With your leave. Sir, I just want to inform hon. members of the business for next week. On Monday, after the Minister of Finance has given his reply, the Votes of the House of Assembly, the Senate and the State President will be disposed of. whereupon progress will be reported. On Tuesday the Vote of the Prime Minister will be dealt with. On Monday, after the reply of the Minister of Finance has been given and after progress has been reported, the House will deal with the following Orders of the Day: No. 5, the Committee Stage of the Population Registration Amendment Bill, and then, if there is any time left on Monday afternoon. No. 10, the Vaal River Development Scheme Amendment Bill, and the Second Reading of the Rural Coloured Areas Amendment Bill. For the rest of the week, up to Friday, we shall continue dealing with the Votes. The Minister of Education, Arts and Science will be given an opportunity on Friday to deal with his three Bills, all three of which are merely of a formal nature and appear on the Order Paper. In addition, if there is any time left, we shall take further stages of the Population Registration Amendment Bill, and after that we shall deal with the Aged Persons Protection Bill introduced by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, and if there is any time left on Friday we shall again proceed with the discussion of the Votes.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to the new system of equalizing tax rates which is being introduced for farmers. I was about to refer to a leading article in an important agricultural journal in which, to my mind, incorrect statements were made. I just want to refer to that in brief. It is an important agricultural journal of 4th April of this year. The leading article contained, inter alia, the following statement (translation)—

That of course is a misleading statement which must be corrected. What this system amounts to is that under the new system a farmer will in fact be taxed on his actual income for any particular year of assessment, but at a rate calculated on his average income for the year of assessment plus four previous years. This leading article also contained a further misleading statement. It stated (translation)—

I want to refer to the last sentence in particular, “In essence this is very much the same thing and an important concession is now being made to farmers.” That definitely is not the case ether. One does, for example, have the year in which a farmer shows a loss. Under the system which the Minister is now introducing, a farmer will pay no income tax in that year, and under the system of the equalization of income it may very easily happen that a farmer will have to pay tax if he shows a loss in any particular year. I now want to appeal to the agricultural journal concerned to give the correct information in this regard as soon as possible, and I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to issue a full statement in regard to this new system at the earliest possible opportunity in order to eliminate any misunderstanding.

In the quotation I read out. organized agriculture is given the credit for having made representations and it is quite right that credit should be given to organized agriculture, which advocated this system over a period of many years. But for the record I do regard it as being fair and necessary to say that this system is finally being put into operation by the hon. the Minister after intensive representations over a period of two years from National Party representatives of farming constituencies. In this regard I want to convey thanks and pay homage not only to our present Minister but also to the previous Minister of Finance as well as to the Secretary for Inland Revenue specifically for his patience and advice and for the sympathy he showed in this regard to our National Party representatives who discussed the matter with him.

In conclusion I should like to mention a few of the advantages of this system in view of the fact that the hon. member for Durban (Point) interjected here last night that the system was not what they had asked for. It may be that the system only goes half way, but in taxation proposals one can never give everyone everything they ask for. There must be fairness and reasonableness and other groups must also be taken into consideration. In point of fact the system we are now getting is the Australian system but has major advantages over the Australian system.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member have any objection to other businessmen being given the same advantage as that now being given to the farmers?

That is a question which should not be put to me but to the hon. the Minister. I am specifically discussing the proposals before us. As I was saying, this system is in fact the Australian system, but we do have a very important advantage over the Australian system. The Australian system is in fact limited to primary producers whose taxable incomes and average incomes do not exceed R8,000 per annum; and the system which the Minister is giving us has no limits, it has no ceiling, which is a tremendous advantage over the Australian system. Speaking of the R8,000 per annum income group, I just want to furnish a few figures to illustrate in what way this equalization of rates benefits this R8,000 per annum income group.

If a farmer earns R40,000 over a period of five years which is made up as follows over that period of five years—R5,000 for the first year, R10,000 for the second year, R4.000 for the third year, R10.000 for the fourth year, and R11,000 for the fifth year, his taxes, calculated on the tax rates for last year, will be the following under the old system and under the new system, respectively. Under the old system he will pay R6,926 over that period of five years. Under the system of the equalization of tax rates he will pay R5.746. Therefore he will pay R1.180 less over that period of five years. There is, of course, another side to this picture. If a farmer suddenly experiences a year in which his income is low, after a year in which his income was high, the shoe will pinch on the other foot. For that reason I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to introduce attractive savings methods so that a farmer may follow a Joseph’s policy in good years by making provision for difficult years. But I want to agree wholeheartedly with the Australian author, A. B. Cleland, who stated the following in regard to this matter in a recent publication—

Just before resuming my seat, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. In Australia the equalizing principle applies to the entire income of a person, even if farming income forms a small part of his income. What is the position going to be here?

In addition I want to put the question whether we should not have a definition of “farmer” for the purposes of this new system. As you know. Sir. our Income Tax Act contains no definition of “farmer” and the whole matter is based on decided cases. In Australia, “primary procedure” includes fishermen. I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister once more for this system. It will bring about a much better balance in the annual obligations of a farmer whose income is subject to marked annual fluctuations.

The hon. member for Kroonstad has raised the question of the tax concessions which the hon. the Minister of Finance has granted to the farming community. It is not necessary for me to say that we on this side of the House welcome this measure. We had hoped that the concessions would go a little further, but at this stage we express our gratitude for the fact that concessions have in fact been made. I think we must also applaud the hon. member for Kroonstad for having raised this matter, because quite obviously there has been confusion about the matter in the press and certainly the quicker this matter is cleared up the better.

I listened with interest in the previous debate to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration when he said that every Minister accepted that there was room for improvement in their respective Department. Obviously we on this side concur with that. We believe that there is plenty of room for improvement in all the Government Departments. The Minister went on to say that it was the honest and earnest endeavour of every Minister to see that these improvements were brought about. We accept that. We think it is a very laudable statement and we look forward to this improvement which he has offered us.

Now I wish to refer to one particular aspect of the activities of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, namely the Soil Conservation Department, and the manner in which the Department of Technical Services is handling this particular department. I really believe that if there is one side of the activities of this Government that is in real need of improvement, and where we must really look to the Minister to see that the improvement is brought about, it is in this Soil Conservation Department. I have listened in recent months to statements which have been made by the Ministers of Agriculture, the Minister and his Deputy, and I must say that I have been encouraged to see what a realistic attitude they are taking to this problem. It is gratifying to know that the Ministers responsible for administering this most important department do realize the urgency of the problem. We have a Soil Conservation Act. I think that Act has been on the statute book for some 20 years, but if we look around the country and see what is happening then we must come to one of two conclusions. We must come to the conclusion that ether the Soil Conservation Act is not an effective measure or that the administration of the Act is not being effectively carried out. Sir. the Act as we have it is an excellent piece of legislation. It can only be so because it was placed on the Statute Book by this side of the House.

It has been amended more than once since.

But I feel that the administration of it leaves a lot to be desired. I do not believe that it is a wise thing to come along here and criticise the Government for the way in which they are administering the Act and to point out to them that soil conservation continues apace without putting to the Government certain suggestions that might assist in this matter, and during the course of my speech I propose to do just that.

We on this side of the House are concerned and perturbed that such a big proportion of the national budget has to be spent on Defence, but we have said time and again that where it is necessary to defend this country against all the military perils that might beset it, we endorse and second every cent that is appropriated for Defence, but at the same time we must warn that we will watch very carefully how that money is spent. Many valuable man hours are being taken up by the young men in our country serving in the armed forces and we must be quite sure that every one of those man hours is being wisely used and wisely spent. Sometimes one wonders if that is actually happening. As far as our fight against soil erosion is concerned, I think the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services himself used the words “we must wage war against soil erosion”. Sir, I think that is a very sound appreciation of the situation. This matter is so serious that it demands that we wage war upon it. I can assure the Minister that every penny that is appropriated or budgeted for the combating of soil erosion will be fully endorsed from this side of the House because we do realise the urgency of this great problem that beset the country, but at the same time, as in the case of Defence, we will watch very carefully to make sure that every cent that is being spent in the fight against soil erosion is being spent wisely and well.

There are thousands of farmers in the country today who are deeply perturbed about the present trend of matters; they are deeply perturbed that the measures which have been taken hitherto in our fight against soil erosion have not been effective. They stand there prepared to do their duty. I think that most farmers in this country today are very soil conservation conscious but they are hamstrung by the fact that they simply have not got the financial resources to undertake the works which they would so keenly do if they were in a position to do so. Sir, I think we must look at some of the reasons why the farmer himself today is not in a position to undertake the works which are so essential. If we look at the geography of our country we will see that the greater extent of our country is farmed in a pastoral manner. Due to the rainfall and the topography of our country, pastoral farming takes place on the bulk of this southern tip of Africa. It is also true to say that wherever you have pastoral farming, that is where you find the greatest incidence of soil erosion. The reason is simply to be found in the fact that where you have stock you have over-grazing and over-tramping of veld and in consequence you expose the soil and the earth to the ravages of soil erosion. It is in these areas therefore that we find the problem in its most urgent state and it is with particular reference to these areas that I wish to make my remarks here this morning. Sir, we must take into account the fact that in these vast areas where pastoral farming is undertaken the main products, products like wool and mohair, have to be marketed overseas. We rely on the international market for the price we get. There is nothing that we can do about it; we have to take whatever price is offered. If that price is low we simply have to accept it and make the best of it. Over the last five years the price of wool and mohair has been low. The price of wool, for instance, has been in the region of 36 cents per lb. and there has been nothing that the farmer has been able to do about it. He has to take the 36 cent per lb. and try to defray his running cost and his living cost out of it, but at the same time he is subject to all kinds of economic storms, over many of which he has no control whatsoever. Sir, I just want to quote a few of these items to which the producer of wool is subject and which make his living and his farming conditions more and more difficult. For instance, over the last five years the cost of labour has gone up about 100 per cent and there is nothing that he can do about it. He simply has to meet his labour costs out of the same 36 cents per lb. that he has been getting for his wool over the last five or six years. Farm labour is becoming more sophisticated; it demands better living conditions and who is responsible for building the housing for that labour? The farmer is responsible: the provision of housing is costing far more and here in the Cape Province when he builds better houses the Divisional Council comes along and places extra taxation on the very houses which he provides. Apart from that, the farmer also has to provide schools for his labour. Farm labour today demands that its children shall have the privilege of attending school, and the wool farmer has to accept the responsibility for providing that schooling. All this is costing him more and he has to meet these costs out of the same 36 cents that he is getting for his wool. Apart from that there is the interest on his capital, and capital plays a very large part in the financing of an agricultural undertaking, indeed the most important part. What happens to the farmer here? He invested money, much of which he borrowed at 6 per cent interest, and today he finds that he is being charged 8 percent, and the return on that capital has not increased in a like manner. All along the line therefore the farmer is on The losing side. The price of tractors, an essential part of farm equipment, has gone up by something like 60 to 70 per cent over the last five or six years. Repairs to his tractors, which play such an important part in the running expenses of the farm, have gone up considerably. The salary of the mechanic who does the job has gone up from R1.50 per hour five years ago to R3 per hour today. All this has to come out of the pocket of the farmer. Railway tariffs on wool, dieseline. petrol and lubricants have all gone up. All this has to be paid for out of the same 36 cents. Cement, a most important item in the fight against soil erosion, has gone up by 20 per cent in the last five years. The farmer lives way out in the bundu; he has to get his children educated. School fees have gone up and boarding fees have gone up by something like 20 per cent. Then last, but not least—indeed probably the most important of all—is the fact that the cost of fencing material which is such a basic requirement in the combating of soil erosion, has also gone up by something like 50 per cent in the last 15 years. Sir, we find this sorry story leading to this inescapable fact that when the farmer has met all these rising costs out of the constant price that he is getting for his product, there is no money at his disposal in his fight against soil erosion. I would say that the Government and the Ministers responsible for this department must take full cognizance of this fact; they must realise that the farmer is no longer in a position to undertake these essential works and that the Government simply have to play a far greater part than it has played in the past.

What are the problems that are facing the Department of Soil Conservation? Do they realize that they have to play a bigger part? They will simply have to do so otherwise soil erosion will continue in its devastating way. One of the problems of the department is that they have a shortage of staff. There is apparently a shortage of personnel in every Government department, but in this particular department the position is probably at its worst. Do you know, Sir. that in Rhodesia there is one soil conservation or extension officer to every 45 farmers, and I believe in this country the figure works out at something like one extension officer to every 700 farmers.

How many farmers are there in Rhodesia in comparison with the number of farmers in South Africa?

The fact remains that in Rhodesia, a smaller country than South Africa, the farmers are better served in this particular field than we are. I say that the only way in which the department can rectify this situation is by making more and more use of the farmers who are available to serve on soil conservation committees. They can play a really active and vital role in meeting the shortfall that the department suffers today in this particular matter. I was very pleased some four months ago when it was announced by the department that they were going to institute a system whereby farmers could be employed on a part-time basis to supplement the shortage of personnel in their particular department. I thought that this was a great step forward. As a matter of fact I had suggested if myself in a previous speech. I cannot claim that they reacted to my suggestion but quite obviously it was a step in the right direction. Sir. I said in this House previously that this was a sound system, but I investigated the matter and I found again that as in the case of so many other processes in this department, this matter was going to be bogged down because of red tape. These applicants had to fill in so many forms that it would probably take months and months before the personnel became available to the department. Sir, that is the very thing that has happened. I took the trouble to persuade two young gentlemen who were eminently suited for this task to apply for appointment to serve in this particular capacity. I enquired yesterday, after a lapse of three months, to find out whether these particular gentlemen had been signed on and given a job of work. Sir, they have not heard another word from the department. Here are these young men anxious to do a service but because of red tape nothing is happening, and that is happening right throughout the department, and as long as it continues to happen soil erosion will continue to wash this country away.

Another problem that the department faces is that quite obviously they are deploying their limited forces in the wrong way. and in saying this I wish to cast no reflection whatever on the very excellent personnel we have in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in the soil conservation department. They are well-trained people. There are people there who are anxious to do a job of work, but as long as the supreme control in this department confines those people to their offices and does not get them out into the fields and on to the farms to do the work where it has to be done, this department will never really be an effective department. Sir, when a general is fighting a war he does not sit back in his office: he gets into his reconnaissance vehicle and he gets out in the middle of the fight, and that is where these people should be—in the middle of the fight, on the farms, with the farmers, discussing matters with the farmers and planning together with the farmers, and to get these essential works done as speedily as possible. I can see no possible use in leaving these people in offices, drawing magnificent maps., making wonderful plans and keening hundreds and hundreds of records. I would like to know how man hours have been spent by these limited numbers of people that the department has at its disposal in doing work in offices that is in effect not really essential. My most earnest recommendation is that arrangements should be made to enable these people to get out to do practical work where practical work is crying out to be done. I want to make this suggestion that it might be wise for the department to have mobile offices where these people can do the necessary clerical work out in the country. If you confine them to their offices their efforts will never be effective. The farmers are looking for assistance from these officers; they want to meet them but they never see them. They never make contact with the farmers, and where they do make contact with the farmers, that contact is far too limited. I can assure the Minister that if he takes to heart what I am saving here, and if he institutes steps of this kind he will find that he will get the most gratifying results from the farming community.

Now. I come to another aspect of the matter. I say that the Department of Soil Conservation has failed to co-ordinate the experiments, many of them very effective ones, which are being conducted by the farming community itself, on its own initiative and out of its own desire to get on top of this problem. Sir, I am going to mention the name of just one, although I actually know of several. I have visited them and I have studied their methods. I want to quote the example of a farm in the Free State owned by Mr. Len Howe. Here is a farmer who in co-operation with an official of the department, whose name I do not wish to mention, has done an experiment in the Free State that must have a profound effect on the future farming methods in this country. That experiment has been going on for some time; I have seen it and I am most impressed. I honestly and sincerely believe that the pattern that has been established on that farm will set the pattern for farming in this country in the centuries to come. I believe that if those methods, which will probably have to be modified in the course of time, are implemented, it can have a profound effect on the earning capacity of the farmers in this country. Not only can it increase their income but it can also arrest soil erosion and, better still, it can improve the nature of the vegetation. Sir. we do not realize to what extent the country’s good grass and bushes are being eaten and tramped away.

What point is the bon. member making? I am most interested in this.

I believe that where farmers are prepared to experiment in this wav. the Government should take them under its wing and give them all possible assistance and all possible co-operation so that the results of these experiments can become available to the whole country.

But is this experiment not being discussed at the study group meetings?

It is being discussed. Recently a visit to this particular farm was arranged by some 100 farmers. A prominent farmer in my area wished to go to that experiment and a too official in the Department of Agriculture said to him: “Don’t go and see this experiment because it has nothing in it as far as your farm is concerned.” Sir, I take a very serious view of this.

But the 100 farmers who went there went under the auspices of this Department.

They went under the auspices of the Farmers’ Association out of their own free will. I do hope that arrangements can be made later this year for parliamentarians to visit this farm to see this experiment so that this experiment can become part and parcel of our whole soil conservation effort in this country and sponsored by the Department of Soil Conservation.

Has the Deputy Minister been there?

I do not know. But, Sir, there are many other experiments. I have quoted this one but there are many others which are worthy of the fullest consideration and the support of the department. Sir, I do not wish to labour that point any more. I wish to come to my final point. I think sometimes there is a lack of planning; there is what my hon. Leader has often called a lack of foresight. I want to quote such an example now in the sphere of agriculture. As you know, Sir, we went through this very serious drought, the effects of which were most serious indeed on the farming land of our country. The Government I would say came with generous financial aid. I think we must commend them for the machinery that they set in motion to assist the farmers through this difficult period. But what happened when the first rains fell? The first rains had hardly fallen—there was just a sort of smell of rain—when we heard an announcement from the department that the feeding subsidy schemes were now being suspended.

They have now been reinstated.

Surely if we are going to be wise in this matter, we should know that the most important time to look after our veld is after the first rains have fallen. I would say that if the department had acted wisely and with knowledge and with experience, they would have allowed these schemes to go on for a full two months after the first rains had fallen so that that veld which had been subject to such a drubbing would have had all the necessary time to recover. If that had been done I would have said that the department was acting wisely and well.

But it has been dens.

I find it a very pleasant task to participate in this Budget Debate immediately after the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I have the greatest appreciation for the way in which he made his contribution. I want to give you the assurance that he and I are of one mind, and I also think that not only all the members of this House, but also those who are really interested in South Africa are in complete agreement with what the hon. member said about the conservation of our soil. For my part I want to tell him that I appreciate very highly the constructive way in which he made his contribution to this debate. At this juncture I do not want to go fully into the matter in regard to whether all the points of criticism which he expressed were justified or not. I should prefer to let the emphasis fall on the points in regard to which we agree and are of the same opinion. We are all concerned about our soil. We know that we have a limited amount of agricultural land; we know that the supply of agricultural land in South Africa is extremely limited and we are all concerned about every square foot of soil which could have been conserved and which is being washed away. I am appreciative of the fact that the hon. member expressed his appreciation for the realistic approach of the hon. the Ministers concerned in the matter who have been entrusted with this task. The hon. member once again referred to expenditure on Defence. This has become quite a common pattern in this debate. He did not criticise it but referred to the large amounts which are being applied for Defence in this budget and had been applied in previous budgets. It is really a pity that it has become necessary for such large amounts to be spent on defence. However, I do not think there is anybody in this House who will deny that it is imperative that we in South Africa should be militarily defensible, that our young men should be trained, and that the necessary funds should be made available. We cannot criticize expenditure on defence, but I want to say here, as Paul did, we must do one thing and not neglect the other, and when I say that then I am not detracting from the attempts which have to be made to conserve our soil. The hon. member referred quite rightly to the shortage of trained and efficient staff, and he asked whether the available staff was always being utilized efficiently. I do not want to make any comment on that. I have every confidence in the departmental heads, in the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, in the Minister for Agricultural Technical Services and in The Deputy Minister. I believe that they will go out of their way to make use of the available staff in as efficient a way as possible. We know, however, that we are not dealing with robots but that we have to deal with the human factor. In one respect I cannot agree with the hon. member, and now I am talking specifically of the area which I have the privilege of representing here. I find there that the extension officers and the available staff do not spend their time sitting in their offices; we find them along the road and in the veld, and we find that they remain in contact with the farmers and the community which they are serving, and we want to express appreciation for the work they are doing. However, I do want to agree that we can perhaps go out of our way to obtain additional trained staff. The hon. member also referred to the announcement that farmers can be used to be of assistance in this major task, and that they may also be used after the administrative delay which was experienced with the appointment of persons who had made application. I do not know what happened in individual cases, but the policy is to use these people and I support this principle, just as the hon. member does. Although I say that, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make an appeal to everybody, particularly those who have some influence on our school children and our university students, to make our young people at all times soil conservation conscious from an early age. In the same way as the child in Holland is encouraged to help keep the dykes intact, to maintain his country as his communal possession, so every young boy and girl, and every person in South Africa must be roped in to help conserve the soil. As I have already said, I am in full agreement with the positive suggestion which the hon. member made, and I find it very pleasant to participate in this debate after a member like that.

