I have very little time left to me. Last night I was continually interrupted and I appealed to you, Sir at the outset that I might be allowed to deal, without interruption, with the very important matter which arose.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir. The hon. member for Middelburg made a scandalous allegation against Senator Cadman, who was the hon. member for Zululand in this House in the last Parliament. On two occasions the hon. member for Middelburg purported to this House that he was quoting from Hansard a statement made by Senator Cadman. I will show the House that this is quite untrue and that the words which the hon. member claimed Senator Cadman had uttered were not so at all; in other words, that he was deliberately misleading the House.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that. He must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, but I will refer you, Sir, to what the hon. member said. The hon. member said on two occasions, purporting to be quoting from Hansard, that Senator Cadman had said that death by torture was becoming commonplace in South Africa. Once again, later in his speech, he said: “Hy het gesê … and then he quoted exactly the same words. What did Senator Cadman say? First of all I would remind the House that the hon. member for Middelburg refused to give us the reference to Hansard. Finally, we managed to get the reference, the passage to which the hon. member was referring, and it was at Column 4880 of 24th April, 1964. This was in a debate concerning the Bultfontein trial which, as you will remember, Sir, was a trial in which a Bantu detainee was severely and brutally tortured— this was the finding of a senior Judge—and died as the result of the tortures he had received. The sort of tortures were electric shocks with machines, smothering his face with a plastic bag, assaults, brutal treatment, etc., and according to the finding of the court he died as the result of these tortures—death by torture, and this is what Senator Cadman said …

Why do you not tell the House what happened to those policemen?

The hon. the Deputy Minister interrupted me during the whole of my speech yesterday. I would now ask him to listen. I propose to read to the House precisely and in full what Senator Cadman said, omitting the numerous interruptions which were made to Senator Cadman’s speech by that very Deputy Minister. I first want to read to the House the full context of what Senator Cadman then said. He said—

Scandalous!

Sir, these hon. members know very well that when that debate was taking place this was their attitude. They treated the whole thing as a joke.

That is not true.

Then he goes on—

That is absolutely untrue, and you know it.

The hon. the Prime Minister must withdraw that.

With respect, I am not reflecting on the hon. member; I am reflecting on the quotation he is reading.

Yes, but the hon. the Prime Minister said that the hon. member knows it to be untrue. He must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member is quoting with approval a quotation to the effect that the hon. the Prime Minister, who was Minister of Justice at the time, and members on this side of the House made a laughing matter of murder by torture. Now I am asking you, Sir, whether that does not constitute the most serious allegation ever made in this House by any hon. member, that is to say, that they made a laughing matter of murder?

Order! That is not a point of order.

[Time expired.]

The hon. member for Musgrave has just finished reading to us, very piously, about what happened in a previous debate. Yesterday evening he threw challenges about here. He has, like King George, acquired the habit of dishing out challenges left and right whenever he has the opportunity of addressing this House, but I want to tell the hon. member that those challenges of his may perhaps be accepted some time or other and he might then find himself worse off than he imagines. The hon. member read very quickly here from what Senator Cadman said in that debate, something which I denied last night. I want to quote to him what is stated in Col. 4880 of Hansard of 24th April, 1964. Senator Cadman uttered the following words—

At this stage my colleague here, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education made the interjection: “That is a shocking statement,” a statement he will probably repeat today, one which we will all repeat. Senator Cadman then went on to use these words—

He then went on to say—

I want to reply to this that on 24th April, the hon. the Senator told an infamous lie in this House, well knowing that it was a lie, and that is what the hon. member for Musgrave is now trying to justify. That is what the hon. member now wants to defend.

Last night the hon. member was also complaining bitterly here about the additional R108 million which will be spent this year on Revenue Account. He did not analyse the figure. I just want to undertake a little of that analysing work for him; perhaps he will find it interesting. The largest item in that additional R108,884,000 which is being spent on Revenue Account this year is the additional R28.5 million which is being paid to Government officials, etc., in the form of higher salaries and allowances. But is the United Party not the party which is accusing us here of being unwilling to grant salary increases? Is the hon. member opposed to that R28.5 million being spent on salary increases? I should have thought that he would be one of the first to approve this additional expenditure. The following item is subsistence and transportation costs, R1.16 million. That is also going to officials. The next item is Defence, but I know that the hon. member is not interested in the increased amounts which are being spent on Defence because it makes no difference to him whether or not the country is being defended well. That is why I will not even mention those figures.

The following item is police equipment, R1.06 million. In addition R0.713 million more is being spent on medical services for the Police, but the hon. member is not interested in that ether. It has no significance to him that this additional R108 million which is being spent on Revenue Account includes R12,785,000 to make provision for increased subsidies to the Provincial Administrations. That has no significance to him; to him it is just a waste of money. It has no significance to him that an extra R4,268,000 is being spent to subsidize bread and stabilize bread prices. It signifies nothing to him that R5,600,000 is being spent on a subsidy on fertilizers.

Mr. Speaker, one can continue in this vein but the hon. member will merely talk about wasting money; he will not make any attempt to analyse this sum of R108 million. I predict that he will not criticize one of these items of expenditure when the relevant Votes come up for discussion. If he would do his homework and go through the Estimates then he would see that there is in fact a saving on various posts in regard to administration costs. I want to ask him whether he is going to propose in the Committee of Supply that any of these amounts be deleted. That is where we will be afforded the opportunity of analysing these things. But I am not going to waste my time any further on that hon. member. Mr. Speaker, in recent times I have had a lot to do with assessments, as you know, and I just want to tell the hon. member that if I could buy him at the value at which this House assesses him and then sell him again at the value he places on himself, I would be making a great profit.

I actually want to come to a remark which the hon. member for Green Point let fall when he participated in the debate on the afternoon of the day before yesterday and when he asked those responsible for our Bantu administration and development whether we are satisfied with the development taking place in the homelands. Of course the reply was “no”, because a person who is satisfied and who has no further ideals in life and does not want to improve is a very sorry person. There is no further hope for such a person. The hon. the Minister has already referred, in his speech on the afternoon of the day before yesterday, to the investment of white capital in the Bantu homelands, a favourite topic for discussion by the Opposition. My colleague here informed the House yesterday afternoon about the progress which has been made in controlling the influx of Bantu into the white areas. I want to spend some time this afternoon on the development of the Bantu homelands, a task which has been entrusted to me. I was pleased to ascertain from the hon. member for Green Point on the afternoon of the day before yesterday that he thought that the amount being spent on the development of the Bantu homelands is insufficient. I am glad that he welcomes the fact that a larger amount appears in the Estimates than did last year. I just hope the United Party is going to adhere to this point of view, because in the election which took place a year ago we heard about what this Negrophile (Kafferboetie) Government was doing for the Bantu and of the tremendous amounts which the Government was spending on the development of the Bantu homelands. Sir, I know that there are hon. members of the Opposition who will not be able to resist the temptation of repeating this statement at the earliest opportunity when they again address meetings in the rural areas.

How many times have you not done the same thing?

Despite the fact that we are not satisfied with the development of the Bantu homelands, I want to say that we have, during the past number of years, spent money rapidly in the Bantu homelands, so rapidly that we are beginning to fear that physical development is outstripping human development, and for that reason it is necessary for the development in the homelands to be consolidated. Somebody has made the following statement, and I just want to quote it—

That is really something which we, who are responsible for the development of the Bantu in their homelands, must take into account, i.e. the fact that the physical development of the Bantu homelands must keep pace with the human development of the Bantu themselves who have to be able to absorb that development and be able to utilize the development which is being placed at their disposal. But hon. members on that side of the House, and even on this side, must not think that the development of the Bantu homelands can simply be done by building dams, establishing soil conservation works, and by building camps or by undertaking planning. Development also implies that one has to teach the Bantu to develop themselves. If the brunt of the development has to be borne by the Whites then one will eventually be faced with those figures which were worked out here the other day by the hon. member for Orange Grove and which amounted to hundreds of millions of rand, before one is able to develop the Bantu homelands to such an extent that they will be able to carry their own population. Two days ago the hon. member for Green Point said in regard to the development of the homelands that it was taking place at a “snail’s pace” and went on to say—

I want to furnish a few replies to this question without boring this House with unnecessary figures. Hon. members will agree with me that one cannot develop before one has planned and once one has undertaken that planning one must carry out one’s plans. I want now to inform this House what we have already done as far as planning is concerned and then furnish a few figures in regard to what has already been accomplished in this development process. For a period from 1963 to 1965 an average of 836,000 morgen have been planned each year. In the year 1966 512,682 morgen were planned. Of the total surface area of the Bantu homelands more than 9 million morgen have already been planned— in other words, 54 per cent. I think the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services will also concede that this is not a bad per centage. Even though 54 per cent may not impress you may be interested to learn that 70 per cent of the northern areas in the Transvaal have already been planned. As far as the Transkei is concerned, we admit that we have fallen behind there. Only 35 per cent has been planned there—hence this average figure of 54 per cent. In order not to discourage the hon. member for Transkei I want to mention to him the case of Nqamakwe. That area has been completely planned and the grain production there has already been increased by 40,000 bags per year.

A start was made with that in the days of the old United Party Government.

If the hon. member can derive some pleasure from that, I shall make him a present of it. However, I must tell him that he is very wrong. In addition we are also undertaking a soil survey which will ultimately have covered all the Bantu areas. When we have the results of this soil survey available we will be able to plan more rapidly and more effectively.

As far as the infra-structure is concerned I want to say that during 1966 488 miles of roads and 23 bridges were built. But up to the end of 1965 25,521 miles of roads and 619 bridges had already been built. Mr. Speaker, I should imagine that when one undertakes planning, one’s first task is to conserve the soil. Many people talk about “water conservation”. I prefer to talk about “water utilization”. If perhaps one does not conserve one’s water one may possibly be able to make good one’s losses, but if one’s soil has been lost one can never get it back. That is why I regard soil conservation as being of vital importance—first soil conservation therefore, and after that water utilization. In this regard I can inform this House that up to the end of 1965 14,524 miles of contours had been constructed, in addition to 6,885 miles of grass strips having been planted. As regards the building of dams for water utilization, 4,707 dams had already been built at the end of 1965. In addition to that 143 dams were built during 1966, while a further 36 dams are under construction at present. As regards boreholes, at the end of 1965 there were already 7,374 boreholes which were supplying water —that is to say, boreholes with installations. During 1966 a further 755 were sunk, of which 362 have already been equipped. At the moment another 300 holes are in the process of being sunk.

As far as irrigation projects are concerned 23,500 morgen were already under irrigation at the end of 1965. During 1966 a further 866 morgen were developed and at the moment work is in progress on another 550 morgen, which will shortly be placed under irrigation. As far as fibre production is concerned, 387 morgen of sisal and phormium were planted during the past year. What hon. members will find important, however, is that 2,197 morgen of cotton have been planted by the Bantu themselves—not by the Trust. The Bantu themselves have therefore come to realize that they must themselves make an effort in this process of self-development. In addition to that the Trust placed 1,055 morgen under sugar cane, apart from the 2,632 morgen planted by the Bantu themselves. The Bantu themselves far surpassed the Trust in this regard after they had come to realize that sugar production could be profitable to them. At the moment we are producing coffee and tea on an experimental basis and I hope that I will be able to report next year the measure of progress which has been made and that the experiments have been successful.

Did they also build their own dams and sink their own boreholes?

I do not intend repeating all these figures for the information of the hon. member. He can read about them in the Hansard report of my speech tomorrow if he is interested. As far as fencing is concerned I unfortunately do not have the time at my disposal to deal with all the Bantu homelands. However, 3,271.5 miles of wire fencing have been constructed during the last year alone. That has been done to control grazing lands, grazing lands which have already been planned and which are included in the 54 per cent of the planned surface area to which I referred earlier on. I would also like to furnish this House with the figures in regard to the number of dipping troughs which have been built, so that the stock grazing on the planned areas may be kept free of disease. Crush and auction pens are now being built. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into this now, but perhaps an opportunity will present itself later on. But we are not only helping the Bantu to produce more and to improve their stock. We are helping them to improve their stock by the purchase of good bulls and good rams and by means of the classification of their breeding stock, etc. Apart from that we are also helping the Bantu to market those products of theirs more efficiently. I think this House will find it of importance that the turnover in 1961 of animals sold at auctions, which they are encouraged to do, was R1,007,700. As far as sheep were concerned, it amounted to a further R37,600. But in 1963 the sum in regard to cattle increased to R2,229,500 and that for sheep to R70,600. In other words, it was more than twice as much.

No wonder the farmers are saying that they should make you Minister of Agriculture.

It may be that the farmers are saying that, but do you know that I have never heard anybody say that they must make the hon. member for Orange Grove Minister of Posts? One firm which holds auctions for us furnished me the other day with the average prices in respect of cattle sales during the past few years. I may say that in 1963 the average price for the cattle sold by auctioneers was R32.34. This year it increased to R44.54. In other words, it increased by 37.7 per cent. But we are not satisfied to leave it at that. We are also providing the Bantu with the necessary instruction and the necessary training. I am afraid that I will not have an opportunity this afternoon of going into that aspect of the matter. But hon. members will probably be interested to know that during the past year we have opened another agricultural school in Zulu-land which is now enrolling all the agricultural students, that short courses are being held, that instruction courses are being given to the Bantu and that they are displaying the necessary interest. I want to give hon. members a piece of good advice. In their pigeon holes they will find our annual report. It makes very interesting reading. They can make a study of it. They will then come to realize that it is very easy to make a speech here and say: “Progress is at a snail’s pace”. As hon. members have said, they drive through the Bantu areas without seeing any signs of development. I wonder though whether those are not members who think that the Bantu areas and the Bantu homelands are situated near Langa and Nyanga. They never get further than that. Members who take an interest in this matter can investigate this matter. Although the ideal position has not yet been achieved there I do believe that tremendous progress is being made in our Bantu areas.

Langa and Nyanga will be homelands one of these days.

If that hon. member’s Party should come into power and its influx control were to be applied as they have stated it here, the Bantu labour is to be established on a family basis in the white areas, then I am in full agreement with him. Then Nyanga and Langa will become homelands. [Interjections.] With the co-operation and the interest which the Bantu themselves are displaying in their self-development we are making great progress. I can say that at this stage I am satisfied, and that I believe that it will become necessary for us to consolidate now. These amounts which we are now voting on the Estimates will be of great use to us this year. We have already carried out our first five-year plan. We are now beginning with our second five-year plan, and I hope I will be spared, when this second five-year period has elapsed, to be able to come and report to members. Then they will be welcome to exercise criticism in regard to the development of our Bantu homelands.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister has quoted enormous figures to show the money spent in the Bantu homelands at the request or on the instruction, one might say, of the Tomlinson Commission. Regarded as an amount spent in one year, these may perhaps be regarded as formidable figures. When one remembers that the Tomlinson Commission reported in 1955 and that the whole tone of the report reflected the urgency of dealing with the Bantu homelands, these figures, divided as they are by 12, fade into insignificance. If they were in respect of one year, they might be of some importance.

No. they are not divided by 12. They must be divided by five. I gave you the figures for the last five or six years.

It is still bad because you had a lot of experience in the previous five years.

