mines is not here. I see that the responsible Minister of last year is here and trust that he might have something to say on it. It is a sorry state of affairs, if not a terrible state of affairs. Up to the present moment in the dolomite area of the Western Transvaal 34 people have lost their lives, 309 houses have had to be evacuated, 145 houses have had to be demolished, a school had to be evacuated, and parts of another school had to be rebuilt. A church had to be demolished. A filling station had to be demolished. A railway line had to be re-routed. In all R14 million worth of damage has been caused by these sinkholes and subsidences in the dolomite area. We had expected that there was some value in the assurances given us last year and the year before by the hon. the Minister of Mines when he said that the real danger had passed. On the 11th November last year his own chairman of his co-ordinating committee wrote a letter to the Westonaria people saying that the danger of further sinkholes was negligible.

That was Carletonville.

Was it Carletonville? He spoke about the whole area.

No, he did not. [Interjections.]

Very well, Sir. The hon. the Minister then wishes to tell me that they were not sure at all at Westonaria that the danger was only negligible or that there would not be danger in future. I am also referring to a question last month, in reply to which he said that they were not certain yet whether the danger had passed at Westonaria, so they could give no assurance. But, Sir, did he tell that to the people of Westonaria? Did they know that they were in danger? At their meeting the other night they said that they did not have this definite knowledge. The hon. the Minister has told us before that he was not giving the full picture of what the state of affairs was in Westonaria or in the whole dolomite area. I say that the Government and the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Planning—one or two of them, with the coordinating committee—have fallen down on the job of ensuring the safety of the people in that area. It is no use telling the country that they have drilled 10,000 boreholes, of which, by the way, 8,000 are less than 60 feet deep, or that they have spent R4 million odd. What we demand is that the lives of the citizens in that area should be made safe and secure. If one cannot, or if nature would prevent one from making that area safe, for heaven’s sake let us tell the people and tell the country. They can take it. Then it is our duty to see that those people are properly, and more than properly, recompensed. Do not, however, give us assurances based on facts which are incomplete and based on surveys which have not been done.

I think I should in passing mention a few of the speeches made by certain of the other members earlier in this debate. When I look at the Nationalist Party and its performance here, it is to me very much like what is called in America a B movie. Actually, Sir, the names of all the characters begin with a B. There is the Blaar, the Bothas, the Bantustans and the Bungling. The further we go into this matter, the closer we come to the fact that it is a poor performance even by Hollywood second-class standards. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration stood up in this House and spoke about the way in which he intended developing the reserves of South Africa. His words were that priority should be given to the development of agriculture in the Bantustans. It was only after that that secondary considerations should be taken into account and that the industrial development of those areas should be pressed on a large scale. I wonder whether the Minister ever read the Tomlinson Commission report. I have the report here. It says that the carrying capacity of the reserves is only 2.4 million, and yet at that time—today it is more—these reserves carried 3.6 million. The Tomlinson Commission therefore recommended that the number of Natives in agriculture in the reserves should be reduced. The Tomlinson Commission’s policy is a complete negation of the policy of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputy. The Tomlinson Commission wanted a reduction of the number of Natives in the reserves in agriculture to stabilize agriculture, or else it would never happen in 100 years. Yet here the hon. the Minister neglects the industrial development of the reserves and he stresses only the agricultural development.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes the magnitude of the problem facing him in the reserves, should he wish to come near to even approaching a solution along the lines of the Tomlinson Commission’s report. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration boasted the other day that R300 million had been invested in border areas, giving employment in five years, or a bit more, to I think 40,000 Bantu workers. Thus we have 40,000 Bantu workers in border areas since the Tomlinson Commission’s report. What does the Tomlinson Commission’s report demand? It says that there should be 50,000 new jobs for Bantu a year, of which 20,000 a year should be in secondary industry in the reserves. They are not even approaching that. They are not even beginning to approach it or to try to find a solution along the lines recommended by the Tomlinson report.

Now they are waking up. Now they are reluctantly beginning to adopt parts of the United Party policy, and not adopting it very well I may add. But, Sir, we do not mind them becoming political squatters—political “bywoners”—in our political backyard. Let them do that. We grant them that, but all we ask of them is that they should acknowledge the source of this policy they are now trying belatedly and badly to follow. It is very false on their part to try to give us an utterly wrong impression of the United Party policy by saying that it is the policy of the United Party to allow unrestricted entry of capital into the reserves. The hon. member for Malmesbury wanted to know our policy. Our policy has been down in writing, in black and white for years and years. I challenge hon. members on the other side to come along to me and give to me their policy in black and white for Native Affairs. And do not give me a collection of speeches. We have that too. You have that. Give it to me in black and white. Here I have what we say. We say of the use of European private enterprise and capital in the reserves—I have it here in Afrikaans: “Dit sal onderhewig wees aan strenge veiligheidsmaat-reëls en alleen in die geval van geskikte nywer-hede.” That is our policy. We do not want to allow capital unrestricted in the reserves.

That is a sixpenny policy.

This is the policy which has been the policy of the United Party consistently for much longer than that party has ever had a consistent policy.