Unfortunately the hon. member for East London North is not present at the moment. I do not take it amiss of him for not being here, but I should like to refer to a statement which he made yesterday in an unguarded moment, and I think it would be a good thing if the hon. member were to rectify it. The hon. member referred to a case where two head of cattle in his neighbourhood simply disappeared off the face of the earth. Apparently the cattle had been slaughtered and all that remained was, to quote the hon. member’s own words, the “stomach dung”. The hon. member referred to the circumstances existing there. He was referring to excess nonwhite labour on the farms and he said—

I regard that statement made by The hon. member in a very serious light simply because those people are unemployed does not mean that the hon. member can justify stock theft or say that they cannot be blamed for it. Theft is being directly encouraged by the hon. member here in the highest legislative council chamber of South Africa. He justifies the fact that people who are out of work commit theft. I repeat that it is very likely that the hon. member made this statement in an unguarded moment and I should be glad if he would rectify it because I regard it in a very serious light that in this House, which offers us all a forum, people should be told that they can steal merely because they do not have a job. Mr. Speaker, under the United Party Government we experienced conditions like these in South Africa in the past. On the Witwatersrand I saw 19,000 young men and women walking around looking for work. They could not get work and they queued up in front of labour bureaux looking for a job, but that was no justification for them to commit theft. It was due to the circumstances. I repeat, in all fairness, that I cannot let that statement of the hon. member pass unanswered. As I have already said, I think he did it in an unguarded moment and that is why I hope that as soon as he is afforded an opportunity to do so he will rectify the matter. If the hon. member’s statement remains unqualified it could create a serious situation here in South Africa.

In the past few years, but particularly during 1966, the prevailing drought dealt agriculture a serious economic blow—we are all aware of that. Now I want to state here that this damage cannot be undone by good rains in one year. We must not expect super-human achievements from agriculture. We must not expect it to be able to make up the backlog in one good year and undo completely the damage which was done. We cannot but be grateful for the assistance which has already been granted to agriculture by the Government, and yet I am pleading here today that the farmer and his problems be approached with greater circumspection. In those years when he was plagued by droughts, by elements outside his control, he had to incur obligations, obligations not only in his own interests, but also in the interests of agriculture as a whole. It was, therefore, in the national interest that he had to incur those obligations, because the farmer has to be kept on the land. The Government did not find it possible to help all the farmers. That is why there were those who had to go and borrow money at expensive rates of interest from private bodies in order to remain on the land. Because these farmers happened to be in a better financial position and because their credit standing was greater and they were, therefore, able to receive assistance from private bodies, such as commercial banks, does not mean that they are a less important unit in our agricultural industry, or as far as the task and function which they perform in agriculture is concerned. That is why these people should also be treated with great circumspection and sympathy. I do not have enough knowledge at my disposal to be able to say what steps should be taken to combat inflation successfully. However, I do know that it is the task of each one of us to make his own humble contribution and to try and influence the people with whom he comes into contact to do without luxury items so that we will be able to restrict inflation. However, there are certain essential items which we cannot do without. In agriculture, for example, there are certain essential things which agriculture cannot do without. In cases like that the agriculturist was forced to go and borrow money from private bodies. It is that person who is now being hard-hit by high rates of interest. I want to plead that we should treat these people, who were forced to incur loans of that nature, with a large measure of sympathy. I have already said that the present crop alone will not enable them to meet all their obligations. The young Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is doing a tremendous task, although it has not been in the field for long. I want to plead that we do not express a premature judgment on its activities. As far as I am concerned, I am convinced that it is serious in its intention to help agriculture, to make working capital available at a lower rate of interest, to help the young farmer to obtain money, and, where there are uneconomic units, to consolidate them. We know that that is the policy and we know that the hon. the Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Water Affairs has already emphasized this strongly. We are grateful for that. However, there are problems, but I believe that in time it will be possible to eliminate these problems. But it is essential that we should help these young farmers by consolidating uneconomic units. The question of land barons—those people who have too much land—is often discussed. But I want to suggest that, as far as I am concerned, a far greater evil is those people who possess too little land. Here we are faced with the problem of the injudicious sub-division of agricultural land. We are in a responsible position here, and that is why we must assume responsibility for pointing out certain matters. The logical consequence of this process will be that we will ultimately have fewer farmers in South Africa. It therefore remains our task to see to it that the smaller number of farmers are able to maintain an efficient enterprise. It is of no avail having a large number of farmers in the rural areas when some of them are suffering hardships. We must consolidate, therefore, and see to it that economic units are formed so that all farmers can make a proper living. I am not only pleading for this in the interests of the farmer, but also in the national interests of our country. It is imperative that the farmer of South Africa be placed on a strong economic foundation. He must be placed in a position where it will not be necessary for him to be continually asking the State for assistance. On the contrary, it should be made possible for him to build up his own capital so that in times of drought, times which we will continually be experiencing in South Africa, he will be able to finance himself. That is why I say that this state of affairs should be approached with great caution.

It is emphasized here each year, and has also been emphasized in this debate, that the farmers of South Africa have been entrusted with a task, a task which is making increasingly greater demands. This task is to feed a steadily increasing population, a population which is growing not only in numbers, but one which is steadily maintaining a higher standard of living. The millions of nonwhites in our country are also maintaining an increasingly higher standard of living. Their eating habits are continually changing. It is the task of agriculture to meet this growing demand. That is why we all have a task in regard to agriculture. We are grateful for what has already been done in this connection, and we are convinced that our hon. Ministers and their Departments will continue to keep a watchful eye on this sector of our economy.

Again I want to ask here that we should, in our research, pay more attention to the standardization of agricultural implements. I am concerned about the state of affairs which has arisen in South Africa in this connection over the years. We find that agricultural implements which are purchased become outdated very rapidly. That does not mean to say that these implements have been used up in the service of agriculture, but only that better implements have been introduced to replace the old ones. That is why I am pleading for a greater degree of standardization of agricultural implements.

For spare parts as well?

We must have a smaller variety of implements. The result of that will be that we will need a smaller variety of spares and, consequently, fewer agencies will have to be erected at tremendous capital expense to accommodate the large variety of spare parts and make them available to the farmer. It is the farmer who in the long run pays for the building as well as for the implements and their spare parts. That is why I say that the time has come for us to think very seriously in the direction of greater standardization as one of the aids to making the means of production cheaper. The country must take cognizance of the fact that the farmer is only able to deliver his products on the market as cheaply as his means of production enables him to do so.

I want to conclude by saying that there is one safe reassurance which we do have, and that is that in the place of his predecessor we have a Minister of Finance who is very sympathetic towards the inhabitants of our country. He is not a Minister who will necessarily take popular steps, but the steps which he will in fact take will be in the interests of a sound economy in South Africa. I think our farmers can rest assured in the knowledge that the National Party will govern for many years to come in South Africa. Up to now we have had no properly-organized plan of attack from the Opposition. There was no real pattern in their argument. We may conclude from that they are not serious about ever coming into power again. They know, therefore, that they are safe and that they will not be called upon to accept this responsible task in regard to the country. On the contrary. We may rest assured in the safe knowledge that the National Party will continue to govern the country for many years to come. That is the greatest reassurance which we can give to the nation of South Africa in the political sphere.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in regard to the contribution made by the hon. member for Walmer. In fact, I think the hon. member for Walmer is the only person on the opposite side of the House who has up to now in this Session made any contribution to agricultural matters.

It is significant that as the condition of our farmers, since the parliamentary session last year, has changed with the coming of rain, the tremendous propaganda which has been made in regard to our farmers has also decreased. I want to dwell for a moment on this aspect and consider how this propaganda began. Agriculture has always been the first sector to be exploited in the attempt to bring the United Party back into power. I have taken a great deal of interest in the contributions to and the behaviour of the United Party in regard to agriculture over the past few years. As is the case in all other fields, the Opposition have not availed themselves of these fine opportunities to make a contribution, a constructive contribution, to agriculture. Their criticism has merely been destructive—there was nothing constructive about it. In 1948 they began to make propaganda in regard to agriculture and the alleged decline of the farmer and his product. [Interjection.] It comes as no surprise to me that, after 18 years of decline, the interjections and arguments from hon. members on the opposite side continue to indicate that they are still in a state of ignorance. In 1948 there were people who blamed me personally because I had helped to put the U.P. into power. They blamed me and said that we were heading for a famine in this country, (that people would not have the money to buy our products and that they would, therefore, lie and rot. Those same people who blamed the National Party and said that the party would be the cause of a decline in our agricultural industry, those people who were so pessimistic about their future—where are they today? Those same people in my constituency are today, in their scores, in their hundreds, members of the National Party. They have joined the N.P. because they have lost confidence in the propaganda of the U.P. Over the years the United Party has been conjuring up spectres in regard to the N.P. I do not want to say that their stories were misleading, but they were, nevertheless, distorted. The stories in regard to the policy of the Government and the situation of our country were distorted. The U.P. hoped that (they would influence the people of South Africa by conjuring up these spectres along the road being taken by the National Party. What has become of those spectres? Their corpses are lying heaped up along the political wayside in South Africa. They have died off one after the other. Where are they today? Not one of the U.P.’s predictions have come true.

I want (to tell the U.P. and hon. members on the opposite side that their stories are no longer making any impression on our people. Their distortions of the true state of affairs are no longer being accepted. They are people who do not know the ordinary man or the ordinary farmer. Our people are mature, they have the ability today to judge matters and their future for themselves. Why must their intelligence be underestimated? That is why I say that, although our farmers did suffer hardships and, although there are some of them who are still suffering hardships, their judgment and common sense in very sound. That is why they know whom to support and whom to trust in South Africa.

I do not want to dwell on (the actions of the Opposition. I want to try and make a contribution here in regard to our agricultural interests. I represent a constituency which consists almost exclusively of agriculturists. It is a fact today that agriculture does not have a specific framework within which estimates may be made. There is no framework or norm in respect of which the agricultural policy can be laid down is it may be done in other departments because our agriculture is unpredictable and subject to changeable circumstances. That is why our agricultural ministers have such a great responsibility and why it is so important to them to watch developments to the best of their abilities and to judge what /the future is going to bring. I want to congratulate our agricultural ministers for having obtained, effected and provided so many things in these changing circumstances. They have met the requirements of agriculture to such an extent that the industry can continue in a way as close to normal as has ever been the case before. In these changing circumstances our population throughout the country has been fed as well as possible, and our farmers have been given as much assistance as was humanly possible.

I notice that in the Other Place propaganda was made in regard to the Orange River settlement, which falls within my constituency. I want to express my appreciation for the attention which the Government has been giving to this part of my constituency and its voters. They have gone through hard times, they have survived severe tests and disasters. Our agricultural departments have given those people every assistance the Opposition could have thought of giving. They have been given assistance in consolidating their debts· production loans have been granted; assistance for the purchase of seed has been granted. Loans for the purchase of fertiliser have been granted; assistance for repairs to their canals has been granted: assistance for repairs to their flood walls has been given; assistance for repairs to their storm water channels has been given; assistance in respect of implements has been given. They have been given fuel. Steps have even been taken to make funds available in case they are not able to pay their labourers. I am proud to be able to represent a constituency and people who have been accommodated a very great deal by the State. I am proud of our Government and the agricultural department. When these people were faced with disaster, five heads of departments were sent that area. The Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Deputy minister also went there. One can almost say that the departmental heads sacrificed 24 hours of their work in the interests of that part of my voters. On behalf of my voters I also want to express our gratitude for everything which has been done, and also for the interest which the hon. the Prime Minister has displayed in regard to their difficulties.

Because I want to make a contribution in respect of agriculture, I should like to express a few thoughts here. I do not in any way want to allege that our farmers are not at this stage going to flourish. Unfortunately my constituency is still suffering heavily under an unabated drought. I know that the farmers are going through a bitter time. The needs of these farmers will have to be seen to—special concessions and special services will have to be arranged in order to save them. We know that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is rendering a great deal of service to those farmers. I want to express my appreciation for what is being done; I also want to express my appreciation for what the Land Bank has done in recent times for these farmers. I notice in the report that there were 244 applications this year for bank loans, of which 235 have been approved. In these circumstances one appreciates the fact that these loans could be granted. Yesterday I found it interesting to learn from the hon. member for East London (City) that he was satisfied for a change with the production prices in our agriculture. He was quite a different man a year ago. In any case, there is no choice in the matter. I represent the interests of sheep farmers. Just look at what we have achieved during the past two, three years in respect of prices. Not only has the guaranteed price been increased, but we have recently been receiving an average of 5.2 per cent more than the guaranteed prices. It is true that a certain percentage of our farmers have been unfortunate, but 90 per cent of our farmers today are satisfied with this scheme. They adhere to it and they have asked for a request to be made in this House not to depart from this policy but to retain this agricultural scheme as far as possible. They are requesting that it should be developed and where possible, improved upon. As I have said, about 10 per cent of our farmers are unfortunately not receiving these prices owing to circumstances over which we often do not have control. That is why I want to request—and I know that it is already receiving attention—that the guaranteed prices for the wool farmers should to a certain extent be increased.

I want to refer here to a few other matters. We are receiving a very great deal of assistance and instruction from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. There are various remedies which are being used today to combat internal parasites. Some of these remedies have an effectiveness of between 80 and 100 per cent, but unfortunately their prices are very high. Certain other remedies, remedies which are not as effective, are also being marketed to-day. I want to ask the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to give more specific attention to this matter in order to see to it that only remedies which are very effective and which fall within a reasonable price range, so that the farmer can spend money on it, appear on the market and that the other remedies which are not as effective disappear from the market.

There is another matter too which is associated with this. I wonder whether the South African Bureau of Standards cannot offer something with which these remedies can be applied. Recently I acquired seven one-dose injections from a certain co-operative with which these expensive remedies to which I have referred are injected. Not one of the seven was accurate. I want to ask that the S.A.B.S. should approve a standard injector with which these remedies can be applied, so that we can have a product on the market which will give us the efficiency we desire. It is recommended that these remedies be supplied in certain quantities, and if a sheep is injected with less than 60 cc’s for example, the remedy is inefficacious. We cannot therefore allow that these expensive remedies be wasted in this way and do not have the desired result. That is why I am asking the Department to give some attention to this matter so that the remedies may be utilised efficaciously.

I want to conclude with a last thought. Years ago some of our farmers invested money with the State. I do not want to talk about the rates of interest which that money is earning today. Unfortunately many of the farmers who invested so much money at that time are in a position today where they need that capital but are not able at this stage to obtain it. I know of farmers who, at that time, invested more than R20.000 and whose money is stiff being held by the State but who cannot today get an overdraft from the Bank. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to accommodate those farmers so that they may have that money at their disposal to continue their farming activities. This is a very important request, a request which not only I am making, it is also one which comes from the farmers I represent. They are asking whether they cannot be accommodated in this respect. That is why I am asking the Minister whether it is not possible to have something done in regard to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the previous speaker, and also make a request to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I have to do so in sincere acknowledgment to the hon. the Opposition and also to the hon. member for Walmer, who spoke earlier. He received praise for his speech, but in certain respects he did a great injustice to our agricultural officials in particular. Firstly, he said that the sheep farmer had to be satisfied with 35 cents a pound for wool, while the prices of production requirements were increasing. I ask the hon. member: Who is responsible for that price of 35 cents a pound received by the wool farmer? Is it the Government? Secondly, the hon. member referred to extension officers and said that a certain part of their office work was a waste of time. It is not fair of the hon. member not to specify which work is supposedly such a waste of time. Thirdly, the hon. member complained that our extension officers were doing so much less than the Rhodesian extension officers. I maintain that it is unfair to make such an allegation. There are far fewer farmers in Rhodesia than in this extensive country of ours; for that reason I think he did our extension officers a great disservice. They are certainly people who work very hard.

I also listened to the hon. member for East London (City). Yesterday afternoon he read a long extract from what Mr. Cilliers, director of the South African Agricultural Union, had allegedly said. It was a hoary old museum piece from which the hon. member quoted, because it still refers to pounds, shillings and pence. The hon. member also quoted Mr. Cilliers as using the word “African”. I know Mr. Cilliers, and I know he definitely does not refer to “Africans” when he means Bantu.

I consequently want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to make a gesture of acknowledgment towards the Opposition. I should like to ask that their agricultural politics be declared drought-stricken. That also includes the hon. member for Houghton. Apart from being politically drought-stricken, she is suffering from political blight, such as we find on maize. The flames are fanned, the molehills become mountains. Once they have been declared politically drought-stricken, I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for a further subsidy of 50 per cent in order that they may appoint capable liaison officers to devise some positive ideas for them, because in this House they produce nothing of the kind.

A very fine speech has been made about soil erosion. Now it so happens that storm water which always flows along the same footpath causes serious erosion, and that is what is happening on that side of the House. Their political erosion has gone so far that from the bottom of their erosion dongas they are no longer able to see the beautiful fields in our agricultural landscape. In view of the fact that within the foreseeable future the Republic will be a one-party state as a result of the political erosion on that side of the House—and it will be their own fault; it will be due to their own senility—I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to grant a further subsidy. It can also be 50 per cent. We must find out whether on the stretch of state-owned land here in the Gardens we still have a few square yards available for some more statues. Once all the Opposition members have disappeared from the House, it will be a good idea to get that sculptor to erect another statue next to that of the Field-Marshal. I am thinking in particular of a certain general, a certain brigadier and a certain captain whose statues may be erected on that stretch of state-owned land. A further 50 per cent subsidy may be requested to display some political waxworks in the Parliamentary museum.

Speakers on agricultural matters on that side of the House make it very easy for one to address report meetings. In the first part of this debate I heard Opposition members raise very serious objections to any further allocations of State funds. They want State expenditure to be curtailed. Now they ask for more this and more that for agriculture. How does that tally? The farmers have been given the voluntary choice of changing over to a voluntary equalization of tax rates. Now the United Party comes along all of a sudden and claims that honour for itself. For years organized agriculture, farming members on this side of the House and in particular the hon. member for Kroonstad have been working on this matter. The United Party discovered that and now they want to make opportunistic pleas for that just to catch a few votes. In farming language we would now call them political back riders. Hon. members on that side who are farmers will know very well what I am referring to. The farmers are fond of using that word—back riders. I want to tell them that no matter how much they like riding on the back of the S.A.A.U. in this House, the outside world knows, organized agriculture in all the provinces—even that of Natal, where they give their heartiest co-operation to the National Party Government and National Party members of the House of Assembly—they all know that organized agriculture and the National Party members in Parliament deal with matters on merit. They know that we do not try to make political gain from matters in order to catch some votes. At my report meeting I am going to tell my farming voters that the United Party advocated in this House that State expenditure be curbed considerably— consequently also State expenditure intended to render assistance to farmers in drought-stricken areas and elsewhere. Is it fair that the Opposition should want to treat our farming community this way, people who have had a hard time and who are still having a hard time in certain places, people who are still afflicted in the Karoo and in other parts of the Cape Province? Is it fair that the United Party should want to deny these people State assistance on merit? I think in this respect the Opposition has really shown its true colours in respect of the farmer. They insist on using the farmer as their political foot wiper.

