When the debate was adjourned last night, I was dealing with the reluctance on the part of developers to become involved in flat building. The hon. the Minister of Community Development had also put a question to me regarding rent control. As far as this is concerned, I want to say to him that everybody accepts that there must be rent control to a certain extent. However, my feeling is that if the Government were to get on with the job of providing the houses and flats needed by our people, rent control would in the normal course of events fall away. The Minister also seemed to doubt the correctness of some of the figures I quoted. I told him on a previous occasion already that if I mentioned figures in this House they could stand up to the closest scrutiny. So, if the hon. the Minister has not done his homework, I am quite prepared to furnish him with the sources of my information.

The Minister often gets up in this House to tell us that the housing situation in South Africa is satisfactory and how lucky we are to have what we have. Moreover, very often comparisons are made between what is being done for housing here and what is being done in other countries. As far as this is concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that today we do not compare so favourably any longer with countries overseas. Let us take Great Britain as an example. In South Africa, as we know, the Government assists only the lower income groups. In Britain, however, the Government assists all sections of the population to buy houses or flats. Sectional titles have been in existence for them for a long time. The British Government realizes that housing is a very important factor in the lives of the people of any country. Consequently the British Government has been busy with such good results that the number of private dwellings being rented from landlords dropped from 60 per cent in 1947 to less than 20 per cent in 1966. Building societies in Britain charge 9 per cent on bonds but the Government, by way of tax relief and subsidies, reduces this so that no one need pay more than 6 per cent. Furthermore, under a Government sponsored scheme a person is permitted to borrow up to R10 000 on a 100 per cent bond from building societies. Where a house can be improved the British Government gives a grant of R2 400. In the case of a house which is large enough to be converted into self-contained flats the British Government allows up to R2 400 in respect to each flat. As in Britain, so we here in South Africa should come to realize that housing affects the every day lives of our citizens. It constitutes possibly the finest way in which young couples could be encouraged to save and the hon. the Minister of Finance should seriously consider finding some way to assist anyone, irrespective of income, who genuinely desires a home.

It is an accepted fact today that the bulk of our population can no longer expect to enjoy many of the luxuries they enjoyed in the past. For instance, they can no longer expect to inhabit spacious houses situated on large pieces of land. In this connection I should like to express the opinion that more economical use ought to be made of land near the centres of our cities. Blocks of flats, properly planned, should be developed and people be given the opportunity of buying themselves a flat. Of course, it is expected that we shall have a law to make this possible on our statute books soon. That will encourage developers to build blocks of flats in suitable areas. The Minister of Finance should go out of his way to see that those developers who are prepared to help resolve this problem, receive money at reasonable rates of interest. We know that interest rates overseas have dropped far below those in South Africa. The Government should therefore take steps to attract some of the capital to South Africa because of our higher interest rates and good security. In this way I think the Government can provide a large amount of bridging finance so that flat schemes may be got under way with the least possible delay.

Actually, the problem of housing in South Africa is a serious one; in fact, we are heading for a crisis unless the problem is tackled with energy. And the Government owes it to the people of South Africa to do everything within its power to see to it that a larger proportion of our population can at some time or other afford to buy a house.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. I think my colleague, the Minister of Community Development, will probably do so. I think he will probably deal with the question of housing very effectively, but I would like to say this in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg North: I think all the comparisons he tried to draw in the course of his speech and which were drawn in the course of speeches delivered here yesterday by members on his side, were quite inappropriate as comparisons are which are drawn between South Africa and countries whose circumstances are not similar to those of South Africa. For example, in 1910, as the hon. member will remember, there was discussion as to whether South Africa should become a Union or a Federation. At that stage it was correct, good and fair that comparisons be made between South Africa and other countries in which there were comparable and common grounds, but in regard to social questions of the nature which the hon. the member mentioned, I think there is simply no social grounds on which we in South Africa need reply in the light of our own circumstances, apart from the fact that we do take note of what is happening in other countries and that we do apply that knowledge here if it is possible to do so.

But this afternoon, Sir, I intend talking about another question, and that is one of the legs of the amendment moved here by the hon. member who opened this debate, i.e. the question of the relations between the Central Government and the four provinces and also, in another sphere, the relations between the Central Government and the local authorities and then, of course, the relations between the provincial administrations and the local authorities as well. But before I do that, I want to say that we are living in exceptionally important and interesting times in South Africa. If one thinks of the tremendous changes which took place in the past era of ten years, it is probably necessary for one to reflect for a moment on those changes and to ask oneself whether any of those changes may be applied to the Budget we have before us at the moment and to the problems relating to finance and monetary and fiscal matters.

In the first place, we had a tremendous change, for example, when South Africa became a Republic 10 years ago. Our own problems in South Africa, which were related to the question of monarchy or republic, acquired a new projection, a new image, and Had to enjoy the attention of the Government in the past 10 years. Similarly it came about that our whole position in South Africa, as I see it, changed towards the outside world.

The same applies in respect of a question such as defence, where we have simply had to take cognizance of the fact that we are no longer concerned only with a few states around us and with a possible general attitude in so far as defence is concerned towards the outside world, but that we are in fact in the middle of a threatened world where in recent times we have had intrusion not only in the Indian Ocean, but also in the Atlantic Ocean, especially as far as the Russians are concerned. In the south of Africa, as hon. members know, we have had the development of Southern Africa simply having become a focal point in connection with developments of terrorism in Southern Africa.

In the same way, we have, of course, seen tremendous economic changes here. I find it very interesting that these changes which have taken place in the economic sphere in particular, and not only as a result of domestic factors we know particularly well, but also as a result of the factors which influenced us from outside, are reflected in the Budget we have before us at this stage. I have found it very interesting, too, to have listened to the debate which has been conducted here for two days, especially in the light of the pessimism conjured up by the press which supports that side of this House, months before the introduction of the Budget here. To this I must add that to me personally the degree of disappointment on that side after the introduction of the Budget, was a reflection of the fact that we have a really good budget before us. In addition to this I want to say, if I may say so, that I am of the opinion that comparisons may be drawn between this Budget and Budgets introduced here in the past. With the exception of the 1969 Budget, which I read in order to gain some background knowledge, it seems to me that we have a greater variety of ideas and presentations in this specific Budget, and that in reality it actually is a historic budget which, as I shall indicate here, introduces new points of view in to many spheres, not only into our economic sphere, but also within the framework of our state.

Furthermore, I find it very interesting that in the composition of this Budget we have a number of priorities which seem extremely important to me. Ours is a country which, from the nature of the case, has to choose its priorities. We have a tremendous number of problems and we have to find a tremendous number of solutions to those problems. In the past I often referred to the fact that we were probably like an army standing in the field which had 100 different break-through points at its front, but which had a small force to cover those 100 breakthrough points. The first thing a good general would do, would be to choose a few strategic points. This applies equally well to a Government, and in this Budget there are very strong indications that we have chosen priorities and are continuing to do so to an increasing extent, so that we may attack them first, if I may put it like this, and in fact on the entire front.

But, as I have said, I actually want to talk about the fourth leg of that amendment which was moved, i.e. the question of the rearrangement of functions and the financial relations between the three tiers we know in South Africa. It is the position that since 1910, no fewer than six different inquiries have been made in South Africa into the different aspects of either central and provincial government or local and provincial government, or vice versa. But in the case of all these inquiries, their importance to me—and, incidentally, I also tried to read those reports in the years when I was in Natal—-is incomparable to what we have before this House at the moment, for the simple reason that we have a draft, a formula, here which, as far as I am concerned, starts changing the position completely. I think the proposals we have regarding the formula are three-fold. In the first place it is a question of a re-arrangement of the functions between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations. This is in itself an extremely important inquiry which was made. Secondly, there is, of course, the question of the financial relations between the Central Government and the two other tiers of administration. In the third place, there is the question of finance and financial assistance to the local authorities.

Now, Sir, without boring you with a summary of the matter, I want to say that we cannot draw the conclusions drawn in the course of this debate by hon. members on that side of this House, namely that the whole policy of the Government is reflected only in the White Paper and in the two reports tabled in this House.

The first section of the White Paper and the two other documents, deal with the question of the functions between the Central Government and the provinces. In the first place, I would say that the matters dealt with in these are fairly equally divided as far as the Central Government and the provinces are concerned. What the hon. member for Green Point did not mention in his speech yesterday when he dealt with this, was the extent to which the Central Government had decided to delegate functions to the provinces in regard to education in 1968. It is stated very clearly on page 5 in that White Paper that the Central Government identified itself almost entirely with the Schumann Commission and gave virtually all the education services proposed by that commission, to the provinces. This happened in 1968.

Subject to section 3 of the Education Act.

This happened in any case. As the hon. member knows, it was carried into effect. In 1968 all those schools were given to the provinces and this remains a very important part of the matter which he did not mention here.

In regard to national health, it is the position that in the past not only the Schumann Commission, but a whole series of other committees and commissions pleaded for a uniform national policy. This is all we have done now. The first proposal we carried into effect was a recommendation made by a series of commissions, one accepted. We are now implementing that recommendation.

What is more, the hon. member for Green Point knows very well that the legislation which will be submitted to this House in this regard has already been accepted by the four provinces. It was not during the time when I was still in Natal. In regard to roads, therefore, the hon. member did not put the matter to the House as he should have either. What it amounts to is that the Schumann Commission came to the conclusion that at the moment there is a tremendous amount of overlapping between the various tiers which deal with road matters.

From as far back as 1936 it has been the position that the National Transport Commission has been on the one side and the provinces on the other, and that this overlapping has caused some confusion throughout the years. In other words, there is nothing unusual in the fact that by means of the White Papers which have been tabled in this House, this Government is suggesting that a division should take place and that a national transport council should be established.

In regard to the question of financing, or any amendment thereof, its importance may be compared with what took place in the 1969 Budget. Of course, this is part of the report of the Franzsen Commission. As hon. members know, there were two recommendations: Firstly, that the rights in regard to personal tax and income tax on individuals be withdrawn in the provinces. Secondly, that the provinces should share in the proceeds of the Central Government. These are being implemented as from 1st April. The principle has been accepted by this Government. In conjunction with this, a formula was drawn up which, as the hon. member knows, will come into operation in all the provinces from the commencement of this financial year. This means that from 1st April this year 82 per cent of their current expenditure will be paid to them by the Government. This is more than has been given to the provinces of South Africa at any stage. In itself, this is a very strong recommendation.

Then we have the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Commission, which in reality amounts to the fact that R8 400 000 will be given to the local authorities. A very important point in this regard which has not been mentioned at any stage in this House, is the fact that progressively more will be given to the cities in regard to the building of freeways. Leaders of the Opposition in the Transvaal Provincial Council, Mr. Swartz and Mr. Oberholzer, who are both spokesmen for the United Party in the Transvaal, indicated that it could amount to millions of rands. This fact has been kept back and has not been submitted to this House or published in the local newspapers at all. This in itself is an indication to me of the half-hearted way in which these reports have in fact been studied and the way in which the recommendations have been stated in public by hon. members opposite.

Yesterday other hon. members spoke about the question of the inroads being made by the Government into the autonomy, as it was called, of the provinces. This is an extremely important statement which was made, because if the matter were analysed and the two sides were weighed up against each other, I think it would be found that these inroads, if one may call them inroads, were not at all as serious as hon. members wanted to suggest. For example, the hon. member for Von Brandis, to mention only one, not only continued the theme after his colleague, the hon. member for Gardens, had set the ball rolling, but added that the pattern he had found in America should in fact be the pattern according to which, as President Nixon suggested, money should be distributed and forces of local authorities should be rallied really to take over the whole federal system. This kind of takeover is actually what hon. members on that side of this House have in mind. I should very much like to know whether this kind of distribution of funds and the use of local talent within the Central Government, forms part of the United Party’s policy? I was not in this House last year, but I hear —and it interests me a great deal—that they held up the Japanese system last year as an example of what we could follow.

No, the Swedish system.

I do not know whether it was the Swedish or the Japanese system, but it was one of the two.

You must do your homework.

You must do your homework.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pinetown, who in point of fact is a Natalian and who should know what the position was in regard to the finance of South Africa and Natal over the past few years. I want to refer to his remarkable statement that the Government of South Africa was trying to undermine the provinces. He used the word “undermine”. Indeed, I copied it from his speech last night and it reads more or less as follows:

That was a very dangerous statement to make. I think it was a very crude statement to make. In addition, he said that the Government did not want to amend the Constitution of South Africa in order to bring about this change in South Africa. Allow me as a Natalian and as someone who served as administrator in Natal for nine years, to remind him what the position was in reality. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance, who introduced this Budget, that I think the hon. member for Pinetown is a very fair and kind man, but that he has gone much too far here and that he did not give an indication of what the province of Natal had received from the Government throughout the years. If it was the intention that there should be “undermining” of the provincial system of Natal, surely they should have withheld money from them. But what was my experience in regard to the hon. the Minister of Finance? Every year I represented Natal by attending conferences with the hon. the Minister. Allow me to say now that not on one occasion did I submit a request from my Executive Committee to him without receiving what I wanted. There was not one such case. Let me add to this that I do not want to point out the attitude of the United Party in Natal after I had returned with millions of rands, but I want to mention that I cannot remember one occasion over all the years when the United Party in Natal observed with gratitude what the Government had done for Natal in this respect. It was not necessary to thank me in regard to this matter; I was a go-between between the Government and Natal. But when statements of this nature are made in public, such as those of this afternoon, statements which suggest that the Government wants to undermine a province or a provincial system because it wants to take away certain powers, the matter becomes a bit serious.

I have already dealt with the hon. member for Green Point and I do not intend having further discussions with him this afternoon. I merely want to say that in my opinion he also gave an incomplete picture of the education policy suggested in the White Paper. He did this by saying that the Government had the report of the Schumann Commission in its hands as far back as 1964. And while it had the report in its hands, the Government decided, according to him, to introduce the national education legislation, in other words, four years later. The member suggested that the Schumann report had been withheld from this House by the Government so that the Opposition would not be enabled to see what was really going on. In other words, it was in fact a kind of swindling on the side of the National Party so as to pass the national education legislation without divulging information of the nature in the Schumann Commission. The simple reply is that long before the Schumann Commission was ever appointed, it was the policy of the National Party to have national unity in its education system. That unity in the policy was carried out. It was recommended that control should be granted to the provinces. Accordingly this was done. In regard to the policy—and this was the policy of the National Party for years—the only thing that happened was that the policy was carried into effect. All this was available to hon. members opposite. I want to point out to hon. members again that with the exception of one single group of schools, we fully accepted the recommendations of the Schumann Commission in regard to education. If the hon. member for Green Point wants to ascertain that, he may do so. It is to be found at the bottom of page 5 of the White Paper.

I want to indicate a few major advantages which, in my opinion, are going to result from this legislation. Anyone may determine this in this White Paper as well if he believes that science should form the basis of a new deal or a new formula such as the one we find here. These are the words contained in this White Paper and the White Paper was certainly not drawn up by members of the National Party. It was drawn up by officials who are probably concerned with science and it is clearly defined that the needs and the ability to pay in fact form the basis of the dispensation which is being introduced in respect of the new formula. Furthermore, the needs and the ability to pay are also measured in terms of standard expenditure and standard income. This immediately gives the provinces such stability and security as they have never had in the past. Even Natal did not have it, in spite of the fact that it had a good Administrator. Then they may ascertain that in the past no real losses were suffered by the provinces as a result of the lack of money coming from the Central Government and that in the application of the formula as it is before this House now, there is no reason at all to have any fears that the provinces will suffer losses. Furthermore, the provinces are also being given the right to levy trade and professional licence fees, and although it is only a small amount of money which can be collected in this way it is a concession which has been granted to provinces and of which they will be able to make use.

Another very interesting feature of the White Paper and something to which no reference has been made here at all, is that two reserve and revolving funds have been specially established by the Minister of Finance in order to make it possible for the provinces to have that money at their disposal in times of need or any other eventuality of this nature. For this purpose an amount of R13 million has been made available and this amount will be placed on a new basis gradually each year. This revolving fund was created after the first additional fund, which was also established for the protection of the provinces, and this revolving fund will be at their disposal almost permanently if they operate within the suggested framework.

The fixed formula will also help the provinces to have a criterion at their disposal. In future they will be able to gauge what their expenditure will be and they will be able to determine and calculate in advance on the basis of the best advice they can receive from the Government advisors in this regard. This in itself makes the White Paper an extremely important document and the formula an accepted way of affording protection to these bodies of which it has been said by hon. members opposite that their autonomy is going to be undermined.

It is interesting to note that the White Paper itself does not express any doubt about the autonomy of the provinces. If hon. members want to read it, they may do so with pleasure. It was not drawn up by Nationalists on this side, but by officials. In it the assurance is given that if the provinces remain within the suggested framework, there need be no reason at all why they cannot exist without their autonomy being affected. As far as the public is concerned, there is another major advantage attached to this turn of events. For the first time in history, equality will be attained in the taxes levied by the four provinces in South Africa.

What about divisional council rates?

I am not concerned with the divisional council now. I am starting at the top. Since 1910, with the exception of two or four years, Natal has paid the highest tax of all the provinces for 60 years. The taxation was up to 40 per cent of the normal income tax. The hon. member ought to know that in terms of the old system, Natal paid an amount exceeding by far that paid by the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Cape Province.

What about divisional council rates?

