Mr. Speaker, I wish to move as an unopposed motion—

So transient are we as human beings that we have here the case of an hon. member who was still in course of making a speech at 7 o’clock yesterday evening when the House adjourned, but who passed away minutes after that. Naturally, this was a big shock to us. Many of us heard about it only this morning. Hans Campher came to this Parliament at a relatively high age of 61 years. He was a pleasant, jovial man who mixed easily with his colleagues. While he would have been a member of this House for a year on 22nd April this year only, he played his part in all possible spheres in Waterberg and vicinity before entering active parliamentary politics. He was a very strong supporter and a confidant of the late Mr. Strydom, formerly M.P. for Waterberg and subsequently Prime Minister. In his public life Mr. Campher was always direct and outspoken. On this side of this House he will always be remembered and honoured as a very strong and loyal person, a person who believed in the standpoint he had adopted and in the cause he advocated. He fulfilled his provincial duties, which extended over a period of ten years, and his parliamentary duties for the past 11 months, with conscientiousness and great zeal.

If his death was a great shock to us, his colleagues, what a shock it must not have been to his wife. She was not here in Cape Town, but on her way here by train and heard the news of his death only this morning at Touws River. To her and his two adopted children we want to convey our sincere sympathy in their loss, which in the nature of the matter must be a very heavy one to them. We pray that they may receive abundant comfort and mercy from God in these very difficult times for them.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the death of our friend. Un-fortunately he was not a member of this House long enough to give us the opportunity of getting to know him well. Nevertheless, it was already clear that he was a very pleasant, approachable and friendly person, one who was making many friends on both sides. Some members knew him while he was in the service of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. There, too, he acquitted himself extremely well of his task. If there was one thing for which he was known, it was the broad knowledge he had of matters concerning his constituency.

We particularly want to express our sympathy to his widow and children. His death must have been a great shock to them.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of this House and to my regret I have to announce that a train derailment occurred at about 6,45 this morning, causing loss of life and several injuries. The passenger train which left Johannesburg for Cape Town at 10 o’clock yesterday evening, was derailed between Warrenton and Kimberley this morning and eleven coaches overturned. The first indications are that three Whites have died and that some of the other passengers have been injured.

A board consisting of senior officials is being appointed to investigate the derailment.

I wish to convey my sincere sympathy to the relatives of those who died and to express the hope that the injured will recover quickly.

With your leave, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of this House wish to associate ourselves with the hon. the Minister’s expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who have died.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

I should just like to inform this House what the business will be next week. On Monday there will be approximately 40 minutes left for this debate. After that, this House will proceed to deal with legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. On Tuesday the Minister of Finance will reply to the debate, and after that we shall continue dealing with the legislation appearing on the Order Paper. On Wednesday the Prime Minister’s Vote will be discussed.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to start this debate in the subdued atmosphere which is prevailing in this House because of the passing away of our colleague from Waterberg, and, if these things were in our hands, I would have preferred to listen to him completing his speech here.

A great deal has been said here about this Budget. I can understand the disappointment expressed by the United Party, because they had been unable to derive from this Budget the venom they wanted to spurt. Now, I want to concede that one can find the pleasant and the unpleasant in each budget, probably in each budget for the past 60 years, but I want to tell our hon. Minister that the pleasant I have been able to find in this Budget is the assistance he is giving to our aged and to the less privileged sections of our population. I think it is on this very score that the United Party is disappointed, as it is not possible for them to tell the story of how the poor man is being taxed and how life is being made more difficult for him. I want to say that I find it deplorable that they have expressed criticism as to taxation being too high on cigarettes and on liquor in view of the fact that these are not essentials. I myself am a smoker, Sir, but I am prepared to pay for that habit I have acquired myself, if it may be called a luxury. From their side we have had complaints about the higher liquor prices as well, but I want to add in this regard that excessive drinking probably is one of the greatest evils we have to contend with today. Is it a question of their pleading for lower liquor prices so that people may drink more? We have a lot of complaints from their side about the labour shortage and the wastage of manpower. Now, I wonder what we would find if we could make a calculation of the number of working hours lost as a result of the abuse of liquor, the number of families broken up because of excessive drinking and of the damage amounting to millions of rand caused by drunken driving, which is the cause of many accidents. But, Sir, this is typical of them. This United Party wants to live in a lotus-land here, and is not prepared to make any sacrifices or to do any work. They want to live like a lot of hippies. Let us drink and be merry, because tomorrow we die.

In respect of the taxation proposals, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether attention ought not to be given to the excessive advertising expenses incurred by some businesses, because I believe these expenses are excessive and not only cause a rise in the cost of living but also constitute, in my opinion, a method of evading taxation. I believe it also has an influence on our cost of living. I see the need for advertising, but should some of those businesses not be restricted to a certain percentage of their turnover?

