When this House adjourned yesterday evening, I was pointing out that this Budget brought great relief to the taxpayer himself and that there was a great deal in it for him. It gave him that feeling of security and confidence which any taxpayer and citizen needs. In the first place, no additional taxes were imposed. In the second place, it was a good Budget for the taxpayer in the sense that tax concessions were made to pensioners. In the third place, the fact that national funds were spent judiciously in places and areas where it was most needed, reassured us all. In the fourth place, far-reaching concessions were made as far as industry is concerned. In the fifth place, one can mention the concessions made to the average man and the farmer. This in itself was a very great benefit and a ray of light in this Budget.

Sir, the training and the improvement of the quality of our manpower in this country are cardinal points in this Budget, and the hon. the Minister of Finance has done his share in this regard as well. Here I should like to revert to the speech which the hon. member for Green Point made here last night. It appeared to me as if the hon. member for Green Point was trying to create a psychosis of a dissatisfied Public Service. Sir, if this is the case, it is in fact reprehensible, because the Opposition is trying to make political capital out of this matter. They know that an election is at hand, and so they are now trying to gain the favour of the public servants. By emphasizing the position of the public servants, they are trying to conceal their own weaknesses. Surely we all know that there is a shortage of manpower in the country. The Cabinet is fully aware of this. The Cabinet is in possession of all the facts in regard to the manpower shortage. In addition, we know that most of the officials are rendering their best services in the interests of the country itself, and this is to their great credit. It is a matter of personal pride to them to render those services as they are doing, in the same way as it is a matter of pride to any worker to do his work properly.

There is a shortage of manpower in the Service, but there is also a manpower shortage in all sectors of our society to-day, not only in the Public Service, and surely everybody knows this. It will not help the United Party to try to make capital out of the manpower shortage in the Public Service. We ask ourselves what is actually being done to relieve this position, and this is probably the question to which the Opposition wants a reply: What is being done to relieve the manpower shortage in the Public Service? The Public Service itself, the officials themselves, as well as the Government, are doing their utmost to relieve this position, and the Opposition is well aware of this.

Dr. Steyn, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, himself said, for example, as reported in the report of the Select Committee on page 135, that an increase in salaries would relieve the position only to a certain extent, but that it would not be enough. There is a shortage of manpower throughout the country, and according to Dr. Steyn there is nothing wrong with the Public Service. In addition, the Public Service Commission declared that the elimination of unnecessary work in the Public Service had resulted in tremendous savings, not only in manpower, but also in office space. Constant attempts are being made by the Public Service itself, as well as by the Government, to relieve this position. Furthermore, it may be pointed out that a bonus system has been introduced, which has resulted in a tremendous saving of manpower. As much as a third of the available manpower has been saved as a result of the introduction of this bonus system. Work-study teams, for example, have brought about tremendous savings, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of manpower. A tremendous number of posts have been abolished and a few posts which were to be created were never created; it was not necessary to do so. Over the past few years several computers were introduced in various Departments, and these computers have eliminated as many as 6,500 units.

Sir, studies were made of public service systems in overseas countries and it was found that our Public Service need not take second place to any of the public services in other countries. In fact, we are very much ahead of them. To a large extent they have the same problems we have in our own country.

The hon. member for Green Point also criticized the merit system. According to the report of the Select Committee, the merit system is working very well and efficiently in South Africa. This system was designed after an intensive study of similar systems in other countries. For example, England itself is not yet applying this system on such an extensive basis as we do here in South Africa. The Public Service Commission would in fact not be able to fulfil its functions properly if it did not have this merit system. After all, the system is already in operation; therefore one wonders why the United Party is still hammering away at it.

I said at the beginning that this Budget is one with vision. I have already mentioned a few points. The hon. the Minister is, probably more than anybody else, aware of these problems. But the Minister went even further and referred to the Government’s immigration policy, which the Government is still continuing at full steam. In that way we may attract considerably more Skilled and trained workers to this country. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister made large concessions to universities. as well as tax concessions to those who want to make donations to universities. We realize that our people must be trained so that they may have the necessary qualifications for the task which awaits them in the future. Bursaries are readily available to public servants who wish to improve their qualifications. Another praiseworthy step taken by the hon. the Minister was his announcement that the adjustment of the salaries of public servants would be investigated. The hon. member for Green Point apparently forgot this, or otherwise he did not listen properly to the Budget speech. Let me refresh his memory by quoting from the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech in this regard. I shall do so in English so that the hon. member will understand it beyond all doubt—

Public servants will have to wait another five years.

This is a statement made by the hon. the Minister and it is a disgrace that the hon. member for Green Point is now trying to give out that the public servants will still have to wait for it for a very long time. After all, this statement was made on a responsible level and will therefore be carried into effect.

But I should like to continue with my discussion of the Budget. Yesterday an hon. member on the other side wanted to know what the objectives of the Minister were in this Budget. The hon. member for Carleton-ville replied to him by saying that this Budget, like all budgets, is intended for the welfare and good of our country. As far as the methods of application are concerned, one can perhaps point out a few aspects. The time which is still at my disposal, will not allow me to discuss all of them in detail; therefore I just want to mention four points briefly. In the first place it is the Minister’s aim to regulate over-spending. He suggested several methods for achieving that aim—for example, the loan levy to bring about saving, Which is one of the rays of light in this Budget. We must save by means of the loan levy and we must save by working harder. This is surely the duty of every citizen. The Minister’s second aim is to encourage production. Various methods have also been devised for achieving this. A third aim is to control inflation, and various methods have been devised to this end as well. In the fourth place, exports are going to be encouraged, and with this aim in view beneficial concessions have been made, which is to the credit of the Minister and the Government.

Examined closely, this Budget is one of the best budgets which could have been presented at this juncture. It is to the credit of the hon. the Minister that he was able to present such an effective budget to this House in these difficult circumstances.

I think the hon. member for Potgietersrus will understand if I do not reply to him. In any event, he was largely involved with the hon. member for Green Point. However, with his comments regarding labour, I shall deal more fully in my own speech.

The hon. the Minister of Finance quoted Solomon rather widely. One of his quotations was that “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom”. However, the Minister did not give us the complete quotation. It ends “and with all thy getting, get understanding”. The Minister, therefore, left out a very relevant part of the quotation. I think he did so deliberately because he has enough insight to know that he does not have understanding as far as our economic problems are concerned. He talked about the necessity for taking a long view; yet his Budget is entirely a short view budget, in some respects even a short-sighted budget. Nowhere is this more evident than in his attitude towards inflation and how to solve the inflation problem. He only touched in a most superficial way upon the causes of inflation. He concentrated on demand inflation and hardly touched upon cost inflation, which, as far as I am concerned, is the underlying cause of inflation. Cost inflation, in turn, is caused largely by the shortage of skilled labour. Furthermore, he hardly made mention of productivity and, as I have said, dealt with inflation only from the point of view of demand inflation. Some of his statements are, I believe open to question. For instance, he said that it was a cause for satisfaction that jobs should be available for all who wished to work and that unemployment should be of negligible dimensions. But are jobs, in fact, available for all who want to work? Perhaps, if one is talking about the white population, yes, because as far as Whites are concerned, the unemployment figure is very small. However, if one talks about 70 per cent of the population, the answer is not “yes”. Jobs, particularly skilled, and even semi-skilled, are certainly not available to all non-Whites who wish to work. There is a network of restrictions, statutory restrictions and others, which effectively prevent the great majority of non-Whites from obtaining jobs. Even as far as ordinary unemployment is concerned, nobody knows the figures in regard to Africans—such statistics are simply not kept. Therefore we just do not know how many Africans are unemployed. But what we do know is that hundreds of thousands of Africans are sitting idle in the homelands and in the white rural areas as well. These are people who want to work, but work, for them, is not available.

The Minister stated that the Government is already doing much and will do more in this Budget to remedy the shortage of skilled manpower through the provision of improved facilities for higher education and by encouraging immigration. I do not discount this entirely. One is very pleased indeed that larger amounts are being voted for education and that the Government is going to attempt to train more people. I am also very glad indeed for the concession in regard to Bantu education. However, the Minister does not touch the crux of the problem, i.e. the vast under-utilization of the non-white labour force. He said the Government was alive to the seriousness of the manpower problem and that it was constantly considering methods whereby, within the framework of its policy, the difficulties can be overcome. This statement in fact is a contradiction in terms because as long as palliative measures under consideration have to be within the framework of Government policy, which is itself the basic cause of the manpower problem, no solution can possibly be found. The methods are self-defeating. I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister that there is no easy instant solution to the manpower problem. I say this because I know perfectly well that this problem has not just arisen to-day. It has not even just arisen under this Government. It has in fact been the result of many years of deliberate inhibition of the productivity and the skills of non-white workers, not only by this Government, but by previous governments too. It has developed as a result of many years of deliberate pandering to the racial prejudices of the Whites and as a result of many years of indoctrination, such as equating “civilized” and “White”. Those two terms are always equated. It seems much easier to everybody just simply to perpetuate the existing system rather than to tackle the situation by challenging the long accepted formula in South Africa, namely: High wages equals skill equals the white worker; and low wages equals lack of skill equals the non-white worker. I believe that unless we have the courage and the understanding to do so, the existing manpower crisis can only get worse and that our economy eventually will stagnate. Up to now we have been carried along by the sheer force of our own momentum, the strength of our own economic resources, which has bulldozed its way through the mire of political obstruction. It is simply our own resources that have carried us through all the political obstructions which are in fact inhibiting us from using our labour correctly. But the situation is changing. I believe that the top-heavy weight of laws, edicts, directives, restrictions and bureaucracy is now having its full effect. The rate of growth has slowed down, confidence has receded and progress has been halted. I believe that something has got to be done, but it cannot be done within the framework of the present Government’s policy. I also believe that it cannot be done within the framework of Official Opposition policy.

[Inaudible].

No, it could be a very useful exercise to examine in some detail just what the inhibitions are which are in fact retarding economic growth as far as manpower utilization is concerned. Let us also examine in some detail the policies of the two major parties in South Africa. A good many generalizations are made on this subject, particularly from the Official Opposition. I touched on this during the Railway debate and I want to go into this in much more detail now. I hope that this time I will get a political answer and that I will not get any answer based on a personal level quoting an entirely untrue newspaper report about what I was reputed to have said.

I may not be the only person who finds it i very difficult to reconcile the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition to the Cape Chamber of Commerce during last week, I think, when he called for revolutionary changes in the national approach to labour, and his statement in this House which was made last February in reply to the no-confidence debate. I think those are irreconcilable statements. On the one hand, talking to industrialists, who obviously will favour this sort of thought, he called for a revolutionary change in the utilization of labour. But speaking in this House on a political level before the election he said—

Now, Sir, where is the revolutionary change in the attitude to labour if the Official Opposition is determined to maintain this South African convention, which, I might say, is one of the great stumbling blocks to the major utilization of non-white labour? How does one reconcile all the bold speeches that have been made by the hon. member for Parktown and other members on this side about labour utilization with the statement made by the shadow Minister of Labour of the Opposition when, in reply to the hon. the Minister of Transport’s question as to whether the U.P. Government was prepared to ignore the wishes of white trade unions in promoting Africans into white jobs, he said: “The answer is a straight ‘no’. We will not fill such jobs without the support of the white trade unions. We would not want strikes and labour unrest.” But, Sir, who wants strikes and labour unrest?

You do.

No, I do not want strikes and labour unrest. Hon. members, of course, are going to love going around the country saying that I am pleading for strikes and labour unrest. I can tell the hon. members that unless they have the guts and the courage of their convictions to tackle the unions where they take up untenable positions, there will never be a change in the labour pattern of this country. I want to tell the Government and members of the Official Opposition that not every strike has got to end in a 1922 rebellion. It has been known in industrial countries that where there are disputes and strikes, they can be peacefully settled and the pattern that emerges thereafter …

Amongst civilized peoples, yes.

I consider that this country has civilized people living in it. I consider that the white unions consist of civilized people. Therefore I am quite convinced that like other industrial countries, we can solve our labour problems just as well, without having to have violence or rebellion. If we continue with the present pattern and conventions without changing anything, I want to know how we will solve the manpower problem in South Africa.

You will not solve it with strikes.

No, but you may sometimes get changes which in the long run bring a better situation for South Africa than the untenable position which is often taken up with the question of the non-utilization of African and Codoured labour.

You are utterly out of touch with the trade unions.

Let us take a close look at all the restrictions on the proper use of non-white labour. They can be divided into three categories. There are direct statutory restrictions. [Interjections.] I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition ought to listen to this because he does not understand it. He made a completely inaccurate statement during the censure debate on what were statutory restrictions and what were not. Perhaps he ought to know what he is talking about before he enters this field.

There are direct statutory restrictions, indirect statutory restrictions and non-statutory restrictions. Under the direct statutory restrictions there are the Mines and Works Act of 1911, the Bantu Building Workers Act of 1951, section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act and section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. Those are the four direct statutory restrictions on the use of labour. Under the indirect statutory restrictions there are the definitions sections of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and the hon. member should know what that entails, influx control, pass laws and the powers that are exercised by the apprenticeship committees under the Apprenticeship Act. Then there are the non-statutory restrictions. Under these come the broad spectrum of the customary colour bar in South Africa and the lack of adequate facilities for the training and education of non-Whites. Those are non-statutory restrictions on the utilization of labour.

The Government’s attitude is equivocal even as far as some of the statutory restrictions are concerned. It all depends on whether there is an election in the offing or not. When there is an election in the offing, as there is now, then of course one hears many speeches designed to satisfy the super-verkramptes in their ranks. We have many such speeches. I might say that the hon. Minister of Transport disappointed me very badly a few weeks ago. He crept right back into his wrinkled old politician’s skin because there is an election in the offing and he knows perfectly well that the sentiment of saying that he employs non-Whites on the Railways even when the Rail-wayworkers’ Union does not like it, is not one that goes down very well with the unions. But it was the honest thing to say and I commended him for it at the time. As I have said, a few weeks ago, mindful of the provincial council elections, he changed his tune and fell into line with the old political cry that the Government will not do anything that in any way affects the unions. What is happening now is that he and his colleagues are trying to do surreptitiously what they should be doing openly and with full justification. I might say that these questionable and expedient tactics are playing right into the hands of the Official Opposition who, God wot, are no fools at expediency themselves. The Government is playing right into their hands by being so expedient. I would not mind any of this if it were not for the fact that these silly tactics mean that we are missing a really heaven-sent opportunity of re-educating the white workers to the true situation in South Africa, of showing them that they need not be frightened any longer of the spectre of the poor white problem, that the further employment of non-white people does not jeopardize their own future and their own prosperity. If only the Government had the courage to say openly what it is doing, instead of trying to do this surreptitiously and on the sly, it would be performing the most valuable service of re-educating the white workers of South Africa to the true position that their own prosperity is quite irrevocably bound up with the prosperity and progress of the non-white workers of this country. But by doing things on the sly, by playing politics with this most important issue, they are missing this great opportunity of starting a process of re-educating the white workers which would pay handsomely in the long run in South Africa. The Government goes on, in this clandestine way, on the Railways, and in the mines, where it turns a blind eye to the Mines and Works Act. which is being breached because of the sheer inability to find white workers to do those absolutely essential jobs. It is granting wholesale exemptions under section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act from job reservation. As I say, it is losing a great opportunity by doing this surreptitiously.

It could have laid the ghost of the poor white problem once and for all by emphasizing over and over again that non-white entry into these jobs, formerly done by Whites, is to the benefit of the whole of South Africa. White and non-White. I would say that this factor is recognized by enlightened trade unions themselves. Tucsa certainly recognizes that its future is bound up with the non-white worker. That is why it has been pressing constantly until very recently, for African workers to be allowed to join their trade unions and to train them to the responsibility of industrial organizations and of collective bargaining. This is the only secure and safe way of doing it. But what happens? Instead of the Government encouraging the trade unions on this line, Tucsa is subjected to intimidation and ministerial frowns So they have also gone back on the line that they adopted so correctly a couple of years ago.