I now want to come to co-operatives and the advantages they offer the consumer public in meeting the problem of the rising cost of living. During the no-confidence debate I asked who was responsible for these rising costs and for the inflation. The Minister of Finance replied quite unequivocally by calling the culprits to account. It is my sincere hope that the companies which show flourishing profits and which provide commodities to agriculture and to the consumer will not succeed once again in passing on their larger share in State financing to the consumer. I am referring specifically to the profiteering companies which are attuned to profit only and not to service as well. Here in Cape Town the bus workers are at present using their bargaining power to obtain higher wages, no matter how negatively. Why do they not use the bargaining power of their trade union positively, as is done by the farmers through their agricultural co-operatives, by entering into positive negotiations with the business world in order to reduce their cost of living? If all bus-service staff united in an organized co-operative effort, they would be able to reduce their cost of living by 10 per cent within a month—that is, they would be able to go 10 per cent further on their salaries and will thus be enabled to save. But they, as consumers, must take the initiative themselves, because commerce will not do that for them. Commerce did not do that for the farmer in agriculture ether. The organized farmers in this country set the example by co-operative buying and selling organizations. As a result the farmer of South Africa at present controls 80 per cent of agricultural economics himself. Without it he would simply not have been able to survive inflation, droughts and the risks involved in farming. These agricultural co-operatives are the channels through which they can effect liaison with the State to a large extent.

It is time our urban consumer masses gave thorough consideration to their bargaining power as buyers of consumer goods. The lack of organization among consumers in the cities and the resultant licence of the profit trade is a major cause of this rising cost of living and the concomitant inflation. Although the consumer himself controls the fate of his salary, as an individual he nevertheless has no bargaining power whatsoever in the face of well-organized commerce, just as in the thirties the farmer had no bargaining power whatsoever in the face of the profit trade. If the Government wants to do something good, it should establish a co-operative branch under the Department of Commerce and Industries, or of Economic Affairs, in order to give consumers positive guidance in this connection. In other words, what is needed is a section similar to that of the Registrar of Agricultural Cooperatives, which in the thirties, those difficult years for our farmers, helped to organize the agricultural co-operative sector. Lacking alert and fully-fledged co-operative consumers’ organizations, the cost of living will simply continue rising and demands for wage increases will continue and will follow the same pattern every year. What is as plain as a pikestaff is the fact that in this matter the consumer masses need purposeful guidance from the State with a view to its practical implementation. Without this active and positive guidance from the State the consumer will not succeed in achieving the objectives as outlined, because he is simply too badly informed on the advantages of co-operative buying and selling. He is also too completely at the mercy of the profit trade. With rare exceptions the profit trade will not take the initiative to help the urban consumer, just as it never assisted the farmer ether. The consumer will have to be taught to help himself by means of planned co-operative action. The sooner that is started in this country, the better.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad made a statement here, and took the hon. member for East London (City) to task because he allegedly approved of the fact that Bantu around the border area, in Mdantsane and so on, should steal. Now, that is not the case at all. We on this side by no means approve of theft in any form whatsoever. We merely stated that we understand why those people do steal. Surely understanding something is quite different to approving thereof.

Then we come to the hon. member for Prieska. He had much to say about the way we on this side have in the past—according to him—“verdraaid” things to the voters. If I may say so, if anybody is responsible for “verdraaiing”, then there is nobody more responsible than this Government and the National Party outside. They never ever state a thing as it is in fact but they twist it to suit their own purposes. That is exactly how they put across their policy to the people, a policy which they never carry out.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) spoke here about droughts and said that the Opposition were in a drought area politically speaking. Talking about droughts, the worst drought that South Africa has ever had in its history is the drought of initiative, planning and foresight on the part of the Government which we are experiencing at the moment. They use, and they have used for years, the Budget as a cover up for their political failures. They have rationalized the extraction of these vast sums of money from the people by talking about patriotism. They say: “Be patriotic—and pay.” They say it with the same monotonous regularity as we on this side are accused of being unpatriotic because we dare criticize the Government and its functioning. If it were not so pathetic it might have been amusing to see how hon. members on that side lay claim to all the good things, to all the little developments that have taken place as and where they are to be found.

Yet, in each and every instance for their failures they blame conditions outside, they compare their achievements to those of the outside world. Those are excuses for their failures. They say: “It happens outside, so why must it not happen here?”

Indeed, if we had an efficient and capable Government, where would South Africa not be? You can take every single department.

Tell us about your colour policy.

We would not be in the position where, as has now been quoted twice in this House, we have been awarded an Oscar which in a matter of months has to be returned because it was granted for ineffectual action. No action has, in fact, taken place to warrant that. It has had no result. We had here a few days ago the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in discussing the developments of the Bantu Reserves, making the statement that agriculture was absolutely fundamental to this development, and indeed we agree with him that it is fundamental. Just as it is fundamental to the development of the homelands, so it is fundamental to the development of South Africa itself. It is important because we all appreciate that through it will come the food for the people and all the subsidiary services in connection with this industry, but what is happening? We hear of areas which have been declared soil conservation areas; we hear of millions of morgen that have been declared as such, and we hear of planning taking place. What is the good, if we have all these areas declared soil conservation areas and all these plans are drawn up but the plans are not carried out? I quote nobody less than the Deputy Minister, who on 17th March, at Queenstown, said this—

Efficiency is dependent on planning, and this planning must be done scientifically and cannot, as at the present moment, be entirely a matter of experience only. The capacity of any farmer to produce, if he wants to be really efficient, depends on his knowledge of his land, knowledge not only of his agricultural land but also of his paddocks and camps. He must know exactly what each and every one of these areas can produce. What has the Government done to supply the farmer with a knowledge of his ground that he has to look after? Rhodesia was mentioned here. Indeed, I should think that the Ministers must look again at what Rhodesia is doing, because there they operate on the documents of which they are justly proud which they have as farm plans. If a farm is planned, they know exactly in the minutest detail what that farm is capable of and what different crops can be planted and they know exactly what they can produce, so much so that today you do not even have to go and look at the farm; you can walk into a Government office and buy a farm knowing exactly what it can produce. Can we do that here? If we go to the farm here in South Africa we do not know what it can produce. You have to rely on your background and your experience only to find out. [Interjections.] What should be noted is this, that the whole development of Rhodesia is being done by our own people, by South Africans who have gone there. We do not decry what our officials are doing today. They are doing their utmost in every department, but they get no assistance and the Government is not helping to provide more men to do this job which the few of them are doing so well.

Productivity has many facets, and many of them have been covered in this debate. I would just mention, in passing, that it was the hon. the Minister of Finance who said “Spend for Prosperity”, and of course the farmers answered his call and they spent and improved their farms and built things and took up loans because they wanted South Africa to prosper. They answered the call of patriotism to their country, to spend for prosperity, and what happened? They have been unable to repay those loans and now it is going the other way. Now they have to pay rates of interest they never foresaw. How can they go on making a living? Another facet of productivity is the question of labour. Quite apart from the fluctuations we have heard about in the different parts of the country, there is the question of the efficiency of our labour force, particularly in agriculture. Where can you find a more inefficient labour force than we have in South Africa? Where, in considering the Bantu labour on the farms, is there any effort made to give them the basic training for what they have to be used for on the farms, whether it be driving a tractor or looking after implements or building a hut or herding sheep, other than what the farmer himself puts into it? We have heard often enough from the economic speakers in this House that to curb this inflation, which we have to do, we have to see that we become more productive, and one of the biggest measures to achieve that productivity is the question of the efficiency of the labour force. We know that as far as the farmer is concerned, his contribution towards combating inflation must be to curb soil erosion, and he must do so with his labour force, but that requires trained labour. When we go further in considering this labour question, we find that the man cannot even use his labour indefinitely. The labour varies from year to year. The labour comes and goes and now we understand from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that even this inefficient labour force is going to be limited through the action he is taking. We wonder where it is all going to lead to, because if we consider the agricultural development in the homelands, what comparison is there between the white areas and the homelands? We find that inasmuch as there are areas planned for the white sector, we heard yesterday from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that 54 per cent of the homelands of South Africa have been planned. We can even go further. I can tell him that in the Ciskei virtually the whole of the Ciskei has been planned. He mentioned the thousands of dams and the miles of fencing and the millions of rands that have been spent on all this planning, but again, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, where do you get unless the plans are carried out? If we take the Ciskei and the Transkei together, you have a population there approaching two million people, and what is their productive capacity agriculturally? Take one matter only, grain. The average over the last six years—not taking last year, because then there was a drought—was 1,880,000 bags of grain, or one bag of grain per person. If you want to work that out in terms of what that means to the people, it is ½ lb. of mealiemeal per person per day, and that is their staple diet.

What is the wool production?

I can give that in detail. Wool production is only about 3 lbs. per sheep, but what is the standard of that wool? Whereas that hon. member may get 50 to 60 cents a lb., the wool produced in the homelands is only sold at about 20 cents a lb. He must not come and talk here about things like that. What is more, Sir, do you know what the position is in connection with the population there? Except for the Rand complex, we have the heaviest concentration of people in South Africa in the Ciskei, 91 people per square mile. It was very noticeable that the hon. member for Soutpansberg when mentioning the development of the border areas the other day mentioned Rosslyn and Phalaborwa, but he did not say a word about the King William’s Town/East London area, and yet that is the true border area in South Africa, an area squashed in between the Ciskei and the Transkei. But what is even more important is this. Do you know, Sir. that in that area 47½ per cent of the total Bantu population in the homelands is concentrated? Then we hear of border development and border industries. We see that last year there was R10 million for border development, and we see this year in the Budget R13 million for border development.

We see that provision is being made this year for R4½ million and R1 million for the Bantu Investment Corporation and for the Xhosa Development Corporation. I would like to ask the Minister how much of these millions has come to the one true border area in South Africa, the King William’s Town/East London area. One wonders why, when the people are there to be employed, when the people want to work, there are not opportunities for them. Why with all the advantages and all the concessions which are available to border area industries, do we not find more development in an area such as that? Let me mention some of the concessions which are made to border area industries: Leasing fully furnished factory premises; loans for buildings, machinery, plant and working capital; assistance as far as basic services such as power, water and transport are concerned; rebates on the depreciation of buildings, plant and machinery; income tax rebates and even a 10 per cent railway rebate. Why, Sir, with all these advantages do we not find more development in an area such as that? What has been the position just of late? Since 1963 only 11 new industries have been established in East London. As a matter of fact, in 1963 not one new industry was established there. In 1964 five were established; in 1965 two, and in 1966 four, and only two of these 11 employ more than 100 Bantu, and the 11 altogether employ 729 Bantu. Sir, the next big town there is King William’s Town, and what have we had there during this period? Nil, a round nil. There is one in the process of developing now. Sir, I think the answer to this is quite simple; the answer is security. Which investor will go and invest money in an area unless he is certain of the future of that area? A great deal has been said here by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development about investments inside the Bantu areas and about how people can lend money to the Bantu Investment Corporation. Sir, are you going to lend money to somebody else if you do not know how he is going to invest it? No, there must be security; it is a basic requirement for any sort of investment. When we come to the question of security, why do people feel insecure? There is insecurity because we have people like the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration going round and saying, for example, that the borders of the Ciskei are not final. This statement was denied emphatically hundreds of times by hon. members on that side of the House when the question of borders was discussed here and I do not wish to re-open that discussion. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the borders are not final. Furthermore he says that 100,000 morgen of land must be bought in that specific area, not additional land but in exchange for white land. Sir, a 100,000 morgen is not a penny stamp; it involves a terrific amount. The hon. the Minister of Finance talks about saving. Is this the time now to exchange land merely in order to consolidate? We are not against the principle of consolidation but surely one must view everything in its correct perspective. Sir, it goes further than that. When we ask him about this consolidation, about the black spots which are still within the white area and ask him what he is going to do about them, he comes along and gives the sort of reply which he gave me last year and says, “we have not decided yet whether we will consolidate these black spots; we have not yet decided whether we will consolidate them or remove them”. Sir, have you ever heard anything of the kind? How can you consolidate a black spot other than to move it but he says that he does not know yet whether he is going to consolidate or remove it. How can one interpret that sort of remark? Sir, what would you say if somebody told you that about something within your own area? No, one cannot go on with that sort of reasoning and then expect development to take place. It hampers the development of the whole area. I do not wish to suggest that industrialization is the be-all and end-all of everything, because I believe that industrialization itself, on its own, is but a small part of that development. I think that has been proved in an area such as Johannesburg where even today there are 344,427 economically active Bantu, only 16 per cent of whom are employed in industry. Thirty eight per cent of them are employed in other services, in Government services, provincial services, municipal service and even domestic service. The big thing about industrialization is not what it itself does but what it brings with it, just as in the case of immigrants, for example. It is not just the number of immigrants that comes; it is the bonus in the shape of their children that matters. What is important is not only the numbers by which they increase our population. The same applies to industry, but, Sir, a prerequisite to any development such as that is security. There must be certainty as to which areas are going to be white and which are not going to be white. We must know so that when a man comes along and makes inquiries we can tell him what the position is. I would say specifically that in order to stimulate industrial development we all know that a nucleus is necessary. We have found in the past and it has been stated here that this nucleus is ether the raw material or the market, and occasionally there is some specific industry which forms the nucleus around which the whole development takes place. We have had examples of that and we have even seen it in Port Elizabeth, one of our four industrially developed areas, where the motor industry played a major part in the development of that area. But in any case what we require for both of them is capital. Can we find a nucleus for the King William’s Town/East London area? I say without fear of contradiction that if this Government really wants to show that it has initiative, that it has planning in its mind and that it has foresight, this is the opportunity for it to display wisdom. Sir, at the moment consideration is being given to the positioning of a third Iscor. The hon. the Minister of Finance said, while he was still Minister of Economic Affairs, that this would be decided solely on economic grounds. Sir, I say that he must change that idea of his. We have for him in that area a ready-made piece of land around Berlin where a third Iscor can be established. We can supply him with everything; we can supply him with water, labour, power and transport, with a little bit of development, and if it should be uneconomic, what of it? Because around this uneconomic nucleus we could build up an economic whole for the whole area. That is the point that we want to make. If we do have a small nucleus which does not pay and we could then have development which would be to the benefit of South Africa, to the benefit of that area, to the benefit of the Whites and to the benefit of the Bantu people who are looking for work all the time, I say that the establishment of that industry in that area would be justified.

It seems to me everything needed in this country may be found at King William’s Town—the land, the water and the ore. The previous speaker is certainly very proud of King William’s Town, and that is good. Time and again the Opposition sets out on an agricultural debate and then stops at a Bantu debate. The hon. member alleged that our agricultural technical services were poor and he compared us to Rhodesia. Well, it is true that Rhodesia renders good technical services to a small number of farmers, but why criticize our services? The hon. member is aware of the fact that Rhodesia’s entire maize crop totals 4 million bags. Our kaffir-corn crop totals 8 million bags and our maize crop 100 million bags, spread over a tremendous area. Ours is a growing and developing country and we cannot always succeed in finding the necessary staff. Why should our agricultural departments be belittled every time? Sir, agriculture is referred to most disparagingly. May I just quote the following to demonstrate what has happened as regards agriculture in the past 18 years—

That was shortly after the time when Mr. Koos Strauss was Minister of Agriculture—

But hon. members of the Opposition get up time and again and say that the agricultural situation is hopeless and that it is deteriorating. Sir, when the hon. member for East London (City) spoke yesterday, he forgot what he had said in this House seven months ago. On 25th August, 1966, the hon. member said—

You will remember that he alleged that the farmers were going under as a result of too low prices. Seven months ago he said—

Yesterday he got up here and said that it was ridiculous to propose an increase in the prices of agricultural produce because regard should be had to the world price. Seven months ago, when he was asked: “What about the world price?” his reply was: “We have nothing to do with the world price; we are talking about South Africa.” If the hon. member can swing around as quickly as that, I think he will be voting National seven months from now.

The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the Government misrepresented everything, but he did not tell us in what respect the Government misrepresented everything. He said that we threw dust in the eyes of the voters. How can one insult the voters by telling them that we have been throwing dust in their eyes for 18 years and that they are nevertheless supporting the National Party in ever-increasing numbers? The hon. member should think before he speaks. Sir, I look forward to the next general election. If we use this Hansard and the things said here by hon. members of the Opposition, there are going to be fun and games at the next election!

From time to time we hear speeches by members of the hon. Opposition, such as the hon. member for East London (North) yesterday, who was worried—I actually pitied him because he was so worried—about the poor native boy he wanted to discharge but did not know where to send. But he is only thinking of his own restricted locality. I do not know whether it is true that there is so much redundant labour, but the rest of the country is crying out for labour, is looking for labour. But it appears that at East London and in that vicinity …

You do not know what you are talking about.

I should just like to ask the hon. member the following: If the Bantu homelands are to be developed as suggested by the hon. member, has he ever asked himself whether it is the duty of the Whites only to develop those Bantu homelands? Should there be no initiative on the part of the Bantu? I would be grateful if the hon. member would consult the documents of the Bantu Investment Corporation, to which they refer sneeringly and say, “In six years R5 million has been spent”, and then laugh about the matter. If you investigated and spoke to those people, you would see what loans are applied for at the Bantu Investment Corporation: for a motor car, a light delivery van, a lorry, a dealer’s licence. And the Bantu Investment Corporation has its hands full ensuring that one Bantu does not exploit the other. He is still on a very low level of civilization and it will take generations to cultivate an awareness of these matters in the Bantu. Primarily one surely starts with agriculture, as the hon. the Minister said. One cannot tell the Bantu right at the outset: “Here are so many millions of rands. Proceed with a factory”. The white has to do the thinking for them, but surely we cannot do everything for them. Surely one cannot bring about this development overnight.

It has been pointed out to the hon. members that the white capital may be mobilized by the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation or development corporations still to be founded. But the Bantu cannot even put his agriculture in order; how is he to straighten out his industry on his own? Hon. members should have regard to the practical situation. What is happening at the moment, seeing that in your opinion those homelands are not being developed? In the area I have in mind, one cannot obtain labour at present because the Bantu say: “Why should I work? It has rained in my homeland. I can eat morog”. Some of them, who as a result of this technical guidance harvested 85 bags of maize last year, are dissatisfied. The Bantu woman is dissatisfied and says: “Now my husband can get an additional wife”, or, “He will no longer work at all, because he now has food for two years”. Hon. members should not merely generalize, but should have regard to the stage of development of the black man. To divorce him from his context and to try to treat him as a developed white is wrong.

Our people started developing in the agricultural sphere. It took generations. After that we developed industrially. On our own we developed as a nation. One cannot simply do spoon feeding and put matters right on paper. It takes generations. Every time I ask myself whether the Opposition wants us to cause the Bantu to develop so rapidly that we will disrupt his life, as happened in the rest of Africa. Who is to develop his agriculture? It is said that 54 per cent is planned. But go and see what those Bantu are doing on their own. They have the opportunity to farm on the best land in our country. What do they actually do for themselves? Have hon. members asked themselves why that development is taking place so slowly? Is it only the white man who is to blame? It is only the white man who is at fault? I tell the hon. members who are so fond of coming back time and again to Bantu-homeland development. It is a source of concern. I myself am concerned about it. But what is the true problem?

I want to conclude by saying this: South Africa was an agricultural country and a mining country. today agriculture and mining together are only slightly more than the industrial development. Even if the Opposition criticized us time and again, even if they are aggressive—I know that is the duty of the Opposition, although they do it very badly— and bring reproaches without suggesting alternatives, I still maintain: Agriculture in this country is on a sound basis. All those reproaches of last year, of seven months ago, were washed out by the rain. As a result of the rain those arguments by the Opposition are worth very little at present.

