Mr. Speaker, I move as an unopposed motion—

That the Order for the Second Reading of the Suretyship Amendment Bill [A.B. 2—’71] be discharged and that the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

Agreed to.

When we adjourned yesterday the hon. member for Gardens was pursuing exactly the same theme as the previous Opposition speakers. He asked tedious questions and put forward statements. I shall reply to them in the course of my speech. But before I come to that I do want to ask the hon. member a question, and I also want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask him whether he agrees with the statement which the hon. member for Gardens made, i.e. that land purchased in terms of the 1936 Bantu Trust Act is land that was given away unnecessarily by the Government. We want to know whether the United Party still adheres to the 1936 Trust Act or not.

Sir, I cannot neglect to refer to what the hon. member for Hillbrow had to say here yesterday. With regard to the utter nonsense expressed here, he took the cake. In the first place he told us, with tremendous verbosity, how tired the people of South Africa are of the National Government. He challenged the Prime Minister to hold an election, and what happened? This morning at Ceres Mr. Paul van Zyl was elected unopposed as M.P.C. for the National Party. Where was the United Party? No, it is just so much noise and nothing more.

I now want to come to the statement the hon. member for Hillbrow made here yesterday. He referred to what the hon. member for Paarl said here, and he said that here in our country we have an altogether different form of inflation. He says we do not have the creeping kind of inflation, “but an inflation which is structural, and built into our entire economy. It has become quite endemic. It is of no use comparing our position to that of Britain and the United States of America, for there we are dealing with countries which have a fully developed economy with full employment of their labour forces, etc. We are in an entirely different position”. This statement of the hon. member for Hillbrow will, for many years, afford students of economy in this country a great deal of pleasure, coming from a new light of the United Party which, it appears to me, is not going to be burning for long. South Africa is a country with an unplanned, free economic system; it is one of the 14 most developed countries in the world, a member of the International Monetary Fund, and a country in which we are subject to exactly the same economic principles and laws that the free economic world is subject to, and which control them. We are now so tied to the international monetary systems that if there is a recession on the American Stock Exchange we immediately experience its repercussions here on our Stock Exchange. If there is an increase or decrease in prices in America or other countries it affects us immediately. If a devaluation of exchange units takes place it affects our imports and exports and also our standard of living. But, Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow says that if inflation does prevail it is a different kind of inflation that prevails here in our country. He says that we cannot be compared to other countries. That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time. I must say that I never expected it from him.

Then you do not know him at all.

I want to agree with him that we cannot compare ourselves to countries in which one has a planned economic system, such as in Russia, which is a Communist country. But we are an integral part of the Western world, and it is specifically on the level of the percentage of the growth rate, and also on the level of the percentage of the inflation rate, that we can measure the efficiency of our economic management and administration. If one does not have a value assessment then one is surely groping in the dark, just as the hon. member for Hillbrow is now doing. We have never claimed, from this side of the House, that we import all our inflation. We import a portion of it, and we also export a portion of it, but our inflation originates here exactly as it does in other countries, and we combat it here precisely as it is combated in other economically developed countries. These developed countries are in truth the only countries with which we can compare ourselves. It may be that in those countries inflation does not always take place at the same rate, because every country has its own government and controls its own economy. But just recently inflation has, to a large extent, taken on the same international pattern throughout in these countries. That is why we call it an international phenomenon. That is why we call it an international problem. But the hon. member for Hillbrow says no, we have no such thing; we have another system and we cannot be compared to other countries. Sir, I listened attentively to him yesterday, and I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville does not need to worry any longer about the leadership of the United Party in the Transvaal, because I believe that this hon. member for Hillbrow will yet succumb to his verbal inflation, which will lead to his political “stagflation”.

The United Party has now seen fit to attack the Government on two basic points, i.e. the increase in the cost of living or the inflation rate, and the labour policy of the Government is seized upon as the direct cause of the inflation. A statement was also made to the effect that the abolition of the labour policy would also mean the end of the inflation. Before I deal with that, I should like to state the United Party’s economic policy as against that of the National Party. Very clearly two basic differences exist between the policies of these two parties. In the first place, the United Party sees the Republic as one political, national unit and the population of 21 million people as one permanent economic entity, and every member of the population merely as an economically active unit, without taking any notice of the ethnological or ethnic differences. According to them no restriction will be placed on free movement, and employees may accept employment wherever it is offered to them. The United Party’s only ideology is clearly motivated by a materialistic standpoint, which simply means the cheapest labour and greatest profits possible as quickly as possible, without regard to the sociological and political consequences which this will have. These consequences must simply take care of themselves.

From these premises and standpoints the United Party disseminates its arguments abroad. Once upon a time they attacked us with the allegation that the numbers of Bantu in the White area are too great and that separate development had failed. Now they are attacking us about the numbers not being sufficient, and that is why we now have inflation. Suddenly separate development has not failed, but now it is the cause of the inflation. The National Party’s economic policy, on the other hand, has never accepted the 21 million-strong population as a permanent economic entity of the Republic, but has always regarded the present economic set-up as a temporary measure, in expectation of the Bantu homelands obtaining a political embodiment, and that they would thereby concomitantly extend their own economy, which would be separate from the Republic. The National Party’s economic ideology has always primarily been that the materialistic should be subservient to the spiritual. It is therefore clear that, according to the National Party’s standpoint, the permanent population entity will run closer to seven million when the Bantu’s separate development process has fully run its consequential course.

The National Party does take proper account of the various population groups, as far as their political and cultural aspirations are concerned, and therefore they do not only see them as a source of cheap labour and as a possession belonging to the Whites, as the United Party regards them. This economic policy is aimed at preserving racial peace, which it does, in fact, do and which it has done over the years. If in some respects it is more expensive than it will ordinarily be, it is nevertheless infinitely cheaper, in the long run, than what the policy of the United Party is heading for. One shudders to think of the economic chaos, clashes and friction, and the racial as well as labour disharmony, which will develop from the United Party’s policy. The tremendous political struggle which will follow it could well entail the end of White civilization and White identity.

The second basic difference between the United Party and the National Party lies in the long-term policies of both parties. I listened attentively to determine what the ideology of the United Party’s policy is. I came to the conclusion that it does not possess a long-term policy. It merely applies a plundering or freebooting policy, which changes from day to day as the circumstances present themselves, from which it thereby tries to gain a few votes. The United Party presents a crooked picture, thereby making unenlightened people believe that they are being deprived of something which is their due. For example, by way of the Leader of the Opposition they have now over-emphasized the cost-of living increases without pointing out the higher pay increases which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs so crushingly brought to their attention here.

Typical are the shouts about the too low growth rate we are maintaining. They neglect to explain that the higher the growth rate the higher will be the rate of inflation. All that really counts is the net growth rate that is maintained as against the natural assets of a country. The National Party, on the other hand, has a clear long-term policy which it has thus far consistently carried out. The steps may be popular, but at times they may also be unpopular; we have nevertheless applied them consistently. Most of the time this policy will be in conflict with big capital, because every business strives for greater profits, but the authorities are striving to maintain the following aims. Firstly the Government is striving to make the Republic as economically strong and as independent of countries abroad as possible. Secondly the Government is striving to maintain as stable a price structure as possible; thirdly, to keep the purchasing power of the unit of currency as strong and as stable as possible against other exchange units, and fourthly to maintain a situation of full employment.

In order to maintain these aims, planning was essential, and this planning was done. By means of this planning the economic development programme, as clearly explained here yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, came into being. This programme set forth an ideal growth rate on the basis of our actual growth rate potential, provided we do certain things. As hon. members heard, we also maintained the growth rate and kept it at an average of 6 per cent. I am mentioning these points to indicate how absolutely consistently the Government has done its duty, and how faithfully it has maintained the long-term economic policy for the good of the country. Our position in comparison with other countries is so favourable because the country is controlled and administered economically on a scientific basis within the limits of the free market mechanisms and competition. Show me the developed country where a person with the same level of income can maintain a higher standard of living than in South Africa. It is virtually impossible, in a free economy, to maintain the growth rate and the inflation rate on a fixed, stable course. Somewhere in the world this still has to be proved. There will be variations, and in that way inflation will also occur. I now specifically want to come to the attack launched by the United Party on the increase in the rate of inflation and the standpoint that inflation is the direct result of our labour policy. In the first place we must ask how serious the present problem of inflation is. Inflation occurs in three stages. First there is the creeping stage. That is called creeping inflation. The second stage is galloping inflation. The third phase is called hyper-inflation.

It is very clear that we are still in the creeping inflation stage, which is not yet extremely dangerous. Here I want to reproach the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his specific use yesterday of the words galloping price-increases. I deduce from this that he means galloping inflation. But that is a misrepresentation. We are still far from a galloping inflation stage.

The second question we can ask is what is the cause of inflation? How did it originate? There are basically three kinds of inflation. The first is monetary inflation, caused by an excessive liquidity or money in circulation as against the supply of goods. This liquidity is caused by the greater provision of credit, or a cash inflow from overseas as a result of overseas investments or as a result of exports. It can also be caused by excessive Government spending. Yesterday we were accused here of having encouraged inflation because of excessive Government spending. But who is guiltier of that than the Opposition itself? Mention to me a single Budget in respect of which the Opposition has not stood up and complained that the Government is not spending enough. They must not make those complaints against us.

The second type of inflation is demand inflation. It is created by an excess of spending power which is the result of monetary inflation, and other psychological reasons why people want to increase their spending power, as well as higher salaries. Again we have the case of the United Party, as with every previous Budget, complaining that we are not increasing salaries sufficiently. I have nothing against that. But then they must not accuse us of creating inflation.

Thirdly there is cost inflation, about which they talk such a lot. This is primarily caused by a demand for high wages, usually by trade unions and workers. When monetary and demand inflation have developed, and production increases very rapidly, a shortage of workers develops. The employers are then the people who offer higher wages and salaries in order to obtain more workers. We thus find a cost inflation, not originally caused by the workers, but a cost inflation caused by the employer himself.

From this point, when the three kinds of inflation converge, it is not so easy to distinguish where the inflation originated, because then it takes a specific course. The result is inflation in all directions. One fact is very clear. Here in South Africa there was no inflation from 1961 to 1964. Then we had inflation in 1966, but this was brought under control in 1967-’68. When we had those inflation problems we had the same labour acts and labour policies that we have now. However, now the United Party says that our labour policy is the cause of this inflation. It is therefore clear that the inflation we are experiencing was originally caused by monetary and demand inflation. It was aided by the modern advertising methods which psychologically influence the people into believing that they must have certain articles and that their status compels them to have them. The people have therefore developed a habit of spending far beyond the capacity of their incomes. Consequently demand is extended and encouraged further. Cost inflation has this effect, and I therefore reject the United Party’s allegation that our labour policy is the cause of the inflation.

We admit that at present we have too high a rate of inflation in the country, but it is also a scientific and economic fact that inflation is an integral part of any free, growing economic system in the world. The two are linked together and there is no getting away from that. Without inflation growth cannot take place. The British Government had a special study made of this, in an attempt to combat inflation. The Rycoff report was issued and the so-called “package deals” followed, but that did not work either. I am afraid that inflation has become a part of our existence, and the question is simply how the economy is being cooled down so that the rate of inflation can return to the normal three per cent to 25 percent.

It is therefore clear that the economy will always be moving between the two danger points. The two danger points are the high inflation rate point and the too low inflation rate point. It is already clear that the steps being taken by the Government are having effect, because according to data an amount of R50 million has already been withdrawn from circulation during the month of January. The United Party accepts the standpoint that the inflation can be kept in check by the mere abolition of the labour legislation, and that greater production could thereby take place. They are of the opinion that the supply of goods would thereby be increased so that prices will decrease. Theoretically this sounds fine, but in practise I find it to be problematic and unacceptable, because, in the first place, the supply is already being supplemented by the goods being imported. There is no restriction on imports, and the money paid for imports leaves the country. It is therefore a double onslaught upon inflation. In the second place, it will take a long time before the workers can be trained to increase local production to such an extent. In the meantime the effect obtained by the damping measures will already have progressed much further than local production could do in their way. Fourthly, it is very clear that this story that is being disseminated, i.e. that the labour policy is the cause of the non-availability of labour, is a ghost story. All the labour needed today can be obtained without the necessity of abolishing the labour legislation. The labour is there and it can be utilized. It is there for the taking, but all that really has to happen is that the industries should transfer to where the labour is available. [Interjections.] That is so. The factories can be shifted to those areas. They can be shifted to within or outside the homeland areas. It is true that location-orientated industries have always been treated very sympathetically by the Government in their efforts to obtain labour.

The United Party’s story that the Government’s labour policy is the cause of all the problems, is the biggest bluff that has ever been launched. It is a spectre and an illusion conjured up by the United Party, the English press and the hostile big capitalists who refuse to carry out the policies of the country and now want to force a confrontation with the Government in the hope that the latter will give in and abandon its economic and labour policies. They know that these are the corner stones of separate development, and they believe that these corner stones must be broken out so that separate development can thereby be totally demolished. This confrontation is one between Nationalism in its essence and the enemies of Nationalism. I believe that the battle has now reached the last ditch stage, and that presently we shall see how this ideology of ours, which is besmirched and ridiculed to such an extent, will overcome its opposition with flying colours. The inflation we are experiencing today is of a temporary nature, and will be brought under control once more in the course of time so that a state of normality can be maintained. I am aware that under the present sophisticated economic systems in the world, the existing normal monetary measures are no longer as efficient as they once were. I trust, however, that the Franzen commission will possibly come along with new recommendations which will give sharper teeth to control and to administration.

Until then, however, the Government will continue to put the damper on inflationary tendencies by making use of the tried and recognized measures that have worked well in the past. This debate has again indicated clearly that the United Party only qualifies for the position of an ordinary Opposition. As an alternative Government no one takes them seriously and no one really gives them a thought. The United Party has no message, and this attack by them is going to boomerang. Their attack is going to vanish into oblivion as quickly as all their other stories in the past. The fact of the matter is that the National Party is now governing and will do so again, because the people trust the National Party. The people know where they stand with the National Party; they know where the National Party is going and they also know what the distant future holds in store for them under the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Pietersburg that if what we say in this debate boomerangs in exactly the same way as it did in the general and provincial elections we will be more than satisfied. The hon. member for Pietersburg took the hon. member for Hillbrow to task for having suggested that there were different reasons for inflation abroad and in South Africa. When I spoke in the no-confidence debate in July I said that: “Too many people are apt to believe that what happens in the United States or in England or in Europe must happen here in South Africa.” I then warned the House not to fall into that trap and I can only suggest that the hon. member read my Hansard on that debate. The hon. member also tried to define the difference between our two policies. I will give our interpretations of the differences when I say what I have to say.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs took the point that the incomes and the standards of living of the people had increased far faster than the rate of inflation. This may well be and I am not denying the figures, but what the hon. the Minister has lost sight of is that if there has been an increase in the standard of living then the people expect to be able to live up to that standard of living. This is their problem today. They are finding that they cannot maintain the standard of living that they have achieved over the last ten years. This is the problem. He also said that we could not extend the economy because of the shortage of capital. I am not at all sure that there is a shortage of capital. A distortion in the monetary market, yes, but I doubt that there is a shortage of capital. This is what Mr. A. B. Dickman said in the South African Journal of Economics in December:

“Thus, despite the relatively greater availability of money in comparison with three years ago a diminution of faith in equities has put dividend yields higher. Lack of faith in the currency has put bond rates higher and the credit ceiling and high liquid asset ratio have put medium term borrowing rates higher. This is a picture of a distorted monetary and capital market.”

This is what we are faced with and not with a shortage of money.

When the hon. the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget Speech in August last he set himself certain objectives. They were to rectify the imbalance in fixed investments and particularly to encourage investments in private manufacture and industry, to encourage exports, to alleviate the strain on the capital market and, above all, to curb inflation. The whole Budget of the hon. the Minister and the subsequent further controls that he imposed, were designed to meet these objectives. Nearly six months have passed since we had that Budget. I think the public, who is carrying the cost, would like to know what success the hon. the Minister has had in achieving his objectives. As regards investment in private manufacturing industries, the latest figures that are available, up to the third quarter of 1970, do indicate that there has been some improvement in the level of investment. But we must not allow this increase, based on sample statistics, gathered and processed by the Reserve Bank, to detract from our responsibility of seeing that this statistical figure continues on an upward graphical path. Our responsibility is to maintain and to reinforce the momentum of this upward movement. It is of great significance that in the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister on the meeting of the Advisory Council in November last, he pointed out that the figure achieved is still below the level required to attain the economic development program target growth rate of 5½ per cent in the gross domestic product, and that it is possible that a substantial part of this investment does not create new productivity, but merely replaces old productivity and old equipment. This is the problem. Is this investment in private industry new investment, or is it replacing old equipment?