I want to come back to the financial aspects of life as we have it today. I want to discuss consumer credit. This is commonly known as hire purchase and it has a profound effect upon our lives and also vitally concerns inflation. It influences the cost of living perhaps more than we realize. I want to discuss it in the light of what has now developed in some countries and is known as “truth in lending”. Anyone walking about the great cities of this country must be impressed by the large number of new office blocks being built. If one were to inquire why these blocks of offices had suddenly appeared and what was happening to them, one would find that in spite of high rents they are all let. If one goes further one will find that many of them are occupied by finance companies, by limited liability companies dealing with finance and so-called banks of various categories—not commercial banks, but banks with some additional adjective. All or most of these new banks and finance companies are anxious to lend money. They are not pawnbrokers, shops with three brass balls hanging outside, which will take your watch and lend you a few rand for a few days. These are high-grade institutions with plush offices, busy typists and well-clothed staff, anxious to be of service to you, the main service being the lending of money. They do not lend to business houses. They are legitimate lending institutions placed somewhere between the pawnbroker and the commercial bank. They will accommodate the man who wants to buy something and who does not have the ready cash available. They will lend him money now and he will pay back in cash in the future. He can buy the radio or the diningroom suite and enjoy it at once. He can pay for it later. They even go so far as to pay for one’s holiday. They will pay for the fares for an overseas trip by air. All these things can be paid for in the future. The future for these banks is most promising.

This is consumer credit. It has existed for years as rather small fry in the financial world, as something rather beneath the dignity of the large commercial banks or the insurance companies, but of late some of the most eminent and respectable of our insurance banks and our commercial banks have floated wholly-owned subsidiaries under different names to serve this market.

There is nothing wrong about this service as such. I mentioned these banks and insurance companies to show that consumer credit is not chicken feed. It has attracted the attention of the banks and the insurance companies. So far as I know, there are no available figures to enable me to tell the House the extent of this business in this country, but in the U.S.A. it is estimated that total consumer credit almost equals the total national debt. Short-term and intermediate term consumer debt has increased 1,247 per cent in the last 20 years in the U.S.A. Intermediate debt is bearing at least 20 billion dollars in interest. That is roughly twice the amount that the State is paying on its national debt. This shows that by any standard short and intermediate term credit is big business. There is no evidence available to show that it is relatively less important in this country. It is also now dragging the nonwhite into its orbit.

Consumer credit does not function in the same way as business credit or as does a finance house when it lends large sums to mines or industries or as does the public when it lends its money to an undertaking, shall we say like Escom. In all these instances the rate of interest is clearly stated and it is a true rate on the total debt borrowed with no extras and no finance charges. In consumer credit the borrower is not informed of the interest rate. He does not as a rule discover the annual interest rate on what he has borrowed. He is informed of the terms under which the loan is granted and not in the form of an annual interest rate. This method of lending, by stating the terms of a loan without mentioning the annual rate, and by not informing the borrower of the total finance charge is a comparatively modern development and has led to undesirable practices. It means, in short, that the borrower is ignorant of the rate of interest he is being charged and he is ignorant of what he is paying over and above a reasonable annual interest rate. He cannot judge the market. He cannot shop for his loan in the cheapest interest market because he has no knowledge of the facts required for a comparison, for comparing one offer with another.

The basic principle, the basic purpose of the truth in lending principle is to require that anyone who lends money or extends credit must supply the would-be borrower or credit user with two simple vital facts. First, a statement of the total finance charge, and I want to explain what is meant by the total finance charge. The total finance charge means the sum of all the charges, including but not limited to interest, fees, service charges, and discount, which any person to whom credit is extended incurs in connection and as an incident to the extension of such credit. This is what he must disclose. Second, he must give a statement of the finance charge expressed in terms of the true annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation. In short, he is expected to give to the borrower written information as follows. One, the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired. Two, the amounts, if any, to be credited as a down-payment or trade-in. Three, the difference between these two sums. Four, the charges individually itemized which are paid or to be paid by such person in connection with the transaction, but which are not incident to the extension of credit. Five, the total amount to be financed. Six, the finance charges, firstly in terms of rands and cents, and secondly the percentage which the finance charge bears to the total amount to be financed, expressed as a simple annual rate on the periodic unpaid balance of the obligation. This is the statement which was made in the U.S. Senate in regard to the Truth-in-Lending Bill which has already been passed in the province of Nova Scotia in Canada and which has been presented to the U.S. Senate. The motion, if this were carried out, would enable the typical consumer to compare the cost of credit from various sources and it would enable him to make an intelligent decision. It would also help him in deciding whether or not to borrow, to pay cash, or to save towards the purchase. He will at least know how much his credit is costing him. which he does not know today.

Suppose, for example, a man wants to borrow R1,500 to buy a car. He goes to two lenders. The first states that the repayment will be R53.40 per month over 36 months, while the other one says to him his repayments will be R60 per month for 30 months. Which credit plan is the cheaper? How can he judge? The Truth-in-Lending Bill would require the lenders to prove the information the buyer needs. The first lender would be required to disclose that monthly repayments of R53.40 over 36 months actually amount to a total finance charge of R422.40 at an annual rate of interest of 18.3 per cent. The second lender would have to state that the payment he receives of R60 per month over 30 months will amount to a total finance charge of R300, and an annual rate of interest of 15.5 per cent. Thus the buyer has the information to make an intelligent choice. He would be applying the same conditions to those who sell the use of money as he requires from those who sell goods. We expect the seller of breakfast food to at least state the quantity and the price on the package. We expect the butcher to list the price per lb. for meat. We expect the petrol dealer to disclose the price per gallon. We expect the food stores to quote the price of milk per quart. Why should we not expect the lender or extender of credit to state his price in a similar fashion? The price of credit has traditionally been expressed as a true annual rate on the unpaid balance. Most loans have always been expressed in this manner, as have the interest rates on business transactions. The interest rates on savings accounts in the commercial banks are expressed in terms of true annual rates, and so are short-term interest rates to businessmen for financing their business. Only when we turn to the short-term credit consumer do we find a departure in the time-honoured method of expressing the price of credit. Why should we permit the seller of credit to be less honest with the unwary public than he is with the experienced businessman? Why should not these lenders state the amount of interest they are charging and its price in the form of an annual rate of interest or charge? Who could possibly object to such an elementary prerequisite to a fair deal? Truth in lending enables the borrower to make an intelligent decision in the market place. It may be that he would prefer to deal elsewhere, pay cash or save towards the purchase, when he appreciates the true rate of interest he has to pay. This has been highly recommended by two American Presidents. The late Pres. Kennedy said—

And Pres. Johnson in 1964 stated—

What faces the consumer credit seeker now? He is faced with the bewildering and, indeed, incomprehensible variety of interest rates and charges when he borrows money or buys an article on the instalment plan. The consumer, for instance, who desires to obtain credit for a R100 purchase to be repaid in monthly installments is usually confronted with one of the following alternatives. Firstly, no rate is quoted. The borrower is merely told that the charges will be R10 down and R10 a month. Neither the total finance charges nor the interest rate is disclosed. Secondly, there is what is known as the “add on” rate. The borrower is told that the finance charge will be R6 on his R100 loan. The lender allows the borrower to believe this to be a 6 per cent rate of interest, because the quoted rate is a play upon the figure 6. The actual rate is almost 12 per cent, or nearly double the stated rate, because the borrower over the period of a year only has the use ultimately of R50 rather than the R100. In other words, the interest rate is quoted on the original amount of debt and not on the declining or unpaid balance, as is the custom in business loans, Government loans or mortgages. Thirdly, we come to the discount rate. This is a variation of the “add on” rate. In the case of the “add on”, the borrower received R100 in cash or goods, and must pay back R106. In the case of the discount technique, the borrower receives R94 but repays R100. The finance charge here again is R6 and it is often represented as being 6 per cent. Again the actual rate is almost 12 per cent, or twice the quoted rate, because the borrower is periodically repaying the loan. Fourthly, there is quoted a simple monthly rate. This rate is usually quoted by small loan companies and by retailers using what is known as the revolving credit plan. The finance rate is represented as being from 1 per cent to 4 per cent a month. The simple annual rate in this case is 12 times the quoted figure, so it is really 12 per cent, 24 per cent, 36 per cent or 48 per cent. Fifthly, and this is one of the commonest in this country, there is the “add on” or discount plus the fee system. Lenders compound the camouflaging of credit by loading on all sorts of extraneous fees, such as exorbitant fees for life insurance, excessive fees for credit investigation, loan processing fees, all of which should be rightly included in the percentage rate stated, so that any percentage rate quoted under this system is completely meaningless and deceptive.

Looking at these credit practices in another way, how many credit consumers are aware that the small service charge of 1½per cent per month on department store charges is often a true annual rate of 18 per cent? The 3 per cent monthly plan for small loan companies is really 36 per cent per annum. The 4½ per cent new car financing plan of some commercial banks is really 9 per cent. The advertised 5 per cent rate on home improvement loans is not less than 6 per cent on the mortgage, but nearly twice as much, about 10 per cent. The so-called 6 per cent rate for financing used cars offered by some dealers is at least 12 per cent per year, and sometimes reaches 18 per cent to 25 per cent. Finally, what I think is terrible, the cost of teen-age credit now being promoted by some retailers as only amounting to “pennies per week” amounts to nearly 18 per cent per year.

One can easily test one’s own price-shopping ability in the credit field. Let us say that you want to borrow R100 and pay off the loan and the interest in 12 equal monthly instalments. A friend says to you, “I will lend you the R100 and charge you at an annual rate of 10 per cent on the unpaid balance each month. I have not figured out what the equal monthly payments will be, but whatever they come to I will do it.” Good friend though he may be, you do not trust him and you tell him to wait a while. You call at the bank which offers to lend you the R100 in exchange for your note for R106 to be paid off in 12 equal monthly instalments. The total interest charge of R6 is added to the face amount of the note. Another bank says it will lend you the R100 “discounted”. If you sign a note for R100 they will subtract a R6 charge at the start. You will leave the bank therefore not with R100 but with R94, and you will promise to pay back an even R100 in 12 equal monthly instalments. Even though the discount loan will only put R94 in your pocket instead of R100 you decide that you will choose that one of the three offers which gives you the lowest interest rate on the money you actually get. Which do you choose? The “add on”, the discount or your friend’s 10 per cent offer? If you are an average person you cannot decide though both the add-on and the discount are extremely common types of loans in this country, and the figures in this example are about as simple as any that you might face in the real situation. As a matter of fact, nobody can compare these loans exactly. As long as payments are made in equal monthly instalments, no schedule of payment can be set up to charge you any selected, simple annual interest rate straightaway. It will always come out in enormously long fractions of cents, but that is purely academic. It is not apt to be evenly divisible by the number of payments but nobody will be hurt by the loss of a few cents. The average person cannot even get an approximation. He does not have the slightest knowledge of how to compare these three methods. These difficulties do not bother lenders. They work from printed tables which tell them what to charge each month at any useful interest rate on any likely loan amount over any reasonable period of months. Their tables are never exact but are true enough for their purposes. If this suggestion of mine that the hon. the Minister should introduce truth in lending is accepted, one could expect the Government to issue a set of interest-rate tables for time-payments. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this his serious consideration.

I want to move on now to deal briefly with the question as to how this affects inflation and the cost of living. Firstly, it will stabilize the economy; it will stop over-borrowing in times of shortage and it will help spending in times of plenty. When interest rates fall people will buy. today they buy all the time. They do not know whether they are getting a good or a bad deal; they do not have the slightest idea as to what it is costing them, but when they themselves can judge they will behave intelligently and in times of shortage, in times of inflation, they will stop buying when they see what rates they are required to pay. On the other hand, in times of plenty when the loan rates fall, they will buy which, after all, is what we want. [Time expired.]

I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the Budget introduced by him and on the way this Budget has been received. We want to give him the assurance, notwithstanding everything we have heard from the opposite side of the House, that South Africans as a whole received this Budget very well indeed.

I do not want to confine myself to the Budget so much, for reasons I shall give you in a moment. I want to raise one minor matter. We are grateful for the large amounts to be spent once again on the Orange River project, but we want to express the hope anew that the Government will find it possible, as far as it is humanly possible, as far as it is practicable, to devote its attention simultaneously to the development of the Caledon River for the southeastern part of the Free State, particularly in view of the fact that there is a very great need of development in that region. Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. I want to use this opportunity to have a little talk with hon. members on that side of the House, with reference to their attitude in this debate. It has become quite clear to me that the Opposition wants to use every opportunity, in and out of season, sometimes even as regards our national problems, to embarrass this Government because they believe that they still have a chance of taking over the Government in South Africa some day. I refer to a speech made last year in this House by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am referring to column 69, in which he said—

This hon. member was trying to tell the electorate of South Africa: “In 1938 the United Party Government was just as strong and the National Party Opposition just as small, and yet the National Party came into power.” The hon. member should tell his voters: “You need not worry; we are small but we, too, shall get into power again.” I want to put it to the Opposition and I want to put it very clearly to them, and I want to put it to South Africa, that there is absolutely no comparison between the United Party Government of 1938 and the National Party Government of today.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to that. There is not the slightest comparison between the Opposition of then and the Opposition of today. Permit me to tell hon. members of the Opposition, without a display of boastfulness, that at that time I had the privilege, as a very young man, to be very close to the erstwhile leader of the United Party in the Smithfield constituency, which he then represented and which I represent today. That is why I say that there is a difference between this Government of today and the Government of 1938. That Government of 1938, that party, carried the germ of death in itself. What is the germ which that party, the United Party of 1938, carried in it? That party carried the germ of political dishonesty.

Repeat that, please; we could not hear it.

I shall. Political dishonesty. [Interjections.] That party was founded for certain purposes. It is not I who say that. Hon. members of the Opposition must pardon me for what I say. But here in my hand I have a speech made by the Leader of the United Party in 1938, the late General Hertzog. It is a speech which he delivered in pouring rain at Smithfield on 4th November, 1939. It was made two months after that memorable day in this House of Assembly. And I leave it to General Hertzog to pass judgment on the United Party of then and now. The 19th point made by General Hertzog in that memorable speech was the following. And remember, that was one of the founders of the erstwhile United Party. And I still want to make the point why this Opposition cannot return to power.

Is that the Smithfield speech on the Broederbond?

I shall speak to the hon. member in a moment. I am coming to that. You are scared of the Broederbond; we are not scared of it. But you are now afraid of listening to what the former Leader of the United Party said. He said the following (translation)—

That was not in 1938.

And now the hon. member for Orange Grove may listen. It was in 1939. [Interjections.] He said it quite clearly—

He went further. Why was it dead? Why would it never revive? He said that the name of the party might survive. How prophetically true that was! The name survives, but the party is no longer there. But what was his reason? He said—

I now come to this Opposition, and I say that that party of 1939 was a politically dishonest party. General Hertzog said—

In other words, he had reason to think that even while he was still leader of the party, that politically dishonest element was undermining that party. Now I tell the Opposition that if they do not want to believe General Hertzog only, I want to call in someone else. And I want to tell you that a political party which stands and fights on anything but principles, principles which are pursued in firm conviction, cannot exist. The United Party demonstrates that. An Opposition still remaining of the political children of the men of those days can also not form a better government if they have no principles. But if you still doubt after I have told you that General Hertzog called this a politically dishonest party and a party without a policy, then I quote from Jan Smuts: ’n Biografie, by F. S. Crafford. On page 306 he very clearly says the following on the life of General Smuts (translation)—

Not in September, 1938. Not when the problem of Czechoslovakia was dealt with. “At the eleventh hour,” this man says of General Smuts’ life. [Interjections.] He says—

The United Party came into power as a result of years of planning, of concessions and compromise. It came into power as a result of its strategy and as a result of its diplomacy. No party can stay in power by these means. From that government I want to come to the Opposition of today, before I compare them with the Government of today, and the Opposition of those days. This diplomacy on the part of General Smuts, this compromise and this planning, came to the fore in many ways. [Interjections.] You may laugh. One of the tricks in the seven points of agreement was that General Smuts told General Hertzog: “Barry, don’t worry. I shall also accept this question of passing your native laws, but just promise me that we will not say a word about them until two years have passed.” And thus 1936 arrived. [Interjections.]