The hon. member surprises me, because as a Natalian he ought to know better. The payment of divisional council rates was introduced very late. If the hon. member consulted the Union Year Book, he would see that since 1910, with the exception of two or four years, Natal has paid the highest tax in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, during the provincial council elections last year I challenged the Government to make available to the public their proposals in respect of the Schumann and Borckenhagen Commissions. I told them that those commissions had been in their hands for some time and that it was the right of provincial electors to know what the Government’s intentions were in respect of those commissions and what the recommendations were. I likened it to the position of the directors of a company going to the Stock Exchange and asking for a listing. I then said that the Government are asking for a listing, but are not producing their memorandum and prospectus. What would have happened if they had gone to the Stock Exchange Committee? They would have been turned down flat. Now they have their shares on the market. They have got the voters to support them. They now come along with a lot of proposals about which they told the voting public nothing at the time of the election. I believe that behaviour of this kind would have been the subject of a special inquiry by the Stock Exchange Committee if it had happened in any financial organization.

The hon. the Minister who has just sat down, told us that the autonomy of the provinces is not affected by Government action. I can only say to him, if that is his view, we meet head down on that issue. The facts are quite simply that provincial ordinances are subject to scrutiny and to approval by the Government before they may be introduced, ordinances in respect of traffic matters, education, national roads and now in respect of health as well. How can the hon. gentleman say there is no reduction in the autonomy of the provinces?

Then the hon. gentleman speaks with great approval of the new formula, which is going to be based on the requirements and the needs of the provinces and their capacity to pay. He told us that these factors will now be measured scientifically. It looks to me that what he envisages, is that the various bits of information will be fed into the computer, the Central Government will decide what it is going to pay, and you might as well do away with the provincial council, which will merely be a rubber stamp.

The matter has been investigated for three years now.

It has been investigated for three years, and the facts are still there to speak for themselves.

It is a new formula.

Yes, it is a new formula, and look what is happening. Then the hon. gentleman turns to us and says that this is a historical Budget. It is a historical Budget. Indeed it is. Just think what a different Budget could have been introduced if this Government over the past ten years had heeded the warnings from this side of the House. If it had paid proper attention to using the available manpower in South Africa, if it had paid proper attention to training the manpower that we have, if it had paid proper attention to the warnings we gave about a growing manpower shortage, what a different Budget it would have been! During the recess I had an opportunity of going into some of the debates on this issue in the course of the past ten years in this House. I found that this side of the House was warning of an impending manpower shortage and pleading for better use of available labour and for better training of the labour that we already had. This was no less than ten or 11 years ago. It was not a sporadic warning now and then—it went on year after year. We warned in 1961, in 1962 and in 1963. In 1964 we forecast what the labour shortages would be in 1968-’69. How right we were! We suggested that in the near future there would be a constricting shortage of White labour in South Africa. The estimate we gave, was that by 1968, there would be a shortage of 30 000 to 34 000 industrial workers in South Africa. We warned that there would be a shortage of teachers and nurses which would amount to close on 11 000. We warned that there would be shortage of engineers which would amount to close on 3 000. We warned that a shortage of trained personnel would not only mean a slowing down in our rate of development, but that it would mean unemployment amongst the non-European population of South Africa, who depended on technically trained Whites to create job opportunities for them. What sort of replies did we get? We got a reply from the then Minister of Labour, who told us that, because there was very little unemployment, there could not be a manpower shortage. It is certainly one of the most remarkable replies we have ever had in this House. Then we had a reply also from the Prime Minister of the day. This is what he said in 1965—

What has happened—was the data wrong or did they not handle this situation properly? We told them that the bogey had become a reality, that their chickens had come home to roost. The hon. the Minister of Transport took a slightly different line. He rushed in, as he so often does, and agreed that the Government was to blame for the shortage of manpower. However, he tried to excuse them by saying—

He seems to imply that it was the policy of the Government to train manpower only as fast as economic expansion takes place. In other words, he was not prepared to accept what is accepted by most economists in the world, i.e. that the economy can only expand as fast as the technical knowledge and skills of the population develop.

I was not prepared to accept a surplus manpower in normal times, leading to unemployment.

No, Sir. You could have had a slack to take up and you could have developed a great deal faster. But not only did we criticize; we also offered constructive proposals, long before the year 1965 in fact. In 1965 we were able to say to the Government that their experts were advising what we had advised some years ago. We were able to accuse the Government of incompetence and of not accepting the advice of their own experts when that advice coincided with that of the Opposition.

What was that advice?

I shall give you a number of examples. For instance, we suggested that the salaries of technical staff in the universities and the Civil Service and in teaching institutions should be raised so as to combat the brain drain South Africa was suffering under; we suggested better salaries and conditions of employment for school teachers to bring back those who had left the profession; we suggested a relaxation in the conditions affecting overseas qualifications recognized in South Africa in respect of technical personnel. We suggested that this should be done in consultation with the various technical institutions and scientific societies in South Africa. We went further and recommended that the Government encourage the employment of older people by giving preference in Government contracts, other things being equal, to firms who employed a certain percentage of people over 45 years of age. We also suggested special assistance to every able child so that such children could get the maximum education regardless of the financial position of their families. In those far off days already we suggested a relaxation of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act and we warned the Government that it would have to reconsider its attitude to job reservation. I think it was the Minister of Transport, although Hansard says it is the Minister of Finance, accused me of talking rubbish and of not having made a proper study of my case.

It sounds more like the Minister of Transport. [Laughter.]

I think the hon. member is right—the word “rubbish” is particularly associated with that hon. gentleman. In any event, we gave them the example of what was happening in the building industry; we gave them the ages of bricklayers in Johannesburg and in Durban and we told them how few White apprentices were coming forward to the building industry; we warned that building costs had gone up by nearly 36 per cent in the previous two years and we quoted leaders of the industry who warned that the industry would grind to a virtual standstill. But what has happened? We all know what has happened in northern Natal, where there was a relaxation of job reservation and we know what has happened in the Transvaal. Sir, the chickens have come home to roost and the Government has had to eat its words in respect of that matter. But it will have to swallow a great deal more before it is finished if it has to keep the wheels of industry in South Africa moving. We also warned on that occasion that it was necessary to act urgently and that we could brook no delay, because the backlog in trained manpower could never be nullified, not even by the immigration policy to which the Government was beginning to commit itself at that time. In subsequent debates we outlined for the benefit of the Government the conditions under which job reservation ought to be relaxed or abandoned entirely, without endangering the position of the White worker. I believe we showed that it could be done while at the same time protecting the position of the White worker more effectively than under the job reservation provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The hon. the Minister of Transport has been following our advice to a small extent. But he is not giving his workers the protection we should like to see in industry generally. You see, Sir, he does not always apply the rate for the job. All that can be said about him is that he has adopted the principle of collective bargaining. Whereas at first he was inclined to threaten the trade unions and workers’ organizations, he has now advanced to the stage where he makes White jobs available to non-White workers only in consultation with the White workers’ organizations. But unfortunately his example is not followed in the rest of South Africa; as a matter of fact, it could not be under Government policy. As a result we are not making a proper use of the manpower that is available to us at the present time. We are not training manpower already in employment adequately for more responsible types of employment and we are slowing up the development of our economy and introducing a galloping inflation, inflation which this Government is powerless to control while it concentrates purely on restricting spending and neglecting the manpower side of the problem. When it concentrates on restrictions on spending it must be noted that the restrictions are imposed on the spending of other people and not on the spending of the Government.

In South Africa we have at the present moment a somewhat confused economic scene and I must say that this Budget has done nothing to clarify that situation. Cost of living is escalating and we are running into a huge deficit on our balance of trade account. Private investment, on which our economic growth is dependent, is far too low to be healthy at the present time. In fact, if it persists at that low rate then our economy will not continue to grow at the rate at which it has been growing over the last five/ten years. Investment capital is scarce because the rate of personal savings has dropped considerably over the past five years. In the net result, what do we have? We find that interest rates for investment in industry and in buildings have reached historically high levels, so that even the Stock Exchange takes a dim view of our future at the moment. Sir, this Budget has really done nothing to improve the situation. What we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is whether this development was inevitable, due to world influences beyond our control or was it due to the follies and mistakes of this Government. When we ask this question we ought to look at what has happened in another country, despite the dislike of hon. members opposite to have other countries being held up to them. Here I think it is right that we look at what has happened in another country. Let us have a look at what has happened in Rhodesia.

And not Japan?

Sir, I am slowly educating that hon. Minister. Already he knows a little bit about Japan and when I am finished he will know something about Rhodesia as well; possibly also a little bit about Australia. After we have taught him something about South Africa he will be able to make a proper comparison with other countries. As we all know, Rhodesia has now been labouring under sanctions for five years. Sanctions have succeeded in cutting Rhodesia’s main export, tobacco, by half. That is tantamount in our case to cutting our gold exports by half. That has increased the cost of imports considerably and has reduced the price of exports by quite a margin. All things being equal, Rhodesia’s position should have been very much more precarious than ours at the present time. But what has happened in Rhodesia? When one looks at the records of the last three years, one finds that Rhodesia’s economic growth is slightly better than ours while her rate of inflation is less than half of ours. In other words, a besieged and sanctioned economy has performed better than has ours. This is a most remarkable achievement. How does one explain it? I believe the answer is to be found in the very different policies that the Rhodesian Government follows. You see, Sir. in the first place there is more mobility of labour in Rhodesia than in South Africa, and mobility of labour, as most economists know, is vital for economic growth. Secondly, Rhodesia has no job reservation as a statutory provision. There is far more opportunity for non-Whites to do semi-skilled and skilled work, and the result is that Whites are much more productively employed in Rhodesia than in South Africa. Do you realize, Sir. that in our industries we have one White for every three non-Whites, while in Rhodesia there is one White for every ten non-Whites, and there is no doubt whatsoever that that can lead to a great deal more productivity as far as White labour is concerned. But I believe there is another reason and that is that despite the fact that the Rhodesian economy is a besieged economy, industry and commerce are not nearly in the same straitjacket of Government control in which they are here in South Africa. Of course, because of sanctions and foreign exchange shortages there is import control there but there is no Physical Planning Act there and there is no ceiling on bank lending.

Our Government is always proclaiming its faith in private enterprise and capitalism, but they only seem to pay homage to the system; they reveal no faith in the automatic weapons which are available under that system. If one believes in private enterprise, then the Government’s activities should surely be confined to providing the right framework for economic growth and should then leave it to the market forces of capitalism to generate rapid growth, as has been done in most of the Western countries which have made the best progress and have the highest standards of living at the present time. In South Africa surely this should mean regulating the total volume of credit and money in the economy, giving adequate protection to industry and creating the right climate for saving, but then it should be left to the market forces to determine where those savings should be invested. If one believes in private enterprise and capitalism, Sir. this should lead to savings being invested in the most productive avenues. After all, who knows best where to invest—the capitalist or the bureaucrat?

There’s another very important consideration, Sir. In a capitalistic society State expenditure should not grow much faster than the growth of the national income, otherwise it leads to a complete distortion of the economy. The capitalist knows very well that if he spends too much, if he spends more than he is getting in, he very soon goes broke. There is one well-known economist, Colin Clarke, who suggested many years ago that when public sector spending approached 25 per cent of the national income, then inflation is inevitable. Sir, we are very near that level at the present time.

It looks to me as if our Government does not really believe in private enterprise at all. Since 1965 they have imposed ceilings to bank lending, but they have not controlled credit money adequately at all. The net result is a complete distortion in our money market in South Africa and in our credit market. What is the position today? Bank overdrafts are about the cheapest form of credit you can find. Three-year interest rates are actually higher than long-term interest rates, and as many people know, there is a vast grey market developing in nearly all the big financial centres in South Africa. This is what controls have done to the banking system in South Africa, but it has certainly not led to the channelling of the country’s savings to the most productive avenues. In particular, they have led to more credit for consumer durable goods than for investment purposes. I know the Government tried to counter this. I know that they suddenly clamped down on hire-purchase credit and applied stricter control, and this led to such a depression in certain industries that within six months they once again had to lift those controls because people were being put out onto the streets from the factories which were producing those goods. What is interesting is that when one looks at the Australian scene— for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Information—one finds that controls introduced in the Budget of August, 1970, resulted in an added inflation in something like four months, as the result of the Government’s own Budget. What was found there? It was found that ultra high interest rates and tight money aggravated the cost problem instead of combating inflation. It was found that even in respect of short-term transactions, where interest rates were high and money was ultra dear, business began flattening out and the rate of interest began to weigh heavily on costs. Tight money made firms increasingly conscious of the necessity of maintaining their cash flow. The result was that in order to retain the viability of their business when bank overdrafts and credit sources were restricted, costs immediately began to be affected because they were forced to sell quickly. Coupled with these, when wages rose sharply producers did not try to absorb the increase by seeking to obtain a higher volume. They felt that if liquidity was to be preserved, they had to get their prices up right away to cover their costs, and this of course led to further inflation.

There is something else that happened in Australia which has a very familiar ring here. That was that in seeking to preserve a balance between revenue and expenditure. the Government made use of a number of taxation measures which directly resulted in an increase in the cost of living. They raised the sales tax, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has done here. The postal rates went up, as they have done in South Africa. The cost of petrol was raised, as was done here, and what happened? With the high interest rates, tight money, wages going up to an extent, and with these provisions in the Budget, the result was that they tended to permeate through the economy and they got into the cost of almost everything that was bought or any service that was used. I want to tell you, Sir, that I have a most uncomfortable feeling—I think it is more than an uncomfortable feeling; I think it has now become a certainty—that similar measures in this Budget of ours are going to have similar results as they did in Australia.

But it is not only the financial controls that have contributed to the troubles we have at the present time. This Physical Planning Act is undoubtedly one of the most important factors in slowing down investment in the private sector. You see, Sir, controls on labour supplies have caused uncertainty and apprehension. They are slowing down investment in productive industries very considerably indeed. The trouble is that this Government, instead of leaving decisions as to where to invest and what labour to employ to the entrepreneurs, is apparently of the opinion that Cabinet Ministers and members of the Civil Service know far better where new expansion should be and where extra labour should go. Unfortunately we see the results of their knowledge in the mess we have in our economy at the present time. Of course, their object is to try and force industries into the border areas. But quite apart from economic considerations, they simply have not provided the infrastructure in the so-called border areas. The few viable border areas that there are, cannot take much more new investment. If there had been a sudden large-scale movement away from the existing industrial areas to the border areas, they would simply not have been able to cope in so far as water, power and transport are concerned. Nevertheless, before these border areas are ready for the movement, the Government is choking back industrial development in the existing industrial areas. I am quite satisfied that this is one of the main reasons for the low level of private investment at the present time and for the fears which the private investor has in respect of the future.

The hon. the Minister of Finance again and again emphasizes that the country, and particularly private individuals, are not saving enough. In order to make them save more, he is pushing up the taxes, such as sales tax, income tax and so on. I think that Jan Hupkes of the Financial Mail has already been quoted to the hon. the Minister when he said that private individuals do not save more when they are more highly taxed, but simply have less over for saving. What has been happening is that the Government has been spending those extra taxes nearly as fast as they have come in in a manner seldom as efficient or as productive as spending by private enterprise would have been. The result has probably been more inflationary than it has been deflationary. The funny thing is that in past generations we in South Africa have saved very well. Why is it that, after 22 years of this Nationalist Government, we no longer save as we did? We have not suddenly become a nation of wasters. What is the reason for it? I believe that the key to the riddle is that the people fear that this Government cannot control inflation. They fear that the Government is setting about it the wrong way and they are not sure that the value of their savings will not be eroded. The fact is that Government policies are causing uncertainties and instability at the present time.

I believe that it is nonsense to say that Government expenditure cannot be restricted. There are endless good works the Government can do, just as there are endless good works an individual can do. What is necessary is to establish a system of priorities. At times such as these attention should be limited to the highest priorities. Australia had the same trouble. Representations by businessmen to the Government to cut spending were always met with the same answer, namely that all the spending was absolutely necessary. The businessmen were to be fobbed off with that reply. Now, for the first time in recent years, the Australian Government has held talks with the business people in Australia and they have conceded that, however desirable expenditure may appear, these expenditures are not necessarily sacred when it comes to hard times. I have no doubt whatever that, if we tried a similar system here in South Africa, it would be very possible to make considerable savings at the present time. I think particularly of some of the prestige Government buildings. of the amount to be spent on prisons, of the wasteful enforcement of ideological legislation and of a number of other matters of that nature. All these factors play their part. To me the most important question still is the proper use of our available labour, the proper training of those already in employment and the proper education and training of those who are to come into employment in the future.

We have discussed these matters before in this House. There is no need for me to reiterate my firm belief that it is the shortage of adequately trained manpower and the utterly wasteful use of our existing labour force that is one of the major causes of rising costs and inflation in South Africa at the present time. Nor is it necessary for me to outline once again, as we have done on many occasioned in this House, how we believe that problem could be tackled, how we could make greater use of our non-White labour force and yet protect the interests of our White labour force, probably far more effectively than it is being done at the present time by the industrial conciliation legislation. The trouble with the operation of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is that it restricts the mobility of non-White labour. In doing so, it also restricts the mobility of White labour, because it cannot be moved up to higher supervisory jobs while it is pinned down by these provisions, to the jobs it is in at the present time.