I also cannot leave the speech made by the hon. member for Benoni alone. This afternoon he made an utterly unjustified attack on the Johannesburg Municipality. As a matter of fact, he spent almost the whole of his speech in attacking the Johannesburg Municipality. If I were the hon. member for Benoni I would be the very last person to attack another Administration in the Transvaal, because he was himself a member of the Executive Committee in the Transvaal Provincial Administration for many years. First of all he asked the hon. the Minister of Finance today please to give more money for education in the Transvaal. Fair enough, I am all in favour of a good educational system in the Transvaal, but I would be very hesitant if I were the hon. the Minister of Finance to entrust the spending of the money to the present Transvaal Provincial Administration, because in one year alone, to mention an example, there were R160,000 worth of discrepancies in the payment of salaries to teachers. There were 17,000 teachers in the Transvaal and in their salaries in one year no less than 14,000 mistakes were made. He had a lot to say about the Johannesburg Municipality, but he could not say anything to compare with the shocking state of affairs reported in the Auditor-General’s report for the Transvaal, where it was shown that one of the road units controlled by his Administration in Heidelberg built 26 private dams with no authorization but with the funds of the public and of the taxpayer. It was so bad that the matter was placed in the hands of the police. [Interjections.] But let us come closer home. The hon. member for Benoni was not only a member of the Executive Council. I believe he was the man who was in charge of the hospital division. He looked after hospitals. The Johannesburg General Hospital—I wish you could go and look at the skeleton there today, Sir—has been going forward slowly, with spurts of work only before an election, for thirteen long years, and only the bare skeleton of the first three storeys is standing. Even the hoardings have gone rusty. Auckland Park Hospital was. started in 1956. In 1961 only the nurses’ quarters had been completed and they have not yet been used for that purpose even to this very day. Plans had to be altered and R1½ million was wasted to do so and to pay more money to the contractor.

I would not talk about bad administration if I were the hon. member for Benoni. He was chief of the hospital services as hospitals fell under him as member of the Exco. I believe it was under him that a policy was decided upon for instituting so-called linen banks for the hospitals, where all the linen was gathered and cleaned centrally and then distributed again. It could have been a fine plan under a good Government. But do you know what happened? A few months afterwards the Auditor-General started investigating and he found a shortage. He found a shortage at one hospital alone, at the Pretoria Hospital, which was R36,000 worth of linen. R36,000 worth of sheets and pillow cases disappeared and could not be accounted for. The total loss amounted to over R85,000 for linen banks. The hon. member for Benoni must not come to this House and try and wash Johannesburg’s clean linen when he cannot even look after his own dirty linen in the Transvaal.

Against this background I believe that this Budget should be judged. It is, to my mind, a dismal failure as far as lightening the burden on the common man. Meagre concessions have been made, amounting to R3 million. At the same time huge amounts have been taken amounting to R60 million. What sort of a Budget is this for the common man, for the people and the taxpayers? R20 is taken for every single rand that is given them. But do not take my word about the lot of the common man. Ask the views of the employees of the Government themselves. Why is that the Post Office workers, the Public Service workers and the workers on the Railways are complaining today about high living costs, are demanding increased wages and salaries? Their demands will not improve the position as compared with a year ago—it will only help them to keep their heads above water as they could during the past. Let them ask their own employees. There they will get the answer about what the position is of the common man in South Africa.

Then we hear the parrot-cry: Where is the money coming from? There is one answer only: Stop this shocking wastage in South Africa. Wastage is something which can take place in many ways. I have never yet seen an organization as ingenious as this Nationalist Party for discovering ways of wasting money. One can waste money through bad planning, stupidity, incompetence, misappropriation, laziness, indifference, financial recklessness, spending carelessly, living luxuriously and bloated bureaucracy. This is the only government in the world that I know of that is using every one of these methods to waste South Africa’s money. I can mention an example and tens of examples in regard to each of these.

I said that they are wasting money through bad planning. Sir, there is going to be a big story some time about bad planning in regard to a necessary dam, the Pongola Dam. After having spent millions of rand, after having doubled the original estimates, they now discover that only one morgen out of every four morgen can guarantee to be productive. We have had the classic example of planning of the Department of Transport in connection with the building of the Railway bridge near Bethulie when the Department of Water Affairs knew that the dam was going to be built which would swamp that bridge. They went on with the bridge. The bridge was swamped and it cost the taxpayer more than R2 million, which is wastage through bad planning. There was the case when the Department of Bantu Administration ordered 574,000 covers for reference books for the Bantu. After they had paid more than R150,000 for these covers, they discovered that they were unsuitable and they gave them away, and that total amount was lost to the taxpayer.

I say that is waste through incompetence. I have mentioned the Transvaal Provincial Administration. If ever there was a supreme example of incompetence in administration, it is that, but what can one expect from the Transvaal Provincial Administration if it is set such an example by its bigger brother, the Government itself? Talking about incompetence, look at the reports of motor accidents by Government vehicles costing the country more than R100 million a year. There were 88 railway collisions in one year. Accidents are bound to happen, but on the railways this kind of accident indicates negligence of a very high order. There are examples of maladministration. Look at the shocking story of the 26 dams built at Heidelberg, without any authorization. [Interjections.]