Order!

Thus 1936 arrived. And General Smuts, with the hon. members sitting on his side, did nothing to prevent those laws passing through Parliament, that is General Hertzog’s famous native laws. But those people knew that they did not have to worry about them. It was only part of that planning. It was only part of the compromise. It was only diplomacy or strategy. We shall put the white halter on it, and before long it will come to grief. No matter whether we provide in that act that we have to buy 7 million morgen of land for the natives. That does not matter; we simply accept that. It was accepted. In 1959, when I stood for election to the Provincial Council for the second time, we had a candidates’ conference in Bloemfontein, and then my friends there on the opposite side were gathered in their legions in Bloemfontein for a union congress. They then said: Our Leader, General Smuts, is no longer there, but here we have another man who plans and who will do all these things. We are going to show a bit more political dishonesty, even though it is our party which promised that it would buy that land. We are now going to tell the world that we will not buy it, for then we may catch quite a few votes. By these diplomatic means we may perhaps regain the government. Sir, do you know what happened then? Instead of gaining votes, they lost their best people. And that party wants to tell me that they are a party. Sons and daughters of those very people, dear people but politically dishonest people, of 1939, want to get back into power. No matter how much I like hon. members on that side personally, it is my bounden duty to point out to them the errant course they have taken. Sir, quite as dramatically as the hon. member for Durban (Point), I also cry: “Join us, join us. Renounce those wicked ways!” [Interjections.] When that National Party formed the Opposition in 1938, they were a very small Opposition. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. They squeaked, as the hon. member over there says. But they were an honest Opposition. In 1939, as a result of the politically dishonest attitude of that side, we flocked together. I can see the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to say: Yes, that is true.

[Inaudible.]

In 1941 there was disunity among us. That is the point I want to make. We are ashamed of that, but so proud that we may refer to that in this House today. Then we were shattered and torn. There was the National Party under Dr. Malan and the Afrikaner Party under Mr. Havenga. There was the New Order under Mr. Pirow. Outside the House of Assembly there was the O.B. under Oom Hans van Rensburg, and some days I felt that I wanted my own party. With the faithful support of General Moolman over there … [Interjection.] I say that it was a disunited opposition. In the election of 1943 we were shattered. But those struggling groups had something in common, namely love of South Africa. They believed in four basic principles. They believed in the principle of South Africa first. They believed in equal rights for the language groups and equal treatment of the cultural properties of the language groups. They believed in segregation or apartheid or separate development or separate freedom—call it what you please. It is a principle in which they believed. They believed in sovereign independence, preferably a republican independence. Thus they acted unanimously. Dr. Malan was in the van, and Mr. Havenga and all the other leaders helped, and where we had been the scorn of South Africa and of the world in 1943, we took united action in 1948, united on the basic principles to which we subscribed. That was the end of the United Party; 4th September, 1939, was the end of the party. That was said by the leader of the party. The name survived until 1948; then the party was destroyed. The name is still standing, but that United South African National Party—I say that in all charity—is no longer united. It is no longer South African. It is no longer national. Nor is it a party. We want to point that out today. This Opposition became a government— and this is for the edification of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—under our Leader, Dr. Malan, under Mr. Strydom and under Dr. Verwoerd. today we are under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Advocate Vorster. Those hon. members may speak of north and they may speak of south. They may say one is bigoted and the other something else. If it is true, it is of no significance whatsoever. The fact remains that no matter how bigoted a man is or how far north or south he is, the four basic principles of the National Party remain valid for everybody. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister this National Party will continue. This party will continue to govern this country. As for the problems which arrive from time to time, this party will take those hurdles. But what a tragedy that those hon. members on the opposite side will stay right where they are in the Opposition! All that will happen is that the politically honest hon. member for Houghton will take them in tow more and more, and faster and faster.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I last saw the Opposition so down-hearted. I shall do them the favour of changing the tenor of this debate slightly by referring to the Estimates. I am pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Durban (Central). I could not hear him very well, but I shall see his Hansard. I am convinced that that hon. member tried to render a contribution to these Estimates. He is the first and the only one in the United Party who tried to render an actual contribution to these Estimates. That is why I am congratulating him heartily. I only hope that there are more of his kind.

I should like to associate myself with the stock exchange and financial institutions and with the English Press, those papers which serve as the mouthpiece of the United Party/ in conveying my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on this excellent Budget which he has presented. I want to convey to the United Party my sincere sympathy because there is never an opportunity for them where they, too, may reap the fruit of success. That is because for 19 years they have never had the privilege of sharing with the Government all the glorious achievements this Government has attained. The other day hon. members on the other side, the hon. member for Parktown amongst others, claimed that they were here for expressing criticism only and not for putting forward suggestions. They say that if they criticize the Government because it is supposedly spending too much, it is not their duty to specify where too much is being spent. We accept that, because the U.P. does not have the ability to put forward suggestions in this respect. If one listens to the hon. members for Pinetown one sees that they are full of criticism and are prepared to say that more should be spent. However, one must not ask them where the extra money is to come from. We on this side accept that on Government level the U.P. is unable to render a contribution. But, if the U.P. were worth its salt, then it should at least be able to render a contribution to the nation, not so? The hon. member for Pinetown went as far as to say that the general public did not know what inflation really was. I do not want to agree with him, but if that is his view, and if that is the U.P.’s view, surely the U.P. can render a contribution by joining the Government in appealing to these supposedly ignorant people to cooperate. They can tell those people that we in South Africa have a standard of living which is one of the highest in the world. They can call their attention to that and tell them that to maintain that high standard, they should also contribute their share to combat inflation. They may be asked to spend a little less and to save a little more. Surely they can render a contribution in that way. We accept the fact that the U.P. does at least still have some influence amongst the general public of South Africa. Perhaps there are still a few people who will listen to them. After all, the public can render that contribution. They proved that to us when the Government introduced the various measures. The effect of these measures was very encouraging. After the introduction of these measures, there was a drop in private consumption expenditure, not so? In 1964 this expenditure showed an increase of 12.4 per cent, whereas in 1965 there was an increase of 8.6 per cent only. In 1966 the figure was 5 per cent only. I want to substantiate my statement further. In what respect did the public actually spend less so that they might save more? The savings were actually effected on durable consumption goods. In 1964 there was an increase of 26.4 per cent on durable consumption goods, whereas the figure for 1965 only represented an increase of 6.4 per cent. Even in respect of non-durable consumption goods there was merely a slight increase. In spite of that the U.P. criticizes the Government. They criticize these Estimates and complain, because, according to them, there is insufficient productivity. The hon. member for Pinetown mentioned this and so did the hon. member for Durban (Point) as well as other hon. members. But this is not true, surely. After all, we know the history of this Government. We know what it has already achieved in respect of universities, technical colleges, facilities for adult training and a hundred and one other things. Even in these Estimates, concessions were made for the purpose of bringing about increased productivity. I repeat: Why does the U.P. not join the Government in making an appeal to these people who supposedly do not know what inflation is? The hon. the Minister said that this was a “work and save” Budget. Why does the U.P. not contribute its share as well by asking the public—those people amongst whom they may perhaps have some influence—to work a little bit harder? Why do they not ask them to work a mere five minutes longer every day, thus increasing the productivity by more than one per cent? But that they will not do. But for the hon. member I mentioned a moment ago, the U.P. has not rendered a single contribution to these Estimates as yet. They never render a contribution.

The hon. member for Durban (Point)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—was very witty the other night. He challenged this side to say whether we were satisfied with the conditions of the workers. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to him to a certain extent. I want to tell him now that we are in fact satisfied, under the circumstances. If we compare what this Government has done for workers with what the U.P. did for them, and if we take present circumstances into account, then we are satisfied. The hon. member said that it was their policy to allow cost-of-living allowances to increase as the cost of living increased. But we killed that policy of theirs a long time ago when we consolidated cost-of-living allowances. We paid all the workers of South Africa twice as much as the increase in the cost of living. Surely, those people are satisfied—they are so satisfied that the voters of the constituency I represent are telling me and also the U.P. that they are satisfied. I am not the only one who says that they are satisfied. In 1949 the N.P. won my seat with a majority of ten. During the last election we took that same constituency by a margin of more than 4,000—and only workers and salaried people live there. Surely this is how they are telling the U.P. that they are satisfied with the position. It stands to reason that all of us want more money. It is likely that even the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants more money. After all, one has ideals, one wants to get on in the world.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made a shameless remark here. He talked about the small, the inferior concession which was made to the aged. He said that their pensions did not do us any credit. Imagine, Sir, that an hon. member on that side should make such a remark! Why does he not tell the public that in 1948, when we took over the reins of government from them, the old-age pension was only R10 per month, whereas it is R30 and more at present? Why does he not talk about the means test which has been raised so tremendously? Why are hon. members on that side not being honest, why do they not come out with the truth? ([Interjection.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout might as well keep quiet. When the U.P. fights elections, we are accustomed to hearing them indulge in double-faced politics, but politically the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has crawled into so many holes that he is moving underground at present. That is why I think that he should rather keep quiet altogether. We know that there are some of our people, and groups of people, who are struggling and bowed under heavy burdens, and I also want to bring a few cases to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am also doing so because the Minister has intimated that he intends to make a study of this matter and that in addition he will quite probably change this system of taxation. In the first place I want to mention company tax. I feel that there is a lower-income group amongst companies. There are private companies, large companies, small companies and companies with small profits, with average profits and with large profits. I trust that the Minister will pay attention to this aspect in the future. In the second place I want to plead for pensioners in general. These people are accustomed to a high standard of living and when they retire they have to adapt themselves to circumstances. After a few years, with the rise in the cost of living, they have to economize somewhere. It is for that reason that I want to ask the Minister whether it will be possible to make concessions to these people, to pensioners in general, in the future. I am also thinking of pensioners who were formerly employed by the State and by the Railways and who are fortunate to receive cost-of-living allowances. I want to ask the Minister whether that means test cannot be raised. As far as I am concerned, it might as well be abolished altogether. Then we shall find that many of those people will once again be able to offer their services to the country, which will enable them to maintain a better standard of living and also to render a great contribution to our productivity.

Then I have a last request to the hon. the Minister. In these Estimates there is another concession, namely the concession in regard to medical expenses. There are many people who are hit by unforeseen expenses in that regard. There are many people who suddenly find themselves in the position that they have to spend hundreds or thousands of rands to preserve the health of their families and of the nation, and it often happens that they never get over this in their lifetime. I feel that it will be appreciated if the Minister would also pay attention to this matter in the future.

I want to conclude by saying that these Estimates meet with the approval of everybody in the Republic except the United Party on the other side, but I shall tell you, Sir, why that is so. I think they are on the wrong tack, but the United Party is unable to make any contribution in this regard, because they are on the hunt. They know that the elections in Worcester and particularly Johannesburg (West) are near, and now they want to see whether they can find a few dissatisfied people. But I want to give them the assurance and the guarantee that as a direct result of the contribution they tried to render here, the voters will show them on the 3rd May that they will give the National Party a larger majority.

The hon. member for Mayfair, who has just resumed his seat, said that speakers on this side had intimated that the man in the street did not understand anything about the cost of living and about inflation and things like that. I think I must put him straight on this point. The hon. member for Pinetown said that the average man in the street did not understand all about inflation. I submit that there are very few members in this House, particularly on that side, who can tell us all about inflation. [Interjection.]

This has been pretty obvious from the smokescreen they have put up in this debate, but the hon. member for Pinetown did say that what the man in the street does understand is that today his rand buys less than it did five years ago, and considerably less than it did in 1950. He even went so far as to ask the Minister to accept the slogan of: “Stop Rotting the Rand.” That is what the man in the street understands. Comparisons are odious, but the hon. member for Mayfair tried to compare what he considered the meagre pension of RIO received by an old-age pensioner under the United Party Government with what he calls the munificent amount of R30 he receives today. If he wants a comparison, I can only tell him that my grandfather started working at Is. a week, and when he was earning 2s. a week he was better off than he would be today with a pension of R30. [Interjection.] However, I find that on one point I can agree with the hon. member, and I will support his plea for increased pension concessions. With regard to Worcester and Johannesburg (West), I think we can leave that to the voters and I am sure that that side of this House will wake up with a bump. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Smithfield, who unfortunately has left now, is obviously a product of C.N.E., of this iniquitous Christian National Education, and he comes here with a distorted sense of mission. He dares to criticize our attitude in this debate. He criticizes us for taking this opportunity of making our standpoint clear to the people of South Africa. The hon. member for Mayfair also mentioned this. Sir, we are merely doing our duty as a responsible Opposition. It is our duty to bring to the notice of the public the shortcomings of this Government and to highlight those shortcomings and to tell them where it goes wrong, and to point out where it is stupid, and, most important of all in this particular debate, to point out where it is wasteful, and that is what I intend to do a little later in my speech. The hon. member for Smithfield also said that the present Government was not the same as the one which went out of office in 1948. More is the pity that this Government cannot act as a responsible Government, as did the one which went out in 1948.

I now want to turn briefly to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. His answer to the question of whether or not the Government is satisfied with the development of the reserves was symptomatic of the inherent inferiority complex of this Government. He merely begged the question and answered with platitudes. That is what we are getting used to receiving, because we can get no facts out of this Government. Do the Deputy Minister and the Minister really believe that the reserves can be developed to exist on an agricultural basis?

No.

Then why does the Minister come to the House and tell us that is what he is doing? [Interjections.] Do these Ministers consider that the gross national agricultural product of the reserves can be developed to be sufficient to maintain the Bantu areas and also at the same time to build up this infra-structure they repeatedly refer to? This is merely a pipedream of the Government. The Deputy Minister gave us statistics, and they are impressive, but what do they mean? With all these statistics and all these so-called accomplishments, can the Deputy Minister tell us how many more Bantu can make a living in the reserves? Has the carrying capacity of the reserves been increased at all? If so, why do they not give us the figures? How many more Bantu are being kept in the reserves as the result of this tremendous expenditure and the accomplishments of the Government? How many more Bantu have been given employment there? Those are the things we want to know from the Government, but we get nothing. The Government just has pipedreams and puts up a tremendous smokescreen to hide the answers to these basic questions.

One other thing, of course, which is a tremendous disappointment to the Government is that they cannot incorporate Langa, Nyanga and Soweto and a few other townships into the homelands. This must be a source of tremendous disappointment to them. They have done it with Umlazi and they are going to do it with Imbali and Qua Mashu, and this is their answer to removing the Bantu from the white areas. You create an artificial piece of homeland and incorporate the existing black townships that have been developed around the white cities, and then you turn your back and say you cannot see what is going on across the line, so the problem is solved. However, I think I can leave the hon. the Deputy Minister there.

In the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinetown he says that we demand that the Government, inter alia, gives assurances that greater efficiency is being achieved in the administration of the country’s affairs. That is what we ask. Prove to us that the country’s affairs are being run with greater efficiency. That is what we ask of the Government.

We have had many examples of inefficiency. We have particularly had examples of inefficiency through duplication of control and through the institution of unnecessary control. These are cases of inefficiency. We heard from the hon. member for Houghton yesterday about all these different boards and bodies which have been instituted and which are most unnecessary. Then we have the case of hotels. Hotels today are under dual control. For the purpose of classification they fall under the jurisdiction of the National Liquor Board. That board has a set of regulations; it has a team of inspectors and it costs money to run. That board concerns itself with the classification of hotels. Once the hotel has been classified it is registered with the Hotel Board. Then we have another board, which also has a set of regulations to be complied with, which also has a team of inspectors and which also costs money—unnecessary money—and what do they deal with? They deal with grading and the allocation of stars.