I believe there are hon. members on the Government side who believe in all honesty that even if restrictions on non-White labour were relaxed, it would not make much difference to the position. I can only refer them once again to what is happening in Rhodesia. If they can run their factories with one White man supervising ten non-Whites, why do we require one White man to supervise only three non-White workers? It seems to me that there are vast opportunities for a more effective use of our labour force, which would undoubtedly help to combat inflation at the present time in South Africa.

You are over-simplifying the matter.

Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why I have to over-simplify it sometimes. The hon. the Minister knows what they are. He also knows what I am talking about.

In my view, this Budget does not tackle any of the real causes lying at the roots of inflation at the present time, namely excessive money, physical and labour controls and over-taxation. In fact, taxation has now become so high that it is far higher than in many of the continental countries in Europe from which we hope to draw immigrants. I have not the slightest doubt that one of the side-effects of this Budget will be that we will not draw immigrants of the technological and professional class which we so badly need in South Africa at the present time. That again will affect inflationary processes in South Africa.

If I may sum up, I believe that if we are to correct the present imbalances in our economy, three things are essential. First of all, a whole host of hampering controls like the Physical Planning Act and certain controls on credit and other controls of that nature, must be lifted. Secondly, there must be far greater mobility of labour. We must make far more effective use both of our non-White labour and of our White labour. Thirdly, the Government must curb and co-ordinate the growth of its own expenditure and not increase the rate of taxation further, but, if anything, reduce it.

I make no bones about the fact that I should like to see the Government commit itself to a policy that public expenditure would not rise faster than the national income and that departments would be forced to budget in accordance with that, whether they liked it or not, except in exceptional times, for instance when public works have to be financed during times of depression. I should also like to see our company tax rate cut in order to allow a greater plough-back to private enterprise. That is what Barber has done in England. Then the high marginal rates of taxation should also be cut to provide more incentives to individuals themselves. That is something else that Barber has done in England in his new budget.

It seems to me that the trouble with the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Budget is that, it follows a long line of British Budgets under the Wilson Government which believed that the only way of fighting inflation was to cut down on private spending. Indeed, we find strange bedfellows, this hon. Minister and Harold Wilson. I believe making the same mistake. Our recipe would be to cut excessive Government spending and to provide incentives for private enterprise so that they can grow much faster in South Africa. The trouble with this Government is that it is sifting enterprise with all its controls and it is stifling the genius of South Africa. It is trying to control every aspect of our lives, economic as well as cultural. I believe that if we want to get this country moving rapidly towards higher economic growth, we have to dismantle a large part of these wasteful controls, and incidentally thereby release a lot of manpower for more productive use in South Africa. The real strength of South Africa does not lie in its Government, but in the people of South Africa. They have shown in the past what levels of achievement they are capable of if they are given the opportunities and the freedom to show their abilities. If there is one cry from the heart I have at the moment, it is that the people of South Africa should be given a chance. They must be trusted and should not be treated like a schoolmaster would like to treat his scholars. The Government must not try and run them and every detail of their lives from Pretoria or from Cape Town. The free enterprise system must be given a chance to work and a proper framework must be provided so that it can show what it can do. I believe the latent energy and the ability of the nation must be set free in the interest of our new generations and of a great and a secure South Africa.

I want to warn that frustration induced by over-government and economic stagnation can have disastrous results upon the rising generations in South Africa. It destroys their ambition, it undermines their pride and it induces the feeling that no matter how hard they work they cannot achieve their legitimate objectives. What are those legitimate objectives? If I were to speak of the newly emergent Afrikaans-speaking businessmen in South Africa, then I would say their objective was to get a greater share of the market for their own fellows, their own community, having regard to their numbers. They are going to be hit by this Budget. They are going to be hit very hard by this Budget indeed, and they are going to lose faith in their own ability to progress under private enterprise and they are going to be frustrated just at the time when we need their assistance most. What are the objectives of the ordinary young South Africans who live in our cities? For every young South African I believe the objective is to have a decent home for his family so that he can give character and status to his dependants. It is also to have a secure earned income which will allow for a decent living standard, which will improve as time goes on and which will give room for savings that will not be eroded by rising costs of living. I believe there is a third obejective. It is adequate education and training for their children so that the children can be equipped to build on the foundations which have been laid by their parents. It is also that the generation that lies ahead should reach greater heights with the education which has been provided. Then I think there is a fourth thing they want. That is the security of feeling that they are members of a developing country which has greatness in its destiny. That is something which we could so easily have achieved if we had only had a sensible government which made proper use of the assets that are available to us.

I could go on, but what is the use? This Government is not ensuring any of those things. This Government is undermining the future of the young people in South Africa at the present time. If it is doing that for our White city-dwellers, what is the position in respect of the Bantu dwellers in the urban Bantu townships and our Coloured dwellers in the Coloured areas in South Africa? They are subject, as are the White people, to rising costs of living. They are subject to the same controls, the same frustrations and the same trials. Only they have less opportunity of overcoming them than the White citizens in our urban areas. I cannot help but feel that unless more imagination is used, unless more elasticity is introduced and unless more growth is engendered, we will not only see frustration, but we will see unemployment developing in our urban Bantu complexes and in our Coloured areas. I do not want to discuss this afternoon the speech made by Kaiser Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, because there will be another opportunity for that. I do want to point out one thing, however. One of his chief complaints is that people are being sent back to the Transkei from the urban areas and that there is no work for them in their own homelands. As the economy slows down more people will be sent back, but there will be no more work for them in the homelands. Unemployment is going to be intensified. This is not only going to give the hon. the Prime Minister the sleepness nights of which he spoke, but I believe it is going to cause all non-Whites over South Africa to pose a question. They are going to look at our private enterprise system and are going to ask themselves the question “Is this something worth copying, or is it something that ought to be destroyed and replaced by a more radical system?” If that is the fruit of this Budget, then March 31st, 1971, is indeed a black day in the history of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have now been listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but the prophecies of doom he made were no worse than those made by any other Leader of the Opposition since I came to this House. He said that we were undermining the future of the youth, but who is spending more on universities in South Africa than this Government? Who has spent more on the education of the White, the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu youth than this Government? But in spite of this, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are undermining the future of the youth in South Africa. These prophecies of doom of his about unemployment, of factories closing down and of large-scale riots, are something we are used to. After all, when we held a referendum before becoming a Republic, we heard all these predictions.

They are now coming true.

They are not coming true. I have never seen the hon. member for Yeoville as fat as he is at present. Where is this coming true? The Opposition predicted at the time that banks would close, that factories would close down, and that there would be large-scale unemployment. However, what are they complaining about today? Not about large-scale unemployment, but about there being too few workers. That is what they are complaining about today. Then, they say that we should give the people of South Africa a chance. When the National Party wanted to give them a chance with the establishment of Iscor, did it receive any support from that side of the House? It is no use the hon. member for Yeoville sitting there laughing. When the establishment of Sasol stimulated the South African economy and the people were given a chance, the United Party did not lend it their support. Year after year we listened to the Chief Whip of the United Party running down Sasol here in every possible way. If he had been able to sabotage Sasol, he would have done so. Today, now that Sasol and Iscor are a success, it is suddenly the work of their hands. This Budget is a realistic Budget. Of course it is a heavy budget, but surely that is not something unknown to this country. Surely it is not something unknown in one’s private life that there are times when one must cut down a little, and that one cannot merely spend and go on spending as hon. members on the opposite side want us to do in South Africa. Of course there are times when difficult decisions have to be made. Such decisions this Government has made at various times. This Government will make difficult decisions even if it hurts our people, as long as they are in the interests of South Africa and the survival of the White man.

Yes, particularly after an election.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Pinelands should say that. He is one of the people who, two elections ago, accused the hon. the Minister of Transport of refusing to announce salary increases for Railway workers. He then made political propaganda out of it. Afterwards, when the Minister acted, he again wanted to make political propaganda. Everyone acquainted with the economy of this country knew that salary increases, wage increases and tax increases had to come. We shall look the people squarely in the eyes in regard to this matter. These changes take place from time to time. Despite this hard budget and the consequences it will have, I still say that the economy standard of the population of South Africa is higher than it has ever been before, and it will not drop. Now I am including both Whites and non-Whites. This Budget is taking a little more out of people’s pockets. It is a little harder than one would have liked it to have been. One would like to introduce a good Budget every year, but you are doing the people a disservice if you always do this. One must maintain economic stability. But I maintain that, despite this Budget, we will not in the years and days which lie ahead have any unemployment. We will not have a lower standard of living. We will perhaps have less extravagance; and nothing could be better for this country than a little less extravagance.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the strength of a nation lies in its people. That is the only point I agree with him on. Of course the strength of a nation lies in its people. That is why the National Party has been in power for 23 years, and that is why it is going to remain in power for a further 23 years. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I need be so terribly concerned now about what is going to happen after those 23 years—-we can leave it to our children to concern themselves about it.

The Leader of the Opposition said “If our labour policy had been a little different …” I want to state this afternoon that any responsible politician or person such as the Leader of the Opposition who comes along and tells us that our labour policy is wrong, is guilty of the grossest irresponsibility if he does not immediately afterwards state his own labour policy.

It has been stated repeatedly.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now saying that it has been stated repeatedly. I now want to ask him—are they in favour of the total abolition of work reservation? [Interjections.] No, Sir, this is the simplest question.

Read your Hansard of 1969.

Sir, if it stands in the Hansard of 1969, why does the Leader of the Opposition not want to take the trouble to tell me about it now? Are they in favour of the abolition of work reservation? He refuses to reply. Now I shall reply to the question. There is no other deduction to be made from their labour policy than that it means the total abolition of work reservation in South Africa.

Even in the mines.

In the mines as well. I now want to level at the Leader of the Opposition the accusation that the policy of his party is the uncontrolled influx of Bantu labour into the metropolitan areas.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Durban Point is now saying that it is untrue. Very well then, then I want to ask him—does he still adhere to the policy that the Bantu can sell their labour on the best market?

Do you still beat your wife?

No, I do not beat my wife and I am not going to beat her either. I am going to beat the hon. member.

Order! I do not think it is fitting to ask such a foolish question in the House. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw. I was simply using a proverb.

Order! No, it is an ugly proverb which is quite out of place here.

I am putting it to the hon. member for Durban Point, the Leader of the Opposition and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, who is the great advocate on that side of the policy that “the Bantu must sell his labour in the best market”—do they agree with that? [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, they are the people who supposedly want to discuss the problems of South Africa seriously. Here I am asking them something which in South Africa is of the utmost importance as far as our labour is concerned. The National Party says that it is not in favour of the Black man being able to sell his labour on the best market. The hon. member for Yeoville, on the other hand, says that “the Black man must be able to sell his labour in the best market”. Did the hon. member say that or did he not say that?

Yes.

Is the hon. member still in favour of that today?

Of course.

Therefore, if the Bantu regard Cape Town as being the best labour for their market, are they going to keep them out here? If they decide that their best market is in Durban, are they going to keep them out there? If they decide that their best market is situated in Johannesburg, are they going to keep them out there? After all, the hon. member for Yeoville is giving them the right to sell their labour on the best market. This is not a privilege the hon. member wants to give them, but a right. That means that the Black man will be able to sell his labour wherever he likes. That is why I say that the policy of the opposite side is to allow the Black man uncontrolled entry to any of our metropolitan areas—Johannesburg, Pretoria, Vereeniging and any other large city—to sell his labour, depending on where he thinks the best market for him is. (Interjections.] But they go even further than that. Not only do they say that the Black man can sell his labour on the best market; not only can the Blacks stream freely into our metropolitan areas. They must also be able to go there on a family basis, and with proprietary rights. How did they not oppose us when we wanted to clear Sophia-town and remove the proprietary rights of the Bantu there, and refrain from giving them proprietary rights in Meadowlands! The hon. member for Yeoville now admits that the Blacks can be allowed to stream in unrestrictedly because they can sell their labour on the best market.

He did not.

Surely that is the only deduction any reasonable person can make from what the hon. member said. Those Bantu who are now able to sell their labour on the best market and bring their families with them, are they also going to be entitled to proprietary rights here in South Africa?

The reply is in the first instance that there is not a word of truth in it if it is said that we want to allow uncontrolled influx …

Order!

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has asked me to explain.

Order! Yes, but the hon. member is not allowed to make a speech.

I am basing the statement I have made on a deduction which one has to make from what they are saying. The hon. member for Durban Point can do whatever he likes, but I maintain that the policy of the United Party is to allow uncontrolled influx, to allow it on a family basis and to give them proprietary rights in your White areas. One can make no other deduction from what was said here. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along and complains of our placing a tremendous burden on the industries; because we do not want to give them labour, they now have to spend many millions of rands on machinery to do that work! What is wrong with that? Mr. Speaker, the best thing that can happen to South Africa, particularly here in the White areas where there ought to be a shortage of Black labour, is mechanization on the greatest possible scale.

And push up the inflation further?

Sir, why should you be pushing up inflation if you mechanize, for you only are producing three times as much? I can mention to him the case of the Brickor factory in Johannesburg, where they employed 600 or 700 Bantu to produce 60 million bricks per year. They now have a factory at Crown Mines where they are producing 100 million bricks per year, not with 600 Black labourers but with 35 Black labourers, because they have mechanized on such a scale.

And their balance sheet?

What is wrong with their balance sheet? The only item which affected their balance sheet was the cost of erecting the factory; apart from that it was a very good balance sheet. Sir, the United Party does not want to follow the difficult path the National Party wants to follow.

Our message to the people is this: As little Black labour as possible, but take some trouble and spend your money; tighten your belts and mechanize as much as you can. That they do not want to do. That is our message to the people of South Africa; that is what we are saying to the people of South Africa. No, they say that there should be an uncontrolled influx of Black labour; that is their solution to our whole problem.

We do not say that.

Hon. members of the Opposition did say it, and he can repudiate it as much as he likes.

You are misleading the people.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed the position we have in the building industry. I admit that there is a shortage of skilled labour in the building industry. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to me here and made an attack on me; he said that we were not gearing the building industry sufficiently to the construction of houses and residential units in South Africa. Let me just tell him what the position is—how we are channelizging the building industries to the building of houses in South Africa. In 1965 building plans for blocks of offices and shops to the value of R145 million were passed, and building plans for buildings to the value of R20 million were postponed. In 1970 R90 million was allocated and R165 million’s worth postponed. Sir, I want to make the statement this afternoon: If it is necessary to apply building control more strictly in order to ensure that people obtain houses, then I shall apply it more strictly. I see no advantage in the Carlton Centre, for example, having to be completed next year. I see no advantage in luxury shops and office blocks having to be constructed; it is necessary that this be done as far as possible, but not at the expense of housing in South Africa. Here I want to reply to the hon. member for Green Point who unfortunately is not here at the moment and who is also complaining about the position of White Housing in the country. Sir, the position as far as White housing in South Africa is concerned, is sounder today than it has ever been before. Sir, let us put this statement to the test: Hon. members on the opposite side are continually complaining here that young people are unable to obtain houses and that there is a tremendous shortage of housing. I said here last year—I think it was during the debate on the no-confidence motion—that the Sunday Times had published a whole article according to which I had supposedly said that I would see to it that every young married couple found a house. That of course is not what I said. I said that I would see to it that there was a housing unit for every young married couple and for every person in South Africa. The Sunday Times published a long article: “If you want a house write to Blaar.” They also gave my address. They are supposed to have two million readers. Let us assume that a million, or a half a million, or a quarter million read the report. Is the hon. member for Durban Point interested to know how many letters I received? Sir, I received only six letters, and those six people are now more comfortably off than they have ever been before.

I am sorry the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dragged Rhodesia into this discussion. I would prefer not to discuss the position of Rhodesia now. It is a difficult position and I do not want to discuss it, but since the hon. member has quoted the example of Rhodesia here, he must tell me whether he is in favour of the same labour policy for South Africa as they have in Rhodesia where you have a free flow of labour and where the labour can sell itself on the best market. There is a general, free flow of non-White labour in Rhodesia. Is that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants here? But he is taking Rhodesia as the example of economic growth. Why are they growing economically, and what is his accusation against the Government? His accusation against the Government is that Rhodesia’s economy is growing because it has a completely free flow of Bantu labour, and that our economy is stagnating because we do not. What is the insinuation? We must have a free flow of Black labour throughout the whole of South Africa. That is the only deduction one can make from that, and it is of no use the hon. member beating his hands together now; he should have beat his hands together when he thought out that argument.

But then he went further. They keep on telling us that the weakness of the economy in South Africa, our unpopularity in the world, the hostility of the world and the hostility at U.N.O., are all attributable to our policy of separate development; it is because we do not want to send sports teams overseas. Sir, may I tell him what happened in Rhodesia two years ago? They sent a soccer team to, I think it was, Addis Ababa, where an international soccer tournament was being held. Rhodesia wanted to send a team of 16 soccer players, of which 11 were Blacks. They refused to accept this because they said Rhodesia did not have a legal Government. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants us to formulate our policy according to what the world wants to force upon us.

Nonsense.