Many comparisons were drawn here between South Africa and other countries as regards inflation and the economic situation here in South Africa. In respect of South Africa a very black picture of the future was painted here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I see in the latest edition of the Sunday Times that during the past year foreign capital amounting to R1 700 million flowed into the country, and the heading of this article reads, “This is the confidence which foreign countries have in South Africa”. But this is not the attitude of confidence which the United Party has in South Africa. This is so because of the fact that they have an unpatriotic attitude towards South Africa and avail themselves of every possible means and opportunity of disparaging South Africa. What this approach of theirs to the labour problem amounts to is that we should throw open the doors to non-White labour so that non-White labour may stream to our cities in an uncontrolled way to sell their labour in those cities on the best labour market, as they put it. This is what they said …

Utter nonsense!

This is not because they are concerned about our economic position. They want to use this purely and simply for their own political gain. They speak of economic development. Sir, surely they had the opportunity of promoting South Africa’s economic development when they were in power. They did not avail themselves of that opportunity. At that time there was adequate labour and do you know, Sir, what labour was available? It was not non-White labour that was available, but White labour, Afrikaner labour, which they did not want to use. At that time they took pleasure in the poor White problem we had here, because they knew it was the Afrikaners who were suffering on that score. [Interjections.] Their entire policy is again aimed at getting the Afrikaners into the position of becoming the hewers of wood and drawers of water in South Africa. For that reason I say we have probably never had such an irresponsible and such an opportunistic and reckless Opposition as this one, an Opposition that is so possessed by the idea of getting into power that it is of no consequence what ultimate price South Africa will have to pay for that.

As I have said, in respect of conditions of inflation, many comparisons were drawn here between South Africa and foreign countries, but, in my opinion, there is one difference between South Africa and the rest of the world, and that is that no other country is saddled with a United Party. In the democratic world we do have opposition parties, but they, at least, are parties that are loyal to their countries, and this we cannot say of them. I have said that it is that side of this House that wants the doors of the labour market to be thrown open to the non-Whites. To me—and I want to state this very clearly —that amounts to nothing but a matter of inciting the non-Whites against the Whites in South Africa; because the non-Whites are told every day that they are being wronged in respect of employment opportunities. The non-Whites are constantly being told by the United Party that they are entitled to the same jobs as the Whites at the same wages and at the same places in our cities, in respect of which they now want to throw open the doors to Black labour. What does this amount to if not to inciting and instigating the non-Whites against the Whites in South Africa?

I want to tell the United Party this: It is playing a very dangerous game. Whereas South Africa is one of the few countries that has peace and quiet, they are engaged in a very subtle way in an attempt to disturb that labour peace and quiet. And I want to add this: If ever there were to be unrest in this country as a result of labour matters, I would want to lay that squarely at the door of the United Party. But they are not satisfied with trying to create unrest in South Africa; they are also engaged in inciting the outside world against South Africa by constantly telling stories of how the non-Whites are being suppressed here and are being withheld from realizing themselves fully in respect of labour, education and the so-called petty apartheid, and even by telling the story that there is atrocious discrimination in the field of sport.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who can wax so lyrical about petty apartheid, constantly upbraids the Government for discriminating against the non-Whites in such a cruel way. I am sorry he is not present. I should very much liked to have asked him to give us a few examples of where he would want to draw the line. Which of the so-called petty apartheid measures would he like to see disappear? Perhaps some of the other members who are constantly singing along with him will be able to tell me this. They can tell us this morning what their attitude is in their own homes in respect of their non-White servants. Do they use the same bathroom as the non-White servants of theirs? Do they eat at the same table? I should like to have replies to these questions. Let us hear what their attitude is in their own homes. They should not tell us what we are to do as far as the outside is concerned; they should first tell us what is happening in their own homes.

Here at Newlands we had a so-called protest by the cricketers. I do not want to go into this. I hope it will be discussed. This occurrence will probably be discussed a great deal here. But I want to say that I have a very strong suspicion that the brain behind that protest is sitting on the opposite side of this House. I am saying this because when legislation was introduced here last year for authorizing the chief magistrate to allow or disallow protest marches, the United Party approved of that measure. They supported that Act. I was a little bit suspicious because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had said on the occasion of their party congress in 1968—

Now hon. members should pay close attention. I read on—

I accepted in good faith that they, too, wanted peace and quiet in South Africa. But then in the magazine. Personality, of 15th January of this year I saw an article on an interview which had been conducted with the chairman of the Students Council of the University of Cape Town, a certain Jan Theron. A number of questions were put to him. He was asked, inter alia-—

How much support do students’ protests get from the various political parties?

His reply was—

The Progressive Party is receptive.

I must say that the hon. member for Houghton was at least honest here last year. His reply continued—

In addition the following question was put to the chairman—

What bodies do support student protests?

The chairman replied—

Here we now have the truth from the mouth of the infant. Now they should not tell us that they stand aloof from the said organizations, because they all have the same object in view, and that is the destruction of not only the National Party but of the entire White nation in South Africa They are standing shoulder to shoulder with Nusas and those communistically inspired organizations at our universities.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons which cause one to express one’s disapproval towards other people, but if there is one reason which causes one to lose one’s respect for another person, it is when he contradicts tomorrow what he says today. I believe one should not indulge in double-talking, as the United Party is always doing. In the Sunday Times of 24th January, I saw an article written by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Japie Basson. Amongst others, he made the following statement—

He went on to say in passing, “The Republic later merely changed the form of that independence, not the substance of it”. Now I want to ask: If they want to make this claim, why did Mr. Japie Basson and the United Party vote against this country becoming a Republic? He went on to say that it was the United Party that gave the first official recognition to Die Stem van Suid-Afrika as national anthem. Then why did they vote against Die Stem van Suid-Afrika as the only national anthem of South Africa? It surprises one that the hon. member did not refer to South African citizenship as well, because I think his bleeding heart is still yearning for his British citizenship.