Surely all this could be done by one board with one set of regulations and one team of inspectors. We also have the question of licensees of public bars. They are governed by a set of regulations under the Liquor Act. In this case too there is a team of inspectors. They are now being told that they must supply meals in their bars otherwise they will lose their licences. Sir, this necessitates the provision of a kitchen, which means added expense to the licensee and which is engendering inflation—this creeping inflation that we have —and which necessitates the obtaining of another licence, a licence to operate a restaurant or a tearoom. The licensee now has to comply with another set of regulations and he is involved in more unnecessary expense and more unnecessary wastage of man-hours, not to mention the people who are unnecessarily being employed in these spheres. Sir, these things are all inflationary. But we find in the case of these bars that there is another body involved and that is the Department of Community Development, because although the consumption of liquor on premises does not constitute “occupation” in terms of the Act, the consumption of food does. The licensee now has to apply for another permit; he has to waste more time and more money to get permission to carry out something which he has been doing for years and years. This means more wasted man-hours, and as far as I am concerned this is bureaucracy gone mad and which is chasing up the inflation spiral. Then we have another recent example.

We did ask for the hon. the Minister of Health to be present; he did come in but unfortunately he has left the Chamber again. We now have the general health regulations promulgated in Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 1652 on the 10th February, 1967. Sir, here is another example of what I have just been talking about. Here is another example of this Government sticking its clammy claw into some sphere where it is not wanted and where it is not necessary, and once again the implementation of these regulations is going to involve unnecessary expenditure. Sir, we have provincial councils in this country. The provincial councils have always had control over these rural areas to which these regulations apply. They have always had a set of regulations which applied to those areas. In particular they have had a set of regulations which apply to trading premises and the issue of trading licences. They have had control of general dealer shops, butcheries, tearooms, and eating houses; they have exercised control over hawkers and their licences and they have done this most efficiently. They have a perfectly sound set of regulations in existence. Failure to comply with these regulations ether results in failure to obtain a licence or in a refusal to renew the licence. The regulations are rigidly enforced. The provincial councils have a team of health inspectors in their employ who go round inspecting these premises and seeing that the regulations are carried out.

The hon. the Minister of Health now introduces another set of regulations which are in addition to those already in existence. In many cases these regulations run contrary to the existing ones, but in the majority of cases they run parallel; so now we have a dual control, an unnecessary dual control, because there is already sufficient control. We also have a dual set of inspectors. The Minister now imposes these restrictions and conditions in addition to those which already exist and he compels every licensee, every owner of trading premises, to register with the magistrate after obtaining a certificate of fitness. Sir, there is no need for these additional regulations because licensees are already registered with the licensing authority at provincial level. These regulations are inflationary in that ail licensees in rural areas have to obtain these certificates of fitness from the Department of Health before they can register with the magistrate; before they can go to the licensing authority to obtain a certificate for the issue of the licence. There is a charge of R1.05 levied for these certificates of fitness plus mileage at the rate of 10 cents per mile for the trip by the inspector from and to the nearest magistrate’s office. Apart from all this waste of money there is this abominable waste of man hours. As far as the licensee is concerned it involves two visits to the magistrate’s office. But think of the waste of Government money that is involved here; think of the waste of money by the Department of Health in maintaining an inspectorate to follow in the footsteps of the provincial inspectors who are already doing exactly the same job. Think of the waste of manpower. Or is this hon. Minister’s Department over-staffed and under-worked? Is he perhaps seeking something to keep them occupied? Does he want to give them more to do? Is he trying to find something to keep them occupied?

This, Sir, is apart from the confusion which is now created in the minds of members of the public and, of course, the embarrassment and the inconvenience which is being occasioned. These regulations are parallel to and in addition to existing regulations. In some cases they are directly opposed to existing regulations. Sir, just in case there is a doubt in the minds of hon. members opposite—and I am certain that there are very few of them who have even looked at these regulations—I want to refer to regulation No. 125 where the Minister admits this because he says: “These regulations shall be deemed to be in addition to but not in substitution for any law or regulation in force within the district of the local authority”, the local authority in that case being the magistrate. Sir, this is an extreme example of the inefficiency of this Government, this deliberate and unnecessary duplication of control, duplication of inspectors, duplication of certificates. It is deliberate because as I have just pointed out, the Minister knew when he promulgated these regulations that they were unnecessary, that they would be in addition to those which already exist. I submit that the regulations which are in existence are adequate and that they do adequately control.

This unnecessary waste of money and manpower by duplication of control is to be deplored, especially at this time when this Government tells us that it is engaged in a fight against inflation and when the whole country agrees that South Africa needs every available person to do an honest and productive day’s work every day. The hon. the Minister of Finance has asked us to “work and save”; that was the theme of his Budget, but I am sure he did not intend that the hon. the Minister of Health should now create unnecessary work to try to keep some people busy unnecessarily. A set of general health regulations, which applied to areas which constituted a threat to the health of the public, would have been acceptable. Even the establishment of a team of inspectors to go into those areas where there is a threat, or a possibility of a threat, to the health of the people of South Africa would have been acceptable, but the areas to which these regulations are applied ether already have some form of control or do not require the type of regulation which has been promulgated. However, those areas which do require some form of control are specifically excluded. I refer to the Bantu areas. The Bantu areas are specifically excluded. There is no control in those areas. These are the areas which constitute a threat to the health of the people and yet they are specifically excluded. I think particularly of the farms which have recently been purchased by the Bantu Trust, farms on which the Bantu have been allowed to settle and squat indiscriminately—without any control, without any supervision. Because what control is there? Absolutely none. I think also of the conditions which prevail at a place like Hammarsdale. What is more, Hammarsdale is not an isolated instance and I am referring to it only because of the answer I received on Tuesday from the hon. the Minister of Health, in answer to a question. The Government knows of the deplorable conditions existing there and, in the circumstances, one expects some form of control there, or else at least adequate provision being made for the Bantu in that area. But adequate provision should have been made for housing, for water and for sanitation. This Government is so careless in its planning and control that it has allowed an unfettered influx and squatting of Bantu under appalling conditions. It has recklessly risked the lives of the people and the health of the community. I should like to refer to the reply of the hon. the Minister of Health to my question about Hammarsdale. He said that it was found that as a result of the influx of large numbers of Bantu into this fast developing industrial area, squatters’ camps sprang up before provision could be made for the necessary housing, water supplies, sanitation and refuse disposal. “The resultant unhygienic conditions,” so his reply reads further, “were apparently the cause of the outbreak of typhoid.” The Government knows about this—as a matter of fact, they have known about it since 1959. It is, therefore, no good saying now that it is unexplained and unexpected. In fact, they have known of this since 1957 when they were warned by a social survey made by the University of Natal. The hon. the Minister told me that only 22 cases of typhoid had been reported during the past year.

But the District Surgeon of the Camper-down district disagrees with that. He says he is treating six cases per month. And let me tell this House and the hon. the Minister that even that is not the total of the number of typhoid cases occurring in the area. In fact, there are people dying there almost daily, people who are just buried without anything being said. These cases are not notified. People know of the trouble that will be occasioned them. They know this disease is fatal ninety-nine times out of a hundred. What has the District Surgeon to say? In a report in the Natal Daily News of the 8th March he said that a weekly inoculation campaign was being carried out by his staff in the area, but the sanitation and water supplies were so poor that they were helpless. Yet the hon. the Minister of Health on Tuesday did not know whether an inoculation campaign was being carried out. [Interjections.] If anybody is killing the Bantu it is the Government through its negligence. They are the people who are entitled to protection in this country. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration told us of the large sums of money that were being spent on this magnificent border area, the shop window of the Government. But what have they done for the Bantu people?— absolutely nothing! But I gained the impression from the hon. the Minister’s reply that now at last he was doing something. I am glad of that and I wish him luck and hope he will be successful in his attempts to control this. However, I wish he would regard this as a matter of urgent necessity, get into the area and clean it up; spend money there and not on ideological claptrap and on unnecessary duplication of control, such as I have shown exists in the Department of Health.

There is another aspect of these regulations I want to deal with quickly—the unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion by this hon. Minister and his department into provincial affairs. As I have said, the provincial authorities have promulgated regulations and have been controlling these areas in the past. What is more, they have done it very well and in a most satisfactory manner. But now this Minister has promulgated certain regulations, some of which are in conflict with and others running parallel to the regulations already promulgated by the provincial authorities. Here I want to quote Mr. Percy Fowle, M.E.C., as reported in the Natal Witness of 31st March—

This is merely another indication of the dictatorial and bureaucratic attitude of this Government; it is another instance of their preoccupation with the centralization of control at the expense of efficiency. It is unnecessary and wasteful Government expenditure and it is raising the overheads of the traders in the rural areas. It is merely another instance of the Government’s progressive eroding of the powers of the provincial councils; another instance of the growing tendency on the part of Government Departments to impose their will on provincial councils; it shows a lack of balance and perspective on the part of the Government and an abysmal lack of confidence and faith in its own abilities; it is merely another manifestation of what I said earlier —their inherent inferiority complex. However, the most iniquitous aspect of this interference with the affairs of provincial councils is that these regulations involve administrators and provincial councils in further expense, unnecessary expense, without even being consulted. The Minister promulgates these regulations, incurs expense thereby, and then in terms of the relevant act merely charges the provincial councils with the costs. In terms of section 9 of the Public Health Act of 1919 all expenditure under that section after the 31st day of March, 1920, “shall be recovered from the administrator of the province in which it was incurred”. Sir, how dare this Minister promulgate these regulations imposing expenditure for the accounts of provincial councils without even consulting them? So much for the autonomy of the provinces. This is iniquitous especially as they are going to be involved in this unnecessary additional expenditure without even having being consulted first. So, I should like to call upon the hon. the Minister to withdraw these regulations now before they are applied. They only will apply from the 1st January next year. I appeal to him to withdraw them, to consult with the provinces and to do away with this dual control. If there are additional regulations required then let the Minister consult with the provinces and let them add those regulations to theirs. I am sure they will only be too pleased to co-operate. What is more, they will be only too pleased to co-operate with the hon. the Minister in order to cut down unnecessary expenditure, expenditure which is inflationary. On the one hand the hon. the Minister of Finance is asking the people to save while, on the other hand, the hon. the Minister of Health is spending more and unnecessarily so. If the hon. the Minister has money to burn, if he has got some money for which a use has to be found, let him use those funds to control those areas where there is a distinct threat to the health of the people of this country.

Everyone of you farmers from the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, do you know that if you want to build a lean-to you now have to submit plans to the hon. the Minister’s Department and get them approved before you can put it up? Read the regulations. I shall give you the reference again. [Interjection.] You have not read them. You do not know what is in your own regulations. The reference is Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 1652 of the 10th February. Let us hear what they have to say now. Section 24 states—

Where does this apply? It applies on every farm in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and Natal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the principal complaint of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) against this Government is that there are certain duplications in administration. He mentioned two examples here of what he called duplication. In the first instance he referred to the control exercised over licensed liquor premises. He referred to the functions of the Liquor Licensing Board on the one hand and the functions of the Hotels Board on the other. As far as my knowledge as legal practitioner with many years’ experience of these matters goes, I want to give him the assurance that I have not been able to descry the slightest duplication in that direction. The function of our liquor licensing boards is in the first instance to determine the requirements of the public in their vicinity, and to see to it that liquor licensed premises meet the requirements of the public as far as general morality and other amenities are concerned. The function of the Hotels Board on the other hand is, in the first instance, to see to it that South Africa gets a better type of hotel so that there will be more facilities for the travelling public in general. It cannot be the function of a local liquor licensing board to raise the standard of hotels in general in our country. That can only be done by a board with wider powers such as the Hotels Board, which is in a position to make comparisons and see what is happening in South Africa as a whole. It can only be a board like that which may be entrusted with this function of inspecting hotels and allocating grades.

In regard to the other matter which he mentioned here, i.e. the question of the health regulations which have just been announced, he said in the main that there would be duplication in certain functions of the Provincial Administration and the Department of Health. I am not acquainted with the full contents of these regulations to which he referred, but I did have the privilege, for more than a year, of being charge of the provincial hospitals in the Cape. I want to give him the assurance that there was the most cordial co-operation between the Department of Health and the Provincial Department of Health at all times. I was never personally aware of any form of duplication in respect of health administration between the provinces on the one hand and the Central Government on the other.

As regards any possible duplication which there may be with regard to the inspection of premises by the Department of Health on the one hand and local authorities on the other, it will only be possible to raise and discuss this question to any advantage when the Health Vote is discussed in the Committee Stage. I shall then leave him to the tender mercies of the hon. the Minister.

I want to return to yesterday’s debate in regard to the question of the removal or the replacement of Bantu labour by White and Coloured labour, particularly as far as it affects the Western Cape and the Cape in general. The fact that there is to be a by-election in Worcester is one of the reasons why this question is now being discussed in this House. At a certain meeting held by the United Party candidate in Worcester, reference was made to this so-called gift from Above which has been granted to us and which we supposedly do not want to utilize for the promotion of our agriculture and secondary industries in the Cape. I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side who still want to discuss this Budget and also the United Party candidate in Worcester, that the final test in regard to this vitally important question will be held on the 19th of this month. If they want to shed tears over the policy which is being applied by this Government, let them save their tears for the late hours of the 19th April or the early morning hours of the 20th April.

I think it is right that this vital question should be discussed at length in this House because it is one of the fundamental differences between the National Party and the Official Opposition. I also believe that in the following few decades this will remain the fundamental difference between the National Government and the United Party. That is why I think it is no more than right that the entire Republic of South Africa should take cognisance of the basic aims of our major political parties as far as this question is concerned. I also think it is right that all population groups in all the sectors of our country, as well as all employers, should know what is at stake for our fatherland. I believe that if they know that, and if they ponder this problem properly, they will regard any temporary discomfort which they may have to endure at this juncture or may still have to endure in the future, as a small price to be paid for the future welfare of all population groups in South Africa.

The standpoint of the National Party in respect of this question is very simple and very clear. On the one hand the National Party believes that what we regard as the white man’s homeland must for all time offer a safe refuge for the white man and those population groups which will be living here permanently. That is why we believe that the labour potential of these groups must be exploited in such a way that labour can be supplied by the white man, the Coloured and the Indian on all levels where work can be done. In the second instance the policy of the National Party is pretty clear as far as the black homelands are concerned. They must be developed in such a way that the Bantu will not only obtain political control in their own homelands, but that they will also retain economic control there for all time, and that the development which is to take place there in their own homelands will not ultimately result in economic enslavement coupled with political freedom, but that they will also have economic freedom in their own homelands in future.

What the standpoint of the United Party is, as opposed to this, I do not know, I do not think South Africa knows. All that I know is that the standpoint of the United Party cannot possibly be the same, for otherwise the U.P. candidate in Worcester would not have shed such tears, and this criticism which we as a National Government are having to endure today would not have been raised in this House.

I believe that it is right that this policy of the replacement of Bantu labour by White and Coloured labour should be tested in the Western Cape. When I speak of the Western Cape, I actually mean the Cape as a whole, with the sole exception of those areas where black homelands are to be established in the east and in the north.