The hon. member is now saying it is nonsense, but they level the approach at us that this is the reason why we cannot make any progress, because there is this hostility. But there is no country which aroused such hostility as Rhodesia, for there is no country in the world which recognizes it. But despite that, its economy is going ahead, and I want to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that despite the ruckus he is kicking up the economy of South Africa will be expanded even further.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said our economy is weak as a result of petty apartheid, and then I want to read his definition of petty apartheid—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether skin colour is not the factor when one states that White children and non-White children should attend separate schools? What other factor is there besides skin colour? (Interjections.] Are separate schools major apartheid or petty apartheid? Why do certain people go to certain schools? Is it because they are Coloureds, or because they are Indians, or because they are Bantu, or because they are Black or yellow? The Whites go to schools for Whites. The only factor is skin colour.

That is only half the story.

No, it is the whole story, and that is why I say that those hon. members are not in favour of separate residential areas in South Africa. They are not in favour of group areas in South Africa, for why are there group areas? It is based on one thing and one thing only, and that is skin colour. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House this afternoon that our policy of White, Coloured and Indian group areas is as good as it has ever been. We have already resettled 65 per cent of all the Coloureds. Despite anything the hon. member for Houghton may say, each of those Coloureds is in a better house than he was in before. In Chatsworth and other areas we have resettled almost 70 per cent of the Indians. In Chatsworth, near Durban. there are now 170 000 Indians. Each of them is living in a better house than he had before. Hon. members can scream and shout as much as they like. We shall continue with this policy of separate development. We shall continue with this policy because it does justice to the Whites as well as all the other race groups in South Africa. However, we are not willing for the sake of so-called economic prosperity to bring our entire future as a White race in jeopardy or to place it in a position where we will no longer be certain, in a week’s or in six months’ time, whether we will still be able to survive as a White race in South Africa. In spite of all the temporary difficulties I do not doubt that the National Party is at present as strong as it has ever been before.

Mr. Speaker, the House has now had the privilege of listening to a speech by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It was a speech which merely covered in different respects the same field as in the past. What I found disappointing, however, in the speech made by the hon. the Minister is that after a very constructive contribution from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition he did not make a single attempt to deal with the substance of that speech. It is very clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Community Development was not in the least bit capable of giving a reply to the matter stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And what did he do when he found that he did not have a reply? Then the hon. the Minister fell back on his old attacking tactics. Then he is of course very good. But he is not always as unassailable as it may sound. Unfortunately he only thinks about what he has said afterwards.

Let us see how he boasted about the party to which he belongs, the National Party. The hon. the Minister said that the party had already been governing for 23 years and that it would continue to govern for a very long time to come. In all humility I now want to ask the hon. the Minister what he did to put that party into power. How did that party come to power? It was perhaps in spite of the hon. the Minister that that party came to power.

I shall tell the hon. member what I did. I committed many of the stupidities of the United Party people. That is why they came to power.

I also want to mention another example. The hon. the Minister comes along with a great fanfare and says that we made all kinds of predictions in 1949, for example in regard to the banks. Where was the hon. the Minister then? I should like to issue a challenge to the hon. the Minister. If I could only page through old newspapers long enough, I will discover that he, as an old United Party man, was in fact one of the people who made those predictions about the banks.

I want to address a very friendly request to the hon. member. I have a dirty political past. Leave it alone now.

The hon. Minister says he has a dirty political past, and that he is sorry about it. But what I find so strange is that he did not only make a mistake once. He went on making the same mistakes. Let us take note of the following mistake.

But you also have a political past, not so?

But I was never ashamed of my political past. I am proud of it. It is the hon. the Minister who is ashamed of his political past. The hon. the Minister did not change his political past when he was still young. He was well advanced in years and long in the tooth when he changed political sides. He ought to have known better. The hon. the Minister says the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong when he says that this Budget is undermining the youth of South Africa. I agree with that statement of the Leader, and I shall tell the hon. the Minister why. The hon. the Minister again revealed the essence of the philosophy of the National Party today when he said: We will not give way. We prefer to bend the economy and make it fit the ideology. The result of that ideology is going to be— poor, but White. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what inspiration “poor, but White” constitutes for the young man? What a wonderful slogan the National Party is offering the young people of South Africa—poor, but White! I want in all humility this afternoon to inform the hon. the Minister that the young people of South Africa do not want to be poor, and they are White. That hon. the Minister and his Government will do nothing to keep the young people of South Africa White if they do not have the inherent strength to remain White. They know that.

As far as Sasol is concerned, the hon. the Minister knows about that. He helped the United Party to pass the Oil Act for Sasol in 1947. If my memory is not playing me false, the hon. the Minister knows that when the National régime took over in 1948, private initiative did not want to do anything about the matter, and the State had to take over. Surely the hon. the Minister, who is so high up in politics, knows the history of Iscor as well. Surely he knows that Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog of the old South African Party and the old National Party rejected the Iscor idea of the Labour Party in 1922, when it was proposed, and did so on the same principle, namely the question of State capitalization. Surely he knoes how the old National Party made an about-face at the time when they incorporated the Laborites among their number.

They accept socialism.

When they incorporated the Laborites, the socialists, after 1924, they had to listen to the Labour Party. They then used State capital to develop Iscor, in conflict with the principle which had been voted against in 1922. Now the hon. the Minister comes forward with that type of story. I want to go further: The hon. the Minister then came forward with a matter in regard to which he was at his best. He asked what the labour policy of the United Party is.

He has hold of everything at the wrong end of the stick.

I do not have time, but I just want to say that I have hold of it. The hon. the Minister did not even have hold of it. That is the difference. In regard to our labour policy the hon. the Minister asked whether we were going to abolish work reservation. That question the hon. the Minister has to my knowledge, asked at least 10 or 20 times.

I am going to ask it another 100 times.

He received the reply every time. I now want to ask him a question: Is he talking about statutory work reservation or about conventional work reservation?

Statutory.

In other words, the so-called and celebrated section 77. We say that we will abolish it because we have confidence in the strength of conventional work reservation in South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister understand it now?

I understand it now. We understand it very well now. [Interjections.]

Let me say, for the information of the hon. the Minister, that as far as the conventional workers’ pattern in South Africa is concerned, we stand for its retention.

In what way?

The hon. the Minister must wait. All he has to do is listen. As far as that pattern is concerned, no adjustment whatsoever will be made, unless it is made as a result of negotiation between the White workers’ unions and the employers concerned.

Are you going to determine this by way of statute?

Let me inform the hon. the Minister that he does not even need statutory work reservations at the moment. Does the hon. the Minister of Transport need section 77?

That is a good question.

He is not applying that section. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is saying it is necessary, but surely he knows that it does not work on the Railways and that it does not apply to the Railways.

The Railways are excluded.

Yes, does the hon. the Minister not know that?

No.

Very well then, then the hon. the Minister has learnt one thing this afternoon. I think we are making very good progress.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development maintains that we stand for total influx, and that we want the sluice gates opened. We have said a thousand times in this House that this is not the case. The United Party is in fact the party who first came forward with the idea of influx control, in 1946. [Interjections.] Wait, I want to continue now. I still want to make a few points of my own. The hon. the Minister referred here to the invitation which appeared in the Sunday Times in connection with housing.

The same invitation as I made to you.

Yes, I shall deal with that matter under the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I now want to refer to what appeared in the Sunday Times. The hon. the Minister said that nobody reacted to that invitation and wrote to him, although approximately a quarter million people—so he assumes—read the Sunday Times.

Six wrote to me.

Oh, so there were six at least. But do hon. members know that this matter has two sides? The first side of the matter is that there is no housing emergency, as the hon. the Minister would like to believe. The other side of the matter is that the people do not have much confidence in the Minister. Now I wonder which one of these two gave rise to only six writing to him?

Do you have confidence in me?

Mr. Speaker, I have my misgivings, but these I shall express later.

Why did you come to me then with a few matters?

The hon. the Minister reads Rapport, does he not? This is, after all, this newly created newspaper. I do not want to say that the hon. the Minister is displaying ignorance, but does he not have any rapport with Rapport? What must I understand him to mean now?

Come to your point.

Wait, I am coming to my point. Is Rapport not the newspaper which has for weeks now been publishing one article after another dealing with examples of so-called petty apartheid? Does the hon. the Minister not read it? Does he want to tell me now that he is not aware of the fact that in certain buildings there is one lift for Whites and another for non-Whites and goods? Or does he agree with that? The hon. the Minister, as an old Capetonian, of all people, ought to know precisely what is meant by this irritating petty apartheid. But the mistake the hon. the Minister is making, is that he says that the matter ends with skin colour.

That is what Japie Basson says.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made his definition very clear. He referred to where discrimination, a distinction or separation is made merely as an irritation. That is the point. But that the hon. the Minister left unanswered. He did not give any attention to it whatsoever. So I can go on right up to Rhodesia and indicate that every point the hon. the Minister made has a shaky foundation. It is never quite untrue. But” the hon. the Minister uses the truth to prove that which he cannot prove with the whole truth...

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Could the hon. member tell me on what ground the United Party will effect a separation between Whites and non-Whites at schools?

Listen to what lengths the hon. member is taking this matter now.

He is taking it to the cardinal point.

The cardinal point is that the hon. member wants to prove that this side of the House stands for racial integration. That is all he wants to prove. That is the cardinal point and that is why he is asking the question.

But let us take the schools. When it comes to schools there is a contact level which could lead to social problems. But what social problem could arise as a result of two elevators? Those two elevators are installed purely on the basis of colour, together with the fact that this is simply separation for the sake of separation.

And it is humiliating.

Yes, it is humiliating. The hon. member really ought to know better.

But you opposed separate universities.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can we be given an opportunity of hearing the hon. member for Maitland? There is a continual noise.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance, and leave the hon. the Minister of Community Development at that. During the debate of the Railway Budget I brought a point to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport and he agreed with me that I had raised a very deserving matter. He said that it was a matter for which he had sympathy. He also told me that for specific reasons he could not help me. It was a matter concerning the Western Cape that! was discussing. The hon. the Minister of Transport said that he would very much like to help the Western Cape, that he understood the circumstances, but that it would cost him R4½ million if he wanted to subsidize the Western Cape to a certain extent. He was therefore unable to do so. Now I am left with only one alternative. I am now asking the hon. the Minister of Finance to share in my sympathy for the Western Cape and I am asking him to consider, on a wider level, what can be done for the Western Cape.

The Western Cape is a very specific and a very problem-laden region. There is therefore no doubt in this regard. The hon. members know that we have the Coloured population here with us. They are settled here in our midst, and they create a specific socio-economic problem. I am merely mentioning this as a fact and I am not complaining because the problem exists. This is a fact which we must accept and then we must bear in mind that we are dealing here with a growing population. The Coloureds in the Western Cape are the sector of the population in which the natural increase is taking place more rapidly than all the other population groups. It is calculated that in 1975, in two or three years’ time, there will be a half million Coloureds concentrated in the Greater Cape. In the next 10 years the Coloured population in the Greater Cape will increase by no fewer than 325 000 individuals. In the first instance, work must be found for these people. In the second instance it places a specific socio-economic burden on the Western Cape, and the Western Cape will be unable to bear these burdens unless it is placed in a position where it is possible for it to grow dynamically. Now it is a fact, and this is a fact which the hon. the Minister of Transport joined me in admitting, that the situation in the Cape is already so disappointing that certain factories are leaving the Western Cape and are being re-established elsewhere because they find that they cannot make a living under the economic conditions in the Western Cape. We know that we have always had special tariffs on the Railways; these are the “harbour-to-harbour-tariffs”. These tariffs were of great advantage to the Western Cape, and we also know that they were abolished a few months ago. As a result of that, transportation costs have increased considerably. We also know that in the recent Railway Budget the hon. the Minister of Transport not only did away with that advantage, but also placed an additional burden on the Western Cape when he said that our railway tariffs would also increase by 10 per cent. I want to inform hon. members that rail tariffs in particular are a matter of great importance because markets must be found in other areas for no less than 60 per cent of what is produced in the Western Cape.

The Western Cape is situated approximately the furthest from all the markets if one bears in mind the competing areas of Durban, East London and Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister of Transport said that what he would need in order to subsidize the tariffs in the Western Cape would amount to approximately R4i million. I should like to inform the hon. the Minister of Finance that I do not think that he will better be able to spend R4y million anywhere in South Africa than to do so by way of tariff subsidies in the Western Cape.

A great deal has been said about regional development in South Africa. This is a very fine word in South African terminology, but here one has the perfect region, which lends itself to development. Here we have a region which already has the infrastructure. We are not busy here with something which has to be built up from scratch and at great expense. I do not think the hon. the Minister can make any better investment, not only a financial and economic but also a socio-economic, than in fact to subsidize the Western Cape. The Western Cape is struggling with a tremendous problem. Unless we make the grade, the Western Cape will within a few years deteriorate until it is what one will be able to call the step-child of South Africa. It would be a tremendous pity if that were to be the fate of the Western Cape. As a result of the concentration of the Coloured population here around the Greater Cape Town area and the annual increase from the rural areas—hon. members who are from the rural areas will be able to confirm this—the problem is increasing in intensity at various levels. Unless the Western Cape gets the necessary growth capacity, particularly industrial growth capacity, I foresee the day when we will not be able to afford the Coloured population, nor of course the Whites either, a proper subsistence here. That is why I am making a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister to see what he can do in an attempt to help the Western Cape.

The argument of the hon. the Minister may now be that I am asking for R4 500 000, while we are the people who are asking for a decrease in taxation. Why am I asking for the extra money? Surely that is quite wrong. I think the hon. the Minister would have a very good argument if he were to say that to me. I think however that there are many places in the Budget where he can pinch off the R4 500 000 in order to give it to the Western Cape. Before coming to that, however, I want to state the matter in this way: The hon. member for Carletonville told us with much gesticulation, about the squandering mania which has taken root here in South Africa. I am not aware of such a mania. I am not aware of any squandering taking place in my constituency, and I wonder whether this is the position in Carletonville. The hon. member mentioned the numerous old used motorcars standing in back yards which people were no longer using although they could still be used, to say nothing of his “empty cans and beerbottles”. I do not know of any such motorcars.

You will not win a single vote with that, because they are there.

The hon. member is beginning to feel uncomfortable now, because I am getting closer to what he said. I want to inform the hon. member that I shall take him to thousands of families who would be very pleased if they could only afford such an old motorcar. I shall take him to many homes where such a motorcar is in fact standing in the back yard, but where those families do not have the money to have those motorcars repaired. The hon. member ought to know that. I do not know of any such squandering mania as the hon. member spoke about.

The hon. member said something else as well. He said that the National Party was inspired by an ideology and that ideology was built into the Budget. The key word he used in respect of this ideology, was separation. When it comes to the question of saving money, I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side whether they can tell me what this ideology of separation is costing South Africa. Is there anyone on the opposite side, from the Minister of Finance to any individual hon. member, and with all due respect, I am challenging any one of them, who can tell this House precisely what we are paying for this ideology. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said grandiloquently that the people are prepared to pay. I now want to ask this hon. House this afternoon what the price is. We have been waiting for years now to hear what the price is, but nobody wants to say what it is. The time for sacrifices has now arrived.

The second leg on which this ideology stands is that sacrifices have to be made. Now these sacrifices are being called for. I shall tell hon. members which expenditure should be cut down. Before I do so, however, hon. members on the opposite side must tell me what the account is that White South Africa will have to pay for border areas as a factor of separation.

Let it cost what it will.

“Let it cost what it will,” says the hon. member. He must not tell me that; he must tell us what it costs. I challenge him to do so. The hon. member for False Bay said that it was irresponsible of us to say these things. What he was actually doing was not to attack us, but to teach the people outside moral lessons. All the criticism which is being levelled by us here is also being levelled by the people outside. I want to ask the hon. member for False Bay what it is costing South Africa to establish these scores of towns in Bantu areas.

The Opposition is far more expensive.

Oh, thank Heaven that hon. member is reasonably cheap—I mean financially now. What is the industrial development of the border areas costing?

That is a stupid question.

I am asking the hon. member. Let him tell me what it is costing.

What?

The industrial development as the State is undertaking it. What is border area development costing? They do not know. What is the political accommodation of the Bantu costing?

You have the floor now. Tell us what it is costing.

No, but it is we who want to tell hon. members where to reduce expenditure, if they can tell us what it is costing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must be afforded an opportunity of making his speech himself. The hon. member may proceed.

But it is he who is asking the questions, Sir.

Order!

Sir, just imagine what the so-called consolidation of homelands in South Africa is costing. Where do hon. members think they will get the money from, unless they tax the people twice as heavily as is the case at present?

Three times as heavily.

Three times as heavily, Sir. That is why I say that people will have to be prepared to endure far greater burdens for this so-called ideology. But what I find interesting is that the National Party is so reluctant to tell the people what it will cost. I know, and hon. members also know, that because the nation has no confidence in this ideology, it will not be prepared to pay the price. But what the United Party is seeking for South Africa is a policy which is built on the facts as they exist. What the people are asking of this Government is dynamic development of the White population, which will take the non-White races along with it, as has been done over the years, to benefit together from the development and prosperity of this country. What the youth of South Africa is asking this Government for is not “poor, but White”; no they are asking for rapid development, so that they can share in the prosperity.