Sir, we are constantly being told by the United Party that the United Party is the only party which has the solution to our population problems here in South Africa. Now I find it rather interesting that Mr. Japie Basson said in the same article, “If the White man can help it, he is not going to allow his fate to be decided by Black political power”. Then why do their policy and their programme of principles make provision for non-Whites to sit in this Parliament? Surely under those circumstances it will be the non-White who will determine the fate of the White. The following is a very hypothetical question, but if they ever were to come into power with a majority of 10 in this House, and if there were 16 non-Whites in the House of Assembly, who would be governing them? It would be those 16 non-Whites who would be governing them. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that in my opinion he is privileged to be sitting here, and if the United Party had remained in power since 1948 he could just as well have been sharing his bench with Sobukwe or Mandela. Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time to do so, but I should have liked to have discussed this further.

Mr. Speaker, it is the practice in this House to reply to the speaker who has spoken immediately prior to you. I just want to say that the accusations made by the hon. member for Boksburg are of a reprehensible nature. The hon. member for Boksburg accuses this side of the House of advocating the uncontrolled influx of Bantu, and that we want to turn the Afrikaner into a hewer of wood and a drawer of water again. When an hon. member makes such irresponsible and reprehensible accusations in this House, he ought to be ashamed of himself. There is not a party in this House who want to make of the Afrikaner people hewers of wood and drawers of water again. I shall preferably leave the hon. member at that.

Since this debate began three days ago, we have observed a stange floundering about among hon. members on that side of the House. The very first speaker on that side of the House, the hon. member for Paarl who is also the chairman of the Finance Committee, began by criticizing the hon. the Minister sharply about the excise duties in liquor. He criticized the hon. the Minister very sharply. I see in all the newspapers that the wine farmers and the K. W. V. are addressing representations to the effect that the hon. the Minister be approached in regard to a reduction of this excise duty.

I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Mayfair in this House yesterday. He said that he was aware that the Whites had in many respects outgrown the occupations reserved for them. He was referring to the building industry. It was a speech of an enlightened (verligte) man. Of course it is obvious that the Whites have outgrown some of the jobs which are reserved for them. They no longer want to do that work. The hon. member addressed representations to the Government and the hon. the Minister and requested that this work reservation be revised and that other reservations be made for the Bantu. As I have said, it was an enlightened speech. But he was followed immediately afterwards by the hon. member for Springs who alleged that there was no real shortage of labour. The hon. member for Springs added to that that all this side of the House wanted to do was to advocate integration. How many times do we still have to say it in this House, after having said it dozens of times already, that this Party will always apply influx control, and that as far as the labour of the White and non-White sectors are concerned, this will be controlled in conjunction with and with the permission of the trade unions. Do we have to keep on saying this? Why do we always have to be accused of wanting only to further integrations? Who wants to further integration? Is it this side of the House, or is it the Afrikaners, or who is it? Where are the people who, if they have White skins and have the interests of- the country at heart, nevertheless want to further integration?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? If the hon. member says that his party will continue to apply influx control, how are they then going to allow the Bantu to force their labour upon the best market?

Mr. Speaker, the Bantu will be allowed to enter those labour levels which will be determined in conduction with and with the permission of the workers’ unions. We cannot do otherwise but to allow them in.

Mr. Speaker, we have also had those who alleged that this was a very hard Budget. They said that the hon. the Minister could do nothing else, because he needed the money and therefore had to levy the taxes. That is why it is a hard budget. Then, too, we had others who said that this was a very good Budget and that there was nothing wrong with it. How many different points of view are we still going to have from that side of the House? Hon. members opposite are contradicting one another in this connection.

But I know what the opinion of people outside ibis House is. I know what the opinion of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, of the Sakekamer, of bankers and many other bodies in regard to this Budget is. The concensus of opinion outside this House is that this Budget is not a very good one; that it is a short term Budget, that it has nothing to do with long-term planning and that it is not a fiscal and monetary method of bolstering the economy of the country. These are the arguments this side of the House is putting forward. We are not always simply quoting other people, as has been said. Just look at the newspapers and periodicals and hon. members will see what the consensus of opinion in this regard is. After all, this is nothing but a short-term Budget, the purpose of which is to get as much money as possible from the private sector.

What are the wool farmers saying?

I shall still come to them. As I have said, this Budget wants to take as much money as possible from the private sector and transfer it to the public sector, from where it will be spent. What is being done here for production and towards closing the gap of hundreds of millions of rands which exists in our foreign trade account?