I do not think the method the Government is using by itself, even if done openly, instead of sub rosa, would be enough to solve the manpower crisis, because its actions are offset by its grim determination to enforce all the other aspects of its policy. No sooner is there something in the wind about the Physical Planning Act and the fact that it may not be fully implemented, then along comes the irrepressible Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration with some new restrictions on the employment of white-collar Africans. A new Gazette comes out and everything is once again thrown into a situation of turmoil. He coyly refuses to tell us, I must say, how many people would be affected, though I have no doubt he full well has those statistics tucked away in his pocket. We all know the building industry is desperately short of labour. What official pressure is brought on the unions to allow some of the jobs to be handed over to non-Whites? Why is the Government not using its enormous position of power to get the unions to take the correct line in this regard so as to relieve the building industry of the pressure of the shortage of labour? If the Government would only do this, the unions would conform, because the Government has enormous power in this regard. But is the Government doing anything? I wonder whether the Official Opposition is doing anything behind the scenes to use its not inconsiderable power to persuade the unions that some of these jobs should be handed down to non-Whites. Who is going to set the lead if the Government and the Official Opposition refuse to set the lead? How is anything ever going to be done in this regard?

What about the bus drivers in Johannesburg?

What about the bus drivers in Johannesburg? To the best of my knowledge that situation still obtains, where buses are cancelled and citizens wait for buses that never come. Nothing happens. In that case a challenge should be issued because the union is being unreasonable. They cannot provide the white drivers and therefore non-white drivers should be employed. However, everybody is frightened to set the lead. What about the apprenticeship committees, which often are severe stumbling blocks, because the apprenticeship committees do not take on even those non-Whites who can be taken on. the Coloureds and Indians? Is any pressure or any influence being brought to bear in the background by the Government to persuade apprenticeship committees that they should take on more Coloured and Indian apprentices? Not to my knowledge. Is the Official Opposition using its influence with those apprenticeship committees by saying to them that we are desperately short of labour and that because there are no white apprentices coming forward, they should take on Coloureds and Indians? Is anybody doing any of that work? Is the hon. the shadow Minister of Labour of the Opposition doing any of that work? I do not think so. We know that the Government is determined not to allow Africans to join registered trade unions and is boasting that it has brought industrial peace in South Africa. Admittedly, we are enjoying industrial peace, but behind the Iron Curtain I am sure, you will also find industrial peace. It does not mean that the conditions are ideal. What the Government should be putting its mind to is to see what is happening about wage rates in this country and why the wages are so low in those jobs where there are no collective bargaining powers for the Africans. The spread between skilled and unskilled wages is steadily widening in South Africa. In every other country the spread between skilled and unskilled labour is narrowing. What is the Government doing about that?—Nothing at all. Will the United Party assist in seeing that the Africans get some collective bargaining rights? African wages are going to remain at this pitifully low level unless they do. The vast majority of the African workers, and if not the vast majority, very many of them, live below the poverty datum line. The wages are still abysmally low.

Now let us get on to the indirect statutory colour bars. Here we have shrill competition between the Government and the Official Opposition as to who is the stronger proponent of white man baasskap for the past, the present and the future. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education proudly boasted he had put an end to labour integration earlier this year and he said that they will not allow Whites and Blacks to work alongside each other. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he will never allow the white man to work under a non-White. Under those circumstances, will he not allow a black doctor to give instructions to a white nurse? Will he not do it under any circumstances? Will he for instance not allow a qualified professional African to give instructions to a white clerk or a white apprentice? What sort of attitude is this? What enlightened attitude is this for the Leader of the Opposition to present to South Africa in the seventies in the face of all the changes which are taking place in the civilized world? What a statement for him to make!

The Government says that it is determined, and it is, to implement influx control, the pass laws and the migratory labour system. All of these measures are devastating in their effects on the proper utilization of labour. They are all conducive to a highly wasteful system of labour inefficiency and labour turnover; not to mention the shocking effect on the family life. The United Party says it will maintain influx control and it will administer the pass laws more humanely. That may help a few people, but it still upholds a thoroughly bad system in principle. The United Party says it does accept that there is a permanent urbanized labour force. I would like to know which Africans fall in this category and exactly what rights they will enjoy. Would every other African outside the urban areas be a migrant worker? That is what I want to know. What rights of mobility will those who are not included in this category enjoy in their own country? As for the crash training programme mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at the Cape Chamber of Commerce, how about a bit of basic education first? Without that a crash programme will not mean anything. To the best of my knowledge, the United Party has never enunciated a policy of free and compulsory education for all the children even up to primary school level. I did read the statement which was made by the hon. member for Wynberg the other day.

What is it going to cost?

Whatever the cost may be, we can afford it better than not educating our people. It took us many years to introduce this system for Whites. First set the aim and then go for it. At least set the aim and then work to it as fast as you possibly can. The hon. member for Wynberg mentioned compulsory and free education up to Std. 2 for all children. Is that now official U.P. policy? All I hear is a dead silence. Is it?

You are talking absolute nonsense.

This was said in an interview and I can produce the report. It was published in the Press only the other day. The shadow Minister of Education of the Official Opposition promised "free and compulsory education for all our children up to Std. 2.” Is that official United Party policy? I think it is a good aim, but it is not going far enough. I would take it up to primary school level as soon and as fast as we possibly can. We cannot do it overnight, because we do not have the teachers or the schools, but that is the aim we should set. I want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who will not even accept Std. 2, that children who are educated to that abysmally low level are not even functionally literate. Std. 2 is far below the standard which is required for apprenticeship and other training.

How are we going to solve the manpower crisis? Is the Opposition going to keep the customary colour bar and the Mines and Works Act? Are they going to keep the Bantu Building Workers’ Act? Only silence again. They will uphold the customary colour bar. They are going to modify influx control, and the pass laws to some extent. They cannot really tell us anything about their educational programme. What I want to know from them is if they are going to allow Africans to have trade union rights. Are they going to amend the definition of “employee” to allow Africans to join registered trade unions, without which Africans cannot take on any of the closed shop occupations? The real barrier is not section 77 of the Industrial Counciliation Act, because job reservation only affects 2 per cent of the workers. I think the United Party has said that it will abolish the Physical Planning Act. Am I right there? Will somebody tell me if the United Party is going to repeal the Physical Planning Act? No, stony silence on this question as well. I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they will repeal the Physical Planning Act, because I think I have read it somewhere, but if they do not know, I certainly cannot speak on their behalf. Must I assume that they are not going to repeal the Physical Planning Act? I will give them the benefit of the doubt, because I cannot believe that they will be so stupid as not to repeal the Physical Planning Act. I think that will help, because there is no doubt that this Act created a tremendous amount of insecurity among entrepreneurs. This is what the Government must realize. This Act stops investment and it has created an enormous amount of insecurity. Even if the hon. the Minister gives exemptions, nobody knows on what criteria those exemptions are granted.

I say that a dangerous game is being played by both the Government and the Opposition, because both are suggesting that Black and White cannot co-operate, cannot live harmoniously together, except within the framework of white supremacy, of white man master and black man servant. This is the suggestion that comes from both sides of the House. The hon. the Minister and his Deputy last night, both warned against disrupting the pattern of our social structure, but the social structure of South Africa is constantly being disrupted. It has been disrupted by urbanization, industrialization, technological changes and mechanization. Does the hon. the Minister honestly think that South Africa has the same social pattern to-day as the South Africa of 50 years ago? Look at everything that has gone on as far as urbanization is concerned. Why, even that most sacred emblem of white society, namely the colour bar, has been bent a little through the sheer force of economics in this country. One has only to look around to see non-Whites doing the jobs which nobody would have dreamt they would do 20 years ago, to see how the social pattern has changed. It is a process that needs accelerating and not reversing. Therein lies our future prosperity.

It is the practice in this House and I have no doubt that the next speaker, whether he comes from the Opposition or the Government, is likely to stand up and say sneeringly to me, as always happens when I put forward what I believe are the economic solutions to economic problems, if they happen to go against racial prejudices in this country, that I speak for my Houghton constituents, who are only concerned with material gain.

That’s right.

“That’s right”, says that very enlightened member for Sunnyside. Let me tell the hon. member that the entrepreneurs who live in Houghton and their counterparts elsewhere in this country have built up South Africa to its present level of industrial and commercial development, and that they provide a great deal of the employment that is available in this country. They also pay hefty taxes for the State’s coffers. If they are inspired by the profit motive, I would like to know what is wrong with that. This is a capitalist economy, is it not? This is a free enter-prise economy, is it not? I want to say that in the long run the only real security in this country will be found in a contented and gainfully occupied population, White and non-White. There are no simple instant solutions to our problems, but one thing is certain: Let’s not go on bungling in the wrong direction as we are. It is going to take years to undo all the damage that has been done by neglecting to educate and train our non-white people. [Time expired.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton, who has just resumed her seat, that I have respect for her convictions and her opinion, even though I disagree with her policy. I just want to ask this House this afternoon why the hon. member for Houghton is no longer sitting with the Leader of the Opposition in the United Party benches? The reason is quite simply that this Opposition is a dishonest political party. In 1936 legislation was passed in this House, the so-called 1936 Bantu Acts. In terms of those acts this Parliament promised the Bantu of South Africa a certain portion of this fatherland of ours. Historically they already owned certain of those areas; in terms of legislation in this Parliament the others would have been purchased for them. Shortly before the 1959 Provincial Elections— by chance I was in Bloemfontein when that congress was in session—these people, under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast, thought they should do something in order to canvass the votes of Whites. Now they would tell the world that they were going to refuse to make additional land available to the Bantu. As a result of that they lost the hon. member for Houghton and eleven of their best people. That is why I adhere to this statement that, while I disagree with the hon. member for Houghton, I respect her for the fact she stands or falls by the opinions she holds.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the hon. member for Be-zuidenhout will also toe here in a moment. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for what earthly reason he wants to get up in this House of Assembly and try to create impressions that are damaging to South Africa. In the no confidence debate, in a certain connection, the Leader of the Opposition made the statement that, although we have so many Bantu in South Africa, under this dispensation those Bantu could only own 13 per cent of the land. We know that this is true, but I just want to tell hon. members that the Leader of the Opposition must bring his figures a little more up to date; the correct figure is 13.7 per cent. But that is not the point I want to make. I want to ask why the Leader of the Opposition simply leaves that statement dangling in the air. Why does he not also tell this House—that is also what he must tell the world—that 75 per cent of the homelands receives more than 500 millimeters of rain a year? Only 35 per cent of the Republic receives that much rain. The position is just that this part of South Africa that the Whites inhabit is not so well endowed with rain and people living in an area are dependent on the rainfall. In other words, this statement that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made is correct if he would at least acknowledge that these Bantu people live in that part of South Africa that receives the highest rainfall. I represent the Smithfield constituency, which borders on Lesotho for more than 70 miles. As a result of this National Government’s policy the present day relationships between the Republic of South Africa and Lesotho are of the best. Sir, we ar so grateful for the policy of this Government, of our Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for their way of handling this matter so that we can live together there so harmoniously. Mr. Speaker, you who have sat here will still be able to remember that during the lifetime of the late Dr. Verwoerd they spoke about that for the first time in this House, i.e. when the hon. member for Orange Grove insinuated here that the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, intended at the time to give back the conquered territory to Lesotho. The Prime Minister was then so upset that he stated in this House that he wanted nothing more to do with the hon. member for Orange Grove, and the following day when a question came onto the Order Paper Dr. Verwoerd refused to answer it.

So what?

I shall tell you. While we are living together so harmoniously there, here we have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who put the question to the Prime Minister three or four weeks ago: Are there now negotiations between yourselves and Lesotho to give back the conquered territory to Lesotho? I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he is thereby doing South Africa no credit. Why does he want to create false expectations in the Lesotho citizens?

May I ask a question?

I first want to finish speaking. [Interjections.] During the recent election the hon. member held meetings there, and their stories were that this and that was not being done because this territory would be given back to Lesotho.

What does the Prime Minister of Lesotho say?

In the Smith-field constituency the United Party went downhill from 1,900 votes to 1,446. Why? Those stories by the hon. member and his political associates did not help, because from platform to platform I told the voters of Smithfield, which is a rural constituency, that this United Party was coming along to catch their votes in the country districts, and that this same hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who was coming along there to hold meetings, was the same hon. member who stood up in this Parliament …

I did not say one word about that.

… and said: In the future, if we come into power, we shall ensure that this method of populating the urban constituencies and depopulating the rural constituencies is corrected. I told them that Japie Basson, the hon. member for Be-zuidenhout, asks why a man in Graaff-Reinet should have 2½ votes as against the one in Algoa? [Interjections.] I told Smithfield’s voters: “If the United Party comes into power you will be worth only 1 vote, where you are now worth 2, and where will you be then?” The hon. member for Hillbrow asks me why this should be so. I am telling him that he must not ask me; he must ask his candidate in Smithfield why this should be so, because at Wepener he openly repudiated Mr. Basson. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, in season and out of season, that the National Party is a party that is taking over the policy of the United Party.

That is right.

When we asked him “What, for example?” he replied: “Your immigration policy.” Sir, I do not have sufficient time to deal fully with the matter, but let me now state the position very clearly for you: One of the National Party’s principles is the principle of “South Africa first”, and this just means that at any particular moment the National Party will do only that which is in the interests of South Africa at that given moment.

If it is in the interests of the Nationalists.

In referring to the immigration policy we are willing to concede, although it is not altogether true, that there were days when the National Party said: “We shall not encourage immigration; we shall not allow the United Party to encourage immigration.” Why not? There was an hon. member sitting here who said that they just wanted immigrants in order to plough the Afrikaners under. But, Sir, that was not what the National Party was considering. The National Party’s consideration was that as far back as 1939 we held a national congress here in South Africa to discuss the question of the poor Whites. In those years poor Whites had to work with a pick and a shovel at 1s. 11d. a day. Those were the circumstances after the 1929s. How did a party at that time dare to bring immigrants to South Africa, most probably to take the food out of the mouths of one’s own sons and daughters? It was then a question of South Africa first, and it was in the interests of South Africa that we did not bring immigrants here.

Circumstances have changed. The year 1960 came along and we subsequently became a Republic. After Sharpeville there were threats of boycotts and sanctions from the rest of the world, and our Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said that we would now accept the challenge that in 1963 communists would finally take over in South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd said: “We accept that challenge” and he did accept it. He said: “Militarily we shall be as strong as the strongest comparable country; financially we shall build up an economy as strong as that of any comparable country; in industry we shall develop to such an extent that we can be independent of all threats of sanctions and boycotts.” Sir, with the co-operation of the Opposition—I acknowledge as much—we have to-day a Defence Force as strong as the strongest in Africa or in any comparable country. We were slightly in doubt about that, but in the light of what happened in six days somewhere else we no longer doubt that we are, in fact, the strongest country in Africa.

Sir, we have one of the strongest economies in the world; this is acknowledged everywhere; South Africa buys what it wants to buy and then it pays in gold; we can do that, after all. But in the building-up of our economy the new Industrial Advisory Council came along to the Prime Minister and said that we have everything. We have the raw materials, and financially, we can afford it, but we do not have the people. We do not have the trained people to manufacture a motor-car, for example. It is very easy to make the right decision. The National Party has not changed its policy. Its policy is still “South Africa first”. At that moment it was therefore necessary for us to obtain skilled labour from elsewhere. And the National Party obtained it. When a country, which was well disposed towards us, did not want to supply us with Buccaneer aircraft, the order was given for us to manufacture our own aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite refer to us as if we are an ox-wagon party with an ox-wagen mentality. But let us be honest. We have never yet manufactured aircraft. But Dr. Verwoerd’s order was “South Africa first”; we therefore had to manufacture them, and we did do so. When Hawker Siddeley had to dismiss 1,000 workers, the National Government brought them to South Africa to help us make our own aircraft. South Africa first! On that day in the Transvaal, at Kempton Park, I as an Afrikaans-speaking person together with my English-speaking friends and the new South Africans standing shoulder to shoulder were proud when our own South African manufactured aircraft soared up into the blue heavens to provide for the security of South Africa.

That is the National Party, a party which will never hesitate to do what it has to do, even if it is unpopular with certain of our people; we shall nevertheless have the courage to do it. As loyal Nationalists we are committed to that, because we regard ourselves as committed to the principle, “South Africa first”, and this Government and this party will continue to act accordingly.

The hon. member for Smithfield said his principle and that of his party is “South Africa first”. Well, we too believe in that principle. We have stated over and over again that we wish to see development in South Africa, but for that development this Budget offers no solution for the 1970s.