Lastly what the youth is asking, is for South Africa, for a change, to be restored to the position of honour which it occupied in the outside world in earlier years. That is what South Africa wants, so that we can go abroad, not with a motto of “Race Prejudice” and “Race Fear” written in black letters on our escutcheon, but a motto which reads “Peace and prosperity for all in this country who have the privilege of living in this wonderful land of ours”. That is what the United Party is prepared to give the people, and that is why, slowly but surely, we are winning their confidence and that side is losing their confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the hon. speakers who spoke on the Opposition side for the past hour or so, and now I simply do not know how to reconcile matters if I were only to take into consideration the speeches made by the last two speakers and the reply given by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, immediately replied to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and gave out that he did believe in job reservation to some extent. The hon. member for Yeoville said he believed that the Bantu had to sell their labour on the highest market. If those Bantu could sell their labour on the highest market, what would prevent them from offering their services in any sphere and in any kind of employment? In that case, surely, there would be no job reservation. The iron, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he had made predictions about salary increases in the past, and that we subsequently granted them. After all, any layman can make such a prediction himself. It is as a very result of the predictions made by this Government as far back as 1948, and before that time as well, namely that it would look after the workers, the teachers and everybody and would review their salaries from time to time, that we won those elections. We have always done that. Whenever it may become necessary this Government determines wage increases, salary increases, etc., which will take place.

The hon. the Leader also mentioned the manpower shortage in South Africa. I want to agree with him in part, but to my mind that is not our problem. You will agree with me, Sir, that almost every time we determined our growth rate for the future, we subsequently surpassed that growth rate. Therefore, we do not really have a real manpower shortage which is doing us any harm. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing with which I want to agree, and in the course of my speech I shall come back to it. This may perhaps come as a shock to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I am nevertheless going to agree to some extent on one thing, although not in principle. It is true that we are reserving certain trades in our country for our White workers, but in the meantime our Whites have developed to such an extent that they have virtually outgrown that employment; they do not want to practise those trades any more. That is why we are experiencing a labour shortage here. Job reservation is not only aimed at protecting the White worker, for at the same time jobs are also being reserved for Coloureds or for the Bantu.

Jobs previously done by Whites?

Yes. Therefore, job reservation benefits everybody. In the White areas in South Africa we have the Bantu who are there traditionally, under a permit system. From the earliest times the Bantu came here to sell their labour to the Whites. That is the only reason for the presence of the Bantu in the White areas. They have no other rights there, except those which we grant them. We grant them such rights on the grounds of humanitarian and religious considerations. In this manner, for instance, we provide them with decent housing and other social amenities, amenities which the United Party in its time begrudged the Bantu. In contrast to that this Government has made it its object to provide the Bantu with decent housing.

And I always thought we were the negrophilists.

I have a few other statements which I want to make, and I should like to proceed with them rather than reacting to the hon. member for Yeoville. On the other hand, we have the homelands, the development of which is a principle with this Government. We are providing them there with an infrastructure and labour. That is why we are establishing border industries there and why we have the system of migratory labour. It is for that reason that I want to make this plea to the Government today, i.e. that in the future, when we find it necessary to effect further job reservation in favour of the Bantu—in other words, when the Bantu are provided with better employment—we shall do so on this basis only: We want to develop the homelands, we gave the undertaking and we intend to develop them to independence and freedom. My plea is that we should only make those jobs available to the inhabitants of the homelands so that they may do those jobs here under a permit system.

Why? What about those that are in the Republic?

All of us in this House, perhaps with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton only, are concerned, if we are honest, about the numbers of the Bantu in South Africa, which will perhaps increase further. Our first duty, therefore, is towards the Bantu of the homelands. The Bantu here in the White areas belong to some homeland or other. I want to go further, Sir. I want to propose that jobs that have already been reserved for the Bantu here in the White areas, be reserved for them with retrospective effect. Let us give these jobs to the Bantu and tell them: “Look, you are getting permits for doing these jobs here for the next 12 months, if you are prepared to take them subject to the condition that you, along with your families, will move to your homeland within this period of 12 months; the State will bear the cost and give you houses in your homeland, and these jobs which I shall in future make available to the Bantu, can only be done by you on one condition, namely via your homeland. It is your homeland, and that is why we are reserving additional jobs which can be done here by you as Bantu.”

Sir, I want to go further. I have said that we do not have a terrible manpower shortage because we surpass or attain our planned growth rate every time. To my mind this is proof that we have reasonably sufficient manpower for meeting our needs, but what does trouble me, is the fact that there are certain trades which our Whites are no longer entering on the same scale as they did in the past. I find this quite understandable. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here today to the building industry, for instance. A short while ago the building trade was in the limelight in the Transvaal, and subsequently the hon. the Minister granted exemption to Coloureds to enter into the building trade there. The school qualification required at present is Std. 8. The hon. the Minister stated here today how many pupils had been absorbed into the wet industries, i.e. bricklaying and plastering, during the past three years; I think there were about 16.

Sir, not one of us in this House who has a son with a Std. 8 certificate, will advise him to become an apprentice and eventually a bricklayer. I want to suggest that in our country at present there are trades in which the Whites, because of their stage of development, are no longer interested, and it is because of this fact that we have a manpower shortage in certain trades today. Of course, this creates problems for us. I am coming back to the building trade. I have a fair amount of knowledge of that trade. We are using another method for meeting the shortage; we are importing immigrants. Sir, with all due respect to the good immigrants, I want to tell you that many of them are not highly skilled labourers. The standard of work in the building trade, for instance, has dropped a great deal in comparison with the position ten years ago, because we have to make do in the building trade with people who are not fully trained. Of course, this also causes a sharp increase in building costs. I am merely mentioning the building trade as an example; there are quite a number of other trades where the same position applies. The hon. the Minister was good enough to grant exemption for the employment of Coloureds in the building trade in the Transvaal.

Here in the Cape, as you know, Sir, 95 per cent of the builders are Coloureds. I want to make the statement here that this exemption is not going to help us in the Transvaal, for here in the Cape there is already a shortage of workers in the building trade. The number of Coloureds we have in the building trade in the Transvaal is minimal. A few years ago, when we started with these housing schemes, our policy was that the Bantu would build their housing schemes and the Coloureds theirs. Subsequently the Minister deemed it necessary to grant exemption in the Transvaal for Whites to work on those schemes for the Coloureds because they did not have enough Coloureds in the building trade. With the statement I made and the request I am making to the Government, I believe that this possibility does exist.

In my view we are obliged to act in this way from time to time, and I think nobody will deny that; the hon. the Minister of Transport has imported people and we have already imported people in various spheres, either through exemption or with the consent of the trade unions in that industry on a temporary basis. We are doing it on a temporary basis, because we do not know what the future may hold, and it is quite proper for us to do it that way. It is also subject to the condition that if we should pass on White jobs to the Bantu, we shall do so, as I have said, to the homelands and to the homelands alone, so that we may not be saddled with the problem of attracting more Bantu and adding to their numbers in the White area. In that manner we can control it. It was proved in the past and it is being proved at present that this does work. From the earliest times we have been using migratory labour in the mining industry, and I am not aware of any problems which we have in that regard. We never have any problems with these people. We have many people from Malawi, from Swaziland and from Lesotho, people who are here as migratory labourers. I think it is our duty, as Whites and as a neighbouring country and as a multi-national country, to develop in that way our Bantu homelands as well, and we must do this for them.

Now I am coming back to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, although I do not agree with him in principle, for the method which he wants to use in regard to Bantu labour, is not acceptable to me and my party.

May I ask a question? Would the hon. member give us a few examples of the jobs he would like to see done by the Bantu?

If I have the time, I shall mention a few. But now I want to make this request to the Government, i.e. that we have reached the stage where it is perhaps necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate those trades in which Whites are no longer prepared to receive training for performing those jobs, and to indicate whether we may in that case make use of Bantu labour in those trades.

What examples are you giving?

I shall give the hon. member an example. I am referring once again to the building trade, for instance. But it is not really for me to give him examples, for the proper thing to do is to go to the employers and the employees and to tell them the Government has decided that there are too few Whites. Let me just say in passing that this protection which the trade unions are enjoying in our country, i.e. that of job reservation, was not introduced by them; it was introduced by the Government. It is a guarantee which we give them, and now it is the Government’s duty to do it. A few years ago, when one of the Opposition members asked the hon. the Minister of Transport, “What about the trade unions?” he replied that he did consult them, but even if they did not want to agree, he would still do it if it were good for South Africa. That is why I say that when the Government decides on something of that nature, it goes to the employers and employees and tells them that the Government has decided that the time has arrived for certain jobs in the industry to be allocated to the Bantu. Then they are asked to call a meeting and to make a recommendation to the Government. But I can go further. In certain branches of the building trade there is a real shortage of artisans. Let us mention the case of a bricklayer. For instance, there are stock bricks and face bricks. What is easier than to stipulate that in future a Bantu can do stock brickwork. He can work on inner walls and between the columns. It may, for instance, be stipulated that the Whites are to do corners and that this is not to be done by the Bantu. That means that the Bantu will, as it were, do the secondary work of building the floors of dams and laying bricks between the columns. And so it can be done in many ways. In this manner it may be decided in the case of the plasterer that the Bantu will do facing work. Even if a fuss were made by any trade union of the building trade, I want to tell you, Sir, without finding fault with it, that our builders themselves are making use of Bantu labour today. This is being done unlawfully, in the hope that they will not be caught. Have I now given the hon. member enough examples?

And the plumber?

I have experience of the plumber, and I have already mentioned the poor standard of work. In my time, when I practised the building trade, I used Bantu in doing a certain job in the constituency of one of my colleagues. There were plumbers, bricklayers, etc. I can give the hon. members the assurance that any building contractor would only be too pleased to get that team of Bantu whom I had working for me. I have every respect for them. Our Bantu are good workers. In spite of those changes I am adhering to the policy and the principles of the National Party without infringing them in any way. However, I think that the time has arrived for us to inquire into that aspect. In cases where we have certain people who no longer can or want to practise a certain trade, we can make use of our Bantu, but, as I have already said, our Bantu from the Bantu homelands.

Mr. Speaker, while my hon. friend was speaking, the hon. member for Yeoville used the word “negrophilist” by way of interjection. It is interesting that now too, during the by-election in Witbank, we have repeatedly come across the track of at least one of the United Party’s provincial councillors going from house to house with the story that the Nationalist Party has now become the negrophilist Government which is selling out the Whites to the Blacks. I think it is no more than right that the United Party should take a very clear stand in regard to this matter.

In a debate such as this one it has become customary to discuss labour matters as well. There are many good reasons for this custom. The question of our labour is a very important matter, a matter which one may never pass over lightly. It has become customary for us to discuss it in this debate every year, and this year is no exception. Reference was once again made to it this afternoon. However, the difference is that year after year the United Party is becoming more irresponsible in their discussion of this very important matter. It would appear as though the United Party is being driven by a haste which can hardly be explained. It is as though something is chasing them and cannot bring them to the point where they can make the break-through which they would like to make. This was proved at consecutive elections, and I myself am convinced that the country outside realizes what a dangerous game is being played, by the United Party. But the United Party itself has not yet reached the point where it realizes what a dangerous game it is playing. Today we once again had that quota of irresponsible statements. The Leader of the Opposition came forward here with the theme that the traditional bars between the White workers and the non-White workers had to be removed. Today he went so far as to drag into his argument Rhodesia as an example. He tried to suggest that, because of the absence of job reservation in Rhodesia, Rhodesia had now, as it were, become the Utopia which could serve as an example to South Africa as well.

What are the United Party trying to achieve by playing this game? They are simply trying to sell out the Whites completely to the Blacks. The Leader of the Opposition was not the only person who quoted the words of others here today. In reply to the challenge issued by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. member for Yeoville admitted that it was his standpoint that the Black man had to be permitted and be in a position to sell his labour on the best market, and, by implication, to bring his wife and children along. That is true. That is what they are saying here. But in fighting an election in Witbank, they keep silent about this attitude of theirs. Then it is the National Party which has allegedly become the negrophilist Government. I want to ask, on very good authority, whether the United Party are now feeling the thumbscrews of the Progressive Party and are trying to outbid them in coming forward here with statements of this nature, statements which they know will be greedily swallowed by the English Press, the Press which supports them in this country. Is this their object, or are they mere the followers of that English Press? One has a whole quota of quotations at one’s disposal for that purpose. I shall deliberately start with quotations dating far back to times when there was definitely no shortage of manpower in the country. In 1963 the Rand Daily Mail referred to “Waste by Law”. They referred inter alia, to the Black man not getting his pro rata share in the country’s industrial growth. I say that this was said back in 1963, when there was no manpower shortage. We could also quote what was said in 1967: “Skills— Tucsa chief calls for training”—i.e. for the Black man. At a later stage, again, the following was said in an article: “Unions, bosses rapped for waste of S.A. manpower.” Then there was a story written by the hon. member for Yeoville, “Vision versus pettiness”. That article appeared on 31st July, 1970. Amongst other things he said—

Now, this is a reference to the Black “manpower resources”. This is what the Rand Daily Mail had to say: “Labour system is ‘short-cut to disaster’ ”. This kind of reporting is only aimed at causing friction between, the Black and the White workers through the way in which the facts are presented. There were other articles, such as “Grave S.A. labour problem” and “Black workers create opportunities”. The latter article was also written by the hon. member for Yeoville.

What does Volkshandel say?

I can tell the hon. member what Volkshandel has to say. I shall deal with that matter straight away. Volkshandel says very explicitly that there is no real labour shortage. Volkshandel says that the country is developing more rapidly than its growth potential. But I have quoted what is being said by the English Press. For at least a decade or longer they have been engaged in this campaign in an attempt to remove the bar between the White and the Black worker. What is the real position? Is it really as serious as it is being made out to be? The following was said by a certain authority: “Shortage of labourers exaggerated—a spokesman of the Staff Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. says that there is in fact a shortage, but that is not nearly as acute as it is being made out to be”.

Does he not say that there is no shortage?

No. Surely, I have just read here that according to him there is in fact a shortage, but that it is not nearly as acute as it is being made out to be; in other words, it is not as acute as the United Party makes it out to be. The report went on to say—

The staff shortage is the result of the development of South Africa.

Now, the United Party must state whether there should be any curtailment of development. As I have said, this labour shortage is not such an acute one.

A great fuss was made here about the building trade. Now, what is the real position? When certain concessions were made earlier this year, the hon. the Minister very clearly said that according to the latest information this trade had a shortage of 4 700 artisans and 1 600 apprentices. He also said that the number of young people entering these trades was alarmingly low. During the years 1967-’69 only 30 bricklayers and six plasterers were enrolled as apprentices in the Transvaal. That is the position. This is the solution of the United Party: Throw the doors wide open, abolish all the restrictions which may exist so that the Whites and the non-Whites may compete together in the sphere of labour. That is the standpoint of the United Party. But when they are in Witbank, they are ashamed of that policy of theirs. However, whenever it suits them, that is the attitude they adopt. And, what is worse, is that they do not really say what they really intend doing when they will perhaps take over the reins of government one day. The National Party standpoint on this matter is, after all, a very clear one and has repeatedly been explained by the hon. the Minister of Labour. He said that he was prepared to make certain concessions subject to certain conditions which are basically geared for safeguarding the position of the Whites. Now, is that unreasonable or wrong? But let us now consider what is being done by the National Government. They are not merely sitting back and allowing shortages to develop. For instance, in considering what is being done in the sphere of the building trade, we see that the hon. the Minister stated that the period of apprenticeship had been shortened and the conditions of service had been made more attractive in order to attract minors to the building trade as apprentices. Through the introduction of voluntary trade tests it has also been made possible for apprentices to qualify sooner, in some cases after an apprenticeship of only lÿ years. A number of years ago a national development fund was established by the building trade, and large amounts of money have already been made available to the fund for, inter alia, grants to apprentices for outstanding achievements. Moreover, bursaries are also being made available to students and courses are being offered at technical colleges. All these things are being done. In the sphere of labour in general the number of technical college” have increased over the past 20 years from fewer than 10 to 26. The number of vocational schools have increased from fewer than 20 to 81. Six technological institutes have been established. Surely, this proves that this National Government is in earnest about seeing to it that everything possible is done to ensure that we have a well-equipped labour force. The United Party wants to put forward an instant solution by asking that we should bring in the Black man. But, surely, they know that the shortage is not so much a shortage of unskilled workers as one of skilled workers. Even if we were to bring in those people immediately, at the tremendous cost it would involve to get those people trained, it would still take us five years before there could be a new addition to the labour force. I want to say that the White worker and the whole of South Africa can feel satisfied that they have in the National Government a government which will, on the one hand, ensure that the interests of the worker will be protected at all times, and which will, on the other hand, do nothing which will, economically, in any way expose the country to danger of retrogressing.

Now I want to deal with another matter. It is a matter which, to my mind, has already been procrastinated a little too long, i.e. the role the United Party plays in another matter. Hon. members know that we had two elections in the country last year. What did we find at the time? In spite of the fact that over the years the United Party had been hitting out at the so-called “political clergymen” in the Afrikaans churches, we found the situation last year that a group of people published 12 tenets for consideration by all enfranchised Christians in the Republic of South Africa. In tenet No. 9 the following is said, inter alia, about truth (translation)—

In other words, this is very clearly aimed at the policy of separate development which is being pursued by the National Government—-

These people published these tenets in support of the United Party, and now I want to ask the United Party today to rise and to tell us very clearly and unambiguously that they repudiate once and for all these 12 tenets drawn up by these people so that as far as this matter is concerned, the air may be cleared once and for all.