The Minister himself said that there are two methods by means of which inflation may be combated; The first method is to tax the private sector, and the second is to effect greater production. But now hon. members opposite must tell us where in this Budget there is any encouragement for greater production. We know what is being done in the Budget—heavier taxes are being imposed on companies and industries, and the loan levy is being increased. But nothing is being done for greater production as such. We know that greater production cannot merely be effected in one year’s time; that easy it is not. It is something which can only be achieved in the long term.

May I ask the hon. member whether he does not regard the assistance which is being given to farmers in this Budget as an encouragement to greater production?

What I had in mind, is production in commerce and industry. As far as the farmers are concerned, I want to express the hope that the assistance which is being given to them, will in fact enable them to produce more. What I am dealing with at the moment is the vast deficit in our balance of trade and how it can be made good. The deficit is greater than the value of our gold production, in actual fact R300 million more than our gold production. The Minister should have begun to encourage greater production a long time ago. The Minister himself admitted that there had been a decrease in production. If we do not now proceed to encourage production intensively, how are we going to check this decrease in production? As I have said, I regard this Budget as a short-term Budget, a potpourR1 Budget, an inflationary Budget. Some of the most elementary things one could have expected from the Minister, he did not do. For example, there is no mention of import control of any description on luxury goods. Nor is there any extra tax on luxury goods. In my speech during the 1969 Budget debate, I dealt in particular with the incorrect method which the Government then introduced, mainly the sales duty. Inter alia I asked the hon. the Minister why he did not levy more taxes on luxury goods, and in this connection I referred to fur coats, jewellery, expensive motorcars, liquor and cigarettes. When the Minister asked me whether I was then proposing that a higher tax be placed on motor cars, liquor and cigarettes, I replied “Of course”. Hon. members opposite then laughed at that reply. But what has happened since? Here we now have the increased tax on liquor and cigarettes. But can we say the same of fur coats, jewellery and other luxury articles, without which we can get along very easily? Do we find it on imported wines since we have here in South Africa some of the best wines in the world? Where is the import control to prevent us importing excessively? In the mean time the ships are lying here in Table Bay Harbour in great numbers, waiting to discharge their cargoes, in other words, the goods we are importing. And a good deal thereof comprises luxury goods without which we can get along very easily. But in this Budget we find no mention of any control over the import of these goods.

I just want to return to the sales duty. For two years now the hon. the Minister has failed to reply to this question: Why a sales duty, and not a purchase tax? He has also failed to reply to the suggestion we made in order to change the system. When will we and the interested parties outside convince the hon. the Minister that it should be a purchase tax, and not a sales duty? An hon. member behind me here is saying that I will not succeed. Well, one can at least expect sound common sense to succeed in doing this. I have spoken I do not know how many times in the past about the problems in regard to this sales duty. These problems are of daily occurrence everywhere in the country. When the price of liquor was increased, prices increased left, right and centre—65 cents on a bottle of brandy here, 79 cents in the Transvaal, etc. One really does not know where one stands; the consumer does not know where he stands, and will never know where he stands under this scheme. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is doing this deliberately because he collects more by means of a sales duty than by means of a purchase tax. But the Minister is after all a straightforward man; therefore we do not expect this kind of thing of him.

When we are dealing with greater productivity, it is taken amiss of us for always returning to the question of the employment of labour. But the chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries had the following to say—

He goes on to say—

We have already asked repeatedly that labour should be made available where the labour is available, by agreement or whatever other ways are feasible. Here I have a survey which was made by the Federated Chamber of Industry. They say they obtained 75 per cent labour they applied for. It is very elementary that if you do not have enough labour, you cannot keep up with production. Then there is the question of the protection of the White worker, something which we on both sides of the House will do as far as is possible. Here we have a significant remark made by the chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries. He said—

Sir, there is no need for me to make this plea. It has already been made by the chairman of the Chamber of Industries. It is not a question of our not taking an interest in the White worker and in the work he must do, but the fact remains that if one is able to promote the White man to a supervisory position, then it is not necessary to use him as a porter on a railway station. I have never been able to see why that work should be reserved for Whites. I think that any intelligent Bantu can do that work very well. Let us promote the White people to more responsible positions. I am in complete agreement with the chairman of the Chamber of Industries that if the White is freed from similar work which he is doing at present, then he will look for other work on a more competitive basis where he will be able to do better.

The hon. the Minister of course knows what is going on in the business world, but I wonder whether he is always in touch with what is going on in the business world as we are who are active in the business world and who know what he is doing to the business world, to the industries and to commerce in the form of ever increasing taxation and no incentive for them to produce more? These people’s costs are continually increasing. We all know that as a result of this Budget, which increased the taxation further, there will be further demands for higher wages. As wages, interest rates and taxes go up, it becomes more and more difficult for companies to produce profits; they begin to show losses, and what happens when they begin to show losses? The hon. the Minister is just as much aware as I am of the enormous number of insolvencies of business enterprises which have occurred during the last few months, but does the hon. the Minister know what indirect effect this has? Sir, I have had dealings with one, business undertaking which had in the last two months, dismissed 58 Whites for various reasons. The one is that the company is not so profitable as it ought to be, and rather than allow the company to begin to show losses, they decide to dismiss workers. The second reason that they do not have nearly enough non-White labour. We have today a situation where Whites are being dismissed as a result of the Budget, which the Government should preferably have used to give added momentum to the economy of the country and to promote growth. If a Budget does not do that, it fails; then it becomes a mere short-term Budget to enable the Minister to get hold of sufficient funds to be able to do the things he wants to do. A Budget must surely make provisions for long-term planning; it must also enable companies to plan on a long-term basis and remain solvent. There is only one of two things a company which is beginning to show losses can do; it must either reduce its administrative costs and activities or it must go into liquidation, because its shareholders will not allow it to merely go on showing losses. Sir, there are some days when we cannot help feeling that the Minister and the Government are perhaps under the impression that they will overcome all difficulties if there is a small depression, or a major depression. Then people will once again have to queue up to find work, and there will be an end to demands for higher salaries and wages. The problems with which the Minister is faced at the moment will then be solved. Sir, I cannot accept that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was connected with the Reddingsdaadbond for such a long time before he came to this House and who has an instinct for what may happen, deliberately wants to create a depression so that he can solve the problems he has today.