There are certain matters that have to be dealt with during the debate on this Budget. Many items have been neglected by hon. members opposite. I now have to reply virtually to three speeches. The hon. member for Houghton made an attack on the United Party’s labour policy. It would appear from her utterances that she is in favour of black trade unions. Then she glibly talks about these trade unions having the right to strike. Well, that being the position and looking at the situation in a responsible manner, one must soon realize that such a strike, involving black and white, can create an explosive situation here in South Africa. We of the United Party believe that in the interests of South Africa negotiations with trade unions are of vital importance.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus, who has since left the Chamber, dealt with the question of concessions to over 60-year olds. Other hon. members opposite also referred to these concessions. I want to deal in this Budget with the overall benefits it brings to those people in South Africa who are in need. Here I want to link up with that portion of our amendment dealing with pensions and assistance to other people who, we believe, are in dire need. The concession to the over 60-year-olds is indeed a very small concession despite the fact that it has been praised by hon. members opposite. The Minister said this concession would involve not more than R100,000. But this is only chicken feed when considering an overall Budget amounting to R2,500 million. Out of that a concession involving R100,000 is being made to a group of people who are feeling the hardships resulting from the increase in the cost of living. Let us look at the consequences.

Only to-day I had a letter from a person who does not fall within this new concession, i.e. with an income below R1,500. This person receives a civil pension of R141.69 after 42 years in the Civil Service. He points out in his letter that the rent of the flat which he is occupying has been increased no less than four times during the past two years. He points out that with the expected substantial increase in mortgage rates, he can expect to pay a further increased rental because the landlord will pass on any increased mortgage rates he will have to pay. As I have said earlier on, this person does not fall within the category covered by the Minister’s concession. Yet he will be called upon once again to meet an increase in rent in the process of the spiralling cost of living. This concession is only a minimal one when one takes the overall position of these people into account.

Another aspect of great importance is the loan levy. Persons who have already contributed a loan levy in the past, find that they are being called upon once again to pay an increased levy. It would appear that the Minister now has something like R233 million in loan levies. The Minister is now budgeting for an additional R12½ million, which means that the Minister will eventually have R250 million as loan levies. Many of these people, particularly the older taxpayers, are particularly concerned about this situation. They are in the latter part of their lives where they need finance, sometimes urgently. But the hon. the Minister holds their loan levies for a period of seven years. We have discussed this question in this House before; we have discussed its effects on the people concerned, particularly on the older people.

As a matter of fact, we have even gone so far as to move amendments in an endeavour to exclude certain groups of persons, particularly those who have already reached an advanced stage in their lives, because the chances that they would ever recover this amount, are growing slimmer and slimmer. The Minister adopts the attitude that this money is perhaps a good investment on which 5 per cent interest is being paid. He emphasizes the fact that this money is only borrowed. But on each occasion when one anticipates a repayment of a loan levy, a further levy is being imposed, in this particular case an increased levy. I have here a copy of a letter which the Minister wrote to a person who was most concerned about this question of a loan levy. He is a taxpayer over 70 years of age and urgently requires money. He feels most incensed that money now being held by the Minister is money which he will be unable to obtain.

The hon. the Minister of Finance had this to say in reply—

The point is that these people have to have their money tied up for a period of seven years. During this period they are unable to obtain any of that money in time of dire need. These are old people who are sometimes faced with considerable expenses. The letter, written by the hon. the Minister’s private secretary, goes on—

Mr. Speaker, to say to these people that they have to keep themselves in good health to enjoy the fruits of investment, is in fact a very poor solace for them when they require money urgently. Meantime the hon. the Minister of Finance who believes this is an attractive investment, holds this money in safe custody for them for a period of at least seven years.

These are matters which affect many people who do not enjoy any concessions that have been made in regard to income tax. These persons now have to pay higher indirect taxes in the form of increased sales duty on many items which they require when they renew items of furniture, etc. Meanwhile the hon. the Minister is sitting with something like R250 million in the loan levy account.

The Budget contains very little to alleviate the position of those in need, the older people and also the ordinary man in the street. We look at the situation from this side of the House to see whether the Government has in fact introduced a Budget in the year 1970 which will meet the challenge and which will in fact be a start in meeting the challenge of the decade that lies ahead. If this Government runs its normal period of office of five years we will be half way through that next decade. However, when we examine the proposals that have been put before this House it becomes increasingly obvious that the hon. the Minister has not put forward a blueprint which should be a starting point of the 1970s. And here I refer particularly to the position of the aged and the disabled. We have on many occasions discussed this matter under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and during the course of other Budget debates. A concession was granted to social pensioners during the February session. The hon. the Minister referred to this in his Budget speech in that he said that there was additional expenditure of R13.1 million under the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote.

There is of course in fact no single concession in the Estimates before us to assist these people at all. One would have thought that perhaps the hon. the Minister would have made an announcement to the effect that this matter was to be given special attention or even that a commission would be appointed —I fear to suggest another commission because one does not know whether it would be able to report before the end of the decade—to examine the whole situation as far as those in need are concerned, in other words, the group of persons known as social pensioners and people who require assistance from the State, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves made some provision for their old age. The concessions that were granted during the February session and which came into effect on 1st April, were in fact only small concessions in so far as pensions were concerned. The basic pension was increased from R33 to R35 per month for white social pensioners, an increase of R2 per month.

Then there was a ratio that was applied which gave an extra rand per month to the Coloured and Indian social pensioners and 50 cents per month to the Bantu social pensioners. This is, however, only plain patchwork and is not meeting the situation as it exists in a modern society in the year 1970. After all, if we look at the system that is applied in South Africa to-day, we see that it is based mainly on the system that was introduced in 1928 when the Old Age Pensions Act first came into being. This is a system which is over 40 years old and which has been scrapped many years ago in other parts of the Western world and a more realistic system put in its place.

The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has on occasions made major policy speeches concerning social welfare and pensions. There is one point on which, I think, we on both sides of the House are agreed, namely that the older people and the people in need should be kept in the community if at all possible. The application of this principle of keeping these people within the community is. however, a point on which we differ from the hon. the Minister and members on the other side. First of all, to keep these people within the community they must surely have an increase in pensions. They must surely have a system whereby it is possible for them to save for their old age without being discriminated against at a later date when they find that they do not have sufficient to live on and they are discriminated against in terms of the means test. The hon. the Minister of Finance calls upon the people to save. These are noble words but in many instances many young married couples to-day merely do not have enough money left to save with the increase in the cost of living. Many of the older people did save during their working lives but they find that that saving which they have been encouraged to do during their working lives discriminates against them when the means test is applied.

Consequently, the first question is whether we believe that the pension which is presently being paid to social pensioners are adequate. Here I refer to all race groups. We on this side of the House believe that it falls far short of being an adequate pension. Why does it fall so far short? It is because we are hamstrung by a system which to-day is outdated and outmoded in relation to present-day thinking. Surely it would be better if we instituted a system which would be a national contributory system whereby these people would be able to save and whereby they would be able to make a constribution to their old age. This would be directly in line with the plea of the hon. the Minister of Finance in calling upon people to save in an effort to curb inflation. Surely a contributory system would also go some way towards meeting the Minister of Finance’s object of curbing inflation. This could be done if there were a compulsory saving and if these people were contributing to a national contributory fund. Details as to how this should be achieved could be evolved from the various systems that exist in other parts of the world. If we look at many of the systems, not that any of them would perhaps be ideal for South Africa because of our different pattern of labour, I am certain that it is not beyond the ingenuity of our own South African people to devise a system that will meet the needs of the South African people. Such a system should embrace all racial groups although it should be possible to have a different system as far as the Bantu is concerned due to their different pattern of labour. However. the main principle should be that all would be covered by a degree of security in their old age or time of disablement. We believe that that is not being met at the present time.

That is why the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Parktown includes a portion which refers to the inadequacy of social pensions that are paid to these people who need some assistance. With a contributory system it would be possible to pay those higher pensions. It would also be possible to abolish the means test. This would encourage people to save more. There are many anomalies that exist as far as the present means test is concerned. That is why we believe it would be in the interests of South Africa to abolish this system of the means test. I do not intend to go into all these anomalies this afternoon. Another opportunity will arise perhaps later in the session to do so. The main question we are discussing here, is the principle that is involved. A system like this would not be able to have a fund unless it received some assistance from the State. However, at the same time, it would not be wholly dependent Upon being paid out of revenue and then being subject to a means test. Obviously, if one does not have a contributory system, one still has to maintain a means test. We as a responsible Opposition, have never suggested that the means test should merely be abolished without substituting a contributory pension scheme so as to make it a workable proposition and a workable programme.

During the next decade the percentage of old people will increase. We know that at the beginning of the century it was something like 2 per cent. To-day it is in the region of 5½to 6 per cent. We await with interest the statistics that will become available following the last census. This will. I am sure, indicate again that the percentage of older people has increased. This cost is paid straight out of revenue in terms of our present system, and this means inevitably that further thought will have to be given along the lines of adopting a more modern approach such as a national constributory pension scheme so as to cover all persons.

There is no necessity for South Africa to embark upon a welfare state in this country. We on this side of the House have always stood for free enterprise and the initiative of the individual. This should not be stifled in any way. Indeed it is not being stifled and will not create a welfare state because the people themselves will be making a contribution towards their security in times of need such as old age and disablement. We believe that it could play an important part in the strengthening of the economy in South Africa by making such a system workable in South Africa. If we do not have this system of a national contributory scheme, we will have from time to time, just as we have been having under the present Government, small concessions, the elimination of an anomaly here and another anomaly arising elsewhere. So it will continue. The cost of administration of our existing system must be enormous in spite of the fact that a computer has been installed by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It means that every single one of these files, while there is a means test, must be continually under surveillance. They must be continually reviewed. Every time an adjustment has to be made, these files have to be reviewed. We know that there is over 120,000 white social pensioners alone who have to have their cases continually reviewed. When one or the other spouse dies, the case has to be reviewed. Someone may sell a property or there might be a change in a person’s financial circumstances. They might even get married and may find that their case is reviewed and they lose their pensions. It means that every single one of those files has to be continually reviewed and kept under the control of the Department to see that they meet the requirements of the means test. Surely, this is an extremely costly system to administer. Whilst we have this Government adopting the attitude that they are not prepared to launch such a scheme in South Africa, we will have patchwork as far as the means test is concerned.

Here I should like to refer back to the speeches the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has made in the past, dealing with the question of keeping these people within the community, with which we agree. The question of increased pensions, we believe, can be met to an extent by the introduction of a national contributory pension scheme which means the abolition of a means test. We also believe that with this system we will be able to find ways and means of meeting many of these problems which arise. With regard to the question of keeping these people in the community, I was hoping the hon. the Minister of Finance on introducing this Budget would make an announcement relaxing the means test in certain instances, such as the income limits which are very low indeed. I was also hoping that the hon. the Minister of Finance might have been able to announce additional subsidies to many of the welfare organizations who endeavour to carry out the policy of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions of keeping these people in the community. Here I refer to subsidies for services provided to the aged people, services such as the meals on wheel service, which is not subsidized at all, home help service, which is not subsidized either, service centres and clubs for the aged where social workers keep contact with those people who might be in need in order to try and keep them in the community as long as possible before they are sent to a home for the aged. Those clubs for the aged receive a subsidy of R120 per year, that means R10 per month. These subsidies are extremely low. Consequently, in keeping these people within the community a greater effort must be made by the Government to grant greater subsidies to these organizations which are endeavouring to carry out their policy. There are cases whereby persons are unable to be kept within the community. Some of them have to be admitted to a home for frail and infirm aged. Here I would like to refer to the fact that this is an extremely costly way of having to care for these people. Here too the question of a subsidy arises. I have the privilege to serve on the management committee of an organization which endeavours to provide this service to the people. I would like to say here that this service which is being provided by welfare organizations is being provided at an extremely high cost, which must be borne by the organization. It means a continual drain of the finances of such an organization. I would like to take this home for the frail and infirm aged which was opened in November, 1969, as an example. Their financial report for the year ending in March, 1970, showed at the end of that period that the accommodation of these people resulted in a loss of R26,618. This means that the organization was faced with extreme difficulties. Fortunately they found a person who came forward and assisted them with a donation which was used for bridging finance to see them over the difficult period. When this organization made an approach to the Government in its time of need, they were informed that there were no funds available until the 1st April, 1970. It does seem a pity that these organizations which are endeavouring to provide this service are having to face this enormous difficulty as far as finance is concerned in looking after these people who have now become a full responsibility. Some of them are bedridden and they have to have medical attention at all times. We also must realize that the welfare organizations have also been hindered to a great extent by the Government’s attitude towards lotteries, raffles and fund raising efforts. This used to be one of the recognized means of raising funds from the community. Fortunately, there are still people to-day who come forward quite willingly with donations towards certain pet organizations or other fields of welfare in which they are particularly interested. However, an enormous amount of money is available from the person who would like to make a contribution to an organization and who would at the same time like to have an opportunity of winning a ticket or winning a prize in a raffle. I believe it is a great pity that the Government has adopted an attitude where it is virtually impossible to raise funds along these lines. Then there is the question of the Government’s legislation which prohibits them to raise funds. We know that as far as State lotteries are concerned, the Government is very much opposed to the introduction thereof. The Government does not even allow the matter of a State lottery to come up for a discussion. It was not very long ago that even a leading Nationalist in Durban advocated a State lottery. I believe an enormous amount of money will become available for use by welfare services if a State lottery should be introduced. At least the people should be given an opportunity to state whether they would like a State lottery or not. In a Durban Parliamentary Society debate a leading Nationalist in Durban, Mr. C. A. Haupt, moved, “that in the opinion of this House the will of the people favours the introduction of State lotteries and therefore a referendum should be held that the appropriate action be taken”. This motion was introduced by a leading member of the Nationalist Party. To-day, not only are these organizations denied any benefits that would be accruing to them from the holding of a State lottery, but they are also in many cases in fear of the law and unable to have any functions, raffles, bingo evenings, or anything of this nature in order to raise funds. This is where the hypocrisy comes in in regard to the situation. when one only has to look at horse racing to-day. We know that horse racing involves many millions and that it is a big industry in South Africa. It is estimated that something like R100 million per year are spent on racing. One only has to look at the figures as far as racing is concerned to see the enormous amount of money that racing puts into circulation. For example, during three race meetings that were held in Durban by the Durban Turf Club during the “July” period. the aggregate for the three days amounted to R2,420,828. Of this amount a large sum is deducted for provincial tax and one wonders how far the hon. the Minister would have had to help Provincial Administrations if it was not for this very lucrative source of income that they receive from totalisator tax. I am not in any way opposed to horse racing, but there is this question of allowing a condition to exist in South Africa whereby many millions of rands change hands in purely a gamble. One only has to look at the results of horse races to see that anything can win. There are jackpot pools which invariably exceed R100,000 a week. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to stop one person from doing another a good deed. I would be the last person to blame anyone who wants to do good to those people who are not finding life so easy. I am surprised, however, that the hon. member for Umbilo wanted to turn this debate into a welfare debate this afternoon. Per-haps that is precisely what I read in their little jackpot booklet, i.e. the “You want it—we have it” booklet. I do not object if the hon. member speaks about a number of matters which really fall under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. member spoke about individual subsidies and fund raising, which really concern the National Welfare Act, and I think that if the hon. member is interested in that, we could debate it more effectively under the hon. Minister’s Vote.

We cannot propose additional expenditure under the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

The hon. member could have raised the matter here, as he did in fact do. It is in order. But the point I want to make is that that party of which he is a member envisages something entirely different. In the amendment which they moved, mention was only made of pensions and the “disabled”. This was merely by the way in order to create the impression among people outside that it is in fact their party who looks after the interests of the poor man and the less privileged. They do not stop there. They drag this through to the field of labour and the white worker. I shall show hon. members an interesting piece of deception which was practiced outside this House. It is in black and white. In their booklet “You have it” they talk about the worker …

“You want it—we have it”.

“You want it—we have it”, but they “have had it”, Sir. In the English text of their booklet, they make a statement, and a promise. It reads: “Under a United Party Government you will get more for your money”.

Hear, hear!