As far as the future is concerned, I really want to say that under National régime South Africa is safe, safe not only for the present generation, but also for the young and the future generations. Through its actions this Government has also been instrumental in inspiring every citizen in this country with idealism to do, on the basis of principles, what is right and good in the interests of its people in South Africa. For that reason I am convinced that this Government will be able to continue along this course and to enjoy the support of the people for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to contrast the speech of the hon. member for Springs with that of the hon. member for Mayfair. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Mayfair has been able to absorb a little bit of education in this House and that he quite understands the problem which is facing the country in regard to the manpower shortage. He obviously has listened to what the hon. the Minister for Finance said last year when he specially drew attention to the fact that he could not deny that there was a manpower shortage in the country and indeed a very serious one. The Minister then said that one must take notice of that and that one must try to take steps in order to improve and to alleviate the situation. The hon. member for Mayfair for instance approved of the fact that the Minister of Transport had brought in a considerable number of non-Whites to take the places which could not be filled by Whites. He also dealt with the question of negotiations with the trade unions and I must say that I was quite impressed with the fact that he had learnt quite a lot since he has been in this House. My only regret is that he did not continue to remain a member of the Johannesburg City Council because he could then have led the deputation to ask the Minister of Labour to permit Coloured bus drivers to be used to alleviate the difficulty with regard to transport in Johannesburg, where thousands of commuters are unable to make the fullest use of an adequate fleet of transport because of a lack of bus drivers and conductors. The hon. member for Springs, on the other hand, accuses us of wanting to integrate completely White and non-White labour while he, surely, must know that we have said here on many an occasion that we will not displace any White worker in this country, that the introduction of non-White labour will be done by negotiations with the trade unions and that the objective will be to fill those vacancies which cannot be filled by Whites, particularly in the unskilled and semiskilled fields. The hon. member also knows that the White worker will have the opportunity of improving his position and occupying more and more skilled posts to assist the country in the tremendous surge forward that it wants to make in the field of industry and commerce. The hon. member who has just spoken does not really understand what the problem is; he has made a lot of silly statements which get one nowhere. I would suggest that he and the hon. member for Mayfair get together so that they can try and settle their differences. The hon. member for Mayfair is satisfied that he has now adumbrated the principles of his party by which he stands and the hon. member for Springs complains about 12 questions which were put to him. none of which he gave to us, and he wants answers to those questions.

I would now like to deal with the Budget itself. I want to say immediately that this whole question of inflation, to which the hon. the Minister of Finance has drawn our attention in what appeared to be a much more marked manner on this occasion as against the previous year, is one of which he was most conscious during the debate on the Appropriation Bill in 1970. There the hon. the Minister hid behind the cloak that inflation was a problem which was besetting the whole of the world; we were not unique in this particular difficulty. Therefore he said that we must meet it. All countries in the world are faced with it and all must meet this problem. That is very interesting. It is true that if it is a problem it must be met. One would have expected that this year with the economy growing stronger and stronger as the hon. the Minister has said, he would come along with a Budget which was positive, which had a spirit of progress in it and which had some dynamism in it, a Budget which would give the country some further incentive to overcome the difficulties that face us. Instead of this, the hon. the Minister remained completely on the defensive. One must once again draw his attention to the fact that this question of inflation to which he referred beset other countries such as Britain and the United States but the difference there was that in the United States the President personally took action and infused a sense of confidence into the economy, so much so that Wall Street began to rise and is still doing so in spite of the fact that our market is completely stagnant. President Nixon gave an incentive to the people, spoke to the financiers of the country and gave them a sense of confidence to try and improve the situation and not to sit back on the defensive by merely raking off from the public moneys in order to curb the consumer spending to beat this question of inflation.

You want us to have that same deficit?

I am talking about the philosophy of approaching this question of inflation. As the hon. Minister knows, the British Government also had great difficulties as regards inflation. It had very great difficulties in meeting its own balance of payments and also with other problems. So much so, that the previous Prime Minister lost his election because he could not meet those difficulties. What do we find? In introducing the Budget this year the British Government, for the first time in a decade, an unheard of thing in Britain, cut the standard rate of income tax. Secondly, instead of doing what the hon. the Minister has done and adding tax to the companies, particularly in a year and in a market where company profits are sagging, when there should be encouragement and incentive for them and the opportunity of having funds available for further ploughback and investment, the British Government reduced the taxation. Not only did it do so, but it took off what had been imposed the previous year and gave encouragement to companies in order to enable them to boost their investment in industry and commerce. Furthermore, they even encouraged and gave impetus to the premium bond system in order to stimulate additional thrift in the country. Here we find that the hon. the Minister has taken an enormous amount of taxation, both from the individual and companies, and has accepted such factors in the Franzsen report as he thought would be useful to him, only with one objective, namely to get more and more funds. I believe that this attitude is indicative of a policy and a trend.

The trend is, firstly, to centralize everything into the hands of the Government. I will deal with that in a moment. The policy is to prepare the country, furthermore, for increased taxation next year. It will increase, because the Minister is requiring more and more money to meet the ideological course on which the country has set itself, a course for which the Government have already some time ago anticipated more and more sacrifices. The taxation that we are now witnessing indicates only one thing, namely that the Minister needs as much money as he possibly can find. He is scraping further and further into the barrel. I do not accept that the objective is to cut consumer expenditure. I do not accept that that is done in order to decrease inflation. We maintain that the Minister could have employed the philosophy of increasing productivity in the country, if he felt that the economy was so strong, and that all he wished to do was to bring the rate of inflation down. I believe certainly that in this Budget, from what we have seen, every effort is being made, despite undertakings in the past and recommendations of commissions that have sat, to gather in as much funds as possible to meet the shortages and the increasing loan expenditure of 19 per cent. It has been a feature of the capital expenditure over the last five years, that it has been rising at the rate of approximately 19 to 20 per cent per annum. He needs funds to meet the increasing revenue requirements and also to comply with the trend of centralizing everything into the hands of the Government, thereby placing the provinces and the local authorities in the position where they will be constantly dependent purely on Government policy and Government funds. That is the whole trend of this particular Budget.

I would like to say further that we have been criticized from time to time for not drawing specific attention to items in the Budget, where we believe there is overspending. I believe that in the British Treasury an Organization and Methods Division, plus an additional Management Division, I think it is called, has been set up and is increasingly being used to examine expenditure, the financial structure and the structure of the various departments, in order to ensure that there is efficiency to the best of their ability, and either as the result of top-heavy administration or any other wastage in the economy of the country. I do not think that we have this system in our Treasury set-up. I know we subscribe to the Organization and Methods Association of South Africa, to which we have given the glorious sum of R1 500 as membership fee, and we may be training certain officials in out department. But those officials are themselves personally involved in the undertaking and there is no means of knowing; what is taking place in the various departments year by year. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of the fact that many years back there was a commission called the Graham Commission to enquire into the Public Service. That commission sat in 1920. Thereafter there was the Centlivres Public Service Commission of Enquiry in 1944. As was pointed out yesterday, the Public Servants’ Association, at their annual general meeting last year, called for a similar commission of enquiry. I believe that the right method would be to have a proper organization and method division assisted from time to time by completely independent consultants from outside. They can then from time to time review the structure of Government expenditure, because we find that Government expenditure is rising at an extraordinary rate, at a time when the hon. the Minister alleges that he must combat inflation, at a time when he is calling upon the entire country to make sacrifices, the purpose of those sacrifices being to enable him to spend more and more money, to meet more and more commitments. I say that at a time like this we should watch the expenditure of the country very carefully.

Sir, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to one department. We are unable to judge whether this department is top heavy or not. I refer to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services where we find that a considerable number of directorates has been established. I think there are something like 20 different sections each under the management of a director, a deputy-director and an assistant-director. One does not really know whether there is any overlapping taking place in this particular department. It has obviously grown over the years but how can one judge whether this department is top heavy or not? How can we in the Opposition, for instance, satisfy ourselves from a perusal of the statements that the administration is not top heavy, that there is no overlapping and that the activities and workings of this particular department do not call for streamlining. I think we are entitled to know what steps the hon. the Minister takes from time to time to ensure that there is adequate supervision over the expenditure by the various departmental sections from year to year.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has asked whether one expects him to accept the report of the Franzsen Commission in its entirety. In this connection I would like to say that the only opportunity that members of this House had of studying the entire report of the Franzsen Commission, a very important report on the financial structure of the country, has been the short period since the introduction of the Budget. We were not even given a White Paper. Quite a number of the recommendations have been adopted, some of which have already been modified and qualified. Other recommendations have been adopted subject to certain modifications. Without having given the House any opportunity of discussing the report, the hon. the Minister has implemented certain of the commission’s recommendations in his Budget.

Sir, another matter which is connected with the Budget is this question of concessions granted by the hon. the Minister to persons over the age of 60 in connection with medical expenses. There seems to be some doubt as to the interpretation of this concession. It would appear that if the taxpayer’s income exceeds R1 600 per annum, the amount of the concession is gradually reduced until it disappears altogether if he receives an income of R4 500. I would like to know whether that is the correct interpretation and whether this would also apply to the rebate granted to the general public in respect of medical expenses. At the moment the rebate is R150 in the case of married persons and R75 in the case of single persons. I would like to know whether that rebate is also subject to any reduction on a sliding scale. If this interpretation of the concession as far as the aged is concerned is correct, then it is clear that something has gone wrong here and that a great deal of harm will ensue. I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation in this respect.

I would also like to deal with another question, Sir, and that is the concession which the hon. the Minister announced with regard to national housing. He said that in the case of those in receipt of an income of R100 to R130 per month the rate of interest would be reduced to the sub-economic interest rate, and that in the case of those receiving between R130 to R160 per month the interest rate would be reduced from 5 per cent to 3½ per cent. He said that this would result in no immediate additional cost to the Exchequer and I accept that. He went on to say that this would grant relief to some 53 000 families. Relief will be granted to approximately 17 per cent of the occupiers of homes built by the National Housing Commission or through the department. One does not really know to what extent this relief will be given; all one does know is that relief will be given to those people who for some time now have not been able to afford to pay the existing rates. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Community Development has had representations made to him over some years now to bring about a change in the income limits. He made one change last year, and I want to say that even his concession to those persons with more than four children, where he has made the income limit R400, is going to make very little difference. Firstly, it will not result in any additional houses, and that is the most important factor. The other question, Sir, is that the rentals generally are a burden to the people within those income limits who have to occupy these houses. I would like therefore to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he cannot take a hand in this matter and make further concessions which will assist those who are dependent on national housing and Government housing.

The only concession that will satisfy you is a free house for everybody.

I want to give him a comparison of actual and ideal rentals in a scheme that is now being put up in Jeppe-Fairview-Troyeville. I do not propose to deal with those to whom concessions have been given, but I want to deal with the various income limits. Where the income limit is R160 to R180 per month, the ideal rental, according to the National Housing Commission’s formula, is R35; the actual rental is R65. Where the income limit is R160 to R250, the ideal rental is R50 and the actual rental R65; from R180 to R225, the ideal rental is R45, the actual rental R72-75; R250 to R300, ideal rental R60, actual rental R72-75. Sir, there are methods of dealing with this, if the hon. the Minister would at least try to adopt a more dynamic attitude in this matter. If he would adopt a more realistic outlook with regard to this matter, he could use the system of deferring capital payments altogether for a period of time until we phase ourselves out of this housing crisis in which we are finding ourselves at the present time. It is no good saying that there is no crisis. His party congresses have told him this; everyone tells him this and he knows it but he blusters his way through and says that there is no crisis and quotes figures to us. We know those figures; we have had them given to us in reply to questions and they are printed in Hansard. But I want to say this. There are two methods. Either you can defer capital repayments for some time, or alternatively you can defer portion of the capital payments. Let me give an example of what would happen in a scheme if you were to defer, say, a quarter of the repayments in order to meet the capital loan charges. Here-is also a scheme in the same area; it is this scheme in regard to which the figures are given, and it is a scheme which is cheaper than the one which the Minister is building nearby, also at Jeppe-Fairview. If three-quarters of the Capital Loan only forms the basis of repayment, the rentals would change to the extent of 14,3 per cent to 17,5 per cent. If half were deferred, the rentals would alter 29 per cent to 35 per cent. In other words, a person who had a house in the most expensive income limit, instead of paying R85-50, would pay R55, and he would save R30-50. A person who should be paying R77 would pay R51 and save R26. These are very big savings in the interest of people who live in these homes because they cannot afford anything else, because the houses themselves are very small. Does this House know that the concession in regard to the limit to the cost of building has been increased from R6 000 to R7 200; but that the square footage for that particular unit is 1012 square feet, or 101 square metres?

It is 1 200 square feet.

The figure given in the Minister’s statement to the press is 1 012, but I am glad to hear it is a little more. Does the House know, for instance, that if you have to build for the aged, the limit is still R1 400? Has that been improved? Sir, there is such a tremendous amount of improvement that can take place and it is a matter which should be taken up with the hon. the Minister of Finance in order that the Minister may be permitted to make these particular concessions.

Finally, another method which this Government has steadfastly refused to employ—it is not a great concession, but it is some concession—is to make the period of repayment of the capital longer, and to extend it to 50 years. In Britain it is 55 years. On the Continent it is 60 years, and in some countries it is 80 years. They are civilized countries, but we stick to 30 years. In fact, one of the outdated reports we have had—I think it is the Borckenhagen report—says it accepts the view that L should not go beyond 30 years. But that is 10 years ago almost, and we are now in 1971. We require, according to the Minister’s own figures, about 18 000 houses a year and during the next period of five years we will require about 28 000 houses because there is an increase in the number of immigrants and there is the natural increase in the population. There is an enormous field. All it requires is a consultation between one Minister, who is the best of the bestest, and the Minister of Finance, in order to make a small adjustment. You see, Sir, the little concession granted has cost the Government nothing, and I hope the public knows that at no cost they are prepared to give a poor man a little crust. I say we should have a more dynamic approach to housing instead of this pittance which is shown here, such as the pittance of R3 a month to the pensioners.

I want to say further, talking about pensions and housing, that I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance knows that that R3 a month that he has given to the pensioners will still only enable them to travel back to the old shacks they are living in at the moment and will not help them to go into a decent home, because the Minister of Community Development has not even given sufficient attention to the provision of homes for the aged. If there were more the R3 would mean something, whereas now it is also a crumb from the rich man’s table. I say this is a very important feature where the Government has failed the community and the public, and the concessions which have been granted in this Budget to what is called the lower income groups have been merely a gesture in order to try to take the limelight off the tremendous increase in general taxation to the individual and to the country.

The hon. member for Jeppe began by discussing inflation. Now, we know that anti-inflationary measures have always been unpopular. We need only look at the rest of the world. About three or four years ago I visited the Argentine. Since the last World War the Argentine has desperately been fighting inflation, without any success whatsoever. Each time the Government introduced certain measures to combat inflation there was a revolution in which the Government was overthrown, to such an extent that one particular tax-driver told me, “We have a very nice country; 33 revolutions per minute like a long-playing record”. I do not think South Africa will ever reach that stage, unless the disaster of having a United Party Government should one day overtake us. I wish the United Party would rather tell us something about the management of the Provincial Administration of Natal in this debate. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the course of a session of the House of Assembly there are usually two opportunities for an Opposition to demonstrate whether they can ever be regarded as an alternative government. In the first place we had the no-confidence debate here. I think everybody will agree that in that no-confidence debate the Opposition failed hopelessly. We have already reached the end of a week of Budget debate and I am still waiting for something positive from that side of the House to help solve the country’s problems.

By what criteria must one judge an Opposition? In the first place, one must ask oneself whether it is a responsible Opposition and, secondly, we should ask ourselves whether they have any plan for the future. As I have said, here in South Africa we must ask ourselves how are they governing in Natal? But let us first see whether they are a responsible Opposition. I want to ask at once whether a responsible Opposition would associate itself with protest marches, demonstrations and protests, a responsible Opposition which must be a responsible government if it is to govern one day and maintain racial harmony in this country. But they associate themselves with protest marches. They are not a responsible Opposition, Sir. Would a responsible Opposition continually supply the outside world with ammunition with which to attack us here in South Africa? Mr. Speaker, would a responsible Opposition fail to urge the public to save when it is necessary to do so? I have listened very carefully. Not one of those hon. members had anything at all to say about that. It is not a responsible Opposition whose basic political approach it is to vilify people and speak disparagingly of leaders on the basis of fabrications originating 10 or 11 years ago. That is disgraceful. Neither is it a responsible Opposition which allows the English language and Progressive press to preach integration day in and day out. Has there ever been any repudiation of this from that side of the House? I do not know of one single example. On the contrary, they participate gleefully.

My second question is whether this Opposition has a plan or a philosophy of life for South Africa. I have never heard any philosophy of life acceptable to South Africa from that side of the House.

White leadership over the whole of South Africa.

There we now have the solution, “White leadership over the whole of South Africa!” That reminds me of how, during elections, they produced a map of South Africa covered with black spots and said that this is what South Africa would look like under Nationalist régime. However, I say that I would far rather have that map than a completely black map of South Africa under that party.

The only plan that party has, is the systematic breaking down of the well-proved existing order in South Africa. They are the people who, under the cloak of all kinds of pretexts, are constantly advocating labour integration in this House. They want to create labour unrest, because they are only able to govern in chaos. That is the party who even went so far as to advocate integration in sport.