Order!

Last year irregularities on the part of the Government cost the country over R60,000. I can give examples of foolish financing. At the top of the whole lot I put the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who said he was going to increase post office efficiency by putting up telephone rates. Sir, you only increase rates if you have big losses, but the Telephone Department alone of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had a profit of R12 million last year. There was no reason whatever for putting up the telephone rates. But what can one expect from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when he has the example of the Minister of Finance, who trebled the public debt of South Africa during the time they have been in power from R1,100 million to R3,500 million?

I said there was wastage through ideological bungling, and here we really have something. I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Bantu Administration had boasted that R300 million of private capital had been invested in the border areas in past years and that it bad given employment to 40,000 Bantu. Let us take those figures. To give employment to 40,000 Bantu you need R300 million of capital. What have the Government to achieve? According to the Tomlinson Report they will have to find jobs, not for 40,000, but for 1 million Bantu within 25 years. It is a very simple sum. If for 40,000 Bantu you need R300 million in capital, then for one million workers you need close on R7,500 million in capital. That is what they will need to carry out their policy, if it is ever to make any sense. This is the ideological wastage of money. [Interjection.] Let me mention something else. In 1964, 317 Government vehicles were transferred to the Transkei Government. I have been asking all along whether those vehicles were paid for, and the only reply I can get from the Minister of Transport is that the matter is still receiving attention.

Talking about ideological wastage, do hon. members know what the tribal universities are costing compared with the White universities? At the White universities the cost per white student is about R500 per year. The cost on an average at a Bantu university is two or three times as much per student, and the education is only half as good as that at the White universities. At Nongoma it costs R1,400 per year per student, at Turfloop R1,100 per annum, but at the White university it is only R500 per student per annum. Do not ask me where the money is coming from. Do you know, Sir, that more than R100,000 was wasted a year or two ago by the Post Office in opening more than 3½ million letters, and why? To discover whether money was being sent to Rhodesia for the sweepstakes. It was a waste of money and time and of manpower.

I say there is wastage also by this Government through bureaucracy. Commissions appointed by the Government are costing the country more than R300,000 a year. I am not saying that all these commissions are useless, but many of them had to be appointed as the result of the actions of the Government. I am thinking of the Commission in regard to Native labour in the Western Cape, and I think of the Commission on District Six, and of the Commission appointed to investigate the mineworkers’ claims. Under a United Party Government all those commissions would not have been necessary. And, above all, there was a wastage of R400,000 on the Press Commission, which showed very little for the 14 years during which it sat.

I said that there was wastage through luxurious living and spending, and here one can really go to town. A couple of months ago the Department of Information held a Quiz Programme and a prize was given to the winner of that competition. What was the prize? Was it money, or a book, or a year’s subscription to Die Vaderland? No, it was jewels, at the expense of the taxpayer. I hope to get some more information from the Minister on a later occasion. But there are many other examples. I think of the buildings for the Commissioners-General at Mafeking, Nongoma, Sibasa, Um-tata and Turfloop. These five buildings together cost the country R870,000. Then they want to know where the money comes from. [Interjections.] The Government bought a home for a Consul-General in Tokyo for R720,000. Two Ministers’ homes were bought in Pretoria for more than R60,000 each. No wonder that the ordinary man in the street is becoming restless in the light of this. He sees that the ideologies of the party are getting nowhere and he sees that his living costs continue to rise. I believe that the election result in the Jeppes constituency shows that the writing is on the wall for that Government, and that those walls are crumbling.

On various occasions I visited Europe and London. On those occasions I want for interest’s sake to hear what was going on in Hyde Park. Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. member for Orange Grove a token of friendship to-night. I want to give him a whisky box after the hon. member for Durban (Point) has done with it; then he may take that box and go to Hyde Park. Every Sunday there is a competition to see who can make most noise. Having listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove to-night, I am convinced that he will win that competition. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member for Orange Grove would stay in his seat, because in the course of my speech I want to ask him some questions. I actually thought I would put those questions to the hon. member for Durban (Point), because I sometimes think the hon. member for Durban (Point) is the most capable member of the United Party, but actually he is not so very capable ether, and for that reason I will put them to the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Amongst other things the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the hon. member for Malmesbury and said that he received R1,000 for every speech he made in this House. I think the Leader of the Opposition should pay the hon. member for Orange Grove R1,000 not to speak.