On the export side, the picture is doleful. Preliminary figures for 1970 released by the Secretary for Customs and Excise, show our exports at R1,534.5 million against R1,527.1 million for 1969—an almost static position. It may be early to pass judgment, Mr. Speaker, but it looks as if the incentives which the hon. the Minister provided for exports in his August Budget are not having the desired effect.

We may have to look further at the causes for this poor showing and search for other remedies. The tragedy is that the whole of our trading pattern since 1968 has been unsatisfactory. In the period 1968-’69 the export market of all industrial countries increased by 15 per cent, and the export markets of primary producing countries increased by 13 per cent. South Africa’s performance was poor. Her total exports increased by 2 per cent. In fact, the only countries in the world with exports of more than 500 million dollars per annum with worse performances, were the Netherlands, Antilles, Venezuela, Peru, Iraq, Pakistan and the Philippines. Then came South Africa. Between 1962 and 1969, while world exports of the industrialized nations doubled, South African exports only increased by 60 per cent. Worse still, while world exports grew during 1970 by somewhat of the order of 8 to 10 per cent, South Africa’s exports did not improve on 1969.

In the capital market the strains have certainly not been alleviated. In fact, they are greater than ever. The company debenture rate has risen from 9½ per cent to 10 per cent, and in one case that we know of, at least to 10½ per cent. Semigilts are up from 8 per cent to 8.75 per cent, and now Government short-term stock of three-year term has increased its coupon from 5.25 per cent to 5.5 per cent. Over the last few weeks there has been an all round hardening in interest rates, particularly in the grey market, where the upward trend is particularly noticeable. I had a call from Johannesburg this morning, asking me if I could raise some hundreds of thousands of rand for one year at 10¾ per cent. That is the position of the grey market today. Inflation is up to a new high of 5 per cent and with the effects of decimalization, the increase in the price of bread and of meat and the increases to come in the price of milk and of petroleum products it is likely to be much higher very soon. We accept that the problem of spiralling inflation is not confined to South Africa—it is a world-wide phenomenon and every country is taking steps with varying degrees of success to try to halt this menace. But two things are becoming apparent. Firstly, whereas in the past an inflationary rate of 2 per cent per annum was accepted as being safe, rates of 2½ per cent, 3 per cent or even more are today being talked about as being acceptable. And here we have the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs for the first time in this House, accepting 2½ per cent. We have always stuck rigidly to 2 per cent and the hon. the Minister of Finance when he was asked a little while ago what rate of inflation he would like to see, said “under 2 percent”. Thus the picture is changing.

The second point is that in fighting inflation no country can tolerate excessive unemployment except for a very limited period of time. The political consequences for the government of the day are too serious. This is why the United States is re-flating while the feeling in Europe is that if inflationary measures in Germany or in France cause undue unemployment we can expect re-flation in the latter half of 1971. But what we here in South Africa have to accept is that local circumstances and circumstances overseas have very definite basic fundamental differences. I pointed out during the last Session, and this was borne out by the December report of the Reserve Bank, that in many countries abroad the powerful labour unions with their strong bargaining powers can demand salaries and wages increases irrespective of any increase in productivity even at a time when domestic demand is sluggish and even when there is a high percentage of unemployed. To keep these wages within reasonable limits is the problem of our friends overseas. Basically we do not have the same type of problem here. Our problem falls into quite a different category. Our problem is the under-utilization of the labour we have available.

I think it is correct to say that the position today is worse than it was 6 months ago and clearly the objectives of the Minister of Finance have not been met. We all know that the anti-inflationary measures existent at the time of the Budget in August, plus the additional measures taken in the Budget and subsequent to the Budget have not yet produced the desired effect. In fact, we still find ourselves within square 1—with inflation running at an annual rate of some 5 per cent, with food prices increasing at the rate of more than 7 per cent, with the Government muddling along with the change-over to the metric system without proper protection of the consumer and apparently determined to ensure an increase in the price of bread, with a shortage of White labour estimated to equal 5 per cent of the presently employed White labour force, an excess but under-utilization of non-White labour whose employment is artificially limited by a maze of restrictive legislation, a worsening in the duality of our labour market in which the wage differentials between White and non-White are widening, historically high interest rates and personal savings at an abnormally low level, the Stock Exchange continuing to drop—I know it has gone up a fraction today but that means nothing; it has continued to drop against the present trend in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Japan—in fact in ten major countries of the world. These Stock Exchanges are reflecting a philosophy of growth and a confidence in their respective governments to overcome existing problems and, consequently, share prices are rising. Here we have a different position. We have, furthermore, the worsening balance of payment position with the level of gold and foreign exchange falling consistently. Our exports are virtually static while our imports are rising by over 20 per cent per annum. This is happening under a government in which the public has lost confidence, a public, as my leader said yesterday, which believes that the Government has lost its ability to govern.

Our main dilemma is to try to determine what direction the Government wants our economy to take. In August last the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget said—

On the 28th of November last the hon. the Minister was reported to have said in an interview—

At the F.C.I. banquet on the 4th of November the hon. the Minister of Planning said that a high growth rate was “very important”. The hon. the Prime Minister in his statement of the 3rd of September said the Economic Advisory Council had come to the conclusion that the “gross domestic product was definitely too high and was increasing too rapidly at present”. From these few quotations it is quite obvious that the Cabinet has no firm policy. It is also obvious that the differences of opinion amongst members of the Cabinet themselves make any clear line of action an impossibility. Consequently the Government has decided against aligning itself to a policy of growth even though it knows full well that it is absolutely essential that if the economy is to be able to generate sufficient income, sufficient savings, sufficient foreign exchange to enable it to pay for the vast public sector development that has got to take place in this country of ours. Instead the Government is committed to attaining only predetermined, limited and short-term objectives. This “game plan”, as the Americans would call it, is essentially a short-term monetary one, designed to restrain the growth in monetary demand and so to limit the incidence of inflationary pressures upon the restricted availability of productive resources. It is essentially a static appreciation of economic management by monetary means in which medium and long-term real growth is left to look after itself. This is the philosophy of “alles sal regkom”, the philosophy which is all the hon. the Minister of Finance could offer to the people in his New Year broadcast.

This is not the wisdom of a Solomon planning ahead realistically and with foresight. On the contrary, it bears the hall-mark of uncertainty, of a man wishing away all his problems and hoping that something better will thus turn up.

Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake— our problems at present are very real and serious. They will only be solved by realistic statesmanship. When I was in Europe in December I heard the view expressed that the socio-economic problems with which the world has to deal today have characteristics and complexities which are unfamiliar to us and that we have not yet devised the corrective mechanisms to deal with them. I think this is true to a considerable extent. While I am sufficiently conservative still to retain some belief in the ability of the classic remedies to cure our economic ills I, nevertheless, firmly believe that if we continue along the lines that have dictated our strategy since 1964/ 65 we will continue to have imbalances in the economy and we will not be able to generate the growth that we need.

Rumours are rife that the hon. the Minister will introduce a tough budget in March with higher direct taxation, higher indirect taxation in some areas, a further increase in the loan levy, and sundry otter “cooling off” measures. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to react to these rumours. Our troubles will be quite sufficient when we hear the Budget. But there are matters which I believe must be brought to the attention of the Minister before final decisions are made. I have already said that the tactics of the Government appear to be limited to the implementation of short term fiscal and monetary policies designed to limit the availability of credit, to slow down the increase of money and near-money and to utilize overseas borrowing to finance the immediate capital requirements. But these policies have failed, and the square-one situation which I outlined a few moments ago shows this clearly. But more disturbing, Sir, is the lack of desire on the part of the Government to change from policies that have failed to attain their objectives. I wonder whether it is perhaps the lack of ability of the Government to make changes that forces it to persist in the old ways? What we need is an avowal of error and a change of direction. We have to get away from what Dr. Hupkes in his article in Rapport of the 17th January called the “dempskool”. The banner heading of the article was: “Dempteorie sal die ekonomie permanent seer maak.” These are not my words, Sir, they are Dr. Hupkes. We need to determine fresh priorities. We need to set new objectives and we need to formulate bold new plans but they have got to be plans that we believe with reasonable certainty can be achieved. It may well be necessary in the short term, but in the short term only, to damp down the economy. But monetary phenomena are usually symptoms of an underlying structural problem and the ills cannot be cured by attacking symptoms in the short term only.

What we need is to give consideration to the underlying structural changes that are necessary, particularly in the field of labour, to enable the economy to grow at a fast rate. We need to reinforce the recent upswing in manufacturing investment to enable this upswing to be maintained and to gain momentum. We need, as I said in August, to return to the private sector the role of pacemaker for economic expansion which rightly belongs to them but which has been usurped by the public sector. The percentage share of gross domestic fixed investment by the public sector has risen from 40 per cent in 1960-’61 to 60 per cent in 1968-’69. But most of all we need confidence. We need confidence that we are going places, confidence that we are getting on top of our problems, confidence that we are poised for further growth, confidence in the wealth of our export potential, confidence in our own ability to succeed and confidence that the Government is going to provide the right climate. There is nothing wrong with the potential of South Africa’s economy, but we need to get away from the psychology of uncertainty and fear, which has been fostered by this Government and which is bedevilling us.

The Dow Jones industrial average of the American Stock Exchange has risen from 683 points six months ago to 869 points yesterday. Why? Because the Americans believe that their Government will succeed in re-flating their economy. Our Stock Market continues to fall. Why?

Do you want to follow the policy of the Americans?

No, I am not saying that. Why is our Stock Market falling? Because it is believed that the Government will not make the fundamental changes in its labour policy that are essential to our economic development and because it is believed that tighter and tighter controls will have to be imposed, which will reduce company profits and company dividends. And so the market slides down.

Has no other Stock Exchange gone down?

I have said that ten of them have moved up. Sir, we need to move from the “dempteorie” to the more positive one of growth. We have to make an allout effort to remove, as quickly as possible, as many as possible of those labour restrictions that have created uncertainties in and harm to our economy. In this way we will help to restrain labour and cost inflation. We have to improve the quality of labour training so that our manufacturers can improve productivity and produce more quality goods. We have to encourage greater investment in export-orientated industries, such as mining and mineral processing. We have to stop giving away part of our local market because local production cannot meet demand. We are dissipating our patrimony because of lack of labour, and stultifying exports because of curtailment of production. We have to see that the railways and harbours can cope with the traffic on offer. I think it is time the hon. the Minister of Railways got on with his job. If private enterprise is to be asked to carry part or all of the financial burden of new facilities—which seems to be what is going to happen because the hon. the Minister of Railways cannot raise the funds himself—then he has to make sure that adequate tax allowances are provided.

We have got to examine every control that has been imposed to see whether these controls are still necessary, whether they are being properly implemented, and whether they are not creating distortions that are detrimental to sound policy-making. We have to take a fresh look at fiscal and monetary restraints. We must examine with a critical eye each measure contemplated before we make it law. For example: Will additional loan levies really increase savings, or is the real effect simply to move savings from the private sector to the public sector? Will additional levies not lead to further wage demands to compensate for any increased payments that have to be made and to another spiral in the process of inflation? We have to ask ourselves whether steps to reduce consumption can ever be compatible with the need to in crease production; whether the hon. the Minister of Finance can welcome and encourage the rise in fixed investment and at the same time aim at damping down the economy. We have got to ask ourselves whether we can afford to do anything that will lessen job opportunity, because if we do so, we will destroy any chance of getting the trade unions to accept changes in the labour pattern, changes that are essential for our future wellbeing. We must take a long, hard look at Government spending to ensure that we get value for our money.

Sir, I have set out the guidelines to the economic road along which we think we should travel. We believe that if these guidelines are followed, we can quickly establish a pad from which a dynamic and exciting economic future can be launched, with an export-led phase of growth in the van.

Inflation is a serious enemy; it is most harmful to those who can least afford it. Its pernicious impact upon the non-European lower income groups could well bring disastrous results to all of us. But let us fight inflation with the weapons of new thought and new horizons. Let us fight it with confidence, with ability and with enthusiasm, not with the negative approach of the “dempskool” which this Government follows.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Parktown said. I was very inquisitive to hear whether he, in contrast to his colleagues who spoke yesterday, would try to penetrate to the core of the problems which we discussed here in this House, because yesterday I was under the impression that his colleagues did not properly analyse the questions which hold our attentions here, that they did not go into it very deeply and that they also did not try to analyse and determine the causes, solutions and the medicine for that very well. Yesterday they said that the medicine we are administering is ineffective, but we did not hear from them precisely what they want to administer to the patient. To me it felt as if they were saying: “There is a big bottle filled with medicine; everyone who wants to take a mouthful, can go ahead and do so”; but they did not say exactly what the prescription was. The hon. member for Parktown showed me this afternoon that he associates himself with the school of thought which maintains that one should approach the economy and any inflation problems which it may contain, from the production aspect. The hon. member showed me this afternoon that he ranged himself clearly on the side opposed to the train of thought and the method of slowing down the economy by means of monetary and fiscal measures; of placing restrictions on it, in other words. The hon. member ranged himself on the side of the growth school, as opposed to the school advocating restrictions. I shall discuss this fully in my speech. In addition, the hon. member spoke about growth rates today and I shall discuss this fully in my speech as well. He said that we, because we have full labour utilization, cannot say no to the trade unions. I understood him to say that if we were to throw open the labour doors to non-Whites, we would be in a position to be able to say no to the trade unions because more and alternative labour would then be available.

Who said so?

The hon. member for Parktown.

He did not say so.

I do not want to say anything unfair, but this is what I understood the hon. member to say, namely that in this respect we are in a different situation from that in Britain. There they do not have a reservoir of labour and they have to yield to the demands of the trade unions. If we were to abandon this policy of this Government, we would have a large reservoir of labour and we would then be able to say no in our negotiations with the trade unions. The hon. member and the hon. members who spoke yesterday, also spoke about price increases. This afternoon the hon. member mentioned price increases all of which, with one exception, fall into the category of foodstuffs. I do not think one should concentrate too heavily on price increases in the food section, because these are matters which have to do with natural conditions, the rainfall in the country and other temporary factors. They rise, as vegetable prices rose last year, for example, as easily as they fall again. But yesterday the hon. members attributed price increases to the ideological policies of the Government, to wastage of money by the Government and to the labour policy of the Government, as the hon. member for Parktown also did this afternoon. Now, in regard to price increases, I should just like to say a few words to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he mentioned certain price increases. I have read his speech and he actually mentioned only a few price increases which I want to deal with. For example, he spoke about motor vehicle insurance which was increased. I do think that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentions these things, he should discuss the merits of the case. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition merely mentioned them in passing. He did not discuss one; he did not try to determine a cause or a reason. He is like a man who simply walks along handing out a few slaps at random as far as he goes.

The Government is being blamed for these insurance tariffs which have been increased for motor vehicle insurance. Can the Government help it if there are so many motor car accidents in South Africa? Is this meant to be a good example of inflation? The Leader of the Opposition said that the prices of motor oil, grease and diesel oil has risen. Quite correct, but surely the hon. the Leader can understand, and he knows, that the tanker freight charges have been increased and that prices of the oil have been increased. It is therefore of no avail simply to state that oil prices have risen, without arguing the pros and cons of the matter. He said that garage accounts had risen, and he blamed the Government. Sir, it is a hard blow to receive these large accounts when one takes a car to the garage, but allow me to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He attributed it to the existing shortage of labour, to the fact that there are too few workers. I did my best to see whether we could not train Coloureds as motor car mechanics on a much larger scale. I did not come up against the Government or the Prime Minister, but I did come up against the trade union which said: We shall not accept young Coloured men and train them as motor vehicle mechanics.

Can you blame the Government for that? Sir, what more can you or the Opposition do about that than what we have done? We can actually do even more because we have townships for Coloureds where we want to develop and encourage Coloured affairs by means of the Coloured Development Corporation, where we can establish garages. Then we will be able to adopt special measures so that they can train the young Coloured boys as mechanics in order to fill this great shortage.

We now come to metrication, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. He said he did not want to level reproaches at the trade, but I read his speech carefully and he in fact maintained that the trade may use the metrication programme in order to exploit the public, and he reproached us. Why did he reproach us? He reproached us because the Price Controller had failed to appoint price inspectors to guard against these incidents which occurred. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows that we do not have enough people to appoint all these price inspectors to guard against this. No, it will not help to laugh about it. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want me to say here in this House today that the Opposition is in favour of price control and the system of inspection by price controllers? Does the Opposition think the trade would like that? Is this what they are advocating? Then they must say so.