That is nonsense.

I am not making that accusation; I am saying that I cannot accept it, but we all know that if the taxes are increased further and if companies are affected to an even greater extent, it will lead to an enormous depression. Scores and scores of people will then be dismissed, and Whites will again have to queue up to find work. As soon as one has that position, then the workers bid against each other, and salary scales come down. We have seen this before, Sir; we saw it in 1932. We have seen people looking for work on the roads because there was a depression which was caused by the fact that the Government did not leave the gold standard in time. Sir, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to ensure that we do not find ourselves in that situation again. We see the signs around us. We who are in business see the signs around us. I am convinced that the Minister knows about the many people who have already been dismissed, from senior posts as well. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister knows that if you now advertise a vacancy for a senior accountant you will easily have 130 applications, while six months or a year ago you would have received three applications. That is an indication of what is happening.

Until recently we had a wonderful degree of confidence in border industries and in the decentralization of industries. We wanted to expand the entire country rapidly, and make it strong. What is the position today? I want to invite the hon. the Minister to come to East London. Until a year ago industrialists there could not buy industrial land quickly enough. Westbank was sold out complete and industrialists bought land at Berlin and took up options on land. Do you know, Sir, that there is stagnation today. The people are not building so zealously today, because they do not have confidence any more. If one looks at the Budget, can the Minister blame them for not having any confidence? What is there to give them confidence that things will go well in future with our industries when they see what is happening at this stage? After all, they know what is going to happen; they know that interest rates will increase again after this Budget, or does not the hon. the Minister think that they will not increase? I do not want to make predictions here but I will be very surprised if interest rates do not go up within a month. The cost structure is becoming more expensive; administrative costs are increasing; labour is becoming more expensive and taxes are higher. What confidence of any description can the industrialist have in the future? Surely it is one of the objects of the Government to create confidence.

And profits are increasing.

Profits only increase if you take that money out of the profits of the consumer, and the consumer is already sick and tired of the continually increasing prices he has to pay. That is the only way in which profits can be increased.

Why should the Company tax have been less, if profits are greater?

I want to admit that with this Government’s labour policy this Budget was perhaps unavoidable because the Minister does not have room in which to move. I cannot believe that the Minister would have brought a Budget of this nature before this House if it had not been for the fact that he is being restricted by an ideology of the Government which determines in which direction the economy should develop. Does the Minister really want to bend and to break the economy in such a way that it will always fit in with the ideology of the Government? Last year the hon. the Minister gave us the assurance that he would hold discussions with the industrialists in regard to the question of the availability of more labour, but shortly afterwards other Ministers came along and placed a damper on that. I believe that the hon. the Minister, with the help of the many good officials he has at his disposal, was able to draw up a Budget which would have been infinitely better than this one. The concensus of opinion is that this Budget is not a good one for the country. I am convinced that the Minister, with the help of his Department, was able to introduce a better Budget. I want to ask the Minister whether he is no longer listening to the representations of the Sakekamers, the Handelsinstituut, the Chambers of Industry, the Chambers of Commerce, the commercial banks and other organizations outside which have eminent economists at their disposal? Does he no longer want to listen to them, or is he caught so firmly in the stranglehold of the Government ideology that he may not listen to them? I should like to read out what one of our senior bankers recently said. He said that the solution to a large part of our inflationary and growth rate problems lay in labour. By causing a greater demand for labour and by increasing the productivity of labour, a great deal of the pressure on wages and salaries as a cost inflation factor would be reduced. With a greater supply of labour we will be able to expand our industrial undertakings more successfully, with consequential lower unit costs and not only will the cost of living increase be checked, but it will also help us inter alia to compete more effectively on the export market which in turn will have a favourable influence on our balance of payments; with a greater supply of labour a stop will be put to escalating wages and salaries, and the productivity of employees will also be increased. He said that the S.A. Handelsinstituut and other public bodies insisted that a comprehensive action programme should be instituted immediately to increase the labour supply and thus at the same time bring about a greater development and a greater production of goods and services, and increase the supply throughout the entire economy. He says that in his opinion these are also the best means of combating inflation. This action programme in respect of labour includes inter alia certain points which I do not want to go into now. Sir, this is all advice which is streaming in from outside. These are friends and acquaintances of the hon. the Minister. He knows them all and surely he knows that the approach of people is a sound one. That this had no effect whatsoever on him when he was drawing up the Budget I simply cannot accept.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. It is now too late to do anything about this Budget, but in the future at least he should give a little more attention to what is being said outside, what is happening amongst the people who have to produce the productivity, and what is happening amongst the people who have to supply the funds. Do you know, Sir, a banker told me that he could give me the assurance that the interest rates would be up before the end of this month. Sir, where are we going to? How high must we allow the interest structure to go? There is nothing in regard to interest rate control in the Budget. I am dealing with this aspect of the Budget, and do not let me say that we are not grateful for what has been done in the Budget.