Some days ago we as novices in this House had the pleasant privilege of celebrating our birthday as full-fledged members of this House of Assembly. What a wonderful privilege it is to be able to make one’s modest contribution on this side of the House in this, the highest legislative body in the country, no matter how good or how bad that contribution may be! I say it is a privilege which, by its nature, not everybody in South Africa is destined to enjoy. But it is one of the facts of life that one has to take the bitter with the sweet, and the bitter—and to that we as novices in this House will simply have to become accustomed —is that we have to listen day after day and month after month and year after year to the same old hackneyed stories from hon. members on the opposite side. I want to assure hon. members on that side of the House that it is not very pleasant to do so. Whether we deal with the Budget Debate of 1966, or with the Budget Debate of 1967, or with a motion of no confidence, or with a motion of censure, we always hear exactly the same old hackneyed stories. I want to tell you, Sir, that the Opposition has not the slightest grasp of the duties of an official Opposition Party. [Laughter.] They laugh, but I want to tell you that I am actually concerned about that, because I, as a good democrat, having regard to the fact that we have an opposition party in this House … [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) asks why we break up meetings. I want to tell him that if he visits Welkom again and talks the nonsense he talked at Welkom previously, and if he insults the mineworkers of Welkom again, I may assure him that exactly the same that happened to him previously will happen to him again. [Interjections.] In view of the fact that we have an official opposition in South Africa, I am worried because as a democrat I would have liked it to be an opposition worthy of our country. But more, surely an opposition is supposed to be the alternative government of the country, and for that reason if it wishes to criticize this side of the House—and we do not blame them for doing so—it is of cardinal importance that the Opposition should also produce an alternative policy. In the few months I have had the privilege of being in this House, hon. members of the Opposition levelled random and frivolous criticism against this side of the House in one debate after the other, without ever presenting an alternative policy.

But you are always swiping our policy.

I want to warn hon. members of the Opposition, and they should not reproach me for not warning them. When Parliament rose a year or so ago, there were 49 members on that side. When this new Parliament was convened, there were only 39 members on that side, and that in spite of the fact that Parliament was expanded by ten additional seats. I want to warn those hon. members that the people of South Africa are not asleep, and if they act in such an irresponsible fashion as the opposition party in this House, they should not be surprised if there is a further disintegration of the United Party at the next election.

Why are you so worried?

Hon. members on that side of the House and in particular the hon. member for Wynberg, who is not present to-night, and the hon. members for Transkei and Orange Grove, are always trying to make the English-speaking South Africans afraid of the National Party through their over-zealous political opportunism.

They do not become scared.

I know they do not become scared, and in a moment I shall tell the hon. member why. They are always trying to make the English-speaking South Africans afraid of the National Party because they realize that the English-speaking South Africans are joining the National Party in ever-increasing numbers. They realize that the English-speaking South Africans are rejecting the United Party completely and utterly in ever-increasing numbers. I want to read to you what the hon. member for Transkei said some months ago. He said (Hansard, col. 1511)—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on that side are always trying to incite the English-speaking people in South Africa against the National Party. I want to tell them that they will gain nothing by their attempts to incite the English-speaking people in South Africa against the National Party Government, because the English-speaking people have become wise to that side of the House; they have found out that the United Party contains one breeding ground only, and that is the breeding ground of race hatred. The English-speaking people of South Africa, as intelligent people, can no longer be misled by that kind of thing because the roots of a great many of them are deeply embedded in the soil of South Africa and because a large number of the English-speaking people of South Africa have one love, one allegiance and one loyalty, and that is to the Republic of South Africa. For that reason the English-speaking people will join the National Party in ever-growing numbers. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) is making an interjection.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has been delivering a running commentary on this debate since 8 o’clock. That must stop now.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the tidal wave of nationalism is overwhelming even Durban (Point) so rapidly that I wonder how long he will still be in this House. The English-speaking people in South Africa have only one love and one allegiance and one loyalty, and that is to South Africa, and for that reason it goes without saying that they can no longer remain supporters of the United Party. The English-speaking people of South Africa know that if in future South African nationhood were to be described, there could be no record of any contribution by the United Party. They know that as far as building a nation and a greater South African unity is concerned, the United Party has made no contribution whatsoever. They have contributed nothing whatsoever to the development of greater national unity and nationhood in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove a question. He must answer; he need only nod his head …

Then we will hear it over here.

Where was the United Party when the principle was laid down that South Africa’s interests should always be placed above those of Great Britain? Where was the United Party when the principle was laid down that South Africa’s interests should always come first when they were in conflict with those of Great Britain? That principle was unacceptable to that side of the House. I know they do accept it now.

That principle was laid down when the United Party was founded under General Hertzog in 1933.

What was the attitude of the hon. member for Orange Grove and of his Party in respect of South African citizenship? Am I correct in saying that that side of the House opposed it? Surely that is so. I see the hon. member for Orange Grove is shaking his head. Thank you very much; I accept that.

That is not correct.

When we were dealing with our own national flag in South Africa, did they not fight it? Let the hon. member for Orange Grove reply.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member has had his turn to speak, and he spoke for his full period.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Welkom persists in saying that the hon. member for Orange Grove should reply. You now say that he may not reply. What is the position?

The hon. member for Yeoville knows very well what the position is. He has frequently been asked to reply to questions and was then not allowed to reply because he had had a turn to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member …

Order! The hon. member must sit down.

I said that the hon. member for Orange Grove could reply by merely shaking his head. I asked the official Opposition: What was their attitude in respect of the creation of a nation; what was their attitude in respect of our own national anthem?

We had our own national anthem.

As far as our own head of State is concerned, it was always the ideal of that side of the House …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Will the hon. member please repeat what he said?

I said that if the hon. member continued along those lines I would have to reply and then you would call me to order again.

But the hon. member has not yet had a turn to speak. He may reply to the hon. member when he gets a turn to speak. The hon. member for Welkom may continue.