The hon. member for King William’s Town abandoned the discussions on agricultural matters and wandered about, and I think as the last speaker on the Opposition side he will not hold it against me if I do not follow him. We have had more than two weeks to set up the Budget as a target for all critics and in particular for the hon. the Opposition, and they have had an opportunity to let fly at it with might and main. Upon inspection of the target after all that time and virtually in the final moments of this debate, one comes to the conclusion that the bull’s eye of the target is in point of fact intact. The hon. Opposition saddled the inflation horse immediately and gave it the spurs, but unfortunately that Opposition horse had been fed the wrong fodder and soon foundered. It actually surprised me to hear in this connection that the State was spending too much on defence and water affairs. At present it is world politics that a good, healthy and developing economy must be protected by a strong defence force. The hon. members of the Opposition actually believe that we are spending too much on defence at this juncture, at a time when it is not only necessary to defend our economy but when we are being threatened from all over the world, when the entire world is hostile to us.

I recall the days during last year’s session when the entire country was still in the grip of the drought and when we had interviews virtually every day with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, and I remember the criticism and the reproaches and everything said in connection with water conservation and the things that go with it by the hon. Opposition. And now that the hon. the Minister is asking for even more money to do more in this respect, there are actually complaints about too much expenditure on water affairs. Now that the debate has progressed so far and we are beginning to summarize and to draw conclusions, I want to say unequivocally that the hon. the Opposition has taught us nothing. Once again it was a case of much talk and much criticism without any statement of an alternative policy. I should like to address myself to the hon. the Opposition in this regard. It has become tradition for the Government to be attacked and criticized without the Opposition proposing an alternative for those things of which they do not approve. In this regard I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for South Coast. Last year he said the following, inter alia (Hansard, vol. 17, column 2578)—

Last year, when the hon. member used these words, I was still a novice in this House, and I have to admit that as such I was rather receptive to such fine words and was inclined to attach some value to them. Apart from that, those words were used at a time when we had to attach importance to the acceptance of each other’s bona fides and to believe that both sides were honest and sincere in their attempts to seek the best for the country. I want to assure the hon. the Opposition in advance that the words I want to address to them are free of any hostility, of “venom”, to use a word they will be better able to understand. I believe that if we are to make mutual appeals to each other, we should be sincere and render proof of our sincerity. If in everyday life a man wants to assure me of his sincerity and honesty, I want him to render proof that I will in fact be able to rely on his integrity. Similarly, I would gladly rely on the integrity of my fellow-politicians in this House, even if they are on the opposite side of the House.

Then you are lost.

As I said, I was inclined to accept the words of the hon. member for South Coast. After all, he is an experienced politician, enthusiastic—sometimes perhaps too passionate. He is a political veteran and he has marched a long way in politics. I thought to myself that the hon. member might perhaps have calmed down through the years, and might perhaps have changed his views. In any event, I was impressed by his words.

You got the wrong impression.

All that was needed, however, was that this side of the House should introduce legislation such as the legislation for the establishment of a national education policy, to reveal the true state of affairs. In the opposition to that legislation the hon. member for South Coast took the lead. It was a thorn in the flesh of the hon. members from Natal, in particular, that we wanted to give our education a national and a Christian character.

Oh, no.

That is true. I have become firmly convinced that hon. members of the Opposition are most allergic to the concept “national” and that they want to restrict that concept to the narrower political concept and thus link it to the National Party. They are opposed to any idea related to that. It was then asked whether our education was not Christian. We discussed the matter at great length, and I therefore do not want to elaborate on it any further at this stage. But what shocked me were the following words by the hon. member for Kensington in the course of that debate. In reply to the question of another hon. member, the hon. member for Kensington said—

If hon. members on the opposite side of the House and the English-speaking section of our population do not want that, it is none of my business, but why did we get so much opposition from hon. members on the opposite side when we introduced this policy? What I found most disconcerting in that respect was the fact that hon. members of the Opposition said that they were acting in good faith, and yet they made such an issue of the so-called language medium or parental choice. I want to summarize the matter very briefly. Experience has taught me and many others in this country that no English-speaking parent, or at least, very few of them, send their children to Afrikaans-medium schools. Similarly, few Afrikaans-speaking parents will send their children to English-medium schools. Why make such an issue of the language medium and of parental choice? I come to the conclusion that hon. members on the opposite side are merely pleading for that small group of Afrikaans speaking members of the United Party who want to send their children to English-medium schools in order to have even more United Party politics instilled in them.

But I thought all English-speaking people were now Nationalists.

There are more of them in the National Party than you would like to see. I ask myself the question, is the hon. the Opposition in earnest? I take it that the hon. member for South Coast spoke on behalf of his Party, because he is a senior member of his Party. Are they in earnest when they oppose us in this connection? Are they acting in good faith and do they expect us to accept their bona fides, their good faith, if they say unequivocally that they are going to restore the Coloureds to the common voters’ list? Does the Party realize what it is doing and where it wants to take us back to? I believe that one should always compare. Now it so happens that the present Opposition was in fact in government at one stage. What happened then? At that time the Coloureds also had the vote. In fact, we may say that that was all the United Party Government did for the Coloureds at that time. That the Coloureds no longer believe the United Party, is most strikingly proved by the fact that at the Provincial Election of 1964 the Coloureds did not return any United Party members to the Provincial Council, but two Progressives. Therefore they do not believe the fine talk of the United Party ether.

Nor do they accept the Nationalist Party.

In the course of this debate we heard that they were considering a race federation: then again it was a geographical federation, but I do not want to elaborate on that at the moment. I just want to tell them that I think it is absolutely unfair to expect a party which includes thinking people, people who can do their own political reasoning, to come and tell us that they seek the salvation of South Africa through this kind of politics. They have now been forced into a position where they are no longer able to take a unanimous stand even on their Bantu policy. In this connection I believe that there are at least three groups among them. One group is in favour of a geographical federation; the other of a race federation; and a third in favour of nether of those two.

Just before I conclude, I should like to say a few things in connection with an election pamphlet which was issued by the Opposition and which is exactly a year old today. The heading on the pamphlet is in thick black print: “Dit is die Verenigde Party erns”. (“The United Party is in earnest.”) That is where I started doubting the words of the hon. member for South Coast last year. In the pamphlet it is stated that salaries and wages should be adjusted regularly to keep abreast of the cost of living.

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I agree with that. The hon. member should just give me a chance to say so before asking me. But now these hon. members are the people who, as soon as expenditure increases, tell us to apply the brake. They asked for more water conservation, but now that it is being undertaken, they say the expenditure is too high. In the pamphlet it is also stated that the farming industry in South Africa should be built from the ground by means of equitable prices, efficiency and water conservation. I agree in so far as it concerns equitable prices, efficiency and water conservation, but in the meantime the Opposition has changed its attitude because today they tell us that we are spending too much on water conservation. Of course the hon. member for Orange Grove asked for television, and here in its pamphlet the United Party stated that they would provide television. But the pamphlet contains something in connection with the suppression of crime which I find most interesting. Here in the pamphlet they ask for a larger and better-paid police force. I agree with that, for the edification of the hon. member for Durban (Point). But what government has ever done more to suppress crime in South Africa than this National Party Government. Under what government has more been done to build the police force into a strong unit than under the National Party Government? The day this pamphlet was put into my hand, there was a gathering of quite a few people. By coincidence there was also a retired policeman. Now I want to ask hon. members to listen to the words he used in connection with this pamphlet. He said: “The United Party will not impress the police by means of this, because in the days when they were still in charge of us, they put us in the internment camps and goaled us without a trial.”

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, nowadays the United Party pretends to champion the Railwayman, the small man, the man in the street, the farmer, etc. I say they pretend to champion these people, but the fact of the matter is that the United Party is merely seeking votes and they will even fish in troubled waters in an attempt to get those votes. During their regime these very people, i.e. the railwayman, the small man, the man in the street and the farmer, could hardly make a living under the United Party Government. Now, in the year 1967, after the National Party has been in power for 19 years and has governed in the best and most efficient fashion, they come along and try to court those people’s votes. Now I maintain that this Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance and all the Cabinet members of this Government look after every section of the population of South Africa. The Government looks after every population group in South Africa and even after the United Party members and their children. Let me say at once that there are certain things in South Africa, as is the case in any country in the world, which cannot be squeezed into ripeness. Frequently there are also matters which should not be discussed unnecessarily. Certain matters have to be approached with the wisdom of a statesman, and judiciously. I am thinking of one of the hon. members of the United Party who pressed the question of the independence of the Transkei. Is it in the interests of white South Africa to emphasize these matters continually? [Interjections.] Hon. members may shout till they are blue in the face. I asked whether that is patriotism?

Order! Would the hon. member for Rosettenville please face the chair?

I ask whether that is patriotism? Is that the first allegiance and first loyalty to white South Africa?

Yes!

I say that those hon. members are guilty of that, but one should be greater and should rise above that if you are a statesman. Now I ask the United Party, what is the difference between a statesman and a cheap politician? I point a finger at the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who proves his ignorance unambiguously every time he opens his mouth. [Interjections.] What everybody in South Africa has to accept and admit today is that under the 19 years of National Party Government South Africa has gone from strength to strength and has reached the greatest heights. Nobody can deny that. We have reached those heights despite the Opposition in South Africa. At present South Africa is experiencing an economic upsurge and self-reliance. Relations between the various population groups are sound, including the good and the best relations between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Under the National Party Government there is progress and vitality and dynamic progressiveness in every field. All these are products of the conscientious and thorough administration of the National Party Government, a stable government which fostered productivity in spite of a frivolous— and I emphasize this—insincere Opposition, an Opposition which cannot penetrate to any depth and which cannot take its politics seriously, an Opposition which displays a great lack of statesmanship, an Opposition which does not keep in touch with the electorate outside, an Opposition which lay down like a tortoise and drew its head into its shell, and which refuses to put out its head no matter how much one kicks it and what one does to it. That is demonstrated by the fact that all arguments raised by this Opposition are refuted by members on the Government side. Now it is our responsibility to ask them as the Opposition: “What is your attitude in respect of the major problems of South Africa?” May I remind the Opposition of the year 1948, when they were in power? May I remind them of the days preceding 26th May, 1948? May I remind them of the days when their erstwhile leader said: “If the Nationalist Party comes into power, the Whites in South Africa will have to pack up?”

He did not say that.

He did say that. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville says the erstwhile leader of the Opposition. General J. C. Smuts, did not say that. Seeing that he has so much to say. I want to deal with him. Here I have Verkiesingsnuus: which was published during the 1948 election by the United Party, which was then in power. It was drawn up by Mr. O. A. Oosthuizen. All political reports were compiled by Mr. Marais Steyn. Now I want him to open his mouth and answer me. Mr. Speaker, do you know what is written on page 15? “Every statement appearing in this book is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” I wish I had the time this afternoon to deal page by page with this book of the hon. member for Yeoville, in which he claims that everything contained in it is true. But I just want to mention a few things. On the back page of this book the following words appear: “Why conjecture? Why should you wonder whether the Nationalist Party will proclaim a republic?” This afternoon I say that if the hon. member for Yeoville had been on this side of the House, he would be the first person whom we would get rid of. One cannot allow anybody in one’s party to make such irresponsible propaganda during an election. He stated that if the National Party came into power, it would proclaim a republic without more ado. According to Mr. Marais Steyn’s statement that republic would be proclaimed even against the will of the electorate of South Africa. That is what he said. That is what it implies. The United Party was and is still the greatest scaremonger in South Africa. They have not learnt that the people of South Africa are not afraid of ghosts. But let me quote from page 15 of this brochure (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. It is scandalous that a man who pretends to be a statesman in South Africa should sink to such a level and say such things. Because he told the world that if this Government came into power we would have a Nazi government in South Africa. That is his patriotism. That is his loyalty to South Africa. And all for mere political gain. Five years have passed since Republic. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville say that we used Nazi techniques at the referendum? Look at him. He is silent. All he can do is to laugh with embarrassment, but he is laughing with embarrassment before South Africa, which has seen him in his nakedness. The hon. member predicted Nazi techniques, and in the brochure it was called “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. In other words, this hon. member for Yeoville stands before South Africa during an election and swears—he takes an oath— that what is written here is true, and then he talks such rubbish and nonsense. I am grateful that he is not a member of the National Party, because I think he is a disgrace and the greatest disgrace for the United Party, apart from the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I want to go further and point out that the following appears on the back page of this brochure—

I call the hon. member for Yeoville to account and I ask him; Who has been robbed of his vote?

The Coloureds.

If I say to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the Coloured was, as he says, robbed of his vote, and that it was done in the interests and for the preservation of white South Africa, would he be against it? That reminds me of the words of one of their leaders of the time who said: “Vote for the right to vote again.” South Africa did vote for the right to vote again, and that is why it voted National. I come to the third statement made on the back page of the brochure. Here we find the following—

Can anybody with a political conscience say such things without blushing today? There have been 20 years of National Party Government, and his predictions have not been validated. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Musgrave said that the United Party had not scared English-speaking South Africa. But on page 16 of this brochure the following appears: “The vote will be restricted to supporters of the Nationalist Party.” Even the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not a supporter of the National Party, is not only a candidate of the United Party today but also has the vote. And here it is alleged that the vote will be restricted to supporters of the National Party. Furthermore, the following is alleged: “The supreme power of government will be vested in the Nationalists.” that is the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, the hon. member says on page 16 of the brochure: “The republic must be achieved. How it is achieved, is of no importance.” He assumed that even Nazi techniques would be used. Look at him—he does not even blush, because he is politically without a conscience, absolutely without a conscience in politics. The hon. member for Durban (Point) cannot get up now. He must sit down.

Order! The hon. member may not tell another member to sit down. The hon. member must address the Chair.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. The hon. member continued and said—this was his prediction to the voters of South Africa: “Those who are opposed to the republican system will be charged with high treason.” I ask him whether he, who was an anti-republican, has been charged with high treason in South Africa? Has anybody been charged in the five years since we held a referendum? Has anybody been charged with high treason? The hon. member continued and said: “The democratic government machinery will be abolished.” I ask him: Where has it been abolished? I ask this entire United Party: Are you proud of such statements by your chief propagandist? The United Party should all put their heads under their benches. The hon. member went further and said: “The English-speaking population will be treated as the fifth column of an overseas nation.” I direct that at the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Musgrave may now get up and say something. He is the one who said that they did not make the English-speaking people afraid of the National Party. Here is the prediction that the English-speaking population would be treated as the fifth column of an overseas nation. When have they been treated as such, Mr. Speaker? When were they treated as such? There are English-speaking South Africans in the Cabinet along with Afrikaans speaking Nationalists. But the hon. member for Yeoville said that National Socialism— Nazism—adapted to South African conditions, would be the accepted Government policy.

The New Order.

Even if the hon. member for Durban (Point) got a new look, he would still remain the versatile person he is today. He said the naturalization laws would be tightened up. British citizens would have to become naturalized and would have to live in the Union for seven years before being able to apply for naturalization. I ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is not ashamed, in the light of 19 years of National Party Government, and in the light of these predictions on his part, of these atrocities he committed to our own people?

I now come to the last point I want to raise. He said: “Only those who have shown their complete and exclusive loyalty to the independent republic will get the vote.” The United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in whose times these things happened, stand accused of these things before the people, and I say the day of reckoning has not yet arrived. For them the worst will come when that day dawns.

The year 1956 was a very important year for the United Party. In that year they chose a new Leader, not because their old Leader had retired or because they had been deprived of him in some other way, but because they stabbed their old Leader in the back and appointed a new Leader. That new leader was announced by the hon. member for Yeoville at a special meeting in Johannesburg and I should like to read this announcement now because today, 11 or 12 years after the event, it makes very interesting reading. The announcement reads as follows (translation)—

The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say—

[Interjections.] I want to quote another section—

That was in 1956. It appears to me that that enthusiasm and fire, that tremendous revival, has had no effect on the United Party because subsequent to that it has been deteriorating steadily. It appears to me the hon. member for Yeoville thought he had found a Moses, but he forgot that 40 years in the desert lay ahead before they could reach the promised land, and that they would first have to survive those 40 years in the desert. But do you know, Sir, what the true facts of the matter were, in my opinion? The true facts of the matter were that the hon. member for Yeoville had not found a Moses at all when he described Sir De Villiers Graaff as such. What he had found was one of the ten scouts who went to spy out the promised land and were so affrighted at what they had seen there that they stated upon their return that they had never been there. That is why they are still wandering about in the desert of political isolation, and in the meantime the true Moses has led the nation of South Africa to the promised land, and we are already there. We have bypassed them, but those members are plodding contentedly on in the desert and will remain there for many years to come. I spoke about Moses and the ten scouts, but what we have here now are three scouts which are all taking the lead in the United Party. I do not know whether they want to revive the old Republican idea of a triumvirate but it seems to me that there are three leaders at the moment, and fortunately all three of them are present here in a row. There is the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville, and the small voice of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. These three members have had something to say about everything which one could consider worthwhile discussing and, strangely enough, each had something different to say, although they are members of the same Party and adhere to the same principle. Perhaps that is the reason why the Opposition, after five days of this debate, has immediately taken refuge for comfort’s sake in purely financial discussion each time we pinned them down on colour policy. I have never heard so many experts in the financial field in the United Party as I have heard this year. They are all financiers and all speak with authority on finances because they are afraid that we may perhaps pin them down on their colour policy. I accept that some of their leaders are still going to speak in this debate, and I should like some guidance from them on a few points. I shall tell you why, Sir.

In South Africa at present two by-elections are being held, one in Worcester and one in Johannesburg (West), and I think the voting public is entitled to know who the Leader of the United Party is and whose point of view is the official point of view of the Party, that of the hon. Leader, so-called, that of the hon. member for Yeoville, or that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because they contradict one another in quite a few fields, as I shall try to indicate.

I want to commence by saying that the United Party is, according to the admission made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the other day, undergoing a policy change in regard to their Bantu policy; a new one once more. The United Party with its colour policy puts me in mind of a joke I heard about the mountain zebra. I should like to tell them this joke because it is so apposite. They tell me the mountain zebra is becoming extinct. They say it is a very nervous animal and has one great difficulty. The moment it takes fright it snorts, and the moment it snorts it takes fright, and with all this snorting and taking fright the mountain zebra are becoming extinct. [Laughter.] It is a permanent perpetual motion. The United Party has the same theory in respect of its policy. They announce a policy with loud acclaim and enthusiasm, and then we fight an election on that policy and the voters tell them they do not want that policy. They then take fright, return to their “backroom boys” and formulate a new policy. Then we hold another election and precisely the same thing happens again. Sir, you will remember how many different policies they have already had. I do not want to spend much time on that. At the same meeting from which I quoted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke and after having said a few things he ultimately concluded with these words (translation)—

If we start with the “forward-looking” Party policy of 1956, then we find that it was followed by the Senate Plan of the United Party, after that the policy of economic integration and political segregation, after that the policy “ordered advance”—they never said in which direction they were “advancing”—after that the policy of white leadership with justice, after that the policy of race federation, and now suddenly a brand new picture in regard to which I should like more details, the policy of geographic federation has been put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raved about this idea last year. He spoke last year in the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration about a geographic federation and he used the example of South-West Africa and stated that, as he saw the matter, South-West Africa was associated with us on a federal basis. We did not count heads when we decided how many representatives South-West Africa should have here. If we had counted heads then they would only have had two representatives here, but because it is on a federal basis, South-West Africa has six representatives in this House. He said that we should do the same in regard to the Bantu states, in other words the Bantu homelands here; that we should not count heads but that we should decide that that area should have so many representatives and another area so many, and that as soon as an area became autonomous we should decide how it would be integrated with the Central Government. That is the idea which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was hawking around last year. After that statement the hon. member for Yeoville had to re-align himself immediately and he did in fact make a statement on the same matter. I am quoting from Hansard of 17th October, 1966, column 4541. The hon. member for Yeoville was then following a middle-of-the-road policy. He said—

That is the homelands—

In other words, he was advocating both; it is a race federation but it is also a geographic federation. Mr. Speaker, I have here an official document of the United Party, Handleiding vir Beter Rasseverhoudinge, and in this document I have sought the United Party’s official policy which I take it the Leader of the United Party would subscribe to, because if the Leader does not subscribe to his own policy, who does? What does the hon. the Leader say? He says (translation)—

That is very clear, and he goes on to say—

I am asking with every good intention now: What is the United Party’s policy? Is it a race federation, as their official documents state? Is it a race federation and a geographic federation as the hon. member for Yeoville has stated, or is it a geographic federation as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has stated? Which one of the three leaders is the true leader? The people of South Africa want to know, Johannesburg (West) wants to know, Worcester wants to know … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) knows least of all because he still has to wait to see which leader is really the true leader. The nation wants to know what their policy is, because if it is a geographic federation, then it is fraught with even more dangers than the so-called race federation, which is bad enough, because if it is a geographic federation then I should like to know how it is to be constituted? Is the Transkei to be regarded as a separate geographic unit which has to have representation in this Parliament? Who will represent them? Will it be Whites? Could it be Whites?