I now want to come to what the Opposition said, namely that these price increases are a result of our ideological policy. The Opposition contradicted themselves. The Leader of the Opposition, in effect, expressed an adverse opinion against border and homeland development. If one were to read this section of what he said, I cannot think that one would be able to understand it in any other way. Although he did not say it in so many words, he did say it indirectly. Someone who said it very clearly and directly was the hon. member for Gardens. He said that it was too appalling that parts of South Africa were being abandoned, and that settlement in the metropolitan areas was much easier. The hon. member for Hillbrow stood up and said that they would obtain White capital to develop the homelands and that they would allow that capital to be utilized there. He said that they would make development possible, in contrast to people who say that no development is possible. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow did not say how they would do it. In this respect I want to say that what the Opposition’s argument boils down to is that economic factors alone must predominate. They maintain that they will clear the way for the resettlement of the homeland population in the White areas. We can argue about this whole matter later, but it is contrary to the general world trend; of overcrowding, of land which is becoming scarce and unobtainable, of expensive land, and of services which it will not be possible to pay for in the end. I should like to ask the following question about this ideology. If one makes a golden calf of growth, is it less of an ideology when one strives to achieve a balanced, stable and happy development in one’s country and a safe future for one’s people? Growth is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. And what one wants to attain by growth, is to provide the people with work and to improve their standards of living gradually.

Hear, hear!

I am pleased the hon. members are saying “hear, hear”, because that, at least, is what we on this side of this House have been doing for years. I do not know why the hon. members are making such a noise here. Do hon. members know how the standards of living in South Africa have risen in comparison with the rest of the world? Do the hon. members know how we compare internationally today as a result of this Government’s work from 1960 to 1967? The per capita, the real growth of our people in South Africa and the improvement in our standard of living was 4.1 per cent per year. It compares as follows: Canada and France 3.8 per cent; U.S A. 3.6 per cent; the Common Market countries 3.6 per cent; West Germany 3.1 per cent; the United Kingdom 2.4 per cent; Australia 2.8 per cent and New Zealand 2.6 per cent. In regard to the rise in the standard of living of its people from 1960 to 1967, South Africa is therefore the highest in the world, next to Japan. Are the hon. members saying “hear, hear” again? No, Mr. Speaker. It has been said that wastage of money and high State expenditure caused inflation. The hon. member for Hillbrow said this. He did not give one single item of proof to substantiate it. Why did the hon. member not do so? We have challenged them here year after year. We have stood here with the Budget in our hands and have asked them, if we are spending the country’s money unfairly, please get up and suggest which items should be deleted, whether it be in the loan estimates in respect of transport services, in respect of the infrastructure, education or whatever.

The Economic Advisory Board said so as well.

The Economic Advisory Board did not say so. Why have the hon. members on that side of this House never risen and made a proposal in regard to current accounts, the salaries, subsidies to the provinces, defence and agriculture? I just want to mention this as well: The hon. member for Hillbrow said that essential commodities had risen as much in nine years as in the past nine months. The hon. member probably made a mistake. I do not want to do him an injustice, because food prices, for example, have increased by 26 per cent in the past nine years and in the past 10 months by 5 per cent. In the past nine years housing has increased by 33 per cent as against 3.5 per cent in the past 10 months. I hope this is not a criterion by which we must judge the hon. member’s other statements.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the labour policy of the Government. May we examine the development of the economy briefly and find out more or less how we landed in this situation. To start off, Sharpeville 1961: there was a total lack of confidence. The Government decided that the public co-operatives should expand. It had an accumulative effect on the entrepreneurs of this country and this is what set them off. We had a policy of import replacement. Factories in South Africa were encouraged to manufacture products to replace goods which we were importing. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition opposed that. Yesterday he told us that we should not have done this, because it gave rise to a shortage of personnel. In other words, on the one hand he reproached us for encouraging growth and on the other he reproached us for not encouraging growth. Everything we manufacture in South Africa is import replacement. This suit I am wearing, is import replacement. Our whole industrial structure has been built up in this way. First one imports, builds up a local market and then begins to produce for that local market. In the last stage one begins to export. Our armaments productions is another example of strategic manufacture and replacement. An item such as carbon-black is another example of local production without which, strategically speaking, we would not be able to manage in this country if we were to land in trouble. Furthermore, there remains the stockpiling programme, etc. The Government did all this. As a result of all these measures, we have had an industrial explosion in South Africa. We are not making excuses for that. The large projects which we have undertaken such as Richard’s Bay, for example, may be added to this. Other projects we tackled in the past, are, inter alia, the Orange River Scheme, Sasol, Foskor and the growth of our mining. We see the effects of this in the service sector, in trade, transport, finance and other services such as for example education, the public service, etc., which are responsible for 50 per cent of employment. This is an example of the tremendous expansion in South Africa. I am mentioning all this for the information of hon. members and to explain how it came about that we have experienced this exceptional expansion in South Africa.

In 1963 for the first time we started developing a shortage of White workers in this country. At that time there was full employment of Whites for the first time. This was the beginning of the labour pressure on the Coloureds and the Indians. Today there are no more unemployed Coloureds and Indians in South Africa either. I have made this statement in order to show that the growth in this country has overtaken the available productive labour. I am not apologizing for that. In fact, the Government is proud of it and takes all the credit for it. It has provided us with good things in the economy, such as our Defence Force, the power to resist and overcome the boycotts we had in the past, the development of our country, the rise in the standard of living of our population and money to help our non-White populations in this extremely difficult situation. Furthermore, we are the most peaceful country in the world. We take the credit for the fact that we placed our economy on this road. However, it is true that after 1963 inflationary pressure entered the economy because pressure developed on the source of labour. Then there was a manpower shortage as well. The Opposition then told us that we should make more use of non-White labour. Do they not remember? The Government acted by introducing its usual measures, measures such as monetary measures, which the hon. member for Parktown was not in favour of today, and fiscal measures. What was the position? In 1967 the economy was perfectly stable again and there were no problems. After 1967 further problems arose. There was the British devaluation and a strong influx of foreign capital, flight capital, etc. At that time we could not allow capital to be taken out of the country.

The gold negotiations were under way and these could not be finalized. As a result of that a large measure of liquidity developed in the economy.

Salary increases played their part in this as well. Last year’s salary increases must of course have a great effect but why should the State take all the blame for that? I want to make the allegation that it was primarily the private sector which started off this salary competition and that it was not the State that gave the lead. As a result of all these developments which I have sketched, the inflation rate was increased. What must we do now? I just want to say that it is not a crisis situation, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said yesterday. It is under no circumstances a crisis situation and in addition, I want to say that it is a mistake to say that it is a structural situation. This is not true, and I hope that this will become apparent from my speech. In addition, I want to say that it is perfectly true that there has been a temporary over-heating of the economy and this is taking place as a result of too rapid growth. However, there is nothing which cannot be rectified.

How should we rectify the position? We can approach it from two angles; from the production aspect or from the consumer aspect. Production can be expanded. Of course, I do not endorse the theory which states that inflation must be outgrown and that increased production should take place in order to outstrip inflation. This is the same as the case of a husband and wife where the husband earns R300 a month and the wife spends the entire R300 a month, leaving one or two accounts still to be paid. Subsequently the man studies, obtains a degree and as a result of hard work eventually earns R600 a month. In spite of this, the wife still spends that R600 a month and accounts still remain to be paid at Stuttafords, Garlicks and Louie et Cie. Of what avail is it therefore—one cannot produce oneself out of one’s problems. One must change one’s spending pattern. There is no question about it, because when I am in trouble, I work harder and spend less, because I need money in order to be able to pay my debts. In other words, saving takes place, and this is the only alternative which remains.

At this stage I want to say that the Government has given attention to productivity for years. Unfortunately I cannot cover the whole field, because time is marching on. There remain the fields of training and education for Whites, Coloureds and Bantu, but these are the subjects of speeches still to be made during this Session. We can examine on what large a scale we are using Bantu today. We use them only in certain areas and not in the communal pot on an integration basis such as the Opposition promises the country. In regard to the production aspect, South Africa had an annual increase of productivity of 3 per cent per worker from 1963 to 1969, and this compares extremely favourably when measured by international standards.

We have supplemented this labour force by means of immigration. Over the past six years, 73,000 immigrants have been brought into the country. These 73,000 White workers are in a ratio of one to four with the 250,000 Bantu workers who were brought into the economy over and above the natural increase. In this way I can refer to the Physical Planning Act. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition criticized this Act as well. On the one hand he said that we were not using non-Whites, but on the other hand he said the following, and I shall quote—

He was speaking to you, Mr. Speaker—

He was referring to the field of the Physical Planning Act and continued—

In spite of this he reproached us. We are closing the doors to such an extent that hardly a Bantu can get into industry any more, but in spite of this he made the reproach against us that the entire place was flooded with Bantu. I want to say that the largest contribution we rendered towards production was the labour quiet and the labour peace.

Let us examine now the Opposition’s vague proposals in respect of the production aspect. The Opposition wants to solve the inflation problem by means of greater production. They say that we should abolish all restrictions and produce at breakneck speed. Now I want to ask the Opposition why they do not want to give us the details of what they propose in practical terms for a change? I have tried to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must listen carefully now because he has to reply on Friday. If there had been a growth rate of 8.4 per cent during the period 1963 to 1969, 165,000 more Whites and 660,000 more Bantu than those already in fact taken into service, would have been required. If there had been a growth rate of 10 per cent during the same period, 275,000 more Whites and 1,100,000 more Bantu would have been required.

Do not … [Interjections.]

I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to read my Hansard and to come here and prove that it is not true. If hon. members on the other side want to solve inflation in this way, I want to ask them where these 165,000 or 275,000 Whites were to have come from. Last year we heard a lot about the 12 per cent growth rate in Japan, but this year we have not yet heard a thing about it. The Leader of the Opposition or the next speaker on that side must tell us. For an additional 165,000 Whites, there would have had to be an immigration figure of approximately half a million Whites during this six-year period. According to the authenticated figure—and hon. members must not tell me again that I am talking nonsense—of the immigrants which enter South Africa annually, namely 30,000 annually, 11,000 to 12,000 are economically active. For a growth rate of 10 per cent, the immigration figure would have had to be approximately 825,000 during those six years. The United Party must rise and say whether they would have done this, otherwise their stories mean nothing. If the Opposition was not able to obtain the necessary Whites by means of immigration, people who had to do skilled work, would they have drawn those workers from the non-White stream in South Africa? How would they have drawn these 825,000 workers from the non-White stream? If the Opposition does not reply to us in this regard, all their stories and everything they have written in the newspapers in the past month about inflation and the labour shortage as a cause of inflation, mean absolutely nothing.

I could elaborate on the capital position, but I shall do so later in writing, because I do not have the time to do so now. In the eight years that I have been here, hon. members on the other side have never criticized the economic development programme. Yesterday for the first time one of them said that he did not accept the economic development programme. The member who rises next must tell me whether they accept the economic development programme which was complied by experts, not only in the public sector, but in collaboration with experts in the private sector. It is not compiled on an ideological basis. Do they accept that? If they do not accept it, why do they not submit alternative figures here in this House. I give them the assurance that my officials will be at their disposal with the greatest courtesy, friendliness and helpfulness and will give them everything they want. If my figures are not correct, let them compile an economic development programme for us now, with all its sectors which must do well in order to achieve this, with its capital, infrastructure, labour requirements and everything. Let them compile an economic programme for us at 8.4 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent, and then we shall see what the implications thereof will be.

But, Sir, I will probably have to make haste. I should like to say that if one cannot combat inflation from the production side only, there is no alternative. Then one must do it from the spending side. In other words, one should bring these two matters closer together. One cannot force up the one from behind as far as it will go, because if matters proceed as in the case of the husband and the wife, one will never reach that point and matters will deteriorate even more. One must also force back the one towards the level of the other. Till the end of June last year, the gross domestic product rose by 12 per cent and the gross domestic expenditure by 12 per cent. Therefore, Sir, it is perfectly clear to me that we must do in this country what I would have done as an ordinary person, namely spend less. I would have worked harder, spent less and saved more. When I say that persons should spend less, I do not want it to be understood that people should spend less in absolute terms. If one spent a total of R200 a month last year, it does not mean that one should now spend R190. All I ask is that the increase in the tempo of spending should be slower. That is all I mean by it and all I ask.

Hon. members need not tell this to me or to the Government; it applies not only to the private sector, it applies to the public sector as well. In the long run, no person and no country can live beyond their means. In the past ten years, the Government has shown itself capable of solving all the economic problems of South Africa. It will do so again. I repeat, Sir, there is no crisis. It is a temporary overheating of the economy. There is nothing which a sensible, well-considered and planned monetary or fiscal policy cannot rectify.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking the hon. the Minister of Planning to tell me how an old-age pensioner, with an income of R35 per month, can work harder and save for South Africa. I would like to ask him to tell me how a Railwayman, working 14 and 16 hours a day, can work harder without endangering the safety of the passengers he is carrying. Then I want to put it clearly on record that this hon. Minister in the name of the Government and of the Cabinet says of the women of South Africa that if their husbands double their income, they will spend twice as much. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, that was the example the hon. the Minister used. He said: “If I earn R300 my wife spends it all …” I am not married to his wife, but apparently if he then earns R600, she spends it all and has more debts. That is the attitude of the hon. the Minister towards the problems of the housewives of South Africa, who are trying to make ends meet under the Government’s economic mismanagement.

I welcome one statement by the hon. the Minister. My Leader challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to have prepared by the Government an estimate of our development potential under the Government’s policy of separate development as compared with the potential of South Africa under United Party policy.

We made it an issue in a previous no-confidence debate; we made it our basic challenge to the Government—to tell South Africa what the Government’s policy was costing the people of South Africa,—but the hon. the Prime Minister rejected our challenge; he ran away from it and refused to tell the people of South Africa what the difference was between the price they would pay for development and progress under the Government’s policy and that under United Party policy. Now the hon. the Minister of Planning has repudiated his own Prime Minister. We welcome his offer to make available to the Opposition his Department and his officials so that we can truly tell South Africa what it is costing them to have a Nationalist Government.

I want to deal with one or two other statements made by the hon. the Minister. He denied that the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council had said anything about wasteful Government expenditure. In this connection I should like to refer to the statement released by the hon. the Prime Minister on the 3rd December, 1970, following upon a meeting of the Council on the 17/18th November. On page 14 of that statement it says—

It then goes on to deal with the opportunities … [Interjections.] I am not going to read the whole statement. The Minister denied that there had been a call from the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council for a reduction in the expenditure of the Government … [Interjection.] I can read other paragraphs. Here it says—

As regards expenditure by the public sector the members of the Council showed their awareness of the problems involved in bringing about significant reductions in this regard. In spite of this, however, there was a general insistence that the public sector should make a serious attempt to curb the expansion of its current expenditure.

What does this mean? Does it not mean that the Council of the hon. the Prime Minister believes that there can be a saving in Government expenditure and that, in fact, there is unnecessary expenditure? Unnecessary expenditure at this time means wasteful expenditure.

Let me deal with another point the hon. the Minister made. He attacked my Leader for quoting car insurance as an example of rising costs and said that the Government was not responsible for accidents. But does the hon. the Minister not know what is going on in this country? Does he not read? Does he not know that insurance companies said they were obliged to raise the tariff because of the increased cost of panel-beating, because of the high charges made for repairs to vehicles? The panel beaters issued a statement saying that they had to charge the higher rate because they could not get labour. Thus we are back to the very point we are making. The hon. the Minister concluded with a wonderful appeal to sentiment and emotion—“we are not going to have a ‘mengelmoes’; we are not going to mix up Black and White working together”. But earlier in his speech he said he had tried to get more Coloureds apprenticed as mechanics into the motor industry. Two minutes later, however, he said they were not going to have a “mengelmoes” of Blacks and Whites working together. What, Mr. Speaker, is the policy of this Government? In fact, it has none. I shall tell them why we shall succeed where they have failed. The Minister offers no choice to the present white mechanics. He asked them only whether they would take in Coloured apprentices and if they do, these eventually would become competitors in competition with the workers there at present. So the simple choice he puts before them is whether they will or will not take them in as competitors for jobs. Under the policy of the United Party there will in fact be an inducement for them to take them in because there would be a growth rate with economic hopes for the white worker which would open to them new vistas of greater opportunities, greater incomes and greater progress. But this Government offers no alternative. As against that, under United Party policy there will actually be an incentive because as you bring in non-Whites so you would raise the standard of the white worker and open to him bigger and better goals and opportunities. But nowhere did anyone on this side talk about the uncontrolled throwing open of the labour gates to non-White workers. That was the interjection I made. I challenged the Minister to prove that anyone had said it. In fact no one on this side has said it because it is not our policy.