I want to ask the hon. member once again and I want to ask all members on that side of the House what the attitude of the official Opposition was as regards our own head of State.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

No, I am very sorry; if it were an intelligent question I would have replied, but I know it will be a most unintelligent one. Mr. Speaker, what was the attitude of that side of the House in respect of a head of State for South Africa? The attitude of that side of the House was that the head of State of another country should also be the head of State of South Africa. today we know that our own head of State for South Africa is acceptable to them. I regret that I have had to rake open some of these things once again tonight, in order to expose hon. members on that side in all their nakedness before the people of South Africa. What was their attitude in respect of a magnificent ideal which has been realized in South Africa, an ideal which called for many sacrifices, an ideal for which this side of the House fought for many years; what was the attitude of that side of the House in respect of the Republic? I do not want to go into that history too deeply, but they know just as well as I do what their attitude was. We know what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said. We know what the on. member for South Coast said. We know that that side of the House fought the Republic tooth and nail and we know that today the Republic of South Africa is accepted, not only by the people of South Africa, but that it is also acceptable to that side of the House. Now that South Africa has become a Republik, we know that all the obstacles on the way to nationhood have been removed once and for all. That became possible only through the perseverance and endeavours of the National Party. Hon. members on that side of the House should stop trying continually to incite the English-speaking people of South Africa against the National Party for their own petty political gain. Surely they know that the English-speaking people in South Africa are joining the National Party in ever-increasing numbers. In the continual struggle of that side of the House to grasp at any straw in an attempt to save themselves from total political destruction …

See how they run.

Give them three minutes, and they will all be out of the Chamber.

In their struggling to survive they are always trying through over-zealous political opportunism to drive a wedge between the English and Afrikaans speaking people in South Africa. If there is something the people of South Africa will never forgive them, it is that. Did hon. members of the United Party not read what the hon. the Prime Minister said some weeks ago during a graduation ceremony at the University of the Orange Free State? I will just have to read it to them, because I believe that even if they did read it, it went over their heads. The hon. the Prime Minister said: “People who incite one language group against another or negate the language interests of a group are doing South Africa a disservice.” Surely the United Party knows just as well as we on this side of the House that South Africa has now reached a stage of political maturity. Surely they know that in South Africa there is no more voting between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people. Surely they know just as well as we on this side of the House that we have to accept the basic fact that there is a white nation in South Africa which consists mainly of two language and cultural groups, and until such time as this basic fact is accepted, we cannot have the political solidarity in South Africa which we should like to have. In the first place we have our English cultural group. We should accept the fact that in this country two language groups form one nation. The English-language population is a group with their old Western culture and language. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I regard that language as an asset to our country, and through that language we gain access to the English culture, to the international business world and also to many other fields. Side by side with it there is also the Afrikaans language, my language, my mother tongue, a language born from the soil of South Africa and a language which called for many sacrifices. Afrikaans and English-speaking persons may be justly proud of this language.

No, Mr. Speaker, that side of the House should not always try to drive a wedge between the English and the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa for petty political gain. We as a White nation in South Africa cannot afford splitting into these two language groups in politics. We few million Whites should at all times uphold our position in South Africa in the face of the cry of an unsympathetic black continent which seeks to claim everything for itself. For that reason it has become essential that Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa should join hands in order that we may solve our problems, in order that as a united nation we may be able to resist these unjustified assaults against us. Surely we are living together in this beautiful country, South Africa. Surely we admit that basically we belong to two cultural groups. Surely it is our duty, and it is also the duty of the Opposition, to show each other mutual respect. We must be able to show mutual respect and esteem for each other. Then and then only will it be possible to build a South Africa of which not only hon. members on that side and hon. members on this side of the House will be proud, but of which the nation as a whole, and also those who will come to us, will be truly proud.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate this evening, but since the hon. member for Orange Grove has brought up a very delicate matter for discussion in this debate, I feel that as a representative of people in that area where the phenomenon of sinkholes occurs, I should say something in regard to this matter. Now I do not know what the hon. member’s motive was. If his motive was to chase a hare up here, arouse emotions and exploit such a very delicate matter, then I want to say here and now that I will not follow his tactics and that I will not add grist to his mill.

No, that was not my intention.

I therefore want to deal with this matter in a purely scientific and factual way, and I shall confine myself to doing that. There has been a request from the town council of Carletonville—and I also think that they will seek the co-operation of the town council of Westonaria, where the unfortunate incident took place yesterday—to come and discuss the entire matter with the new Minister of Mines and Planning during the course of the next two weeks. I can mention that I spoke to the hon. the Minister today and that he intimated to me his willingness to grant the town council of Carletonville an interview in regard to this matter.

At present approximately 350,000 people are living in dolomitic areas in the Transvaal. The area extends from south of the military area of Pretoria to Lichtenburg, and right through to Orkney in the south west. This phenomenon of sinkholes is peculiar to dolomitic areas. It is a dolomitic-geological phenomenon. I myself live in a dolomitic area. On my farm there are two large sinkholes. We are used to it. But the fact that sinkholes are now forming where there is a concentration of people and where an infra-structure has been built up so that quite a lot of damage is done if such a phenomenon occurs—this has been emphasized by newspaper reports, as I shall indicate in a moment—focuses the attention more specifically on this phenomenon. For that reason I must say that the possibility exists, and in fact that there is a tendency that this phenomenon may become even more of a sensation.