But what do they say in their Afrikaans text? That hon. member has been away for two days now; he feels like talking. What is stated in the Afrikaans text? Sir, that hon. member does not even know what is stated in his own booklet. The Afrikaans text reads (translation): “Under a United Party Government you will get more money”. It does not state “get more for your money” as in the English, it states “get more money”. What is this but a piece of political deception? Oh, but hon. members are having a good laugh at this. I am telling them this was done for no other reason than to draw the attention of the white worker to this. I am going to read further to hon. members. In the English text it states: “The acid test of Government policy is the value of your pay-packet”. But in the Afrikaans text it states (translation): “The acid test of any Government’s policy is the value of your weekly wage”. Sir, these words “weekly wage” mean something completely different to the white worker than the general, broad English concept of “paypacket”. I am telling you, Sir, to say in English, “You can get more for your money” and in Afrikaans, “you will get more money” makes a very big difference. That is the deception.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have no interest whatsoever in the hon. member’s questions. What the United Party wants to do here is to sell our workers something which is as materialistic as anything I have ever come across. They are simply offering our workers money. The deeper significance of labour means nothing to them. One reads this booklet from cover to cover and finds absolutely nothing of the kind in it. All that is being said here, is “more money”.

Those people also know that in the depression years which are frequently being discussed here now, our people were also poor. They came through that poverty, not through grabbing at the bait of money or welfare measures, but because they had the will to do so. But what are these people offering the worker? These people are offering the worker something completely different. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the censure motion he placed tremendous emphasis on a few matters, and I say that that is the reason the hon. member for Umbilo has been brought into this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted, among other things, to make our people believe that this Government turns a deaf ear to the poor. But I want to go further. He actually wanted to inform the world at large under what conditions our people were living here, and he said—

Subsequently he said the same thing somewhere else. He says—

And so he continues in a third place. But surely this is not true. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Umbilo said here a moment ago, we have numerous examples of what this Government is doing in the interests of the less privileged. The United Party people do not advance one single example. The mere fact that pensions and allowances have increased between 1948 and the present from R8 million to almost R70 million, is that not enough for them? What is more, it is stated very clearly in the White Paper that at this stage 22 per cent of the Budget is being spent on social services.

But what are these people offering those workers? Not work. They are offering the workers the following, as stated in various places, and I just want to quote a few examples. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this: “As we become wealthier, so we ought to be expanding our welfare services continually”. Sir, that is what the worker is being offered, welfare services and not work. There are numerous examples of this in the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But this sugar-coated pill is being offered to the people for another reason. I want to draw your attention to another premise of that party. I am reading from column 37 of the first volume of Hansard of this Session where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following: “South Africa is governed to-day by what political scientists call an elite”. Then he went on to say—

What he was advocating here, after setting out his federal policy, is that this elite, including that of the non-Whites, as he stated it here, will be included in that Federal Parliament. Then he said that this elite will have to take joint responsible decisions. They will also have to take them, Sir, in respect of our white workers; they will also have to take them when it concerns the legislation affecting our white workers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition remonstrated with this House that there were various people—thousands as he said—who were living in poverty and hardship. Over those people he wants to introduce a non-white elite here in the white Parliament to take decisions on their legislation; and one of the pieces of legislation he mentioned here, was the abolition of work reservation. He made it very clear that he had said that before. In reply to an interjection from the Leader of the House he said that they had stated previously that they would abolish work reservation, but that they would give guarantees. Sir, when the hon. Sen. Crook was speaking in the Other Place last year, he said: “I shall mention to you the guarantees which we will give the white workers”. He was unable to complete his speech because he became indisposed, and he then said that the hon. Sen. Rall would give those guarantees. The hon. Sen. Rall then spoke about a hundred words without giving any guarantees.

Sir, in those 1969 debates they came forward with the story of a labour convention which they would convene, but in this policy statement of theirs we seek in vain for the merest indication that they are advocating a labour convention. They did not say a word about it. They promised the people larger “paypackets” in the hope that they would in that way get the support of those people. Sir, opposed to that we have the explanation of the National Party labour policy which we were not afraid to give to our voters in large numbers. Even if the United Party does represent a few additional seats now, I can inform them that while just over 400,000 voters voted for the National Party in 1948, 875,000 recently voted for that line of thought. While 526.0 voted for them at that time, a mere 562.0 voted for them recently. The number who voted for the National Party increased by more than 400,000, while a mere 40,000 additional voters voted for them. Sir, this happened because the labour policy of the National Party is stated very simply here. We put it to the voters in this way—

The hon. the Minister of Labour challenged that party to state openly before the election that they would abolish work reservation. They did not do so. They stated in this policy organ of theirs that work reservation is “not enough”.

In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said one thing which we cannot allow to pass unnoticed; he told the voters outside that the policy of the National Party was a policy of “poor but White”. Sir, it is not true that our policy is one of “poor but White”. But if they want to set policy against policy, then to me their policy means nothing but “Black but rich” or “rich but Black”. What else can one deduce from this? If they tell us our policy is “poor but White”, then I say, if I understand this policy of theirs correctly, that their policy is “rich but Black”. This we will go on repeating to the white workers outside “rich but black”, and not “rich but Black”, but also “Black”, because the non-White elite they want to bring in here will decide on work reservation and on the future of the white worker, if the United Party should ever come into power.

Mr. Speaker, it has on occasion been remarked that the South African Parliamentary system is one of the most efficient in the world. In this efficiency you. Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members of this House have a particular share, because you have worked in a worthy manner to impart a particular tradition and colour to this House. I consider it a special occasion in my life to speak as a new member here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and other hon. members of the House for the exceptional friendliness and helpfulness with which you have made me feel at home here. I am particularly grateful for that attitude which has been displayed to me as a new member in this House. Over the years, Parliamentarians have built up the prestige and traditions of this House. In my heart I am proud of our predecessors, who built up the exceptional prestige of this House in such a way. I have the privilege to be the successor to such a Parliamentarian. I refer to Mr. A. H. Vosloo, who is at present Administrator of the Cape Province. For seventeen years he carried out his duties in this House in a distinguished manner, the last number of years as Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I wish to pay tribute to him, who, as my predecessor, rendered exceptional services not only to this House, but also to the electorate outside. On behalf of the voters of Somerset East, I want to convey our sincere thanks to him, the hon. the Administrator of the Cape, for the way in which he served that constituency with distinction throughout the years.

The constituency which I represent forms part of the large area of the Republic which at present has to contend with the greatest drought in our history, one of the most ravaging droughts which is paralysing a large section of the Republic. Where families previously led a happy existence in the rural areas, empty farmhouses are to be found today, and where classrooms previously overflowed with pupils, we find to-day a cold silence in many a classroom of schools in the rural areas. In the district of Jansenville alone more than eighty families have already left their farms to seek a living elsewhere. Where the glitter of the golden fruit of the citrus trees used to caress the eye, we to-day see a withered tree, one may almost say a tree scorched by fire. In 1967, when we had the last normal citrus crop in the Sundays River Valley, the crop yielded nearly 3,200,000 boxes. For the present season we can count only 290,000 boxes. This gives us an impression of the enormous losses which many of our constituents are suffering to-day. The percentage loss in crops is calculated to be an average of 91 per cent as compared with the crop of 1967, while 45 per cent of the farmers there have suffered a 100 per cent loss, a loss which will keep them in the throes of poverty for eight years—even if they were to get sufficient irrigation water to-day. That is why today we find many an empty farmhouse in the Sundays River Valley as well. The same applies to the Fish River Valley, where I used to be able to see and take delight in waving acres of lucerne. To-day I find there only the brown, scorched earth.

On this occasion I want to convey the gratitude of my constituents to the Government, to every Minister concerned and his Department, for. the assistance which they have already rendered to the constituents of Somerset East. To them I want to say that the constituents of Somerset East thank them for it. But in spite of the parlous economic circumstances in which people in my constituency find themselves, and although this is a matter of great concern to me, my constituency is at present on the threshhold of the finest development phases in its history. The coming into operation of the Orange River project creates great expectations in our hearts, because we have not only 19,000 morgen of irrigation land, but also thousands of morgen of irrigable land which can still be developed. It is the wish of my constituents that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and his Department should carry out that project with the least delay and with the greatest possible speed. You will appreciate, Sir, that the constituents in those two valleys are looking forward with expection to the completion of this long-awaited project. The development of this project will mean that it will be possible not only to develop agricultural land anew, but also to cultivate new crops, such as cotton and pecan nuts. Moreover, it will bring the establishment of two hydro-electric power stations at Klip-fontein and at Elizas Randt, which will in turn bring about an increase in the traffic in and transport of agricultural produce in those two valleys. Accordingly I want to express the hope to-day that in the near future it will be possible to build a railway line from Somerset East via Pearston and Jansenville with a junction at Klipplaat. Such a railway line could mean a great deal to that area, not only as far as the transport of passengers is concerned, but also and particularly as far as the transportation of agricultural produce is concerned. The great development which is in store for my constituency will lead to an increase in the population. Coupled with that is the matter of the administration and maintenance of the law. In this connection I am grateful to the hon. the Minister of Police for the establishment of several police stations in my constituency. Here I particularly have in mind places such as Alexandria, Paterson and others. However, I notice that there are still several police stations where the buildings and the accommodation for our policemen leave much to be desired. Here I have in mind police stations at places such as Alicedale, Somerset East and Jansenville, where the existing accommodation for our policemen certainly justifies immediate replacement.

The Republic is a tourist country par excellence. In 1952 110,000 tourists visited the country and in 1968 310,000. In thinking of this, I realize that the Republic has become the sunshine country of the Western world. The French Riviera, the playground of Europe, has an average of 2,700 hours of sunshine per year. In Pretoria, on the other hand, we have 3,200 hours of sunshine per year. In my constituency the number of hours of sunshine per year is even much higher than in Pretoria. That is why no “acts of darkness” are committed in my constituency. That is also why my constituency had every confidence in sending an ex-minister of the church to this House as their representative.

The development resulting from the Orange River project will convert the now dry lake Mentz into a large mass of water. Now I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Tourism and his Department for the establishment of a nature reserve at Lake Mentz. It is a fact that our people are becoming more and more urbanized. The need for nature reserves is therefore becoming greater and greater. I believe that, with the establishment of a nature reserve in the vicinity of Lake Mentz, not only will the area be converted into a beautiful tourist attraction, but the fauna and flora will also be preserved there. The promotion of this development can truly be of national significance. That region has its own peculiar plant life. It is of a type which is not specifically preserved anywhere else in the Republic.

In addition to the proposed nature reserve at Lake Mentz, I also want to plead for the development of the coastal area and the establishment of certain harbour facilities from the Swartkops River northward. When the assistance rendered by the Department of Agriculture to farmers in my constituency is taken into account, one is amazed at the exceptional assistance which is already being rendered. I think the assistance already being rendered by the Department of Agriculture to my people [there, amounts to approximately R9 per small I stock unit. This is indeed very high. However, I nevertheless want to ask whether the Department of Agriculture will not consider, for the sake of the many small farmers in that area, i.e. farmers on farms of 1,000 morgen and less, making a new approach in respect of the stock reduction scheme applicable to them. I am referring to a total stock withdrawal scheme. I believe that in doing so we i shall not only be of great assistance to those farmers in this extremely difficult period, but will also promote veld conservation to an exceptional extent.

There is another special need in my constituency, i.e. a concession on the part of the Treasury to the Sundays River Irrigation Board, which is still faced with a capital debt of R1,400,000. We are grateful for the sympathy which the Minister concerned has shown us in this respect. We hope that here, too, we shall receive the co-operation of the Department concerned. When one speaks about one’s constituency in this House in this way, it is a special occasion one which is of significance to me as a new member in that I should like to serve also that section of the electorate with sincere gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exceptional pleasure for me, as one newcomer to another, to congratulate the hon. member for Somerset East on a very excellent speech. To judge from the way he spoke here to-day, I do not doubt for one moment that he is going to be of great value to his party and that he will make a major contribution in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here to-day in the highest council chamber of South Africa to represent, in all humility, the interests of my constituency. But I am also standing here with a modicum of pride in the fact that I have the privilege of representing a constituency of the calibre of King William’s Town. It is a constituency which has the proud record of having had men of the calibre of a Miles Warren and a John Lindsay as representatives. They were members whose sincerity, integrity, deeds and every action inside and outside this House compelled the esteem and respect of every member of this House, as well as the esteem of every person outside this House who had the privilege of knowing them. I do not to-day in any way want to suggest that I can ever be a Miles Warren or a John Lindsay, but it will be my sincere endeavour to try to imitate and emulate the excellent example they set as members of this House.

King William’s Town is a constituency which is half urban and half rural. There are 7,500 voters in the urban area of East London and 7,500 in the rural area of King William’s Town. It is a constituency consisting of farmers, businessmen, Government officials, workers and Bantu. In other words, it is a constituency representative of all layers of the population. In other words, the problems of my constituency are precisely the same as the problems any other hon. member has in his constituency, but with this difference that I have twice as many problems as they have because I have all the problems of an urban constituency and all the problems of a rural constituency.

The second difference is that while every hon. member has a limited number of Bantu in his constituency, I have in mine hundreds of thousands of Bantu who are living there without any opportunities for employment and who create a problem. I want to state bluntly to-day that I do not regard the Bantu as a problem. I still regard them as a source of labour and as one of our greatest national assets in South Africa. In this specific case, where there are insufficient opportunities for employment for them, they are, however, a problem.

The third difference between my constituency and other constituencies is that there exists in my voters a sincere urge towards and a sincere desire for industrial development and economic development, precisely in order to solve this problem. They want this development not only to solve this problem, but also to establish a higher standard of living for themselves and all the inhabitants of that area, to create better opportunities for their children and better markets for the produce of the numerous small farmers there, and to obtain all the benefits which only prosperity can bring. But notwithstanding this desire which exists there for industrial development, this development has always eluded those parts and passed them by. This was most probably as a result of the great attraction of the gold of the Witwatersrand, and of the other more established industrial areas of South Africa. In spite of this, every attempt which has ever been made by the State to attract industrial development to those parts, has been seized upon eagerly and gratefully In 1946 when the State introduced its decentralization plan and a start was made there by the Industrial Development Corporation with the Cape of Good Hope Textiles, the opportunity was eagerly seized upon and expanded into the biggest industry of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. Successful as this industry was in itself, it did not succeed in attracting satellite industries to that area. A period of stagnation set it. When the present Government again announced certain incentive measures to attract industries to that area, the opportunity was once again gratefully seized upon. The municipalities incurred major obligations in order to make a success of this undertaking. And there was great success. In King William’s Town 40 new industrial sites were either sold or earmarked for industrial development. In Watsonia 20 new factories will be erected for an amount of R12 million. These factories will provide 10,000 people with work, inter alia 1,000 Whites. In Berlin they hope to establish 800 new families shortly. Great hopes are being cherished in that area. This industrial development has, however, brought about certain bottlenecks and problems, which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Here I am thinking for example of the King William’s Town municipality which had to lay out new industrial areas and township areas and also had to supply the necessary services such as railway lines, water, sewerage systems, roads etc. for these newly laid-out areas. This required a tremendous amount of capital. In the ensuing 20 months King William’s Town will need R2 million for these expansions. In the next four to five years it will need approximately R5 million. This money must be borrowed at the unduly high current rate of interest of 8½ and 9½ per cent. Although this money will be recovered once these sites are sold and the new industries begin to contribute to the tax funds, the taxpayers of King William’s Town must in the meanwhile bear the burden of those rates of interest. They are simply unable to do so. That is why it is my request to the hon. the Minister of Planning to allow King William’s Town to fall under the Special Committee of his Department so that the local authority of King William’s Town may also receive loans at 2 per cent interest, as is the case with other border areas. Up to now the application of King William’s Town has been unsuccessful. The other problem with which we have to cope, is the long-term water plans for that area. The Minister of Water Affairs is already making a survey of the Kubusie and the Keiskama rivers. On the Kubusie river alone there are no fewer than eight possible places where dams can be built. There is all the water one can think of. If these surveys can be completed and the necessary announcements made and the farmers are given the assurance that their interests along the banks of the Kubusie river will be protected, it would contribute a great deal to bringing stability there and to expediting this industrial development. Let me state candidly that I am not doubting this project in any way. I have every confidence that great industrial development will take place in this area. But I also believe that if the Government wants to do justice to that area, it must launch a major State undertaking. I am thinking here, for example, of a fourth Iscor on the west bank of East London for which the land has already been purchased. This will set a chain reaction of smaller industries in motion, satellite industries will be drawn to that area. I do not think it is necessary for me to advance any arguments as to why we need another new steel industry. We are all aware of the shortage of steel. Why should the industry in fact be established in East London? I think it should be established in East London, because I know of no other area where there is more unemployed non-white labour available, whereas we do not know of the shortage which exists in other areas. I know of no area in South Africa which has more water, provided the rivers are dammed up and tamed. While there is a shortage of harbour facilities in South Africa, there is in East London a harbour which is operating at three-quarter capacity and which can, at little expense, be enlarged if that should be necessary. I know of no area in South Africa where food is cheaper and where there are so many small farmers who are yearning for a market.