Hans Abraham.

No, the hon. member for Yeovlile will not accept Hans Abraham. They have no place in their party for a decent man. No, it will not be Hans Abraham. Will it be Whites? Will the Transkei be satisfied with Whites in this Parliament if it is a geographic federation? But I want to ask further: What about an area such as Soweto near Johannesburg, a large Bantu complex with thousands and thousands of inhabitants? Is it going to be isolated as a geographic unit for political purposes in their geographic federation? Are they going to get representation here?

Has it not been isolated already?

Are they, in terms of the United Party policy, part of the geographic federation, or are they part of the mixed area? How are they to be represented here? I think the voters of Worcester and Johannesburg (West) want to know; they are entitled to know. I should like to know whether the United Party can make this matter clear to us. Which one of these three standpoints is their official standpoint? Or will they have to take fright once again and go and snort in the “back room” and decide which one is the policy they will announce for the next election? There are numerous other dangers implicit in this geographic federation, which is even less acceptable, but there is also another matter in regard to which they differ fundamentally from one another, and that is the question of representation in this Parliament by White or by Bantu. In regard to that subject only two of the United Party leaders have had anything to say. The youngest leader has not yet adopted an official attitude in regard to this matter; he will wait for the right opportunity. But the other two have announced their points of view. The hon. the Leader stated his point of view in this brochure issued by the United Party and he expressed it very strongly and very clearly—

“Whites”; that is what is stated in this yellow paper being distributed amongst the voters. The voters must never make the mistake of thinking that they will be nonwhites. But what does the Leader himself say? I want to begin first with the hon. Leader’s own speech. A few years ago he made a speech at De Aar in regard to this subject. He spoke about the question of representation in this Parliament.

What leader?

The chief leader, the “leader” in inverted commas. He states his attitude clearly, and here he is already differing from what was stated in that yellow-press puplication. This is the policy of the United Party (translation)—

That was the first concession. But then the hon. member for Yeoville came along, and what did he say? I am quoting from Hansard, column 605 on 5th February, 1965. He was referring here to a speech made by the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Minister Botha, and he said (translation)—

Not by means of an election or by means of a referendum, but Parliament would allow—

I am once again asking the United Party, because Worcester and Johannesburg (West), and the voters, want to know: Is it their policy that this Parliment can decide that Bantu can be represented in this Parliament by Bantu under their federation plan?

Look how annoyed Japie is with him now.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not spoken yet.

The following point on which they differ from one another is the question of Coloureds and the representation of Coloureds.

Is it the Budget you are

discussing now?

I want to begin with this yellow Press publication and quote from it (translation)—

There is no mention of a separate Voters’ Roll here. They will be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. That is the United Party’s official policy. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the United Party’s authority on Coloured affairs. The small leader has taken over here; he did not give the hon. member for Yeoville a chance to speak; he spoke first and he stated his point of view very clearly. I am quoting now from the Sunday Times of 18th April, 1965. This is not a report from the Sunday Times·, it is an article written by the hon. member under his own name, Mr. J. D. du P. (Japie) Basson. He said—

He went on to say—

And then he adds this afterthought—

In other words, it is very clear. The official United Party policy is that the Coloureds be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll, as they promised the Coloureds in 1953-’54. That is the official party attitude. But for more than two years now the junior deputy leader, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—this article appeared in 1965—has been stating that the Coloureds will not be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. They must be placed on a separate roll and they must represent their own people and must come and sit in this Parliament. Now I am asking: Are such ideas, which are fundamentally different, reconcilable within the same party? Or must the party first have reached such a stage of disintegration as the United Party has done, before anything like that is possible? They are two fundamentally different points of view. I want to say it again. The voters of Worcester want to know, and the voters of Johannesburg (West) want to know what is the difference in plain language? If the hon. member’s for Bezuidenhout is the correct one, and it is the official policy, then it means that alt the first opportunity the United Party has of coming into power the Coloureds will sit in this House. That is what it means. [Interjections.] They will sit here.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

I just want to ask the hon. member whether he realizes that when the United Party talks of restoration, what is meant is those who were on the list, whereas he is referring to … [Interjections.]

The hon. member is aggravating his position considerably now. His official party policy is to restore only those who were on the Voters’ Roll to the Common Roll. But his policy is to place all the Coloureds in South Africa on a separate roll and give them representation here. But I wonder whether the hon. the Leader is aware that that hon. member is adopting an attitude like that. Can a leader sit here and remain silent while one of his lieutenants is announcing a policy which is directly opposed to his own? Can he do it? [Interjections.] Where is the party discipline? Nobody has ever repudiated it. It is very clear. Under the United Party’s policy of restoring the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll and the right of Coloureds to be elected to this House of Assembly, it means that it does not follow naturally that if they come into power the Coloureds will sit here. What it means then is that the Coloureds will first have to have a majority on that Common Voters’ Roll in that constituency, and will have to put forward a Coloured candidate and that he will have to be elected before a Coloured can sit here. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s attitude is the direct opposite. The moment they come into power—if his attitude should triumph—with the Coloureds on a separate roll, then they elect a number of Coloureds who will sit here. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must discuss this matter a little and find out what is going on there. I just want to tell him this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is renowned for differing from leaders and adhering to his own point of view. The National Party had the courage, when he differed from them fundamentally on a point of policy, to say to him: “Off you go, back to where you belong”. I just want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that unreality is nursing an adder in his bosom and that he will have to put up with that adder for a long time. I am convinced of that.

Are you going to tell Worcester about the cost of living? [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that South Africa and the electorate in general are entitled to know which of these two attitudes is the official party point of view. I think it is necessary and I think it is no more than right. I want to leave that matter now and return for a few minutes to the hon. member for Durban (Point), if he will allow me to do so. The hon. member has been sitting here the whole afternoon eagerly waiting for me to pay some attention to him as well. The hon. member is not a leader yet. I think he is deputy leader in Natal, and that he is doing his best. What I should like to know from the hon. member for Durban (Point) is this, and I want to put it to him in the form of a hypothetical question. I hope he will reply to it. I know he is an honest … [Interjections.] I know he is a reasonably honest member and that he will perhaps reply to my question. [Interjections.] I want to state it hypothetically. Suppose the hon. member for Durban (Point) was presented with the position that the map of South Africa was placed before him and that there was as yet nobody living in South Africa. South Africa was still a complete blank. This is a hypothetical question. A blank map of Southern Africa. Suppose further he is then told to locate the following people in that area: 3.5 million Whites, so many Zulus, so many Xhosas, so many Sothos, so many Coloureds, so many Asiatics and so many Chinese. Now I am asking the hon. member for Durban (Point) how he would distribute those people? All mixed together, every last one of them? Or would he distribute them separately if he had the opportunity of doing so? I should like to hear his reply, if he has the courage to speak. [Interjections.] Where would he put them?

I am not trying to assume the role of God … [Interjections.]

No, my friend, I am putting a hypothetical question and I think that the hon. member, if he wants to be honest

. I want to put it in another way. Would the hon. member distribute them on an integrated basis, all thrown together, or would he distribute them separately in separate groups?

[Inaudible.]

I am putting this hypothetical question. If you are not prepared to reply, then you cannot give a reply. Then you are being politically dishonest to try and reply to it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot accuse another hon. member of being politically dishonest.

Mr. Speaker, then he is not politically dishonest. [Interjections.]

No, the hon. member must withdraw it again.

I am not trying to circumvent your ruling, Sir. I withdraw immediately. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the hon. member does not have the courage to reply to this question because he knows that immediately afterwards he will need “gumboots” because he will be knee-deep in it. I say that every right-thinking person who is acquainted with the world situation would, if he were to be placed in this position in which the hon. member for Durban (Point) does not want to be placed—because he knows that he will get into difficulties—would have placed those various race groups apart, each one within his own sphere, in his own country and within his own borders. Surely that is logical. No right-thinking person would have distributed them on an integrated basis. [Interjections.] If he wants to be so honest I will give him credit for having placed them separately if he had been able to do so. [Interjections.] You are coming forward with the answer now. I do not need an answer now. A moment ago you were too afraid to answer.

No …

I want to say that if that is the ideal state of affairs, and if every right-thinking person knows that it is the ideal state of affairs, why are we being opposed while we are trying, step by step, to move towards the ultimate attainment of that ideal state of affairs? Why are they fighting us step by step when we are politically trying to untangle and undo what has been intertwined and thrown together for 300 years on end.

Is your policy now total separation?

Our policy has always been ultimate total separation. [Interjections.] Ultimately. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville is feigning great surprise. But I shall read to him from a speech made here by Dr. Verwoerd in 1958. It is very, very clear. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Yeoville pay attention now, because he is pretending that this is something altogether new. On 15th September, 1958, the late Dr. Verwoerd said in this House of Assembly (Hansard, Col. 3805)—

Is there any doubt?—

[Inaudible.]

Wait, if the hon. member would only be patient, he would get his reply. I quote—

The hon. member is uttering the kind of demented laugh somebody would utter who is cornered. Our ultimate policy—and this is what we are aiming at—is total apartheid and separation in all spheres. I repeat it with emphasis. That is what we are aiming at. Every piece of legislation which is placed on the Statute Book is tested against that yardstick, i.e. is that piece of legislation moving in the direction of increased separation, or is it prejudicial to the ideal of total separation? If it promotes that ideal, it is accepted, and if it is prejudicial to that ideal, it is not accepted. The few points of difference which have been raised here between the two parties in this specific debate I now want to test against the ideal state of affairs which the hon. members also admit would be the ideal state of affairs.

I want to begin with white capital in the Bantu homelands, the so-called releasing of general white capital in the Bantu homelands. Does it serve to promote the ideal of ultimate total separation, which is the ideal? Surely one would be then creating precisely the same problem which you have now created here and in regard to which everybody has stated, “I could not help it”. Surely you would then deliberately be creating a similar problem in the Transkei from next year on. You would be promoting it every day. Surely that is so. Surely you would then be working directly against this policy of total separation. I want to put it like this. Sometimes economic laws have to yield to practical politics. It is essential. I want to quote two examples from our history where economic laws did in the one case yield and in the other case did not, and indicate what the results were. In 1860 the Natal sugar farmers requested, for economic reasons, that Indians be imported as workers because the Zulus did not want to work in the sugar industry. For economic reasons Indians were imported. The Indians came to Natal as workers, remained there, and their numbers increased rapidly. At the moment we are saddled with an Indian question in South Africa. Economic measures required it; politics never came into the picture. To-day we are sitting with an Indian question in South Africa. In the year 1902, shortly after the Second Anglo-Boer War, the gold mines demanded that Chinese be imported to work in the mines because they could not obtain workers. Economic laws demanded that Chinese workers be imported. The Chinese workers were imported for economic reasons, but practical politics resulted in the Chinese being eliminated and sent back in 1906 and 1907. There the economic laws had to yield to practical politics. What was the result? To-day we have an Indian question, but we have no Chinese question. There will be many occasions in future when economic laws will have to yield to practical politics. If it should be necessary in this case, and I do not want to say that it is an economic law that they will have to be removed, then I say that in the interests of South Africa, the economic laws in regard to the development here, will also have to yield to practical politics to ensure the survival of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. I have sat here as the Whip in charge or his debate on this side of the House listening to the discussion We on this side of the House have tried to make it a Budget debate. After all, what is a Budget debate? It has to deal with taxation and with the policy of the Government in applying taxation. We have stuck to the taxation proposals. We have stressed what they will mean.

[Inaudible.]

I hope the hon. member will give me a chance now. I did not interrupt that hon. member once. I listened to him all the time and that is why I have got up to reply.

We have dealt with the effects of the taxation proposals on the country in all its aspects and we have dealt with the financial aspects. We have dealt with the position of the ordinary man. We have dealt with inefficiency in Government. We have dealt with overlapping of different departments, authorities and duties. We have tried to show the Government where it can save money. We have tried to show the Government how it can become more efficient. We have moved an amendment to that effect and we have adhered to the amendment, trying to improve the position of South Africa. What has the Government side done? They have tried to divert the discussions at every possible point. What have we heard from them about the ordinary man and how the Budget is going to affect him? What suggestions have we heard from them as to how the Minister’s slogan of “Work and save” can be carried out? He obviously wants us to work harder so that we can produce more. That is what he wants in order to curb this inflation. What suggestions have we had from the Government’s side? We have had none at all. They tried to bring in colour politics hoping to divert us from the effects of the Government’s policy on the ordinary man in the street. They have tried to avoid discussion on the financial state of the country and inflation. We have persisted and in the end we thought that perhaps we should move on to something about which they can talk—we will bring them on to farming. But what has happened? The last two members to have spoken from that side of the House have run away from farming as well. We have had to listen to the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Randfontein making purely political speeches.

Reply!

I will reply to the hon. member for Randfontein. What they have done, and not only these two hon. members but other members on the Government side as well, in order to divert the discussions, was to attack our patriotism. Why have they spent so much time on patriotism and attacking our lack of patriotism, as they put it. Mr. Speaker, do you know why? It is because they are worried. In the past they were able to attack us with the false cry that we were not South African. When they found that the public was no longer falling for that and will no longer follow them on the statement that we are not South African, they tried to change this Because they found that people did not want to go to their meetings any more to listen to this from public platforms and their Press is no longer prepared to stress this point, they are trying to propagate it in Parliament. They have failed again. They attack us for a lack of patriotism, but I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Klip River. If we want to go back into the past we can embarrass them far more than they can ever embarrass us. I have merely got to remind them of a little book we issued after the war, the “Black Record of Nationalism” which contained excerpts of speeches by Nationalist Party members of the time. The hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education knows this very well. I think he helped to compile this booklet. All we have to do is to refer back to the speeches made then. One of these hon. members made a speech about how the English-speaking people are joining the Nationalist Party. Must I go back and remind the English-speaking people of what the Nationalist Party members said about the English-speaking people during the war? Must I go back and remind the English-speaking people that General Hertzog and Mr. Havenga were kicked out of the Nationalist Party because of the question of English political rights? They were prepared to guarantee the English language and cultural rights but not their political rights and Mr. Havenga and General Hertzog left them. They have claimed that they are now getting Jewish support as well but must I remind the Jews that they were not allowed to become members of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal until quite recently, that they were barred from membership? Must I remind them of Mr. Eric Louw’s attack on English-Jewish capitalism? Must I remind them of all that? Our Leader, in speaking to the present Prime Minister, said, “We will forget about what happened in the past”—because we know what happened to the Prime Minister during the war. We are prepared to forget the past and give you a new start, but do we get any encouragement when we hear speeches such as this? Why do we have to have speeches like this? It is because of desperation. They are trying to rally support again. The hon. member for Randfontein accused us of having changed our policy. The way he addressed us it would appear to be a terrible thing to change your policy. I do not agree with everything he said about changing policy but I am not going to reply to him in this regard. I do not have the time now and we will do so later. [Interjections.] If it is such a sin to change your policy, I would like to tell those hon. members this. They got into power originally in 1948 on a certain policy and they have changed that policy continually without going to the country for its approval. I want to ask the hon. member for Randfontein what happened to Dr. Dönges’ immigration policy. Mr. Speaker, you will remember this, because you were in the House and you must have been shocked to hear Dr. Dönges say he was scrapping General Smuts’ immigration policy.

Why was General Smuts’ policy scrapped? It was because General Smuts had given a guarantee to Union Castle Company that if any berths were empty on a Union Castle ship —two ships were set aside to bring out immigrants—he would pay for them. Dr. Dönges said it was quite wrong that the Government should give a financial undertaking to bring out immigrants and we should not pay for immigrants. When General Smuts asked Dr. Dönges whether he had paid anything he said no, nothing, the ships were full. But what is happening now? Not only have they to-day the same system of screening as we had …

Who said so?

Minister Trollip said so, your Minister of Immigration. He said so in this House. I think he was replying to a question from Mr. Tucker. In any event, he said the screening was exactly the same. But not only is the screening the same. They are also paying people to come out here! What about the native policy? Where and when did they tell the public that they were prepared to make the Bantu areas independent states? Never! They never got the approval for that.

We heard it the first time in this House here. Did they ever tell the public when they got into power in 1948 that it was their policy to do away with the Native representatives in this House? Of course not. In 1948 they proposed to give the Coloured separate representation but they were to be given second class members of Parliament. Well, are they second class members of Parliament? Of course not. And what about the Orange River scheme? They abandoned Mr. Conroy’s scheme but now they have started implementing it—again too late. Think of all the water we could have been using down the Fish river. Once again they are too late. What is their policy in regard to sport? Can any one of the hon. members opposite get up and tell me what this policy is now? Let the hon. the Minister of Finance when he replies to this debate tell us what this policy is. When are Japanese white and when are they not white? The Population Registration Act was passed shortly after they gained power but as yet we do not have a proper definition of a Coloured man. During this Session we are still debating another definition. What about group areas? How often was it not necessary for them to change that legislation? The hon. member for Randfontein said … Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has run away from the Chamber. That is typical of him. He makes accusations and then he runs away. He wanted to know what would happen to Soweto under our policy. Well, I will tell him what will happen to Soweto under their policy—it will not remain a Native township, a Black spot within a white area but it will become part of the Bantustan. That is what they will do, the same as they did with Mdantsane. Then the whole of Johannesburg will become a border area. I am very sorry the hon. member for Randfontein is not here. I should like to have it placed on record that he made accusations and thereafter ran away. He talked about total apartheid but when was total apartheid part of their policy? Certainly not when they got into power in 1948. Hon. members here will remember that it was Dr. Verwoerd, when he was still a senator, who announced that the policy would be total apartheid. Older members here will remember that Dr. Malan denied that the policy was total apartheid. Dr. Malan said it was an ideal. That is not what Dr. Verwoerd said. Dr. Malan said it was an ideal, as it was an ideal for everybody to go to heaven one day. Unfortunately everybody would not, he said, go to heaven one day— which must have been sad news for some hon. members on the other side.

But I do not want to deal with this any further because I want to get back to the Budget. We have made certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister about the way in which he can improve productivity and avoid inflation. We proposed to him a better training of Bantu workers in order to make them more efficient and more productive; we have suggested a greater degree of efficiency in Government departments; the elimination of unnecessary overlapping and duplication of the authorities and duties of the various departments; and improvements of conditions in the reserves, proposals especially aimed at increasing productivity. We spent considerable time in pleading the interests of the breadwinner, for the poorer man and the man in the middle income group. Did we hear a word coming from the other side, a word of concern about the condition of the man in the middle income group? Well, we got two hon. members so far as to say that they were not satisfied. What comfort is there in this Budget for the ordinary man in the street? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) already dealt with the complaints of the bus workers who complain that they cannot come out on their salaries because of the rising cost of living. The chairman of the Council for Coloured Affairs the other day appealed to the Government to do something about the rising cost of living because, he said, the Coloured man could not cope with it any longer. The ordinary man who saves by insuring himself and by contributing to a pension fund, what value for his money is he going to get when he is eventually paid out? The value of the rand of to-day is equal to the value of the pound as it was in 1948. It has depreciated to that extent. Only the other day the Reserve Bank admitted that the rand was being devalued at the rate of 3.5 per cent every year. And how many Government members expressed their concern about this? Sir, to-day one needs twice as much as you needed in 1948 to keep up your standard of living. Even a new cost-of-living index had to be compiled in 1958 because the curve of the old one was going too high. It was already over 200. So, in 1958 they compiled a new one starting again with 100; and already it stands at 120. This Government always neglects the ordinary man in the street. It is not only this hon. Minister who does it—it has been the policy of the Government in the past.