Subsidences in dolomitic areas are as old as geological history. After this phenomenon of subsidences occurred in Carletonville and in the built up areas, after the gold mines had come into operation there, the Government did not remain inactive. In passing I want to say that Carletonville and Westonaria lie at the foot of the line of ridges known as the Gatsrand. The Gatsrand are so called because that area has been plagued for centuries by sinkholes. That is where the name Gatsrand comes from. After this phenomenon had occurred in the built up areas, in areas where there were concentrations of people living together, where there were roads, where the damage was more noticeable, and where emotions were aroused and it became more of a sensation, the Government did not remain inactive. The Co-ordinating State Technical Committee, under the leadership of Dr. Enslin, a well-known geologist in the Public Service, was established immediately afterwards. This Committee has done surprisingly good work. Carletonville has, as it were, been riddled with boreholes—thousands of boreholes have been sunk in the municipal area of Carletonville, as well as in Westonaria. This has been done outside the municipal area as well. Despite the fact that that Committee had to tackle something entirely new and had to determine something, it has succeeded wonderfully in its task. It has done very good work. In the past such phenomena did not figure much in our thoughts, and we did not have the necessary machinery to do research. That is why the Committee had to begin from scratch. I want to speak here to-night with the highest praise of that Committee. That Committee went to work honestly, very diligently and with a knowledge that sometimes astonished me— after I had attended many of their meetings I was really astonished—and they have come forward with knowledge for us in South Africa and for the world, knowledge which the world outside has not up to now had at its disposal. This knowledge can be of inestimable value to us in South Africa in future. But apart from the fact that this Committee did such valuable work, they have also made such progress that they have been able to draw up a map of the entire area of Carletonville, divided into different colours, on which they have been able to indicate which areas are safe, which areas are less safe, and which areas are subject to total evacuation. In this way I can give you the figures, and I think I must mention them here. Seventeen per cent of the entire Carletonville area lies outside the compartment from which the water has to be removed. Seventeen per cent is situated in areas which are sinking gradually. Fifty-five per cent is absolutely safe. Geological findings indicate the situation in Westonaria is more or less the same as that in Carletonville. The business areas of Carletonville and Westonaria are situated on absolutely safe ground. I want to add here that in Carletonville there is not a single unsafe area in which the people have not been warned. Everybody there is aware of what areas are safe· and what areas are unsafe. Early warnings are being given. Evacuation has already been completed in those areas which are unsafe. There is not a single person living in the so-called “green belt”, that area which is totally unsafe and where subsidences can be expected—the entire subterranean area is riddled with caves.

The abode of any inhabitant of Carletonville and Westonaria is as risky as that of a person in Lichtenburg or Orkney or the areas south of Pretoria which are all dolomitic areas. It is equally risky there. Somebody said that it is more dangerous to cross a street in Johannesburg than it is to live in Carletonville.

That was the remark made by the chairman—it was an unnecessary remark.

I shall come to you in a moment—I just want to finish this factual survey first. Apart from the work which the State Co-ordinating Technical Committee is doing, the former hon. Minister of Mines, Minister Haak, paid a visit to Carletonville. Minister P. K. le Roux was also there. We had interviews with the Minister in Pretoria. We had various interviews. Memoranda were submitted. I have them here in front of me. I had to dash off to my office to get them. Fortunately one is always prepared for such a contingency. Here I have a number of memoranda and what is not contained in these memoranda is not worth submitting to a Minister. Inter alia, the memoranda are from the following: The Property Owners’ Association of Carletonville, the Petitioners of Carletonville, the “Verre-Wesrandse Afrikaanse Sakekamer”, the Chamber of Commerce and Industries, the Randfontein District Agricultural Union and the Oberholzer Farmers’ Association, the Carletonville Citizens Association, etc. etc. These people all met together in one room with the two Ministers to whom I have already referred. I acted as chairman of that meeting. Everybody had a matter they wanted to put to me. The Ministers took note of those matters. I submitted these memoranda to them. The result was the establishment, at the instance of the Government, of the Far Witwatersrand Dolomitic Water Association— we simply call it the Dolomitic Water Association. It is a fund which has been established and to which the mines in question in that entire complex participate and to which they contribute. From this fund people are compensated if their houses are damaged structurally or become unsafe, or if people have to be evacuated on the instructions of the State Technical Committee. In this way it has already happened that numerous irrigation farmers along the course of the Oberholzer and the Bank water compartment have been paid out. They have been paid out very well. Quite a number of matters have been dealt with. Unfortunately I have not had sufficiënt time to get together the relevant figures. There are quite a number of matters which are still being dealt with. There are also a large number of potential applicants who, as this subsidence process continues and reaches a stage of stability, will still be dealt with by this Association with a view to compensation.