Is your party in favour of interest rate control?

If interest rates increase excessively, and they cannot go up to 12 and 13 per cent, then you will have to apply interest rate control.

But are you in favour of interest rates being controlled now?

If there are further increases in the interest rates …

When?

I have already said that if interest rates become all that excessively high, we shall have to control them, and the Minister will have to do so as well.

Are you in favour of it in principle? I should like to know that from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out and I should like to recapitulate by saying that the Budget is inflationary because by taxation it endeavours to remove funds from the private sector and in doing this a never-ending queue of wage demands will follow, with the result that prices will increase; that it does little to close the trade gap; that it holds no incentive for increased production; that it ignores the basic elements of supply and demand on the labour market; that it does nothing to curb interest rates and it has no long-term vision. Instead of being the instrument to steer and direct the economy of the country, it has become a wet blanket on initiative and enterprise. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

The hon. member for East London City made a truly potpourR1 speech here this morning. He jumped from one thing to another. I cannot reply to the many aspects of his speech, but there is particularly one aspect about which I should like to ask the hon. Opposition a few questions.

At the beginning of his speech he once again raised the matter, as the Opposition has done time and again by way of interjections, concerning the fact that the United Party would apply influx control. Is it correct that you said this, and that the United Party says it?

Yes.

Then I should like to ask the United Party to tell us how they are going to apply this influx control, in respect of the influx of Bantu to the cities, when they include the following in their policy: Firstly, that the Bantu must sell his labour on the best market; in other words, that there shall be the greatest possible labour mobility. The second question is how they are going to apply it if, according to their policy, the Bantu can bring their families in? How are they going to apply it if they want to give the Bantu land tenure in the Republic? They must now please give us replies to these relevant questions. We know that the Opposition’s policy is one of contradictions and paradoxes, but this is probably one of the biggest paradoxes in their policy, and they must please reply specifically to this point.

Yesterday I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly to the first part of the speech which I should like to call a kind of “We warned you after all” speech, a “we told you so” speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they gave warning of the labour shortage, of the shortage of engineers and of the shortage of teachers that would develop. Then he professed that they had made positive suggestions to deal with these matters.

Sir, in June, 1961, when I had only just arrived in this House, I listened to a speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very defeatist and pessimistic speech as he sketched the future. That was the occasion on which the Republic of South Africa came into being, and when the late Dr. Verwoerd withdrew the Republic from the mixed Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition then made a speech saying, more or less, that the banks would close, business would dry up, industries would come to a standstill and there would be unemployment. We had an election in October, 1961 and from then on, at and through that election, the people expressed their confidence in the National Party and placed it in power again. Since then, particularly after 1965, there was a great upsurge of the economy. Foreign investors had confidence because there was a strong government in power here. The people had confidence and a flourishing period set in. What the hon. member predicted did not take place. His prophetic talents left him in the lurch, and now again it is a question of predictions. At that time there were predictions of unemployment and of banks and businesses coming to a standstill.

But this morning I should like to emphasize one aspect in particular, and that is the claim of the Opposition and of the Leader of the Opposition that warnings were given about the shortage of teachers. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition what really positive steps they took or what suggestions they made in connection with the shortage of teachers throughout all these years? I want to ask the Opposition whether, on any occasion, they have ever expressed their gratitude to the body of teachers. Quite a number of members of the Opposition have already spoken thus far, and I ask them whether they have expressed their gratitude to the Government for the salary increases given to the teachers recently. As far as teachers and the recruiting of teachers is concerned, the hon. Opposition has shamefully neglected its duty. I level the accusation at the Opposition, from the hon. the Leader down to all the members of the Opposition, that they have never, at any time that I know of, stood up in the House and encouraged the English-speaking people to qualify themselves for the teaching profession in order to carry their share of the education of the children of this people. The Afrikaans-speaking people are the ones who are carrying out this task. The majority of the English language group supports the Opposition, and the English language group has shamefully neglected its duty. It has not furnished its quota of teachers. It is on the shoulders of the Afrikaans-speaking people that all facets of education rest today. I want to sum this up here for the House by quoting from a speech made last year in September by the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr. Eksteen van Niekerk, who summed this matter up tersely and concisely. He said (translation)—

I want to ask what the Afrikaans-speaking teacher has received from the Opposition in the past. They were treated thanklessly. I know what I am talking about. I was in the teaching profession for many years. I was there before the so-called shortage of teachers. Insults were received from the Opposition at its congresses. The hon. member for Orange Grove is actually one of the persons who always takes the lead, who excels in his accusations that the teacher as such applies indoctrination. I do not want to go into that. We have spoken about that many times. The accusation levelled at him contains the stigma—there is certainly nothing wrong with indoctrination itself—that the United Party wants to remove indoctrination. In addition they accused the Afrikaans teacher of participation in politics. They accused us of this at congresses and at other times. That is what the Afrikaans-speaking teacher received for the sacrifice he makes and for the fact that he teaches the children of English-speaking citizens.