However, when the hon. the Minister speaks to the F.C.I. he sings a different song. You know, Mr. Speaker, what happened, according to those who were there? He must have made a study of the speeches of my hon. Leader because he was quoting verbatim the very phrases my Leader used in this House on the need for growth, on the need to create jobs and opportunities for our people. Now the hon. the Minister talks glibly about moving along steadily. Does he not know what will happen to this country—if the growing population explosion gets ahead of the available jobs? —or does he not care? If there is no work for a man to do, if there is no way in which he can earn a living, he becomes a danger to the future existence of every white man in South Africa. Yet this Government is content to move along blithely with its eyes closed, unable or unwilling to face the challenge of creating a growth rate which will enable every person born in South Africa to find a job. That is not happening today. One need only to go to any of the Bantu Reserves to find that what I am saying is true.

Throughout this debate hon. members and Ministers on that side have shrugged their shoulders and said that we should forget about the elections of last year; that they did not mean a thing and they were going to go on governing for ever and ever. But let me tell them that April last year was a warning to the Government, a warning which they heeded, particularly the hon. the Prime Minister, because he talked a little louder about National unity, although we did not see much in deeds. They touched up their “verligte” camouflage a little bit; they shuffled the Cabinet and sacked one Minister, but suppressed any announcements of the kick in the pants that was waiting for the public after they had voted. Despite having taken warning and despite having withheld from the people what lay ahead of them, in October last year they got more than a warning— they got part of the kick in the pants that they had been holding in reserve for the public.

*Mr. Speaker, I now wish to make use of the privilege of switching languages and continue in Afrikaans. I would like to remind the Government that the election would only have been held this year, had it not been that the Prime Minister took fright at a few Herstigtes in his party. Otherwise the election would have taken place in April this year, and then we would have seen something different—the disappearance of not only a few hon. members who are unfortunately still sitting here, such as the hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Westdene; then we would have had a different story to tell, for the people of South Africa are disillusioned. They have lost confidence in this Government. They are losing it more and more every day, and I want to give a few of the reasons.

In the first place there is apartheid or separate development, or call it what you like, the relationships policy and the absolute collapse of this policy as my hon. Leader explained here. I do not intend dealing with this, but every hon. member sitting on those benches knows that the people of South Africa are beginning to realize that their colour policy no longer offers the solutions for South Africa and that they can no longer bluff the people, but that the cold, hard reality of the facts, the actual situation in South Africa, is now disillusioning our people. And this is an important reason why, had the election been held now, we would have seen a much greater change than what actually came about.

†But there are other reasons. There is the outmoded, mediaeval thinking of this Government in regard to the everyday aspects of daily life. We had from the hon. the Minister of National Education this morning a denial that the S.A.B.C. would not broadcast reports on Sundays on a matter of national interest such as the Rio Yacht Race. Yet one of his own officials, Mr. N. J. Naude, the head of the S.A.B.C. Public Relations Department, said that the ban on reporting of any sporting event on Sundays would also apply to the Cape to Rio race. Does the hon. the Minister not know what is going on in his own Department? Does he not know what is going on? Sir, this is a sort of mediaeval thinking, this going back to some distant and dark age where people will only be allowed to hear and know what the Government thinks is good for them. Does the hon. the Minister not know that if somebody objects to a report on sport, he can just turn a button on his radio and he does not have to listen to it being drummed into him as you have to listen to “Current Affairs”?

Then there is television. On this very last Sunday America transmitted a televised programme of the latest flight to the moon. When men moved into space—symbolic of the era in which we live in the twentieth century,—Ghana and little countries like that could watch it. But South Africa is waiting for a commission to report, to find out perhaps whether it will hurt the susceptibilities of a section of the watchers of South Africa if they see men launched to the moon on a Sunday afternoon. Sir, what sort of world does this Government think we live in? It is this mediaeval approach, their approach to a simple thing like a raffle at a church bazaar which does nobody any harm or the raffle at a Nationalist Party fête or congress or a United Party fête or congress, which still goes on. But no, this must be stopped; this cannot be allowed because we must live in a narrow, verkrampte world which this Government is prepared to tolerate and to allow us to live in.

So one could go on. I do not want to deal with censorship today, except to say that one of my voters has asked me to present a petition, which is snowballing so fast from public reaction that we are extending the closing date; neither I nor any political person has been involved in any way in collecting signatures for that petition. It is a natural reaction of the people of South Africa against the narrowmindedness and the mediaeval ideas of this Government. They talk about being verlig, but nobody is bluffed. The four members of the Nationalist Party who left that party were only the tip of the iceberg. The other eight-ninths of that iceberg are still within the Nationalist Party. Sir, if you want to know why I say that do so on the authority the hon. the Prime Minister, who himself issued an invitation to those who had supported the Herstigte Party in April; he said: “Kom terug; u politieke tuiste is hier by ons; moenie mislei word nie; kom terug —nie die leiers nie—maar almal van u, kom terug.” In other words, Sir, there was a place and there is a place in the Nationalist Party for those who support the right-wing policies of Dr. Hertzog.

But now, Sir, we have a “verligte” party here. There is the hon. the Minister of Information, a “verligte” Minister; there is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a “verligte” Minister; there is the hon. member for Sunnyside of mini-skirt fame, a “verligte” member of the Government Party; the hon. member for Carletonville, “verlig”; the hon. member for Rissik, who publicly went on record as saying that no Maori and no non-White would come to South Africa with the visiting New Zealanders—a “verligte” member. Then of course we have the hon. the new Minister of the Interior. We look forward to hearing him reconcile his speeches as Administrator with the policy of the Cabinet of which he is now a member.

Sir, we remember that in 1948 people spoke of “the Cabinet of all the talents.” Many people used to say, “I do not agree with them; I do not like their policy, but you must admit they are efficient”. How often did one not hear that? Now, Sir, I would like to know which single Minister can claim that he is serving South Africa efficiently today? Hansard is full of excuses and excuses and excuses as to why they cannot serve us. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be a shortage of money. They have over R1,300 million of surpluses, of money surplus to their requirements which they took from the taxpayer, so they cannot claim that they cannot serve South Africa efficiently because they have not got enough money; they have plenty of money. What is the reason then? They blame staff shortages; whose fault is that, Sir? There are many public servants today, dedicated men, bumping their heads against a stone wall, some of them almost working themselves and others literally working themselves to death in an attempt to give an efficient service to the people of South Africa. Day by day and week by week they are frustrated by two things: the policy of the Government and the inefficiency of the Cabinet which controls it. Sir, where has this Cabinet of all the talents gone? Today it is nothing but a tattered caricature of ministerial incompetence. Sir, that is another of the major reasons why the people of South Africa are becoming disillusioned with this Government, because, like Stormkaap and Jakaranda they are drifting rudderless. But the difference is that they have not got a captain who can put them on the straight and narrow course again. As individuals there are many charming men in the Cabinet. I accept their sincerity. But, Sir, I think after what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said yesterday I am entitled to have a look at this Cabinet of all the talents. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said that he was proud that he had started from the bottom. He had not been born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he had earned four-pence an hour, and in an eight-hour day this makes 32 pence a day; whereas the Leader of the Opposition had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had grown up in luxury.

A golden spoon.

While that hon. Minister was earning fourpence an hour—I do not know who gave him a job at four-pence an hour—my hon. Leader was sitting behind a barbed wire fence, winning the freedom to enable that hon. Minister to come and sit in a democratic Parliament. My hon. Leader was not being paid fourpence an hour; he was being paid nothing—not one cent—and the reward of his labour was often to be locked up in solitary detention for trying to escape or assisting his mates to escape.

Is that his only claim to fame?

No, it is not his only claim to fame. It is not only the hon. the Minister who started at the bottom. There are many on this side who have had that experience. At the same time I was earning less than fourpence per hour. I was earning two shillings a day, for 24 hours duty, whilst also trying to earn freedom for that hon. Minister. What was he doing to help us at the time? Yet he has the nerve to make the statement he did about my Leader! Mr. Speaker, it is not where you started or where you got to, that matters. It is what you have in you. You can be a Cabinet Minister but have nothing in you. You can be born with everything and have it in you. That is the difference. Our Leader on this side of the House has more ability and more experience than the whole of that Cabinet together. They are jealous, because they know it is true.

What do we have governing South Africa today? We have six professional politicians, whose lives have been entirely tied up with politics. There is nothing wrong with being an organizer. I was one myself. It is good experience, but not when that is your whole life and your only experience. You cannot have a Cabinet dominated totally by politics. Then we have three small-town lawyers, including the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, a small-town lawyer. What administrative experience in running a large government department has he got? We further have two ex-Broederbond secretaries. They were professional secretaries of the Broederbond. We have one and a half farmers for one and a half Ministers of Agriculture. We have two second-hand Sappe, including the hon. Minister of Planning in his more sensible days.

Three!

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, we have three. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has jumped so often that it is difficult to know where he was last. We also have one self-confessed indoctrinator, who admitted that he used to indoctrinate schoolchildren. That was the way he used to occupy himself. We have a diesel expert. [Interjections.] These, then, are the hon. gentlemen who accuse us of being out of touch with the people of South Africa. I would like to pass to the hon. the Minister for Community Development, who pooh-poohed my hon. Leader when he spoke of R20,000 houses, yesterday’s Natal Mercury’s advertisements for houses. I have marked the prices and on the whole page there are only three costing less than approximately R16,500. They are priced R20,000, R23,000, R25,000, R22,000; I can go on like this, but I do not want to spend all of my time reading amounts between R20,000 and R35,000. Now the hon. the Minister says there is no housing problem. I have the quotation here.

[Inaudible.]

I have got the evidence and we will deal with it op the hon. the Minister’s Vote. Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs repeated it when he said there is no housing problem, … but there are tens of thousands of people living in caravans. That is where they are living. That is the sort of housing that the hon. Minister for Community Development gives them, but, they know what is going on. They know the difficulty of living today. Look at the poor Minister of Community Development, Sir. He has a difficult time. According to a report I have here it costs R262 of the State’s money, the taxpayer’s money, to paint Mr. Blaar Coetzee’s swimming pool. Additions to his home cost a further R12,100. We find that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs spent R13,786 on repairs and renovations to his official residence. A minister who can spend more than R13,000 of the taxpayer’s money, not his own money, on renovations to his home then tells my hon. Leader that he was born with a golden spoon in his mouth and therefore has no contact with the ordinary people. Mr. Speaker, there is only one good thing about this. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has spent R140,000 of public money in eight months on improving the official residences in Pretoria. We welcome it, Sir. It is normal practice, when there is to be a change of tenant, to clean the place up. We thank the hon. the Minister for preparing these residences for our occupation.

Sir, let them not talk about the poor man when they can spend this sort of money on curtains building barbeques, and so forth. Evidently the Minister of Agriculture eats twice as much at a barbeque, because his barbeque cost R600 but that of the Minister of Information oost only R300. [Interjections.] Apparently he only has half barbeques. So one could go on. The hon. the Minister of Community Development announced a subsidy of one per cent on homes under R16,000. Then he issued a directive that any home valued more than two years ago now has to be revalued at today’s prices. A person who paid £4,000 or £6,000 for a house now has to have that house revalued. If the new value is more than R16,000 he is not eligible for the subsidy. This is the type of sympathy one finds. I should like to ask him how many people are in fact receiving the one per cent subsidy today. These are the hon. Ministers who accuse us of not knowing the ordinary man’s problems. I promise the hon. the Minister that not only the ordinary man but also the youth of South Africa are turning to us because we have an ideal and a vision for South Africa. All they can offer South Africa are higher fences around their houses and higher fences around South Africa. “Fence us in. Do not let us see the world.” The United Party offers South Africa a vision which the youth of South Africa are accepting. So thank the hon. the Minister for preparing the houses in Pretoria for United Party occupation.

Mr. Speaker, we have now had the opportunity of listening to the biggest clown in the Republic of South Africa. This afternoon the hon. member for Durban (Point)passed sneering remarks at members of this Cabinet. This is a Cabinet that has, with the greatest measure of competence, governed this country for us for more than 22 years. That Cabinet has not only governed the country in an extremely competent manner; it has assisted in developing this country to such an extent that it is being recognized today as one of the best countries in the whole world. Yet the hon. member tried this afternoon to disparage the members of this Cabinet in the most sneering manner. I just want to tell him that if he carries on in that vein, he should never think that they will get the opportunity to govern this country. If I stop to think that that hon. member should become a Minister, I wonder what portfolio we should give him, for he is sitting in the front benches. He might perhaps be given the portfolio of entertainment, and even that portfolio he would not be able to handle properly.

Let us proceed. Should these ministerial residences not be renewed? How many years have those old residences been standing? It is for the very reason that the Government is undertaking such maintenance that new houses need not be built at the present high building costs. Hon. members know what it costs to build a new house. The hon. the Minister of Public Works is a person who is far-sighted. That is why he is effecting improvements to those houses. That is all that is happening there.

But I want to proceed. The hon. member spoke here about pensioners. The pensioners are the last group of people about whom the United Party should ever talk. It is this National Government that has helped the pensioners and brought them where they are today. Just look at our housing schemes for the aged. Just look at all the benefits which are created for them there. We are not saying that the R35 they receive per month, is sufficient. If we could, we would give them the maximum, for we know what they have done for this country.

I want to warn the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he is scoffing at everything that is sacred to the Afrikaner. He is making a mockery of Sunday. But I want to tell him today that the Afrikaner still regards Sunday as a holy day. One must not interfere with the traditions of the Afrikaner. We are sick and tired of the mockery of our Afrikaner tradition in respect of the Sunday. We want to tell that hon. member that he will hear a great deal more about the fact that he is making a mockery of everything that is sacred to the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh. Just see who is laughing. But I want to tell the hon. member for North Rand that if he agrees with the hon. member for Durban (Point) …

Yes, with everything.

Very well, the hon. member agrees with everything that was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point). But to me Sunday is still a holy day. In the same way Sunday remains a holy day to every good and sincere Afrikaner, and that is the way we shall keep it.

But I do not wish to follow up what that hon. member had to say here. It was one of the most ridiculous speeches he has ever made in this House. He followed the example set by the hon. member for Hillbrow. If that hon. member thinks that they will be able to govern our country in this manner, they will never come into power.

The United Party and its press have now been mercilessly attacking the National Party on its policy of separate development for 22 years. They have been unable to achieve anything with the electorate, for the majority of the people outside, Whites as well as non-Whites, accept separate development today. If we look at the past, we see the separation brought about by this National Government between the Whites and non-Whites on the Witwatersrand and in our urban areas. When we started with the separation between Whites and non-Whites in our cities, the United Party fought us tooth and nail. It is the United Party that has fought us in every sphere and on every measure taken by us over the years. In this manner we ourselves had to establish various boards in order to remove the Bantu from the area of Johannesburg. That side of the House fought us. In the same manner they fought the group areas as well. But what do we find today? At the past election the Opposition continued in that vein. When we came forward with our homeland development programme, the Opposition fought us both in this House and outside. Now they are trying to make the people believe that we are creating breeding-places for communism here in the homelands. But our people are not prepared to accept that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke so badly that he may just as well leave the House.

The Opposition has now gone further by trying to make the people believe that we are cutting up and giving away our father-land. But all of us are aware that the homeland policy of the National Party is succeeding in a very real manner. I challenge the United Party to tell us whether they would be prepared, if they should come into power one day—and that will never happen—to undo what we have already achieved in the homelands. I want to tell them today that they will not undo it; they will retain it exactly as it is, for this is the policy of the National Party.

But let us go on. In what sphere is the United Party fighting us at the moment? They are now lying in the last trench and fighting us on the Physical Planning Act. We know that prior to 1967 industrial townships could be established anywhere. Industries with a major Bantu labour intensity were established inside, next to or opposite White residential areas, the result being that Bantu factory workers flocked from the homelands to the major urban complexes in large numbers. The problems caused by this uncontrolled influx of Bantu, were legion. There was a shortage of proper housing, education, hospital facilities, transport and sanitary facilities, and Black slums sprang up in and around the major White cities. Apart from the social evils this entailed, it implied a threat to the health of both the Whites and the Bantu. As the Government has always had the interests of South Africa at heart, it introduced with the Physical Planning Act in 1967. Hon. members opposite know how they are fighting section 2 of that Act. Section 2 provides that industrial development may only take place with the consent of the Minister of Planning. Section 3 provides that no factory employing Bantu may be extended without the Minister’s consent. The legislation relating to physical planning was directly responsible for the success eventually achieved with the border industry development.