In the first instance I believe that it is right that this policy should be tested in the Western Cape because this part of our fatherland forms the largest part of the homeland of the white man, and because it links up very closely with other areas in other Provinces and forms a whole with those areas, so that what may ultimately result here is a extensive white homeland. In the second instance I believe that it is right for this policy to be tested here in the Western Cape because history itself has made a natural and a fair division of the national territory here and because it is possible to see here at its clearest the line of demarcation between Bantu homeland on the one hand and white homeland on the other. I think it is far more logical that this policy be tested in the first instance in this part of the Republic because it is easier to carry it into effect where the line has already been drawn by history itself.

In the third instance I believe that it is right for this policy of the replacement of Bantu labour to be tested here in the Western Cape because if we did not do so, major sociological and economic problems would arise here in future. That is why I think that our aim should in the first place be to protect the underdeveloped Coloured family, particularly on our farms and also in our smaller towns, against further Bantu inroads. This is particularly necessary on our farms and in our smaller towns where there is no clear line of demarcation between the residential areas of the Coloureds and the residential areas of the Bantu. There is the greatest danger that a new, a Coloured-Black race, will develop. That is why I think it is right for us to test this policy here in the Western Cape and carry it out so that we can protect the underdeveloped Coloureds against the inroads of the Bantu into their family life. If we do not do that the result will simply be that the Coloureds on the farms and in the smaller towns will have to pack up and move to the larger towns and cities where there are at present proper lines of demarcation between the residential areas of the Coloureds and the Bantu. The alternative is the degeneration of the Coloureds; he will have to stand by and see his family life being broken up.

In the second respect our aim must be to make the work-shy Coloureds prepared to do work and to utilize properly the tremendous potential lying nascent in that part of our Coloured population for the Western Cape and South Africa. That is why I am pleased that the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Act was promulgated yesterday, 5th April, in the year 1967. It will now be possible to make a start with the tremendous task of equipping the work-shy Coloureds for their task in their own interests and in those of the community as a whole.

In the third respect—and I believe that this is the most important—we must take stock of the position which is developing here in the Cape. I am referring to the tremendous population explosion which is taking place, particularly in respect of the Coloureds. If we stand still for a moment and compare the picture of today with the picture for the following 35 years, then hon. members on the opposite side as well as those on this side of the House will agree that the policy of the replacement of Bantu labour is not merely an ideological question which revealed itself last year for the first time as something which has to be solved, but that in the final resort it is an economic matter. That is why I want to underline once again certain figures here, certain figures which will serve to make the future picture very clear to us.

In the 1960 census year there were 1,003,000 Whites and 1,330,000 Coloureds here in the Cape. If we take as basis the figures which are being used by the Industrial Development Corporation, and we look into the future for a moment, then we shall see that at the end of the year 1970 there will have been a great increase of the Coloureds in the Cape for they will then number 1,786,000 souls. Five years later, i.e. in 1975 there will already be 2,070,000 Coloureds in the Western Cape. Five years after that, i.e. in 1980, the figure will have risen to almost 2,400,000, specifically to 2.398.000. If we look at the picture 20 years later, i.e. in the year 2000, we shall see that in the Cape alone there will be 4,324,000 Coloured people.

What is of far greater importance to me is the number of economically active Coloureds which there are at present in the Cape, and which there will be in future, because on these figures depends the success or failure of the policy which the Government is now putting into practice. I shall now furnish the figures in respect of economically active Coloureds. If one takes the percentage as 35 and not as 36.33, which it actually is, then the total number was 465,000 in 1960. In 1970, i.e. in three years’ time, the total number calculated at 35 per cent will amount to 625,000. In 1975 it will increase to 724,000, while in 1980 it will be 839.000. In the year 2000 their numbers will have increased to 1,513,000.

Consequently there will have been the following increase in the number of economically active Coloureds in the years which I shall indicate. Between the years 1960 and 1970 the increase will have been 159,000. Between the years 1970 and 1975 it will have increased by a further 99,000. From 1975 to 1980 there will have been an increase of a further 114,000. Between 1980 and 2000 there will have been a further increase of 674,000. These figures refer, as I have said to the economically active Coloureds in the Cape. If we now consider what the position would be in five years’ time from 1967, we will notice a few interesting phenomena. On 31st August, 1967, the quota of Bantu contract labourers must be reduced by 5 per cent in comparison with what the quota was on 31.8.1966. If we look at the picture in five years’ time we will see that out of a total of 22,820 contract Bantu working in secondary industries in the Western Cape, and on the assumption that their numbers will have been increased by 5 per cent each year for the following five years, there will be only 5,705 less. At the moment there are 131,000 contract Bantu working in the Western Cape. If we removed 25 per cent of them, the decrease will be 32.853. On the one hand therefore we will have a decrease of 32,000 Bantu as a whole on farms, in factories, and elsewhere in the Western Cape. In industries the increase will only be 5,700. But as against that the number of economically active Coloureds—and this is a conservative figure—in the Western Cape will have increased by 80,000. This figure is almost three times greater than the number of contract Bantu who are going to be removed over a period of five years—in accordance with this rate of removal. If we were to accept that all the contract Bantu in the Western Cape, i.e. the full 131,000 in all the sectors of industry, were to be removed within 15 years instead of within 20 years, we would find that in the year 1982 there would be an additional 289,000 new economically active Coloureds to replace those 131,000 Bantu. That is more than twice the number of Bantu who will be working in the Western Cape in the year 1967. More than twice this number of economically active Coloureds will be available here in the Western Cape as a result of normal growth during the course of the following 15 years. Then we are not even looking at the picture which will have arisen in the year 2000 because from 1982 to the year 2000 there will be a further 606,000 economically active Coloureds in the Western Cape over and above the 289,000.

What I want to suggest here today is that the United Party is so interested in the crab at its feet that it does not see the wave which is busy washing away the Western Cape and South Africa. They are scratching for the flea in their breeches, but they do not see the lion which is ready to pounce on them. The National Party is interested in the year 1967, but it also looks at the picture in the year 2000.

Having listened to what was said in the course of this debate, one is glad that the public outside realises what sort of United Party we actually have to contend with in this House. The United Party criticized the Estimates, and amongst other things they came forward with certain proposals whereby they want to solve the problem of inflation. In this respect I am referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) yesterday. The hon. member made the statement that the manpower shortage contributed more to the problem of inflation than was the case with capital. He said that in pursuance of a statement which was made by Dr. Louw of the Trust Bank. The hon. member also went to Soweto, and he talked about another survey which was carried out by the University of South Africa, and according to which it was proved that more than 80 per cent of the inhabitants of Soweto were unskilled labourers. Then he arrived at this conclusion—and I shall read from his speech because I do not want to do him an injustice—and he said—

It is very clear to me that with the manpower shortage, which the hon. member for North Rand says there is, the United Party wants to cross the colour bar and they want to meet the shortage with skilled Bantu labour. [Interjections.] That is very clear to us on this side of the House, and it has already been pointed out in various debates that the way in which these people want to use skilled Bantu labour entails certain dangers. The hon. member calls Johannesburg the hub of industry in South Africa, and he wants to solve the problems they have there with skilled Bantu labour. Therefore he wants to train skilled Bantu diamond cutters, fitters and turners. But I should like to link up the hon. member’s argument with a debate on job reservation which took place in this House in 1963. On that occasion the hon. member for Yeoville said the following, after he had made a plea for job reservation to be abolished by the Government. He went further and even said that the Minister had to use his initiative to establish Bantu trade unions. I am quoting from Hansard, col. 7080, 3rd June, 1963—

Then he goes further—

Now, we know that in South Africa the pattern of collective bargaining lies in the fact that it is being laid down by the Industrial Conciliation Act, and that in terms of that Act a trade union should register so that it may obtain all the privileges in bargaining. That means that a trade union must become a member of the Industrial Council and that it may ask for a conciliation board and that the mine workers’ trade union even has the right to strike. This hon. member advocates skilled Bantu labour. Previously he qualified that by saying that these were primitive people, but once the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has finished with them and once they have been integrated and have gained a position of power in the industry, it means by implication that these people will have to be given the right of bargaining, just as is the case with the white trade unions. If it is the privilege of a fitter and turner to be able to obtain the right of bargaining for his wages in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, then, under those circumstances, it is probably also the moral right of the Bantu to be granted that right of bargaining under their own trade union, as contemplated by the United Party. Sir, we are dealing with a dangerous thing and with a dangerous United Party.

But let us go further. Let us see what the position is in mining. The hon. member for Yeoville, the United Party’s main speaker on labour matters, said the following about the colour bar (Hansard, 1963, col. 7126)—

Now we probably have the right to say under these circumstances that the position at present is such that the United Party is prepared to state and to tell our workers, and particularly the mine workers, that they are prepared to break down the colour bar in the mines. The proposals of these people for putting a stop to inflation, are to train the Bantu as skilled labourers in the mines as well. There they are to be given their separate trade unions to bargain, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, for better wage conditions along with the white mine workers. I feel that it is very important that our White workers should know exactly where we stand with the United Party.

The argument is advanced that the abolition of work reservation does not necessarily mean that the wages of the white man will be reduced in that someone with a lower standard of living will be appointed in his place, but in practice it does not work out that way, and eventually it will lead to the white workers being ousted and their wages being reduced, because they will be in the same industry and they will have been integrated in the same industry and in the same positions as the Bantu. That is why I said at the outset that this United Party was dangerous for the survival of the Whites in South Africa, because they were willing to give up certain principles for the sake of economic advantage, and that they were the accomplices of certain capitalistic forces in this country.

But I want to return to the Estimates before us, and I want to observe that to my mind the outstanding characteristic of these Estimates is the selective way in which the hon. the Minister of Finance has succeeded in applying the pressure of taxation and the increases in taxation to the various sectors of the population, in such a way that additional taxes were imposed upon those sectors which could bear increased taxation and that tax relief was granted to those sectors of our economy which could not bear additional taxation. In this regard I should like to refer to agriculture. If, to my knowledge, there has ever in the history of this country been a Budget for the farmer, then it is this one. If there is one sector of our population which has been given particular consideration in these Estimates, as a result of the difficult circumstances in which they have found themselves in the past few years, then it is the farming sector. In this respect I am referring to the food subsidies in particular which, over the past ten years, have been increased on numerous occasions and amount to approximately R59.6 million at present— subsidies which imply the subsidizing of food for the consumer, food subsidies which at the same time imply that agricultural prices are being propped up; lastly, I want to mention the smoothing of fluctuations in farming income which was effected at the very stage when our farmers needed it so. After these terrible years of drought which we have gone through, I wholeheartedly welcome this possibility which is now being created for the farmer to choose the method whereby his income will be assessed, because it affords him the opportunity of effecting a tax saving for himself. These Estimates hold a special message for the farming community; it affords the farmer the opportunity of consolidating his position. There are farmers who are going to have tremendously large crops this year, three or four times larger than those of previous years, and commerce is making use of this tremendous source of income. Maize farmers alone will have an additional income of between R130 million and R140 million. The message to the farmers in these Estimates is that they should save and consolidate their position; that they should use this good crop and this tax concession to wipe out their accumulated debts and liabilities.

At this late stage of the fourth day of the Budget Debate I should also like to speak on behalf of the farming community, and on the Budget in so far as it affects agriculture.

On behalf of the farmers in the cities?

In the course of my speech I shall try to reply in part to the argument of the hon. member for Bethal with regard to the agricultural industry, but before I come to that I just want to respond to his remarks on the fact the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) had said that the manpower shortage was largely responsible for inflation. I fail to understand how anybody can try to talk around that fact when there is a tremendous shortage of white manpower and when managers, whose salaries were R5,000 three years ago, now have to be paid R8,000 or R9,000. But it is not only the managers who have all that superfluous money at their disposal; everybody in commerce, in industry, and elsewhere is getting higher salaries because there is a manpower shortage. That money is put into circulation and I fail to understand how anybody can reason that it does not have a tremendous impact on inflation. I do not think it is even necessary to talk about that. But the hon. member went further and suggested that the United Party advocated that white workers should be replaced by non-white labour in certain jobs. What did the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) say? He pointed out that in Johannesburg Bantu are used as busdrivers to transport Bantu passengers; that they are responsible and that they do not cause any more accidents and that they perform their work well. Mr. Speaker, surely this is a precedent created by the Department of Railways, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and other departments, particularly in areas near border industries. When did we ever advocate the abolition of the colour bar and the abolition of all job reservation? Surely nobody could be as foolish as that. But there are jobs which can be done by semi-skilled Bantu workers in order to save white manpower. On a previous occasion I referred to the many middle-aged and young men pushing barrows on Railway platforms. Is it the work of a white to load luggage into a barrow and to fetch a passenger at a taxi?

Yes.

For my part, I have no objection to a Coloured or a Bantu handling my luggage, but I do object to the fact that so many strong young men are used to do that work while their services can be used in many other occupations where we have a much greater need of them.

I said that I would come back in a moment to the hon. member for Bethal. I just want to refer briefly to what was said here by the hon. member for Vasco. The hon. member spoke once again about the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape and he made calculations up to the year 2000. His argument almost made me think that he had no faith in our ability to augment our white population by means of immigration or by means of other methods which we may apply—and here I am thinking in particular of our neighbouring states—to such an extent that the ratio of white and non-white will remain more of less constant. The hon. member has no more faith in the white nation in this country; his only solution is to remove the non-Whites from the white areas. Mr. Speaker, that brings me to a question which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education asked me yesterday. He asked me pertinently across the floor of the House whether I had any objection to the establishment of border industries in the Eastern Cape. I did not have the opportunity to reply to his question then: I should like to do so now. No, I certainly have no objection; I would welcome that. This Party has always welcomed the decentralization of industries. We welcome the decentralization of industries to an area with a good harbour, an area with the most wonderful grain elevators, an area where the harbour is not being put to proper use, where the harbour should be exploited and where there is superfluous labour.

You are improving.

An hon. member on that side of the House spoke of 130,000 Bantu in the Western Cape whilst knowing that that figure was wrong—or at least, he should know that. In the municipal area of Cape Town alone there are 85,000 Bantu and the hon. the Deputy Minister himself spoke of the removal of 9,000 a year, on the basis of 5 per cent. For heaven’s sake, where will those 9,000 Bantu get work?

In that factory you want in the Eastern Cape.

They are to go and work in a factory which has not yet been established.

It will be established one of these days.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says it will be established one of these days. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister will get another turn to speak on the Prime Minister’s Vote or on the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, and on many other Votes; I want to ask him to be so kind as to listen now, just as I listened most cordially to him yesterday, even when he walked across the floor of the House and behaved as though he was going to come to blows with one of the front-benchers on this side. Sir, let us take a practical view of these things. We should like to remove 9,000 Bantu a year from the Western Cape. If we want to remove them, surely we should provide work for them elsewhere. The Bantu who are removed from the Western Cape can only go to the borders of the Transkei or to the Transkei, and surely there is no work for them at this stage. Is that a humane approach to the position? What does the Director of the South African Agricultural Union say? I want to quote what he said less than three months ago—

Mr.Speaker, I am not going to plead once again for a larger profit margin. I should like to speak about the Budget in so far as it affects agriculture as compared with other sectors of the economy, but I just want to tell the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education this: The Bantu who are to be removed from the Western Cape cannot go to the Transkei because there are no jobs for them there. Nor can they go to the Ciskei, because there are no jobs for them there ether. They wander about. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister knows how many thousands of Bantu are redundant there. If one needs 100 day labourers, one need only send one’s lorry and 200 will get onto it. If that is the position there, what is to become of the 9,000 a year to be removed from the Western Cape? To me it is an almost inhumane effort. Once you have created jobs for them elsewhere, you may throw them out, but can you do that as long as there are no jobs for them? Here I should like to come to the hon. member for Malmesbury, who also raised this matter yesterday and who resented it that a member on this side had said that the Bantu were being thrown out of the Western Cape. Mr. Speaker, what else is it? If there is no work for the Bantu outside the Western Cape and he may no longer stay here because it is the policy of the Government that he should get out, does it not mean he is being thrown out? He is not being drawn from the Western Cape to some other area, and if he is not drawn, then surely he is being thrown out. The hon. member for Malmesbury was so shocked at the statement that the Bantu were being thrown out from here that he spoke in a melodramatic whisper; I could hardly hear him. He regards it as a crime that someone on this side should say such a thing. I should like to take it up somewhat further with the hon. member. In the absence of my Leader—and even today he is not present to defend himself—the hon. member for Malmesbury attacked him yesterday about the salary he receives.