We saw how they reacted when the Publications Bill was before this House recently. They displayed a lukewarm attitude towards one of the dangers which is undermining the morality of our people. While we were trying to take measures to combat this they were closing their eyes to it.

I have already said that the United Party is only able to govern in chaos. What is the position in Natal after 60 years of United Party régime? The leader of my party in Natal indicated this afternoon that this is the province which has, over the years, paid the highest tax in the country.

And rendered the best service.

And rendered the worst service. I want to quote a few figures to hon. members. In 1963 the Cape Province contributed 33 per cent of the total income tax for provincial purposes; Transvaal, 30 per cent; the Orange Free State, 26 per cent and Natal, 40 per cent. In 1968 the Cape Province contributed 33 per cent; Transvaal and the Free State only 32 per cent and the government of that party in Natal, 37d per cent. Today it is even worse. That is the position despite the fact that revenue in that province increased by 44 per cent during the last two years up to 1970. They were quite incapable of creating any capital provision of their own. While the Cape Province created 8 per cent of its own capital, the Orange Free State 16 per cent and the Transvaal 30 per cent, Natal did not create any capital whatsoever.

What is the position in the hospitals in Natal? Do they not charge the highest fees in the country? Hon. members will no doubt recall that a report was published in the English-language press last year of a person who explained in great detail that it was cheaper for him to travel by Boeing from Durban to Port Elizabeth and back in order to undergo an operation in Port Elizabeth than it would have been if the operation had been performed in the Addington Hospital. These are all facts. The cost of hospitalisation in Natal increased from R22 400 000 to R33 000 000 in three years up to 1969, and what additional services were rendered during that period? Practically none. The way that party governs in Natal made Mr. Wilkes say in 1966:

Hospital services are healthy.

The following year after the debacle of Dr. Parker’s resignation, Major Arthur said the following—

It is impossible for me to cover all the aspects.

What is the present position in regard to ambulance services? Money is being squandered in Natal. When an old Native ayah suffers from toothache in the middle of the night in the bundu, an ambulance must be sent to her post haste. When old Piet has trouble with his ingrowing toenail at night, an ambulance must be sent to his post haste. I am not against any essential and emergency services as far as ambulances are concerned, but the services are being grossly exploited. I want to tell the House that in Natal Whites and non-Whites in many cases use the same ambulances. Under that Party Whites and non-Whites are operated on in the same theatres with the same facilities and instruments. We have enough white elephants in Natal, and monuments for Major Arthur and others.

What is the ability of that party in regard to education, which is the most important heritage for our children in South Africa? When the Transvaal was training 6 732 teachers in their teacher’s training colleges in 1965, there were 737 in Natal, i.e. 11 per cent of that total. They rely on the other provinces to provide them with teachers. This has been the case all along. When representations are made for better facilities for the training of teachers there has always been some excuse or other. That is the party which advocates parallel medium education.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry, but my time is limited. I only have 20 minutes. In any case, I would not like to reply to a question put by that hon. member who said from a public platform in Newcastle that I refused to speak English. He knows only too well that I was one of the members who spoke English in this House last year. This is nothing but fraud. [Interjections.] Of course it is true. I am able to bring many witnesses to prove that that is what he said.

Order! Did the hon. member use the word “fraud”?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. That is the party that is advocating parallel medium education in Natal. Only 35 per cent of their pupils receive parallel medium education. 84 per cent of the pupils in the Free State, 46 per cent in the Cape Province and 74 per cent of the English-speaking pupils in Natal attend single-medium schools. Then they come and tell us that we want to apply White apartheid! They do not practice what they preach. These are the true facts of the matter. During the past five years 19 single-medium schools have been built in Natal and, apart from one that has been moved, not a single parallel medium school has been built for a period of five years. What is the position in regard to planning in respect of their schools? There are prefabricated classrooms all over the province.

We can continue until the cows come home about the malpractices of the Natal Provincial Administration. That is the thanks we get for what this Government is doing for Natal. In spite of this Provincial Administration chaos the Government looked well after the interests of Natal. This is the province which has shown the highest growth rate for many years. What has this Government done for Natal? During the past five years the Government has spent R300 million on the province of Natal. For example, there is the Ingagane power station, erected at a cost of R54 million. There is the Josini Dam, costing R39 million, the Vryheid-Empangeni railway line, the cost of which amounts to R40 million to date, the Salisbury Island jetty costing R25 million and the oil pipeline costing R30 million. In the course of this process of development the Newcastle complex was established by the Government in conjunction with Iscor. The Government is going to spend R500 million on it. We have the growth points at Ladysmith at the Spioenkop Dam which is being financed by the Industrial Development Corporation. We also have the Mid-mar Dam and the Chelmsford Dam. We have the enormous infrastructure established by the Government over the years. We have the development of our Bantu areas and Bantu townships which have definitely contributed towards the development and the stabilization of our labour market and our industries in Natal. Natal is a dynamic province with a dynamic growth. Natal has enormous possibilities, which are being stimulated by this Government, but which are suffering under the yoke of the poor Provincial Administration of Natal.

Mr. Speaker, these past three days we have listened to the debate about the Budget. Allow me to say thank you to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I say thank you to him for the fact that he has submitted one of the best Budgets in a very long time. At a later stage I shall come to the egg dance the Opposition has been doing these past three days.

I should like to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister with regard of a few aspects. First there is the concession he made in respect of the pensions for widows of sufferers from pneumoconiosis. The anomalies that existed in this connection have now been eliminated. Certain of them received R50 per month, while others obtained R60 per month. In future all their widows will receive R60 per month. I thank the hon. the Minister for that.

I also want to thank him for looking after those old people and for also giving them something.

It seems to me as if you believe in Father Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member were a Father Christmas I could have done something with him. I would have been able to put him into a bag and dish him out.

No one would want him.

I do not know who would like to have him, but there is a place that would gladly take him. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the concession in respect of estate duty, to the extent that a person now only has to pay estate duty for amounts exceeding R150 000. I want to say thank you, and “thank you” is a term we have heard very infrequently, if at all, from the Opposition recently, for the concessions made to people qualifying under the National housing schemes, and particularly for the fact that the income notch has been increased to R4 000 per year. Probably the Opposition’s biggest shock was when the two hon. Ministers increased the wheat and maize prices. I also want to say thank you for that. In similar vein one could continue to say thank you, because this Budget is a poor man’s budget. It is a Budget that looks after the less privileged in our country. What have we heard from the Opposition recently? Recently we have again clearly heard about their vision of the future, i.e. what they envisage for this country of ours. We heard this from the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition is based on only one thing, and that is the labour question. As a solution for that they intimate that we should throw open the gates in all spheres so that the non-Whites can be absorbed into the labour pattern and into all facets of the White man’s life. This is so, because there has not been one member here who has ever denied it.

Integration.

Yes, that is correct. They want integration. If you ask them about that, they just shake their heads. This National Party has a goal for the future. This National Party can always renew the policy it took out years ago, a policy that is many years older than I am. The policy one can take out in respect of the United Party …

That is the best.

No, it offers me no security, it offers me absolutely nothing except the fact that, were I so foolhardy as to take one out, I would never be paid out for it as a member of a White people. That is what that policy offers me. That policy’s slogan is “Ikabod for the White man”. Have hon. members never yet learned from history and from events in Africa what the outcome would be? No, the Opposition has not yet learned about events in other parts of the African continent. This morning I was paging through a magazine, and there I saw only the deaths and murders that took place in Biafra. There I saw bodies lying in the streets, but nothing is said about that. No, the Opposition’s view has always been, and this they cannot deny … I do not know whether I may use the word “hypocritical”, but if I may not do so then I withdraw it in advance. However, this amounts to the fact that it has always been a point of departure for foreign consumption. The point of departure is to place this side of the House in a bad light in respect of the world at large. We also heard this yesterday from the hon. member for Houghton when, in a sphere I am well acquainted with, she said how much discrimination takes place in the mining industry. She spoke about the discrimination that takes place in the employment of White and non-White workers. What does our hon. member for Houghton know of the mining industry or of what goes on down there in the mines? Does she get her knowledge from what she read in the American comics?

I have been down the mines.

I wish I could take you down for a day or two. If that were to happen once in her life, she would also for once have earned her bread by the sweat of her brow. But she went to the places that Harry Oppenheimer showed her, places that were cleaned up days before the time. She went where the lovely lights are shining, but she has never been where the White man and the Black man earn their bread by the sweat of their brow under very difficult circumstances. Neither do I believe that her husband would allow her to go there.

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the mining industry is one profession that we can learn something from. It is the only profession that still does a day’s labour in this country. It is the only profession where numbers have decreased by the hundreds and where production has nevertheless increased. It is the only profession, all trade unions included, where people still work 48 hours a week under very difficult circumstances. It is one of the few professions where one still has to work six days of the week, resting on the seventh day. And this is my appeal to the people of South Africa. If other people can do it under very difficult circumstances, all of us can do so as well. Then there would not be such a great labour shortage. If we turn our hand to the plough and work, we can overcome many of these problems. But is it not true, in this House as well, that there is too much clockwatching? In my case I always have to watch the clock and see that I do not exceed the time allocated to me. I particularly want to tell the hon. member that there will be prosperity in the mining industry only for as long as the White man lends a guiding hand. I cannot imagine the Black man ever supplanting the White man completely in the mining industry in the future.

And in the homelands?

That hon. member knows as little about the homelands as a cat knows about religion. On behalf of those people I want to thank the Government for the Budget. I also want to thank an association that is not well disposed towards me, i.e. the Chamber of Mines, for the increases they have granted the mineworkers.

What has the hon. Opposition’s contribution to this debate been in the past three days? A round zero. Today we have again heard from the hon. the Minister of Community Development about what is being done and about what is envisaged for people who cannot today afford to live in a house costing R12 000, R15 000 and R20 000.

He makes the same speech every year.

May this speech of mine win through to that hon. member. If that happens I shall be satisfied, because then I have achieved something which seems to me almost superhuman. We do have big problems. Every year we are presented with big challenges. The road ahead is going to become increasingly more difficult for this party. But then the people of South Africa cannot do otherwise than to make a choice each time in favour of the members of the National Party and step into the breach for them. We shall move ahead, Sir, regardless of the pressure and regardless of the concessions we are asked to make in the future, as requested each time by the Opposition in respect of the labour question in this country. That is their biggest platform. They claim that if we used the labour potential correctly we would not have our present-day problems and that we would then have an economy that could grow, yes, to the ridiculous extent of 10 per cent per year. All I want to say is, why have they not mentioned Japan in any of their speeches this year? A while ago, by way of an interjection, I said that whatever its cost, it would be developed. No amount is too great for a people to pay for its self-preservation. No amount of money is too great to pay for that, if one can buy it with money. For the survival of a people one must be prepared to give everything. In addition, however, one must also be sincere in respect of the people to whom one makes the offer. One must be sincere in respect of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, so that they can also have confidence in one. What we have promised them, what Piet Retief promised them in Dingaan’s kraal, the National Party also promises them today. We shall also look after their future and give them what we would want them to give us one day, i.e. justice.

But what do you expect now?

•Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW: The hon. member cannot expect anything, because he cannot grasp my feelings towards my people and country. That he cannot ever do. He does not have that feeling. I have that feeling, and I am glad of it. My party politics comes second to my religion. That is also a gospel to me. I cannot see any other way out and I cannot strike out in any direction other than that. We shall be honest with the Bantu, and in the future he will also get what he wants. But we also have to teach him, because the White man, this people and the party sitting on this side of the House, was not given the chances in the past when it had to trek for its survival. It had to work out its own salvation. It had to carry its own successes and its own setbacks. The privileges that the Bantu have today are privileges that I did not have. I therefore say that it is my privilege to give to him as well. But I definitely will not allow them to take their place next to me in this country on an equal footing. I would rather succumb together with my descendants.

They would vote you out.

Yes, the only way in which they would vote us out would be according to the policy of my young friend over there. I was in politics when he had not yet been born. But I still have confidence that the youth of South Africa—I am sorry for those who have, along the way, exchanged their birthright for a mess of pottage—will make the correct choice each time.

Read what the reports say, Koeks.

Yes, I do read what the reports say. I also have a young son who is 28 years old today, the 15th of April, almost as old as that member. He will always choose the correct road. Having laid the right foundation, and having constructed this national edifice with the correct bricks, I need never doubt that one day he will finish off the roof in such a way that the structure will blend with the future scheme of things as far as this people is concerned. With that I say thank you to the Minister of Finance. I want to tell him that we appreciate this Budget. We accept this Budget with all its consequences. We shall have a division on this Budget and as in the case of the maize price we shall crush the United Party members.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stilfontein has really deserved a cup. Eight times in the course of his speech he said “thank you” for a very, very poor Budget. But he made one remark which interests me a great deal. He said he wanted to be fair to the Bantu because in the future he would ask the Bantu to be fair. My question to him, to which he may try to give a reply on a future occasion, is the following: What does he see in the future that constitutes a threat to the Whites under their policy?

I now come to the hon. member for Newcastle. I want to remind him that the hon. the Minister of the Interior, as the Administrator of Natal, is on record as having said that Natal has the best provincial administration in the country. How is it that the two of them do not agree? Then I want to ask him the following question: Is it correct that he said during his nomination contest: “If you elect me I shall get rid of that verligte John Vorster”? [Interjections.]

That is an old United Party story.

Sir, the hon. members who spoke before me did not deal with the Budget; they talked politics, and consequently they will forgive me if I do not give any more attention to their stories.

†Mr. Speaker, regrettably this Budget once again demonstrates the Government’s inability, indeed the Government’s refusal, to diagnose our economic problems correctly and to take the proper corrective action. I lay this charge at the door of the Government that they are deliberately deluding themselves, yes, they are deluding the public of South Africa, that they are able to bend South Africa’s economy to suit their mad ideological pipedreams.

Order! Did the hon. member say the Government was doing that deliberately?

I say that they are deliberately misleading the public.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that; he must withdraw the word “deliberately”.

I withdraw the word “deliberately”, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir, may an hon. member not say that about a Government, although he cannot say it about an hon. member?

A Government consists of hon. members.

Sir, I have withdrawn the word “deliberately”. Sir, the Government is tampering with the economy, which is a finely balanced mechanism, and if they succeed in throwing this economy of ours out of gear, as a Nat Government succeeded in doing in 1932, they will prejudice not only the economic future of our Republic but the social structure, the Western civilization, as we know it. They are sowing dragons’ teeth, and the tragedy is that unless the voters of South Africa come to their senses very soon and get rid of this Government, we and the Government supporters and all the hundreds of thousands who oppose this Government will reap the whirlwind. Unless the voters can rid the Republic of this Government and place in power a United Party of hope, of economic opportunity and prosperity for all …

And security.

… we shall reap the whirlwind. Sir, inflationary symptoms in the economy …

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting Cillié. Inflationary symptoms in the economy can be caused by one or more of many factors. South Africa and Britain are both experiencing inflation, and although the symptoms are identical—an accelerated decline in the purchasing power of the rand and the pound sterling-—the underlying causes, the basic economic issues involved, are vastly different. South Africa has a fair growth rate. Britain has been suffering from near stagnation. Britain has a serious unemployment problem. South Africa, on the contrary has full or over-full employment of that portion of the labour force which this Government allows South Africa to employ. I submit, Sir, and I shall attempt to prove, that this Government in this Budget has diagnosed the South African problem of inflation wrongly, is continuing to employ the wrong financial corrective measures and is knowingly guilty of fostering dangerous fallacies which prejudice the Republic’s economic future. More specifically I accuse this Government of wrongly equating fast growth with inflation and trying to bluff the electorate that in order to combat inflation in South Africa it is necessary to suppress the growth rate. Sir, this Budget inhibits growth in that the hon. the Minister, in his wisdom and not Solomon’s wisdom, has added to the financial burdens of companies, and companies as we all know or should know, are the main spring of economic prosperity in South Africa. Britain today is a prime example of a country suffering inflation with stagnation and hence the coining of the word “stagflation.” The British are fighting, or, until their recent Budget, were fighting rampant wage and cost inflation by applying demand inflation cures.

My argument, Sir, is that the primary cause of our inflation is not an over-buoyant domestic demand for goods and services, with consequent over-spending, but in fact a shortage in the supply of resources and domestically produced goods and services, and this shortage stems in the first place directly from the Government’s labour policy. This labour policy is based on the impracticable ideological policies of this Government which completely ignore economic demands. The Government’s curbs on the fuller and better economic use of our available labour are at the root of our problem of inflation. The price paid for labour within a certain category and on a specific level, that is, the average wage rate, is determined mainly by the supply of and the demand for labour in that category. A relative shortage of labour, as in the building industry, will push up the average wage rate in that industry. Similarly, if the overall demand for labour is high due to a vigorous and expanding economy while the overall supply of labour is low due to the Government’s labour policy, the average wages must rise. Employers bid against each other for the available manpower. Labour turnover is high and the economy is continually bumping against the ceiling of full employment. Can anyone deny that this is the position in South Africa today?