Where?

The United Party fought this development year after year. Look at our border industry development. The hon. members merely have to look at the development taking place all over the country; all they have to do, is to read the report, and then they will see.

How many are there in the Transkei?

Is the hon. member a blind man in this country of ours? Reproaches are being levelled at us, but this industrial development is in the process of becoming one of the driving forces in our national economy. Those hon. members are the people who have been fighting it all the time. The United Party has now seen that our homeland development is meeting with success and that our border industry development is meeting with success. Now the hon. members are engaged in fighting us in the last trench. Where are those hon. members fighting us? Just before the last election and, once again, just before the opening of this session of Parliament, we heard one voice after the other being raised in favour of our having to employ Bantu, and if we do not employ those Bantu we are, according to them, promoting inflation. Last Sunday the Sunday Times rendered one of the greatest services to the Republic of South Africa—of which they are probably not aware—when in a major article they stated the following—

Only by learning the true facts will the people be able to formulate a proper policy that ensures industrial peace and stability.

Read it again.

Must I read it to the hon. member again? I quote again—

Only by learning the true facts will the people be able to formulate a proper policy that ensures industrial peace and stability.

Here they came along and by means of figures tried to formulate a policy for industrial peace. What country in the world has more industrial peace than in fact the Republic of South Africa?

Russia.

The hon. member agrees with that point, i.e. that there is no other country in the world which has greater industrial peace than South Africa has. Now I want to know what country has shown more growth than the Republic of South Africa has.

Japan.

Is Japan comparable with the Republic of South Africa? Surely we can never compare it with the Republic of South Africa. Let us continue. Why do they want to try to formulate a new policy? Has the National Party’s policy of separate development not brought about this industrial peace and stability over the past 22 years? Is it not in fact separate development that has brought us these things? Let us merely look at our industrial growth during this six-year period from 1963—the basis year of the economic development programme —to 1969. During this period the volume of factory production showed an average increase of 8.4 per cent per year as against a target of 6.8 per cent. Therefore, industrialists cannot complain about their profits. According to the Department of Statistics the total profit made by 781 manufacturing concerns during the first quarter of last year was 13.5 per cent higher than it had been during the first quarter of the previous year. Does that not prove that this Government has brought industrial peace and stability to the Republic of South Africa? In this report of the Sunday Times there is progress to be seen in every sector of industry in South Africa. One could take a look at every sector of industry and find that a greater number of both Whites and non-Whites are being employed today while these non-Whites were employed in large numbers, industrial peace in the Republic of South Africa was retained. This is an industrial peace of which we are very proud and on which we feel the prosperity of our country is based today.

Almost everybody is talking about the tremendous manpower shortage, but not one economist, or any of the press reports we read or not even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned that at the end of 1970 40,000 White persons— who had just completed their studies at school or university or their military training—entered the labour market. At this stage the effect of these 40,000 White persons entering the labour market cannot be determined in all branches of industry, and it is difficult to understand why at this very moment so many voices are being raised in favour of non-White labour being utilized on a larger scale than before. It is also strange that there is apparently a want of appreciation for the fact that within the framework of the Government’s policy non-White labour is being employed to an ever-increasing extent. The whole policy of controlled employment of non-Whites is based on the necessity for industrial peace. We must not underestimate this industrial peace of ours. We are dealing here with people, white people and Black people. We must remember that they are human beings. The people who are sitting in air-conditioned offices, far away from the factories, should not simply lump the white man and the Black man together on an uncontrolled basis.

Who says that?

You people say so. That is what the United Party wants to do. What can they do other than what we are doing now? The white worker is a very sensitive person. He is very sensitive about the traditional work which has been reserved for him all these years. For many years already he has been doing this traditional work. He cannot give it up easily. In the non-White person he sees a danger to himself and his family. Any hon. member who works in his constituency and has the interest of his people at heart, will know that not a day passes without people complaining to us that non-Whites are ousting them from their jobs. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Benoni whether any white workers have ever complained to him that they are being ousted from their jobs by non-Whites. Every member who represents the Witwatersrand can bear witness to the fact that at some time or other Whites have complained to them that non-Whites are ousting them from their jobs. That is why it is so important that, when this move is made, care should always be exercised not to create industrial unrest. The accusation is so often being levelled at the National Party, especially by the Opposition press, that the Government’s policy is so rigid. It would be a revelation to the Leader of the Opposition, especially to the press, if they would take the trouble to compare present-day labour structures in our major industries with those of 20 or more years ago. In industries such as the iron and steel industry, the motor car industry, the building industry, the printing industry, the chemical industry and many others a reclassification of types of work has taken place, which has made it possible to have the less skilled parts of the white artisan’s work done by non-Whites. This was effected by means of negotiations between the employer and the white trade unions. These changes were given official approval and will also be approved in the future, provided that they do not cause racial friction. In this new agreement in the steel industry, which came into effect this January, there are no fewer than five categories of work which have now been reserved for non-Whites and which were previously done by Whites.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member knows nothing about this matter. I want to tell hon. members today that uncontrolled employment of non-Whites is out of the question. I say this is the crux of the matter. The iron and steel industry conducted negotiations with industrialists for more than a year. The press was the first to say that the matter would end in strikes. But with the assistance of the Department of Labour there were no strikes. If we had had to follow the policy of the United Party, if we had not been prepared to negotiate with the trade unions, what would have happened?

[Inaudible.]

I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Maitland: If the trade unions did not want to make further concessions, what would he do? Would he force it on them?

Ask Mr. Schoeman.

I am now asking the hon. member whether they are going to force this on the trade unions. No, they will not say a word about the matter. If we think of the unrest and the loss in production in other industrial countries as a result of strikes, we, with all our problems, can consider ourselves very fortunate. It is for that reason, too, that the Government is not prepared to abandon the measures enabling it to exercise the necessary control. We shall exercise that control and put into practice those measures when circumstances require.

Subsequent to these new industrial agreements having been concluded, we found in the Rand Daily Mail of 18th January, 1971, the following heading: “Non-Whites climb ahead on Job Ladder.”

How many?

Thousands, that I can tell the hon. member. If the hon. member would look at this clipping taken from the Sunday Times, she would see what is happening in our industries. But this is happening under proper employment. If problems should crop up, the Minister of Labour could withdraw those permits. It is so easy for those hon. members to talk. I want to tell them that the hon. the Minister of Labour gave permission for certain welders to work in a certain factory. Sir, the white workers revolted against it immediately, and if it had not been for the Department of the Minister of Labour and the sense of responsibility of the trade union leaders, that matter could have resulted in a major strike. Consider what this Government and the Minister of Labour are doing as far as training is concerned. They see to it that Whites are receiving more and more training.

We find that training funds under the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act of 1970 have already been established by means of 10 industrial council agreements in respect of the iron, steel and engineering industry throughout the Republic, the building industry (six separate funds in various areas), the clothing industry (one each for the Cape Peninsula and the Transvaal) and the motor vehicle industry in the Transvaal. We find that the number of white students (full-time and part-time) at universities, including Unisa, runs into roughly 70,000; we find that full-time white pupils at technical and vocational schools number approximately 20,000, and that during 1970 the number of apprentices enrolled in the Republic of South Africa was 1,490 more than was the case in 1969. The National Party Government is doing all these things in order to allow this country of ours to go ahead in an orderly manner. This afternoon I want to warn the United Party and these people who find it so easy to criticize not to tamper with this pattern which was established over all these years. They are tampering with our industrial peace, and industrial peace is worth much more than merely the employment of all these non-Whites.

But I want to go on and deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow, who lavishly sang the praises of Japan across the floor of the House last year. He said that we had to follow the example of Japan, but has the hon. member read the article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 30th October, 1970? It reads as follows—

Hear, hear!

Let us make better use of the White labour we have in the Republic of South Africa, instead of merely shouting all the time that the Bantu should be brought into the area of the White man. Let us create all the facilities for the Bantu in their own homelands. We appeal to hon. members opposite to assist us in developing the homelands so that the Bantu living there may get all the facilities due to them. But let us reserve this White man’s land for the White man and for the future of the White man. If one does not want to do this, one is playing with fire and bringing the Republic of South Africa to ruin. There is something I want to tell the United Party this afternoon …

Jan Marais …

Forget about Jan Marais. The hon. member should not echo his sentiments; otherwise he would merely be an imitator and a parrot. Let him make his own speeches and not hide behind Jan Marais. As far as the National Party is concerned, we shall see to it that the interests of the White man as well as the interests of the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians are protected in the Republic of South Africa, for separate development is the only policy one can apply—nothing else will do. If one were to throw separate development out through the back door, one would be heading for chaos, and that is what would be in store for the United Party.

I think the hon. member for Brakpan himself perhaps gave the answer to all the noise he has been making here for the last half an hour when he quoted the Japanese example and the Japanese advice and that is to make better use of what they have. That is precisely the dilemma that South Africa faces: It cannot make better use of what it has because this Government is wrapped in ideology; it cannot see because it has ideological blinkers on. Does the hon. gentleman, when he talks about “ontwikkeling in hul eie tuislande” imagine for one moment that those million odd people in Soweto are ever going to disappear from Soweto? We have already had it on the authority of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that Soweto is never going to be declared as “tuisland”. How can it be? We would like to know what is going to happen. Sir, the hon. gentleman got very excited about what the hon. member for Durban (Point) had said about broadcasting the Rio race on a Sunday. He said that the hon. member was making fun of it; that to the Afrikaner Sunday was a “heilige dag”. Yes, indeed, Sir. Sunday is a holy day not only for the Afrikaner but for all Christendom, But that does not mean that we all have the same attitude as the hon. member when it comes to Sunday. One can worship on a Sunday and one can have recreation on a Sunday. If there was a cricket commentary on a test between Australia and South Africa on a Sunday, I would have the greatest difficulty in not listening, and I think that hon. gentleman would have too. Perhaps that is why he does not want it because it will tempt him. But in any event, if these are the reasons, then why not have it on the English programme; then the English-speaking people can listen to it and those Afrikaners who are wicked can also listen to it.

Don’t try the soft glove on me.

Sir, the hon. gentleman talks about the Physical Planning Act and tries to defend it. He says the Physical Planning Act was responsible for the development of the border industries. As you know, Sir, the Physical Planning Act was passed only a few years ago, I think in 1967. They have been trying to develop border industries for years and years, long before the passing of that Act. It has nothing to do with the Physical Planning Act as such. Can the hon. gentleman name one border industry that borders on the Transkei; is there one?

It is a fair question.

It is on its way.

Just as you are on your way out.

The hon. member says it is coming; so is Christmas and so is the next election. Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. gentleman does not realize, when he says so glibly that the Minister is going to see that there is not too much integration and is going to see that everything develops, is that the fact that the hon. the Minister of Planning can determine whether you can develop at all, that he can hold a grip, a complete grip, on any undertaking which is started, as to how and where and when and if it will develop, is causing the development of this country, so far as overseas investment is concerned, more damage than any other factor that I know of. Last year I was in Western Germany. I do not want to say I was in Britain because the hon. member may be prejudiced. But I was in Western Germany and I came across this several times, certain undertakings that we would like to have here with their skill and with their plant, but when it came to the final analysis it was the very fact of the uncertainty of the effect of the powers of the Minister of Planning which made the whole undertaking impossible, and led them to move those industries to other places. The hon. gentleman reads the Sunday Times …

On Sundays.

Yes, one may well ask whether he does it for his education or for his amusement on a Sunday, or whether he reads it on a Monday. But anyway he reads it. He read out all these figures about development, and of course the figures show tremendous economic development, but the point made by that article and which the hon. member misses is that it shows the dramatic measure of white and non-White integration which has taken place in the course of this development, integration which can never be undone, and it is that problem and not the problem of homelands or separation; it is that problem which South Africa has to resolve, and you cannot resolve it with his policy, and he knows it. We have the only formula whereby you can resolve that scrambled egg which can never really be unscrambled to put the white parts and the yellow parts together again. But I am not an economist; these are merely a few observations which seem to me to be common sense.

I should, however, like to deal with the hon. the Minister of Justice. This is the first opportunity we have to deal with the Excelsior case, and there are two aspects of it I should like to deal with. Firstly there are the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the charges and the reasons given therefore, and then, secondly, the whole administration of this Immorality Act. I want to make an appeal again to the hon. the Minister to do something about this and to do it urgently. Sir, this was an extraordinary case. There were 20 accused persons. One of them killed himself, and the State, having arrested the persons concerned, released some of them on bail and the case was prepared over some months. Then on the day of trial there were 5 Whites and 14 non-Whites, but minutes before the trial was due to begin it was announced that all the charges were to be withdrawn and the reason that was given by the Attorney-General of the Free State was because witnesses were no longer willing to give evidence. When pressed on this later he said: “My reasons are complete. If witnesses are reluctant to give evidence, there is nothing further to be done”. Now, I have given the hon. the Minister notice that I was going to ask some of these questions and I hope he is prepared to give the answers. In the circumstances, those reasons given by the Attorney-General in respect of 19 trials are extraordinary. We surely deserve some other explanation. The charge was contravening section 16 of the Immorality Act. In those circumstances, it is all the more unusual, because this is perhaps the most dreaded law on the Statute Book. It is the only law I know of which has caused so many people to commit suicide when they have been charged under it. But it is all the more extraordinary because it happened in the place where it happened and in respect of these people to whom it happened. The withdrawal was, as I say, minutes before the trial was due to begin. A number of these people had been in custody for several months. The first thing we would like to know is, when did it become evident that the witnesses were reluctant to give evidence? It is extraordinary that it should only become evident minutes before the trial. Why was the normal machinery for forcing recalcitrant witnesses to give evidence or warning them not used in this case? Why were they not compelled to give evidence in all 19 cases, or were all the witnesses in all those cases reluctant? The hon. the Minister has indicated today that he gave no instructions in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act to the Attorney-General in this regard, but he is nevertheless responsible to this House for the actions of the Attorney-General and I hope he will give us the information. I find this even more extraordinary because those of us who practise the law know the Attorney-General of the Free State as a prosecutor who certainly is not known to be one who does not press his case. This raises a number of very important questions. Will the reluctance of witnesses be a reason for not pressing charges in all criminal cases, or only in cases where a contravention of section 16 of the Immorality Act is involved, and is this going to be done in future under the Act? Is this going to be the policy, that if witnesses are reluctant then the case is going to be withdrawn against the accused; and will it be done only under the Immorality Act, or will it be done also in other cases? This is an important matter; it affects one’s sense of justice, because quite rightly one must ask whether if a law may be frustrated by the unwillingness of witnesses to give evidence, it can properly be administered, whether it can fairly be administered, and whether it is not becoming a farce when things like this can happen. These are questions one can fairly ask and questions on which we require an answer. I should think that most witnesses in trials are reluctant. I have only given evidence once in my life and I was very reluctant to do so because it was an unpleasant experience, but the whole picture just does not add up without some explanation from the hon. the Minister, and I hope we will get it.

I think the withdrawal of the charges in the Excelsior case provides perhaps a very good opportunity for us once again to examine the administration of this Act. Let us make no mistake. The feeling against miscegenation in South Africa is deep-rooted. It goes back a long way, as far back as 1869, when a law to that effect was passed in Natal. The Union legislation goes back, as we all know, to 1927. That feeling was there in 1939 when the last commission on this matter reported, the De Villiers Commission. They found a widespread dislike of both mixed marriages and miscegenation. We are against miscegenation. I think all South Africans are against miscegenation; the feeling now is as strong against miscegenation as it ever was. The very fact, Sir, that there is a stigma attached to contraventions over the colour line in society, is an indication of just how bad this is. The fact that men will commit suicide, when they are charged in respect of this offence, is an indication of it. The fact that the population in one town actually bulldozed the parsonage down, when the padre was convicted under the Act, is an indication of their feelings. I think the time has arrived when we have to ask ourselves honestly, squarely and fairly whether the manner in which the implementation of this feeling is carried out is not doing more harm than good. At the moment, all the evidence suggests that it is doing more harm than good, not only to the people involved and their families and all the other innocent by-products of an immorality case, but to South Africa as well and to the good name that we have. One must remember, Sir, that it is a unique Act and for that reason, it attracts attention from other parts of the world. The attention which is attracted, is adverse.