Last, but not least, there is the white manpower which can take the lead in such industrial development. This is so because the pioneering courage and the pioneer’s blood of the 1820 Settlers and of the German settlers of 1859, as well as of the Voortrekkers, is still dormant in the veins of their descendants. That same courage and that same daring which their forefathers displayed in defying and taming those areas for civilization, can now be applied to expand this industrial development and to develop this area into a second Witwatersrand in South Africa. I am advocating this on behalf of my own constituency, I am advocating this on behalf of the Eastern Cape, but I would not have advocated it if I had not been absolutely convinced that it would in time be in the greater interests of the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, first of all it gives me pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town on his maiden speech in this House. The hon. member showed very clearly why he had been elected to this House. He is a man who is good at speaking off the cuff, a man with a fine, informal voice, a man who is capable of expressing himself well, and he confined himself to the interests of his constituency. As politicians we all know from experience that if one looks after the interests of one’s constituency, one is returned to this House time after time. For that reason I must congratulate the hon. member and assure him that we are fully appreciative of his début here.

My actual reason for rising is to reply to the third part of the hon. Opposition’s amendment which deals with what we are doing in respect of old-age pensioners and disability grants. In this regard I want to start—and I think this is a good opportunity for doing so— by perhaps giving an outline, if time permits me to do so, as to precisely what is being done in this regard and precisely what we have in view for the future.

I want to begin by saying that in a certain sense a nation is composed of three categories of people: its youth, its people in the prime of their lives, and its aged. These are the circumstances which have the effect that members of one’s middle group—who are in the prime of their lives and earning their daily bread and, of course, performing their daily tasks as well—have to make contributions in order to provide for members of the other two groups. They are the people who are providing the necessary facilities for the youth, facilities for training, etc., and at the same time they have to provide for the needs of our aged. To assist in preparing the youth, is to us an investment in the future. To care for our aged is to us a service and a task of gratitude. It is very easy, pleasant and probably lovely to be an opposition party in a case such as this one. The hon. member for Umbilo, and I want to say at once that I hold him in the highest esteem as a person who always makes a thorough study of his subject, made a very good speech to-day, as seen from his own point of view and from the point of view of the policy of his own party.

Of course.

Yes, there is no doubt about that. However, I differ with the hon. member on certain basic points of principle, and therefore I cannot agree with him. It is pleasant and easy to be an opposition in regard to this matter. If one grants something or other to the people before an election, such as higher old-age pensions or salary increases, the Opposition says it is an election announcement and is aimed at catching votes. However, if one does not grant these things, one is attacked and the Opposition says: “You have done absolutely nothing for the people.” Oh, how pleasant it is to sit in the Opposition benches and to have the best of two worlds! The facts are that it ought to be the task of a responsible government, and also of a responsible opposition, to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the present Budget and said that out of the whole Budget of R2,500 million only a scant R100,000 had been appropriated for relief to this group of people whom I have in mind to-day, i.e. the older members of the community. However, for the sake of convenience the hon. member forgets altogether that this is actually the second Budget in one year, and that we had a Budget in February. He forgets that in that Budget numerous concessions were made to this specific group of people.

I did say that.

Yes, but the hon. member forgot that major concessions had been made, and that the date on which these benefits were to be paid out, had been advanced to April. In a normal Budget year those people would only have received those privileges as from 1st October. In this case, however, they received them as from 1st April.

With a view to the elections.

Precisely, I expect the Opposition to say that. Because we are now doing nothing before the provincial election, they are saying: “You are doing nothing for the people.” That is precisely how the United Party policy is. I believe that one should act here in a sensible and responsible manner.

The hon. member for Umbilo pleaded for a contributory pension scheme. Now, I do know that this has been a point of difference between the two official parties for years, i.e. that the Opposition is in favour of a contributory pension scheme and that we do not want to adopt it. This afternoon I want to advance in brief a few of the reasons why we are not prepared to think in terms of a contributory pension scheme at this stage. In the first place, we must take a look at the way this scheme is working in other countries where it is in operation at present. In virtually every one of those countries there are, parallel with the contributory pension scheme, aid schemes or non-contributory schemes as well, since there are numerous people who are not covered under that scheme and receive inadequate benefits. In England they have compulsory contributions, the so-called “flat rate”. In spite of that, according to a report which I received from one of my experts who had made a study of this matter, 20 per cent of the people receiving the contributors old-age pension, are getting supplementary aid under the National Aid Scheme.

Twenty years after this scheme was put into operation in Britain—and therefore one has to accept that it has already surmounted its teething problems, that it should be in a sufficiently strong position to cope with the future and that it can look after itself and be self-supporting—it appears that the Treasury still has to make major contributions every year in order to carry this scheme. For the year 1961-1962, the figure I was able to obtain, the Treasury in Britain contributed an additional R340 million in spite of the fact that this scheme had been in existence for years. The same applies in respect of the Netherlands, where substantial contributions are also being made by the State.

I want to mention a second argument to show why we are not in favour of the scheme. One of the principal weaknesses in a contributory scheme is the financial problems it entails. I want to mention just one of them, i.e. the devaluation and erosion of monetary values. If a person contributed R1 to a scheme 20 years ago, it is logical, and he lays claim to it, that 20 years later, when he retires from active service, he should want back the value of his rand in the form of benefits. However, during that period of 20 years that rand of his devalued and depreciated to 50 cents or perhaps even less. As a result of modern circumstances and the erosion of money such a fund cannot meet its obligations. However, that man made his contribution and he simply puts in a claim in this regard. There are, in addition, numerous other problems in regard to the administration of such a scheme which I do not want to discuss now. The third point I want to make, is that we must take a look at other countries which have such schemes at the moment. We must analyse the matter with an open mind and ask ourselves whether the circumstances of life of persons abroad are so much better under such schemes than are the circumstances of our own people and our aged in South Africa.

The report of the official of my Department who had made a special inquiry into this matter, outlined to us conditions which in many cases were good, but which, in many cases, were also much worse than those of our own aged whom we are caring for in this country. In addition to that we should bear in mind that under normal circumstances the cost of living abroad is much higher than it is in our country, and therefore the value of our money in that regard is still much higher. According to the hon. member the United Party wants to abolish the means test completely for the purposes of a scheme of this nature. For the purposes of its aid schemes, England did not only retain a means test, as it would otherwise be so expensive, but over and above the means test it has another test, which I want to translate into Afrikaans with the word “behoeftetoets”, the so-called “needs test”, which is applied before the full amount is paid out. In other words, apart from the fact that in a certain sense the means test is being eased but nevertheless retained, there is a “needs test” as well, as they call it.

I want to mention a fourth reason why I cannot adopt this scheme at the moment. One of the immediate problems that will be created by a contributory scheme, is that after the introducing of such a scheme the present system will have to remain in existence next to it for a very long time and will even have to be improved from time to time. The more than 100,0 pensioners whom we have at the moment and the considerable number of people who are close to the retiring age at present, would after all not be able to make a substantial contribution to such a scheme. Therefore, all these additional people would have to be carried by the present scheme until such time as the new scheme was introduced. The taxpayer would therefore have to pay twice as much in order to carry the present and the new scheme. In considering that, one realizes that there will be major problems ahead for us if we want to undertake this task.

Now I want to explain to hon. members the fifth and last reason why I say that this scheme cannot be undertaken at present. South Africa is different from other countries, and we can not get away from that. We are, according to this side of the House, a multi-national community, and according to the Opposition side of the House we are a multi-racial community. For these purposes it does not make any difference whether we are regarded as being multi-national or multi-racial by whosoever; the fact remains that we are dealing here with a large number of people, especially the large number of non-Whites. One can imagine what it would mean if one wanted to extend the scheme to the non-Whites of South Africa. Are the United Party in favour of such a scheme for the Whites alone, or are they in favour of a scheme for everybody? In that case it would mean that one would have to make contributions and carry the scheme in respect of Whites and non-Whites. Can hon. members imagine the tremendous organization involved in the collection and payment of these funds to the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians throughout South Africa?

You could introduce a separate scheme for Bantu.

There may well be separate schemes.

What about workmen’s compensation and unemployment benefits?

Yes, but the administration of this scheme is going to be a task of tremendous dimensions. I want to be honest. My honest opinion is that at the moment it is impracticable to undertake such a scheme. For that reason I want to say that I do not agree with the hon. member. We are not prepared to do it now.

The second argument advanced by the hon. member, was in respect of the collection of money by way of a State lottery. Now, I want to say at once—and I want to state the official standpoint of the Government, as it has been stated over all these years—that this Government is not in favour of gambling whereby a person may enrich himself in an immoral manner. Irrespective of the amount of money which may be derived from it, it is wrong and immoral in principle. We are not prepared to yield to this principle. We believe that one has to live by the sweat of one’s brow. This party and this Government stand by that principle. We shall continue to stand by it. We are not prepared to yield to any pressure whatever in this regard. [Interjections.] I am making it very clear. While I am dealing with this theme, I may as well add something at once. In this whole debate up to now this Opposition has only been singing one tune, one single tune, and that is materialism, materialism as the only criterion. Everybody should be given more and there should be-fewer and fewer taxes. Everybody has to get more, for instance the pensioners; the salaries of public servants have to be increased and the farmers have to be granted more assistance: the subsidies that are being given, are insufficient. Everything has to be increased, but the taxes are to be dealt with in a different way.

Sir, precisely, this is the party of opportunism which simply promises the world, for it knows it will never be called upon to carry these things into effect. We believe unconditionally that there are values, other than material values, which have to serve as a guide to one’s character and to the soul of the people. Let me say at once, before I am misinterpreted again, that one may not neglect the economy or curb it unnecessarily, but the economy should not be the decisive factor in all circumstances. There are certain other factors which are stronger and carry more weight with a nation.

Is gambling on horses immoral?

Yes, I shall reply to that immediately. That is one of the cases which exists at the moment, and the Government is. not prepared to suspend an existing business from which numerous people are making their living. The point is that we cannot take it away, but we are not prepared to make a second mistake by introducing a State lottery.

But I want to devote the rest of my speech to pensions. As the Minister in charge of Social Welfare and Pensions I want to say that my Department only deals with the pensions and the social welfare of Whites. My Department does not deal with non-Whites. The non-Whites are dealt with by the various Ministers. I want to say at once that the impression was created here in general that we as the Government—and this is being broadcast all over the world—had done nothing or very little for our aged, and if the Opposition came into power, they would do all that was necessary. That is the impression which is being created. Nothing but a wild psychosis is being created; an assertion is made and blazoned abroad, and now one has to defend it all of a sudden. That assertion is made without any evidence whatever to support it.

I want to lay down, first of all, two basic concepts, and then I want to make an analysis of the situation. In the first place, I want to say at once—and I say this on the strength of the conviction I have gained after having been Minister of this specific portfolio for two years—that no government in any country in the world can ever do enough for its aged. That is impossible. They are the people who, in difficult and in hard times, laid the foundations of the economy, of politics, of agriculture and of the society on which we have built to-day a splendid, flourishing South Africa. They laid these foundations, and for as long as we live we can never—irrespective of the form in which we want to grant assistance to them in repayment of or in exchange for their services to the country and the nation—compensate them sufficiently for what they did. This is my first basic concept. Secondly, we believe that our people themselves have enough backbone not to want to receive only, but that during the productive years of their lives our people want to make provision for their old age, as every person makes provision for his old age, and that, in some way or other, they want to find for themselves a place of refuge for the time when they will no longer be able to earn their own keep. It is the driving force and the whole motive behind the labours of man that he will be there, to do what? To provide for himself and his family for the present, to have the necessary means for giving his children a proper education and background enabling them to make their own way in life, and in some way or other to set aside enough money so that when he is no longer able to pull his full weight, be it because of ill health or whatever other circumstances there may be, he will have something on which he can fall back in his old age. This is the whole purpose of life, and this is something we should not break down or take away.

For that reason the Government’s standpoint is very clear, i.e. that we back private pension schemes and encourage them as far as possible. We are granting every assistance we can, and in addition to that we say that in cases where, owing to circumstances, a person cannot provide for his own needs and cannot maintain the necessary standard of living, it is the duty and the task of the State to add, as an auxiliary service, what such a person needs. For that reason the pensions should be regarded as supplementary and not as providing for every need. This is the crux of the matter. That is why we need a means test, and that is why we can only deal with the matter in this way.

The Government can only cut the coat according to the cloth. The purse determines every person’s standard of living. At the end of the month it determines what it can spare for this or that purpose, and in exactly the same way the purse of the Minister of Finance is subjected to thorough analysis at the end of each budget, when it is being determined what can be set aside for each sector. I just want to mention a few figures to prove that we are doing what we can, and what the result would be if we were to do more. An increase of R5 a month to our old-age pensioners, i.e. from R35 to R40, would mean an additional expenditure of R9.3 million. If we were to be increased to R50 a month, a figure we have heard people mention as being reasonable, the additional expenditure would be R28,172,000.

What was the surplus this year?

The surplus is also needed for many other purposes. Stop trying to catch me out on this situation. We consider and determine what is necessary in order of preference, and this figure is very clear: For this purpose there would have to be an additional R28 million, which would have to come from the pockets of the taxpayers. If you were to tell me that you were prepared to give all of this to our aged, I should like to analyse that matter. The other argument which I want to add immediately, is that once one has awarded a pension and fixed a certain amount as the minimum, one cannot in all fairness reduce that amount again; then one has to leave it as it is. In other words, it may seem possible to do so during this financial year, but as a Government one cannot commit oneself to continually adjusting those amounts in all the other years. After all, one cannot take some of this away again. But let me make this clear. I do not want to hurt the Opposition unnecessarily, but I want to analyse what they did in the days when they had the opportunity to do what they are holding up to us to do to-day.

After all, we also fought a war.

I just want to show how the United Party handled this situation. Let us analyse it a little. The pension was introduced by the National Government in 1928, and at that stage the amount was fixed at R6 a month.

Who was in power at the time?

The National Party, but at that stage a pound was still a pound and the economy was different. [Interjections.] In 1928 it was R6 a month, and then, 20 years later, in 1948 …

What was it in 1938?

The figure? That is a very stupid question. It is between the two figures. But in 1948—when we took over, 20 years had elapsed, and during those 20 years the United Party under General Hertzog or General Smuts was in power more or less all the time—we find that the old-age pension was R10 a month. That was the increase in 20 years’ time under United Party regime, an increase of R4 a month after 20 years. Every five years they gave R1 a month, and then they criticize us for having given a R1 increase in two years.

That was almost 100 per cent.

Let us proceed. In 1948 the National Government took over. At that stage the pension was R10 a month. If I take the consumer index as 100 in the year 1947-’48, we arrive at the following figures: From 1948 to 1955 the consumer index rose from 100 to 147.4; in other words, an increase of 47.4 per cent in the consumer index. Over the same period pensions under this Government increased from R10 to R21 a month, an increase of 110 per cent as against an increase of 47.4 per cent in the consumer index. Then, again, I took the year 1958 as basis with a consumer index of. 100, and I caused the increase in the consumer index and in the pensions to be calculated as from that date. The pension was R21 a month in 1958, and we took the consumer index in that year as being 100. From 1958 the consumer index increased to 128 in 1969; in other words, an increase of 28 per cent. During that period the pensions increased from R21 to R33, an increase of 57.14 per cent; since then another R2 was added and the pension amounts to R35 at the moment. In other words, the pension did not only increase, but it also outstripped the rise in the consumer index, and all the arguments of the hon. member about the economy which was different, the devaluation of money and the depreciation of money, come a cropper in the light of these few simple figures.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the fact that the national income in 1948 was R1,400 million and in 1968 R9.000 million, there has been a corresponding rise in pensions?

Sir, the figures the hon. member is quoting here, are his own figures; I do not know whether they are correct or incorrect. In the first instance, they have nothing to do with this matter, but, in the second instance, these figures are in fact perfect proof of how South Africa has prospered under the National Government. It was possible for the national income to rise to this extent, because the necessary confidence prevailed. Sir, hon. members should not waste my time, please.