What does the Government intend doing about this vicious cycle of rising wages and rising costs? I need only remind this House of the rather naive request by the hon. the Minister of Labour that the wage-earners of South Africa should desist from demanding increased wages. In other words, his recipe for this crisis is freezing wages. In what way is the over-full employment situation inflationary? The selling price of any commodity or service is determined by the production costs incurred in the manufacture of that commodity or the rendering of the service, plus the entrepreneur’s profit. Of the production costs, labour costs are usually by far the most important and surely all of us grasp this simple basic economic law that if labour costs per unit of output rise due to wage increases without proportionate increases in the output or the productivity of labour, then the selling price of the unit must go up. This basic law is clearly illustrated in the 1971 Railways Budget. The R60 million wage increase which was given just before the Langlaagte by-election had to be recouped by a 10 per cent surcharge on rail tariffs. In the context of Government policy the hon. the Minister of Transport had no option but to increase the tariffs in order to maintain the economic viability of the Railways.

Are you still quoting Cillié?

We have seen that a manpower shortage causes wage inflation. These wage increases push up the prices of all goods, whether they be consumer or producer goods, and all these increases are passed on to and are ultimately borne by the consumer in the form of higher prices. Let me illustrate this by giving an easily understood example. Have the prices of male haircuts doubled since 1964 because we spent too much money on haircuts, that is, because the demand was too high, or is it because there was a shortage of barbers? In other words, the supply of labour was too low and consequently the wages had to be doubled to attract the labour. Hence the doubling in the price of haircuts. Wage inflation is usually only encountered after full employment has been reached, but this is not necessarily so. In Britain a full-scale wage inflation has been experienced in conditions of under-employment, because of the powerful influence and the pressure exerted on wage levels by the trade unions. This brings us to the fundamental difference between wage cost inflation and demand inflation. Although cost and demand inflation are exactly similar in their effects, that is, prices spiral upward and there is the erosion of your monetary unit, the underlying causes and the necessary corrective measures differ widely. Demand inflation—and that is what the Government maintains this country suffers from and what the hon. the Minister says he is fighting in his Budget— is characterized by rampant domestic demand, easy money and easy credit, a high degree of liquidity coupled with sagging interest rates and over-expenditure on consumer goods. Surely this is not what we are experiencing in this country. Admittedly domestic demand is buoyant, but a vigorous demand is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth and the level of domestic demand has certainly not been rampant.

Cost inflation is characterized by an inexorable rise in production costs due to bottlenecks developing in the productive process. In our case the artificially created labour shortage is mainly responsible for the rise in our production costs. Our problem is not that we spend too much, or that we consume too much, but that we produce too little, and our rate of expansion is too slow in relation to the increasing demand of Whites and non-Whites alike. The result is that the costs of production rise too fast and this consequently brings about inflation.

The cures for our economic ills are fairly obvious and have been spelled out once again by my hon. leader this afternoon and by members on this side of the House on repeated occasions. I shall attempt to do so in a few short sentences. Keep wages in check, not in the restrictive manner suggested by the hon. the Minister of Labour, but by encouraging vastly expanding production via budgetary concessions; effectively mobilizing the country’s available labour resources; stimulating productivity by launching crash training programmes; curtailing Government expenditure to eliminate the wasting of public funds on prestige and unproductive projects, and then ensuring that the infrastructure is developed. When I talk about the infrastructure, I have in mind our transport and telecommunication systems, our power and steel plants and other productive State undertakings—not prestige projects. But instead, what does the Government do? It fights a runaway wage inflation by applying half-hearted demand inflation cures. It accuses the public of spending too much and tries to curb private spending, while its own spending is snowballing. Prompted by ideology and not by economics, the Government has introduced various control measures, for example the Physical Planning Act, declaring certain areas to be Coloured preferential areas where Coloured labour is in short supply. These measures have had a restrictive influence on the industrial expansion. The resultant shortfall in domestic production has been met by the importation of foreign goods. In the short term this sort of action is economically acceptable. But in the long term a large trade deficit cannot be maintained without unavoidable and serious balance of payments repercussions, repercussions which radically affect and disturb the stability of our economy. This is precisely what is happening in South Africa today.

Above all, taxation, especially indirect taxation, has been increased as a so-called anti-inflationary measure. The ultimate absurdity of Government policy is this firm belief that inflation in South Africa can be combatted by indiscriminate increase in taxation. This is where I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He, as a trained economist and a man who rubs shoulders with leading financiers and economists of the world, realizes as clearly as we on this side of the House the impossibility of reconciling the Government’s impractical ideological goals with sound economic principles. He knows that the warnings must be heeded of our own South African economists, our leaders of commerce and industry, our financiers, all eminent men in their respective fields, men who have no political axe to grind. He knows that raising taxation is not necessarily anti-inflationary and that in certain circumstances it may actually be adding fuel to the flames. The hon. the Minister must remember the sad history of the brilliant German banker and financier, Dr. Schacht, who filled to warn the Hitler Government that the German economy could not be bent to fit their sinister policies. We all know with what dire consequence the Nazi regime ignored the economic laws.

If the increased revenue derived from additional taxes is not frozen, i.e. withdrawn from circulation, but is used to finance greater Government expenditure, notably unproductive expenditure, the money is simply pumped back into circulation and the anti-inflationary effect is nullified. What difference does it make to the economy if an individual buys a stove for R200 or he is forced by additional taxation to hand the R200 to the Government who in turn uses the R200 to buy a stove for a Minister’s house? It makes not one iota of difference to the economy but it certainly makes a tremendous difference to that taxpayer’s ability to meet the demands of his family. If the effective demand for goods—“effective” is the operative word—is not reduced by the imposition of a tax the total volume of monetary spending will actually increase. After the imposition for instance of a sales tax on motor vehicles in South Africa, we will spend a greater amount of money buying the same number of cars as we purchased before the tax. Whether expenditure will in fact decline depends in practice on the price elasticity of demand for the product in question. If the elasticity is low, i.e. if the demand is inelastic, as is true of all but ultra-luxury goods, the demand will remain nearly the same as before the tax. Where then, Sir, is the anti-inflationary effect of such a tax? In the meantime the unfortunate wage-earner becomes increasingly aware that the sales tax, which this Government lauds as an anti-inflationary measure, has pushed up the price of nearly every product and every form of goods that he must buy for himself and his family. Then this Government blandly claims that it is fighting inflation.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that experience suggests that increased taxes often do not curb expenditure but, in fact, curb savings. This is because people generally are unwilling to lower their standard of living by buying fewer goods and services. [Interjections.] They would rather pay the increased prices resulting from higher taxation than save. In short, having tasted the good life, the people refuse to rally to the Government’s slogan of “Poor but White”. They will not spend or consume less as a result of the taxation, but they will save less. That is what is happening in our country today. The only really effective measure to curb too vigorous a demand is to introduce effective credit restrictions. The greater part of excess spending is financed by credit, which is a person’s discounted future earnings. To tackle excess spending one must tackle the root of the problem, namely to control the consumer’s ability to spend. Let me stress once again that increasing taxation does not necessarily control the consumer’s ability to spend. Therefore it may sometimes, under certain circumstances, even be adding fuel to the flames. It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment introduced by my hon. friend, the member for Park-town.

I do not think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has really said very much that I can react to, except when he referred to the rotten Budget and made a reference to the old man who sits near him. I think that possibly he begrudges our old people the R3 per month that we have made available to them. Hon. members know that in the past two or three weeks important things have happened in Port Elizabeth, which is the city he represents in this House. I thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central would have referred to that, but he did not. He remained as silent as the grave. After all, this evening he did not lodge a plea for the interests of the city or the constituency he represents. I do not think it will take long for Port Elizabeth Central to say that they daily bemoan their fate. This evening I do not want to refer at any length to this speech, but I do want to refer to a previous speech of his in this House on 28th September. If I refer back to that speech I immediately find the reason why he did not refer to Port Elizabeth. In that speech he said that Port Elizabeth is the sick man in the South African economy. Before coming round to that, I just want to go a little further. He began his speech by saying that we of the National Party build on the apartheid principle which they laid down after we linked it to the group Areas Act. In that speech he said that in 1945 in this House the United Party members laid down the principle of separate residential areas. This immediately shows me that this man does not know the history of his party. He does not know what the policy of his party is. Does he not know how his party opposed this National Party Government’s introduction of the Group Areas Act? Here I have a statement of one of the hon. members who sits in front of him, the hon. member for Wynberg. She is quite lily-white on the photograph. She says here that when the United Party comes into power, the Group Areas Act will be one of the first Acts they will repeal. I now want to know something from that hon. member. If his party advocates separation of residential areas, why are they opposing it? They now say that they accept separation of residential areas, with the eventual aim of winning a few votes. We know that the United Party is a party that believes in integration and equality. What the hon. member for Wynberg advocates here will therefore be done, the Group Areas Act will be repealed.

In this House the hon. member spoke about the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex and said—

Then he continues by saying—

As far as I am concerned, this is clear proof, when that hon. member speaks of Port Elizabeth as the “sick man” in the economy of South Africa, that not only does he not know the history and policy of his party, but also that he does not know that area which we both represent this evening. Does that hon. member know that that motor car he drives was manufactured and assembled in Port Elizabeth? Does he know that every stick of furniture at home, from the refrigerator to the bed and the stove, is manufactured in Port Elizabeth? Now he speaks of the “sick man” in the economy. Does he not know that Port Elizabeth is one of the big harbour cities with gigantic industrial development? At least that hon. member ought to have the gratitude to acknowledge this. Even those clothes he is wearing are manufactured in Port Elizabeth, and the shoes on his feet are manufactured from goatskin from his farm. Then the hon. member speaks of a “sick man”. Does he know that light bulbs are manufactured in Port Elizabeth? This light shining over his head this evening is a product of Port Elizabeth. And that is a man who must represent a city such as Port Elizabeth. Even though he does not love Port Elizabeth, he could at least have respect for the light shining over his head.

I now want to come to the disturbance about the increased bus fares that took place in Port Elizabeth. At the first opportunity that hon. member and some of his colleagues flew to Port Elizabeth. There they tried to exploit the events for personal political gain. They were almost successful in even dragging the Minister of Transport into it. They issued one statement after another, and the hon. member for Walmer said that those difficulties could be ascribed to the Government’s policy of the re-zoning of the non-Whites. He said that the non-White area lies far beyond the outskirts of the city and that that contributed to the situation. Surely that is only a half-truth. After all, we know that in the whole of Port Elizabeth natural growth is taking place. It is not only the Coloured areas that have expanded to the outskirts of the city, the White areas have also done so. In Port Elizabeth we have the influx of thousands upon thousands of Coloureds to the city. The logical conclusion is surely that cities must expand to embrace the outskirts of those cities, or would the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central have us house them in the centre of the city? In addition I must add that many of the Coloureds who were resettled are today much closer to their places of work. There are some who live further from their places of work, but then again there are also some who live much closer. I am thinking particularly of the Coloureds who were transferred from Ley Place and Stewart to the new residential areas and who are now within walking distance of General Motors, General Tyres, the Firestone factories and all the other new industrial developments taking place there. It is not only a matter of those bus fares, we are also dealing with a Coloured population which is d Jaw-abiding, a Coloured population which has never lent itself to misdemeanours and crimes, who have never taken part in marches. But this time we were faced with people engaged in extracting political gain from the unrest. There were also agitators among that Coloured population. We do not hold it against the Coloureds that they asked for better bus services or cheaper bus fares, but I do not want to involve myself in the justice or injustice of the increase, because it is not for us to decide. However, what I do want to give my opinion on is the fact that there were agitators, i.e. English-speaking clergymen who led the marches through the streets. They walked with the cloth of Christ and they were agitators who incited the Coloureds in Port Elizabeth. That is what we are objecting to.

I hope you are ashamed of yourself.

Is it not a shame! If the hon. member …

Can you not leave the parsons alone?

Then they must leave the Coloureds alone! A minister of the Gospel must proclaim the Gospel, but we object to ministers of the Gospel also inciting the Coloured population to irregularities of conduct.

What does that have to do with this Budget?

Mr. Speaker, what happened while the Minister of Community Development was opening that large housing scheme for the Coloureds which cost several million rand? I quote from the Eastern Province Herald of 8th April. There we find the following heading: “Walk-out protest by clergy”. Does the hon. member still want to side with them? In the Herald of 26th March we see one of them marching through the streets, followed by non-Whites. They are inciting the non-Whites. What would the hon. member say if a blood-bath were to take place?

Now we come to the report that Mr. Cleary, the chairman of the housing commission in Port Elizabeth, issued. In that report Mr. Cleary mentioned certain points and asked for certain improvements for the Coloureds. I should like to point out that the improvements which Mr. Cleary requested are within reasonable limits. Mr. Cleary did research in the Coloured community, and it was evident that one big reason for dissatisfaction is the Government’s resettlement programme. He found that proper houses were indeed supplied in the new township areas, but that business centres, post offices, recreation facilities, etc., were lacking. That is true, but it is not the Government which is responsible for that. It is the duty of the local authority to make certain facilities available. Mr. Cleary’s report goes further and points out that the increased expenditure is largely a result of the necessarily increased transport costs to the city centre for purchases, while the lack of community halls, sports fields, churches, nursery schools, etc., cause great inconvenience. In addition Mr. Cleary states (translation)—

He mentions that altogether 44 per cent of all legal charges against Coloureds are in connection with drunkenness. Let us now look at the Argus. All these points are also mentioned there. They say that there is an absence of the necessary business facilities. We readily concede this, but we must not forget that at present R750 000 is being budgeted for the necessary facilities at Gelvandale. A large chain-store is being built there and other shops are also in the planning stage. There is planning for a business complex, which includes a Post Office, that will cost R750 000. We are all advocates of sufficient facilities being provided for the non-Whites in their areas. This is specifically something that is going to be tackled. The commercial pattern has changed overnight, and the necessary adjustments will be made. It is untrue to say that nothing is being done for the Coloureds in Port Elizabeth. Apart from the millions of rand spent on schools, more than R14 million has been planned for and made available in the past six years for Coloured housing in Port Elizabeth. How can it now be said that nothing is being done? This is because there are people who are encouraging agitation. I should like to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central whether he knows of the secret meetings held recently in Port Elizabeth by the Coloured Labour Party. We are curious to know whether the hon. member was represented there, because our information has it that some of his colleagues were present. I should like to have the hon. member’s reply. We should like to know which of those hon. members were present there. The Port Elizabeth City Council goes out of its way to make facilities available to the Coloureds. Why do those Ministers of the Gospel, those agitators, not announce to the Coloureds what those few White taxpayers are doing for them? I just want to quote a few figures to indicate what is given to them. Administration costs amount to R5 900. A market which will be built for them will cost R27 000. R15 000 was budgeted for them in 1971 for the construction of halls. An additional library was erected for them at a cost of R20 000. This is the most modern of libraries and a better one than that of the Whites. Additional playgrounds are also being laid out at a cost of R30 000 in Gelvandale. A new athletics track costing R123 000 is also being built. At Adcock Playing Fields playgrounds costing R20 000 are also being built. They are also getting a swimming bath at R55 000. Beach facilities and improvements are also being made at a cost of R48 000. They are also getting a cemetery costing R10 000. The total costs of these works amount to R430 000. This is money coming from the White taxpayer’s pocket, money which is being used to establish the necessary facilities for those non-Whites. But then we must also be reasonable. In his report Mr. Cleary said. I think, that there are 15 or 20 football fields for the non-Whites. But he says that they need at least 61 football fields. That is surely ridiculous. We have a Coloured population of 97 000 in this area. Why must 61 football fields be laid out? The Whites in Port Elizabeth do not even have that many football fields. We have this extensive Coloured population. Let us help them. There sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and there sit the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer. They wanted it to be a dual labour area. Where were those Coloureds supposed to go in order to make a living? Let them give us an indication. They even requested an interview with the hon. the Minister. They sat with us there and also issued statements to the Press. From the beginning I had adopted the standpoint that Coloured labour must obtain preference in Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister conceded this. And so it will remain. There will always be preference for Coloured labour.

That is wrong.

That is not wrong. It is now said that there are 6 000 unemployed Bantu walking around. There are complaints about the low wages paid to Coloureds. But if cheap Bantu labour is employed today, what is going to happen to the Coloureds? We should like replies to these questions.

We have found that when we get up in this House to speak, Port Elizabeth’s representatives on that side of the House busy themselves with goat farming, maize farming or milch cows, but never have they taken up the cudgels for the interests of that city which they represent. All they can say is that Port Elizabeth is the sick man in the South African economy.

Mr. Speaker, we have now returned from Port Elizabeth to this House. It gives one pleasure to hear a colleague pleading for his area in this way. I feel that he is performing this service for all the other representatives of Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth would do well to turn to him. Evidently that is what is being done, because that is why he is stating matters concerning Port Elizabeth in this way.

I really thought that we had reached the end of this continuous refrain about labour and about its being the solution to our inflation problem. But then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central started the same old tune once again.

Not Central. Delport is no longer here.

Mr. Speaker, it is misleading of that hon. member to say that it is not Port Elizabeth Central. Which constituency is it then? The approach of the hon. the Opposition is always to mislead and to confuse. They have tried to confuse me, but they have not succeeded in doing so.

Hon. members on the opposite side of this House have been keeping up this refrain of labour and labour yet again. It is clear their main objective is to offload Bantu labour onto the White area in an uncontrolled way.

Who said so?

Mr. Speaker, not a single word has come from hon. members on that side of this House to indicate in what way they want to have such labour allowed into the White area. They have just said, “Open the doors”. There has been no single suggestion concerning the way in which they are to be allowed in. Surely it is very clear that if unskilled or semi-skilled labour were to be allowed to be poured into an area, it would be detrimental to productivity.

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