The last commission, which sat on this matter was, as I have said, in 1939.

Are you now talking about the administration, or of the retention of the Act?

I am talking about the administration of this Act. The last time a commission sat to look at the whole question concerning miscegenation, mixed marriages …

That is the reason for the Act and not the administration of the Act.

No. There are two laws of this country which go together hand in glove. You cannot have the one without the other. They are the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 and section 16 of the Immorality Act of 1950. As I have indicated, Sir, the Excelsior case raises the question immediately whether or not this can be implemented in terms of the existing Act. It raises the question whether it can be implemented consistently or fairly. There is a lot more evidence than there was the last time we spoke about this matter. A lot more evidence is before us.

Sir, the Nationalist organ, Die Vaderland, asked the question whether it was humane or desirable to have a law which can only be implemented in certain circumstances. When we get to the stage that we cannot implement the law, as is the implication in the Excelsior case because the State witnesses have become reluctant, then the time has certainly come to have a very good look at the implementation of this Act. It is a degrading implementation for many people, including the Police. To get convictions, they must do unpleasant things. I do not have to enumerate them. They are well known. It is degrading for the Police, for the persons involved and there is the public humiliation of a trial which goes with it. Last Sunday the recently retired Divisional Commissioner of Police for Natal said “It is beyond my comprehension that the Government has not repealed this law.” That was said by a senior policeman. I am not talking about repealing the law.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to know whether the hon. member is not at the moment contravening Standing Order 107 of this House. It reads as follows—

No member shall reflect upon any statute, except for the purpose of moving for its repeal.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the rule,

I regularly pay attention to that point.

Then, Sir, if one looks at last week’s Sunday Nationalist organ, Rapport, there one finds further evidence of the unhappiness of Nationalists too as to the manner in which the Act is being implemented and administered. Even “Current Affairs” revealed that in its own deep dark soul it was unhappy, and that is something! It criticized the way in which it was implemented. Again, Sir, the Transvaler called for “rethinking” of the whole matter. Sir, the evidence is there. The dent that the implementation of this Act gives to our image is sufficient reason for an inquiry into the whole question once again. As I have said, Excelsior is in itself enough.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. This matter is never going to be resolved as long as it remains a party political issue. It has to be taken out of that arena, because it is too important. It is working in a way its sponsors never contemplated, but they are in a cleft stick, because they introduced it.

Order! The hon. member is now reflecting upon the law. He cannot go as far as that.

Yes, Sir, I shall not go as far as that. One must bear in mind that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and this section of the Immorality Act go hand in hand. You cannot have the one without the other. You cannot talk about repealing the one and not the other. One hopes that the hon. the Minister will now, in the light of the new evidence that there is, heed the plea we made last year and before that and to appoint a commission to examine the whole question underlying these two Acts. We believe that the members of such a commission should include sociologists, churchmen, senior policemen who have to administer the Act, members of the Bench, both judges and magistrates, and medical men. Such a commission should establish whether the existing legislation is not doing more harm than good, and examine again, in the light of our experience …

When you say “the existing legislation”, do you mean both Acts?

I do not think you can look at the one without looking at the other. They always have gone together. In fact, when the 1950 Act was introduced, the Minister introducing it said that it was a natural consequence upon the 1949 Act. The commission should look at the whole question. The experience we have had since then is such that I believe that such a commission could investigate what steps can or should be taken to prevent miscegenation. I do believe that, on the evidence, everyone will admit that the whole matter has prima facie reached the stage where we can no longer allow this state of affairs to continue. I think it is urgent and I hope that the hon. the Minister will heed our plea and appoint a commission immediately, in the interests of this country, to look into the whole matter to try to resolve what is not being resolved by the implementation of this Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Durban (North) tried to use the Excelsior case to express an adverse opinion this afternoon on section 16 of the Immorality Act. That is very clear to me. He could not come out with it directly because he may not of course attack the Act; however, his entire speech was aimed at expressing an adverse opinion about section 16 of the Immorality Act.

He asked for an inquiry.

Yes, he suggested that an investigation be instituted. What is more, the hon. member made use of this opportunity to steal a march on the hon. member for Houghton in regard to the motion she is going to introduce in this connection. That is the reason.

The hon. member had already made this speech in last Sunday’s Sunday Times. He did me the honour this morning of putting a question to me as to whether I had given any instructions. I furnished a very specific reply to that. I can quite understand that the arrest of a large number of people, seven Whites and quite a number of non-Whites, I think there were 15, caused a stir in Excelsior. In fact, it caused such a stir that the hon. Senator Oelrich made a special phone call to me. At that time the case was still at the stage where a police inquiry was under way, and I therefore referred him to the Minister of Police. I can quite understand, too, that it must have caused a tremendous stir when the Attorney-General decided at the last minute not to proceed with the case. I can also understand that there was nothing nicer for the newspapers to ferret around in than this very case, particularly because eminent people of the model province, the Free State, were involved. The hon. member also referred to this. He mentioned the place where it happened and the persons involved.

But there is an explanation and the hon. member was quite right in saying that I should furnish it here in this House. I should like very much to furnish this House with an explanation. I made inquiries from the Attorney-General. In fact, he telephoned me immediately before the court commenced sitting and told me that he was not proceeding with the case. He said that he was telephoning me for the simple reason that he did not want me to have to read about it in the newspapers or hear about it over the radio. I then asked him to send me a report. He subsequently did so.

It is a comprehensive report, but I shall summarize it briefly as follows: All kinds of rumours began to circulate in Excelsior. There were even whispers that the local police were not doing their duty. Please note, I said “whispers” and not accusations.

There were complaints from the Whites in Excelsior, as well as complaints from the Black people in Excelsior, because there were so many bastard children walking about. I did not say Coloured children, I said bastard children, a mixture of Black and White. Consequently the matter had to receive attention. The officer in Ladybrand instructed a warrant officer of Excelsior to investigate. On 22nd October a Bantu woman, Eliza Ramasedi—I am mentioning her name, but shall not mention any further names—was summoned to the charge office. She was questioned. She admitted that she had committed an immoral act with a certain white person. But she said that she was not the only one. Such-and-such a person had also done so. As a result of that seven Whites and fourteen or fifteen non-Whites were in due course arrested. The investigation was then continued. I could just mention that the offences committed by three Whites were in connection with an offence with one non-White each. The offence of one white person was in connection with that of four non-Whites. In another case, the offence committed by one white was in connection with two non-Whites, and in another case, the offence committed by one white was in connection with that of six non-Whites. All fourteen Bantu women intimated to the warrant officer by the name of Redelinghuys that they were prepared to plead guilty and that they would subsequently give evidence against the Whites to the effect that they had committed immoral acts. This is usually done in this way, and there are many such cases. In view of the fact that there were accomplices, additional evidence was required, and this consists in most cases of the children born of the union, and in one or two cases as well, eye-witnesses were called in or admissions were made. This information was placed at the disposal of the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General thereupon instructed that blood tests be made on a voluntary basis of the alleged father, the mother and the child. In this way the possibility of their perhaps belonging to other blood groups could be excluded. After this had been done it was found that this was impossible in the case of the one white person, because the child belonged to an entirely different blood group and it could not possibly have been that man’s child. He was immediately released. Then the case eventually came before the Attorney-General again. It was reported to him that everything was correct, and except in the case of one woman, all the accused had made confessions. Then the Attorney-General saw that tremendous pressure was being exercised by the public of Excelsior in regard to all the offences which had taken place there. In addition he was faced with the position that he had confessions from most of the women, with the exception of one. He also had the guarantee of the Police that the women were going to plead guilty, as well as the guarantee that they would subsequently be prepared to give evidence against the white men. As a result of that instructions were given by the Attorney-General on the 14th December, after final discussions, to the effect that prosecution should take place. I think that the Attorney-General himself then went on vacation. Everything went well until the afternoon of the 21st January at 4 o’clock. The case was supposed to be put before the court on 25th January, a Monday. On the afternoon of Thursday, 21st January, at 4 o’clock a phone call was made from Excelsior to the Attorney-General’s office to say that the people were no longer prepared to give evidence against the accused. In fact, all of them by this time had advocates to defend their cases and to try to invalidate the confessions. The next day, Friday, 22nd January, the State contacted certain of its other witnesses and then found that they, too, were no longer completely willing to testify. Even if they had been willing to testify, it would have been useless in the light of the fact that the confessions which the accused had made were going to be attacked. Saturday and Sunday intervened and the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Beukes, gave instructions for the case to be postponed from Monday, 21st, to Tuesday, 26th January, because the Attorney-General, Dr. Percy Yutar, was expected back on Monday, the 25th. They then reviewed the entire case in the light of the facts at their disposal. All the evidence on which the State based its case had now fallen away. The Bantu women were no longer prepared to plead guilty, nor were they prepared to give evidence. The hon. member for Durban (North) is now asking me why section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act was not utilized in that case. Section 212 cannot be used in the case of accomplices. The hon. member ought to know that. Under those circumstances the Attorney-General had the choice of going to court and trying to prosecute these people, in which case all of them would have been found not guilty. Under the circumstances, he felt that it would be better to withdraw the case against the accused. A few of the Bantu women could possibly have been charged successfully, where so many people were involved, it would not be desirable to proceed with the prosecutions.

That is the full story regarding this matter. Although I do not blame the newspapers since it is their work to sow sensation, I take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban (North) because he did not ask me questions in this House. He could simply have asked me to make a statement and I would then have given him this explanation. However, he went on Saturday —I take it was Saturday—and saw to it that on Sunday an article with tremendous banner headlines appeared in a Sunday newspaper. One of the headlines was “Has the Immorality Act become too hot to handle?” A further headline read: “Excelsior: M.P. shocked: Mitchell to quiz Pelser on almost unbelievable situation.” Now, what is so “unbelievable” about the explanation I have just furnished? In the newspaper report the hon. member went further and stated that he would question me on this. He said: “Why was it not known earlier that the witnesses were reluctant to give evidence?” I have now told the hon. member why. At the very last minute the witnesses changed their minds. I do not know who paid for the advocates. The hon. member went further: ‘One might well ask, in the light of the withdrawal of the charges, whether the Immorality Act has become too hot to handle or whether it is only too hot in certain places and with certain people”. What is the insinuation behind this? It is a disgraceful insinuation. Elsewhere in the article he said: “Is this attitude on the part of the State, on the other hand, to apply only in Excelsior and other selected places and in respect of certain categories of accused people?” What does the hon. member mean by that? If the hon. member had asked me about this here in the House I would have given him an explanation, because I owe it to the country. It was an unusual case. However, it is one thing to ask for an explanation in regard to the matter here in the House, and quite a different thing to make statements about it in a newspaper.

Should you not have made a statement immediately if it was so important?

The hon. member also said: “Then we must be told whether the police witnesses in the cases were also reluctant to give evidence. After all, the bulk of evidence in Immorality Act cases is usually police evidence”. There was no question of any police evidence of any nature here. From the nature of the case the police chance upon an offence of this kind, or act on their suspicions. In other cases, it takes place in secret.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When Percy Yutar made that statement, why did you not give the full explanation then to the public?

Must I immediately have had the story published in a newspaper? The most I could have said is that I had satisfied myself that there were good reasons for that having been done, and then I would merely have strengthened that hon. member in his suspicions. In any case, I only received that report yesterday. In this interview, he even referred to section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act to indicate what powers I have, with the insinuation throughout that the instructions had not come from Percy Yutar, but from the Minister. He said for example that Percy Yutar was not the kind of man who would sit back. He has even repeated that statement here. The whole insinuation is that it is the Minister who is affording protection to certain people in certain places. Then he even went on to add—

“… whether we like it or not, the Immorality Act is law, and it is inconceivable that the law should fail just because of the reluctance of witnesses to testify to alleged contraventions of it. There is ample provision in our law to deal with reluctant witnesses and to compel them if necessary to testify.”

That completes the Excelsior case.

I just want to say a few words more. The hon. member was speaking out all the time against section 16 of the Immorality Act. I now want to tell him, this House and the country that Immorality is an offence just like any other offence. One cannot deal with it in a special way. Reference was made to the consequences of immorality cases. That is so precisely because the public has such an aversion to this kind of thing in our country. We do not want miscegenation. He was quite right in saying that while there is a prohibition on mixed marriages, section 16 of the Immorality Act must of necessity be retained, because the one does not make any sense without the other.

You should scrap them both.

Yes, the one cannot exist without the other. As far as I as Minister of Justice am concerned, I just want to say that as long as I am Minister of Justice and as long as this National Party Government remains in power, the Immorality Act will not be scrapped. Now I should like to see, when that hon. member introduces her Bill, how those hon. members vote.

I want to say that the House is indebted to the hon. the Minister of Justice for his frank recital of the details leading up to the withdrawal of these charges. But, Sir, from his recital there comes a picture which causes alarm in so far as the administration of this particular law is concerned. The hon. gentleman is a lawyer. It appears from his statement that in the administration of this Act several persons, well-known in their community, and a number of non-Whites were arrested. On what evidence? On the possibility that some of those arrested persons who were accomplices would admit their guilt and in that way incriminate the others who were arrested with them. Sir, my mind goes back to the debate on this legislation when this side of the House warned the Government that the application of this legislation, unless it was carefully watched, opened the gates wide to malicious complaints. We never believed that malicious complaints or confessions which are subsequently withdrawn could lead to the ruination of lives as has happened in this particular case. One man has taken his life. He took his life because he was arrested on the evidence of a native woman, a non-White, and whose confession only could lead to the conviction of that man if the woman pleaded guilty and then gave evidence for the State. Sir, we know as lawyers that an accomplice’s evidence is never sufficient unless there is evidence to give support to the evidence of the accomplice. Mr. Speaker, the matter goes further on the Minister’s explanation. Not only were these unfortunate people arrested; not only has this tragedy occurred in the lives of these people but what is more—a similar case arose last year; I cannot at the moment recall the case—it was never considered necessary until almost the last moment to apply the elementary test of doing a blood test where a child is born. Surely these men, if they were innocent, would immediately have consented to a blood test to see whether or not they could be the parents of the children of whom they were accused of being the parents.

Blood tests were taken.

Yes, but that was after they were arrested. That simple precaution to prevent the ruination of the lives of these people was not taken in the administration of this Act. As I have said, we are grateful to the hon. Minister for his frank statement, but his statement causes even more disturbance in this country in regard to the way in which this Act is being administered in order to achieve the objectives which I cannot discuss here. Mr. Speaker, is there any other legislation the administration of which has caused so many suicides as have happened in relation to this legislation? I think if anything has justified the request of the hon. member for Durban (North) that there should be some inquiry into the administration of these Acts, it is the very report which the hon. gentleman has given to us today. [Interjection.] Sir, that loquacious hon. member will have his opportunity to speak. Perhaps he does not in his elevated position, whatever it is, come into contact with these people who are faced with prosecutions of this sort.

The hon. the Minister need only look at the record of acquittals of persons who have been brought before the courts. That record of acquittals, which unfortunately I do not have before me but which is available to hon. members because questions have been asked in that regard, shows that the percentage of acquittals in prosecutions under this Act is frighteningly high. I believe that approximately 45 per cent of the charges that are brought are not successful. Surely in a case where the mere bringing of a charge creates a stigma the Act should be more carefully administered. When one comes to the administration of this Act in areas where Coloured people perhaps have been settled for longer periods with the Whites and where for a long time they have been living together in amity, one finds that the crime which is being investigated under the Act is not really based on the acceptability or the appearance of the individuals concerned; it rests on one thing only and that is whether there is a W or a K after the identity numbers of those people, whether they both have Ws or both Ks after their identity numbers. The hon. the Minister of the Interior and his predecessor will know what hardship can arise when there are premature prosecutions under this Act. The consequences to families and individuals are far worse than the evil which the Act aims to prevent.

What do you want?

As the hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out, the people of South Africa realize that the administration of this Act is causing hardship and suicides and there must be a reason.

What do you want?