That is not true; here is my Hansard.

I would gladly come back to the hon. member’s Hansard. He spoke about the salary received by the Leader of the Opposition and he suggested that in terms of the work performed by him, the Leader of the Opposition was not worth it.

In terms of the policy he follows.

Did the hon. member speak of the salary of the Leader of the Opposition? Yes, he did. I just want to tell him that after my short parliamentary career I regard it as the worst form to do that. I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister. White capital may no longer enter the reserves on a freehold basis; they are to be developed on an agency basis. Americans and Germans and Italians and Japanese may come to our country and obtain freehold, and establish a factory here and do as they please. But the Whites of the Republic may not obtain freehold in the Transkei. I should like to ask the Deputy Minister to tell me the following when he deals with this matter again—because he will come back to it, and I shall not have the time to ask him a question again: Is the independence of the Transkei to be held back for another 50 years?

No.

No. Of course not. Prime Minister Matanzima will not be satisfied to wait 50 years while Lesotho and Botswana have their independence. Of course not. When another member was asked this question, he told us: “We shall see.” “The Government will see.” The Government cannot get as far as producing a programme to indicate that in view of prevailing circumstances and the development of the territories and the way in which we are educating them, the independence of the Transkei will be possible in five or six or seven years’ time. Everybody knows that the Transkei will not wait ad infinitum for its independence. Once the Transkei has gained its independence, who will prevent white capital from entering it from anywhere whatsoever? Did we not see the Prime Minister of Lesotho travel to Austria at a stage when we expected that he would stay in his country, to negotiate with that country in connection with trade agreements and assistance? Will it be different in the case of the Transkei once it becomes independent? They will welcome white capital from almost anywhere.

They are not yet independent.

I am referring to the stage when they will be independent, and I contend that the independence cannot be held back for ever. It is therefore my contention that it is better to allow South Africans to invest their capital there, to exploit it there and to strengthen the ties of that territory with the Republic, once they become independent. That would be better than to prevent them from doing so now, and from leasing them land on a 99-year basis, which they will surely never be able to retain so long on lease. Once that state has become independent, there will be a competition and a rat race to see whose white capital can rush into the country to support them.

Just before I come back to agriculture, I want to say that there were some arguments in this debate yesterday which were of a standard I had never come across before in this House. In particular I want to mention three hon. members, namely the hen. member for Benoni, the hon. member for Middelburg and the hon. member for Welkom. I do not intend responding to what those members said. I just want to say that they wallowed in the mud as low as the animals which are described as unclean in the Book. I am not following them to look for them. It is just that I regret that the debate has sunk to that level and should be kept there by various members on the Government side.

I want to say this—and in doing so I want to leave the matter—that there are objections in principle why members of the party on this side of the House cannot join the party on the opposite side. I shall mention two of these fundamental objections. Firstly, there is the development and the independence of Bantustans and, secondly, the interpretation attached to apartheid. These are things which we cannot accept; which I cannot accept. Finally I want to say the following as regards those three hon. members: I am grateful that I do not have to share a platform with a party which includes in its ranks people who make speeches of that quality.

I should now like to come back to a discussion of the Budget in so far as it affects agriculture. In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister spoke of making available adequate credit to enable producers to make full use of the country-wide rains which fell during this summer. The Minister also said that the prospects for the coming season were consequently most promising, and that it may therefore be expected that the industry will regain its position as major exporter and therefore also as an earner of foreign exchange. Well, we on this side are equally grateful for the abundant rain which has enabled certain branches of agriculture, particularly crop farmers, to rehabilitate themselves. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that even if we have several years as prosperous as this year, the rehabilitation of agriculture will not be completed. It will take much more than one good season to rehabilitate agriculture fully. In agriculture there are approximately 500,000 Whites. In addition almost one-third of a million Coloureds are employed in agriculture. Then there are also from three million to four million Bantu in agriculture, Bantu who live on white premises and who have to be sustained from agriculture. They have no other choice. One cannot chase them away, because they do not know where to go. We have all had that experience. If one has 14 Bantu on one’s farm and one tells two of them that one can do without them, they ask where they are supposed to go.

I think you have squatters on your farm. I shall have to investigate.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would listen instead of interrupting, he would learn something. I am quoting the figures of the Department, figures used by the Department in its statistics. Well, this 22 per cent of the population, those who are engaged in agriculture, have to feed the entire population. These people have an investment of R4.000 million in agriculture, but on that they receive a dividend of no more than 3 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of capital appreciation and that kind of thing. We have discussed that before. But it is undoubtedly the sector of the community which receives the lowest dividend on its investment and at the same time performs the greatest function in the national economy. That is beyond doubt. It is the sector of the community which got left furthest behind in the years when we said that everybody was prosperous. Then they fell furthest behind. In addition they had to cope with terrible droughts. Now they have to be rehabilitated. The amounts provided in this Budget for rehabilitation are meant in the main for agronomists. There is, however, very little for the stock breeder.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Minister will get a turn to take part in this debate. According to the report of the Secretary for Inland Revenue up to 1965, the farmers pay 7 per cent of the taxes. That is the yardstick for their earnings. They are therefore paying only 7 per cent. Does that not prove clearly that agriculture is not receiving its share in the national prosperity of which we are always talking? Let us consider what part agriculture plays in this Budget. From a Budget of R1,450 million on Revenue Account and R533 on Loan Account there is R30 million for agricultural credit, R15 million for agricultural technical services, R70 million for agricultural economics and marketings—a total of R122 million, or 6 per cent of the total Budget. Let us not quarrel about that figure. If we add the amount allocated to the Departments of Water Affairs and of Forestry in the Budget—and these do not relate to agriculture alone—then the maximum for the Agriculture Budget is 10 per cent.

Where are all the other services which are rendered?

What is there in this Budget, as I have said, for the stock farmer?

Have the farmers no telephones, post offices, magistrate’s offices, etc.?

The hon. the Minister is up to his old tricks. He keeps making interjections. Surely he can speak when I sit down. [Interjections.] But you may ask that when you rise to speak. These increases in the Agricultural Budget—and I know that I am speaking to a Minister who is sympathetic towards agriculture although he is not a farmer —to the amount of R15.3 million, consist of R4.3 million for wheat subsidies, R5.6 million for fertilizer and R6 million for maize imports, which should actually have been in last year’s Budget. That makes approximately R15 million. The amount of R6 million for losses on the importation of maize on the Budget gives the impression that it has increased by R15 million, whereas it is actually an amount used in the previous year to subsidize maize. There you have the improvement in the Budget. Last year, when it was also R15 million more, there was a stabilization of the maize price to the amount of R11 million and of wheat to the amount of R2.7 million. That makes R13.7 million out of the R15 million. Now I ask again, seeing that the Minister interrupted me a moment ago: As far as the rehabilitation of the stock farmer is concerned—and I referred to the percentage for agriculture—what is done for him? How is that man rehabilitated in order that he may return to the land and make a decent living? I want to put it this way: This side of the House has frequently pointed out where savings could have been effected in the Budget. I do not want to go into that matter any further. But if one excludes the services, salaries and the administration, on which not even 5 per cent can be saved—not in the times in which we live—and one takes the other projects, then it was perhaps not quite so hard to effect a saving of 5 per cent on the Budget. A saving of 5 per cent on the Budget, if one excludes all the services and the administration, still means R25 million. A saving of 5 per cent on the whole Budget is considerably more, but I then made a small calculation and saw that it was still R25 million.

I should like to suggest the following to the hon. the Minister. He said that he wanted to follow the established pattern of the Budget and not effect a change. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that he should consider, when he frames another Budget, changing the pattern of the Budget slightly in order that the bias may shift slightly more towards agriculture and that they may also have a chance of rehabilitating. Perhaps somewhat less may be allocated to some of the other projects, on which some savings may be effected. I do not want to plead for higher produce prices for agriculture, because the man who wants to plead for higher produce prices until they are out of all proportion to the domestic price does not know what he is talking about. One cannot upset the ratio too far. But I do want to plead that the farmer should be provided for, that he should be given some relief as regards his production costs, that he should not have to pay the same price for everything as the next man. These same people, when they have to buy the maize to feed those people— and they are not maize producers—have to pay the price paid by the ordinary consumer. They do not pay the price received by the producer, and have to take the food in order to feed those people. They pay the high price. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the Estimates and the Opposition’s amendment, I thought that agriculture did not really fit into the picture, and probably would not be introduced. As far as the Opposition’s amendment is concerned, it is clear that most members of the Opposition maintain that the position in regard to agriculture does not. under these circumstances, fit into the picture. I should like to quote a few points on which the Opposition always elaborated to such a tremendous extent in the past. They used to allege that the assistance which agriculture normally gets is too little and too late. The second matter which they usually accused us of was the fact that one should not thank the Government. They made use of another method. If they had made a tremendous attack on the Minister and afterwards began to feel ashamed of the methods which they had made use of, then they would say (and this has happened time and again): The Minister must not think that we are ungrateful for the assistance which has been rendered to the various bodies. That is the course the accusation of the Opposition usually take.

This afternoon we have had another and a different accusation from the Opposition, levelled by the hon. member for East London (City). Just before I say something more about that I want to make the following remark: The National Party is used to taking the United Party in tow for long periods of time. When the Opposition has been in tow for long enough it accepts the policy of the National Party. We have had that ever since the earliest years. We have the example of Iscor, all our key industries, and other bodies. They even opposed, to a large extent, the establishment of a Republic. I have no doubt that in a few years’ time the United Party will claim that it was they who asked for a Republic.

Sasol.

The National Party was responsible for the inception of those key industries, which the Opposition opposed and fought against. I am glad that we are able to convince them, even if it has to be done after bitter fights and with the help of public opinion, from time to time. today we have learnt from the hon. member for East London (City) that they are also accepting the border industries now. All objection he has—and he is conceding this point suddenly now—is in regard to the question of providing those people with work. The point is that the Opposition are now, according to the hon. member for East London (City), accepting the border industries with all their implications. In the second instance they have been opposing and criticizing us over the years because the Bantu areas are to become completely independent when they are ready for it. We have stated over and over again that we were not going to follow the old colonial system as prescribed by the Opposition over the years. We have a totally different point of view, one which the Opposition has opposed. We said that we were training those people and when they could be regarded as being ready for it they would receive their freedom. Nevertheless the hon. member for East London (City) has taken it very amiss of the Government today because it is not granting this independence quickly enough—he said that the Government must act much quicker!

I want to return to agriculture, and I want to refer to the hon. member’s observation as well as to those made by other hon. members of the Opposition. The Opposition spoke about the Loan Estimates and kicked up a fuss because this Government was allegedly so extravagant. The Opposition maintains that this Government has not contributed its share as far as economizing is concerned and has in that way not helped to combat inflation. The hon. members referred to the round figures. I now want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) a question arising out of his criticism to the affect that we have done too little to combat inflation. I am now asking the hon. member to be fair and to tell the House where the Government should have economized. Let us take these major items, the main increases under the Loan Estimates, particularly the Loan Estimates for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Here we have one of the greatest increases. I shall come later to Water Affairs where there has been the greatest increase, apart from the provincial councils and Railways which respectively include education and the development of the Railways, aspects in respect of which we must all pull our weight. The amount there is greater, i.e. R33 million. I now want to ask the hon. member whether these figures are justified. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the United Party when they say that this increase in expenditure on capital estimates is too large and that the Government must economize on that expenditure. The Opposition is saying that these increases on the Loan Estimates are too great. I now want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) whether he is prepared to cut down on the increase. He can furnish his reply from his bench if he likes—is he prepared to cut down on that expenditure, as proposed in the introductory speeches of hon. members on that side at the beginning of this debate? Is he prepared to introduce savings? No, we do not get a reply from the hon. member. The greatest and most important increase in one single item is in the field of agriculture. Now the hon. member stated here that that had not been their policy in the past. That side repeatedly alleged that the Government have made too little provision, and have been too late in making provision for agriculture. In addition they said that the research work which was being carried out and the departmental guidance being provided for the farming community was not reaching our farmers. We must accept that that has been the standpoint of the Opposition over the years, years during which they levelled criticism here and alleged that our agriculture was in a precarious position. If we all accept that that was in fact the case, but as a result of the drought, then we are grateful to the Almighty for the rains which He has sent this year. It all goes to prove once again that, notwithstanding all the scientific progress and development in recent times, we are still powerless against the forces of nature and that we will in future still be dependent on Providence to provide us with rain.

According to the official crop estimate for this year, slightly less than 90 million bags of mealies are expected. Almost nine million bags of sorgum are also expected. I want to say that we must give our farmers the principal credit for the hard work which they have done. For them there was no such thing as hours or time—they worked day and night. In other words, the productivity and efficiency of our farmers seen in the light of the way in which they got down to the job, is so high that the accusation which is being made here that the farmers have not been productive enough is quite unfounded. They have achieved the highest degree of productivity of which a community is capable. We admit that they received welcome rains. If we accept that the greatest mealie crop up to now has been 67 million bags, and taking into consideration the conditions prevailing at the moment, then we accept that this year’s crop will exceed 90 million bags. That fact can be attributed to a number of reasons.

The first is the rain, which I have already mentioned. The second is the efficiency of the farmer. Why is he so efficient? Owing to the conditions which were prevailing, the farmer was not able to achieve the highest degree of efficiency and productivity by himself. But it was because research, guidance and assistance to our farming community were so effective that the farmers were able to do so well. That is why the farmer was able, with the help of the means which were placed at his disposal and the necessary assistance which was afforded by this House and the Government, to push up his production to such a great extent. That assistance was the second reason. The third reason is the efficiency of research in the agricultural field by the farmer himself, by our agricultural unions and particularly by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The farmers put their backs into it and made use of those services to produce the great crop which we are expecting this year.

The hon. member for East London (City) has drawn a comparison with the total amount for the Public Service and then expressed the criticism we heard here today. Now I again want to ask the hon. member, or any hon. member on that side, the following question: Is there another Department, a single state machine, which is doing so much to help our farmers to produce the greatest possible quantity of foodstuffs? The benefits can be calculated in two ways. They will be beneficial to ether the consumer or the primary producer or both. The hon. member referred to the important aim which has to be achieved and spoke about the duty of the State to provide the food production of the country. These massive amounts are being poured into our agriculture to stimulate it and to keep the prices low. We as agriculturists do not like to refer to it because we do not want it to appear as if it is a reflection on our farming community. But look at the millions which are being spent to keep prices low. Direct subsidies are also being paid, fertiliser subsidies for example. In these Estimates there has been a tremendous increase in the amounts intended to keep the prices of fertiliser low. This is a direct subsidy, separate from the industry, and separate from the farmer. One can argue this matter both ways. It is a direct subsidy ether to the industry or to the farmer, but by doing so one enables the farmer to obtain his fertiliser cheaper. But I want to consider the next point. The hon. member has now raised an objection and stated that the grain farmers are having a hard time of it.