We are dealing here with a matter which goes hand-in-hand with a great deal of emotion. If the hon. member had been in Blyvooruitzicht on the morning the Oosthuizen family disappeared into the earth, he would not have spoken in the way he did about a matter like that. He would rather have gone directly to the Minister, or he would have said, “Let us discuss this matter”. I take it terribly amiss of the hon. member for trying to make a little noise, a little political capital, a little sensation out of such a tragic occurrence—something for which the Government is not responsible. It is possible that he is doing so with the purpose of drawing us out so that we can get involved in an argument with him in regard to this matter. I am not prepared to do that. [Interjections.] I am not going to reply to the hon. member’s interjections. I am not prepared to do so. I want to keep this matter as calm as possible.

I want to say here that I take my hat off to that State Technical Committee. I take my hat off to the Minister who was concerned with the matter. I take my hat off to the inhabitants of that area for the calm and the self-control they have displayed. I want to repeat, I want to tell every hon. member here this evening, that if they had been there when that family disappeared they would realize what we have to deal with here. I am not saying this in order to arouse emotions. I am saying it to calm hon. members down. I am saying it to try and persuade hon. members to approach this matter with a great measure of calm and self-control. We are dealing here with a matter which involves danger to human lives, but not so much where human lives are in danger but where this phenomenon is being exploited to arouse sensations, as I shall indicate to you in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, since I have expressed my thanks and gratitude to the people whom I have mentioned, I cannot omit a word of warning, no, a request to our newspapers. I want to address a humble request to them. Listen to some of the things which have appeared in some newspapers over the past few days. This is what they say—

Do you know, Sir, that some of these newspapers have even gone so far as to instigate mineworkers to strike? One newspaper even spoke about a “Carletonville strike plea”. So I can go on quoting for ever here to indicate what part some newspapers played in causing a sensation and arousing emotions.

Now the Carletonville Municipality are coming to Cape Town. With what purpose are they coming? They are not merely coming to discuss aspects of compensation. We know that the State and the Government has confidence in that area. We have the assurances and the proofs of that. During his visit to Carletonville the hon. Minister gave us the assurance that the State would take the lead in restoring confidence there. That confidence was almost destroyed as a result of these kind of reports Then there is also the natural reaction on the part of any normal person seeing a thing like that, particularly where there is a concentration of people. As a result of this confidence and leadership on the part of the State, the Municipality of Carletonville, presumably in collaboration with surrounding municipalities, is coming here to discuss matters with the hon. the Minister. They are not coming here to complain but to ask what the position of Carletonville as a town and a vicinity will be within the pattern of future development. It is not a message of no-confidence. It is a request in which confidence is implicit. What all has the Government established at Carletonville? A fine new high school has been opened there. It is an Afrikaans high school, probably one of the finest high schools in South Africa. An equally fine English medium high school was opened there, even before the Afrikaans school was opened. A new police office, a new post office and a new revenue office are still to be built. The beautiful station has now been completed. One of the finest hospitals in the Southern Hemisphere is going to be built in Carletonville. I am mentioning all these things to indicate the measure of confidence in Carletonville. They may be local matters, but I am mentioning them in this connection to indicate that the State, and the Minister who was there, have kept their promise. He promised us that the State would display its confidence in that area. That is why all those institutions are being established. Now the local authorities of that area are coming to talk to our new Minister. They are coming to say that they want to build on the confidence which has been expressed.

I now want to address an earnest appeal to hon. members. I want to ask them not to exploit this matter. If an hon. member lives in that area and he is continually being fed on stories of doom and sensational reports, he will eventually become panic-stricken. We do not want any panic there. That is why I want to request hon. members to leave this matter outside the political arena. There are many other aspects which can be debated. I have listened here to the Budget Debate. If I were a United Party member I would have been able to say much more than any United Party member has said up to now. I am certain that any member on this side of the House would have been able to level better and more criticism if we had been the Opposition. Why do hon. members not make use of the opportunity of levelling constructive criticism, as is befitting an opposition? Please leave this matter outside the political arena. We are dealing here with deep-rooted human fears. We are dealing here with something which grips the imagination. Hon. members must remember that ten times as many people meet their deaths each day on our roads as do over a period of 100 years in Carletonville as a result of sinkholes. The hon. member was clever. He associated this matter with an atmosphere, with a state of mind from which he could make the maximum political capital. Even if this is the only contribution I can make to the Budget, I still want to make this request —and I do not think it is an unreasonable one.

The hon. member for Carletonville, who has just sat down, throughout his speech dealt with a matter which, clearly, concerns him very much— the question of the sinkholes which have appeared, once again, in certain parts of the constituency he represents. Until the last five minutes of his speech, Mr. Speaker, I thought he was making a very constructive and interesting contribution. As a matter of fact, I must say that it introduced a very refreshing note into this debate because he has so far been the only member on that side of the House who has spoken in any way constructively. But I feel it is unfortunate—and I am sure on reflection the hon. member himself will agree with me—that he spoilt the effect during the last five minutes by, firstly, accusing the hon. member for Orange Grove of raising this matter in order to make political capital out of it. Obviously, Sir, such an accusation cannot be proved because nobody in this House would want to make political capital out of the tragedies of citizens of this country. It is quite clear that in the context in which the hon. member for Orange Grove raised this matter, he was not in any way attempting to make any form of political capital out of it. Whether or not the Government should take any blame for this, because perhaps they may have omitted to do something which they could have done, I do not know. I am not a geologist, I am not a miner and, unfortunately, I am also not a mining magnate. So, I do not really know anything about these matters and shall, therefore, have to leave it to somebody else to deal with this matter should anyone wish to deal with it further.