Apart from these concessions, at great number of other steps were taken. There was, first of all, the relaxation of the means test. In the first place, unemployment insurance benefits were left out of account since we came into power. In the second place, if a person is still farming, his income from farming is only calculated on R144 a year, if he is married. In the third place, in the case of a married couple where the husband cannot work or has a small income on account of ill health or age and where the wife is the breadwinner, only one-sixth of her earnings are taken into account in the calculation of her husband’s pension— a further concession and relaxation of the means test. In the fourth place, as far as subsistence allowances are concerned, only half the income is taken into account in the case of a single person, such as a widow with dependent children. Last year we effected a further relaxation, which makes it possible for a married couple to earn R72 a month before the means test is applied.

Sir, I am hurrying myself as my time is running short. Sir, what was the result of this relaxation of the means test? The result is that we now have many more pensioners and many more beneficiaries than ever before, for the lowering of the means test means that more people are qualifying for these allowances. In 1948 old-age pensions were paid out to 65,000 people, in round figures; in 1969 old-age pensions were paid out to 104,000. The number of pensions for veterans increased from 13,000 to 18,000. Originally disability grants were paid out to 10,000 people and are now being paid out to 19,000. In 1948 subsistence allowances were paid out to 6.400 people and are now being paid out to 12,000; under United Party regime family allowances were paid out to 940 people and are now being paid out to 2,045 people. The aggregate number of beneficiaries has increased from 98,000 in 1948 to 161,000 under the present set-up. Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the matter at that.

I should just like to make an analysis of the old-age pensions. At the moment 104,896 people are receiving old-age pensions in South Africa. Of this number 94,000—i.e. all but 10,000 of them—are receiving the maximum pension of R35. Of these persons 24,000 own fixed property, and in spite of that they receive the maximum pension. Only 3,634 of the 104,000 old-age pensioners do not receive the maximum pension because of the income and assets they have. Let us look at another concession, i.e. the question of a delayed pension. If a person delays his application for a pension for one year, he receives an additional R4 a month; if he delays it for four years, he receives an additional R10 a month. This means that the maximum of R35 becomes R45 in such a case, and if he requires permanent, medical aid, he may receive an additional R10—a total, therefore, of R55. On this basis, therefore, two persons may jointly receive R110 a month in the form of a pension, which is more than the salaries earned by some people at the moment.

These are the facts. I do not want to discuss all the other aspects now; I have already referred to the concessions made at the beginning of this year. There is one figure which, in conclusion, I just want to give to the House. The total capital provision for the establishment of old-age homes over the past five years, amounted to R11,850,000; during the United Party régime it did not amount to one single cent. Then there is another figure I want to give: During the year 1960-’61 provision was made for R387,000 in respect of interest subsidies; this year provision is being made for R2,321,000; social pensions and allowances, old-age pensions, etc.: During 1960-’61 the amount was R42,761; at present it is R65 million; child care, maintenance of children and their parents, etc., children’s homes allowances: R4,174,000 in 1959; at present it is R13 million.

Sir, I want to conclude. The generalization was made that we were not doing enough for our people. I admit that no government will ever be able to do enough for its people, but this National Government has not left its aged in the lurch.

Sir, the only statement that we can accept from the Minister which could justify anything that he has said during the course of his address, is his statement that no Government can do enough for its aged. I am very happy that he agrees with us but we are completely dissatisfied with his assertion that this Government has done the tremendous amount he boasts it has done. The fundamental fact is that R35 per month is absolutely inadequate to enable any person to live decently. Unless he is accommodated in a home for the aged where he has the advantage of a minimal rent, no aged person can exist on R35 per month in these days, and a Government which has been in power for 22 years should have realized that with the advance of science people live longer and longer and that additional provision should have been made for the ever-increasing number of aged persons. I say once again that without the assistance of homes for the aged to ensure that these people have a roof over their heads at a minimum rental, they cannot possibly live on R35 per month.

It was R10 in 1948.

Sir, other countries have adopted all sorts of schemes, but all have done so with the object of increasing the pensions payable to people, in recognition of the principle that no Government can do sufficient for its aged persons. Let me point out that the United Party Opposition has for some years now suggested a contributory pension scheme and it has suggested ways and means of introducing such a scheme. If the Government felt, for reasons which I maintain are not sound, that it could not accept such a scheme, it should of its own volition have fashioned another scheme to ensure better pensions for the aged. In that sense the Government has failed lamentably; nobody can deny it. The public outside accept that the Government has failed lamentably to look after its aged. The Minister said that if we were to initiate a contributory pension scheme a considerable sum of money would have to be tied up over a certain period for the transition stage. Well, Sir, that is taking place every day in private pension schemes, where capital sums are ensured for the tide-over period to look after the present pensioners and to enable the scheme to be established. In every private scheme it has been proved that it has more than overtaken the capital expenditure or any losses that might have been incurred in that bridging period. A Government who wishes to face up responsibly to the situation should have taken steps over a period of time to provide the necessary capital for the bridging period and in that way bring about a dynamic change of approach to the problem of the aged. Therefore I do not think that any of the reasons given by the hon. the Minister can be of any value whatsoever. But let me go further and tell him that he has dismissed lotteries as being immoral, because it is a form of gambling. Well, we have a sister country, Australia—a very great country with whom we are seeking to maintain the most friendly and happy relations. Well, that country has a lottery system under which the most fantastic hospitals, hospitals which look after the health of the entire community, have already been built. With the aid of this system many other unbelievable things have been established and yet this has had less effect on the morals of the people than gambling. Rhodesia does the same thing, but I should like to quote Australia, a country which is a great country and similar to us in every sense. But yet this is dismissed by the hon. the Minister. At the same time he says that racing should remain because it is there. That is very poor reasoning on the part of the Minister for rejecting a contributory pension scheme. The Minister also talked about materialism. Well, let us be perfectly frank. What is the purpose of the Budget? What is the purpose of the revenue the Minister wishes to collect? What is the purpose of the expenditure he asks this House to approve? The object is to look after the welfare of the community and that is done through material means. The entire Budget debate is directed at the material means which the Minister is seeking in order to ensure the welfare of the State, and the welfare of the State encompasses defence, care of the aged, housing, transport and many other factors necessary to maintain a civilized community, a modern state. Consequently the efforts of the Opposition are aimed at showing the Government where it has erred and where it has taken a wrong road in its budgetary proposals. For instance, we are not satisfied with the use the hon. the Minister of Finance is making of the Loan Account. We know that capital required for capital works have to be repaid over a period because it is not only the generation of the moment that enjoys the benefits flowing from it but also generations to come. Capital moneys, therefore, have to be repaid over a redemption period of maybe ten, 15, 20 or 30 years, within one generation or perhaps over two generations. Here we find that because of other factors which interfere with what we consider to be the welfare of the community, a new system of raising capital moneys has been resorted to by taking not only the enormous surplus of the past year but the surplus of the year to come, for which provision is made in the capital funds, and the tapping of the reserves of past surpluses. He has taken a total of over R400 million out of the pockets of the taxpayers, which consists of surpluses from his taxation, to meet the expenditure of the country and put it to Loan Account. Thus the present community pays for something which will be enjoyed in years to come. That is entirely in conflict with the whole object of loan accounts and the development of a country.

I should like to come to another aspect which I regard as important for the welfare of the community, and that is the question of housing. I believe that a lot of assertions have been made by the hon. Minister of Community Development and others to the effect that there is no crisis and that the backlog in housing will be caught up very easily and does not really exist. In fact, the Minister has stated this year that within three years the whole problem will disappear entirely. Interestingly enough we found that the period suggested in the address of the State President at the opening of Parliament was a period of seven years. The State President said in his address that “die bedoelde ontwikkeling binne sewe jaar afgehandel kan wees”. The objective of the development could be attained within a period of seven years. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that although he may have satisfied certain centres throughout the country, there are big centres which are still suffering very severely from this problem of housing and there is a crisis period. I am going to draw his attention to one particular aspect of the matter, namely the rentals which must be charged on the present basis of financing these buildings which are built either by his Department or by local authorities. I want to say that these rentals are completely out of proportion to the formula which socio-economic rules lay down. I give as an example the urban renewals scheme in Johannesburg which I think is the first large renewal scheme in this country. I may point out that the question of urban renewal is something which is occupying the attention of practically every large municipality throughout the world. It is a big problem in the United States of America and an important problem in Britain and on the Continent. Everyone is concerned with many factors, such as the costs that are involved in building these structures, the question of rentals, financing, the ability of people to pay the rentals and the group for which it is to be provided. In most cases it is provided for the lower and middle income groups. It has one essential basis, namely that urban renewal should be to rehouse the community who are for the moment displaced to enable the urban renewal to take place. I find in the answers the hon. the Minister has given me in reply to certain questions that in the case of the first scheme in Jeppes, which is the constituency I have the honour and privilege to represent, the rentals will be on the basis of R70 to R90 per month. That will mean that people even in the highest category for which this housing is provided, that is, people earning up to R300 per month, will be virtually disfranchised from occupying these houses because if they were to pay a rental of 20 per cent, namely R60 per month, they would still be priced right out of this scheme as the rentals will be between R70 and R90 per month.

Then the Johannesburg Municipality has embarked on a further scheme as the agent of the Department, and correctly so. It is going to provide housing at rentals of R55 to R63 per month in the lower category and R66 to R83 per month in the higher category.

Could you repeat the first figure you gave?

In terms of the economic rent scheme of the Johannesburg City Council which will be provided from the funds of the commission, the estimated rentals will be R55 to R63 per month for flats and R66 to R83 per month for houses. One of the main difficulties which have to be met is, as I have said, firstly, the question of finance and, secondly, the question of the method of construction in order to bring about some balance so that your costs will be able to meet rentals which are economic in the interests of the people for whom the housing is being provided. In the case of the scheme which the Johannesburg Municipality proposes, we find that a tender of approximately R900,000 was accepted but that the figure that was laid down by the Department was R871.000 as well as a further sum of R33,000. When, after discussing the matter with the Department with regard to certain details, the council wanted to accept the tender, it found that the tenderer had withdrawn his tender because costs had gone up in the meantime and he could not proceed with that particular tender. Furthermore, the council found that because it had to cover the cost of the land which was not included in the amount provided by the National Housing Commission, the scheme would cost very much more than the actual amount provided by the Department of Community Development. Therefore the rentals had to be increased. The rentals were very much higher than that which should be allowed. That problem was dealt with by the council when the matter came before its monthly meeting. The matter was sent back to the management committee together with the following resolution—

That resolution was passed unanimously by a council which as you know Sir, is politically controlled. Both sides of the council accepted this resolution.

That then brings me to the point I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In most countries of the world, and particularly in the U.S.A., the cost of land which is regarded as expensive in urban renewal schemes because it is within a town, is subsidized by the Government to the extent of one-third and in some cases in the U.S.A. even to the extent of two-thirds. In Holland the same applies. Those are two cases of which I know. Furthermore, the redemption period of the loan which is granted by the authority to enable the houses to be built is 60 to 80 years and not, as we do, a period of 30 years for an economic loan and 40 years for a sub-economic loan. We have on many an occasion in this House, particularly with regard to building society loans, asked for the period of redemption to be extended because that would assist in making the repayments lower per month over the longer period. We on this side of the House believe that the time has come for the Government to take notice of the continued increase in building costs and the difficulty of changing the conventional method of building which has not been an easy task, and so help to meet these spiralling rentals, thereby assisting these people who cannot afford these rentals in relation to their salaries. The rentals will go far beyond what is laid down by the socio-economic formula. The Government must therefore help by subsidizing the cost of the land and extending the period of the loan.

You know of course that the conventional method of building is still the cheapest.

Yes, perhaps. But in many countries it has been found that the conventional method of building—and I do not know whether they consider it the cheapest method—whilst it is the current method of building, still warrants research in order to find other methods of building, firstly, to reduce costs and, secondly, as the hon. the Minister has rightly pointed out, to overcome the time lag.

To cut down time and labour but not costs.

I can refer the hon. the Minister to an address which was given in New York on this very subject.

The other factor to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is that he should also deal with the question of the ceiling on earnings. There should be a differentiation between the bigger and the smaller cities. In effect, the National Housing Commission deals with only 30 to 40 municipalities to any extent. There may be other municipalities they deal with, but they do not really come into the picture. To any material extent, they deal with only 30 to 40 municipalities. R300 per month, which is an overall figure for the whole of the Republic, may be a great deal of money in a small town, but in Johannesburg it is an entirely different matter. We have the position now where people are being asked to leave national houses because their incomes has improved by as little as R5 or R10 per month. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of this. These are all factors which are important, and for which some provision should have been made in this Budget.

Even if the amount is increased, we will always have that problem.

Yes, but at a certain level of earnings, people can obtain housing them-selves. They can seek loans. We are here helping the lower and the middle income groups. Furthermore, I should like to bring the following matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Once before, I think, he threw the name of Lenasia across the House. He was speaking of providing houses at Lenasia costing about R5,500 to R6,000. He said that they were being sold at a repayment of R35 to R40 per month. I want the hon. the Minister to know that I have had a look at those houses at Lenasia. The only reason why he can do that is because the ground is outside the municipal area. The ground is acquired very much more cheaply, and proves the case I have been trying to put to him, namely that unless you subsidize ground in urban renewal schemes, you will have to go very far afield if you are to measure up the value of ground, together with building costs, as against the rental which you are to charge.

Prices of between R5,000 and R6,000 are applicable not only in Lenasia. Those prices are applicable in Johannesburg and all over the Witwatersrand.

The Minister is correct, Sir, but the value of the land there adds to the overall cost of the building. The figure of R5,500 to R6,000 is the limit for the cost of a dwelling under the National Housing Scheme, and when that figure is fixed, no survey fees or architect’s fees are taken into account, and neither is any account taken of the cost of the land. That is the most important thing.

Of course the land is taken into consideration.

Well, that is important. Under the scheme in Johannesburg the land is costing a quarter million rand, so the price will not include the cost of the land. Is that correct?

That includes the cost of the land.

Yes, but it does not make provision for the land.

Of course it makes provision for the land.

Yes, I follow the Minister’s argument. It makes provision for the land in the sense that the figure of R5.000 or R6.000 includes the cost of building and the cost of the land.

Yes.

So, if the land were to cost R4,000, what are you going to build?

You do not build that type of house on that land.

Exactly. Therefore municipalities buy the land. They go to the National Housing Commission for the funds. They receive the funds and they pay for the land, but they have to include the cost of that land in the redemption moneys.

Of course.

Therefore the rents are too high.

You ask Lionel Murray.

No, Sir. I have it here in black and white. Mr. Lionel Murray will not help me here. We know that the figure is added to the cost. It is the only method by which the money can be repaid. The hon. the Minister knows this. He cannot argue himself out of that point. You cannot build a house in Johannesburg to-day for R5,000 or R6,000, inclusive of the cost of land, in which anyone can live in at any standard at all.

I can bring you hundreds of examples.

Yes, but only in Lenasia, where the cost of land is almost minimal as opposed to the cost of land in Johannesburg. It is not only in Johannesburg where the prices are higher. This argument is applicable in any urban renewal scheme throughout the country. My point is that the urban renewal schemes throughtout the country are all close to the centres of the cities. You will see that in the reports on all the countries in the world. The United States is subsidizing for a purpose, because it cannot rehouse unless it subsidizes the cost of the land. If the hon. the Minister maintains that he is going to build houses costing R5,000 to R6,000 inclusive of the cost of land, and that he is going to make those houses available to people in cities, I defy him to build a house of any standing at all. And he knows it better than I do.

I can show you thousands.

Thousands, where?

In Benoni, Jeppes and Johannesburg.

No, Sir. You may be talking about houses that were built years ago.

Those houses are being built right, left and centre.

The hon. the Minister can reply to me. I do not want to carry on *a running conversation at the moment. Experience has shown that if your were to build a house to-day of 1,400 square feet at, say, building costs of R3 per foot, which is almost impossible, this already amounts to R4,200. You cannot build at R3 per foot. What about the services and the cost of the land? These things do not come from the heavens. They have to be financed from some source. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example of this scheme at Vrededorp. In Vrededorp the municipality placed at the disposal of the department certain land adjoining Vrededorp. The old compound was cleared and they built some houses there within the limit provided. Despite the fact that the ground cost the council very little, the rental is now 33 or 35 per cent of the income of the would-be tenant who is to be rehoused. The result is that “the people of Vrededorp are not moving into these houses. They are remaining in the old places of this projected urban renewal scheme and looking for accommodation elsewhere. The hon. the Minister knows that very well too.

I do not know it at all.

If he does not then he has not been fully informed. His own colleagues on the Johannesburg City Council were unanimous in the approval of a resolution that some other form of subsidy be sought from the Government in order to assist them in this form of housing. They suggested some other basis of subsidy and that the period of repayment be extended beyond 30 years. Surely the hon. the Minister should know as much as they know about it. The vital factor is that the cost of a structure is burdened with the cost of land acquisition and the building which must be demolished.

Now, this is the point which I want to put to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The sacrifice which the Government will make in aiding the rebuilding and rehabilitation of a specified limited experimental area—and this is what I would like him to do—by donating the cost of the land will be infinitesimal compared with the resultant urban renewal factor namely the incentive to private capital to begin to invest and rebuild around these renewed areas. The hon. the Minister knows that one of the great advantages of a well planned and well financed urban renewal scheme is that the private sector is encouraged to provide businesses, other forms of dwellings and generally to liven up and to renew almost the entire sector of the city. I can only talk about the first urban renewal schemes in the country, namely in Jeppes. In reply to questions put to him, the hon. the Minister gave explanations in regard to two schemes. I can tell him right now that the people for whom that urban renewal has been provided cannot afford to pay the rentals. It is also going to create considerable hardship to the people who have been displaced, namely the lower and middle income groups, the working people of that area. The purpose of the scheme was to provide homes which these people could afford to live in and where they could feel comfortable. They cannot do so. That is an important factor in the entire question of housing. I am not interested in how long the hon. the Minister will take to clear up the backlog. I am interested in the fact that his methods at the moment will lead us into a great deal of difficulty and trouble that will cause a great deal of hardship to the community. His objective is to find a solution for a section of the community but no provision is made in the Budget for that purpose. That is why I appeal to the hon. the Minister to answer us on that question so that the people will know where they stand.

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Jeppes had the same materialistic undertones as that of all the other speeches made by hon. members on that side of the House during this debate. Although the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions had just indicated to that hon. member what was being done in this regard, he actually rose to his feet again and advocated a welfare state. The Minister made it very clear to the hon. member that where help was needed, this Government did not hesitate to give it. Every member in this House can testify to the fact that if an individual needs help, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions gives it to him. We are very grateful for that. The hon. member also referred again to the question of housing and the high costs involved. He related that to the cost of living.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point. He made two statements in particular which interest me. The first statement was that salary adjustments for public servants are only made when the shoe begins to pinch. He also argued that more non-Whites should be employed in the Public Service. At the same time he also advocated an increased measure of automation and mechanization. What this will in actual fact lead to is that there will be fewer white officials and more non-white officials in the posts which will have to be vacated as a result of mechanization and automation. As is usually the case with Opposition members, the hon. member was also being vague again when he came forward with that drastic idea of replacing white public servants. He advocated the employment of more non-Whites in the public service generally, without specifying anything. He failed to say in what posts in the public service he would have employed these non-Whites in the place of Whites. He did not say whether they should be employed in typists’ posts. He did not say whether they should be employed in administrative or accounting posts. I think what the hon. member had in mind was that non-Whites should be employed so that they can look after the files of Whites in the registration offices. I just want to tell the hon. member that we on this side of the House will inform our voters of this. In the same way as the United Party through its policy wants to cause the white workers to degenerate into permanently indigent people so that they can be used as voting cattle, they continually want to cause the public servant to degenerate to that position. The hon. member is using the question of salaries to incite officials in a cheap attempt to attract votes for the Provincial Election. It is a very transparent plan. I can, however, give him the assurance to-day that our public servants are not so shortsighted. Has that hon. member ever asked himself what the true reasons are for the increase in the cost of living which is proving so burdensome to his people and mine? I do not think he. or his panty, have ever sat down and thought deeply about this question of the increase in cost of living which they are emphasizing to such an extent for propagandistic purposes. The hon. member for Vasco indicated here yesterday afternoon that South Africa was one of the three Western countries where the cost of living was showing the slowest increase. The other two Western countries are Western Germany and the United States of America. This was due to the control measures and the well-planned Budgets of our Government. This hon. opposition does not say a word about that, however, because they do not want the voters to know about it. What is it then that has caused some of the people to land themselves in the financial hardships in which some of them find themselves? Has the Opposition ever thought about that? Have they ever come forward with something positive to expose this unbridled exploitation of the consumer masses? No, they are merely asking for salary increases in order to be popular. They are, however, afraid to grasp the scorpion by its tail. Take for example metrication, which is now in full swing. Just as happened with the change-over to the decimal coinage system, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has already been forced to reprimand certain sectors of commerce severely and regularly during the past few weeks. I want to give hon. members a typical example of this systematic exploitation of our consumer masses toy certain sectors of our commerce. Here I have two tins of oil which I bought last week. The one is a metricated tin and the other is the old pint tin. Both were bought as recently as last week in Bellville at a price of 22 cents per tin. Now that hon. member can see for himself how much less there is in the one tin than in the other, although both are being sold at a price of 22 cents. Now I want to ask the hon. member, if 100,000 of these tins are sold per day throughout the country for a week, will it not toe an enormous amount which has to come, unfairly, out of the pocket of the consumer into the pocket of the producer?

What is the Government doing about it?

I am asking the hon. Opposition for what reason they do not object to practices of this kind? [Laughter.] That is the kind of thing they laugh about, but I have never heard them objecting to this kind of thing which happens frequently. I shall tell hon. members why they never object. They Want our people to have a hard time of it so that they can toe used as cheap voting cattle in the elections. For that reason therefore they are beginning to concentrate on bread-and-butter matters in their election campaigns. It is for that reason that they are advocating cheap Bantu labour, because they want to replace the Whites. It is for that reason that they are advocating the employment of non-white public servants, because they want to create dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Whites. I want to mention to hon. members further examples of exploitation, examples of those things which make it impossible for the lower and middle class salaried man to subsist. It is for those things that this Government is, for the sake of convenience, regularly blamed in their election propaganda. A few newspapers, including the Star and Die Vaderland, have recently gone into the question of the increasing cost of living, and have done valuable work. Here is an example which appeared the other day: “Refrigerators and stoves cost up to R50 more without any reason”.

What about tape recording equipment?

I should like to reply to that hon. voter of mine with a quotation from the Sunday Times. I quote—

I want to mention another case which was reported last week in Die Vaderland. It is of a new motor which a consumer bought and in which 37 factory defects were identified within the first week. So we can go on. Now it is a pleasure for me as a representative of a consumers’ constituency to observe the positive reaction of our consumers in this country. They are, together with the Government, doing something positive and something permanent about it, something which will serve to benefit both Whites and non-Whites, will serve to benefit, unfortunately, the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, and will serve to benefit the responsible groups in commerce, for undoubtedly these groups do exist. There are among them those who are responsible people. They know that the individual is for the most part helpless in the face of this exploitation. They know that it is not the task of the Ministers of Finance and their Department to play the role of policeman at every shop to ensure that there is no price exploitation. That is surely a question of impossibility. Under the guidance of the existing women’s organizations, the National Consumers Council, the Bureau of Standards, such organizations as the Coordinating Council of Trade Unions, the Teachers’ Associations, the Nursing Association and almost all our white staff associations and trade unions, and after a probing study and consultations on a high level during the past few months, a blueprint has been drawn for the formation of a co-ordinating consumer council which it is hoped will function with generous state assistance as an effective co-ordinating point for all consumer interests. The final recommendations are before our hon. Ministers for consideration and if they are approved, the consumer will have created for himself an instrument, together with a sympathetic Government, to form the medium to protect himself. This is an important martter, and one in the interests of the country, on which the consumers are working and which has up to now been wonderfully supported by a large group of organizations in realizing this ideal. That is why I should very much like to ask members on the opposite side to stop being so flippant about the question of the cost of living or to exploit the problem in order to win votes. They should rather assist in helping this project of the consumers to succeed. In this way they will be making a permanent contribution tc the solution of our problem.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to express a word of thanks for the way in which hon. members treat one here and sometimes also maltreat one a little. It is my task to represent a densely populated constituency of the City of Pretoria here, and it is my sincere and earnest intention to serve the constituency of Innesdal and to look after the interests of all its inhabitants to the best of my ability.

I want to give the House a brief description of my constituency, so that a clear idea can be formed of it. However, before doing so, I just want to express a word of thanks to my predecessor for any constructive contribution made by him in this House. Before continuing, I want to mention two aspects in connection with which I am conveying this brief but sincere message to the House. A certain social scientist pointed out that one of the basic characteristics of truly successful community development is related to the extent to which members of the community concerned identify themselves with the community process and benefit in respect of their feeling of security and of their own worth, sound mutual relationships and the ability to help themselves. In a certain document of the U.N. it is also postulated and strongly emphasized that the concept of “community development” contains two essential elements. The first is the principle that members of any particular community must themselves actively take part in the development of their own community, and the second is that there must be an external body which is sufficiently interested in the weal and woe of the community concerned and wants to assist it by word and deed. Usually the latter is the local authority or the central authority under which that community falls. It is therefore clear that two main conditions for community development are a willing and active community and a sympathetic authority. By these means a vital, happy and full-fledged community can be built up. Fortunately for us in South Africa, both these elements are present.

In moving to the cities, the Whites took along their most important assets and foundation stones, namely their religion, their children, their languages and their character. In order to develop these treasures, churches were built, schools demanded and received, and principles set and maintained, and champions and social leaders came to the fore. Concentrated communities were formed and mutual good relations, mutual respect and cooperation came into being. My constituency is one of these communities.

Sir, in the process of growth one to-day finds in Innesdal, which consists of five large, densely populated suburbs, fifteen churches and congregations, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, which look after the spiritual welfare of the inhabitants and contribute sympathetically to a holy respect for and recognition of each group’s cultural possessions. Moreover, one finds there eight primary schools, four secondary schools and one technical high school, which are fed by children in this area, as well as more than 200 teachers, who are responsible for developing the minds and for the education of the youth in the respective language media. The relations between the parents, the teachers and pupils are equal to the very best, both in the classrooms and as far as extra-mural activities are concerned. If there is a shortcoming, I have to mention it, and this is that there is a need for recreation grounds for the large number of young people, because not enough were planned from the start.

A large number of students go to universities from this area and others take correspondence courses further to equip themselves for the future. This is a community of which it can truly be said that it helps itself. The great truth of a healthy mind in a healthy body applies only too well to this constituency. In this respect a sports federation with its ten affiliated kinds of sport renders excellent service. As far as the society itself is concerned, I must say that it is very widely represented. In the private sector you find members of every conceivable profession, such as engineers, architects, professors, doctors, medical doctors, teachers, from the highest to the most humble profession or occupation. As regards the Government services, the Police, the Defence Force, Prisons and Railways, you find all grades and ranks from the highest to the lowest in the constituency, and all of them live together in harmony. However, we also find retired persons and other pensioners who, relatively speaking, are well or reasonably well provided for, with a few perhaps less well provided for. Some of these categories deserve particular attention from time to time, and it will also be my task to watch over their interests at all times.

A very important unit in the community is the home for the aged, which houses and provides both spiritual and physical care to more than 300 aged persons. Their interests, too, must always be looked after, and this is being done. They are a very happy community, and are not confined to the home in which they live, but are also looked after so that they can attend gatherings of a denominational nature or festivals such as national festivals, in that the community sees to it that they are supplied with transport, for which we are very grateful to this community. Assistance to and special interest in the aged and those in the lower income brackets and the pensioners will never be out of place, and such assistance will always be applied for and their interests will be looked after, as is, of course, rightly being done, because then we shall have a spontaneous and a happy community, the poor and the rich alike. We have just considered all the facets which contribute to the formation of a community, and in Innesdal you therefore find a well-balanced community, where authorities, churches, the community and the individual co-operate to achieve a mutual object, and eminently succeed in doing so. Innesdal comprises an area which consists mainly of private homes and in which families live in happy circumstances.

You, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members of the House know that it takes ages to become the proud owners of a communal home, to keep it intact and to retain it. Family circles, circles of friends and a sound community have been and are being built up here. In our task of community development, as a sociologist put it, apart from the many other aspects of the matter and the many problems involved, it would be the proper course, in the general planning of a residential community or township, always to strive to integrate the people of the lower income groups with the general community in such a way that they can also benefit from the social and cultural life of the more developed and well-to-do groups of the population; only then can subsidized housing make its proper contribution to the social development of the local as well as the national community. I repeat, Sir, we have this balance in Innesdal.

There is no more room or open building sites for further houses or schemes to be built by the State or local bodies. Money and loans which may be required in the future to maintain houses and to preserve them for longer periods will be very welcome. In any case, where assistance is rendered, I think I cannot put it better than a sociologist put it, i.e. that when assistance is rendered by authorities to people, it should always be done in such a way that it never undermines their self-respect and their sense of worth and responsibility. In this constituency we want to guard against Innesdal developing into a concrete jungle, and to ensure that the community is preserved intact, and with the interest shown by the State and the church and with the contribution made by the community itself, we shall see to it that this land which belonged to our fathers will be preserved for our children.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for the historic constituency of Innesdal on his maiden speech. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about his constituency and about the communal life in his constituency. It does my own heart good to hear an hon. member opposite talk in this vein. I hope he will have a happy time here and I am quite sure he will if he continues to talk on subjects of this nature. Once again I wish him well in his term of office in this House.

Before I deal with a particular subject, I should like to turn to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The Minister talked about the pensions position in 1928, as opposed to 1948, and he pointed out quite rightly that in 1928 pensioners got a good deal less in pensions than they do to-day, or did in 1948. But the hon. the Minister overlooked one very salient fact, namely that in 1928 and the years prior to that the whole social life of the community was vastly different. In those days the elderly people in a family stayed with the family; they grew older with the family, and as the result there were fewer old-age homes; there was less need for old-age homes. But over the years the high cost of living and the shortage of housing have tended to drive the old people out of their own family circle and as the result to-day we need more and more old-age homes, and in fact those we have have waiting lists which will take many months and possibly years to eliminate. So when the hon. the Minister quotes figures, figures that are correct, the hon. the Minister must remember that life and times were different then and what was good enough in 1928 for the Minister’s father and my father will not be accepted by him and me for very good reasons.

But what about 1948?

Yes, and in 1978, the famous year of the hon. the Minister, things will be entirely different from what they are now, and let us hope they will be. Sir, I do not have a great deal of time, but II should like to deal with one further aspect of what the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said. He said that ours was a materialistic policy. Well, that may or may not be so, but I would like to read an extract to him and I would like to ask him then whom is the materialistic party. This is an extract from List 29, Sales Duty Decisions. Item 13 of this reads as follows—

This item now has a sales duty of 10 per cent imposed on it. Sir, these paper poppies are used on one day of the year to commemorate the dead of two world wars, in most Western countries of the world, but the Government for some reason or another imposes a 10 per cent sales duty on them.

Penny-pinching.

The money collected in this way goes to charity. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister across the floor whether he agrees that a sales tax should be imposed on these poppies which you get on the street on one day of the year? Does he agree with it, yes or no? The hon. the Minister of Community Development is never frightened to say what he thinks. Does he agree that a sales tax should be imposed on poppies used on Armistice Day, one a year? [Interjections.] Sir, I am probably talking to the biggest poppy in the House. [Interjections.] On this one thing only he and I will perhaps agree this afternoon. Let me repeat what I said very slowly so that it can sink in: The Minister’s party has imposed a sales duty of 10 per cent on paper poppies issued on Armistice Day once a year. Does the hon. the Minister know what sort of thing I mean?

Yes. What about it?

Will the hon. the Minister, if I get hold of the Minister concerned, back my plea to have that stupid, mean, petty sales duty taken off?

I will do nothing to back a stupid …

If the Minister has not go the courage to back his Cabinet, let him say so. I believe that a Government that takes this sort of attitude is potty and that the public should know about it.