Here I should like to remind the House of what happened last year. Interest on first series savings bonds was declared tax free up to an amount of R6.740 per annum for any taxpayer. The incidence of tax free interest is such that the tax benefits is as much as almost 17 per cent to the wealthy taxpayer. The tax curve is such that the tax free benefits gives substantial relief to the wealthy man and very little to the lower income groups. How can the ordinary man in the street and the poor man invest in bonds? The rich man can buy tax bonds and he gets his interest free: it comes off his income tax, so he can combat the rising cost of living by investing in that way. He gets it both ways. If he invested it in any other way, he would have to pay income tax on the interest, but by doing it this way he avoids income tax both ways. Perhaps the hon. member for Queenstown can answer this, too. [Interjection.] The poor man cannot afford to put away money in the Post Office, and if he does he gets much less interest. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Queenstown should tell me how this relief to the rich man helps the middle income group man or the poor man. Last year the self-employed person also had his allowance for annuity contributions increased from R1,200 to R2,000. If he wanted to buy himself a pension previously, he could deduct R1200 from his taxable income, and last year that was increased to R2,000. To whom did this give relief? Can the poor man pay R2,000 a year for a pension? [Interjection.] I am not against that scheme at all, but what does the poor man get to help him to combat the rising cost of living?

Now I am going to give you something, Sir, that does get at the poor man. The increase in building society interest has affected every person in the middle income group. A man with a loan of R6,000 on his house who wishes to repay the loan over 20 years will have to pay at 6½ per cent, R44.75 a month. At 8 per cent it will cost him R50.40, and at 8½ per cent, as it is now, it costs him R52.20, an increase of R12 a month. With the rising cost of living these people cannot afford to pay this extra amount of money, and so I can go on.

Now I want to get to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, but unfortunately he has left. I want to deal with his policy. [Interjection.] I am talking Ito the Budget because I am dealing with productivity and labour affects productivity. Even that Minister will realize that. I am sorry the Deputy Minister has left. I suppose he could not take it either and therefore he also left. He has given the impression here that the Chamber of Industries and the Municipality of Cape Town were accepting the policy of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. He said—

He says that because they have done that, they have accepted his policy, but what they have done was to appoint their own body to avoid the mess they landed in through the actions of the Minister’s Department. They would rather try to find ways and means themselves than to leave it to the Deputy Minister. That is why they appointed their own body. It is a sign of no confidence in the Minister and his Department. Then this really amazed me. He quoted from Die Burger in regard to a resolution taken by the Cape Town Municipality—

He said that was proof that they wanted this policy. He said—

But the Minister should know what the position was. He forbade the use of any Native labour in the new industrial areas in the Cape, and the Municipality made representations to the Department so that they could get the Native labour there with the permission of the Government, and so they passed a resolution asking the Administrator to assist them to get the Government to amend its policy so that they could get the labour with the approval of the Government. It is certainly not, as he suggested, that they wanted to get rid of Native labour altogether. The Minister is not here and I do not wish to continue dealing with points raised by him. I am sorry the Minister of Bantu Administration himself is not here, because he said some amazing things in his speech the other day. He said that nobody had ever done anything to develop farming in the Reserves. He said that the white entrepreneur, the white farmer, did nothing. Now I want to ask that Deputy Minister sitting there to tell his Minister that we want to know from him when he comes back under another Vote how any white farmer could have taken part in developing farming in the Reserves. Surely they know that white farmers, except in certain areas, could not own land in the Reserves, and where they could own land, for (instance in Umzimkulu, I should like the Minister to tell us what complaints he has against the white farmers there. What complaint do they have against the method of farming of the white farmers on their own farms? Did he have any trouble there, or with any of the white farmers where they owned farms in the Transkei? How could they develop farming? It is nonsense. The Deputy Minister gave us a list of dams they had built, showing what improvements they have made to agriculture, but unfortunately that Minister does not know as much about the Transkei as I do. That particular rehabilitation was started before the war. The Minister knows about the dams built at Quamata, and one which is now nearing completion near Cofimvaba.

Was that started before the war?

That just shows the ignorance, and that hon. member is Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission! On 5th March, 1948, the blueprint was handed in to the Department by the engineers. They had completed the whole scheme, but it took over ten years before they started building the dam. [Interjection.] The Minister also dealt with the development of the Reserves. He could not avoid mentioning it because the policy originally announced for the Reserves was that no white initiative or white capital would be used. When the Tomlinson Commission made its recommendations everybody knows that Dr. Verwoerd then turned them down. I have the White Paper here, but I do not have the time to read it. In 1962 Dr. Verwoerd made a speech about investment, but the suggestion has always been that if Whites want to invest there they must do so through the Development Corporation. The other day they were shocked when the hon. member for Hillbrow asked how many Ministers had invested in this Corporation. There was not one. But if it is the policy now to allow Whites to go in to develop the Reserves, that is only the old policy of the United Party. I want to remind the hon. member for Heilbron that the development of mines in the Reserves was started by us. Who started developing mines in the Reserves? Was it the United Party or the Nationalist Party?

He knows very well that the Nickel Corporation was granted the right to develop a mine near Mount Ayliff. This Government afterwards got Anglo-American to go and prospect there too but nothing seems to be happening. Two other companies working there went insolvent. But, Sir, the policy is nothing new. The United Party used to allow that sort of development. What about the industries which were established in Umtata? There is a clothing factory; there is a mineral water factory; there was an engineering works; there was a big furniture factory and all that sort of thing. Whose idea was it initially that the Government should give assistance for the establishment of industries in the reserves? It was the United Party’s idea. What about the Good hope Textile industry? You know, Sir, what happened there. The United Party had decided to start industries in the reserves. King William’s Town was selected for this particular industry, but the land which was suitable for it on the borders of a reserve was in a white area so the Bantu Trust bought it and made it part of the reserve, just the reverse of what this Government is doing now in buying white areas and making reserves alongside the industries. Dr. Verwoerd, while Minister of Native Affairs, said that he was going to take it out of the reserve again because he did not want industries in the reserves. He never did it. But, Sir, that industry was started by the United Party in co-operation with an oversea company. They put in half the money and the Industrial Development Corporation invested the other half. But you cannot get an industrialist to go and develop an industry in the reserve unless he is going to be fully compensated. He wants to be assured that he is going to make a good profit. After all, we are capitalists; we are not a socialist regime.

We are not communists.

Unless you can give an entrepreneur an inducement to establish his industry in the reserves, he is not going to go there. That particular industry had to be assured of tenure and they were given a 99-year lease because they said quite frankly, “It will take ten years before we make profits.” Sir, we have had experience of establishing industries of this nature. I do not want to go into all the details, but I want to point out that unless you give industrialists an incentive to make decent profits, they are not going to risk their money there; they are rather going to invest it in shares listed on the stock exchange. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Transkei opened his speech here this afternoon by levelling the charge that we had introduced colour politics into this debate and that we did not want to discuss financial matters. Surely the hon. member is not so unenlightened as regards the rules of procedure of this House that he does not know that all sorts of matters may be raised in the course of a budget debate. We on this side of the House were not alone in introducing colour politics into the debate. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a special point of discussing that topic. That is why we on this side of the House did so too. But I want to tell the hon. member that this complaint of his is nothing but a fig leaf. We know that it is a fact that the United Party, as far as its colour policy is concerned, is completely naked at the moment. It is now trying to find cover behind a financial debate because it no longer has any policy in regard to colour questions. At the moment it is engaged in a new search for a new colour policy. The hon. member for Transkei had a great deal to say about quite a number of things. He said, for example, that we did not have any immigration policy; that we had taken over the immigration policy of the United Party; that we had taken over General Smuts’ immigration policy. Sir, let me remind the hon. member what the immigration policy of General Smuts was. I am quoting from the Cape Argus of 14th August, 1946. General Smuts said—

Did you not get any bad ones?

That is what General Smuts said. It has never been the policy of the National Party …

Read the next paragraph.

The immigration policy of the National Party has always been that we welcome immigrants to South Africa who are assailable by the Whites of South Africa. For that reason it is our policy that immigrants must be screened before they come to South Africa. Accordingly we will not take both the good and the bad; we will only take those who are assimilable by the white community in South Africa and who can be of service to us. For that reason we do not take unskilled labour either but only skilled labour and selected persons, something which the hon. the Minister of Immigration reiterated recently.

The hon. member also spoke of Soweto and intimated that Soweto and the south-western townships around Johannesburg were the products of their policy. The hon. member should really not think that we are all fools. The hon. member knows that we inherited many squatters’ settlements around Johannesburg from the United Party Government, that we cleared those squatters’ settlements and moved their inhabitants to townships which had been established in the south-western parts of Johannesburg.

The hon. member then said that he wanted to come back to the Budget, said a few words about the Budget, but then reverted to the question of native policy in regard to which he expressed certain criticisms. He criticized our policy as far as the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape was concerned. Sir, as regards the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape, I want to make the position very clear, I consider it necessary to do so, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed himself in vile terms here when he spoke of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. He said—

He said that they objected to this removal and that he warned to remind this House that we objected if white persons were removed from black states and that we were doing exactly the same thing here. In addition he said—

In other words, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made out as though this policy of ours in regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape was something barbaric. Mr. Speaker, what is the real state of affairs? Here in the Western Cape we have a large Coloured population. I want to remind hon. members that the Coloured population in South Africa already numbers much more than one million; that their traditional home has been and is the Western Cape; that the Western Cape is the traditional place where they have to sell their labour.

Do you know where the Western Cape starts and where it ends?

Yes, for the purposes of this policy I shall tell the hon. member where the boundary is. For the purposes of this policy the boundary extends from Colesberg to Humansdorp. West of that line, as we know, we have always had Coloureds in earlier years. It was only in the thirties that Bantu started penetrating into the Western Cape. What has been the result of that? Bantu who are penetrating into the Western Cape are forcing the Coloureds from their employment and they are able to do so because the Bantu have a much lower standard of living. He is able to sell his labour more cheaply than the Coloured. The Coloured also has a right to be protected in South Africa and it is for the sake of protecting the Coloured in his traditional home where he has always lived, namely the Western Cape, that this policy is being implemented. This policy is not, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made out, a barbaric policy under which we simply want to drive people out of an area. In the first place that is being done for the protection of the Coloured. This involves a whole number of socio-economic problems. There is for example the interbreeding of the Bantu and the Coloured in the Western Cape We have to guard against that as well, we have to see to it that that does not happen. Then there is also the problem of the large number of illegitimate children here; another thing to which we have to pay attention. This matter is bound up with a whole number of socioeconomic problems: hence the policy that we have to remove the Bantu from this area for the protection of the Coloured in his traditional place of employment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular raised many objections in the course of his speech to accusations …

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is the Government’s policy that Coloureds may not seek employment in other parts bar the Cape Province?

No. There are other parts where we also have Coloureds, and special areas have even been set aside where those Coloureds may seek employment. That does not mean that we will move all of them to the northern provinces for example. We know that their traditional area is here. As I was saying, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout strongly objected because we accused them of being integrationists. He said, inter alia, that he was getting tired of this integration story. He said the following—

But, quite cordially, I say that we are rapidly getting tired of the integration stories and the deliberate misrepresentations of our policy.

I now want to ask hon. members, “Is it this side of the House which made integrationists of them?” The United Party has always been in favour of integration. They, and not we. are the people who spoke of integration. Let me remind them what Adv. J. G. N. Strauss, for example, said in regard to this matter. He said the following (translation)—

Here, even in regard to the development of the Bantu areas, he used the word “integration” on purpose. This brings me to this new cry which is being heard in South Africa—a cry which mostly goes up from the United Party —namely that white capital and white skill should be employed in the Bantu areas. I may add that there are certain newspapers and magazines which expressed the same idea in recent times. I came across an article in Volkshandel, inter alia, which stated (translation), “The time is now ripe for the authorities to give attention to the possibilities of developing the Bantu homelands with the aid of white initiative and capital with a view to long-term planning”. I also came across that in another magazine. But the United Party in particular is now making out as though there has been a complete change in the policy of the National Party, that the National Party has now reached maturity and that we are now going to employ white capital and skill in the Bantu areas.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you what our standpoint is. I want to state once more, and I want to state unambiguously, that there has been no change or departure from the ideas expressed by the late Dr. Verwoerd in the course of a speech in this House when he gave his reasons for not accepting a certain part of the Tomlinson Report. It will be recalled that the majority recommendation of the Tomlinson Report was that white capital and white skill must be employed in the Bantu areas. Dr. Verwoerd, amongst others, then set out his standpoint. Is it necessary to repeat that if white capital is allowed into the Bantu areas it will be necessary to grant white persons rights of ownership in respect of factories in those areas? It will also be necessary to grant white persons rights of ownership in land for residential purposes. White skill will have to be employed in those areas and white skill will mean that white persons will have to go and live there. That will mean accommodation for those Whites. That will mean that services will have to be provided for those Whites. There will have to be schools and churches.

In other words, many white spots, to use that description, will appear in the Bantu areas, if white capital is allowed in, new vested rights will come into existence in those areas. The hon. member for Transkei quite rightly said that persons would want to go there on a long-term basis because no one was going to risk his money on a short-term project. And if they go there on a long-term basis it will mean that vested rights will have to be granted. What, in point of fact, will then become of our Bantu areas? They will be penetrated by Whites and the Bantu areas will again become White.

Seen from the Bantu point of view, is it not true that the employment of such white capital and skill, as proposed by the United Party, should take place without any restrictions? Will that not mean that we will be depriving the Bantu of their economic future where they have already settled themselves in their own areas? I say that this approach is a wrong one. This approach to the Bantu areas is wrong because it takes place from the white man’s point of view and not from the black man’s point of view.

What position do we really want to achieve in the Bantu areas? I say that there are certain prerequisites which must be imposed for the development of any Bantu area in South Africa. The first requirement is that the human factor must be taken into account. Let me explain to hon. members what I mean by that. I have here a report of a committee of the Senate of the U.S.A. On account of the capital they had given to the black states in Africa, they caused an investigation to be instituted and the following is what that committee found. I quote—

In other words, the Bantu community itself must generate its own development and its own social structure, its own political institutions and it itself has to develop its own human attitudes. I quote further—

I want to point out that the late Dr. Verwoerd emphasized this very aspect when he discussed the Tomlinson Report. He pointed out that it would be unpsychological if action were not taken in accordance with the abilities of the Bantu himself. The Bantu himself had to learn to absorb the things which came about there. He himself had to generate those things and be able to absorb them. This is what Dr. Verwoerd said in that regard as far as the Bantu was concerned (Hansard, volume 91, columns 5307-5308)—

I now want to emphasize very strongly that everybody who wants to make out that the policy of Dr. Verwoerd is now being upset and that we are now on the eve of a new era and that we want to allow white capital and white skill into the Bantu areas undiscriminately is completely on the wrong track. Our policy still is as he set it out at that time. We must, in the first place, have regard to the human factor. The Bantu is the most important person in the Bantu area and he must be able to generate his prosperity himself. That cannot be handed to him on a tray. The second thing which this report of the U.S.A. established is that there must be a political and social structure. And let me say it now: We are working on that political and social structure. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has launched a programme for activating all the Bantu authorities; for developing their institutions and their forms of government, in other words, to make it possible for them to be activated so that they will be able to develop their political and social structures. A few days ago on that occasion the hon. the Minister also referred to the infra-structure which was being established. Again this is an infra-structure which is being established by the Bantu himself. He is building his own schools, he is constructing his own roads and he is establishing his own forms of government. He then emphasized the importance of primary production. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration indicated what progress had been in that sphere. The hon. member for Transkei, however, came along this afternoon and said that that was done under the United Party. That, I must say, was the height of foolishness, because you yourself, Sir, is aware of, for example, the many miles of grass strips planted on the farmlands of the Bantu in the Transkei in order to introduce soil conservation and combat soil erosion. All those things were done under this Government. The hon. member for Transkei also prided himself on that party allegedly having done such a great deal and allegedly having made so many plans. The building of the dam at Qamata was allegedly one of their plans. It seems to me that they only made plans but never carried any into effect. This Government is the one which carried all the plans into effect. It drew up better plans and carried them into effect. I just want to come to one further matter because my time has nearly expired. I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because the member for Bezuidenhout is now being presented as the new policy maker of the United Party. The other day he said the following very important thing, inter alia, here in the House of Assembly. He said—

Do you recall. Sir, that the Opposition never used to adopt the point of view of South Africa being a state consisting of many nations, but that it always referred to South Africa as being a multi-racial state and that their starting-point was that of the individual and not of the nation. The Opposition said that the human rights for which it fought were those of people who were all equal in South Africa. At that time it did not refer to a state consisting of many nations but to a multiracial state. It said that every person in South Africa had inviolable human rights. Now the hon. member is maintaining, however, that South Africa will always be a state consisting of many nations. I quote—

Those are the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as regards that matter. He said—

We have progressed to the stage where something like that comes from the ranks of the United Party. Then the hon. member came to light with the following—

I now want to elaborate on that point. I want to ask him the following question. About a year ago they fought an election. At that time they adopted certain points of view. The hon. member said, inter alia—

But on what basis did they conduct their election campaign only a year ago? This is what they said. It was published by the member for Orange Grove and contained the 17 points of the United Party. He said the following—

That is what the member for Orange Grove said in his manifest issued on behalf of the United Party. I also have a pamphlet of theirs here in which they speak of “White leadership over an undivided South Africa”. Now. however, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that diversity is the only way of avoiding the domination of one by the other. Am I to deduce from this that they have denounced their “White leadership”; that they no longer want the domination of the black man by the white man but that they want that to be equal and that they have now accepted our policy on that point? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to continue but my time has expired. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think I may summarize the general complaint of the Opposition in this debate in the words that this is a bad government. And then they have a great deal to say on that score. But that is not the point. The point is that at the moment this country is saddled with the poorest opposition, both in numbers and in quality, this country has ever had in its history—and I think the country deserves considerably better. And that is the United Party we see in the benches over there. And now I want to say the following: If I had belonged to such a tattered little political party, to such a little nincompoop of a party as the United Party, I would not adopt such a cocky attitude in this House as some of their sneakers. And I want to address myself specifically to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, with whom the hon. member in front of me has just dealt. He is not in the House at the moment, but I want to tell him that as a speaker he has in my opinion mastered everything but the art of being a convincing speaker. And as a politician he has mastered everything but the art of being a good politician. He came here and told us that the National Party Government and the National Party should not slander the United Party by saying that they advocate integration. Can you imagine that that should come from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We should not slander the United Party by saying that they promote integration in South Africa. I regret to bring the following to the attention of the United Party, and specifically to the attention of the hon. member who spoke about slander. But before doing so —and I do so most unwillingly—I first want to say—and I hope that in doing so I will, if possible, put paid to this thing in the ranks of the United Party once and for all—I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also charged us with in this House. I refer to the nasty phrase he used, namely that in dealing with the Population Registration Act this Government was engaged in what reminded him of “overtones of a master race”. When will the United Party learn that to use expressions and statements such as those in this House do us incalculable harm abroad? And yet the hon. member said that there should be no slandering. I just want to read to you three statements made by delegates of the United Party at the 1964 congress of the United Party in Pretoria. If anything in South Africa can beat this for political slander, I hope it will never reach my ears. I quote these three things most unwillingly, because they verge on sacrilege, and I hope they will feel ashamed when I do so. The first I want to quote is this: “All Dr. Verwoerd has ever done for South Africa, was to sabotage the country.” That is the first one. The second one is: “The curse of a nation is that it gets a foreigner to govern it who has not even sacrificed the foam on a glass of beer for his country.” The United Party—shame upon shame! But listen to this. It verges on sacrilege of the worst degree, and I regret to quote it in this House. According to a newspaper report a United Party representative said the following at that congress in 1964. I quote his words: “Where is Dr. Verwoerd in 50 years’ time? Then he is safe and sound in heaven.” Despicable! Shame upon shame on the United Party! But then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gets up in this House and wants to lecture to us that we should not accuse them of advocating integration. Let us take a closer look at this matter. Let us dissect the matter to the core. If they do not want to hear those accusations—and we shall continue making those accusations—let me say immediately …

May I ask a question?