I am coming now to saying that I believe through two speeches we have had to-night from Nationalist members we have reached the political dregs in this debate. That stage was reached particularly by the hon. member for Middelburg who made certain scandalous allegations. He made scandalous allegations, without any proof and I consider he was entirely lacking any form of manliness when he made a most scandalous allegation without the slightest proof about Senator Cadman, whom he knows is not in this House to be able to tackle him across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] He was not man enough to give the Hansard reference when he was asked for it.

Here it is. I have got it here and will send it over to you to read. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to come to the assistance of the hon. member for Middelburg he is welcome to do so, but as far as I am concerned … [Interjections.]

Order!

He is making a speech, leave him alone. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of time. The hon. members are not going to get away with it as easily as this. Before I leave the hon. member for Middelburg I want to tell him that in my opinion he is beneath contempt. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark. He must withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, if you ask me to do so, I shall withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

Order! Order!

But I will change that and say that the hon. member is in my opinion not a man.

Read what Douglas Mitchell has. It does not belong to him.

Mr. Speaker, the other speaker who reached the political dregs to-night is the hon. member for Welkom. He made exactly the same sort of speech as the hon. member for Middelburg—making insinuations, allegations without any reference to facts. For example, he accused this side of the House of trying to drive a wedge between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. [Interjections.] I am interested to hear the approval of hon. members but I challenge any hon. member on the Government side of the House to substantiate that statement. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if ever a party in this country is trying to drive a wedge between English and Afrikaans speaking, and has been doing so for the last I do not know how many years, it is this Nationalist Party here. [Interjections.] I accuse them of doing so.

But I now want to come back to the Budget. From Government members, starting with the hon. the Minister, we have heard what a good Government this is, what a good Budget this is.

Hear, hear!

I am interested to hear “Hear, hear” from the other side, Mr. Speaker, but we have not yet had a single reply to our challenges that this Government is mismanaging the affairs of the country, is grossly overspending, to the accusations which came from the hon. member for Orange Grove, the examples quoted by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and many others on this side of the House—not one single member on the Nationalist side got up to answer these challenges and to show to the country that, in fact, the Government is not wasting hundreds of millions of rand of the taxpayer’s money. Instead of that we have had red herrings being drawn across the path by hon. members, such as the hon. member for Middelburg and the hon. member for Welkom. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education can have his argument with the hon. member for South Coast when I have finished my speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

I find it difficult to continue with my speech with the continual noise coming from the hon. the Deputy Minister and from hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I sent a document belonging to me to the hon. member who is at present addressing the House. The hon. member for South Coast, however, has it in his possession now and refuses to return it to me.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Musgrave may continue. I want to appeal to hon. members to calm down and to give the hon. member a chance to proceed with his speech.

I want to return to the speech made by the leading spokesman on the Nationalist side, the hon. member who spoke immediately after the hon. member for Pinetown. I am referring to the hon. member for Queenstown. He said—

He went on—

Now I want to put two questions to the Government, seeing that the hon. member for Queenstown is not in the House. Firstly, who is paying the price of inflation and, secondly, is it in fact such a small price? First of all the question, who is paying the price? Well, it is not this Government; it is not this Cabinet. In fact, this Cabinet is quite unconcerned about inflation. They are not suffering from the rising cost of living. They have large salaries, big houses, big motor-cars and large staffs. They are not in any way suffering from the increased cost of living. I challenge them to deny this. And what about the Government departments? Are they paying the price of inflation? No, Sir—they are not paying the price of inflation. Just look at the Budget we are beings asked to pass. Is there any attempt being made in this Budget to reduce costs? Is there any attempt being made in this Budget to do what the hon. the Minister of Finance is asking the public to do, i.e. to work and, in particular, to save? Is there any sign of saving on the part of Government departments, by this incompetent Cabinet that we have got, in this Budget? Not a single sign, Mr. Speaker. Not a single sign of saving. On the contrary, what do we find? We find huge increases in the amount of money which we are being asked to vote and in case the Nationalists do not think these are huge increases perhaps I could then remind them that on the Revenue Account the Government is asking for an increase of R180 million. Do Government members think that this is just a small sum? I challenge Government members, is this just a small sum? I challenge the hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, this is a huge increase, but that is not all. Let us have a look at the Loan Account. What do we find there? A reduction? No, Sir—not a reduction, but an increase of R55 million. A total increase of R173 million and that from a Government that is asking the public of South Africa to save! It is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is a scandal to see how completely heartless they are. We are in the midst of inflation, the cost of living is going up, what you can buy with a rand is becoming less and less—yet, what do they do about it? The Government is asking us to save but meanwhile the Government goes on spending huge sums, R173 million more during the current financial year. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker.