If one listens to hon. members On the opposite side like the hon. member for Wynberg, one gets the impression that the National Party Government, with its policy, is the party which is acting with the greatest degree of discriminationtion towards and contempt for any other group in South Africa. But since the hon. member for Turffontein also had a lot to say here yesterday evening about the younger people in our society wanting to know what the future of the National Party was in respect of the Coloureds, one must also ask the United Party: What is your future in respect of the Coloureds? I want to refer the hon. member for Wynberg to the requirements in respect of discrimination laid down in the U.N. Manifesto in articles 13, 55 and 76, and to articles 2 and 7 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and ask her whether she, with their policy, will be able to get past the arguments of these people who regard these matters from the genuinely liberal point of view? Sir, what is the official underlying principle of the United Party when it comes to dealing with the racial and population question in South Africa? What are the bases from which they argue? In respect of the Bantu they say that there are two basic principles from which they operate. The one is that the Bantu outnumber the Whites four to one, in other words, the question of numbers. The second argument which they have mentioned, is that the bulk of these people are still at a primitive stage of development. How do they argue in respect of the Coloureds? The hon. members of the Opposition say that in respect of the Coloureds the question of numbers makes no difference, because the Coloureds, together with the Asiatics, form a minority group, and for that reason the numbers are not taken into account. In addition they say that one must simply use “common sense”. The second argument they apply in respect of the Bantu is the question of the level of civilization. As far as the level of civilization of the Coloureds is concerned, we see that they accept that the rung of the civilization on which the Coloureds find themselves, is not a primitive one. If one considers their arguments further, we note that they maintain that they will regard the Coloureds as part of the Western group. The concept “Western” does not rely only on a cultural significance, but also on a racial view. I want to show hon. members what the hon. member for Hillbrow himself wrote in the little opus he published. On page 143 he said, after they had made a survey, that the Coloureds were to an increasing extent being regarded as part of the white group. In other words, he was using a racial concept here. It is therefore not only a civilization or cultural concept, but part of the white group. He said that even now there would be strong support for the re-institution of the common voters’ roll. Then he went further, and I quote—

This is the standpoint of the hon. member for Hillbrow. This means in other words that the United Party sees the Coloureds as an inseparable part of the white communality.

In view of the fact that in respect of the Coloureds they do not accept the norm of numbers, nor the norm of civilization—in other words numbers make no difference to them—and that they see these people, as far as civilization is concerned, as equal to the people of the Western structure, I now want to put these questions to the hon. members of the Opposition. In the first instance I want to know why hon. members now want to incorporate the Coloureds on a federative basis in their ideal political view of South Africa. Why are they taking a federative view of these people if they regard them as forming part of Western civilization? One could understand it if the Bantu are incorporated on a federative basis because of the fact that the bulk of them are primitive or because they have a numerical superiority, but why must the Coloureds be dealt with on a federative basis?

Then, there is a question which arises from that. If hon. members regard them as part of the white community, why do they only want to give them six representatives? What is so holy about the number “six”? In addition I want to know why the hon. members are not going to restore the Coloureds to a common voters’ roll? I concede that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has succeeded in convincing the entire United Party, although in the fifties, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was still a member on this side of the House, they voted against separate voters’ lists. Why do hon. members not want to restore them to a common voters’ roll? Then, too, if the hon. members do govern one day, or at least want to govern, will they make Coloureds fullfledged members of their party? If they are elected as members of the House of Assembly, can they become members of the caucus and will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also take those Coloureds into account as possible members of his Cabinet when he forms his Cabinet? If the United Party is supposedly not discriminating against the Coloureds, I cannot understand why they want to make room for the Coloureds on a federative basis in our political structure.

I want to return now to the so-called federative system which the United Party wants in South Africa. I was unable to find a better survey of the federation plan of the United Party than the one in the booklet of the hon. member for Hillbrow with the title “anatomy of South Africa”. There he says the following—

Now I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side to give me an example of any country in the world where this federative structure is based on cultural or racial diversity. The federation of America may perhaps be a federation which consists of different states, but when those states elect their representatives, they make no distinction between colour, culture or anything else for that matter. I am now asking hon. members again, where in the world is there a form of Government on a federative system, where the federative structure is based on racial, colour or cultural differences? Nowhere does one find this. The United Party states that this is its ideal. Nowhere in the world does one find this kind of representation based on race and colour in a federative system.

That is why I want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that the United Party wants the best of both worlds. The United Party always maintains that the National Party must accept responsibility in regard to the entire world for the fact that this Government discriminates against the non-white groups. We are supposedly the people who are hard, and who have no sympathy for the Coloureds or for the Bantu. However, the United Party cannot escape from the fact that their own system is based on racial differences. Nor can they escape from the fact that the United Party has, built into its political structure, what is in fact the greatest form of discrimination. The United Party states to the Coloureds on the one hand that they recognize them as part of the white community and Western civilization, but on the other hand it states to them that they are dealing with them on a different basis, in the same way as they are doing with the Bantu. With this point of departure they are also discriminating against the Bantu. That is why I maintain that the National Party is the only party that can justifiably say to the world, and to the Coloured population, that it is not discriminating against the Coloureds and that it does not regard the Coloureds as an appendage to the white population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik is extraordinarily naïve when he talks of federation on that basis. If he had studied constitutional history anywhere in the world he would know that there are federations of various kinds and based on different types of differences between peoples within a given society. In India they distinguish between the population groups on the basis of religious differences and in Switzerland they differentiate on the basis of linguistic differences. In the United States of America the States refused to give up their independence for historical reasons. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever in terms of a federation why there should not be various bases on which it is formed. But what is the most noticeable aspect of the Government’s approach to the Coloured people in general? To me it seems to be the insufferable condescension and patronage with which its members continue to speak of this group of our society. The Coloured people form a society of their own in which there is a highly civilized upper class, a prosperous and a very intelligent middle-class and a large and poverty stricken lower-class. Except for the degree of poverty amongst the lower classes, which is very much greater amongst the Coloureds than amongst lots of other groups, which in turn gives rise to all sorts of problems such as we discussed last night, there is very little difference between them and us. Hon. members opposite, however, talk as if they were pople living on a different planet.

I want to deal very briefly with some practical issues. I want to say how sorry we are that dissatisfaction has crept into the teaching profession amongst the Coloured people in a rather sad way. Teachers are leaving the profession for better paid jobs elsewhere. This is nothing new. This happens in other fields of education also. Many are emigrating to other countries. Yet the annual increase in Coloured school enrolment in 1968 was 10 per cent and in 1969 it was 13 per cent. Coupled with this annual increase in enrolment, a large number of Coloured schools have had to be closed as a result of group area removals. The result is that many of the new schools in our Coloured townships to-day are obliged to accommodate displaced children before they accommodate anybody else. That has led to yet another backlog if I read the figures correctly, in respect of schooling.

We have an equally distressing picture of the teacher situation with regard to resignations. During 1969, according to the hon. the Minister’s reply to a question of mine, 1,530 Coloured teachers resigned. Proportionately, it works out to about 9.6 per cent of the total. This is really quite appalling. That figure does not include women teachers, who have to resign for reasons of marriage, or those who were dismissed for misconduct, or those who retired on pension. Double sessions are still held in 449 Coloured schools in the Republic and in South-West Africa. The total number of classes involved is 1,427 and the average number of pupils in primary classes is approximately 45 per teacher, which I think is much too large for comfort.

One of the greatest insults that we do the Coloured people is our refusal to recognize the status of their university people in terms of salaries. In many of the skilled trades to-day, such as the building trade and others, Coloured artisans receive exactly the same wages as their white equivalents. That is only reasonable and fair. What possible justification can there be for it to be acceptable at the level of the artisan, but to be unacceptable at the level of the university? When the University College of the Western Cape was first established in the late 1950s, a deputation of the then Teachers’ Educational and Professional Association, which is a Cape Town based body recognized by the Cape Provincial Administration, called on the Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape. Dr. J. G. Meiring, who held that position at that time. Dr. J. G. Meiring subsequently became the principal of the university college. The deputation asked him in November, 1959, whether the principle of equal pay for lecturers at the university college could be established from the beginning. The reply was a blunt “no”. That was 11 years ago. This university college subsequently acquired a statute of its own and has become, so we are told, a proper university. Yet the hon. the Minister told me in reply to a question on the 4th August, this year that the differences, on the same staff, between White and Coloured lecturers was roughly as follows: For senior lecturers, the Whites in the minimum grades receive R1,300 more than the Coloureds and in the maximum grade the Whites received R1,500 more than the Coloureds. For ordinary lecturers the Whites in the minimum grades receive R1,300 more than the Coloureds and in the maximum grades the Whites receive R720 more than the Coloureds. For junior lecturers, the Whites in the minimum grade received R2,000 more than the Coloureds and in the maximum grade they received R1,000 more than the Coloured staff. The academic status and the qualifications of these lecturers have to be same. They would not hold those jobs if they were not the same. Their standards of dress, behaviour and background have to be more or less the same. Yet this totally unfair discrimination persists. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is any intention to close this gap and if so, how long he proposes to take about it. It is at this level of development that the Coloured man is so bitterly insulted by this Government. It is a bitterness that is rapidly turning to anger over things like salary differences, when people hold similar qualifications. I suggest that this is something which the Minister must pay very serious attention to and without delay.

Then, I want to say a word about vocational and technical training for the Coloured people. What facilities are there? In view of the critical labour situation in this country, I wonder whether it has ever occurred to the Government to carry out a proper survey, on a national basis, of the labour potential of the Coloured and the Asiatic peoples. Perhaps it has already been done. I do not know, but if it has been done, the country has never been told anvthing about it. I do not believe that the work potential of the Coloured people, particularly here in the Cape where 80 per cent of them live, can ever really be adequately harnessed, unless and until the sociological problems of this community have been decisively tackled. The trouble is that we lose them as youngsters. Compulsory schooling is still a long way off for these voungsters. whatever may be provided in the Coloured Persons Education Act. The Government pulls these youngsters into the Coloured Cadet Corps as soon as they become adults. That may help for a time, but I think it is far more important to give them a basic primary school education, and to enrol them when they are still young in order to instil some kind of knowledge and basic discipline, and some pattern, into their disorientated lives. Once a lad has reached puberty without schooling, discipline or security, the community probably has a delinquent on its hands for the rest of the child’s life.

At the Peninsula Technical College in May last year there were 68 full-time and 320 part-time students among the Coloured people. Those were the only Coloured people attending that college in the whole of this large area. At State technical and vocational schools throughout the Republic the Coloureds had a combined enrolment of 1,198 full-time and 713 part-time students. Part-time classes cater for 134 pupils. This is an absurdly low enrolment figure. One wonders why the Government does not collaborate more with the private sector to see that this figure is improved. A Western Cape labour survey carried out by the Chamber of Industries recently proved that 72 per cent of all employers approached in this area showed that they were willing to finance training schemes themselves, for workers at all levels if they were to receive encouragement from the authorities to do so. It seems to me that it is high time the Government worked in co-operation with the Chamber of Industries to see that something is done to improve this position. The number of Coloured youngsters training in vocational and technical schools is totally inadequate in relation to the number needed in the labour field.

The last point I want to raise is the question of welfare. Can the Minister tell us to what extent members of Parliament are to be discouraged from raising matters relevant to the Coloured people in this House? I think this is very important. He must please make a policy statement on this matter because some of us have been told quite clearly, when we have raised educational and welfare matters, that these matters are now dealt with by the Coloured Representative Council and that such matters are no longer any business of ours. [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Newton Park and Wynberg again tried, yesterday and to-day, to explain to the House why, according to them, the relationships between the Coloureds and the Whiles in this country were so poor. If the relationships are in fact so poor, as they tried to imply, and if it is true that we are not making as rapid progress to cultivate those good relationships as we would wish to do, I want to ask: Who but the United Party is responsible for these relationships having been impaired to such an extent over the years? [Interjections.] Now I have put the cat amongst the pigeons. listen to the dogs howling. Who but the United Party has over the years put a spoke in the wheel of every positive measure which this Government has taken to lead and uplift the Coloureds along their road to development? I am talking now of development in the socio-economic sphere, as well as development in the sphere of education, housing, welfare, etc. They have tried to arouse suspicion among the Coloureds and to disparage and demolish the efforts being made by the Government. They wanted to incite the Coloureds into aggressive opposition to these measures, so that they would not accept them as being for the sake of their own development. Who but the United Party did this? If there are poor relationships to-day, it is those people who must examine their own conscience to-day and say: “We are the guilty ones. It is on our consciences that there are still Coloureds to-day who cherish feelings of hatred in their hearts towards the Whites”. The hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Wynberg must both examine their own conscience. The hon. member for Wynberg complained as piously as you could wish about the lack of facilities for the Coloureds in the field of education. But what did she do when we separated Coloured education from that of the Whites, and removed it from the control of the Provinces and brought it under the Central Government because we believed that it would be better able to come into its own there? She and her party fought it tooth and nail. In the same way they fought the establishment of a university college for Coloureds here in the Western Cape tooth and nail. To-day she is levelling criticism because in her opinion things are not developing as they should in this sphere. She stated that there was a lack of facilities at the technical college here in the Peninsula. But let her bring me one Coloured who wanted to enrol at this peninsular technical college and who was refused. She cannot. And yet without making certain of her facts she alleges that there is a lack of facilities here. I am not saying that the available facilities are always of the best, but the fact remains that we are accommodating these people. It is the United Party who said to the Coloureds each time that they were not to accept those things which the National Party wanted to do in order to uplift them, in order to develop them into a distinctive people. No—they were to regard those things with suspicion. And today? To-day they have the temerity to speak here of the establishment of better relations. The fact of the matter is that the opportunism of the United Party nauseates one, What was the official attitude of the United Party when the Coloureds were able to elect representatives to this Council on a separate voters’ list? What was the official attitude of the United Party, as expounded day in and day out by the hon. member for Wynberg, towards group areas? They condemned them, and to the Coloureds they said that the National Party was moving them to slums, or burying them in the Cape Flats. They incited the Coloureds into opposition to group areas. The former Coloured Representative for Karoo stated this unequivocally in his election manifesto directed against Mr. Daantjie Scholtz: “The United Party is against the Group Areas Act in any shape or form”. The hon. member for Wynberg and other members of the United Party said the same thing. And now? Now that the Coloureds are no longer able to send representatives to this House, what is the United Party doing now? They are turning turtle! Now that the Coloureds art no longer able to send representatives here, the United Party is accepting group areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this here the other day. The hon. member for Newton Park, as piously as a little angel, rose to his feet here yesterday evening and said that everyone in this country now accepted group areas. just think how disgracefully they first incited the Coloureds against group areas by saying to them that we were placing them in locations and in slave camps. To-day, however, without turning a hair, they say: “We accept group areas”. But even now they are not speaking with one voice. The other day the Leader of the Opposition repudiated the hon. member for Wynberg who was not present at that stage. He said that she was behind the times; she was not keeping pace with the policy adjustments made by the United Party. But yesterday evening, believe it or not, the hon. member stood up and said that she condemned group areas. I have the Hansard report of her speech here. While she was having such a lot to say about “second class citizenship” and the Coloureds. I asked her, by way of interjection, a question in regard to acceptance of group areas. Whereupon she reacted as follows: “Oh yes, they are fed up with group areas”. If the Coloureds are so “fed up” with group areas, why is the United Party accepting group areas? After all, the United Party accepts the westernized people, equal in all respects, and they even want to integrate them politically, as the hon. member for Rissik proved.

It is the way you do it.

There you have the excuse again—unashamed opportunism. When we drive them into a corner they try to get out of it by saying: “We object to the way you do it”. How do they want to do it then? Can the hon. member tell us? Sir, if those hon. members come forward here and act as the champions of the Coloureds, then the Coloureds must realize that the United Party has never kept its word in regard to any population group, that they have cheated them in the political sphere. For example, for years the United Party promised the Coloureds that as soon as they came into power, they would return the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll. They conducted several court cases against the National Party in regard to that matter and caused a great hustle and bustle everywhere and in that way caused more racial hatred between the Whites and the Coloureds than any other party, even more than the communists, liberals and progressives did in order to incite the Coloureds against the Whites. They promised the Coloureds that if the Coloureds trusted them, they would return them to the common voters’ roll. But where does the United Party stand to-day? The United Party has practised political deceit towards the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have no time for nonsense. This Government has done a tremendous amount for the Coloureds, particularly in the socio-economic sphere—so much so that even our own people began to criticize us, and the Afrikaner United Party men went to the rural areas and unashamedly exploited what we had done for the Coloureds for political gain. While the hon. member for Wynberg advocates in the jingo strongholds here that we should do more for the Coloureds, the hon. member for Newton Park goes to Kuruman and Vryburg with the slogan: “Look what this Government is doing for the Coloureds! Look how they are building houses for them while they are neglecting you! ” [Interjections.] This is that two-faced policy of the United Party which is bringing them into such discredit to-day among all sectors of our population, and they still think that there are a few people left who are taking some notice of them! It is high time the United Party took cognisance of the fact that their mode of conduct is despicable. The Coloureds realize that they can place as little reliance on the promises made to them by the United Party as they can on a promise that the United Party will place a man on the moon. [Time expired.]

We have had two interesting speeches now—one by the hon. member for Rissik and the other by the hon. member for Parow. The hon. member for Rissik took it amiss of us for our allegedly wanting to move too close to the Coloureds. He said we wanted to become one with them. When he said that, a memory flitted through my mind, a memory of what Dr. Dönges, the then prospective Prime Minister, said in regard to the Coloureds: “We are proud of the 5 million hearts which are beating as one”. But at that time the heart of the hon. member for Rissik was not yet beating; it was moving slightly in a verkrampte way, but never palpably, so that we could see what he believed in.

I have not the time to react to everything the hon. member for Parow said. When he queried the cause of the separation which existed between the Coloureds and the Whites, he accused this side of the House as if it had been we who had wanted to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll in an illegal manner. One would think it had been we who had come forward with the High Court of Parliament, something which did South Africa more harm than anything else I can think of. But I do not want to go on chewing these old bones of contention further; I have no time for nonsense, as the hon. member for Parow said to an hon. member on this side of the House. I therefore leave the hon. member at that.

I should like to discuss a few other aspects with the Minister. The first is that there is a section of the Coloured Community which has been entirely forgotten, a section of the community which is suffering hardships and for whom we as Christians will have to do something. I am thinking now of the aged in the Coloured community those people suffering from incurable ailments, these people who have been rejected by their own family because they are of no further use to society, but who are people who for many years did in fact do their duty and who performed services for their people and their country, and who to-day are not financially able to look after themselves. If the hon. the Minister is aware of these circumstances, as the hon. member for Kimberley South is, who is well acquainted with these circumstances and who was present at the conferences, I want to ask the Minister whether he would not do something and establish some home or other where those people who cannot be nursed and assisted by their own families could find a place where they would be cared for and, as he put it, a place where they could die in peace. Today those people are being treated in hospitals until the hospital decides that there is no further hope for them, and then they are sent back to their own families. I am sorry to say that in most cases, exactly as happens among the Whites as well, those old people who are of no further use to the family, are rejected and in many cases their children live on the pensions received by those old people and they are completely forgotten. I think it would be a wonderful thing if the Minister would have an investigation instituted into whether something cannot be done for those people who have nowhere to go and who are outcasts, so that they can have a place of rest where they might also die in peace one day. This is the first of a number of matters I want to mention, to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention.

The second is a plea which I have made to the Minister previously. The Minister at the time said he would go into it, but I do not know what has been done about it. This is the question of social workers on the farms among the Coloured community. I was reproached for having said that the Coloured community in the rural areas was deteriorating as a result—I said this at the time and I repeat it—of excessive alcohol consumption among some Coloureds. Understand me well, I am not saying among all, but some of our Coloureds, both in the cities and in the rural areas, are deteriorating and destroying themselves. I wondered, even if divisional council had to be ordered to do so, and the farmers themselves, and not only farmers but also other employers, particularly in the rural areas, whether social workers cannot be sent around from farm to farm to talk to the wives of those workers, who could teach them to keep their husbands’ clothing clean and in good repair, who could teach them to feed their children a little better and give them a more balanced diet, and to see to it that those children grow up in a cleaner environment than is at present the case. Then I think we would be doing a good thing for those people who need upliftment far more than all this talk about future plans and of a state within a state, which in any case are mere castles in the air. Let us start doing something for these people; here we have an opportunity which would not cost a great deal of money and which would mean a great deal to these people.

I want to come to a third point, and that is the question of housing. Let the hon. the Minister accompany me to Elsies River, not far from the constituency of the hon. member for Parow, and let him look at the corrugated iron shacks and the conditions under which those people are living. [Interjections.] No, I do want to talk politics; I am trying to help. I wonder whether it is not time we did something. We in the rural areas have for years been supplying housing to the people who worked for us at our own expense. I realize that there is a backlog of many thousands of houses here in the Cape complex. I realize that in order to make up the backlog, 3,000 houses will be needed annually. The State or the local authorities may perhaps not be able to build those houses, but what is wrong with the employers in Cape Town, and what is wrong with our authorities who do not want to allow the employers to build houses as well, which can become the property of their employees in small instalments? Why cannot the industrialist and other employers not be given the right to build decent houses for their own workers, as we in the rural areas have to do?

They have the right to do so, but are not making use of it.

No, that is not true, because I am in the same position myself, here in the city. I should be pleased if the hon. member for Malmesbury, who knows everything, would give me that right. Then I would promise to begin building houses to-morrow for my own workers in Cape Town.

The municipalities must do this.

No, it is not the municipalities. I would be pleased if the Minister would tell me how to set about giving effect to this matter. Sir, there are employers who have to attract their employees from places far from Cape Town. It takes the employee an hour and a half in the morning to reach his place of work, and an hour and a half in the evening to return to his home. In other words, those Coloureds, if they work eight hours per day, are away from their homes for 11 hours.

I see that I only have two and a half minutes left. There is one last matter which is of local importance to Sea Point itself, which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Could the hon. the Minister not investigate the possibility of building, in that white complex, a hostel in Schottsche Kloof or any other place where Coloureds have traditionally been living for years, where unmarried Coloured servants could be accommodated, even though the employers have to rent those flats from the State. The services of these people are needed here early in the morning and late in the evening, and the employers cannot afford to have their employees shuttle back and forth for three to four hours per day. We need the services of these people in our houses. There are for example old people who are being cared for by Coloureds. Our problem in Sea Point is not with the people working there, our problem is with other elements, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to erect a complex of flats near those built-up areas, even though the employer must then pay the rent for those flats, a place where those people could live and where they could have recreational facilities around their own place of residence. If we do that, Sir, then we would be doing something worthwhile. This idea of complexes for which the hon. member for Moorreesburg pleaded may sound very fine, but then I am afraid of people who say that they are very clever; I am afraid of the intelligentsia, of people who might be learned but who do not have the capacity to understand the things they have learnt.

What are you insinuating?

I believe that the future of the Coloured population in the Cape will not lie in these tremendous complexes but rather in more and smaller complexes where the people could take a pride in their surroundings, where they could comprise the part of their surroundings, instead of being herded into one enormous camp where nobody could have any personal pride in his surroundings. Just pay a visit to places like Bonteheuwel and Bishop Lavis and everybody there will tell you that the greatest complaint they have against those places is the impersonal atmosphere of the places where they are living. [Time expired.]

I do not have much time in which to react to what the hon. member for Sea Point said. In any case, I have no sympathy with him and the problem he has with his Coloured servants and their visitors in Sea Point, because you will recall that when I pleaded here three years ago in the debate on the Community Development Vote for measures to place restrictions on those visitors, I actually invited that hon. member to join me in the discussion, but he was conspicuous by his absence. When the legislation was introduced here, he made no contribution. Afterwards he realized that he had to keep Sea Point White, and now he wants the Minister to build hostels in Schottsche Kloof. We have no sympathy with that political opportunism of his.

Sir, I want to confine myself to-day mainly to the inadequate trading facilities which exist in the Coloured residential areas, to the problems which arise from that for us as Whites, to the possible steps we could take to alleviate the situation, and the role played by the Coloured Development Corporation in this. The Coloured Development Corporation was established during 1962 with the purpose of encouraging and promoting the progress of the Coloureds in the Coloured areas and in the industrial areas in the industrial, commercial and financial spheres so that the Coloureds own area, in so far as it was practicable, could be self-supporting, and so that it would not be necessary for them to move from their area to meet their everyday needs.

In the relatively short period of time the Corporation has been in existence it has already made a considerable contribution to the establishment of trading facilities and other facilities in Coloured areas. With a modest initial capital in 1962 of R570,000 the capital of the Development Corporation to-day amounts to more than R4 million. With the passage of years experience has also taught us that it is not so much a lack of funds which has hamstrung the establishment of business undertakings in the Coloured areas, but more specifically the lack of business know-how and skill among the Coloureds themselves. Opportunities to acquire this know-how do not yet exist to-day in our Coloured areas. I am convinced that the Coloured Development Corporation is not yet on its own, capable or will be capable, of establishing the trading facilities there according to the steadily increasing needs of the Coloured areas. As a result of the lack of these trading facilities in the Coloured areas we to-day have an inevitably uncontrolled mass movement out of the Coloured areas, through our white residential areas, to the specific facilities in the whole area. This reveals itself particularly over week-ends where one finds an excessive congregation in white areas of Coloureds and this creates an extremely sensitive point of friction. To prove this to yourself in practical way one need only drive from Cape Town to Bellville along the Voortrekker Road route on a Saturday morning. One could also drive to a Boland town such as Paarl, Worcester or Stellenbosch, to see this for yourself.

The other day hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to an area within my constituency, i.e. the Cape Flats area and he referred to it as a sub-economic twilight world. I want to say to-day that this will in fact be a special challenge to this Government to find a formula in terms of which it will also be possible to give those enticing lights of facilities to those Coloured areas. It is after all only this Government which has the will to do this, and which has that creative ability which could make this possible. That is why I want to make a serious request of the hon. the Minister to-day to give his attention to the matter of also allowing white initiative to establish business interests in Coloured areas on a controlled basis. They will then have to be subject to special conditions so that these will eventually serve the interests of the Coloureds themselves. Because it is of such urgent importance, it is a matter which can also to very good effect be considered by the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. The phenomenon of other population groups establishing their businesses on the borders of Coloured areas is already occurring, and this will in the long run have a hampering effect on these business undertakings we would like to see developing in the Coloured areas. We want to see them developing not only in order to afford the Coloured Community an opportunity of acquiring its potential share in the business world, but also in order to make their residential areas self-supporting in this particular respect.

In order to achieve this ideal it is obvious to us that white initiative and white assistance in the form of an agency basis, will have to be considered. The time at my disposal does not allow me to put forward a detailed proposal in this connection, but why should we not say to the white businessman to-day that we will allow him to operate a business for a minimum of, say, ten years in a specific area? This could be done, but on the express condition that in the first instance he employs only Coloureds, and that a specified number of Coloureds shall be trained for specific managerial requirements. Then he must, when this period of concession has expired, whatever it may be, make this business available to a Coloured consortium or to the Coloured Development Corporation without any goodwill being attached to it. Or, if there are no such buyers at that stage, the period can be extended. One could even think along the lines of a percentage interest in the business itself for the Coloureds of those communities. There are to-day various business undertakings which are directed chiefly at the Coloured market and whom I believe will be only too willine to enter these Coloured areas on certain conditions. On the other hand it is of the greatest importance that the Coloureds, together with the Whites, should also be able to develop as entrepreneurs and in due course also as employers of their fellow citizens in their own area. The skill required for this and the opportunity to do so the Coloureds will only be able to develop if they are able to do so under the tutelage of the Whites.

I want to conclude by saying that in respect of the Coloured Development Corporation I cannot omit to express my absolute dissatisfaction at the role played in this sphere during the recent election by the United Party hecklers in particular. They tried by means of questions to place this Development Corporation under a cloud of suspicion, and to incite the feelings of Whites against it. I want to say that in the Caledon constituency in particular, their hecklers took the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation and myself under cross examination at meetings in regard to the rates of interest at which money is being made available to the Coloured Development Corporation to Coloureds. At a place like Baardscheerdersbosch, where the Whites are not in a financially strong position, they are telling those people what the Government is doing through the Coloured Development Corporation, and they are asking where a poor White oan go to get such assistance. They are not even saying this by way of suggestion, but blatantly, when they put questions. This is the kind of blatant opportunism which one finds when one is dealing with the United Party in an election. I will not say that this is happening in Rondebosch and in other urban constituencies, but when they find themselves in the rural areas, they create those suspicions and they incite those feelings among the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not have any quarrel with the earlier part of the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down and I think he attempted to make constructive suggestions as to how Coloured persons can participate more freely in the commerce of our country. I concur with what he said. I cannot, however, endorse the latter part of his speech where he indulged in a little bit of politics. Much has been said in this debate about the merits of the policy of the Government and of the Opposition in respect of the Coloured people. Unfortunately, in many speeches I think the positive angle of this subject was neglected and no more so than in the speech of the hon. member for Parow. When we discuss the problems and the future of our Coloured people, I think we have to bring to bear all the common sense on the subject we possibly can and I was not impressed at all by the views expressed by the hon. member for Parow.

There is no doubt in my mind that whatever direction the political future of the Coloured people may take, they will always be, as they are now, an integral part of the population of South Africa. Separate social and residential communities are perhaps in the best interest of all. This is obviously the policy of this side of the House. Economically, however, there cannot and never will be any separation. I believe that this is something which this House must accept as the correct position.

And politically?

I said “economically” specifically. There will always be economic integration as is the case now, irrespective of what this Nationalist Party try to do. Politically I believe that we on this side of the House took a wise and a big step forward when we decided to make it possible, under our policy, for Coloured representatives to take their place in this House. But, Mr. Chairman, no matter how important the political considerations may be, the political aspect is completely transcended by the importance of the socio-economic uplift of the Coloured people. I believe this to be task number one which should receive the concentrated attention of all of us. The key to this position is education. It is in this regard that I want to direct a few remarks to the hon. the Minister with special reference to the Eastern Cape. I know the hon. the Minister has had a long debate to listen to but there are one or two points in connection with the Eastern Cape to which I should like to draw his attention.

According to the 1960 figures, 14 per cent of the Coloured people in the Republic live in the Eastern Cape. I have no doubt that this was the basis on which the Government decided to make the Eastern Cape a Coloured preferential area. I have no doubt that the Government must accept that if we decide to make the Eastern Cape a Coloured preferential area, then the Coloured people in that area should receive certain other priorities. That would be the position if the Government considers developing that area. By 1980 there can very easily be in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex something Like 160,000 Coloured people. If we take that figure, it is more than likely that there would be 34,000 male and 20,000 female workers in the area. If cognizance is taken of these figures one cannot but be perturbed by the low figure of Coloured students attending vocational schools in the Port Elizabeth area. At present there are only 80 students attending the single vocational school that we have in that particular industrial complex. It is in the field of technical training that the greatest opportunity must be available to the Coloured youths of the country.

It is in this field that the greatest work opportunity is available. It is also in this field that the greatest need arises for supplementing our industrial development. Yet we find that there are a meagre 80 students at present benefiting from vocational training. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be visiting that area shortly. As a new Minister in charge of this portfolio, we wish him well. We hope that he will take a very good look at this problem in the Eastern Cape. The vocational training school at Bethelsdorp has a capacity for 200 students. It is teaching a wide range of subjects. The school serves a very extensive area, including East London. I believe that shortly a hostel will be erected there. But at the present time the rate at which pupils pass through this institution is far too low. There is a bottleneck at some stage or other. Exactly where I do not know. Quite obviously the Coloured people are at a disadvantage in the field of apprenticeships. In certain trades the applicable rules are being relaxed and a block release system is in operation. These young Coloured youths are therefore able to benefit from the vocational training at the school. But I believe at the present time not anything like adequate efforts are being made to enable the young Coloured boys to attend this school.

We realize that the Western Cape where the greatest number of Coloured people live, will naturally be leading in so far as the availability of Coloured institutions for education are concerned. We have the university here, a technical college, a Coloured cadet centre and, in addition, a rehabilitation centre. In the Eastern Cape, where 14 per cent of the Coloured people live, we have at this stage only one vocational school.

It is my special request to the Minister that when he pays the Eastern Cape a visit, he should look into this problem. In order to give the voung Coloured people in that area the benefits of proper technical training, I believe that we are entitled to have a technical college which will stand on its own. It should not be a branch of the Cape Technical College. The Minister should seriously consider whether the time has not arrived for the Eastern Cape to be given a Coloured cadet training centre. I think many of us have visited the training centre at Faure. It serves an excellent purpose. and I want to emphasize that if vocational training is established on a proper basis so that young Coloured youths can enjoy proper training in the early stages of their careers, the need for the Coloured centre may no longer exist. Very often children grow up under difficult circumstances. They become delinquents and they are the type of people who eventually have to be accommodated in a Coloured training centre.

If, however, proper attention is paid to the provision of technical training facilities for Coloured youths, both male and female, then I believe the need for a Coloured training centre may not be so urgent. In the meantime, I want to emphasize that, as things are now, such a centre is an urgent necessity in the interests of the Coloured people. It is no good the Minister telling us that the centre here can serve the Eastern Cape as well. I believe that such a centre there is of paramount importance. I hope therefore, that this matter will receive his urgent consideration.

Mr. Chairman, since last night I have enjoyed listening to the discussion of this Vote. Hon. members will know that in the past I was more interested in financial and economic matters, and that I was not so well acquainted, nor am I at the moment, with the more basic human relationships and matters forming part of the activities of these Departments. I want to admit frankly to-day that in regard to this Department I still have a tremendous deal to learn. Actually, up to now I have not had the time to give sufficient thought to, to enter into the spirit of and to identify myself with this cause, which is of such great importance to our country. It is perhaps for that reason that I have found the discussions to which I have been listening for the past few hours, to be so particularly interesting. I can very honestly say that it has been a pleasure to me to sit here and listen to these discussions. The majority of the speeches that were made, were very good. Many important matters were brought to the fore. There were matters affecting the future of the Coloureds, and also matters affecting, very closely and very deeply, the future of all of us here in South Africa.

In replying to this debate, I shall try to be brief. Without trying to be funny, I just want to say that we shall consult the Hansard reports of the speeches made by hon. members. If there are any points to which I fail to reply, we shall definitely send further information to the members concerned, or reply more fully to those points on a later occasion.

I should very much like to say that it is a privilege to me to serve this Department in this capacity. I can tell hon. members that when the Prime Minister summoned me and snoke to me in his office one morning, the Department of Coloured Affairs was the first Department which he mentioned to me. I must honestly admit that I was not only surprised; actually, I was rather astonished as well. This afternoon I can say in all sincerity that if he were to summon me now and ask me what Department I wanted in his Cabinet, I would say to him, “Coloured Affairs”.

I have come to realize that this is the greatest challenge facing all of us in South Africa, and that in this Department some of the most important work can be done which one could ever dream to do for one’s country. If a politician may have a calling, it is possible for him to find his calling in the Department of Coloured Affairs. Therefore I want to say that this is my work, but it is not only my work; at present it is also my preference and my privilege to perform this task and to assist and serve the Coloured community and our country in the many spheres in which one can still render assistance to-day, spheres in which there is such a great need for service and assistance. Some of the matters that were raised in the course of this debate, were of a practical nature, and I shall reply briefly to them later on.

Furthermore, basic matters were raised here, matters which are of a political nature. I was asked to reply to many questions in this regard. I do not wish to declare myself to be competent to reply to such matters to-day. If I do not reply to them to-day, I know that hon. members will insist on those replies next year. I shall probably have to furnish them then. But to-day I should very much like to furnish the Committee with the following replies:

If any person were to ask me to-day what my most important task is in the Department of Coloured Affairs, I would reply without the slightest doubt that my most important task is to establish good relations in South Africa between us as Whites and the Coloured people of our country. We say that we have placed the Bantu population of South Africa on a certain road. We have already made a great deal of progress along that road. And in the seventies we shall make a great deal of progress with the Bantu peoples along that road which leads to what they call their ultimate destination. In a certain sense the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa will then lag behind. For the purposes of my speech here I shall leave the Indian population out of account. We shall have to find and follow the road ahead together. For that reason I should like to say that at this stage of our history, at the beginning of this decade, it is important that our relations towards each other should be correct if we want to follow this course together—and we must follow it together. My most important work and my supreme task is to foster these relations. Although it may perhaps be unnecessary, I do want to say that I have no intention of seeking sound relations by being obsequious; I have no intention of seeking sound relations by making all sorts of promises or by telling people that they should follow me and that I shall place them on a road which is short. I have no intention of telling people that they should follow me and that I shall be able to let them have this or that in 1970, or that I shall accomplish now, in 1970, what will only be practical politics in South Africa in 1990. I want to make this very clear. Furthermore, I want to say that relations are reciprocal; relations are not onesided. I must start with myself as Minister and with us as Whites. I am, what is more, prepared to start there. We should not examine the attitude of the Coloureds. We should examined our own attitude. But the Coloureds, too, should not merely examine our attitude, but also their own, for, as I said, good relations are reciprocal. For that reason I should like to thank everybody—the Whites of whom there are so many, and the Coloureds of whom there are also so many—who is in a practical manner displaying, developing and fostering the right attitude. I want to make an appeal to everybody to cultivate, for the sake of the future, the right approach towards each other, i.e. we as Whites on the one hand, towards the Coloureds, on the other hand. I have often heard people saying in this House, as well as at meetings and congresses, that our policy towards the Bantu peoples should be justifiable on Christian and moral grounds. This is true, and we confirm it; our policy towards the Coloured people will also, at all times, have to be just and justifiable on Christian and moral grounds. The Government has been working in that direction for a long time. My predecessor is sitting over here. Just look at the foundations which he laid with this as the target, with this as the ideal. If we can succeed in creating the correct attitude, we shall be able to go ahead without any hesitation whatsoever; then all the questions which were put to me today, will fall into the right perspective. Then I shall see them in the right perspective and there will be no need for me to reply to all of them to-day or to concern myself about them. I can gaze at the horizon, use my binoculars to see what is on the horizon, without there being any need for me to try to see the invisible. I know that if we and the Coloureds follow this course together, with the correct attitude towards each other and in collaboration with each other, we shall, when we reach that distant point, solve those problems which will be awaiting us then, because we shall have solved all our problems along that course in a systematic manner. With the correct attitude we can look far into the future. However, we should not merely look far into the future—it will also be possible for us to look at our immediate problems with which we have to contend to-day, the problems of to-day and of to-morrow. Then we can look at education, training, at social welfare, at housing, at opportunities for employment and at the 101 other things which have to be seen to. In the light of this attitude which I have outlined, we may then move forward from day to day and build the future on a sound foundation, a foundation which we are in the process of laying to-day.

Before dealing with aspects of a practical nature, I should like to add something here, and this is intended especially for our Coloureds. I want to remind them that privileges carry responsibilities with them—for them, just as they do for me and for any other person in the world. I want to remind the Coloureds that they should also remember that privileges carry responsibilities. I am not saying that they do not want to accept these responsibilities—I am merely reminding them of these responsibilities. I am willing to put in a word for the Coloureds, but then they will also have to help me by rendering certain equivalent services in return. We have many problems; there are many things which I can call to mind and which we shall not even be able to discuss to-day. But if we have the right attitude, this question, i.e. “Is this the end of the political development for the Coloureds?” does not trouble me in the least—in the first place, because this is not the end of the development. To me this is elementary—this is merely the beginning, and how can the beginning ever be the end? What the end is going to look like and how the road ahead is going to be marked out, are matters on which I may perhaps have my own personal views. But this is a question to which we shall find an answer as we move ahead.

Somebody wanted to know here whether we granted the Coloureds a place in the sun. It feels to me as though such a question is not worthy of a reply. Really, I do not think that there is one single person in this House who does not grant the Coloureds a place in the sun. If there is in fact such an hon. member here, it will astonish me. The question was asked here whether I believe in a separate state for the Coloureds. I am not here in my capacity as the policy-maker for the National Party, but as one who implements it. To my knowledge there has never been any discussion at any congress of the National Party on a draft resolution calling for a separate state for the Coloureds. Therefore, this is not the policy of the Government—undoubtedly not. To my mind this is actually a question which need not be discussed to-day; it is one which we can debate when the opportunity offers itself for us to do so. If hon. members want to debate this matter next year, I shall not take it amiss of them. However, to me it is something which lies in the distant future; I fail to see that it can ever happen.

What is your ultimate for the Coloureds?

I have just said that if you look far into the future, you cannot see what it holds; nobody can tell what the future holds. However, I say that if we go forward in the correct spirit, in trust and with the cooperation of all concerned, then the future holds no fear for us nor for the Coloured people. If hon. members want to pursue this matter further now they are free to do so; as far as I am concerned, I do not feel inclined to take this matter further this year. We are dealing with a definite situation to-day. I regard my first duty to be the creation of a spirit of trust and co-operation between the Whites and the Coloureds. This is to-day a matter mostly of day to day work and planning. If the Coloured people want assurances from me with regard to the future, I am prepared to discuss it with them.

What are you prepared to discuss with them?

For instance, liaison between their parliament and ours. That is one thing I shall be prepared to discuss. But I will also tell them that I cannot tell them what the future holds in store for us but that we should go into the future together. Then the future will look after itself—if we look after to-day and after tomorrow.

Let matters take their course.

No, it is not a case of allowing matters to take their course.

I just want to ask this. You and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration are members of the same Cabinet. What would you say he means by saying that we do not want to share our independence with the Coloureds?

I cannot reply to that now. These are facts on which I do not have any information.

He quoted it last night.

I do not know what the context is or how the Minister of Bantu Administration understood it, or how he reacted, and I cannot base a whole argument on interjections. But we in South Africa attained a Republic, a free, independent Republic for all our people who share the country with us.

For the Coloureds, too?

Yes, for the Coloureds and for the Whites; for us who are going to share this country in the future.

And the Bantu?

Yes, for the Bantu, too, until such time as they have been seceded into their own separate states. I am not going to repudiate another Minister, but I think that the independence and the freedom which we gained for South Africa, are for the Whites as well as for the Coloureds. These are my views.

A very fine thought was expressed here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, i.e. that we should try to develop our Coloured people in complexes, especially in areas traditionally inhabited by them, and that all of them should not be concentrated in one large mass. This is a fine thought and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister told him, we are already giving attention to it, and I hope that we shall have success in this respect.

Furthermore, a great deal was said here about the liaison between us and the Coloured Persons Council. It is true that the hon. the Prime Minister gave that assurance, and I can only say that the Coloured Persons Council passed a resolution last year in which they requested me to appoint from their ranks a committee for the purpose of holding discussions with us on this question of liaison. I gave attention to this matter. In the meantime, as you know, there was a change in the leadership of the Labour Party, and at the moment I am waiting for them to furnish us with the names of the members of the Labour Party who are to serve on this committee. As soon as we have these names—and I hope this will be soon, because I have asked that they should be reminded of this matter again—I hope that we shall be able to appoint this committee, and then the hon. the Prime Minister and I will hold discussions with that committee.

Is it the Minister’s intention to negotiate with the parties in the council rather than with the executive committee only?

The intention at this stage is to negotiate with the Council as such. For instance, we have also appointed to this committee one representative from the two small minority parties. But now I want to say that the Deputy Minister and I have in the meantime started with regular discussions with the executive committee. Approximately every two months we have a meeting with the executive committee, and than we discuss problems affecting the Coloureds. They place items on the agenda, and we place items on the agenda. We discuss delegated matters, and they also express their views on matters which have not been delegated. I am merely mentioning this in passing in order to show that in the meantime a practical method of liaison has already been introduced on this level.

Then I was asked why the Coloured Persons Council in South-West Africa had not yet been elected. The Ordinance provides that a Coloured Persons Council is to be elected there, but at the moment it is still a nominated council. The reason for this is that the Department of the Interior has as yet not had the time to devote attention to this matter. There was a registration of voters here in the Republic, and there was a registration of Coloured voters as well. Then there were the Coloured elections and our elections for the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council. But we trust that once all these elections have been disposed of, it will be possible for the Department of the Interior to pay attention to drafting a voters’ roll for South-West Africa, subsequent to which that election will be held.

Then the hon. member for Houghton asked me a question in regard to the Coloured Corporation, i.e. a question concerning the various liquor licences. She is not here at the moment, but I am going to furnish the reply for general information. The fact of the matter is that a number of hotels have been taken over. I do not think we can have any doubt about this. I examined the position a few times, and to me it really looks like something which we shall have to accept that way. The Coloureds are people who are travelling about very extensively to-day; they travel all over the country during holiday seasons, and therefore we must make adequate provision for hotels for Coloured people. The few hotels which have been taken over by the Corporation itself, will, as soon as it is practicable to do so, be made over by the Corporation to groups of Coloured people. These are hotels which, in some cases, used to belong to Whites —I think in all three cases—and which were situated in zoned Coloured group areas at the time. To my mind this was the obvious step to take. There are, in addition, quite a number of liquor licences which were issued to various Coloureds. This was done undersection 106 of the Liquor Act, and I just want to tell the Committee that all of those licences made provision for compulsory restaurant and lounge facilities. Not one of them made provision for a bar; they only made provision for restaurant and lounge facilities. To my mind this has a very beneficial effect on the drinking pattern, and I do not think that this is something to which we can or should raise objections.

The hon. member for Tygervallei put forward an important point here. He wanted to know whether we would regard the Corporation’s functions in a somewhat different light, and whether it would not be possible for us to promote to a greater extent the commercial interests of the Coloured people and the training and ability of the individual Coloured entrepreneur and trader by means of having large white business concerns in those areas. Well, at the moment this is not the policy. I have also given a great deal of thought to this matter and asked myself what is the best method whereby the bright lights and attractive shop windows may also be taken to the Coloured townships after dark; what is the best method whereby the Coloureds may be taught a scientific approach to shopkeeping by means of having a well-ordered departmental business where all the employees are Coloureds, and how one may most expeditiously inculcate in them a feeling for business.

I, too, have already given a great deal of thought to this matter, but at this stage it is not the policy, and I am not prepared to say that it is wrong. The procedure followed by the Corporation at the moment, is to help individual Coloured entrepreneurs in various spheres with advances and also with expert guidance, where necessary. However, I shall also be devoting quite a great deal of attention to this matter in the future.

†The hon. member for Wynberg wanted me to make a policy statement on the right of this Committee to discuss this vote of R67 million for the Coloureds and, arising from that, whether we have the right to discuss the way in which these moneys are spent. Is that more or less what the hon. member wants me to do?

On a point of explanation, Sir, some of us, when we have raised welfare matters, for instance, have received letters from the Department saying that this was no longer our concern; that it was a matter for the Coloured Representative Council.

As the hon. member knows and as the Committee knows, certain matters have been delegated to the Coloured Representative Council. These matters are handled by the members of their executive committee. I refer to matters such as education, social welfare and pensions and so on. Although this Committee has the right in general to discuss the Vote and to ask for all reasonable information with regard to this large sum of money that we are being asked to vote, I feel that the decision as to the way in which this money is to be spent and what amount should be allocated to the various matters delegated to them, is one which we will leave to them. If they grant a pension for X and not for Y, it is a matter which falls under the Coloured Representative Council. The people who have been elected or appointed will deal with that and it is their constituents who are being affected. Surely, I think we must leave the particulars to them although I would not wish to deny this Committee the right to have a say over policy matters and broad matters concerning the moneys we have voted in this House. I think we must leave the particulars to them, because they also want to have a say in the matters which have been entrusted to them.

Then there is another matter regarding the Eastern Cape Coloured preference area. I would say the position is that Coloured people can be employed without any restrictions. Whenever a person applies for Bantu labour he is asked whether he cannot get Coloured labour instead. In that sense I would say it is a Coloured labour preference area. In regard to the education and technical training in that area, I am sure the hon. member will leave the matter with us so that we can go into it, because if we want to develop that area as much as possible on the basis of Coloured labour and if the figures which were given by the hon. member with regard to the projection he has made are correct, I am sure we will have to provide training facilities for the Coloured people in that area.

*Many other matters to which I do not wish to reply now, were raised here. For instance, housing was discussed here. I just want to say that we shall always be willing to make, on behalf of the Coloured people, representations in respect of all the practical problems they are experiencing. We are thinking, for instance, of transport problems, resettlement problems and others. We are the Department which will, on their behalf, make representations to other Government Departments. I shall certainly ask my colleague—and I know this is his attitude since he has already said so repeatedly—to handle these problems as sympathetically as is humanly possible, and to see to it that these things will be effected with as little disruption as possible. There is one point to which I should like to refer here. It is a point about which I feel rather strongly, and I am of the opinion that it is in fact being done. I want to make very sure that those Coloured people who have shown that they want to get on in life, are afforded every opportunity of buying their own properties in good residential areas, where they can build attractive houses for themselves and where they can lay out beautiful gardens for themselves. What I should therefore like to see, is that the person who wants to get on in life, will be assisted in order that he may be in a position to do so. However, I have no doubt that this is also the intention of my hon. colleague. This is, more or less, all I have to say. I want to thank hon. members once again for the fine discussion which we were able to have on this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he arrives at that amount of R67 million. Would the hon. the Minister not give us a reply to this question as well? If he does, he can tell us, in particular, how much control and freedom the Coloured Persons Council does in fact have over the disposal of this amount.

The executive council of the Coloured Persons Council prepares draft estimates of what they will require in the course of the coming financial year. This is done under the various headings of Education, Social Welfare and Pensions, Rural Areas, Local Authorities, and so forth. In addition, there is, of course, the whole administrative machinery as we have it in our Main Estimates as well. There is the establishment, and once the executive council of the Coloured Persons Council has prepared the estimates, just as our Estimates are prepared, they are referred to me in all their particulars. I as the Minister will then approve them. I have not done so yet, but this will be the way it will work. I want to say now that I shall probably not try to change them to any great extent, as these are matters which I have delegated to them. For that reason I think that they should handle these matters. They will then be able to come forward with their needs. We started with the transfer, i.e. we started at a point where we spent so much money when it still fell under us, and in these Estimates we have now adjusted to it. This is how it will be adjusted from year to year. Once I have approved the Estimates, they are sent to the Treasury, which deals with them as it would deal with the Estimates of any other Department. The Estimates are then submitted to Parliament, and once Parliament has approved them—as we are doing now—and the moneys are paid over to them, I have nothing more to do with them. Then they spend these moneys as they deem fit. Their books are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, who then writes a report on their accounts which is presented to this Parliament. Any unauthorized expenditure or instances of money having been misspent, will be reported to this Parliament by him. The report is then referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I should like to put one last question. Can the Coloured Persons Council, for instance, raise the salaries of their teachers to the level of those of white teachers and deduct the money for such increases from that of another Vote?

The salaries of all their public servants are still being determined by the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

SCHEDULE 1.

(Chargeable to Revenue Account.)

SCHEDULE 4.

(Chargeable to South-West Africa Account.)

Revenue Vote No. 51 and S.W.A. Vote No. 28 put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Votes Nos. 8, 14, 36, 38 and 49 of Schedule 1, to Schedule 3 and to S.W.A. Votes Nos. 5 and 20 of Schedule 4.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

SCHEDULE 1.

(Chargeable to Revenue Account.)

SCHEDULE 3.

(Chargeable to Bantu Education Account.)

SCHEDULE 4.

(Chargeable to South-West Africa Account.)

SUMMARY.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 8 put and agreed to.

Amendments to Revenue Vote No. 14 and S.W.A. Vote No. 5:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put to the hon. the Minister the matter concerning the R2 million in respect of the “Interest equalization contribution: Subsidy on farm mortgage interest”. The hon. the Minister of Finance made reference to this item in his Budget speech where he said that where the loan has to be used by a bona fide farmer for farming purposes and the bond does not exceed R100,000 there will be a subsidy on interest on that particular mortgage bond of 1½ per cent. The agricultural sector in general is grateful for this concession from the hon. the Minister of Finance. We had hoped that possibly it might cover bonds of R150,000 and we had also hoped that perhaps the concession in respect of the interest might have been higher, perhaps 2 per cent, but we are grateful that the Government have now accepted that the farming community is a section of our economy that is vulnerable to the effects of interest rates and that the Government have now decided to subsidize this important item in the production costs of agricultural produce. What we would like to know is how this subsidy is going to be paid out. Will it be the function of the financial institutions concerned to ask for this subsidy or will it be the duty of the bond debtor to make application to the State for this amount? When will this have to be done?

There is also another item to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Finance specifically said that it would only be in respect of bonds taken out with registered financial institutions. It has come to our notice that many farmers have bonds with private people like firms of attorneys and other such business houses which are not registered financial institutions. We on this side of the House feel that such bonds should also qualify for the subsidy in respect of the interest rate. These bonds are registered and proper control can be exercised in the payment of the interest, etc. We do not see how there can be any snag where the control of this particular subsidy is concerned, in respect of those particular bonds held by private people. We would therefore like to knowfrom the hon. the Minister what his views are on these particular points under this item.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am not able to reply to all these questions at this stage. The hon. members know that the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that a subsidy of this nature would be paid to bona fide farmers in respect of interest on mortgage bonds. The details of the whole scheme are in fact still being worked out. For this reason it is very difficult to reply in regard to the finer details of this scheme at this stage. The hon. member was correct when he said that it had been decided that it would be only in respect of bonds with financial institutions. I think that if the hon. member used his imagination a bit, he would realize that if no restrictions were imposed in that respect, this scheme could lead to all sorts of abuses. For that reason it has been decided and it is still the position to-day that it will be paid only in respect of bonds with financial institutions. My personal opinion is that if it will be possible to extend it, if the determination of financial institutions is not wide enough, and if it can be controlled within limits, we can consider the matter. For safety reasons, however, it has been approved in this way, i.e. that the bonds should be only with financial institutions.

The hon. member said he had hoped that the interest rate would be a little higher. I think the matter of the interest subsidies of 1½ per cent has already been thoroughly discussed. In any case, I think this is a subsidy which will be very welcome to the farming community. Unfortunately, I must admit that I cannot furnish all these details at this stage, because the scheme is still in the process of being worked out.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance certainly did his best, but we would have expected the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to be in the House to reply to this question. This is part of his Vote.

He is in the Senate.

If he is in the Senate, then where is his Deputy? There are two points I do want to raise. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will convey these points to his colleague. The first is that, in accepting 1½ per cent and R100,000 as the two cardinal facets of this scheme, we do so on the basis that we have no knowledge of the scheme as yet and we want to wait and see how it works. If we find, for example, that the interest rates rise to such an extent that 1½ per cent really becomes of very little use to the farmer, we might have to take the matter up with the hon. the Minister again. I think there is one very important point which the hon. the Minister or his Department have not given sufficient consideration to. That is the fact that the subsidy is payable only in respect of bonds from registered financial institutions. We understand the hon. the Minister’s problem fully that if the subsidy is given in regard to individual bonds, there may be a little skulduggery somewhere along the line. However, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should take the matter further, because what he is in effect doing now is forcing every borrower to go to a financial institution to get his mortgage. He is also forcing the man who has money to lend and who normally lends it on farm bonds to route that money through a financial institution. I do not think that it is right. The effect must be that, obviously, nobody is going to borrow money from an individual if he cannot get the subsidy, when he can borrow from an institution and get the subsidy. He is doing two things; he is forcing all private funds which normally go into farm mortgages, to go through financial institutions, and he is forcing ‘the borrower to turn to a financial institution only. I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that this is bad and that he will have to devise a formula which will protect him as the guardian of the public purse and which will at the same time see to it that the individual will receive the same rights as an institution. The hon. the Minister has practised in the country and he knows how many farm bonds are dealt with by the local attorney, for example. Probably more of them are handled by the local attorney than by financial institutions. He is going to put that attorney out of business if the borrower can get his bond from an institution only.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in reply to that. The hon. member for Parktown, of course, finds it easy to ask for the whole world, because he knows that he is not in a position to give anything. When he has asked for the whole world, it appears as though it is the Government which does not want to give everything. Therefore it is easy for him to say that the subsidy of 1½ per cent is too low in his opinion, that it should be more, etc.

I did not say that.

The hon. member must not get excited now. The hon. member said that circumstances may change in such a way that it might be far too little. In the light of that, the hon. member’s statement was by implication a plea for the subsidy to be increased. It is easy to request that, but it is not so easy to grant it, because one needs money for that. We are already making provision for an amount of R2 million to be spent on financing this subsidy scheme. I am fully aware of the circumstances which the hon. member mentioned. In the rural areas there are firms of attorneys which administer hundreds of thousands of rands and even a million rand and more on behalf of people who invest it in bonds. The hon. member himself provided the answer to this. Because we act as guardians and are responsible for Government funds, we think that we should act safely. Accordingly we cannot allow this scheme to be abused. The hon. member wanted to make suggestions, but he himself did not have a solution for this. If he had a solution, it would have been a different matter. He said that we should find a new definition. He said that we should not restrict it to financial institutions, but that we should find a new definition. Sir, it is not such an easy task to find a new definition without giving rise to the possible abuses to which the hon. member referred. For that reason, I want to say in conclusion that this scheme is still under consideration. I do not want to say that adjustments will not be made in some respects. I am aware of the arguments which the hon. member mentioned here. I shall use those arguments and consider them. We shall just have to wait and see to what extent we can put this scheme into operation in a practical way.

Mr. Chairman, will the Minister consider extending this concession to bonds which are registered at present? There can then be no possibility of humbugging, because the bond will already be registered with a private person.

Mr. Chairman, we must also make this rule applicable to bonds which will be registered in the future. I am not so worried about the bonds which are registered at the present moment. Difficulties will, however, arise in the case of bonds which will have to be registered in future. That is what will cause our probem.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 36:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in dealing with the proposed subsidy of bond interest, indicated that there would be four tests which would be applied before the subsidy would become payable. The first one was that the interest rate should exceed 8½ per cent. In other words, the subsidy would be directed at covering up to 1 per cent above an interest rate of 8½ per cent. Secondly, the bond loan capital should not exceed R12,000. Thirdly, that the value of the property would not exceed R16,000 in respect of the dwelling, and fourthly, that the capital bond would be due to a financial institution. There has been a certain amount of speculation in the press as to the meaning of “value” and how it will be determined. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Community Development whether he could indicate whether that value is to be present-day value, value at the date of the Budget, i.e. the 12th August, or the purchase price within recent months or recent years. I should also like to know whether the valuation would have to be produced by way of a sworn appraisement or by means of a certificate from the financial institution concerned. The hon. the Minister will realize that it will involve the householder in a certain amount of expense in securing that valuation for purposes of claiming the subsidy. The second point is again the question of financial institutions. I agree that there is a possibility of problems arising with new bonds to private individuals being registered. There can be a high rate of interest stipulated merely for the sake of obtaining the one per cent subsidy. I cannot for the life of me see that there could be any danger of that type of thing happening with bonds that were already registered on the 12th August, 1970, i.e. the date of the Budget.

I do not know how many people are involved in this low category of property owners. There may be quite a lot. One knows of private trusts and so forth not being financial institutions which lend money on these types of mortgage bonds. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to that where he is satisfied that there can be no possibility of the manipulation of the interest rate merely to get the additional subsidy.

I should now like to come to another aspect. I appreciate that the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the figure of R12,000 in his Budget speech as the maximum bond and R16,000 as the maximum value. I think the hon. the Minister of Community Development is enough of a realist on the property market these days to know that this is going to limit the field of assistance considerably. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister, when more information is available on the number of bonds involved, would not consider stretching this to some extent within the limits of the amount being voted to cover say bonds of up to R15,000 and property values up to R20,000. It would thus cover a further field where I think this type of assistance is necessary and would be most desirable. I appreciate that we are tied within the limits of the globular sum which is being voted. In the hon. the Minister’s investigations I think he could give consideration to possibly extending the field of cover a little further than it is here. The figures put forward by the Minister of Finance are I think a little parsimonious.

Mr. Chairman, the last point made by the hon. member is really a point which should really be dealt with by the Minister of Finance. He is the man who decided that the maximum valuation should be R16,000 and the maximum bond R12,000. The hon. the Minister of Finance and myself had a very long interview with representatives of the building societies and other financial institutions to discuss the application of this subsidy. The hon. member will realize this will affect thousands of bonds. To place all the administrative work on the Department of Finance or the Department of Community Development would really be beyond them. My secretary, Mr. Niemand, is at the moment with the Registrar of Financial Institutions consulting building societies and other financial institutions to find the best practical way for this to work. So far they came to one decision, namely that neither Treasury nor Community Development will work with the individual owners of houses. The subsidy will be paid to the building society or the financial institution holding the bond. I agree with my friend that the question of valuation is not an easy one. As far as the valuation of the property is concerned, whether it be R16,000 or more, we are satisfied that that could be left in the hands of the financial institutions. One must remember that every property in respect of which a bond has been given by a financial institution, has been valued at sometime or other. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that if the valuation was R16,000 ten years ago, it would be much higher to-day. We have not come to a decision yet as to whether we are going to ask for new valuations. This ties up with the other point. If they decide not to have new valuations, then subsidies will have to be paid on houses which to-day are worth far more than R16,000. However, this question is still being discussed with building societies, so that I cannot give the hon. member a final answer. The whole thing will, however, be made retrospective to the date on which this is being passed by Parliament.

The last point I want to make is that we shall see how much money we have to spend and then decide, with the advice of building societies and other financial institutions, whether we should raise the limit from R16,000 to R20,000 and from R12,000 to, say, R15,000. I do not agree with my hon. friend that a house worth R16,000 to-day is a small house. I told the hon. member the other day of a house I saw in Nigel, a house which the builder wanted to sell at from R10,000 to R12,000. It was a fairly big house—1,600 square feet. This is not a small house. It consists of three bedrooms, with the third bedroom quite a large room, a sitting room, a dining room, a bathroom, a kitchen and a garage. So, a house worth R16,000 is not a small house. My hon. friend will also agree with me that one does not want to subsidize the man who can afford to pay his own rent. We want to subsidize what we call the middle and lower income groups. The highest income of what we regard as the middle-income group is R5,000 a year.

75 per cent of Whites earn that.

Well, then all of them are going to be subsidized because they live in houses with a valuation in the vicinity of R16,000. But the Housing Commission is studying the census figures now to determine what changes there have been in the incomes of the different groups composing our population—for instance, how many to-day earn more than R100 per month, how many more than R250, etc. Then they will work out a new formula to assist the various groups to get housing. That will of course also affect the subsidy on interest rates. Interest rates have only been increased by a half per cent by building societies—so the maximum subsidy will also be a half per cent until such time as building societies increase the interest rate further, which we hope will not be soon.

I am afraid that this is the only information I can give to the hon. member. However, I think the information I have given him replies to most of his questions.

In regard to the value of the properties, the Minister has indicated that he does not think that R16,000 is too low a figure. He says we would be surprised at what one can build for R12,000 to R16,000. Now we know that the Government looks after the interests of the taxpayer and therefore naturally we take it that the Government will spend money very sparingly, but I would like to point out that you cannot build much for R16,000. After all, we had the reply to a question put in the House the other day that for the extension to a lounge and to build a bathroom, a garage and a storeroom for the Commissioner-General at Umtata, the cost was just on R18,000. The bathroom alone cost R4,500, and it was for the guests, not for him. The extension to the lounge cost R3,500. So, you see, Sir, it is not so cheap to build to-day if one considers what it cost to give the Commissioner-General an extra bathroom.

You are talking nonsense.

Amendment put and agreed to. Amendments to Revenue Vote No. 38 and S.W.A. Vote No. 20:

In so far as Vote 38 is concerned, Item F, namely “contributions and grants-in-aid,” contains a new item of R10,000, in which provision is made for a national co-ordinating consumers board. During the debate on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, he indicated that it was his intention to have such a board established. He indicated that there were many consumers’ organizations in South Africa, and he named a number of them, which he felt should have some co-ordinated body through which they could express their opinions. I believe that the membership of this co-ordinating body will represent many thousands of individual members and that their decisions will be of general interest to the country. They could come to decisions there which might in the end involve legislation or the amendment of existing legislation. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that we are voting money this year and that he has indicated that for the three subsequent years we will be asked to vote the amount of R25,000 each year, whether he would approve of the suggestion that this body should have some form of annual report which would be available to Parliament so that at least we will have an account of what is taking place in regard to their deliberations and decisions. I put that question to the hon. the Minister.

On my Vote I made a full statement on this matter and I said, inter alia, that the members of this board would be appointed by me. The amount being voted here for this Board is R10,000 for this financial year and it will be R25,000 per year for the next three years. The hon. member said that this organization would have several thousand members. I think the hon. member is probably aware of the fact that although there are thousands, if not millions, who have an interest in the work which this proposed board will do, there will not really be something like direct membership of individuals all over the country, and it is even less possible that financial contributions will be made towards the administration of a board such as this by the people who will actually derive the benefit of a scheme of this nature. It is because of this very fact and because my department realizes this that we have agreed to provide financial assistance to this board.

The hon. member asked whether a report would be made to Parliament. I am still not quite sure precisely how this board will work and where the report will go to. My Department will naturally exercise supervision to a large extent. As far as contact with Parliament is concerned, I shall rather investigate the matter later and inform the hon. member in this respect at a later stage.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote No. 49 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Vote “Bantu Education” put and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 put and agreed to.

Sohedule 3, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in his speeches at the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill and in his speeches in the debate on his Vote, the hon. the Minister of Finance dealt with many of the financial and economic problems with which we are concerned to-day, but nowhere in these speeches nor in the speeches of other hon. Ministers on their Votes, did we find any clear-cut plan for the future, any detailed long-term projections, nor any evidence of facing up to the real economic facts of South Africa as they are to-day. We find nothing that provided plain and clear guide lines for the road that we have to travel to ensure that we have maximum economic growth with the greatest possible stability. It is true that the hon. Ministers dealt at some length—and some at great length—with their various portfolios but after some seven weeks of debate we find ourselves back again in what is now the famous square one. Vital questions of the day are still unanswered; fruitless policies are still to be continued. As far as the private sector is concerned, there is more uncertainty to-day than ever before.

The Government has done little this Session to change the climate or the mood of the private sector that has been prevalent now for some considerable time, and it has done even less to halt the continuing rise in the cost of living that is bearing so heavily on the people. The average rate of inflation for the three years from 1962 to 1964 was 1.8 per cent. The average rate of inflation for the three years 1965 to 1969 doubled to 3.6 per cent; for the year ended 30th June, 1970, the inflationary rate was of the order of 4 per cent, considerably higher than the 3.2 per cent for the comparable period of the previous 12 months. For the current financial year the consensus of opinion is that the rate of inflation will be 5 per cent or more.

In his Budget speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to last year’s rise of 4 per cent in the rate of inflation as “this unsatisfactory development”. In dealing with the objectives of his Budget he said that it was intended “above all to curb inflation”, a sentiment with which we entirely agree. Now, if the projections of the economists are correct namely that our current annual rate of inflation is likely to be 5 per cent, one has to accept, despite the statements of the hon. Minister of Finance, that we have not curbed inflation and that we are now committed to an increase in the rates of inflation of 5 per cent or more in the current year. We must remember that these projections were made before the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs gave an increase of R18 million to his employees. We are not complaining this action. However, we must also remember that this protection was made before the hon. the Minister of Finance announced an increase of R69 million to public servants. We are also happy that this was done. This was also done before some substantial increases had taken place in the private sector. The hon. the Minister will have seen that in the distributive trade new agreements have been signed whereby wage increases varying from 8 per cent to 25 per cent are provided for. It is quite clear that the Government is pursuing policies which are making wage inflation inevitable and they are forced to accept that their lack of manoeuvreability has placed them in a straitjacket as far as the combating of inflation is concerned. In that regard there is no escape for them.

Basically our problem is that the demand for labour cannot be slowed down. The Government has to build up its infra-structure if the economy is not going to stagnate. We have to provide better transport facilities, we have to provide better telephone services, we have to provide more water and we have to provide better road services. All this requires manpower of which we are woefully short at the moment. In the private sector the manufacturing industry has to expand continuously if we are to meet our growth rate targets. For this too we need more labour. With this Government, this labour is just not available.

It is no good the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs thinking that he can solve the problem by telling the workers of South Africa that they must do a honest day’s work for a day’s pay. I would like to quote the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—

I am not questioning the validity of the hon. the Minister’s philosophy that all of us should work hard; I think we in Parliament set a very good example, but the hon. the Minister has to take cognizance of human nature and human frailties. When the situation is that there are more jobs available than people who can do those jobs and where the employee is faced each year with ever-increasing rise in prices, with problems of housing, with the fact that he cannot get a telephone, with higher taxation and a host of other things which frustrate him, you are certainly not creating conditions for maximum optimum effort. It is incentives that create the will of a man to work. He wants to know when he is working what his objectives are. He wants to see the fruits of his labour and he wants to know that if he works harder, his rand is not going to be worth less. He wants to know if he works harder that he is going to be able to get the house he wants. He also wants to know that one day perhaps in the not too distant future, he will get a telephone. These are the incentives which make people work. Unless we create these incentives and unless these incentives are available, it is just useless to say to people that they must work harder.

We have had a very interesting dialogue on the question of labour. Firstly, there was the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us what his policy was, in so far as the industrialists are concerned, that if they will help him with the homelands industrial policy, they will not find him unsympathetic towards their need for Bantu labour in the white areas. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Labour saying exactly the opposite. Then we had the hon. the Prime Minister with the full weight of his position telling us that there was no difference between the views of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the views of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Labour. Finally we had the Minister of Economic Affairs entering the list. In Hansard, Col. 4415, of 17th September, 1970, he said the following:

We subscribe to these views. In his address to the House last night, the hon. the Minister of Planning took very much the same line. He did add that the Physical Planning Act was here to stay, but he said that there would be no bullying in so far as the application of that Act is concerned. I think it is a fair question to ask what the policy of this Government is. Is the policy of the Government the policies as enunciated in this House by the hon. the Ministers of Finance. Economic Affairs, and of Planning, or is the policy enunciated by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, of Labour and of Immigration?

There has been another very interesting facet in our discussions of the labour problem, namely in regard to immigration. The hon. the Minister of Immigration told us on his Vote that his target was 13,000 to 14,000 economically active immigrants per annum. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Zululand as to whether he would take more immigrants if he could get them, provided they met the standards set by the hon. the Minister of Immigration, his reply was “no”. He said that 13,000 to 14,000 economically active immigrants was what he wanted, this was the number he was getting, this number tied in with the economic development plan and that he would not take more. It is a somewhat amazing statement. Perhaps the Minister of Immigration has not read the Department of Labour’s manpower survey No. 8 that was tabled this month. This report showed that there was a shortage of white labour in all categories of 57,500. Perhaps the Minister has not read the labour survey reports of the Federated Chamber of Industries nor the survey of Assocom? Does the hon. the Minister not know that we have a shortage of labour? But the hon. the Minister tells us that he is not prepared to take more immigrants than his fixed target however good they may be and however desperately they may be required by us. It would seem to us that the attitude of the hon. Minister of Immigration is not orientated to our basic economic needs, to get all the skilled labour we need, nor to another very important factor in our lives, namely that of trying to narrow the gap between the white and the non-white groups. It seems to us that the hon. the Minister is thinking more along political lines and that the question he puts to himself is how the immigrants will vote when they become South African citizens or what effects massive immigration will have on the Nationalist Party. If that is not his thinking how can he tell us that he will not accept more fully qualified immigrants who meet with every standard he sets if more than 13,000 to 14,000 per year are available? The Minister has told us that he will not take them and said that he did not want them.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not talking about throwing the doors wide open and bringing unskilled workers into this country. I am only talking about the availability of immigrants, who meet every standard that the hon. the Minister referred to the other night. He said that he would not have more than 13,000 or 14,000 immigrants. We do not want the Government to ask us, if the hon. the Minister allows more immigrants into this country, how we are going to house them. It is the Government’s own policy that has created this shortage of housing and the high cost of housing. If the hon. the Minister of Immigration would bring in as many artisans as he could and if he would utilize our non-European labour most effectively on the semi-skilled work in housing, very soon our housing shortage would disappear. We could then build houses at more reasonable prices without in any way endangering the earnings and the living standards of our white employees in the building trade.

The trouble is that meaningful solutions to problems become more than a little blurred, when looked at through glasses of impracticable ideologies. When one listens to the hon. the Minister of Immigration, one gets the feeling that we do not have a Cabinet in this country any more. We instead have a number of aspirant Prime Ministers, each going his own way. It is a case of “Pull baker, pull butcher”. The hon. Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs, who are realists and understand our economic and financial problems, know that these problems will not be solved as long as they are shackled by the hon. Ministers, who deal only in starry-eyed visions.

There is a further reason for this growing inflation, which is going to be a danger to us in the coming years. Within the context of the policies of the Government, what we are trying to do is to reconcile the irreconcilable. To deflate, the economy must be cooled down. This is one of the essentials of deflation. Yet this is something we dare not do. The hon. the Prime Minister has quite correctly expressed this view in the House. Only a prosperous and developing South Africa can give us the material wealth and the time to help us solve the problems of a multiracial country. So we find ourselves in the unhappy position that we cannot launch a full scale attack on consumer spending because, if we do so, we will retard the development of our manufacturing industries with all the implications that must flow from such a step. This would happen at the same time when investment in our manufacturing industries is already running at too low a level. The Minister of Finance acknowledged this position in his Budget speech, because his Budget proposals provided for special investment allowances to encourage fixed investment in the manufacturing industries.

Here you have the two horns of the dilemma: Consumer demand cannot be restrained excessively in order to bring down prices and so curb wage demands because, if you do so, industrial development is impeded, which is one of our essential needs. If however industrial development advances more job opportunities are created which cannot be satisfied. This is the crux of the whole problem, the cycle which we are in and which we cannot get out of. I said in the censure debate at the beginning of this session that we have only one option open to us and that is to increase productivity. The economic and financial review of Union Acceptances for August of this year summed up the position as follows and I believe it sums it up correctly—

Mr. Speaker, this is the crux of the matter. From whichever point of view you see our problems, and whatever solution to the problems we on this side of the House or hon. members on the Government side might advance, there is one fact that is abundantly clear to all of us. That is that we have to increase productivity to provide a solid base from which to work.

There is another matter I want to deal with. It is a matter which is causing many people a great deal of concern. I am speaking of our balance of payments position. We all know that the seasonally adjusted rate of deficit on current accounts for the first quarter of 1970 was R535 million, compared with R342 million for the previous quarter. We also know that our present gold and foreign exchange reserves are less than twice the amount of our current annual rate of deficit. Our current reserves stand somewhere in the region of R800 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance told us in his Budget speech that at least part of the high level of imports during the last few years probably went into the building up of inventories. This opinion is shared in many quarters. It is believed that when inventory demand has been satisfied, we may see a drop of imports into South Africa. It is also thought that we may again in the not too distant future experience a fairly heavy capital inflow from abroad. We certainly hope that this will be the case. It may happen or it may not. Only time will tell.

There is, however, one thing that is certain: With the balance of payments position as it is, with the additional problems we have in adjusting our tariffs under the rules of G.A.T.T., and with the challenge we shall have to meet if Britain enters the Common Market this is no time to be over-sanguine. We discussed some of these matters under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I was glad to hear the Minister say that in his view the solution to the balance of payments problem was not to reduce imports, but to increase exports. This is sound thinking and we applaud the Minister for thinking along these lines. However, what we want is some action. The time has come to move from words to performance. The hon. the Minister knows that export incentives are not enough when the whole base for exporting is unsound, as ours is. For example, the brick industry lost thousands of rands worth of business last year because the Railways could not provide truckage. The hon. the Minister knows it. We have coal orders which we are finding difficulty in fulfilling. The hon. member for Zululand brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister the problems involved in shifting sugar. We are bound to export this sugar in order to fulfil our quota. I am happy to say that the hon. the Minister met the complaints of the hon. member for Zululand to a certain extent.

That was sugar cane, not sugar for export purposes.

Well, from cane one gets sugar and one exports sugar. It is quite simple. It is no good having export incentives if you cannot fulfil the orders you have. The hon. the Minister of Transport has to put his house in order. This is a number one priority, namely to shift the commodities and the goods for which we have orders and can export. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs reacted favourably to a suggestion I made and said that the Government would give consideration to the suggestion that he should relax labour restrictions in so far as export intensive industries are concerned. I think we can do some good along these lines. I am sorry that there was not any reaction from the hon. the Minister to my plea that we must avoid high capital output ratios through decentralization programmes that are not economically based, and which raise unit costs for potential exporters. This is a fundamental if we wish to achieve the export objectives that are essential to our needs. If there is to be no change in the general Government industrial policy, Chen at the very least industry with a high export potential has to be given preferred treatment. It must be allowed to site its factories where they can be most efficient. It must be allowed the labour for maximum productivity.

Preferred treatment is not a new principle in South Africa. We give investors in building societies preferred treatment by way of tax-free shares because we need the funds for housing. We give preferred treatment by way of tax-free bonds to investors in Government securities. We are now giving preferred treatment to farmers and house owners by way of Government subsidies on interest payments. I believe that preferred treatment to exporters is as important as preferred treatment to any of these sectors that have been mentioned because the ramifications can be very far reaching. If preferred treatment is given and an exporter is enabled to produce as cheaply as he can because his business is export intensive orientated, what happens? The manufacturer will be encouraged to export. But his production is then not only for export, it is also for local consumption. Therefore he has a greater through-put and a lesser unit cost. Therefore his commodity comes on to the local market at a lower unit cost, reducing the cost of living and automatically combating further wage demands. We have a whole cycle, which, when completed, will do an enormous amount to help us in a number of problems we have. I hope the hon. the Minister will give this suggestion his serious attention.

Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the end of the Session. From the point of view of the man in the street and in so far as he is affected, I would summarize this Session as follows and I would say this to him. Your cost of living will go up and not down. Last year the rate of inflation was 4 per cent. This year it will be 5 per cent or more. Your housing will be more difficult to obtain. If you can obtain it, it will cost you more because building costs are rising every day. You are going to pay more for a wide range of goods because of increased sales taxes. The top sales tax has been increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. You are now going to pay taxes on your watches and cameras. The hon. the Minister of Finance is budgeting for R126.7 million from his sales tax this year whereas last year he only budgeted for R97.5 million. So he is asking you to give him another R30 million. You will not get the telephone you have already been waiting for for a long time because the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs tells us he is getting further and further in arrear and the demand is becoming greater than ever. It looks as if it will never be met. Whatever wage and salary increases you may receive, you will be no better off because whatever increases you receive will only be catching up with the increase in the cost of living which is already taking place. This year you will pay double the loan levy you paid last year because it has been increased from 5 per cent to 10 per cent.

If you are a pensioner, you are a forgotten man; there was nothing for you this Session. And remember—perhaps the most important point of all—that the next Budget is only six months away and it is going to be a much tougher Budget than this year’s Budget because this year there was an election and in 1971 there is no election, and we know what Governments do, particularly Nationalist Governments, in their Budgets when there is an election and when there is not an election. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport knows that next year’s Budget, unless there is a big change, with inflation running at 5 per cent, could be the toughest Budget we have had for a long time and I think the public is entitled to know it.

In the course of my speech I shall come back to aspects which the hon. member for Parktown dealt with, but I first want to address myself to you, Mr. Speaker. You, Sir, as Speaker of this House of Assembly, are elevated far above the Committee of this House and for this reason I think I must address myself to you now in order to acquaint you to some extent with what took place here in a debate of 136 hours. A short while ago, half an hour ago, we came to the end of a debate of 136 hours, and during the whole of this time, the Committee of this House carefully examined the administration of the Government in all its Departments. One after the other, the responsible Ministers were called to account for the administration of their respective Departments. At times they were ruthlessly called to account. For 13 years I have observed these accounts from hon. Ministers, and the result of, the judgment on, this past debate of 136 hours, in which the Ministers were called to account, is that they gave such a brilliant and extremely efficient account of themselves that the pronouncement of Mr. Piet Cillié of Die Burger involuntarily came to my mind. He said on occasion that the English-speaking people of this country sympathized with the Progressive Party, but nevertheless voted for the United Party, while thanking the Almighty that the National Party was governing the country. [Interjections.] Sir, you and all of us can also be very grateful that a Nationalist Government is ruling this country, in spite of all the problems which the hon. member for Parktown has now delved up again. Once again I have become deeply aware of the fact that this country of ours is being governed extremely efficiently. When his Vote was being considered, the hon. the Prime Minister gave a display of statesmanship such as is probably seldom seen in other countries. I wish to express to him the joy of this House at the fact that his fiery display provided proof to us of his complete recovery, and at the same time we wish to express our gratitude to the Almighty for this. His actions in regard to both foreign and domestic affairs once again inspired the confidence in us that he has every difficult situation in this country thoroughly and completely under control. The same applies to the Ministers of his Cabinet in the handling of their Departments. Of course they cannot satisfy everyone; there are always those whose demands are unfair and unjustified and our Ministers can of course not satisfy those people. But I am happy, very happy, that their actions are promoting the welfare of our people as a whole. When we adjourn on Friday, God willing, I shall go back to my constituency with a very deep sense of gratitude and with complete assurance in my mind in order to give all fair-minded voters this assurance: “Have no fear; our country is being governed well and most efficiently”.

Sir, the hon. member for Parktown expressed concern at the fact that we are experiencing so much inflation and that all the indications are that the rate of inflation for the current year may be 5 per cent or even more. I fully agree with him and I am as concerned about it as he is, but I do not think his Leader agrees with the two of us, because his hon. Leader sees visions of a growth rate of 10 per cent or more, such as that which Japan is experiencing. Sir, if one were to aspire to that rate of growth, if we had to have that high rate of growth, we would willy-nilly have much more inflation. I have here in front of me a report which was compiled by the First National City Bank of New York, in which the growth rates and inflation rates of countries over the past ten years are set out, and in this I see that the value of the yen has decreased by 40 per cent in the past ten years as a result of high inflation. The value of the Japanese monetary unit has decreased by 40 per cent in the past ten years, while ours has decreased by only 21 per cent. This is the price which Japan is paying for a very high growth rate. Sir, I repeat that I agree with the hon. member for Parktown. Like him, I am also worried about our high rate of inflation, but we do not agree with his hon. Leader, who wants a growth rate of 10 per cent or more, because if we were to have this, we would have a much higher rate of inflation. I agree with him that our rate of inflation may be approximately 5 per cent for the current year, but, Sir, do you know what Japan’s rate of inflation was in the past year? It was 7.5 per cent. We are still a long way from that, but we can reach it if we want to chase after these phantasies of his hon. Leader. Like the hon. member, I am really concerned about the fact that we may have too high a rate of inflation. I am especially concerned about it because the gold-mining industry still constitutes such an important facet of our economic life, and because the price of gold is still fixed and the prospect is that the price will remain fixed at the same level in the coming years, except for the small quantity which we sell at a higher price on the free market. Since we have a high rate of inflation, it is obvious that it will become increasingly difficult to mine low-grade ores, which will result in tremendous disadvantages for our economy. For that reason, I share the hon. member’s concern about our high rate of inflation, but I shall at a later stage discuss its causes and the possibilities of combating it. But I am also worried about the high rate of inflation because we are doing our retired people a disservice in that respect. We are doing them an injustice, because, as I said a moment ago, the value of the rand has decreased by 21 per cent in the past ten years. If a man retired ten years ago, and receives no income other than the interest on his savings, it means that the buying power of his savings has decreased by 21 per cent. Of course, there is a minor adjustment for him in the fact that in the recent Budget the Minister of Finance abolished the control over interest rates. As a result of the way in which interest rates are rising now, these persons who retired ten years ago and longer, can gain some compensation in that they can earn higher interest on their savings. Consequently, they can at least maintain a higher standard of living, but this still by no means compensates for the depreciation of their capital. It is the position that the hon. the Minister of Finance takes this fact into account when increasing the old-age pensions almost every year. The old-age pensions are very definitely being increased more than the decrease in the value of our money. Expressed differently, it means that the hon. the Minister of Finance always ensures that he keeps ahead—in the granting of old-age pensions—of the rate of inflation. The retired person whose private income is too large for him to qualify for an old-age pension is the one who suffers the most because of this, because by means of temporary allowances the hon. the Minister of Finance as well as the hon. the Minister of Transport and others make provision for the supplementing of civil pensions in order to keep pace with the decrease in value of our money. It is therefore the unfortunate man whose income is too large for him to qualify for an old-age pension and those who do not receive civil pensions who are affected very severely. For that reason, I am very concerned that our inflation rate is so high. Unfortunately the matter will not end with all the salary increases of which we have heard so much in recent times, salary increases such as those of the Railways, those of the Public Service and those of Posts and Telegraphs, because private initiative will not allow itself to be outdone, and will therefore ensure that it grants similar salary increases in order to obtain the necessary labour. This must, of course, cause a chain reaction, because in view of the everincreasing incomes, the demand for goods will increase more and more and this will give rise to the added problems of increased manpower shortages and deficits in the balance of payments for us.

I said that I would come to the remedy. What is the remedy for these pincers of high costs and the decrease in the value of our money in which we have landed? I want to say at once that I am very grateful that we still have such a large measure of price stability in comparison with other countries. It is in fact true that, as I have indicated, we have an inflation rate of 4 per cent and an expected inflation rate of 5 per cent, but if we look at other developed countries, including highly industrialized countries, we are still very fortunate. I again refer to the report of the First National City Bank of New York, according to which the inflation rate in New Zealand is 4.9 per cent, in Denmark 5.2 per cent, in the United Kingdom 5.3 per cent, in France 5.4 per cent, in the United States 5.7 per cent, in Sweden, 5.8 per cent, in Turkey 6.3 per cent, in Portugal 6.2 per cent, in Ireland 6.6 per cent and in Japan, as I have already mentioned, 7.5 per cent. I can continue in this way until we come to a country such as Chile, where the inflation rate is 23.8 per cent. We, on the other hand, have a very large measure of stability and I have obtained the following figures in order to be able to indicate to what extent we still have stability in South Africa. If we compare our inflation rate with our growth rate, I want to say that a very safe norm we can apply is that if one’s inflation rate is never more than 50 per cent of one’s growth rate, one’s economy is still very stable. Let us look at a few other countries. Over the past five years, West Germany had an average growth rate of 4.3 per cent, and its average inflation rate for the five years was 2.4 per cent. This means that its inflation rate was 55 per cent of its growth rate, which is rather close to the danger line. Over the same period, France’s growth rate was 5.2 per cent and its inflation rate 3.4 per cent, i.e. 65 per cent of its growth rate; during this period Italy’s growth rate was 4.6 per cent, while its inflation rate was 3.5 per cent, i.e. 75 per cent of its growth rate; Holland’s growth rate was 6.9 per cent and its inflation rate 4.6 per cent, or 66 per cent of its growth rate; over these five years, the growth rate of the United Kingdom was only 2.9 per cent, while its inflation rate was 3.9 per cent, i.e. 134 per cent of its growth rate. I can continue in this vein, but I do not want to burden this House unnecessarily with more figures. I just want to mention three more. During this period, the average growth rate of the United States of America was 5.2 per cent, while its average inflation rate was 2.7 per cent, i.e. 52 per cent of its growth rate; Japan’s growth rate was 10.1 per cent and its inflation rate 5.2 per cent. I now come to South Africa. During this period, South Africa’s average growth rate was 5.9 per cent, while its inflation rate was only 2.9 per cent, i.e. 49 per cent of its growth rate. Thus, of all the developed countries which I have mentioned to hon. members, South Africa’s economic position is still the most stable of all. This is a very great source of joy and satisfaction to me. In spite of the fact that our inflation rate is high, it is still the very lowest in relation to our growth rate when compared with other Western countries. When one looks at these figures by way of comparison, one must come to the conclusion that the Republic of South Africa has the most sensible fiscal policy of all Western countries. What a feather in the cap of this Government and its financial advisers! Here we have a combination of maximum growth and maximum stability of the monetary unit as nowhere else in the Western world.

Having said all this, I must nevertheless admit that I am worried about the prevailing high inflation rate. The question is now what we must do about it. The solution most definitely does not lie in the direction which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated, namely that we should simply think in terms of a nation of 20 million people and that our problems would then be solved. After all, one out of every five workers in Switzerland is a foreigner. This is the price which Switzerland pays for its high growth rate. In West-Germany, the ratio is almost as high. This is the price which must be paid for a high growth rate and great prosperity.

What is our remedy? It has become trite to say that we should all work a little harder for the same pay. It is trite because it has been said so often, but it cannot be said too often. If we simply demanded more and more salary increases, we would destroy the basis of our prosperity. For that reason, the prerequisite for greater stability, coupled with a high rate of growth, is that we should work harder for the same salary or wage. But there is a second requirement as well. At the moment salaries are being increased everywhere. There are few people except parliamentarians who have not recently received salary increases. We are just about the only people who have not received an increase in salary. As salaries are increased, the sound economic rule is, of course, that one must not spend everything. One must save a larger part of that increased salary. In that way, one will ensure that no bottlenecks develop on the production side. If one saved more, it would mean that one would not create an excessive demand. The industries would then be able to keep ahead with production. For that reason, I say that the second highly essential prerequisite for greater stability, coupled with high rate of growth, is greater saving. Saving can, of course, be done in various ways. One way, in respect of which the Opposition usually complains, is when there is a surplus on Revenue Account and that surplus is utilized for capital expenditure, in other words, for the Loan Account. But there are many other ways in which one can save. The one which I want to recommend especially, is voluntary saving. Every responsible citizen must realize that when he receives an increased salary, he should put away a larger part by means of some or other form of saving. If every citizen applied this golden rule, we would have the largest measure of stability as well as the largest measure of growth. But now we unfortunately have an irresponsible Opposition, something which was so clearly proved in the concluding paragraphs of the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown. He told us how badly off the poor man in the street was. I assume that when this House adjourns on Friday, he and his colleagues will go into the country and tell the poor man in the street everywhere how badly this Government is treating him. How can you hope to inspire financial and economic discipline among your people if you have to contend with an irresponsible and undisciplined Opposition? I therefore want to make an appeal to the Opposition to stop taking this irresponsible action of continually impressing on the legendary man in the street, of whom the hon. member for Parktown speaks so often, that he is not receiving his due from this Government. Of course, the entrepreneur must also apply discipline. The entrepreneur must not want to make larger and larger profits in order to pay out larger and larger dividends. He must also apply discipline. At the same time, the employee must also apply discipline. We therefore make an appeal to the Opposition not to continually impress on the man in the street that he is not receiving his due. Accordingly my appeal to the Opposition is this: Stop creating a grievance complex merely for the sake of a few votes. In that way, everybody’s welfare will be destroyed, not only the welfare of the Government, but the welfare of all of us. Let us be honest with one another. The world does not owe South Africa a living. In fact, it is rather seeking our downfall. We are finding to an increasing extent that the world is closing in on us and seeking our downfall. The world does not owe us a living. We shall have to rely on ourselves to save ourselves. The first requirement is an imaginative spirit of enterprise and greater production by working harder. At the same time, everybody should be more thrifty. Then we will be able to meet the future with great confidence. It is because we have a Nationalist Government which is continually impressing on us these principles of greater industry and greater thrift, that I have the fullest confidence in the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl made a most interesting appeal to this side of the House towards the close of his speech. He requested us in the months and years ahead not to go to the electorate and tell them our opinion of the efficiency of the Government of to-day. He said that we should not worry them about the problems of South Africa. It was very interesting to find that that appeal came at the end of a speech in which the hon. member spent five minutes eulogizing the Budget, eulogizing the Cabinet and speaking of brilliant and convincing arguments we have heard. After these eulogies, he proceeded as a Job’s comforter, to say how worried he was about inflation, how worried he was about the fixed price of gold, and whether it would be a payable proposition for the mines to continue producing gold. He told us how the rand had depreciated 21 per cent in the last ten years. He told us of the sufferings of the pensioners. He warned us that there would be further cost of living increases and that there would be further manpower problems. Then he gave us the interesting example of Switzerland. He said that there was one foreigner working amongst every five workers in Switzerland, and that Switzerland was faced with a mounting inflation problem. Sir, his Government offers us nine foreigners out of every ten workers in the industrial life of South Africa. Nine out of every ten workers will be members of foreign independent nations, and they will be the backbone of our industry in South Africa. No wonder he asks us not to tell the people of South Africa too much. He himself has now given us the best condemnatory testimonial of this Government one could have wished for.

Mr. Speaker, through the debate on the various Votes, the country has, I think, waited for some indication of real Government concern for the welfare and the well-being of the individual citizens of South Africa, rather than an overbearing and paramount concern by the Government for the interests of the State. It is true that during the course of this Budget debate, there have been certain announcements of delayed salary increases for civil servants, but there has been no corresponding acceptance of the necessity of providing automatic cost of living allowances for civil servants in a time of continually rising cost of living. It is true that the sales tax was reduced by a certain percentage on certain items, but at the same time it was increased very steeply on a number of other items. It is true that some crumbs have fallen to the extent of R1½ million in subsidies on bond interest in very limited circumstances, but it is also true that the revised revenue estimates now indicate firstly that there was a most inaccurate forecast of what the revenue for the past year was to have been, and secondly that many of the matters for which we on this side of the House have pleaded could in fact have been acceded to without additional taxation. The hon. member for Paarl referred to the plight of the old age pensioner. We are still in this country of prosperity, of which we hear so often from hon. members opposite, expecting tens of thousands of our citizens to survive on R35 per month. No attempt has been made this year to revise the limits for housing Joans and housing assistance. The hon. the Minister this afternoon said that that matter is being gone into. It has been gone into three years too late. He appointed his commission to investigate the price of land four years after he himself admitted that the matter needed investigation.

Less than a year after I became Minister.

According to the hon. the Minister’s reports his Department was aware of the rising cost of land in 1966. But only at the end of 1969 the hon. the Minister appointed a commission to investigate the matter.

There are other matters which have been raised under the Health Vote on which I do not wish to elaborate. One of these was the question of free hospitalization. This has received no attention and no real consideration by the Government. I want to say quite definitely that in the whole of this debate of 136 hours there has been scant consideration for the people who in this country of ours, have to struggle to make ends meet. Perhaps hon. members opposite are not aware of the fact, but if we take a man with a wife and two children who earns a salary of R300 per month, he is first of all committed to pay, if he wishes to join a medical aid scheme, 6¼ per cent of his income, namely R19 per month, to secure medical aid cover for himself, his wife and two children. That is not an 80 per cent cover, but 100 per cent cover. The hon. the Minister looks puzzled. I will give him the application form and he can look at himself.

Who are you referring to?

I will not mention the name of the medical aid company but I will give this form to the hon. the Minister. Such a person has to pay 6¼ per cent of his income to have full medical cover. That is an amount of R228 per annum if such a person earns R300 per month.

Does the employer not contribute half or more of that amount?

I am talking about the individual who is not covered by an employer’s scheme. I am referring to a man who is his own boss, a man who has his own little business and earns R300 per month. That is the commitment which he has. Should his income be above R300 per month, the contribution is very much higher. Even if the employer pays half, it represents three to four per cent of such a person’s income which goes straightaway for medical cover or to make sure that he will not be faced with an emergency because of illness. The surveys which have been carried out, show that there are very few South Africans who can keep within the prescribed and recommended limit of 20 per cent of their income to cover rentals. Salary earners now have to pay something like 25 to 30 per cent of their income in order to house themselves in the main cities in South Africa.

Where do you get those figures from?

If the hon. the Minister will look at the statistics which are published he will find that the figure is rising more and more. The hon. the Minister will find in the census that the figure is now above 25 per cent and is nearing 30 per cent.

The daily needs of all these people, not only of the white people, but also that of our Coloured people, our Bantu people and our Indian people, need more compassionate consideration from this House and this Government. Their position needs more consideration than it has received during this debate. When we attempted to bring these issues into focus and into the limelight, hon. members on the other side have attempted to conceal their approach to these matters by introducing various other extraneous and emotional matters. That is not impressing the people of South Africa.

Constructive issues that have been raised have floundered in every case on the impracticabilities of the policies of the Government. The hon. member for Parktown has already referred this afternoon to the hon. the Minister of Finance’s invitation to industries to have a dialogue, which was shipwrecked immediately by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration. The Minister of Community Development is quite honest; he was quite honest with us in the debate. He is unable to deal with the problems of the building industry because of the attitude of those two colleagues of his in the Cabinet. No wonder Die Beeld on 23rd August, in dealing with the problems of the building industry, had a headline to an article in Die Beeld, “Sleutelbedryf se probleme met apartheid”. I wish to enlarge upon this unsolved problem in so far as housing and building costs are concerned.

I want to do so because of the findings of the Niemand Commission that 75 per cent of the white population of South Africa are within the income group R3,500 to R5,000 per annum. Those are the people who need assistance in housing. Those are the people well within the group of public servants who are covered by the housing schemes which are made available for public servants. The Niemand Commission also found that only 20 per cent of the white population of South Africa can afford to buy a building plot and build their own homes at the present prices of land in South Africa. The position which arises not only from the cost of land but from the impossibility of building is again referred to in the report of the Department of Community Development, and I read from the report for the year ended 31st December, 1969—

That is the difficulty we have. But we have had difficulty with the hon. the Minister in getting statistics and a clear picture from him as to what the position is in regard to housing needs. I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is sometimes a little careless about the accuracy of statistics when he speaks to us in this House. During the debate on this matter, when we were attempting to establish what the position was in regard to housing, the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out that 15,142 dwellings were erected in 1969, but then he continued to assure the House that the rate of construction during the first seven months of this year “meant that approximately 20,000 dwellings would be built this year”.

Quite right; by private enterprise.

Yes, by private enterprise. That is an impressive increase, nearly 5,000 additional units by private enterprise, but what is the factual information which has corns from the Department of Statistics? The Minister was taking one of his fliers and he should realize that a flier, like a bird, comes home to roost sometimes. Instead of a figure which would indicate 5,000 more, the Department of Statistics has issued figures which indicate that it is likely that this year there will be approximately 14,772 houses and not 20,000 which the hon. the Minister gave to us as the figure during the course of the debate. Sir, on one thing I do agree with the hon. the Minister and that is the assessment …

What makes you think that I have my figures wrong?

Sir, I have here the figures of the Department of Statistics. I have no fault to find with the hon. the Minister’s assessment of the position which faces those who are concerned with housing in South Africa as far as the extent is concerned. During the election he expressed this thought very graphically when he said—

That is the task which he has set himself.

What about it?

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister must be proud of the way in which that hon. Minister takes on challenges. He takes on challenges and says: “What about it?” Let me just tell him what the comment of Die Beeld was on this statement of his—

You should have been with me at Nigel the other day.

Yes, I am coming to the Minister’s “opslaangeboue” and prefabricated and industrialized buildings. I will deal with those. Sir, the hon. the Minister gets excited when he sees something new.

No, I get excited when I hear the nonsense you talk.

The figures which have been released by the Department of Statistics make five incontrovertible facts clear and record them for everybody to see. The first is that houses are being completed this year at a slower rate than last year by the private sector; secondly, that building plans passed by local authorities indicate that in the years 1967 to 1969 an average of about 4,200 more plans a year were passed than there were houses built; thirdly, the finding of the Department is that building costs are spiralling. In 1967 the average cost of a house was R8,457; in 1969 it was R10,095 and during the first three months of this year the average cost was R10,596. Fourthly, in so far as new flat complexes or buildings containing flats are concerned, the picture is depressing when one thinks about accommodation. In 1968 there were 474 such buildings erected; in 1969 there were 395 such buildings erected, and in the first three months of this year 90 were erected. At this rate the total for this year will be 360.

Sir, investment in flat buildings dropped from R56.5 million in 1968 to R37.5 million in 1969. That is the position as far as hired accommodation is concerned. Fifthly, the Department’s finding is that rents, or in the case of the home owners, rates, mortgage repayments and maintenance expenses, were approximately 13 per cent higher in May this year than they were in May last year. Rents and the cost of running and keeping a home have risen about 13 per cent. Let us examine the problems of the building industry. This industry faces the gigantic task, which the hon. the Minister so graphically described, in what has to be rebuilt and built in South Africa. These problems of the building industry can be solved without an unrestricted influx of Bantu labour into the industry. We on this side of the House have repeatedly stated that our policy is not one of unrestricted influx, but influx control must not mean what it means to the Nationalist Government and that is that there should be a total prohibition of labour when it is needed in the industry.

Do you still stand by the policy that the black man must sell his labour on the best market?

The hon. the Minister must just listen to me while I tell him what his problems are. He knows what they are, but he is trying to avoid facing up to them. The hon. the Minister of Labour reaffirmed this year that he was prepared to ease access of unskilled labour to the building industry. However, he restated the Government policy as being that skilled work in white areas was to remain in white hands. That is as it was I believe correctly reported in his policy statement. Implicit in this approach is that if necessary the growth rate in the white afeas must be restricted to conform to that policy. In other words, the building that can be done must be restricted to ensure that the skilled work is in the hands of the white workers in the white areas. The Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research reporting on the second quarter of this year has made it quite clear that the shortage of skilled labour was the largest single bottleneck faced by building contractors. It is no wonder that the hon. Minister of Community Development during the discussion of his Vote stated that he was ham-strung by his two colleagues in finding the solution. Now he looks puzzled, but I want to remind him of what he has said. The hon. the Minister said in Col. 4337 of Hansard on 16th September, 1970, when he was talking about the fact that we had a crisis in the building industry. In reply to my question about whether the Minister had any ideas about solving the crisis in the building industry, the Minister said—

Does that not mean that he was ham-strung by his other colleagues and that he knew what the solution was but that he could not put it into force because his colleagues would not help him? The hon. the Minister went on and he was quite frank with us that evening when he said that the drop of R20 million in investment in flat buildings was due to the difficulties in the buiding industry. I will concede that certain jobs were reclassified in 1966 in the building industry, but according to the Federation of Building Industries at least 2,400 additional skilled workers are required every year. The present estimates show a short-fall of 6,000 skilled workers in South Africa and 1,560 apprentices. Of the skilled workers that amounts to 17 per cent of the total.

In order to keep pace with our national growth, it is essential that the abour force in the building industry should increase between 1968 and 1973 by a total of 43 per cent. However, in the three years, 1967 to 1969, the increase has been 9 per cent. We cannot have a planned economic growth even at the rate advised by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. We cannot have that growth on the basis of the growth rate of labour forces within the building industry. We on this side of the House have made various suggestions which we believe should be adopted and which can be adopted to solve this probem and to alleviate the difficulties of persons seeking accommodation.

The Government has failed dismally to face up to reality. The hon. the Minister was asked two years ago by someone on his own side to revise the ceilings which are fixed for persons entitled to obtain 90 per cent loans. A R9,000 bond is of no use to anybody wishing to build or buy a house in the city at the: present moment. The hon. member for Brakpan asked for that in 1968 and we supported that suggestion. The hon. the Minister also knows that the R300 per month ceiling for economic housing under the Housing Commission is unrealistic. State employees receive a 5 per cent bond rate benefit up to an income of R750 per month. They are not limited to a salary of R3,600 per annum. Why must the private borrower be limited to the extent the hon. the Minister imposes this limitation on them? The hon. the Minister knows the rates which are given to State employees.

What subsidies are you talking about?

About the rate of interest State employees pay on 100 per cent bonds, namely 5 per cent, up to an income of R9,000 per annum.

Where do you get that from?

From your report, if you have not read it.

Show me the report.

I cannot show the Minister the report now, because I only have five minutes left. I will give it to him when I have finished.

The second matter I want to raise is the failure of the Government to break the red tape which entangles, delays and frustrates township developers. This is referred to in the Niemand Commission’s report and has been found by them to exist. For years we have told the Government that there is too much delay in the approval of townships. It has now taken a commission to convince, I hope, the Minister that this is a fact. We on this side of the House have stated over and over again— and it is also in our book “The answer”, if anyone wants to read it—that we should subsidize the provision of services by local authorities in areas set aside for housing development. That has been confirmed by the Niemand Commission. They agree with our view. We have also suggested that we would plan a dynamic programme of home building in cooperation with local authorities. The Niemand Commission says that that is essential. We have also suggested that the income test which applies at present should be reviewed. We have suggested that there should be income tax deductions and allowances to encourage persons to acquire their own homes. The hon. member for Parktown has suggested further ways in which this can be done to encourage saving and to provide funds for housing. The Sectional Titles Bill which we believe is essential was originally, as the House knows, introduced by the hon. member for Pinetown as a private measure in this House. It was taken further by the hon. member for Parktown. We have said that there should be taxation on residential land which is available for housing, which has been subdivided but has not been put on the market. This has now been confirmed by the Niemand Commission’s report. We also said that we should relieve the householder of the burden of rates by diversifying sources of revenue. We also believe, which is also now suggested by hon. members on the other side, that there should be income tax allowances to industrialists who provide housing for their employees.

We have been offering these suggestions to the Government year after year and slowly but surely the Government is driven to accept them when their commissions find that the advice of this side of the House is correct. The United Party when in power on that side of the House, would ensure adequate housing for our people which they need and which they are entitled to acquire and which is in their means to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in the Second-Reading debate the hon. member for Parktown quoted the wise words of Paul and said: “For if the trumphet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” As sure as I am standing here, to-day the hon. member truly gave forth a very uncertain sound. The hon. member for Green Point then followed him up, and I must say that this hon. member put up a very poor show. The hon. member actually spoke only about one thing, and that was housing. Just before that, in the sphere of the Minister of Health’s Vote, he came along and spoke about a medical scheme, but the hon. member does not want to give the House the correct figures. When the hon. the Minister pointed out to him that the employer paid half of the premiums, he shied away from that very quickly. I just want to put matters right for the House: When an employee earns R300, the employer pays half of the premiums or more. Why does the hon. member not tell the House this? Why does he pretend to the House that this does not happen in practice? I shall not deal with that hon. member any further.

I just want to tell him that in South Africa the housing for Whites is the best in the world. There is no country in the whole world where housing can be compared with that of our Whites in South Africa. The Opposition cannot get past that. There are still some of our people who need houses. Houses have become more expensive, but no country in the world can compete with us. I shall leave that further to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he takes part in the debate at a later stage.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Parktown. As I have said, the hon. member gave forth a very uncertain sound. He could not actualy criticize very much of this Budget. We are colleagues in another sphere, as accountants and auditors. I know that he cannot query these figures. Since we are continually dealing with financial planning and with advance planning in the business world, he must surely notice the right thing. The hon. member did not mention one figure or facet of this Budget that was incorrect. He made vague general statements, inter alia, that this Government had not brought a long-term project to the fore.

I want to point out other things to him. He referred, inter alia, to the labour question. In this debate the hon. the Minister of Labour replied very clearly under his Vote. It was also stated very clearly in the Second-Reading debate. The hon. member says that as a result of the labour question people cannot obtain houses or telephones, and that it is the man in the street who is experiencing difficulties. It is very interesting that, while this Opposition always spoke earlier of the rich man’s Budget, and subsequently of the poor man’s Budget, they are now speaking of the man in the street. That is surely because there is now an election at hand, and hon. members can tell the rich man that they had him in mind when they spoke of the man in the street. When it comes to the poor man they say they had him in mind. The hon. member told us nothing. He says the Minister cannot say that our people must work harder, because there are no prospects of obtaining a house or a telephone. Does the hon. member want to tell the country at large that there is no one in the country who has a telephone or a house? They must now first work hard and then they will obtain a house and a telephone in the future, according to him. How many people are there on a waiting list? I want to tell the hon. member that at the end of this quarter he will see that the waiting list for telephones is much shorter than it was in the past. [Interjections.] Yes, I do say so. Hon. members will see, if every Tom, Dick and Harry does not go and ask for a telephone. The people who really need telephones will get them.

The hon. member insinuated that people would not be able to obtain houses. Salaries have been greatly increased, far in excess of the inflation rate of 5 per cent: I agree with him about that. The rate of salary increases is much greater than that 5 per cent. Why can they not obtain houses with that? The hon. member said that there is only one solution, and that is greater productivity. I cannot disagree with him about that. We agree, but I want to ask the hon. member what he and his party are doing to encourage productivity in South Africa. What has this Government not done to promote productivity? I say that the Cabinet and this Government have done for South Africa what no Government anywhere in the world could do in improving productivity. That hon. member knows it. He cannot deny it.

At a later stage I shall come back to the question of productivity. Let us look for a moment at our exports. The hon. member said that our export basis was unsound. Then he alleged that there were too few trucks for the export of sugar and certain other products. Can that hon. member mention a single instance where our maize, our sugar or any other export product anywhere in the country lay rotting in our harbours? No, this never happened. Those products are exported. Where do the delays take place? Hon. members know very well that such products cannot be exported overnight, or within 24 hours. It is not possible to do so in practice. We must be realistic and practical. I say that the Government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, has ensured good management in the South African Railways. The Minister also granted salary increases of R60 million at the proper time.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member know that the chairman of the Brickmakers’ Association said that they could not accept orders for export because the Railways could not guarantee them truckage? [Interjections.]

In the first instance I want to say that South Africa needs its bricks first. Neither can the Railways simply give a guarantee in that connection at any time. [Interjections.] That hon. member knows that when such a guarantee is given, such goods must be transported, and that is not always possible in practice. When goods are, in fact, delivered for export, they are transported. That hon. member cannot say now that goods could not be exported.

The hon. member also had a great deal to say about our growth rate. South Africa’s growth rate is higher than the rate estimated by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, i.e. 5½ per cent. It is specifically because our growth rate in South Africa is higher than 5¼ per cent that we have problems here. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that we were lagging far behind, because we ought to compare with Japan. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition even made the irresponsible statement that we ought to be maintaining a growth rate of 10 per cent. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow compares us with Japan. Sir, this afternoon I want to make a brief analysis of that statement. If we in South Africa must harness the entire population, white, black, brown and others, to achieve a growth rate of 10 per cent, as in the case of Japan, then everyone in those groups must contribute his rightful share. Why, then, is there no black state in Africa that has a higher growth rate? It is because the non-Whites are not up to it. Neither are the Bantu. Their growth rate is only about 1 per cent. Let us take the Indians in South Africa. They are not able to maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent, because if that is the case, why is India’s growth rate not as high? The Indian in South Africa is not on a superior level to the Indian in India. Consequently hon. members must even agree with me in this respect: that the Indian community in South Africa cannot push up the growth rate here to any greater extent. Let us take the Coloureds. Just compare our Coloureds with any other Coloured race in the world. They cannot do so, because they are not able to either. This shows us that the white race is the productive race in South Africa, and that up to now it has furnished a growth rate that has not been equalled anywhere in the word, except in Japan We must bear in mind that Japan is a homogeneous nation. And we must also remember that Japan is a centuries-old nation. Apart from that it has certain infrastructures that have already been laid down. South Africa, on the other hand, is a young, growing country. We cannot draw comparisons between South Africa and Japan. If we have a 7 per cent growth rate in South Africa, as against a growth rate of 10 per cent in Japan, we are virtually on an equal footing. We must concentrate on industries in the future. Our gold mines are a vanishing asset. Our agriculture cannot be expanded further, because we do not have a market for our agricultural products. Europe is our market. That hon. member knows that the big problem of the six economic common market countries lies in their agricultural industry. That is also the reason why England cannot be admitted to the Common Market. In the rest of the world we cannot actually market our agricultural products No matter how intensively we expand in the agricultural sphere in South Africa, there will not be a market. Hon. members know what is happening in America. America does not have a market even for its own agricultural products. I could likewise continue to mention examples. There must be intensive advance planning as far as commerce and industry is concerned. All the salaries and other expenditure, and the time, manpower and money involved, still do not produce anything. All that money, energy, etc., must first be harnessed to carry out the planning and to lay down the basic structure. That is why we cannot compare our growth rate with those countries having the largest growth rates in the world. If we were to have a growth rate of 7 per cent, we would be far in advance of Japan. That hon. member must concede as much.

I now want to come to the border industries. Up to now the Opposition has still offered the strongest opposition to the Government’s decentralization policy Now they say vaguely that they are in favour of decentralization, but they attach many qualifications to their statement. Let us take four regions in South Africa as an example. These include the following: The Transvaal industrial complex, i.e. the Vaal River complex and Pretoria, the Cape Peninsula, the Durban-Pinetown area and the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. These four regions cover less than 2 per cent of South Africa’s total surface area, while more than 50 per cent of our economy is concentrated there. If we must not decentralize to the other areas, to the border areas where the labour is available, or to the country districts, I want to ask the Opposition what it envisages. The Opposition wants to concentrate everything into this 2 per cent of South Africa’s total surface area. Does the Opposition now want to concentrate 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the spending power in that area? The reason why housing is so tremendously expensive, is because the population is concentrated in 2 per cent of the country’s surface area. Land is simply no longer obtainable. That is our great problem in respect of the housing question. The building costs are not all that excessive, but the cost of stands is high. I know of a plot that was sold recently in Waterkloof for R25,000. Now I ask you, who can pay R25,000 for a residential plot. Let us take the other suburbs. It is out of the question to purchase a plot for R3,000 to R4,000. One simply does not get them for this price anymore, because there is such a scarcity of space. That is because everything is being established on 2 per cent of our land. Now the Opposition wants to extend this still further. That is why we have so many problems with our housing.

Then I also just want to refer to the economic common market. I have spoken about this in the past. As we know, there are six member countries. But then there are also 23 associated member countries that do not have full membership. But the E.E.C. also has contracts with other countries. To-day about 50 per cent of South Africa’s export trade to Britain, which in 1969 amounted to about R25 million, or 17 per cent of the total South African trade value, enjoys preferential treatment in the form of either lower import tariffs or customs exemption when entering England. It is possible that Engand could enter the E.E.C. This possibility is in no way excluded. When that possibly happens, South Africa will have a big problem in respect of 17 per cent of its total exports. We must remember that at least 75 per cent of all our canned fruit is exported to the British market. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister, and I want to tell the House: I think there is only one solution, and that is not to obtain full membership of the E.E.C., because there are many disadvantages involved. As I see the matter, we must enter into an agreement, as in the case of many other countries, for example, Sweden, Denmark, etc., with the E.E.C. countries, thereby taking the necessary steps at an early stage to prepare for the future, when we shall encounter the problem of England’s possible entry into the E.E.C.

In conclusion I want to put another question. Hon. members said that we are not making sufficient use of our non-Whites in South Africa, and in his Second-Reading speech the hon. member for Parktown also gave it great prominence, and I want to quote him. He said (translation) “We shall never achieve the highest productivity before we accept that the object of achievements rests on the full utilization of all our human resources.” I want to mention something that has already been discussed under the Votes. I think it was discussed under the Education Vote. The point under discussion was that the Opposition differed from the National Party in respect of the fact that we have an ideal. We believe that we have a white people in South Africa, and that we must see to it that we protect this white nation and territory for the generations to come, so that we as a white race shall continue to exist. We have that ideal, and in that connection we believe that the economy of South Africa must be expanded so that we can ensure a proper and a good livelihood for our present and future generations. But what does the Opposition believe? It believes that one must just use whatever comes to hand; just make money; all that matters is the economy alone, and it makes no difference whether we integrate, or whatever. You do not believe in the fact that we must keep white South Africa white for the future generations. You only believe in one thing, letting things slide as far as that is concerned; we want to make money.

Now I want to come to a subject in connection with what took place in the censure debate at the beginning of this Session. When the hon. the Prime Minister analysed for us the number of votes in the election he mentioned in passing that 17 per cent of the English-speaking people in South Africa voted for us, and that was vehemently denied by the Opposition. They made it very clear to us that the English-speaking people did not vote for the National Party. If the English-speaking people did not vote for the National Party, I want to ask the Opposition what their people, the English-speaking people, are doing in respect of our education in South Africa? Dr. E. G. Malherbe, who was previously a principal of the University of Natal, made an analysis and found that 73 per cent of the white teachers in South Africa are Afrikaans-speaking. If all the English-speaking people voted for the United Party, why do they not furnish their quota for education; why do they not do their share as far as that is concerned? In relation to the number of English-speaking pupils, there is a shortage of about 2,000 English-speaking teachers, and if it is true, as the Opposition says, that the English-speaking people did not vote for the National Party and for our policy, why do they not tell their people to contribute their share to education? According to a survey carried out among 1,226 teachers, it appeared that 67.8 per cent are Afrikaans-speaking, as against 14.4 per cent who are English-speaking. That is tragic. If those people claim that the English-speaking people voted for them, they must also now tell their people: We must also do our share for South Africa, and we must also take care of education, we must not simply leave this to the Afrikaans-speaking people or the Nationalists. Because they said that all the teachers are Nationalists. But they believe that their people must only enter the top professions. I now want to take the industries in South Africa. We have 16,027 industries in South Africa—I carded out this analysis for myself —and it is in the sphere of these industries that we in South Africa will have to build in the future; it is this section that will have to see to it that the decrease in our gold sales can be superseded, so that we can obtain foreign exchange from the exporting of manufactured goods. It is also this section that must decentralize, and it is also this section that must make use of all the dozens of benefits offered to the border industries by the Government. Fewer than 13,498, or 84.2 per cent, of these 16,027 industries in South Africa are English-orientated, and a mere 2,529, or 15.8 per cent, are Afrikaans-orientated. If the Opposition then claims that 17 per cent of the English-speaking people did not vote for the National Party, what is the Opposition doing with its own people? Why do they not advise them to make a positive contribution in the interests of South Africa? But they say that the National Party has done nothing to encourage the growth rate in South Africa; the National Party did not come forward with a long-term project, as the hon. member for Parktown puts it. Why do you not ask your own people to do it and to make a contribution towards safeguarding your own future? And it is not because that 84 per cent of the English-orientated industries are such poor industries; they are also the ones that are well-endowed with capital. That 84 per cent group employs 89.9 per cent of the labourers, white and non-white. In other words, the 15.8 per cent group of Afrikaans-orientated industries employs a mere 10.1 per cent.

Where do you get those figures?

I analysed the position; I had these figures processed by a computer after a survey was carried out. I now want to tell the Opposition this afternoon that if what they claimed in the censure debate is true, i.e. that the English-speaking people stand by them and believe in them, they now have a chance to tell South Africa: Look, my friends, you who have now stood by us and voted for us, this is your primary task: see to it that there is improved decentralization in the industries in South Africa; let us also make our contribution, not only in the field of industry, but also in education. But, Sir, they will not do so. We adhere to what the Prime Minister said, that 17 per cent of the English-speaking people voted for the National Party, and here on the eve of the provincial election I want to tell you that the electorate outside has taken note of this brilliant, excellent and well-considered Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and without exception these Ministers have acquitted themselves brilliantly of their task in dealing with their Votes. Sir, after the 28th October the National Party will show you that the people of South Africa stand by us, so that the world at large will know that the National Party is the only party to govern the country, and we shall most probably win back all the seats we lost.

Before proceeding with my own speech, I just want to say that the hon. member for Green Point has drawn my attention to the fact that the Minister of Community Development doubted whether the figure could be ascertained which he had quoted in connection with the interest paid by officials for housing. This figure is furnished on page 14 of the report of Community Development for the period 1st January to 31st December, 1969, the latest report available, and the extract reads as follows—

I just mention this in all fairness to the Minister, because he said he did not know where these figures were to be found. This is how they were given to me and this is how I should like to give them to him.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Sunnyside. He asked why we, for whom English-speaking people voted in such large numbers, did not encourage them to join the teaching profession in larger numbers. In the first place, it is not for a political party to say to a person who has voted for that party, “You voted for me; I now want you to become a teacher”. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. member: I do not agree with what I am going to say now, but I am told … [Laughter.] When hon. members have stopped laughing, they must tell me whether they agree with this. I am told that English-speaking people do not feel inclined to become teachers, because there still are people in this country who are as verkramp as the hon. member for Sunnyside. They can become teachers, but they will never become principals of schools; this is what I have been told. Does the hon. member agree with that? He laughed at me because I said that I did not agree with this; does he agree with this? His colleagues are laughing at him; just look at him now! I am not going to devote a great deal of attention to that hon. member. He said so many inaccurate things in the course of one speech that I do not think he expects even his own colleagues to believe him.