I will have the opportunity, when there is a debate on the Act itself, to say what my stand is. You, Sir, have already indicated that it would be improper to discuss the matter at this stage. I am discussing the administration of this Act and I want to warn the Government—they should have been warned already—that the public of South Africa requires that there should be an investigation into the administration of this Act. If they want to go on blindly, let the public of South Africa realize that that is the attitude of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one matter which I believe is important and which has not been answered by members of the Cabinet. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development in this House last year. It has a very vital and direct bearing on the question of housing, construction costs and the difficulties in adequately housing people of all races in South Africa. The hon. the Minister himself, in the course of an address to the House, dealt with what he termed “die krisis in die boubedryf”. In the course of his speech I asked him a question and I want just to refresh his memory by referring him to column 4337 of Hansard of the 16th September, 1970. Perhaps the result of his answer is a matter not so much for him to attend to but for the attention of his colleagues who control Bantu labour and Coloured labour. I asked the hon. the Minister this question—

The hon. the Minister’s reply was this—

What does the hon. gentleman mean? In his judgment as Minister of Community Development, as the Minister responsible for housing, there is a crisis in the building industry. When I asked him what the solution was and whether he had any idea as to how to solve the problem, he turned to the very point which we have been raising in this debate and indicated that it was in the hands of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration and that it was a labour problem with which the building industry was faced.

And the trade unions.

Yes, and the trade unions. The hon. the Minister is, as is the hon. the Minister of Planning, now saying, “We would like to do this but we cannot do it because of the trade unions.” Sir, let us get some frankness from the Government. Do the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration say and concede that the only stumbling block to opening up the building industry for the employment of more and more Coloureds and Bantu is the fact that they have not obtained the consent or the agreement of the trade unions? Is that a fact? Is that the policy, or is the hon. the Minister of Community Development merely throwing it up as a nice screen to get behind, by saying that the trade unions do not agree? The hon. the Minister of Transport, when he had a problem in regard to labour, took steps to employ the labour. He employed Bantu labour and solved his problems, but he has run up against the trade union now. He has run up against Spoorbond, but not because of his desire to employ more non-Whites in jobs previously done by Whites; Spoorbond is opposing the hon. the Minister of Transport for the simple reason that they want him to apply United Party policy, and that is to pay the rate for the job. Spoorbond has said they have no objection to additional non-Whites being employed on the Railways provided they are paid the rate for the job as it applies to Whites. And the reason they gave, which hon. members opposite might now take cognizance of, is that the security of the white worker is threatened if the rate for the job is not paid to the non-White.

We have had from the Government over all the years this cry that the rate for the job is a threat and that it does not protect the white worker, and I would be very interested if in the course of this debate or in the course of the session some of those hon. members can explain to us how it is that Spoorbond, the trade union concerned with the Railways, itself now says that the United Party policy is correct and the right one to secure the position of the white workers and to deal with the shortage of manpower. The Minister of Community Development should also tell us how far he has got with his colleagues. What negotiations has he had? Has he approached his colleagues about this problem at all? He told us almost six months ago that that was the only solution for the problem in the building industry, and for the crisis to which he himself made reference. I hope that in the course of this session he will tell us, with all his stories and statements that there is no housing shortage as in his delightful pre-session interview with Die Burger about the cheapness and the availability of houses. I think that the Minister, before talking about the fact that the building industry is apparently skinning every customer by charging what it does charge for building, will lay available for scrutiny his schedule of costs for this housing scheme where he builds houses for R6,000.

With pleasure. Put a question on the Question Paper and you will get the information.

Let us see how this costing is done, because no private entrepreneur can do it on that basis. The other matter is the extent to which the semi-skilled are doing the skilled jobs, under these schemes. [Interjection.] But I want to say this, that when we talk about housing costs and housing shortages, the hon. the Minister should make sure of his facts before he makes statements; he should look at the report of the Niemand Commission. In that report they found what a small percentage of the public of South Africa can afford houses. Whatever the hon. the Minister says about being able to put up houses at a certain price, the average cost of a medium house is in the neighbourhood of from R15,000 to R20,000, and if that is so only persons earning R450 to R500 a month can afford to occupy a house. All others must be housed somewhere else. But the ceiling which the hon. the Minister still fixes for those who are entitled to come to the Government for assistance is far below that minimum figure of income necessary before the ordinary young couple can afford a house. But the Government does not see it. The Government does not realize that there is that gap, and no steps are being taken. We have pleaded that there should be an adjustment to close that gap.

There are other aspects also which have been raised; one is the question of Government spending. Hon. members opposite have said: Show us in the Budget where the spending must be cut. During the course of the last session of this House I suggested to the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development thought it was a good idea, to look at Government expenditure and that there should be a Select Committee to go into the Public Works Vote, which amounted to a considerable sum of money. The hon. the Minister will recall that I suggested under the Public Works Vote last year that it was impossible to cover across the floor projects and capital expenditure of some R330 million by the Public Works Department. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what he has been able to do and what he has been able to arrange so that there can be a public scrutiny of expenditure and so that we do not have to wait to see in the newspapers what houses are renovated and at what cost, and what buildings have been erected and at what cost, without being able to investigate the whole matter. Such a committee would be of extreme value in dealing with the question of building costs. If that committee, sitting as a Select Committee, can be convinced that these building costs which the hon. the Minister boasts about justifiably entitle him to boast, then we will have reason to look at the private sector to see why building costs are so high. But at the moment that information is not there and these statements which are made by the Minister are certainly not supported by the private sector. So one can go on in regard to aspects of the activity of this Government which are causing concern. They have caused concern; there are matters such as the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister of Justice in his refusal to investigate the application of the Immorality Act. That must indicate to the Government more strongly than our words, by the reaction of the people outside, that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the country.

These speeches we have thus far been listening to have involuntarily brought to mind a story which the hon. member for Prieska told me the other day. He said that there was an old shepherd whose food had been stolen. When the old man came to him he said: “You probably feel very bad about your food that has been stolen”. The shepherd replied: “Oh, Sir, I am so glad that I still have my appetite”. Sir, I cannot help thinking that the Opposition has retained only an appetite for politics. Nothing more has remained for the Opposition. I want to say that we have a serious problem in South African politics, and we do not want to explain it away. The problem is the total absence of an Opposition which is prepared to come down to the realities of South African politics. Here in the past few days we have heard, ad nauseum, about things that really do not amount to anything. We heard here how a man such as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along with absurdities such as these. He states that because of the things we did, “very few people are prepared to give them (the Government) another chance,” and that while we on this side are fully occupying 58 double benches and they occupy 24 on that side, and then we are still including the hon. member for Houghton, because she belongs with them anyway, or rather they belong with her. I regret having caused her such disgrace; they really belong with her, she does not belong with them. These are the statements the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making here under these circumstances. Why does a responsible leader make such statements at which everyone has to laugh? Any person sitting in the gallery and looking at that group of benches, and at these benches, has to laugh. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that that is now the reason why the public of South Africa does not want to give them another chance. That is the argument, and that is, of course, the reason why they did not want to put up a candidate at Ceres today; they were sure that the South African public, the voters, would still not give them a chance. In their big-hearted regret they consequently decided not to put up a candidate in Ceres, because the Government would feel too bad about it if they considerably decreased our majority or if we were to have a United Party member in the Provincial Council there.

Colesberg is also uncontested.

Yes, Colesberg is also uncontested. It is, of course, out of the goodness of their hearts that they acted as they did. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition felt that he did not want to do that to us. That is why he said they would not fight there. I wonder if they are going to put up a candidate for us in Bloemfontein (East) to show us there how strong they have become? What is the actual reason then? We had certain other statements here. We heard, for example, that virtually all of them complained about the middle-income group, which is having such a wretched time of it in South Africa. According to them that wretched middle-income group consists of people who almost cannot subsist any longer, eventhough in recent times the real income of that group has increased by 3.4 per cent While the Government has been in power and since they came into power. Do the people really no longer have any perspective? Do they no longer have any feeling for actualities? One must surely feel ashamed to make such statements when one’s own past is taken into account.

I now come to a very serious statement that was made here. The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke here with a flourish and swaggeringly called us, on this side of the House, Don Quixotes. I hope that the hon. member, in his deafness, will hear me. I want to suggest that he use his earphones. That hon. member called us Don Quixotes and said that like Don Quixote we were opposing integration. In addition he said that we know we cannot do it, because we know it is impossible. What other implication could there be than that, if the impossible should occur and that party were to come into power, they would not oppose integration? I now want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if I am wrong in my conclusion that, according to his hon. supporter of Hillbrow, if they were to come into power they would cease to oppose integration? If we were to state that in the Platteland, what would happen? They would then have a fit. Then they say that there is no dirtier accusation we could level at them than that they would not prevent and oppose integration in South Africa. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow says we are Don Quixotes, because we come along as adults and say that we shall do the impossible, i.e. oppose integration. Now they are sitting very still. I think I would also have kept very quiet. The only difference is that if I were on that side I would have crawled under the bench, because I still have a small measure of shame. The actual fact is that they frankly admit that they would not oppose it. On the contrary, they say they regard it as ridiculous that we are trying to oppose it. They accuse this Government of not being realists.

Sir, in passing I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban (North) said. I just want to refer briefly to his long argument. His point was that because a certain case had to be withdrawn, all the legislation in connection with it, its implementation, must be investigated. Does the hon. member know of murder cases which have been withdrawn as a result of a lack of evidence? Does he know of cases of theft and burglary that have already been withdrawn as a result of a lack of evidence? Of course he does. Why have I never heard him say that we should review our entire legal system, that we should postpone all prosecutions in the future because cases had to be withdrawn. However, if cases of a specific nature have to be withdrawn, those hon. members, in the first place, try to make the whole matter suspect, and in the second place they say that the relevant legislation should be deleted from the Statute Book, or that the matter should be investigated because it has become too “hot” to administer.

We did not say more than your own newspapers did.

I do not know when my own newspapers said it. I say that kind of argument is ridiculous, because if a legal man says in this House that it has become necessary to repeal a specific Act because a certain case under certain circumstances has had to be withdrawn as a result of a lack of evidence, he will also have to say that we must suspend the entire legal system in South Africa. I do not know of a single offence in South Africa in respect of which it has not been necessary to withdraw a charge at some time or other as a result of a lack of evidence. I now ask those hon. members: where does their standpoint originate? On what grounds are they now building their case? The point is that those hon. members have something against a specific Act because they do not like it. Why do they not like it? Because they believe that integration is South Africa’s fate and that we are wasting time opposing it further.

Speak a little louder!

Yes, I hope the hon. member can hear me. I know it is painful for that hon. member’s ears to hear the truth. If I had belonged to that Party it would have been painful for my ears to hear the facts of the matter. If I were in their shoes I would plug up my ears and crawl under the bench. I would not have complained about a member speaking loudly.

Sir, those hon. members moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. At the beginning I said that there is a problem in the South African framework of the Government and in our South African politics. That problem is the total absence of an Opposition which understands the actualities of South Africa. Why do I say this? I say this because we are constantly engaged in trivialities and absurdities, as I have already mentioned to you. Up to now we have not yet heard one of those hon. members touch on South Africa’s big problems. The whole world is engaged in these problems, but hon. members on that side do not say a word in that connection. It is a problem of the survival of the white man as such in South Africa and the regulation of race relations, of multi-nationality in South Africa to ensure peaceful co-existence for all the peoples of South Africa. During the previous session I wasted one entire speech in an endeavour to get an answer from the Opposition on the question of whether they have already accepted the concept of multi-nationality in South Africa, and if so, to what extent. We could not get an answer from them on whether they did accept it. I asked them Whether they accepted the existence of a white people in South Africa. I could get no answer on that either. There was only hollow laughter. I then said that I accepted that hollow laughter to mean that they did accept that concept. I then asked a second question about whether the Opposition accepted the Coloured people as part of the white people or whether they accepted the Coloured people as another people in the making. I now want to assert that as yet we have not received a reply to that. I want to go further and guarantee that we shall not receive a reply from the Opposition. They are afraid of facing up to the actualities of the South African situation, because they are afraid of the hon. member for Houghton and her henchmen. There the Opposition sits, afraid of one member, and that member a lady. It is a terrible situation to be in if one has to come along here to conduct a no-confidence debate and is afraid to mention the actualities on which everything hinges. The National Party was not afraid of South Africa’s problems. That is why it came to power. The National Party and the National Government were never afraid to face up to actualities and to deal with them as they cropped up. We were not afraid to tell the world that for three hundred years there has been a white people in Black Africa. And it is our resolve that this white people will survive not only for this generation; but we are laying the foundations which will ensure the survival of this white people in South Africa. I now ask the Opposition what they have already done to be able to say that it is also their policy and that they are prepared to conduct a debate with us about how we are better able to ensure that survival? We have not yet had such a contribution on the part of the Opposition. It is surely the Opposition’s task to see the country’s problems, and if they want to present themselves as an alternative Government, to tell the world how they will handle those problem situations. But in no debate does one hear a word or a reply in this connection. One will never get it out of them, even if one lives to be a 100. That is why I said that all they retain politically is their appetite for politics. These people have not yet said a single word to us about how they can ensure the survival of the white man in South Africa, under present circumstances, for generations to come. No, all they insinuate is that certain sections of the Mixed Marriages Act and a specific section of the Immorality Act should be investigated. Although they do not say it directly, because they are not allowed to criticize an Act, they do insinuate it. That is all we have got out of them as yet. As yet we have not been able to get a single word out of them on what they are going to do to ensure the survival of the white man in South Africa, what they are going to do to help us ensure that for another 300 years a white people will continue to exist here in South Africa. The National Party was engaged in the regulation of relations between various races and national groups in South Africa, and we made this our number one task. We told the world at large that notwithstanding what they say, and notwithstanding our realization that this is a tremendous problem, we are nevertheless going to tackle it. In the history of a people the period from 1948 to 1971 is a short space of time. In that short space of time we laid the foundations on which future building will take place. These are the foundations for harmonious co-existence and survival in South Africa. That is our aim in everything we do. Up to now the Opposition has made no contribution by saying what they are going to do towards it. Oh no, they choose to speak about the economy, an economy in South Africa which is a very good one. They rather choose to make fools of themselves with statements such as those I have just mentioned, statements which are not worth anything at all. I really can not believe that those members cannot advance better arguments, except by believing that they are afraid to break through to the realities of the South African political situation. They cannot break through to actualities because they are afraid of the realities of South African politics, because they try to run away, because they try to make the public at large believe that the whole of South African politics is concerned with these bread and-butter matters, because they go around gossiping, as they did in such a masterly fashion in the recent election, because they go and besmirch people and because they rake up people’s landbank loans and try to make politics out of that. I am referring to the great South African political realities, to South Africa’s multinational composition and to the regulation of relations between those peoples so that they can continue to exist peacefully in South Africa. These are the problems they are trying to run away from. These are the problems they are as afraid of as a mouse is of a cat. Not even a mouse would hide from a cat the way they hide themselves away. This Government is saddled with this Opposition, and with this Opposition the Government must rule South Africa. I want to leave them at that and, in the time at my disposal, say a few further words about other things.

I want to congratulate the Government on the excellent way it has ruled this country in times of disaster. There is really only one man-made disaster, and that is the Opposition, or the absence of a decent Opposition, but let us forget about them now. South Africa has experienced a period of disasters unequalled in our history. We have experienced disaster caused by the forces of nature. I am thinking of the earthquake. I want to congratulate the Government on the rapid and timely steps taken to relieve the emergency conditions there. I want to congratulate the Government on acting so effectively and in so timely a fashion, and on the fact that the hardships of those people were made so much easier and lighter by the very strong, timely and rapid actions of the Government. Few people realize this. South Africa has perhaps experienced a much greater disaster as a result of natural forces, and that is the drought. In recent years South Africa has been ravaged by a drought unprecedented in its history. People such as myself and others, who move through those drought-stricken areas in South Africa, know how serious that drought is.

Today I want to convey a message to the Government and carry out an instruction from my voters. Recently the farmers in my constituency got together, not on a political basis, but as agriculturists and farmers. The district union of the farmers’ associations got together and gave me an instruction which had also been conveyed directly to the hon. the Deputy Minister on a previous occasion. He was thanked very warmly for what the Government did and he was asked to convey their thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. At a recent meeting the farmers also instructed me to convey my thanks to the Government when I reached Cape Town for the Session. If the Government had not acted in so timely and effective a fashion to see this farming community through, they would have been ruined today.