At present we hear very little in connection with the so-called shortage of teachers. At the beginning of the Transvaal term an English language newspaper in the Transvaal wrote (translation)—

That is what the newspaper states in connection with the Transvaal. This report forms a glaring contrast with what took place last year in the clamouring headlines about the “crisis” in Transvaal education. What is the reason for so little fuss being made of it now? The reason is that there are no general or provincial elections at hand. It is regrettable that the Opposition usually wants to drag such educational matters into the political arena.

As far as I know we did not hear much in Natal last year about a teacher shortage. Things were going very well. Natal has, of course, a chiefly English-speaking administration. What is the true position this year, at the beginning of 1971, as I have heard it? In Natal there were, according to reports, about 147 posts vacant. In the Transvaal there were fewer than 100 vacant posts, at primary schools and high schools. We must remember that the Transvaal has the largest school population. The Transvaal is responsible for more or less 52 per cent of the pre-university education of our pupils. Nothing was said of Natal’s shortage in 1970. That shortage actually developed this year, notwithstanding improved salaries and conditions of teaching. The Transvaal Education Department really deserves the honour for creating interest in education among the student youth, the high school pupils. As a result we have found this year, particularly as far as the colleges of education are concerned, that the numbers of matriculation pupils interested in taking a course in education have increased considerably. As I have said, the largest portion of the education task rests with the Transvaal. The Transvaal Education Department must be praised for the initiative they have displayed in this connection. I want to mention a few points in this connection. Praiseworthy efforts are being made by the Transvaal Education Department, and their success can, inter alia, be ascribed to the following reasons: The contact points created and built up between the Department, the organized profession, the parent community and commerce and industry; the greater degree of recognition afforded the teaching profession, including educational planning; and the drawing up of syllabuses, etc. The position in respect of retaining existing teachers and the recruiting of new teachers has improved a great deal as a result of the improvement of conditions of service, the new grading system and the revised salary scales that would only have been operative from April, 1971, but which actually became operative a year before that. From 1st January, 1971, the salaries of all teachers were increased by at least three notches, but did we receive any thanks from the Opposition for these measures implemented by the Government? As an ex-teacher, and on behalf of the body of teachers, I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to the Government today. From many sides I have witnessed the gratitude of the teaching profession for the considerable increases in their salaries. A fair evaluation of qualifications also took place. The grade promotion system was introduced with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1969. The teachers were given better conditions of service, such as more favourable vacations. Sick leave, study leave, examination leave and university leave were granted. Pensions benefits were improved. A compulsory medical aid scheme was introduced. Teachers now receive a housing subsidy and a vacation bonus. I do not know whether this is applicable in the other Provinces yet, but a teacher in the Transvaal can work off a study loan in the employment of the Department over a number of years.

The teachers also produce quid pro quo. They improve their qualifications. They attend numerous orientation courses which the Transvaal Education Department arranges for them. I want to point out that today the teachers are the persons furnishing the most important and indispensable services to a community and to a people. Each of us knows this, and that is why we extend our gratitude and appreciation to the teachers. In this world, which is becoming increasingly more complicated, the teacher has an even more responsible task than in the past. The teacher is beginning to realize, to an increasingly greater extent, that as in the past he fulfils a calling. That is why we encounter, at present, increasingly more idealism among teachers. We are very glad that that idealism is still encountered among teachers, particularly the Afrikaans-speaking teachers. Education is a fundamental service to a people. The National Government realizes its responsibility to youth. The National Party Government is in earnest about giving our youth the best education and training opportunities and the best education facilities, from the pupil in the primary school up to and including the student at university, whose intention it is to achieve the highest academic qualifications.

In that connection I want to indicate what is being allocated to university education in this Budget. The total provision being made for university education for the financial year 1971-72 amounts to R58 717 900. This is an increase of 19 per cent on the previous year. As such it does not seem to be very much. But then it must be borne in mind that in the course of the year, by way of the supplementary budget, an additional amount of Rif million is being allocated in respect of salaries to the university staff. This will bring the total amount for the financial year to R60f million. This amounts to an improvement of 22,4 per cent compared with the previous financial year. If it is compared with the financial year 1969-70, when the amount provided was about R32 million, the increase for university education from that time to the present Budget, is 82 per cent. In 1968 only R21 million was spent on education at university level, and in 1964 only R14 million. The increase from 1964 up to the present financial year is 432 per cent. I do not have enough adjectives to describe this position. I can only say that it is fantastic.