Such as?

I shall give the hon. member an example. He got up here and flatly denied that there was a shortage of trucks in this country. He said that was merely a propaganda story from this side of the House. Where does he live? There the hon. member for Moorreesburg is sitting and he is looking me in the eye. Ask him whether there has been a shortage. Ask him whether the co-operative societies of Porterville and Moorreesburg and Piketberg were left without fodder this year because of the fact that they could not obtain trucks for mealies? A farmer with a quota of 50 bags received a quota of one bag. If that hon. member had to survive on one bag of mealies for as long as my sheep had to do so, then he would not have been here to-day. [Interjections.] No, I am not saying he is a sheep. If a person talks such nonsense, then surely one cannot take any notice of him.

The hon. member spoke of Japan and said that Japan had a higher growth rate than ours, and that we could not have such a high growth rate because we had Coloureds. Japan, too, is a Coloured country, or does he not know this? The difference between Japan and us is this: The Japanese see to it that their people work. They do not have coal as we do; they do not have oil; they have no natural gases; they have no minerals. They have to import their minerals from this part of the world and then they still beat us. But our people do not work and I am going to deal with this in a few minutes’ time. This Government is not setting South Africa an example to work.

I prefer to deal with another matter. I want to ask myself in this House to-day what I expect from a Government. What do I expect from the country for my children in the future?

A white Sea Point.

That hon. member obviously does not expect that; but I do. I expect three things. Firstly, I expect freedom for myself and my children, but I do not expect that I or they or anyone will be allowed to abuse that freedom in order to curb the freedom of others, and here I differ with the Progressive Party that says, without batting an eyelid, that they will allow the Communist Party in South Africa. I should not like to see a Government allowing this, no more than I should like to see a Government allowing Nazism in this country. I should not like to see any organization being allowed here which would take away my freedom or the freedom of another. I believe in the normal liberties to which one is entitled. What is the second thing that I expect from a Government? I expect it to govern in such a way that there will be prosperity in the country, because it will not be of much use to be free and extremely poor. I cannot agree with the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education who spoke of white and poor. I believe in white and prosperous. This story of white and poor rather than black and rich is nonsense, and I shall deal with it in a few minutes’ time. I believe in freedom and I believe in prosperity for myself and my children, and I believe in individual security, physical security. When I go to bed in the evening, I want to wake up healthy and safe the next morning. I want the country to be governed in such a way that villains will not come in the night and murder or harm a person. Sir, how do we on this side see the picture; how can this be done? [Interjections.] That hon. member is really tedious. I almost used another word, but you will not allow me to do so, Sir. What are the four prerequisites to ensure these things? We on this side of the House believe, and I think members on the opposite side possibly also believe this nowadays, that in order to bring about freedom, security and prosperity one must have the goodwill of the Western world; I am not referring to the Communist world now, because we shall never obtain its goodwill; and that one should have an outward-looking policy. In this respect the Nationalist Party is now taking over United Party policy, and we are grateful for it. Therefore, we need not fight about it any more. Possibly they are still not setting about it in the right way, but that is what they are envisaging. We believe, and I have always believed, that one must govern this country in such a way that one retains the trust of the Coloured peoples, the trust of the Bantu people, of the Indian people and of the Coloureds. In this respect the Nationalist Party has now also taken over United Party policy and we are grateful for that. Whether they have done so, we do not know, but they nevertheless say they have. They are also, as they call it, more enlightened now. I do not think they have become more enlightened; I believe they have become more senile, and I shall also say something about that later on. In the third place, we believe that one must have not only the goodwill of the outside world and the trust of the Coloured groups, but also white unity. I accept what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his first speech here on the steps of the Senate when he pleaded for white unity. I am grateful for the fact that the Nationalist Party has taken over United Party policy in this respect as well. It has taken a long time, but I am grateful for that. Therefore we need not fight about it.

Everyone pleaded for it, especially the Prime Minister.

Sir, if we in South Africa want to retain and maintain the Whites here, we believe there should be not only white unity, but also more Whites. We are grateful for the fact that the Nationalists have taken over United Party policy in this respect as well. We are also grateful for the fact that they now accept our immigration policy. Sir, what remains now? Only one point of difference still remains. We on this side believe, for no other reason but that it is to the advantage of the whole country, that there should be white control over the whole of South Africa. The Nationalist Party does not believe this any more. They have pronounced a death wish on themselves. They have hatched vipers; they thought they were hatching turkey-chickens, and now that they see that they have hatched vipers and that these are coming for them, now they are afraid and row they are looking for reasons to be removed from office. They are effete; they do not want to govern any more. They want to wish themselves dead; this is all I can say. When the Bantustans were first announced here, that side said that that was not what they wanted, but that they had no option because of pressure from the outside world. Sir, you have here an effete Government, one that does not want to rule any more, but who say they are giving up. They are giving un because of pressure from the outside world. They are effete; they are afraid.

It was implicit in the manifesto of 1947.

No, it was recorded nowhere. I heard what was said in this House at that time, and so did the hon. the Chief Whip on the opposite side. Surely this is yielding to agitators. If people abroad apply sufficient pressure on this Nationalist Government then they give up. Surely this is an invitation to evil-doers, to the outside world, to apply more pressure on us. Surely this is no solution, Sir. I heard the hon. member for Moorreesburg speaking of the Bantustan policy as a liberal one, but once again it is not a liberal policy but a death wish policy. Surely this is a policy of effete people. There is no one in this House who wants sovereign independent Bantustans. They say they do, but actually they do not want them. Surely they know that they do not want them. Who in this House wants them? There is no one inside this House or outside this House who wants this to happen. Who is as stupid as that? There is no one who is that stupid and who does not realize the dangers involved in this. No one in this House will be as stupid as to see no danger in that and to entrust defence to neighbouring states such as the Transkei; not even the hon. the Minister of Defence will do that. He has already said so. What kind of independence is this when you withhold certain things? Who in this House has any doubt that if the Transkei gains sovereign independence, China will do the same thing with the Transkei as it did with Tanzania? Who will be so childish?

What about China and Lesotho?

What kind of association will the hon. the Minister of Community Development have between the Xhosa and the Basuto once Lesotho has a harbour in the Transkei, which they will have? Surely that hon. Minister knows as well as I do, because he does, after all, have, a knowledge of history, that the previous war started because of an uitlander problem? As this falls under his Department, I want to ask him whether he is not of the opinion that the same thing will happen here as half of the labourers under their policy will be udlanders? Does he not know the history of that? Does he not know that the Boer War was caused by an uitlander problem? After all, he used to be a South African Party man; surely he knows that when the old South African Party men had to shoot the English during the Boer War —it was still in the days when the Nationalists were against us—the war was about the uitlander problem. Now he wants to create the biggest uitlander problem here the world has ever seen. Now those hon. members are sitting quietly.

But that was the English War.

That hon. member says it was not the Boer War. but the English War. It was the Boer War because our Boers shot the English and the English shot us. The hands-uppers also shot the Boers. Surely that is how it was. I just want to point out again to hon. members the death wish of the Nationalist Party. Now can hon. members imagine a Government which has a solution to everything, admitting here that there are so many unemployed Bantu, and they mention the numbers …

Where?

In the Transkei and other places At the same time, however, they tell us that 800,000 foreign Bantu are employed here in South Africa, while our own people are starving. What is wrong? Where is the mistake?

Where are the unemployed Bantu?

I do not know where the unemployed Bantu are; I just listen to what hon. members say here. Let us now take the hon. member for Mooreesburg as an example. From where did he get his figures? How many times during this Session has he not pleaded for growth points to be created for the unemployed Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula? He was speaking of the loafers. I do not believe this. What is wrong with this Government that it cannot do something about the loafers? Why should we have to pay tax to support these people in their idleness? What is going on with the hon. member for Moorreesburg? What is going on with him now; he was not like this before, before he became enlightened? He was one of the biggest propagandists against the Smuts Government; then he was still very young, but then he was more wise than now. At that time he asked what the Smuts Government was doing because it was allowing the unemployed Coloureds here. Now he talks about growth points and says at the same time that we have a surplus of Coloureds here who have to be employed in those growth points because these poor people do not have work.

This is the position, but at the same time the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says that thousands and thousands of Bantu must go to the districts of Moorreesburg, Piketberg and to the West Coast because Mr. Piet Marais needs them for his fisheries. Now what kind of business is this? These people do not feel like governing any more. When we ask for Bantu to be allowed to come and work here in the Western Province on a five-year contract and to come and live here, particularly on the farms, with their wives until the expiry of that contract when they are to go back with their entire family, hon. members on the opposite side agree with us individually and so do the churches and everyone else, but the Minister does not have the courage to say that this is a good idea and that it is not in conflict with the policy of temporary labour of the Nationalist Party and that the Government will accept it. Problems may arise in the cities in connection with such temporary labour, but on the farms no problems will be experienced. The Government is effete and does not feel like coming forward with new ideas any more. Of a Government which occupies itself with trivialities, for example, a Japanese jockey, a Chinese girl who is not allowed to play tennis and others who are not allowed to play billiards, one cannot but say that they are people who no longer feel like governing. Surely these are not people who have become more enlightened; they are people who have become senile and have grown too old.

I can continue in this vein. Pleas are made here for the productivity of our people to be increased, but just look at the Cabinet; just see how little this Cabinet is accomplishing. Do they look like people who feel like governing? General Smuts in his time was Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as Minister of Defence, and he was better than any of the Ministers we now have. At present we have three Ministers doing this work and just look at the way things are going. Does this look like people who still feel like governing? The Cabinet is becoming larger and so is the mess. The work which is done by the individual is becoming less.

Let us take the De Wet case. Does the Nationalist Party Government still look like a Government which feels like governing? The Minister of Mines was accused of something about which only he knows the truth. I do not know the truth nor does anyone else; only he knows the truth, and he does not want to tell. He is being accused of having been a director of a company. I want to reassure the hon. the Minister at once. Sometimes there is nothing wrong in becoming a director of a bad company. I, too, have been a director of bad companies, and I have resigned. But the Minister must admit that he was a director of a bad company and that he did or did not resign, and that he told a wrong story to the Police.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by saying that the hon. the Minister told a wrong story to the Police?

The hon. the Minister can correct me, but I understand he made a statement here to the effect that he had never been a director …

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw the words “a wrong story”.

I withdraw them, Sir, because I am not conversant with the precise circumstances. All I know is what is generally known. If I were the Minister, I would not remain seated but I would get up and say, in terms of the provision made in the Rules, that my honour and character were being injured in this House and that I was asking for a commission of inquiry so as to clear my name—not to find me guilty—if my name can be cleared. The question is very simple: Was he a director of that company or not?

Do vou allow yourself to be used for gossip stories?

I do not allow myself to be used for anything. That hon. Minister is a colleague in this House. I and the Chief Whip know what the prestige and the dignity of this House requires of a person against whom such an accusation has been made. He should ask for a commission of inquiry. Not the Chief Whip, not us, not the Prime Minister, but that hon. member himself must get up and say that he has nothing to hide and that he asks for a commission of inquiry to acquit him. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if he is innocent that commission of inquiry will find him so. That is the correct procedure. Does it still seem as if those people feel like governing in view of the manner in which this matter has been dealt with?

These are gossip stories.

They are not gossip stories. The Sunday Times said libellous things of the Minister and he is not prepared to act. Why not?

Because the Sunday Times does not carry any weight with anyone.

No, that will not work. The Minister is getting himself into more trouble by not getting up like a man and asking for a commission of inquiry. I have been told that the hon. the Minister is a grandson of Christiaan De Wet. I cannot imagine that the late General De Wet would have done something like this and would have been as afraid as this. He was not a man who was afraid. Where is the blood of a Christiaan De Wet in the veins of that hon. Minister? It seems to me that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to throw this whole matter wide open. I have never concerned myself with this matter, because I do not concern myself with matters of this kind but the hon. the Minister’s honour is at stake. Even if he takes no notice of the Sunday Times, no one can direct such absolute libel at the hon. the Minister without his taking notice of it. He ought to say: “I ask this Parliament to acquit me.”

Sir, I want to come back to a matter which I want to raise on behalf of myself. This is not necessarily the policy of my party, but I just want to mention this matter. More difficult times are going to be in store for South Africa, and I want to mention this point merely as something which can be borne in mind. We shall experience difficulties in connection with South-West Africa. Gen. Smuts was a person whom I held in high regard, and there are members on the opposite side who also do. If he had been alive to-day I wonder what he would have done in connection with South-West Africa. As you know, Sir, there are two South-West Africas. There is a South-West Africa south of the so-called red line, and a South-West Africa north of that red line. As a South African, one eventually arrives at the conclusion that nothing will satisfy the outside world. They say that they are satisfied with the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of a territory. I have been wondering whether the Government should not take bold action sooner or later and say, “We shall now hold a referendum of all the inhabitants of South-West Africa in those two territories.” Perhaps the southern territory falls under the Mandate to a greater extent than the northern territory, because it has always been administered by Pretoria. The Government can then ask those people: “What do you want? Do you want the position to remain as it is or do you prefer to be annexed to the Republic?” If those people should choose in an honest and fair way to be annexed to the Republic, we shall be able to annex South-West Africa to the Republic and to tell the United Nations, “We have merely given effect to the will and the wishes of the people in that territory.” I say this because there are many of us who are beginning to think that the position has become just a little ludicrous, because people who have nothing to do with South-West Africa keep on interfering in the matter. I think the Government will have a strong case if it calls for such a referendum in which all inhabitants of those two territories can vote. We can even go so far as to bring the countries of the old League of Nations here, those who had an interest in South-West Africa, to see that the referendum will be held fairly.

In conclusion there is another small matter which I should like to raise. This is the question of the Senate. I wonder whether this Government is a powerful one, because they and the people of South Africa as a whole agree with me that there is no longer any justification for the Other Place in our constitutional set-up of to-day. Sir, that Other Place must be abolished. It serves no purpose any longer. There are far easier ways of governing this country more effectively. It will involve less expenditure and it will also be more effective. The Other Place has become a place of rest for tired Nationalist Party politicians.

[Inaudible.]

No, I said I was speaking for myself. This is the difference between the hon. the Minister and myself. I have courage, and he no longer has any. Therefore I say he is effete. He knows I am right. He agrees with me. I want him to have the courage to say that he agrees with me. The Nationalist Party even has the opportunity to change the system in such a way that it can fit in with its policy. Was it not the late Dr. Verwoerd who said that the policy of the Nationalist Party was aimed at a commonwealth of nations of Southern Africa? Is this not the place where such a commonwealth can meet? It must not be a Senate or a legislative body, but a body of consultation. It will not meet in public and matters can be discussed there with the Coloured races. It will be possible for them to be represented on that body so that we may retain contact with those people at the highest level. At the moment we have no such contact with them. I suggest this, because I believe the time will come when we shall in fact have to do this. Some organization or other will have to be created in which it will be possible for us to have consultations with those people. For that reason I say that if this Government had been the Government it was in earlier days when it still had zest and drive, and did not have this death wish, such matters could have been discussed instead of the trivialities with which we occupy ourselves so often.

Mr. Speaker, on occasion I have had various reasons to come to admire the hon. member for Sea Point. I do not know where he always gets the courage from, but the courage he displayed to-day, he derived from the meagre majority of 147 votes. I cannot help but admire a person who can derive so much courage from such a majority and then boast about it across the floor of this House. There is very little I can reply to, but I want to make one remark as far as the hon. member is concerned. I want to say that there was no need for the hon. the Opposition to have appointed a commission of inquiry as to what the reason is for the number of votes the United Party has lost to the Progressive Party. The hon. member spoke for himself this afternoon.

Also, I am not even surprised at his flirtations with the hot-tempered gentleman of the Sunday Times. The reason is that that hon. gentleman has a great deal to compensate for. I recall two photographs which were published next to each other a few months ago; the one photograph was of a verkrampte gentleman and the other one of a verligte gentleman of the United Party, and both of them were called Basson. What is also interesting, is that one of them was taken to task. The puppet master, the one who makes the United Party perform like puppets, has pulled the string now and the hon. member for Sea Point was jumping about this afternoon. He confessed once again this afternoon that he was one of the disciples of the hot-tempered gentleman of the Sunday Times. The hon. member for Sea Point was also used this afternoon by the United Party to throw up a smokescreen here, but we will not allow ourselves to be misled by that. We are going to say something about the Budget itself at a later stage. I think that, to have it on record, we should ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he has taken cognizance of the questions the Financial Mail asked the United Party on 18th September?

I took them to the Press Board.

The questions confirm my suspicion that the United Party is no longer the horse on which the Financial Mail and the Rand Daily Mail put their money. It is definitely the Progressive Party. For the record, it is necessary that we should take cognizance of the questions that have been asked, and I am going to quote them fully.

The hon. member can read the answers for himself.

We want the answers in the House. We do not want to read them. They are going to be afforded ample opportunity during the remainder of the debate to reply to these questions.

Hon. members will recall how the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, my hon. leader in the Free State, made the hon. member for Orange Grove look like a child in politics. After the hon. member had referred to the 2,000 posts which were supposed to have been filled by Whites before, and after the United Party, through that hon. member, had advanced the argument that the Post Office was in a state of collapse, the hon. the Minister asked a number of questions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.