I have very little time, Mr. Speaker, and I would therefore prefer him to give me a chance to complete my speech. [Interjections.] But this was said by United Party people. It was never repudiated. It was said at the United Party congress and never repudiated. It was widely published. I am very grateful that the United Party feels unhappy about remarks of that kind, because they are a disgrace to politics in South Africa. If they wanted to do something they should have repudiated statements of that kind, which would have prevented me from quoting them afterwards in this House.

Let us take a closer look at this question of integration. There are four forms of integration which may be applied in South Africa. The first is biological integration, the second is social integration, the third is economic integration and the fourth is political integration. Now we just want to know: If the United Party does not want us to charge them with defending integration in this country, what was their attitude in respect of each of these basic aspects when apartheid and integration were at issue? Then their attitude was most characteristic. From the outset, when this Government proposed separate voters rolls in this House, the United Party fought it tooth and nail. By the way, I see that at the time, before the election, the United Party said “White leadership for ever”. But now I see that there has been trouble, because the hon. member for Newton Park and Mr. Rudman clashed, after Mr. Rudman had said that they were no longer prepared to say “for ever”. Now they are adopting another subterfuge and are saying: One cannot say “for ever” because one has no control over time and eternity. We should like to know from the United Party: Do they still advocate white leadership “for the foreseeable future”, whatever that may mean, or do they advocate white leadership for whatever it may then mean, “for ever” in this country, as opposed to what we advocate, namely “white control” for ever in South Africa, as long as it pleases the Almighty. That was their attitude towards the separate voters’ lists. Surely we are justified in saying, in view of the fact that they oppose that, with all the implications arising from that through their actions they are not promoting apartheid in South Africa. And the alternative for apartheid is to further integration. That is what they are doing. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and quite a few of the hon. members of the United Party are in this regard virtually the legal fathers of the Progressive Party at the U.N.O. That is why we so frequently accuse them of that. Thus they fought group areas up to the last time it was discussed in this House. Group areas was fought on every level. Thus they fought job reservations, separate trade unions and separate universities, from the outset. Thus they also fought apartheid tooth and nail in every field with every bill introduced in the House, and the United Party Leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, said fairly recently that if they came into power they would repeal the following Acts, and he mentioned the Acts by name: The Population Registration Act, the Bantu Education Act, the Separate Universities Act, the Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, in particular the provisions relating to job reservation and the separation of trade unions. We are therefore quite justified in asking the United Party: What is your attitude as regards the greatest problem facing South Africa, namely the preservation of the white nation and the problem of Bantu and non-white relations in South Africa? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should therefore not be so quick to say that when we make these allegations we are mistaken. Then we expect them to produce proof that we are mistaken in levelling these allegations against them. In his De Aar speech in 1962 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—as far as I know, it has not been denied—said most explicitly, and I quote, that they envisaged “a multiracial Parliament in South Africa”. He said that they would repeal the Acts I have just named. In respect of the Coloureds he said, for example, “Reform will include, inter alia, restoring the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll in the Cape and Natal, and immediate provision for the representation of natives of all provinces in Parliament by eight representatives in the House of Assembly and six in the Senate.” Now we should like to ask them; are they still in favour of restoring the Coloureds to the common voters’ rolls? What is their policy in that respect? One asks oneself: Why is the United Party such a poor opposition? Surely an opposition has not only one task, namely to criticize negatively. Pre-eminently it is surely the duty of the Opposition to think positively about alternatives. That is where the Opposition fails so badly in South Africa, in that it does not think effectively about positive alternatives, and it cannot think effectively about such alternatives because it is afraid of taking a stand, because it always wants to please both left and right. That is why it always falls between two stools. As long as this Opposition in South Africa fails to appreciate that by merely acting negatively one can make no progress, they will not be able to make any progress in this country. This country deserves an opposition which is stronger and better than this Opposition. Show me a medical doctor who can save a life by being merely negative in respect of it. Show me a minister who can save a soul by being merely negative in respect of it. Show me an advocate who can win a case if he adopts a negative attitude to it. Show me the man who can win a race if he adopts a negative attitude towards it. Show me anybody anywhere in the world, any person who can achieve victory if he continually adopts a merely negative attitude. I think it has become time the United Party realized how miserably it is failing as a result of its negative attitude, also and particularly with regard to our most burning national question, namely the preservation of the white nation in South Africa. But if one asks oneself why that is the attitude adopted by the United Party, the old Dutch poem is always most apposite: “In het verleden ligt het heden van nu wat worden zal” (The past contained the present, the present contains the future). For if one examines the past of the United Party, one sees very clearly where their present-day attitude originated. The hon. member for Benoni quoted words which showed that at one stage General Smuts was strongly in favour of apartheid. In 1932 he made a most eloquent speech in the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, on “The new policy of apartheid”, and his speech in the Sheldonian Theatre concluded with these words: Statesmen of the future will be able to derive great benefit from this new policy of apartheid. What happened to make Gen. Smuts change his attitude? That is the secret of the United Party’s attitude. I shall tell you what happened. In 1932 the Native Affairs Economic Commission was appointed. In respect of the Transkei that commission came to the following conclusion: “That unless soon remedied, desert conditions will prevail.” That is the secret. After Gen. Smuts had made a penetrating study of those matters, he became more and more convinced, and the United Party of the time became convinced, and in 1939 he stated categorically that one could just as well sweep the ocean with a broom than to think that one could stop the Bantu from leaving the homelands to come to the white cities. What are the implications of that? Even in the years 1933 to 1939 the United Party, first through Gen. Smuts and to-day through the Leader of the Opposition, simply put up their hands and surrendered to the numerical superiority of the Bantu from the homelands. That is the secret, and that is why their policy is still a defeatist policy, and that is why they cannot go to the people and assume the garb of patriotism and the preservation of the white nation. It always reminds me of Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf. If the United Party, like that wolf, dons the cloak of patriotism and the preservation of the white nation, the ears of the United Party stick out too far, and the long muzzle of political opportunism sticks out much too far to bluff the people into thinking that they are dealing with the grandmother and not with the wolf. [Interjection.]

I should like to ask the United Party a very important question, and I want to express the hope that during this Session they will have the courage of their convictions and will give the nation an unequivocal reply. In terms of the development which has now taken place in Africa and specifically in Basutoland, which has now gained independence, and in Botswana, which has also gained its independence, and in Swaziland, which will shortly gain it, how do they see the ultimate political development of the Bantu in South Africa? Do they still advocate the policy that these Bantu homelands can only develop to provincial status, more or less, as the Leader of the Opposition said repeatedly, or what is their policy in this respect? How do they see that issue? Because the attitude they adopt on the ultimate development of the Bantu homelands will be of cardinal importance to the policy of the United Party. I just want to remind you that on one occasion the Leader of the Opposition expressed himself very strongly on this matter, when he said—

If that is their attitude, I want to ask them, in the further light of the development which has taken place in Africa, whether they are blind. Can they also reply to this other question: If they still adhere to their policy of race federation or geographical federation, in terms of which eight Bantu representatives will be elected to Parliament, what is their attitude, against the background of the fact that 12 to 15 years ago 6 million Natives in Kenya had only 14 representatives, as against 70,000 Whites who had 46 white representatives, and I ask what has become of those white representatives? I may also mention Tanganyika, where 9 million natives had only ten representatives as against 20,000 Whites, who also had ten. What happened there? Thus I may continue giving various examples. How can they approach both White and Bantu in South Africa with this policy and hope to sell it? Can they not see that? Therefore I conclude by saying that I would rather round Cape Horn ten times with Sir Francis Chichester in his Gypsy Moth IV than to join them once on the United Party benches, because it must be unbearable.

The speech made by the hon. member for Primrose is a tremendous disappointment to one on this side of the House who knows the hon. member well. The hon. member for Primrose is supposed to be one of the intellectuals on that side of the House. Firstly, we heard that hon. member give some quotations from a little yellow book which the Nationalist Party uses to train its young candidates in politics. The hon. member quoted from that book what certain unnamed United Party people had supposedly said about his deceased leader. But let me tell the hon. member that it is the easiest thing in the world to get quotations, without proof, of what people have to say about one’s leader. If I were to say in this House what Nationalists, supporters of that side of the House, have said outside the House —not hon. members on that side, but supporters of that Party—about deceased leaders on this side of the House, it would be unprintable. But the hon. member uses that to illustrate to us what the United Party people said about his leaders. [Interjections.] The hon. member also asked me to reply in respect of the Rudman case, but I think the Rudman case is of so little importance to this Parliament that I do not want to devote any of my time to its discussion. I think enough time has been spent on that by the public Press.

But I was also surprised by the tactics of hon. members on the opposite side. I was surprised that the hon. member for Primrose Budget. In his constituency the hon. member has thousands of workers, people who are involved in the economic life of South Africa, but he did not even have anything to say which could be relevant to those people. His speech was typical of all speeches we have said absolutely nothing in respect of this had from that side of the House. There were very few of them who tried to defend this Budget and the few members who did try to defend the Budget merely said that the workers of South Africa were satisfied with it. But what is the real position of the workers of South Africa? What do they think about the rising cost of living under this Government? I quote what trade union leaders say (translation)—

This appeared in a Sunday paper on 5th Febuary this year—

This type of thing was said by the secretary of the S.A. Trade Union Council, Mr. J. A. Grobbelaar; this type of thing was said by the chairman of the National Liaison Committee of Engineering Trade Unions, Mr. McLelland; this type of thing was said by the secretary of the S.A. Iron and Steel Trade Union, Mr. J. L. van den Berg. Mr. J. A. Liebenberg, chairman of the S.A. Trade Union Staff Association expressed his concern about the position; and yet the hon. member for Mayfair came along and told us that the workers of South Africa were satisfied with what this Government was doing. A correspondent of one of the newspapers which support the Nationalist Party, Die Beeld, made an inquiry into cost of living four months ago, and what does he say in this report? He says (translation)—

This is what this correspondent says—

Until I saw for myself this week, I little realized how bad the rise in the cost of living really was.

This is the type of thing said by the people of South Africa, and yet the hon. member for Mayfair claims that the workers of South Africa are contented. Here before me I have Die Sondagstem of 22nd January, 1967, and I quote the heading (translation)—

And yet the hon. member for Mayfair and other hon. members on that side come along and say that the people of South Africa and the workers are satisfied with the situation. Apparently hon. members on that side of the House are totally unaware of the effects and the pressure of inflation, and for that reason I cannot refrain from quoting these reports. The Government tells us that unfortunately they cannot curtail State expenditure in this Budget and that we on this side of the House should tell them where they are to economize. The hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on this side mentioned steps that may be taken with a view to saving, and the hon. member for Pinetown did the same. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that he cannot cut expenses, yet he asks the people of South Africa to work and to save.

If the people of South Africa are to save, then I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and hon. members on that side to tell us where John Citizen is wasting money and how he can economize. The Government tells the people of South Africa: You must save. In other words, if the people are not saving at this stage, the inference is clearly that they are wasting money, and then the hon. the Minister of Finance and other hon. members on that side should tell us where John Citizen is wasting money and on which items he can save money. Can John Citizen economize as regards the education of his child? Can he economize on the rent he has to pay his landlord; can he economize on the rent he has to pay for his flat? We know that the rates of interest of building societies and the flat rentals were recently increased once again. In his reply to the debate the hon. the Minister of Finance should tell us where John Citizen is to economize as far as his essential commodities are concerned. John Citizen is trying to make ends meet on a personal budget which he has already had to curtail. Instead of a 5 per cent loan levy, the hon. the Minister of Finance now expects taxpayers paying R100 or more in income tax to the Central Government to pay a loan levy of 15 per cent. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has ever asked himself who those people are who pay R100 or more a year in income tax. Has the hon. the Minister ever considered that those are people who earn slightly more than £80 or R160 a month if they are married and have no children? Has the Minister ever considered that those are people who earn slightly more than R2.000 a year if they are married and have one child? Does the hon. the Minister think that these are highly-paid people? The man who earns R2.000 per year, who is married with one child, earns only slightly more than R160 a month. If the taxpayer is married and has no children, then according to the Minister he needs an income of only R1,800 a year. Are these among the highly-paid people in South Africa? Sir, these people are not among the highly-paid people in this country; they earn less than the person in the middle income group in South Africa.

Then, too. I cannot refrain from referring briefly to the duty to be levied by the hon. the Minister on motor cars. This has now become fashionable, because I notice that the excise duty levied on motor cars has increased considerably in the past few years. This method is used every now and then to tax the motor-car industry in the country even further. Essentially it means the taxation of an important industry which is situated mainly in the area I represent in this House. Although we know that motor-car sales have increased considerably in recent years, I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I should like to compare the motor-car industry with the wine farmers of South Africa. We cannot expect the wine farmer of South Africa to pay higher and higher taxes on his product although he himself does not sell that product. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the motor-car industry is in exactly the same position. The higher the duty on motor cars, the greater the effect on the industry itself and on a place such as Port Elizabeth. I want to caution that in this process of imposing increasingly higher taxes, the Government should not be indifferent to the motor-car industry of the country.

In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance also said that the people of South Africa should not only save more, but should work harder. If we are so dissatisfied with the people of South Africa, who are these people who are not working hard enough? Are they the public servants; are they the teachers of South Africa; are they the artisans; are they the engineers; are they the industrial workers; are they the police; are they the Defence Force? If we are dissatisfied with what is taking place, we should say who are the people in South Africa who are not working hard enough.

South Africa as a whole should work harder.

If we consider the industrial development and our achievements in recent times, then we as well as hon. members on the opposite side are particularly proud of the economic achievements of our country. Where is the laziness of which they speak? Would they suggest that the people of South Africa are not working hard enough? I know the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police once said that we spent too much time drinking tea. He said we wasted too much time drinking tea—the tea-break should actually be eliminated. I do not think that was the only solution offered by that side. The hon. the Minister should tell us that they are dissatisfied with the achievements of this country, that they are dissatisfied with the achievements of the artisans, of our managers, of our engineers, of our industrialists, because according to them South Africa should work harder and should save more to meet inflation.

Why did hon. members on the opposite side say so very little about this Budget and do so much to exploit colour prejudee in South Africa once again? Why did they do that? Why did they come to the fore once again with the old scare-mongering tactics we have seen so many times in the past? As I listened to many of the speeches made by hon. members on that side of the House, I was reminded of a time in 1948 when a real old 1948 “political happening” with the same kind of tactics took place. The reason for their tactics is obvious. The Nationalist Party cannot defend this Budget to the electorate of South Africa, and the people of South Africa, and in particular the electorate, are no longer interested in the exploitation of colour prejudice. The people are now interested in its bread-and-butter politics and therefore these tactics on the part of hon. members on the opposite side will not succeed. In the Worcester and Johannesburg (West) constituencies the people of South Africa are now thinking about matters which affect their every-day lives, and that is why that side is now trying to exploit colour prejudice once again in the House of Assembly. Why will hon. members not succeed with those tactics? Because in the past few years, and particularly under the new Prime Minister, the Nationalist Party had to render account for so many things to its own people. It tries to change the image of the Nationalist Party and tells the people: “Look, we have to go to the outside; there is a possibility that the Maoris may come and South Africa will also include non-Whites in its overseas teams.” They even sit down at dinners together. Hon. members on the opposite side know how this hon. Prime Minister is criticized by his own people.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 90.

Mr.Sneaker, I think hon. members on both sides of the House will probably be glad to hear that I do not intend replying to this Budget debate to-day. I think you will agree with me that the hon. members on the other side of the House have suffered enough punishment for this week, and because I want to spare them any further agony for this day, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

With the Bill we have before us at present, we have come a long way on a long road requiring much patience. It may perhaps be a good thing if I reminded this hon. House of the history of this legislation. This Bill was born out of a deep concern amongst our people, amongst all mothers, amongst all families, at the rise in medical costs, which are still increasing all the time. At present we have reached a stage where every family lives in dread lest any of its members should become ill—it dreads having illness in its midst. Every family knows that illness may prove to be a severe setback to it, may even ruin it. It knows that if it were to suffer a major illness, it might never overcome that setback in all its existence. It is a fact that all over South Africa our people are to-day making more and more use of medical services, and that we should try to do something positive about bringing the cost of medical treatment, the cost of being cured of illness, within their reach. That was in fact the reason why we appointed a commission of inquiry in 1959—under the distinguished chairmanship of Prof. Snyman—to inquire into the reasons for the high cost of medical treatment. Along with that commission a committee was appointed which was subsequently joined to it. This committee of inquiry was under the chairmanship of Dr. Reinach, who was specially instructed to investigate the operation of medical schemes. The findings made as a result of these two inquiries led to the report of 1962, an excellent report, which has virtually become a standard work on medical services in South Africa. They investigated this problem and tried to indicate to us the course we had to follow in order to combat this problem of high medical costs for every family.

The cost of medical treatment is increasing steadily, mainly because of two factors. The first factor is the improved medical services all of us are getting at present, and the second is the improved medicines which are available to everybody at present. These are the two main, overriding factors. In the first place, medical services are becoming more expensive mainly because we have discovered that, when some complaint cannot be overcome quickly, it is usually worth taking the trouble to consult a specialist. Owing to the better or more extensive use of specialists, medical expenses are soaring at present. When any person continues to show a certain symptom, the first step taken by his general practitioner is to refer him to a specialist. It is quite possible that this specialist will, in turn, refer the patient to another specialist, such as urologist, a gynaecologist or an orthopaedic surgeon. These specialists, in turn, eventually call in the services of an anaesthetist and a radiologist to help them. So this process continues. It is an excellent process, an essential process, a process which takes into account the knowledge and the scientific advances of modern man. But it is a process which makes matters increasingly expensive and increasingly impossible for the ordinary person who falls ill, because the bills now received by him no longer amount to a few rands only, but may run into hundreds or even thousands of rands.

The second factor in connection with these rising medical costs is the problem of more expensive medicines, which are excellent medicines if used correctly, but which are mainly the product of years of research and of the work of teams of scientists and experts, at enormous costs. If these remedies are used correctly, they are a boon to mankind to-day, because they shorten the duration of illnesses. Where such illnesses might previously have lasted for months, these modern remedies often shorten them to days. They cure diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy and the disease to which so many men succumbed previously, namely the common pneumonia, which claimed so many victims in the past. These things prove to us that the solution to this problem of increasing medical costs is not to be found in another form of the use of medical practitioners nor in cheaper medicines. but that we should seek the solution along different lines. Another solution was found in England, amongst other countries, in the form of their National Health Service. That is a system whereby every person in England is entitled to free medical and hospital services, but it is an alarmingly expensive system. It is a system which already cost the English taxpayer more than R2.000 million last year. It is a system which has been followed partly in several Western countries. It is a system which we in South Africa cannot possibly follow. It is simply impossible for us to follow that system in a country where a small population of 3½ million has to bear the burden of a large population of 18 million. One cannot introduce that scheme in South Africa. For South Africa a different solution is essential. The Snyman Commission’s view is that we in South Africa have already found that solution and that all we need to do here is to elaborate further on that solution so as to make it a more systematic, a better and more comprehensive one.

In the first place, here in South Africa we have a system whereby the lower-income group of the white population and virtually the entire non-white population have already been afforded adequate cover through an extensive system of free hospitalization and a system of free medical services rendered by district surgeons. But the large majority of our population, the large majority of the population representing the average man—not the rich man, but The average man, who struggles and only just manages to make ends meet—are hard hit by medical costs to-day, which, as I have said, are simply rising all the time. Necessity has gradually forced these people to try and find their own solution. This was found in the form of sick funds or insurance schemes or medical aid schemes. The basis on which such schemes operate is that, when one takes a large group of people, one finds that all the members of that group will never fall ill simultaneously, but usually only a small percentage of that group. A second principle underlying such schemes is the fact that every person is in good health for the greater part of his life and is ill during a small part of his life only. A further principle is that when one is young, one is usually in good health. It is as one grows older that one falls ill more frequently. These are the principles underlying these medical schemes which are operating in South Africa. They are in actual fact forms of insurance schemes.