Sir, I am now going to quote an extract from a speech which contained very noble words indeed, words with which not a single member of this House could disagree. This is the usual long speech but i will read out just parts of it—

One can almost hear the cheers—

And note the words, Sir—

And then a. little later—

That is what I am doing now—

Sir, this speech was made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development not more than three or four days ago in Johannesburg. Note the words, Sir. Note the high-sounding words: “They must have an environment which gives them a feeling of security … blah, blah; they must discuss it openly with architects, designers, planners, psychiatrists and even representatives of the community.” Sir, I suggest that when these high-sounding and noble words are expressed by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, they are no more or less than the words of a hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker, I object to that.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrite”.

I withdraw the word, Sir, and may I say that the sincerity of the hon. the Minister of Community Development is second to anyone. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who the representatives of the community are with whom he discussed the reproclamation of Ladysmith? With which representatives of the Indian community did he discuss the reproclamation of Ladysmith? With which representatives of the white community, in this case, did he discuss the Riverside project when his Department robbed a number of white people of their homes? Sir, these are his words; he believes in discussing these things with representatives of the community. With which members of the community of District Six did he discuss the matter?

They are discussing it now with the State committee.

With which members of the community did the Minister discuss their problems when he declared 1,000 odd group areas? Sir, the hon. the Minister talks glibly in his speech of safety and of security. How much security was there in Riverside; how much security was there in Ladysmith, Isipingo, District Six and any other place you care to name? Sir, I pose this question: How much security is there for any member of this House or outside this House, whether he lives in Musgrave, Constantia, Hough-ton or anywhere else; how much security has he got against the tentacles of this Minister and his Department? I suggest, none whatsoever. By the stroke of a pen he can have any area proclaimed or deproclaimed as he sees fit. I believe that the time has come in South Africa when everybody, no matter his colour, should be warned against the tentacles of the Department and the harsh treatment that they are likely to receive if this Department ever decides to cast its eyes in their direction. Nowhere in the Western world will you find such a department, and the interesting thing is that nowhere outside the communist bloc will it be tolerated. Sir, the Minister of Community Development could probably be more aptly named the Commissar for Community Confusion.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “Commissar”.

I withdraw the word “Commissar”.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Sir, I will do so.

You enjoy all the security this country has to offer and you carry on like this.

Sir, I would now like to deal with specific areas. A part of Ladysmith was declared a white area in 1962. The Indian community, feeling that they had security and safety—the words used by the hon. the Minister—started to develop this new area of theirs. They had property worth a million rand and there were 500 people affected. Then in 1969 along comes the Minister’s Department, cracks the whip and declares a part of that particular area to be a white area.

You are talking nonsense; my Department has nothing to do with it.

Well, it seems strange, because I have a speech here by the hon. the Minister of Community Development in which he explains his actions in regard to Ladysmith. Now he says his Department has nothing to do with it.

It falls under the Department of Planning.

I know it does, but the hon. the Minister had something to do with it.

What have I got to do with it then?

I will quote the hon. the Minister’s speech to him if he likes. Sir, my time is limited but he said, to use his own words, “we use psychiatrists and we consult the community”. He consulted with the community so much so that he caused some of the churches in Ladysmith to say that in view of proclamation number So and So “this meeting considers the move to be immoral, inhuman and contrary to Christian principles”—this despite the Minister’s high-sounding words. It also caused—and this probably gives him more cause for alarm—the chairman of the Klip River District Council of the Nationalist Party to tender his resignation on the ground that it is absolutely wrong to give people something and then to take it away from them again. Sir, Ladysmith is just a chapter; the next one is Riverside, where the hon. the Minister’s Department—he was not the Minister at the time—expropriated certain European properties. The idea was that they were going to replan those properties. They offered certain amounts and most of the people were at the time not unhappy about those amounts. They did not, however, want to leave their homes, but the Minister in his speech says that security of homes is important. He should try to tell that to the people of Riverside. They will have something to say to him. What happened. Sir? After those homes had been expropriated for replanning, the department decided that they were not going to replan anyway, and that they would give the homes back to the people concerned. I then tabled a question in this House and asked the Minister what he had done about it. He said that everybody had been offered their homes back. I have the reply to my question, No. 12 of 24th February, 1970, right here. The Minister’s reply reads inter alia as follows (Hansard, Volume 28. column 1806) —

Sir, this is peculiar. I have statements here from the persons concerned, one of which reads as follows: “We were given to understand that we have to get out because our homes were to be demolished”. This home was in fact never demolished. I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it was sold at a colossal profit—to the profit of the Department of Community Development. Another statement reads as follows: “We were told to move in 1966 and until this day we have never had any communication from the department over it. They have never offered us an opportunity to buy the house back”. Mr. Speaker, the Minister in this House made a statement that every householder had been offered his home back. Here are people affected who say that that is not so. I ask you, Sir, in all honesty: What am I, as a member of the community, representing people, many of whom are voiceless, to believe? Do I believe the people who come to me and say one thing, or the Minister, who says another? This would be fine if the Minister stuck to what he said. This is unfortunately not the case, as I shall show in a moment.

Do not believe Winchester.

You may not believe me, but there are thousands and thousands of people in South Africa who do. I believe that the Minister has, knowingly or unknowingly, misled this House on a number of occasions. It may be because he gets the wrong information. I have often believed that that is the position, but if that is the position, then I suggest …

Order! The hon. member may not say that the Minister has misled the House knowingly. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw my statement that the Minister knowingly misled the House. He gets the wrong information …

Order! I want to warn the hon. member to moderate his language.

Sir, I want to suggest that if this sort of thing had happened in any other community, the Minister involved would have been dismissed. I want to leave the matter here and just ask the Minister once more: Which of the people at Riverside did he consult? He made a speech in Johannesburg, which was highly applauded. He used very noble words. I have said so, but I want to know which members of the community at Ladysmith he consulted.

They are being consulted in Riverside at the very moment.

I now come to another matter. I shall have to skip the hundreds of matters I have, but let us deal with Grey Street for just a minute. Grey Street is 95 per cent Indian-owned and is valued at R54 million. In 1962 the Indians were given an assurance that it would remain Indian-owned. In 1963 the previous Minister, Mr. Maree, said that Grey Street would remain and would be further developed as an Indian trading area. In 1964 this was repeated. In 1965 the then Minister of Planning repeated it. In 1969 a board comes along and says: “We are now reassessing the zoning of Grey Street”. Sir, there is a great deal of money involved. The livelihood of thousands of people in this area is involved. For nearly ten years, they have sat on tenterhooks, not knowing what to do. In reply to a question I put to the Minister of Planning recently, he said that he did not know when a decision was going to be made. This has meant that over the years the Grey Street area has deteriorated and is deteriorating rapidly into a slum. Perhaps I may be forgiven for suggesting that when it has deteriorated sufficiently, the department will come along and say: “We have to take this area away. There are now slum conditions. We are taking the area away and giving it to the white group”. There is not a single white person or community in Durban who says that the position of Grey Street should be different to what it is at present. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when the decision is going to be taken. He is not making the decision. I accept that, but if he has the interests of these people at heart, he will see that the decision is made early. Nearly ten years is long enough for anybody to make up his mind.

Then there is the matter of the shortage of land. We have heard so much about the high cost of housing and the high cost of land. Sir, the hon. the Minister’s department in the Queensborough area and Durban, owns 4,0 plots of land. I want to say to the Minister that if he were to release some of this land, and quickly, he would see the price of land falling in Durban. Young people who are struggling for their homes would then be able to get homes at reasonable prices. If they are short of homes, there sits the guilty Minister.

Aah!

Say “aah” if you like. Has the hon. member ever had to try to find homes for young people? Sir, we find time and time again that they cannot find homes. In the meantime there is plenty of land all over the place lying idle, land which is held by that department.

Go and speak to private enterprise as well.

I shall speak to private enterprise and I have. They have asked me to plead for this. In 1965 this department held R26 million’s worth of property in the four major cities excluding Pretoria, namely Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. In 1969, four years later, that holding has gone up to R50 million’s worth. They hold R50 million’s worth of property when we are short of property and plots.

I thought we had more.

The Minister will agree with me that the statement of his probably means that they in fact own a good deal more, or that the value of the property they hold is a good deal higher. Then the Minister says that the cost of housing is high. Of course it is high. That Department is sitting on the most valuable land in the country. In one year alone, last year, they bought R7 million’s worth of property from displaced persons and so on. They disposed of only R1.8 million’s worth of land. I repeat that if there is a shortage of land and houses in South Africa, let people who want these houses look at the Department of Community Development. They are sitting with the land. What happens to the profits from the land they hold? I have said it before, and I shall say it again, and if members on the other side do not like it they can lump it: This Department is the largest, the most heartless and the most ruthless estate agency in the world. It operates in a way in which no private enterprise could operate. If it encounters competition it merely passes a new law. During the Censure debate the Minister said: “There are plenty of houses for sale. There are 29 columns of them in this particular daily local newspaper”. I interjected and said: “What are the prices?” The Minister replied that the houses cost from R6,000 to R50,000. Sir, I went through that same newspaper. Sir, there were in fact 29 columns, but there was one “pondokkie” for sale at R6,250 and the average price of those houses for sale was over R20,000. Yet this Minister gets up here and says that there is no shortage of houses.

Go and look at the paper and see what the prices are now.

Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 3 of the report of the Department of Community Development, we find the following statement—

How in heaven’s name can one deal with a Department like this? I asked the Minister a question about the shortage of houses in the four main cities I have mentioned, namely Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. The Minister said that there was a certain degree of duplication and that there were certain people who did not bother to put their names on lists, but there was nevertheless a total shortage of 63,000 houses, and this shortage was in respect of the lower income group. And then the report of the Department says that it can be stated emphatically that there is no serious housing shortage for the lower income group!

There are one or two other matters I should like to raise in the time available to me. Firstly, I should like to say that in the case of block AK in Durban the hon. the Minister was asked, because of a statement in a newspaper, when he was going to pay out the people whose property he had expropriated. The interesting thing about block AK is that the Department expropriated property there that they already owned. We will ignore that. In a statement I asked when they were going to pay for the expropriation. The hon. the Minister with a good deal of abuse for which he is known, said that everybody who had put in a claim had been paid. He was asked a question in this regard by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) in this House the other day and he admitted that it was not so.

When did I say that everyone who had put in a claim had been paid?

Let me get it right. The hon. the Minister said that the only people who had not been paid were those in respect of whom negotiation was taking place. Is that correct?

Of course.

When negotiation was taking place. These people claimed that they had no answer from the Department of Community Development. They had simply been told to send in their title deeds which they did. That was the only answer they had.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. the Minister will have plenty of time to do that later. I want to quote from a letter written by one of the people involved to a greater extent than most—

We must remember that at one stage they encouraged the white group to buy property there. Then they came along to replan the area. When it comes to replaning, of course, I always remember the words of the hon. the Minister of Health who said, “Our replanning is done by good Nationalists.” I want to quote further from this letter—

Who is delaying the matter? Who is correct? Some of the biggest businessmen in Durban made this accusation against the Minister and the only reply they received was certainly not in keeping with the facts.

This Department is able to flout every local government by-law. It does not have to comply with by-laws. I can tell the hon. the Minister that in an area very near to my constituency he is building houses on sloping ground which the local corporation would certainly not pass because they are dangerous. He has built certain houses in Durban which are already cracked because he does not comply with any by-laws. He wipes them aside. He ignores the years of experience of the people in the local authorities. He ignores them completely and lowers their standards. I want to tell you, Sir, that this Government of apartheid in fact puts Whites and non-Whites together in the same house. That is done by that Department.

That is absolute rubbish.

That hon. member does not even know about it. In the constituency of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that hon. Minister’s Department put two white tenants into a house occupied by a Coloured. They were put in the same house. These people were formerly good Nationalists. I want to quote from a letter I received from them—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to answer questions. That hon. member should ask himself some questions by now. Then he will get different answers.

In the few minutes I still have available I want to say that this Department would not be tolerated in any civilized community. While it exists, we should have a commission of inquiry. If they refuse to hold a commission of inquiry, I say that that Minister has something to hide.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member said things, all of which I cannot react to. He spoke, inter alia, of discrimination which would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world except in Soviet Russia. But we know him as one who speaks of discrimination here in the Republic of South Africa by our Government against the Bantu and people of other colours. For his information I want to quote a letter which a Bantu wrote. The heading reads as follows: A Bantu’s letter to President Nixon. The letter reads (translation) —

That is how a Bantu speaks who has insight into the true feelings and intentions of this Government. For the information of that hon. member who has now left the House, and for the other hon. members opposite, I want to ask this question: What are the logical consequences of the policy of separate development? What is the foundation stone upon which the policy of separate development is built? The foundation stone is that what you do not begrudge yourself, what you desire and what you claim for yourself, you must not begrudge another man the opportunity of having in his own area. In other words, it is a policy that can be justified on Christian and moral grounds. It is the policy of separate development which this Government is applying.

As usual the hon. the Minister of Finance submitted his Budget here a few days ago. Characteristic of him, and of other National Ministers of Finance throughout the years, he has once again given us a Budget which contains much good and many benefits for the Republic of South Africa. The opposition have my full and wholehearted sympathy, because they, as an alternative Government, are expected and required to resist and to oppose this Budget. A few times during my life I have had to plead a case against my own better judgment and against my own convictions. I was bitter, and hon. members opposite have my sympathy. I know that while they criticize this Budget they feel, deep in their hearts, that it is a good Budget, and I know that each of them is saying thank you for it. With this Budget and what it entails there are many benefits for hon. members opposite and for their supporters, as well as for ourselves on this side of the House and for our National Party supporters throughout the entire Republic of South Africa.

What is of cardinal importance in a Budget? I as a practical farmer look for two characteristics in a Budget. The first, that it should primarily assist in stimulating additionally sound growth and development of the Republic of South Africa, growth and development in the Republic of South Africa such as we experienced in the past 22 years under this National Government’s policy of separate development, is of fundamental importance to me. This must entail growth and development in all its facets, without the cost-of-living index increasing too rapidly. That is what I look for first in a Budget.

Did you find it there?

I find an abundance of it in this Budget and, what is more, in no less a place than London it is said how sound this Budget is. After all, the Opposition believes that London and England are the Alpha and the Omega of truth. I now want to quote to hon. members what Sapa in London reported, i.e. the following (translation) —

This report also gives us the following comparable figures. It is said that a married man with two children, and with an income of R3,500, pays an annual income tax of R140 in the Republic of South Africa. A man in England with a wife and two children, who earns an income of R3,500, pays R630 in income tax, and that notwithstanding the higher cost of living in England. In America a married man with two children, and a salary of R3,500, pays an income tax of R315. In South Africa a man with a family and a salary equivalent to those of a man in England pays R490 a year less in tax than does the man in England; in South Africa he pays R175 less tax than in America, the model state of the world! A married man in South Africa with two children, and an income of R8,500 a year, pays R935 in income tax. In England a married man with a wife and two children, and a salary of R8,500 pays R2,295 in tax. In England he therefore pays R1,360 a year more tax than here in South Africa.

Are you now also going to compare the social services?

In America a person with a similar salary pays R1,530 a year in tax. An American with an equivalent salary pays R595 a year more tax than in South Africa.

Now we come to the rich people on that side of the House. The man in South Africa with an income of R17,000 pays R5,100 in tax. In England the man with an income of R17,000 a year—I do not think that there are proportionately as many of them in England as there are here in South Africa—pays R9,010 in tax, R3,810 more than in South Africa. In America a man earning R17,000 a year pays R6,120 a year in tax. In America he therefore pays R1,020 a year more in tax than in South Africa.

We therefore see that at every level we in South Africa are living in a land of milk and honey, notwithstanding the arguments of the Opposition, including those in respect of this present Budget and the financial position. This is the case in South Africa, thanks to this Government, with its policy of separate development, which has brought about peace and harmony in South Africa, peace and harmony in this part of Africa, the likes of which one will find nowhere else on the African Continent. Thanks to this Government’s policy we are materially well-off. Everybody on this side and on that side of the House and throughout South Africa knows that every citizen, and every woman, can put their heads down on their pillows to-night knowing that they will sleep safely and that to-morrow they can get up and work and toil in a country where prosperity, success and security prevail, thanks to this Government.

What would happen if that party were to come into power? I leave it to them to tell us what their policy is and how they are going to implement the policy of ensuring peace and security in South Africa, which the people of South Africa are experiencing at present under this Government.

We take a look at another facet of the Budget which the hon. the Minister submitted here. We find that, as the good National Party Ministers of Finance have done over the years the hand of the good Samaritan is being extended to the less privileged in the Republic.