I did not object to that.

It is true, but the Government does not in the first place subsidize the foreign market, it subsidizes the domestic market. Who is the consumer on the domestic market which it subsidizes? If a bag of mealies is exported, the maize farmer himself must bear the costs, but in order to keep the prices low in the interior for the consumer, the domestic prices are subsidized by the Government to this amount which he mentioned. Who are the consumers in the case of the wheat industry and the maize industry? In the first place these products are for human consumption and in the second place for the stock farmer, in the case of mealies. Any stock farmer may benefit from this subsidy, otherwise he will have to pay twice as much. I now want to ask the hon. member for whom that subsidy is intended? Is it for the producer or is it for the consumer? Who benefits by this R30 million which he spoke about, the consumer of the mealies or the primary producer? And in the case of mealies, the subsidy is R22 million. No, the hon. member will not give me a reply, because he knows that he will then be putting his foot in it. He is aware of the fact that it is a subsidy at this stage for the stock farmer. But after this tremendous drought I thought the hon. member would be more appreciative of what the Government has done. If he does not want to express his thanks, in the way we thank the Ministers, he ought nevertheless to have expressed more appreciation for the tremendous subsidies for fodder loans and the transportation of stock from the drought stricken areas, and for the other assistance which is being given to farmers, and for the credit facilities which have been created, all at the lowest rates of interest, 5 per cent, and in the case of the Land Bank, 6 per cent.

No, I really do not think the hon. member presented any kind of case. He wanted to talk about agriculture despite the fact that it did not fit in with their amendment, because there they ask for savings. But the hon. member dragged agriculture in by the back door. I have known the hon. member for East London (City) for many years, even before he came to this House, but if I ever heard a poor argument from him, then it was that speech of his. I am sorry to have to tell my friend that he has no case. We like discussing agriculture, because it is one of our main means of production, and it is one of the State’s functions today to see to it that the people are fed, and at reasonable prices, and that is why the State is subsidizing agriculture on a large scale. It must also take the distribution by the control boards into consideration, so that prices can remain stable and not soar. I hope that for the rest the Opposition will make out a better case.

Allow me to address a few words to the introducer of the Debate on the Opposition side of this subject, agriculture. It was a pity that the hon. member spent so much time on other matters and only devoted the last third of his speech to this subject. I should like to congratulate him on the last part of his speech where he said that to plead for higher produce prices was nonsense. But we remember that last year the hon. member came here with a packet of meat and said how impossible it was for the producer to make a living at the price he received for that meat, and on the other hand, how the consumer did not receive income enough to be able to buy it. He treated us to a long tirade on the inability of the Government to bridge the gap between the prices for the primary producer and the consumer. But we have listened from one year to another to the hon. member and how he delivered a tirade on the interest which was being earned on capital in agriculture. That is why I am pleased to see that the hon. member has learnt something from the wise counsel he received from this side of the House. But it is still clear that the hon. member is to a large extent still in the dark in regard to certain matters. We are aware of the fact that in the days when he was on the right track he rendered good service to agriculture, but he is now on the road to perdition and is consequently less productive in that direction.

The hon. member referred to the rehabilitation of the farmers. Quite by chance it is the case that the area where I hail from is one which has been heavily stricken by the drought and I just want to mention briefly what has been done there for the rehabilitation of agriculture. I do not want to spend much time on this matter, but it is only fair to indicate what has really been done, and I am only mentioning one department, Water Affairs, and what I have to say is only concerned with work which the Department of Water Affairs has announced it will provide in regard to the rehabilitation of drought stricken areas during the period of 1963 to 1966. The official figure is that 21 works were commenced there, and in the 21 works provision was made for a further storage capacity of 69,816 morgen feet, and for that R30,892,800 was appropriated. There were special appropriations in respect only of rehabilitation in the drought stricken areas as far as water provision was concerned. If that is not an appreciable achievement, coming from one Department only, then I really do not know what more the hon. member expects should be done in respect of water provision. Many of those works have already been completed and the farmers have already had the benefit of those works. Other works are larger and are therefore still under construction and will be completed within the following year or two. I am not talking about major schemes now. These are special rehabilitation methods which have been applied by the Government.

I should also like to associate myself with what the former speaker said, i.e. that the hon. member is apparently not acquainted with the tremendous subsidies and loans which are being granted to the farmers in those drought stricken areas. They are intended for agronomy as well as stock breeding and now the hon. member has come forward here and has, in a quite inappropriate way, tried to play off the one sector against the other. I do not think it is fair; I would have thought that if one were a stock farmer one would have been grateful if things went well with agronomy, and vice versa. But the hon. member wants to imply that one sector of the agricultural industry is being benefited more than another, which is really an unfair statement to make. We are aware of the fact that unrestricted credit facilities are being made available to people within those categories who qualify for them. Surely the hon. member is aware of that, and if so, why does he not say so? If not, why does he reveal his ignorance? Surely we are all aware of the numerous schemes which exist in respect of foot-and-mouth disease; surely we are aware of the cattle fodder subsidy; surely we are aware of the loans for cattle fodder. The Department’s figures indicate that a surprisingly small percentage of stock was lost during the drought years, and that must be attributed to the timely steps taken by the State through the Departments in question. No, I am sorry that the hon. member did not display the gratitude one would have expected from him. Recently the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services has for example announced the fallow grazing schemes in terms of which farmers are compensated for that portion of their farm which has yielded no income. It is a measure which has been taken to stabilize the grazing and to provide relief from the unfortunate situation in which those people have found themselves. It is being done to rehabilitate an industry which the Government regards as being a basic one.

But I should prefer to leave the hon. member there, and we want to proceed to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his first Budget Speech, and we want, without more ado, to express the hope that he will be spared for many years to be able to render service to the country on the same pattern. In particular we want to thank him for the equilibrium which he has introduced into this Budget. We want to point out that he has brought relief where relief was possible, but where it was unnecessary and where certain bodies could carry further taxation the hon. the Minister did not hesitate to impose further taxes. But we are also grateful to be able to testify to the appreciable measure of relief which the agricultural sector has been afforded, and in this regard we are thinking in the first place of the levelling of scales according to which the farmers have to pay income tax. I do not want to say anything further about that, but it is a matter which has meant a great deal to our farmers and we are very grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister found it possible at this early stage of his career as Minister of Finance, which we hope will be a long and fruitful one, to make this concession.

In the second place we are equally grateful for the abolition of the tax on sorghum malt. It was a tax which was very prejudicial to the sorghum industry under the specific circumstances. We feel that we owe the hon. the Minister a vote of thanks for that. But we, together with the people outside, are also grateful for the increased subsidies which previous speakers have already mentioned. These subsidies have made it possible to maintain stable primary producer prices, and on the other hand these subsidies will have no inflationary effect as far as the consumer is concerned. We are also grateful to the hon. the Minister for the prospect that it may in future be possible to increase the subsidies on fertiliser. It is very clear to us that the Minister is, in this indirect way, making it possible for us as farmers to integrate science and the agricultural industry, and in that way increase our production per unit, which is the essence of agriculture.

These things have been made possible because the hon. the Minister realizes that the agricultural industry as such plays a very important role in our national economy. I want to quote a few figures from the latest available census and statistics. We want to refer in the first place to the agricultural contribution to the gross domestic product. In 1947-’48 it was R294.1 million; in 1950-’51 it was R500 million; in 1956-’57 it was R600 million; in 1963-’64 it was R645.3 million; in 1964-’65 it was R687.8 million, and in 1965-’66 it was as much as R704.1 million. We are quoting these figures merely to indicate that the agricultural sector has a special place in our national economy. We would also like to express it in a more comparable form, if we take the index of the gross value for agricultural production according to Census and Statistics. If we take the period 1947-’48 to 1949-’50 as a basis, with an index figure of 100, then the index figure for 1947-’48 was 95; in 1963-’64 it was 235; in 1964-’65 it rose to 255 and in 1965-’66 to 265. These figures indicate how agricultural production has been increased over the years, and they indicate the strength of the agricultural sector of our national economy. But let us look at what the contribution of the agricultural industry to our export trade has been. In 1965 the total exports, with the exclusion of gold, was R824.4 million in 1963 it was R915.8 million; in 1964 it was R955 million and in 1965 it was R1,062.7 million. That is an appreciable increase. The contribution of the agricultural industry to our export trade has therefore reached new heights each year. In this way valuable currency is being earned by our agricultural sector. Hon. members will all agree with me that if it had not been for the unfortunate drought with which he had to deal, then those figures would have been considerably higher.

The allegation is being made by speakers on the opposite side that there is not a proper balance between the production costs and the prices which the primary producer gets for his product. I want to quote a few figures to indicate what that picture looks like. We find, if we once again take the period 1947-’48 to 1949-’50 as the equivalent of 100, that the index figure in 1947-’48 under the United Party Government stood at 93 as far as requirements were concerned, as against a price index figure of 95; in 1963-’64 the requirements index figure was 158 as against a price index figure of 155. We want to concede that the balance at that stage was upset by specific circumstances which were to be discerned in the national economy. But in 1964-’65 the comparable figures were 161, as against 164; and in 1965-’66 the agricultural requirements index figure stood at 166, as against a price index figure of 169. But taking everything into consideration, it is a fact that land values are the basis on which one’s agricultural economy is built up, and that is why it is interesting to see how land prices in the various sectors or in the sub-sectors of this industry have varied. We just want to indicate to you briefly how the fluctuations of certain commodity prices have also had an effect on the market prices of land. It is very interesting to note that, if we take the figures for 1947-’48 to 1949-’50 as 100 in order to be able to make a proper, fair comparison we find that over the past 15 years the following average figure—and this is so because in our mealie regions there was a tremendous increase—there was an increase from 100, which was the basis in 1947-’48, to 193. In another mealie area the land prices increased to 274, in still another area to 308 and in a fourth area to 257. It is also interesting to note how land prices in the main wheat-growing areas increased. Calculated on the same basis one finds that the prices have increased over the past 15 years to 243, and in another area to 244. In the cattle grazing regions—i.e. the regions in respect of which the hon. member for East London (City) has alleged that nothing was being done for the people and in respect of which, according to him there was neglect on the part of the State—the land prices have increased over the past 15 years to 369 and 267. If those people had not found it to be worthwhile the land prices would not have soared to such an extent. In the sheep grazing regions the land prices increased to 365 in the one area, and to 265 in the other. It is a revelation to us that there is a very close link between the land prices and the percentage which can be earned on that land by that particular commodity.

In this connection a particularly interesting analysis has been made, and I would like to give credit for this to the Agricultural Research economists, who worked it out, i.e. Professor Tomlinson and Mr. S. D. van Wyk. In regard to the relationship between the capital requirements and the net profit of the various sectors of the agricultural economy, they have made the following figures available: In the Hex River Valley—an area where the chief farming commodity is table grapes, and which is known for having the highest land prices today—a capital investment of R425 is necessary to make a net profit of R100. In the Vaalharts irrigation scheme—where most of the farming is done under irrigation—a capital of R700 is necessary to make a net profit of R100. In the Western Transvaal, in the mealie industry, capital investment of R900 is necessary to make a net profit of R100. In the Karoo the sheep farmer has to invest R1,200 to make a net profit of R100. In the northen Transvaal bushveld, which is mostly a cattle farming area. R2,000 has to be invested to make a net profit of R100. This serves to bring home to us the fact that to a very large extent our farmers do not always take heed of the purely economic aspect of farming in our country. It emphasizes one idea very clearly which is that we must concentrate on a more intensive farming system. To make that possible it is necessary for there to be very close co-operation between the farmer himself, who is the entrepreneur or the primary producer, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which is primarily responsible for the instruction and research.

Now one finds in this connection, however, a very unfortunate state of affairs, and when we make an analysis of the agricultural economic research section, as drawn up for 1st January, 1967, the following disturbing figures are at our disposal: 63 per cent of the research workers in the Department have had less than two years’ service; 20 per cent of the research workers have had 2.1 to 5 years’ service; 8 per cent have had 5.1 to 10 years’ service; only 4 per cent have had 10.1 to 15 years’ service; and only 5 per cent of the officials in the service have had 15.1 years or more service. We find that to be a very disturbing figure. You will concede that only the most senior men really produce those dividends which the State expects from them. They are men who have been trained over the years by their seniors, and that is why one is so alarmed at the large number of resignations from the service, as indicated in the particulars in regard to establishments which I have just read out to you. It makes things even more difficult for the State to comply with those major requirements resting on its shoulders. But in the second place it also makes it difficult for the farmer because, as development takes place, and as he has to adapt himself to developing circumstances, what happens is that new people come into the Department who may have a different approach than that to which the farmer has just grown accustomed.

It is a fact that the farmer or the agriculturalist has other problems as well, quite apart from these problems which I have mentioned here. We are aware of the fact that the agriculturalist has a difficult task to adapt to changes in economic life. We have for example experienced the situation here that in the economic field in South Africa there has been a tremendous development in the past few years. We are thinking in particular of technological development which results in tremendous changes in the agricultural industry. We are thinking of scientific development with which the farmer has to keep abreast. We are thinking of the rising standards of living which also affect him, even though he does live in the rural areas. We are thinking of the sociological development and its concomitant problems. This brings us to the thought that the farmer must keep abreast of all these various developments. It is not always so easy for him to make these necessary adjustments in this industry. In this regard you can go to any of our farms and you will see there that the farmer has, from time to time, to make certain adjustments in respect of his entire planning in respect of his entire economic structure on which he has built up his undertaking. I shall refer merely to one in passing. You will find that on every farm there are a number of implements, implements which normally are reasonably serviceable, but that as a result of changing circumstances the person was forced to purchase another tractor or tractors. Those old implements do not fit those new tractors, and he has therefore had to buy new implements which do fit. So we find that in various places continual adjustments have to be made. Then I want to point out that the agriculture as such has to be accepted—and we are grateful that it is being accepted in this way by the present Minister of Finance—as that sector of the national economy which provides the basic commodities on which we, to a large extent, have built our entire industrial structure. That being so, we want to ask the Minister, during the years to come to take continual heed of these problems with which the farmer has to deal, problems which cannot always be calculated in monetary terms, and the adjustments which he has to make in respect of industry, in respect of his community and in respect of his private affairs. When we consider that our national economy is to a very large extent dependent upon the agriculturalist and his product, as the person or the sector which has to feed the other industries and the nation, and which is an employment factor within our national economy, we want to hope that the hon. the Minister will in the years which lie ahead take into account those requirements and the risks of agriculture which may not be so easy to define in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. members speaking on this subject. I listened particularly to the hon. member for Christiana and now the hon. member for Potgietersrus. First of all I should like to make it quite clear that I think they have misunderstood completely what the hon. member for East London (City) said. He did not suggest or complain that the Government was not doing enough for the farmer, particularly in times of drought. That was not his suggestion at all. The hon. members who have just spoken have completely misunderstood him. He appreciates, as we all do, what has been done, but he believes, as I do, that, as the rains have come in most areas, the farmer is being pushed aside. As I understood him when he spoke just now, he felt that particularly in terms of this budget the farmer was not being looked after as we had hoped he would.

Do you agree with what you understand?