The first medical scheme to be introduced in South Africa was established by the employees of the De Beers Consolidated Mines in 1889. Up to 1938 there was no appreciable increase in the number of such schemes. Even in 1938. just before the last World War, there were only 38 such schemes in operation here. Since the Second World War there has been a tremendous increase in the number of these schemes. In 1960 there were as many as 14 million white persons who were covered by these schemes. Over the last six years, from 1960 to 1966, this number increased by more than 600,000; in other words, at an average rate of 100,000 a year, so that the number of persons covered by such schemes to-day, amounts to 1.87 million out of a white population of approximately 3½ million. At present there are 256 of these schemes. To a large extent this tremendous increase can be attributed to the course which was indicated to us by the Snyman Commission. The Snyman Commission not only recommended to us the principles which we find embraced in this Bill to-day, but also pointed out to us that it would be desirable to appoint a council which, under expert guidance and with expert advice, would help that section of the White population which has not yet been organized, to establish new schemes, and which would at the same time iron out shortcomings and eliminate difficulties in existing schemes. It was on the advice of the Snyman Commission that such a body, namely the Central Council for Medical schemes, was established as far back as 1st October, 1962. That Central Council has done excellent work and is largely responsible for the fact that new members have been joining medical schemes at an average rate of 100,000 a year.

The Bill, as we see it before us to-day, has a long history. We went out of our way to incorporate all reasonable requests and suggestions in this Bill, but you will admit that it is never· possible to accede to all requests and to all demands, because if one were to accede to them, one would eventually reach a stage where one would accomplish nothing. The Snyman Report was made available to us at the beginning of 1962. In the same year—in October, 1962—the Central Council for Medical Schemes was established: this Council had to assist in the establishment of further schemes and in drawing more members into those schemes. Soon after that, in February, 1963, the first draft Bill was framed and submitted to interested parties, including the Medical Council and the Medical Association. That was followed by difficult negotiations which extended over a period of two years, negotiations conducted with the Medical Association in particular, for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of all parties. The Medical Association made two absolutely firm demands: firstly, that the first tariff of fees to be drafted was to be drafted, unilaterally drafted by the Medical Association: and secondly, that medical benefit funds were not to be included in this Bill. The Medical Association laid down these two conditions for its co-operation. But the medical benefit funds, on the other hand, came forward with a contrary demand, namely that medical benefit schemes were to be included in this Bill. As a matter of fact, they even went so far as to threaten that if those schemes were not included in the legislation, we might perhaps have to face a strike of all mineworkers and perhaps of all steel-workers as well. Mr.Speaker, you will understand that the State cannot have that position. For the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of all interested parties and of accommodating all sides as far as possible and as far as is reasonable, while not defeating the object of the Bill, this Bill was referred to a Select Committee after the First Reading. The Select Committee arrived at a finding which was unanimous except on one point. There was only one point of difference, and that was that when negotiations had to be conducted on behalf of medical practitioners in regard to the medical services they had to render and the tariffs for such services, those negotiations had to be conducted on their behalf by the Medical Association and not by groups of medical practitioners. But for a few exceptions, the Bill before this House to-day, corresponds with the Bill submitted by the Select Committee in all other respects. In the main this Bill differs from the Bill which was submitted by the Select Committee in respect of three aspects only. In the first place, the Select Committee recommended that a schedule should be added at the end of this Bill, a schedule setting out the fees which medical practitioners may charge for the various services. However, the legal advisers said that if we did that, it would present us with an endless number of practical difficulties and that it would therefore be better if it were promulgated in the Government Gazette. In accordance with this recommendation the schedule with the doctors’ fees does not appear in this Bill, but will be promulgated at a later stage. Secondly, there is the position of the registrar. The Commission recommended that the registrar should be a semi-independent person—that is to say, semi-independent of the Department. However, owing to financial and administrative difficulties it was decided that the position of the registrar would be that of any high-ranking public servant. He will therefore be a high-ranking public servant. The third point of difference between the Bill submitted by the Select Committee and the Bill under discussion, is that in the present Bill we are to a large extent acceding to the request made by one of the members of the Select Committee, Dr. Jurgens, namely that when there are negotiations about the determination of fees for the various services, they will not be determined by various groups of medical practitioners with whom negotiations will take place, but in negotiation with the leading body, the body which represents all medical practitioners in South Africa. The object is that fees should be the same throughout South Africa. Apart from these three points of difference, this Bill corresponds almost exactly with the Bill the Select Committee submitted to us. For the benefit of hon. members, I may perhaps give a brief summary of the most important provisions of this Bill. The first is the provision in connection with the establishment of a council, called the Central Council for Medical Schemes, whose task it will be to promote medical schemes and to assist all existing medical schemes in ironing out their problems, and to ensure that these schemes provide reasonable services to their members and to the dependants of members. All medical schemes will have to register with this council. In the second place, provision is being made for any dispute over fees to be referred to arbitration. This arbitration will be handled by an arbitrator who will be nominated by the medical practitioners, an arbitrator who will be nominated by the medical schemes and, thirdly, an umpire who will be nominated jointly by the medical practitioners and the medical schemes. The decision of those arbitrators will be final. In the event of a dispute arising about a bill sent out by a medical practitioner, the matter is to be referred to a committee which will be nominated by the Central Council for Medical Schemes. This committee will consist of four members, two of whom will be selected by the Central Council from a panel of ten medical practitioners nominated by the Medical Association.

The next important point in this Bill is that when one deals with medical benefit schemes, that is, schemes where the remuneration of the medical practitioner consists of either a salary or an amount he receives for every patient he treats, and a dispute arises about the salary or the fees, such a dispute is also referred to arbitration. Then each party also nominates an arbitrator and the two parties together nominate an umpire, and then the decision of those arbitrators is final.

The fifth important point in this Bill is that medical practitioners are prohibited from organizing strikes and boycotts, because the principle which has always been upheld by eminent medical practitioners throughout the country, is that the medical profession is above strikes and boycotts. But we know that in the ranks of any body there are always elements that try to lower the tone and the high standard of that profession. It is to prevent that that this provision has been introduced into this Bill. No strikes or boycotts may be organized by medical practitioners, because the principle of the medical profession, like that of all other professions, is that when a dispute arises, an attempt is made to settle that dispute in a national way, either through discussion or through settlements or eventually through arbitration.

In the main these are the provisions of this Bill. This Bill was drafted very carefully and very thoroughly. It is a Bill which is to everybody’s advantage. It is to the advantage of medical practitioners, of medical schemes, of patients and of the entire nation. I am convinced that it will contribute a great deal to keeping medical costs within the financial reach of every family. At the same time I am convinced that this Bill will contribute to upholding and enhancing the standing and the honour of one of the finest professions in the country, the medical profession. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks in the first place, to every member of this Select Committee for all the sacrifices they made and for the scrupulousness with which they examined and considered every provision in this Bill. I want to thank them for the fine results of their work, I also want to thank each of the competent officials who were responsible for submitting to us this Bill in its present form. Thirdly, I also want to thank Professor Snyman and every member of his Commission, particularly also Dr. Reinach, who gave us such a careful analysis of the problems of the high costs of medicine and who showed us that there was in fact a solution which we ourselves could find to this problem of high costs, which can sometimes be so destructive to families. I am convinced that this Bill, once it has been placed in the Statute Book, will give the Commission the satisfaction that everything they recommended in the sphere of medical science, will have been carried out.

This Bill naturally is most interesting to the whole population of the country, and is one which can seriously affect the health of the whole population. It will have a profound effect on all the human beings in South Africa and also on many of the non-human creatures. Even creatures as lowly as the simple insect will be affected by this Bill. We received the Bill comparatively recently and we have not had time to give it the consideration it merits, and I therefore move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

It is a pleasure to move the Second Reading of the Aged Persons Protection Bill.

In view of the special position of the aging section of the population and in order to plan effectively for the promotion of their interests on a national basis, my predecessor appointed a work group in 1964 to inquire into the interests of the aged. Amongst other things this work group recommended that there should be compulsory registration and inspection of all homes for the aged and that statutory provision should be made for the protection of the aged against neglect and exploitation. In consequence of this inquiry an Aged Persons’ Protection Bill was drafted which also incorporated the Old Aged Pensions Act of 1962.

Some amendments were made after all welfare organizations that apply themselves to the care of the aged, all universities and all interested concerns had been offered an opportunity to comment. I may mention that all these persons and concerns were allowed adequate time to study the report before submitting their comments. The proposed Bill has in fact been welcomed in all quarters and enjoys the support of all persons and concerns engaged in welfare work among the aged. The National Welfare Council also supports all aspects of the Bill as it is now submitted to you.

Broadly the Bill envisages the following: Firstly, the registration and inspection of homes for the aged which accommodate and care for aged persons; secondly, the protection of aged persons against exploitation and neglect; thirdly, empowering the Minister to establish and maintain homes for the aged; fourthly, subsidizing registered welfare organizations in respect of institutions and social services for aged persons; and fifthly, repealing the Old Age Pensions Act, 1962, and substituting it by certain provisions which will empower the Minister to pay old age pensions to certain aged persons, and the promulgation of regulations prescribing the scales in accordance with which old age pensions are calculated.

It is a long-felt need that statutory provision should be made in one comprehensive Aged Persons Protection Act which will replace the Old Age Pensions Act and place the present administrative schemes on a statutory basis. Such an Act would then present a complete Survey of the national planning of the Department in respect of the social protection of the aged.

In the first place it should be emphasized that old age is a relative concept and that there is at present a tendency to treat persons of an advanced age as productive units in the economic life of the community as long as possible, if they are capable of this. From a social and economic point of view this tendency is basically sound. In the flourishing economic position there is in fact a large percentage of workers in industry, commerce and in the public service who come under this category. Then there is also the group of aged persons who are physically and mentally fit and who can maintain their independence by means of pensions they have earned, insurance policies or earnings from their savings.

These two groups of aged persons are independent of state support and with the assistance of ordinary social provision, which is available to all citizens of the country, they are normally able, with a few exceptions, to cope on their own with the social problems they experience. It is the objective that the large majority of the aged persons belong in the community and should stay there. It should be made possible for them to retain their homes in the community. A well-organized community is actually compelled to meet the needs of all its members and consequently to make equitable provision for all age-groups. The aged person needs financial security, housing, medical and hospital services, as well as happiness and an opportunity to share in the life of the community. His psychological needs are just as important as his material requirements.

A recent survey by the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research on the living conditions of aged persons reveals that 25 per cent of the white aged persons live with their children or relations, 2 per cent with strangers and approximately 68 per cent on their own in flats, rooms and boarding houses. Only approximately 5 per cent are cared for in homes for the aged.

As regards the care of the aged, the functions of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions comprise, inter alia, the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1962, the War Veterans Pensions Act, 1962, State homes for the Aged, and subsidizing welfare organizations in respect of their field work and institution maintenance services.

There are many aged people, particularly those living in isolation in flats or in rented rooms, who cannot play their full part in the life of the community. They need assistance, although full care in a home for the aged has not yet become either necessary or desirable. In such cases social welfare services may contribute to their sound adjustment and happiness and ensure that they continue living in the community and need not be removed.

One of the major problems experienced by aged persons is loneliness. This loneliness is frequently the result of restrictive physical and mental powers, with a consequential lack of communication with members of the community. Frequently, however, it is also the result of the tendency of a large group of aged persons to withdraw themselves socially because they feel that the community no longer needs them, that they have become obsolete and that they have no further function in society. These and other social needs may be met by means of home visits, home assistance services, club activities and service centre facilities.

What about television?

Television may also contribute, but if they were to see the hon. member on television it might perhaps contribute to making them even more lonely.

Church concerns and welfare organizations are already doing a great deal along these lines. This is an important service, and in order to encourage it is provided that the State may pay subsidies to welfare organizations with regard to these services.

A further category of aged persons is those who are mentally and physically able to take care of themselves, but who are in financial need. They need only financial assistance. Another most important aspect is the provision which is made for the protection of the group of aged persons who as a result of their physical or mental debilitation, or both, are no longer able to take full care of their own interests. The evidence that has been collected indicates that cases of neglect of debilitated aged persons occur fairly generally in the community. It is difficult, however, to determine the true magnitude of this problem. The work group found, however, that this is particularly an urban phenomenon. Under certain circumstances these aged persons may deteriorate physically, become underfed, live under unhygienic circumstances and are frequently also exploited financially. This is frequently also accompanied by the loss of a sense of values.

Social welfare officers and social workers of private welfare organizations have to cope with this problem constantly, and at certain late stages it is difficult to persuade aged persons to move to institutions or other suitable places where they may receive better care. These officers and workers, however, have no statutory claim to admission to the premises where such an aged person finds himself. They could render these services only with the consent and co-operation of the owner of the premises, who is frequently the subject of the complaints.

In its report the work group states that a large representative group of welfare organizations and other interested concerns are in favour of legislation in terms of which certain debilitated aged persons may be placed under statutory control, in their own interests, and also compulsorily in a home for the aged or in other protected custody.

Careful consideration was given to this aspect. It was found that such measures would be too drastic and are also contrary to human dignity and the right of self-determination. The solution to the social problems of the debilitated aged person should rather be sought in persuasion and in the methods of social work practice. In many cases unscrupulous persons are responsible for the state of neglect in which an aged person finds himself. This occurs mainly when a person is compensated for his services to the aged person and then economises as much as possible on the keep of the aged person, for his own profit. It is a matter of serious concern to the Government to take the strictest action against such persons.

Frequently, however, there are also cases of persons who neglect aged persons without it being their intention to gain any financial advantage. For example, there are cases where a person or persons lack interest in the aged persons to such an extent that they are insensitive to the elementary needs of the aged persons and consequently neglect them. These persons, too, should not be allowed to accommodate and care for an aged person. Provision is made in this Bill to curb these practices.

In particular I also want to draw the attention to the provision made for subsidizing homes for the aged, for the establishment and maintenance of homes for the aged by the State, and for compulsory registration of all homes where aged persons are accommodated and cared for. This measure is essential, as will appear from the following: The number of white aged persons living in subsidized homes for the aged at the moment represents 4.8 per cent of the total number of white old-age and war-veteran pensioners and 2.07 percent of the total number of white men of 65 years and older and white women of 60 years and older in the Republic.

Apart from the aged persons in subsidized homes for the aged there are also aged persons in other homes for the aged which are not subsidized by the State. These are the private or economic institutions. There is no reliable data on the number of aged persons cared for in the last-mentioned institutions. The National Bureau for Educational and Social Research came to the conclusion, however, that 5.4 per cent of all white aged persons in the Republic are in homes for the aged. In Western Europe approximately 5 per cent of all aged persons are in homes for the aged, while the percentage in the U.S.A. is considerably lower.

In the Republic there is as yet no system of uniform control over all homes for the aged. Many of the existing homes for the aged are under the control of organizations registered in terms of the National Welfare Act, 1965. The Department also has only a certain degree of financial control over and the right of inspection of subsidized homes for the aged. Most of the aged persons are probably in these subsidized homes for the aged.

The Department, however, has no control over the care of the aged in certain boarding houses, nursing institutions and homes for the aged maintained by the owners for their own profit. No demands can be made with regard to the method of caring for aged persons and particularly not in respect of the social aspects of their treatment. The evidence which has been collected indicates that these non-subsidized institutions are not all attuned to caring efficiently for debilitated aged persons, and there is even some exploitation. Aged persons with restricted means are not in a position to pay for good care, nor can a profit-making institution afford to provide care of a reasonable standard for such persons. Then, too, all aged persons in such institutions are not indigent, and there are cases where high boarding charges are paid which are disproportionate to the quality of the services rendered.

It is therefore understandable that welfare organizations and other concerns which have an interest in the care of aged persons urge strongly that all homes for the aged should be registered and inspected on a uniform basis. This attitude is also consistently advocated by welfare organizations in control of existing homes for the aged. It is pleasing to note that these organizations reveal a desire to improve the standards of care of aged persons in homes for the aged. It appears as though there is an increasing awareness in these concerns of many of the physical, social and spiritual needs of aged persons which were previously frequently ignored. Homes for the aged which are run for personal profit will also be compelled to register and will be subjected to the same control.

Another important recommendation by the work group was that the Bill should provide for the incorporation of the existing Pensions Act in this Bill, but that the amount of the pension and also the means test in accordance with which the pension is calculated should take place in the form of regulations, subject to the condition that no amendment to the regulations which may prejudice a pensioner may be effected at any time without the consent of Parliament.

Experience has shown that the scales for social pensions have to be amended virtually every year to provide for new concessions and better benefits for pensioners as justified by circumstances and as additional funds become available. That is happening again this year. It results in continual amendments to the Act, which is actually contrary to the ideal of stable legislation based on fixed principles. This amendment will simplify the administration of the Act to a large extent and will bring it into line with similar provisions in the Children’s Act, the Public Service Pensions Act, the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions and other civil pensions. It will mean that after concessions have been made, there will be no need to await an amendment of the Act by Parliament, but that the amended benefits may be promulgated by way of a regulation. That regulation will be easily adjusted from time to time as it becomes possible for the Government to grant concessions. The only reservation in this connection is that the amendments shall never be to the disadvantage of the pensioners. Only amendments to their advantage may thus be effected administratively.

In accordance with the Budget proposals?

Yes, in accordance with the Budget proposals, of course. It happens from time to time that in consequence of the Budget proposals certain administrative problems are experienced which may easily be set right by way of a regulation, as we do from time to time with regard to the Public Service Pensions Act and as we do under the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions. There are continual amendments to the regulations which facilitate the administration and eliminate bottlenecks. We now seek the same power in this regard.

A special concession which is made in the Bill relates to the period a person has to be resident in the Republic in order to qualify for a pension. In terms of this provision a person will qualify for an old age pension immediately after having obtained South African citizenship. The existing Old Age Pensions Act provides that such a person shall be a South African citizen for at least five years. This concession should encourage immigrants to obtain citizenship sooner.

On the other hand, however, it should be guarded against that such persons will not merely stay in the country for a short while and then, after having obtained South African citizenship, leave the country and expect to continue receiving an old age pension from the State. For that reason it is provided that the Secretary may suspend such a pension if the pensioner concerned has been absent from the Republic for a continuous period exceeding six months or has left the Republic permanently. In deserving cases, however, the Secretary will still be able to authorize the payment of a pension after the period of six months has elapsed, according to circumstances such as the period spent in the Republic by the person concerned and the services rendered by him.

I have tried to outline the broad principles regarding care of the aged in South Africa as incorporated in this Bill. It is unnecessary to deal with each clause separately, because the memorandum made available to hon. members deals with each clause very clearly and in detail. It will also be possible to deal with it in detail during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been sent to all interested concerns in the country for their comments. It enjoys the support of all those concerns and was enthusiastically received by them. For that reason it is a privilege to move the second reading of the Bill and I trust that its provisions will meet with the approval of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister introducing the second reading of this most important Bill. Obviously with the advancement towards greater industrialization here in South Africa certain social problems and challenges have as a result to be met. We believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction, as it is in the interests of the aged section of our community that they should be afforded a degree of protection.

The Minister has outlined the main principles underlying this Bill. These principles are obviously of great importance to an increasing percentage of our community. We know that with the advancement of medical science life expectancy has increased in recent years, and therefore a greater percentage of our community are directly affected by the legislation which has now been introduced by the Minister. We feel that the Bill is to be welcomed. We know that it has been welcomed by various welfare organizations. Obviously the practical application of this Bill to a very great extent will depend upon the co-operation and assistance from those welfare organizations, which are doing magnificent work as far as the welfare services in this country are concerned.

There are various aspects which we on this side should like to comment upon, but we feel that, due to the importance of this Bill and the lateness of the hour, this would be an appropriate time to move the adjournment of this debate. I therefore move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.