Last year I made a statement in this House, and at the time there were a loud protest from that side. I want to repeat that statement this evening and I want to see whether hon. members opposite are still denying it. I want to say that during the recent election something reprehensible was done when mineworkers and other workers were played off against the farmers by means of whispering campaigns and gossip telling them they were paying taxes in order to subsidize the farmers to the hilt. This is one of the most reprehensible things I have heard of in South African politics. A disaster struck a certain community and the Government, as it has done in all times of disaster, helped that community in order to ensure its survival, thereby preventing the occurrence of a breach at a particular point in the South African economy. What a breach would it not be if the agriculturists in South Africa were to go under. The Government came along to those farmers with effective help. The Government subsidized the transport of fodder by 75 per cent. It subsidized their fodder costs by 50 per cent. The Government came along with withdrawal schemes to make it possible for those farmers to survive the crisis.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that it was very necessary. Recently he paid a visit to that area. He saw how, as a result of these years of drought, sand was now shifting where there once were fields. He saw how the wind was blowing sand up against jackal-proof fencing, and he saw the fences virtually covered by the sand. The Government realized that even if the rains come there is still a better period of rehabilitation ahead. Those farmers will have to reclaim their farms, they will have to re-establish vegetation and they will have to fix up their farms again for farming. This Government came along with timely measures and kept those farmers on their farms in the first place. With timely measures it kept those farmers’ stud flocks alive and made it possible for them to continue. In those parts where conditions became so bad that those farms must be rehabilitated, the Government also came along with timely measures and the farmers could withdraw their farms so that their land could be rehabilitated.

For these reasons I am conveying, on behalf of the farmers, our thanks and congratulations to a Government that could do such things and that had this country in so sound an economic position that it had the means at its disposal with which to do this. I am also grateful that it had the money and other means at its disposal to make it possible for the farmers to survive this period of drought and to farm progressively. Now, Sir, I want to tell the hon. Opposition that if they thought by their gossip to create fear among the farmers and drive them away from the National Party, they made the mistake of their lives. They probably realize that by now.

But there is another aspect about which I feel I want to congratulate the Government. With the meagre rainfall it has now simply become a tradition for the Orange River to stop flowing twice a year. Usually the farmers living on the banks of the Orange River lost one complete crop, and the second one was a failure, because the Orange River simply did not have any more water. But it was this National Party which years ago, in its far-sightedness, realized that large dams had now to be constructed on the Orange River. It was that Minister of Water Affairs who did everything in his power to expedite these works in order to make water from the Orange available as soon as possible.

I also read that old United Party newspaper—sometimes it comes my way—that they publish there in South-West. What a terrible thing it is! It is something one cannot help laughing at, but sometimes it causes one such heartache. To think that so-called civilized people print such a thing! It recently kicked up such a tremendous fuss because the water was not immediately available down here when it rained. It accused the Government. I take it that there must have been a delay of a few days, but nowhere, by a single word, do they mention that this periodic water stoppage in the Orange has now apparently come to an end. No, Sir, but what they beat the drum about until one was sick of it, was that a whole three weeks ago it rained in the Free State, but the water is not there yet. They wanted us to take water carts and bring along the water more quickly than its normal flow would do.

Water aeroplanes.

Yes. That is the kind of argument one gets from the hon. Opposition, and that in times such as these in which we are faced with extremely serious conditions. If the Opposition had now come forward with positive arguments, saying that it received our problems but wanting to advise us in this or that, if they had come forward with positive criticism in connection with these drought conditions which suddenly and unexpectedly cracked down on us, we would have appreciated it. We are dealing with conditions in Namaqualand where the water supply, which has been sufficient throughout the years, is now suddenly showing danger signs, and any day now we are expecting problems in that connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. member for Namaqualand some advice. Before he starts running, he should first learn to walk. His advice to us was to discuss the major problems of South Africa. However, I should like to give him a further piece of advice, and that is to acquaint himself somewhat better with the interests of his own constituency before he tackles national problems. He is obviously unaware of the fact that the fishing industry of his own constituency, or the largest coastal town in his constituency, is facing ruin. I am now referring to Port Nolloth.

†Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Port Nolloth, the largest coastal town in his constituency, on the 4th April last year said the following—

The Mayor of Port Nolloth is Mr. S. Bothma.

Almost three years ago to the day I introduced into this House a private member’s motion concerning the fishing industry. I pleaded for the extension of our territorial waters, the creation of special fishing conservation zones and I pleaded for a commission of inquiry to be appointed by the Government, inter alia, to go in to the question of all other aspects of the fishing industry, including, inter alia, the granting of licences and quotas. I urged the Government and its commission of inquiry also to co-ordinate its findings with the findings of the South-West African commission of inquiry and to formulate a common fishing policy. What has happened? The territorial waters have not been changed; fishery conservation zones have not been created; foreigners still take our fish as they did before!! Sir, a commission of inquiry was appointed six months after I asked for it. There are two particular features, the first being that there is no mention in the terms of reference of that commission of inquiry to the South-West African commission which sat two years of incorporating the findings of that inquiry in the findings of the South African inquiry. Secondly, and most significantly, there is no mention in the terms of reference of that commission of the granting of licences and quotas. I cannot understand why, Sir, because that is the crux of the whole problem that faces the fishing industry today. The hon. member for Moorreesburg, who unfortunately is not here, also pleaded for a commission of inquiry.

You have not looked properly.

I am glad he is here. The hon. member pleaded for the appointment of a commission of inquiry at the end of 1966. His inquiry was aimed at Government action to eradicate “knelpunte en skaafplekke” to enable the fishing industry to grow even faster. The reason why I asked for the inquiry was because the Government had recklessly encouraged and permitted expansion of the fishing industry and because there was a serious danger of the total collapse of our marine resources. I asked at the time that the commission should report as soon as possible —we know what happens with Government commissions—and that the Government should take immediate action to right a situation that was fast developing into chaos. The Government speakers in that debate were the hon. members for Piketberg and Moorreesburg. Not a word from the hon. member for Namaqualand and not a word from a single South-West African representative in this House. Surely they were concerned with the presence of factory ships off the coast of South-West Africa; surely they had read the South-West Africa fishing report of only two years before? After all, fishing in South-West Africa is the second most important industry in that territory. Perhaps they had not realized that in respect of the rock lobster industry in South-West Africa the S.W.A. commission presided over by the present Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, then a member of the Executive Council in South-West Africa, had decided that no more crayfish quotas should be given. They went further and said that the fishery control in the South-West Africa’s rock lobster industry was utterly inadequate. Then, referring to the pilchard industry, they said that there were certain danger signs—

They then quote the danger signs. The first danger sign is that as the South-West African fishing effort had increased so catches of pilchards off the South African coast, including the coast of Namaqualand, had gone down. The second indication was the fact that there was an absence of ova found in the pilchards caught both off the West coast and off the South-West African coast. Thirdly, there was the presence of the anchovy both off the West coast and off the South-West African coast, and, as hon. members will know, where anchovy have been found elsewhere in the world, very often it has meant that the pilchard shoals have already shown signs of disappearing. The fourth danger sign was the presence of not only the foreign factory ships but also the licensed South African factory ships. If the South-West African members had been aware of the attitude of their member on the Executive Committee at the time, they would have known that he said that if the South African factory ships continued to exploit the resources of South-West Africa it would be necessary for South-West Africa to employ its own existing potential to the full. That would mean, he said, killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but at least it would ensure for South-West Africa the largest bite of that goose.

Let me refer now to the first interim report of the South African Commission, which deals with rock lobster. The hon. member for Namaqualand should listen. It says here that the problem of the West Coast rock lobster fisheries demands the most urgent action from the Government. That report was dated the beginning of last year. Let me, for his information, first deal with the yield of rock lobster on the West Coast. In 1966 there was a 11.8 per cent shortfall on quota. In 1967 there was a 31.5 per cent shortfall on quota, and in 1968 there was a 41.6 per cent shortfall on quota. The Sea Fisheries Division said this was due to over-fishing in the more important fishing areas.

Now let me deal with Port Nolloth. It is permissible there to land crayfish of a carapace length of three inches. Quota-holders over the last two years prior to 1970 have not been able to fulfil their quotas. The Sea Fisheries Division maintains that the former limit also serves to limit captures—that is the three and one half inch carapace limit; for instance, in order to produce a given weight of catch, 67 per cent more rock lobster of three-inch carapace length is necessary than for 3½ inch length. Now, regarding Port Nolloth, the Commission has said that during the past 10 years the fishermen have been permitted to land lobsters with a three-inch length and that the decline there has been more rapid than anywhere else. The conclusion of the Commission was that they could find no evidence which contradicted the impression that the Republic’s rock lobster stock on the West Coast had already been subjected for a considerable number of years to excessive exploitation.

I now move on to the research report tabled in April last year, which says that there is uncertainty in regard to resource research in South Africa, and as a result of this shortage of resource research, all the various branches of the fishing industry are in a parlous state and exploitation has continued to an excessive degree.

Now let me deal with the pelagic fish. The 3rd interim report was tabled here towards the end of last year. First I want to deal with the history of mismanagement of this Government over the last seven years. In 1963 on the West Coast the pilchard figure was 430,000 tons; last year it was 69,000. The anchovy figure in 1964 was 101,000, and last year 236,000. By 1963 the research scientists were warning that the “safe-limit” of exploitation had been passed on the West Coast, but in 1965, two years later, the Government granted three additional fishmeal licences. The first licence was to a company called Paternoster Visserye Beperk. That licence allowed the erection of a 10 ton per hour plant and five fishing boats. The plant has never been built, but an existing factory was granted permission to extend its capacity and to accommodate the boats of Paternoster. It is just as well, of course, that they did, because according to a report in The Argus in 1967, Paternoster and two subsidiary companies had gone public in 1964 with an accumulated loss of R35,000. But by 1967, two years later, that loss had been liquidated. Its profit in 1965 had been R38,000. In 1966 it was R113,000, and in 1967 it was R229,000, because somewhere along the way it had also acquired a rock lobster quota. I unfortunately have not been able to keep check on the activities of the company since that year, but I rest assured that the company is in good hands because so many members of Parliament in this House have representation on the board of that company.

Now let us get onto the second concession, Oranjerivier-Visserye Beperk. A factory was to be built near Port Nolloth to alleviate the depressed conditions in Namaqualand. The company was allowed to build six boats and had permission to discharge catches at existing plants. The factory still has not been built. During the last 20 years pilchards were found at Port Nolloth only once. Port Nolloth is not suitable as a pilchard harbour. The factory cannot be built there until such time as the harbour has been deepened and expanded. It will have to have other raw material!

The third company that was granted a licence was Suid-Oranje Visserye Beperk. In this case a new R3 million factory was built at Sandy Bay near St. Helena. This factory was designed to consolidate the existing Mid-West Fish Products Limited, or the A. P. du Preez Group interests. An extra 20 tons per hour were added to the licence. The result of these three awards has been that 20 additional large boats were put into the water when the catching effort should have been restricted.

Let me pass on to the situation in South-West Africa. The South-West African Administration over the years, I think, has followed a reasonably conservative approach to the granting of licences and quotas. They were gradually increased as scientists discovered more about the pilchard resource. In 1961 they increased the quota to 90,000 tons per factory. There were six factories at the time. In 1963 two more 90,000-ton quotas were granted. They gave them, of all people, to the Trust Bank at Luderitz and to Volkskas at Walvis Bay! The Trust Bank company Angra Pequena was to receive these quotas and licences, but Kaap-Kunene was to administer and manage Angra Pequena. Marine Products was to manage and administer the Suid-Kunene licence. This was in 1963. Of course, shortly after that, not only administration and management but control was passed to Angra Pequena and Marine Products. From 1964 the S.W.A. quota has stood at 720,000 tons, i.e. eight individual quotas of 90,000 tons.

Now, let us look at the Government of South Africa, the Government that licenses the factory ships to fish off the coasts of South-West Africa. After application to the South-West African Administration in about 1965/1966 for a licence as a factory ship to operate off the South-West African coast, the people who owned the Willem Barendsz company applied to the South African Government because they had been refused by the South-West African Administration. They and another factory ship (Zuiderkruis) were licensed by the South African Government. What is extraordinary is that both licences were granted by the South African Government without consultation with the South-West African Administration, in spite of what I believe to exist, namely an agreement to consult about matters of common interest. What did Mr. Du Plessis, the member of the Executive Committee, say? He was incensed. He said: “If South African factory ships continue to fish our waters and signs of over-exploitation are found, South-West Africa will apply South-West Africa’s whole existing potential …” Then follows the story about the goose being killed because South-West Africa will get most of the goose.

The second unusual feature was that these factory ships were allowed to operate subject to the season laid down for South African waters and without catch restriction. The South-West African Administration, not unnaturally, reacted and they reacted strongly. In 1968 they gave two more 90,000-ton quotas, in addition to the eight already in existence. One went to a consortium of white fish operators supposedly as a spur to that particular industry. The other one went to a company called Sarusas, which was a consortium headed by Sanlam via a company called Mankor. The idea of the concession to Sarusas was to open up the Skeleton Coast north of Walvis Bay by way of building a general harbour at Mowe Point. To provide funds for these two additional concessions, existing South-West African factories were invited to process their quotas on a profit-sharing basis.

What has been the result of all this awarding of licences and quotas? In 1968 a staggering 1¼ million tons of pilchards and pelagic fish were taken from the waters of South-West Africa. Of these 614,000 tons were processed by the factory ships. In 1969 it became 1.2 million. The factory ships processed 530,000 tons that year. In two years factory ships and land-based factories in South-West Africa took a staggering 2,800,000 tons of pilchards and other pelagic fish from the sea. In 1967 the fish researchers had said that eight licences for 8 land-based factories of 90,000 tons each was safe exploitation! Today there are nine land-based factories which each have a 90,000 ton quota. This includes the white fish consortium. The Sarusas quota has been suspended for a while and two factory ships are permitted to fish off South-West Africa. The one claims to be legally permitted. I also understand that the Willem Barendz has left for South-West Africa today. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he intends doing about the Willem Barendz when it starts fishing off the South-West African coast. The 1970 pilchard catch fell to ½ million tons, and what is he going to do in the face of various warnings? So far we have already had the warning of the commission of enquiry—

That was sent at the beginning of last year. Then they go on to say that unless steps are taken to cut quotas there is going to be a total collapse of the pilchard industry of South-West Africa as there has been off the West coast of South Africa. Last year the figures for the West coast of South Africa were 69,000 tons of pilchards. I have already referred to the evidence of the commission, and the unanimous findings of the commission.

Now I want to refer to the minority report of the commission. So far there has been a majority report and a minority report, the figures being four to three.

*A scientific study was undertaken by Dr. J. P. A. Lochner of Port Elizabeth. In 1968 success was achieved in making an analysis of the population dynamics of the Californian pilchard resources and the Western Cape pilchard resources. As the hon. the Minister knows, it was ascertained why the resources had collapsed. It was also ascertained how this could have been prevented. Dr. Lochner went further and two years ago, in 1968, he ascertained that the South-West African pilchard resources were also collapsing, although the catches for that year had increased. He informed the commission of inquiry of his theory. For some reason or other the commission did not accept his theory. In order to have his theory accepted, Dr. Lochner had to determine in advance what future catches would be. For 1969 his determination was correct within 1 per cent. His determination for 1970 was also correct. As far as I know, however, this theory has not yet been accepted.

†I am no authority on mathematics nor on Dr. Lochner’s theory, but I have read publications in which the theory has been set out. I have sent a telegram to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in which I referred to all the indications of a collapse of the South West-African pilchard industry in the same way as the West coast industry had collapsed. I asked him to refer Dr. Lochner’s theory to a commission or a committee of experts for examination. Dr. Lochner says that while the Government is apparently prepared to cut quotas for the pilchard industry in South West-Africa to 400,000 tons this year, the industry is going to collapse unless the quota is cut down to 200,000 tons. Surely the Government can either accept his theory in the absence of any better theory or any other acceptable theory, or otherwise they should, as a matter of urgency—it should have been done already—refer the theory to a panel of experts for examination. So far I have had no reaction other than an acknowledgment by the hon. the Minister.

The question is what is to be done and who is to blame? If one reads what the hon. member for Omaruru has said, the Government is not to blame but the factory ships and the seals are to blame! If one reads what the Administrator of South West-Africa said recently, the fishing industry is responsible for the present state of affairs! If one remembers what the Mayor of Port Nolloth said, then the Government is fairly and squarely to blame. I say that as a result of the reckless exploitation of the rock lobster resources off the West Coast and as a result of reckless exploitation following the granting of licences and quotas in the face of adverse evidence from researchers and scientists on the West Coast, the pilchard industry is collapsing, and the rock lobster industry on the West Coast is also partially collapsing for the same reasons. With that as a background I do not have the slightest hesitation in saying that it is as a result of the reckless giving and granting of quotas and licences for the exploitation of rock lobster and pilchards on the South-West African coast and that this Government is fairly and squarely to blame.

Mr. Speaker, I think I shall need some considerable time to reply to the points and objections raised by the hon. member for Simonstown, and therefore I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.