I agree with what the hon. member said and I understand what he said. I have looked at the Budget. We all know that the farmer has to fight difficulties facing him like a two-edged sword. First of all, he has had to face a prolonged drought and, at the same time, he is being told to fight inflation. So, naturally, the farmer or agriculturist, generally has had a very difficult time and we cannot see the end of it yet, despite the rains in certain areas. We know, and it has been discussed here, that the farmer has been assisted through subsidies and rebates to enable him to gather more fodder in times of drought. But the hon. member for Christiana and the hon. member for Potgietersrus should go to their commercial banks and to their cooperative societies, something they should have done if they haven’t done so, and they will find that the farmer certainly, is a long way from being out of the mud. It is shocking— as a matter of fact, it is most disturbing—to see what the agriculturist is owing to farmers’ co-ops throughout the country. I am very worried about it. We should all know that the farmer or agriculturist today are in debt to the extent of R1,000 million. That is what the agriculturist is owing in South Africa. Now that rains have brought him some measure of relief in certain parts of the country, he sees, when he takes a look at the White Paper issued in connection with the Budget statement that bank rates which had been raised from 4.5 to 5 per cent in March, 1965, as part of the authorities’ credit restriction policy, was further increased to six per cent on the 8th July, 1966. This increase formed part of the Government’s four-point plan to counteract further inflationary pressures and gave rise to a further increase in the short-term interest rate structure, e.g. in minimum rates of bank overdrafts. We who have been to commercial banks and have discussed these matters with them know that a farmer is lucky today if he has an overdraft on which he pays only 8 per cent because most of them today have to pay between nine and ten per cent. This is true and no one can deny it. But at the same time the farmer is being encouraged and told to fight inflation. I ask you, Mr. Speaker! Something must be wrong somewhere. This Government apparently believes that you can fight inflation by increasing bank rates. But in America they do not think so; there they believe just the opposite. In this connection I want to quote from a speech made by Mr. André du Toit, chairman of the K.W.V.—14.12.1966.

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this to the House because he must obviously believe that the Government is right in increasing interest rates. But I believe the Government is failing—as a matter of fact, the Government has already failed because inflation is going on all the time. Nobody here can deny it. The Reserve Bank in its review has mentioned the same thing.

Do you then disagree with your colleagues the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Parktown?

I disagree with what the hon. member for Queenstown has said. As a matter of fact, I should like him to go back and fight an election on the strength of the speech he made in this debate. How he could have made the speech he did after he recently attended soil conservation meetings of farmers and heard what those farmers had to say is beyond me. Yet he said with his tongue in his cheek that it was a wonderful Budget. He will still have to answer for that speech. The theme of the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance was “Work and save”. I think he is wrong—he should have said we must work and pay, because that is what is happening.

I am disturbed about something, something about which I warned the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services last year. He gave me an unsatisfactory answer then. I told him that the day would come when the drought would end and I asked him what was he going to do about it? I asked him whether he would then implement and carry out to the letter the Soil Conservation Act as we all understand it. Was it going to be carried out? Just how many people are carrying it out today? At the present time there are 847 farmers who control 524,000 morgen of land under the veld rehabilitation scheme of the Soil Conservation Act. I wonder how many of the 847 farmers are in fact carrying the Act out? I am a farmer myself, and I own land. I know that it is very tempting once the rains have come to “jaag maar in”. As a matter of fact, the Government has encouraged farmers to open the gates and chase their stock in. Immediately prior to the good rains, many districts were withdrawn from the emergency grazing scheme. I have the list here, taken from the Agricultural News. As a matter of fact, the grass had just shown a greenish tinge when some of the districts were withdrawn from that emergency scheme. My own Molteno district has been withdrawn.

This is the point. Would it not have been a good and far-seeing policy of the Government, if they had said, “We will help the farmers to continue to spare those farms for at least another 12 months” after the rains have fallen? [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Christiana would make his notes now and give me the answers when the Vote is discussed. This is not the end of it. I have a very long speech worked out and consequently I will not be able to complete it in the time at my disposal, but the hon. member will hear more about this matter at a later stage.

There are too few of us today, as I mentioned earlier on, who appreciate that the grazing of our country is deteriorating year by year. It is deteriorating badly. All our Agricultural Technical Services officials tell us so, and we can see it ourselves. I read a report a day or two ago in which it states that in the districts of Louis Trichardt and Bethal 50 per cent of the grazing is very poor, and in my own area—the Border area—I would say that it is just about the same. The other day I measured off five square feet and examined the grazing carefully and I would say that about 53 per cent of it is dead. On my own property I am sparing eight large camps since the first rains fell. I must spare, even if I have to supplement the feeding of my stock to keep those camps spared so that the grass can go to seed. Hon. members can go and have a look—I am still doing it. The point is that approximately 50 per cent of that grazing is dead, and what is the Government doing about it? They thank the Almighty for the wonderful rain, and then they withdraw the districts from the emergency planning scheme, and that is the end of the story. When the next drought comes we will find ourselves in a worse position than we find ourselves in today.

In addition to the problem of the rise in the bank interest rates the farmers are now faced with additional expenditure to the tune of R20 million in bank rates. As I say, in America they are now doing just the opposite to what we are doing in South Africa to counter inflation. We are concentrating so much on our defence. We on this side do not decry that because we realize the importance of the defence of our country. Nevertheless, I am afraid that too few of us realize the essential requirement, namely to give priority to agriculture in South Africa to ensure that the rising production costs do not paralyse certain farming activities. I believe that an increased bank rate leads to higher production costs. It must do so. Higher production costs, in turn, lead to higher prices for farm products. If anybody disagrees, let him say so now. Higher farm produce prices lead to a higher cost of living index, and that in turn leads to inflation. This is so. Anybody can see that. When you start off on the wrong foot at the bottom of the ladder you are going to land completely in the air when you reach the top. We have higher railway tariffs. That, too, is a cause of inflation. The tragedy is that, one day the hon. the Minister and this Government will discover their error and say to us, “You know, we were wrong and the U.P. was right when you made certain suggestions to counter inflation”. We on this side have made to the Government quite sufficient suggestions, and given solutions. They have heard almost too much but they turned a deaf ear to our solutions. The day they discover that they were wrong, it will be too late, and we will then say, “we told you so!”. Unfortunately by that time, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday, it would have cost the poor man, the poor farmer, a hang of a lot of money. We would have had to pay for the mistakes of that side of the House. The higher bank rate is, of course, hitting the poor farmer harder than the rich farmer or the well-off farmer.

Who denies that?

I am glad that the hon. member for Queenstown is back in the House and I am pleased he is now agreeing with me and saying that nobody denies it.

Do you want to curb inflation or not?

Now we come to the manpower shortage. It is generally known and accepted—except by the Government—that in agriculture there is a shortage of labour. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is not here now, but we know what his policy is. We have heard so much about it and he has said that he will continue with his policy even if he has to tell us about it another thousand times. I just cannot understand him. Without straying too far from the subject of agriculture, I want to refer to the Deputy Minister’s suggestion that throughout the country they must now stop building “luxury houses” for the Native, or the Bantu as he calls them. I want to ask the Deputy Minister where have they ever been building “luxury houses” for the non-European? Now he suggests that they must stop.

He did not say “luxury houses”.

Yes, he said luxury houses. Those were his very words. He said that even if he had to speak about it a thousand times he would continue to do so. Now what worries me, and worries the hon. member for East London (City), who has mentioned it too, is the fact that it is generally accepted that in agriculture there is a shortage of labour. This is generally accepted. The exception is those areas bordering the Native reserves or the Bantustans. An hon. member on that side suggested a few days ago that this side of the House must now accept National Party policy. We must now accept independence for the Bantu areas and all that goes with it. I now want to invite the hon. member to come to the Eastern Cape, to areas like East London, even Queenstown, and further north to Aliwal North to come and see what is going on there. He will find that there is no shortage of labour, none whatsoever. I should like to relate something that happened to me the other day. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that today if I want to sack one of my Native staff he just refuses to go. Over the Easter week-end I said to my manager, “Daardie man moet jy in die pad steek.” I spoke to the Native concerned and said to him that the time had arrived for him to seek pastures new. He just looked at me, smiled and said, “And where do you think I am going to?” I said to him, “tomorrow morning when the sun rises you must be on the road.” He turned around and said, “Well, then I will starve and die—do you want that to happen to me?” He just refuses to go. And this sort of thing does not happen only to me but it is happening to far too many farmers on the border.

Tell us what you did then.

Well, what could I do? I could not send him to the Western Cape! I cannot send him anywhere. That is the tragedy of it all. There are thousands upon thousands in the East Cape border areas today without jobs. They are jobless. Hon. members must go to the townships of East London. Let them go to Queenstown, Molteno, Aliwal, Sterkstroom, Indwe, Dordrecht, the lot. There are thousands of jobless Natives today. That is not because the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is succeeding in his crazy policy. He is not succeeding at all. It is because of the natural increase of these people. We do not have work for them all.

Yesterday the Deputy Minister asked me very nicely whether I would accept industries in the East London complex. He asked my colleague here too. Of course we would. I say “of course” a thousand times to the Deputy Minister. I say to him, “Please give us industries.” The tragedy is that the Deputy Minister goes from meeting to meeting and tells the people that he is sending these Natives back to the borders—borders where I live and where the hon. member for Queenstown lives—because he is going to provide industries for them there. But he has not provided a single one—not one. It is all mere gas. Unfortunately too many South African voters believe in what the Deputy Minister says. They believe it, but they do not know how wrong they are. This is tragic. I do not know what we are going to do with these jobless Native people. As I say, unless we can have industries there, unless the Government can give us a third Iscor— and even that will not provide them all with jobs—we will have this problem on the borders of the Transkei. To continue with the loose language that has been used here during this debate is irresponsible and not only irresponsible, but is downright dishonest.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Sir. But I say it is not true, and everybody knows it is not true. Unfortunately, as I say, too many people outside do not realize what is going on.

The other night some cattle disappeared from a farm very close to East London. Two oxen disappeared off the face of the earth. The next day all that was left of the missing oxen were two little heaps of stomach dung. Unless the people concerned herd their sheep and cattle and keep them in kraals every night, and surround the kraals with Alsatian dogs— as is done here at the soccer matches—the stock will just disappear. This problem is very serious. But we cannot blame those people for stealing as they do. They are jobless. I wonder how hon. members would feel if they found themselves in the unhappy position in which I find myself and in which many of us find ourselves, namely if you sack a man, if you want to get rid of him, never to see him again, and he refuses to go?

I tremble when I think of the policy which I am being asked by that side of the House to follow blindly. I want hon. members over there to tell me what is to happen the day these people are given independence and they refuse to work in South Africa during a crisis? Remember, they have been promised independence, and when a black man is promised something, he sets the time-table—not we. When Chief Kaizer Matanzima wants it, he will get his independence. Now, think of what might happen then. today four-fifths of South Africa’s labour force is black and one-fifth is white. If we should find ourselves in a state of emergency or a crisis, what will we do?

That spectre is rather hackneyed.

Listen, my friend, this will do you good. You can go home and think about it to-night. What will happen if we find ourselves in a crisis or we are at war? We will have to put one-fifth of our labour force, i.e. the Whites, into uniforms and put guns in their hands whilst the other four-fifths—the black people—have to keep our factories and industries going. But if they are independent and if they like our enemies instead of disliking them, what will happen if they walk back over the border and say that they are not working for us anymore because we are making war against people they like? What are we going to do then? What is going to happen to our soldiers in the field? In the U.S.A. it takes 40 men in factories and industries to keep one soldier in the field. And they have the most modern and powerful army in the world today. South Africa will be the only country in the world that I know of, which will have no control whatsoever over its labour force when we are forced into a war. And this is the policy that I am being asked to follow!

Your policy is to integrate.

No, you know that is not my policy. Mr. Speaker, to come back to agriculture: The farmer today is having a very difficult time. Nobody denies that. Therefore, it worries me to hear hon. members on that side suggesting that now the rains have come, everything is fine. They thank the Minister and they thank the Government for having assisted the farmers. But this is not the end of the story. We want assistance where needed, in the good seasons, as well as the bad.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (North) made an extremely comprehensive tour through the entire field of politics, and I am only going to react to his remarks on agriculture. He complained, in the first place, that our farming population at present had debts amounting to R1,000 million. Some time earlier his colleague, the hon. member for East London (City), said that the farmers had fixed assets amounting to R4,000 million.

I did not say assets, I said that that amount had been invested in agriculture.

But that is in fact an asset. That means, according to the figures supplied by the Opposition, that the debts of farmers only represent 25 per cent of their assets. Even for the Opposition that represents an extremely solvent state of affairs. In addition the hon. member for East London (North) complained that this Government was boosting inflation by the introduction of higher railway tariffs, inter alia, for farmers. The hon. member has not been here for very long, and I want to give him the following good advice: As a farmer he must now make an intensive study of the Schumann Report. In that report he will find the recommendations of people who made a scientific study of the entire question of the structure of railway tariffs. He will see what they recommended in regard to farming. They recommended a tremendous increase in tariffs for farmers.

You said you accepted that.

No, the hon. member is now being absurd because I have never said that I accepted that. On the contrary, during the debate on the railway Budget I thanked the hon. the Minister of Transport for not having yielded to the temptation of implementing the recommendations contained in the Schumann Report in regard to railway tariffs. In other words, because the Minister of Transport did not increase tariffs in respect of farming produce and requirements a further major step was taken as far as combating inflation was concerned.

The hon. member for East London (North) levelled the astounding charge against the Government that farmers had to pay the banks 9 and 10 per cent interest on debts. The first hon. member on this side who spoke about farming matters drew attention to the tremendous concessions which had already been made to a large sector of our farming population. I am referring to those people who only pay 5 per cent interest under the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Then there are also those who only pay 6 per cent to the Land Bank. Also as regards this charge levelled by the hon. member, it is ridiculous to see how this party speaks from two mouths.

I want to refer this House to the debate conducted here on 22nd August, 1966, and to be specific, to Column 1187 of Hansard. At that time the hon. member for Pinetown said, inter alia, the following—

In other words, at that stage the hon. member for Pinetown wanted freezing to be abandoned. I also want to refer to another important speaker of the Opposition on financial matters. According to Column 1203 of Hansard the hon. member for Parktown, referring to the Minister of Finance, said the following—

The hon. member for East London (North) must now take us into his confidence and tell us whether he has become the new main speaker on financial matters for that party, and whether he is going to be the one who will lay down the pattern in future in regard to what, according to them, ought to be done in regard to important financial matters.

As regards agricultural affairs one finds it difficult to expect anything constructive from the Opposition. Now it is a fact that this Opposition has not governed for a very long time. It governed in the days of Rip van Winkel.

We governed a great deal better than you are doing.

Fortunately the hon. member has just made an interjection on the basis of which I want to give a picture of what the position was when that side was the Government of this country. It is a very good thing that he made that remark. As I was saying, it is a very long time since they have governed—the last time they governed was in 1948. We have to go back to the days when they were in power to see what they achieved in practice.

That was a great deal.

Yes. I shall come to what that side achieved in practice in order to make some comparison between their policy and that of this side of the House. On 2nd March, 1948, Captain G. H. F. Strydom, the then member for Aliwal North, moved the following motion in this House—

In the course of that debate the member said that he had introduced that motion in this House on five previous occasions. To that statement the Minister of Lands, Senator Conroy, wittily interjected, “It is a hardy annual”. What was Senator Conroy’s reaction to that motion? In that debate he said the following (Hansard, Volume 63, Columns 2514-2515)—

which is a foolish statement of course—

That is the party that now promises our farming population heaven and earth and comes forward with witty criticism. That is the party that said in its last year of government, that the bywoner was doing well and that he could remain a bywoner. That is why they have remained political bywoners throughout all the years since that time and why they will remain so in future. That is also why that party, during its last five years of government, only spent R1,800,000 for settlement purposes. What is this Government doing? In the present Budget alone, nearly R15 million is being appropriated for the purchase of land.