Let us just briefly take stock of the numerical increases. In 1948, just after the Government took over, the number of students at White universities was 18 500. I am not sure whether that figure also includes non-Whites. On the first Tuesday of June, 1970, the total number of White students at White universities was 70 335. Here again there was an increase of 380 per cent. If this is not proof of what this Government is doing for education, then I wonder what proofs will convince the Opposition of the Government’s true object as far as education is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget could most certainly be described as a pleasant surprise, if one could speak of a pleasant surprise in this connection. I say that it is a pleasant surprise, because so many people outside had already accepted the speculations of certain newspapers about the expected Budget. The people expected a Budget which would force them to dip their hands deep into their pockets. A Budget was expected in which industries would not be encouraged to invest and to go forward. But this Budget took the wind out of the sails of many propagandists who acted as prophets of doom.

There is a great deal that could be said in connection with this Budget. One could speak about the good things contained in it, inter alia, for example, the concessions to people who are not so well off, etc. There is, however, one aspect I want to touch upon lightly. This Budget is aimed at bringing about the greater saving of consumer goods. Mr. Speaker, in the times we live in today I think we should rather have slogans about thrift and industry. Thrift is a part of the lives of people, and it is also very important in the lives of those people and in the lives of a people.

Then one asks oneself the question: What has the United Party done to encourage people to save? The opposite is, in fact, true. The conclusion one comes to, on listening to their arguments, is that they are rather encouraging greater spending, because this greater spending surely has other consequences as well. This greater spending could, after all, help to realize their policy as integrationists. The United Party wants to develop in an uncontrolled and unbridled way.

South Africa is a multi-national country. It is important for us to note that we live in a multi-national country where the Whites are very much in the minority. The National Party displays greater understanding and realism in respect of the economy in this multi-national country.

It is necessary to point out the dangers of over-spending and the overheating of the economy for the entire population and particularly for the White population in a multi-national country. I now want to point to one of these dangers. I would welcome it if more attention, and more serious attention, were to be given to this danger of consumer credit. Consumer credit is undoubtedly one of the most important factors that has contributed to the high rate of spending and the low level of savings. By means of consumer credit people are placed in a position to promote this buying craze that has taken hold to such an extent that supply is much lower than demand. This cannot but promote inflation. The result of this is an unhealthy economic structure. Consumer credit I have to designate as an evil. However, this does not mean that one should totally ban consumer credit. But we could safely take drastic action as far as consumer credit is concerned, because when people see that their neighbours own certain status symbols, for example a grand piano, they also want to acquire one. And the facilities are there for doing this quite easily.

Every country has its own problems. One of our biggest problems is specifically the multi-nationality of our country. That is why it is necessary for us not to grow unchecked and allow the Bantu uncontrolled entry into skilled and semi-skilled labour in the metropolitan areas. When we accuse the United Party of advocating integration. they deny this. If we accuse them of wanting to throw the doors open, they deny it. Let us go back a little and look at what happened when the Industrial Conciliation Act was introduced in 1954. We also had prophecies of doom at the time, and I want to mention a few of them. For example it was said that if this legislation were to be passed, legislation which made provision for the separation of races and for job reservation, it would destroy the trade union movement. They must tell us whether they deny it today. In addition, that legislation was labelled as fascist legislation, and it was alleged that the Minister was robbing the trade unions of their funds, that the legislation would create industrial unrest: “It is a law to enslave all workers”; it was labelled as “enslavement”, etc. This was said fifteen years ago, and was said for a certain purpose, i.e. to jeopardize the legislation. On that occasion Mr. Tighy also acted as a prophet, as the hon. member of the Opposition did yesterday. In column 736 on 1st February, 1956, he said—

He said that 15 years ago. In other words, the United Party were purely intent on preventing race segregation in the field of labour. In column 738 he says—

In column 741 he says—

But what has in actual fact happened since then? New industries have developed and grown, in spite of the fear of the United Party. Just think back to the time when the National Party had to fight the United Party to establish industries in South Africa. For example, Iscor was a contentious issue in this House. One hon. member opposite went so far at the time as to say “I have been told the chemicals won’t mix.” Today the United Party still displays the same mentality, only in reverse order. Today they only have one filing in mind —to assail the fundamentals of separate development so that that integrationist idea of theirs can get into its stride. In those days Minister Schoeman formulated the standpoint of the National Party as follows (translation)—

Today the National Party still adheres to these principles and shall continue to do so. There will be no relaxation of the principles of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, nor a total abolition of it.

Rather than to throw the doors wide open to skilled and semi-skilled labour they can do the following. They can ask our workers to make a few more sacrifices for the sake of the survival of White civilization by, for example, working harder and working longer hours. In some departments, such as the Railways, they are already working harder and working longer hours. There we do not expect much more. But there are others who can be expected to work harder and to work longer hours with a view to promoting productivity for the sake of the survival of the Whites in South Africa.

However, productivity is not only dependent on the workers’ labour; it also depends on the organization and the administration of the employer. As far as this is concerned, it can be accepted that there is much room for improvement, i.e. in the organization and administration in factories, for example. This Government has always encouraged sound trade unions in South Africa. The Minister of Labour has stated repeatedly that the National Party encourages the existence of sound trade unions in South Africa so that the worker has a sound basis for negotiations. Our workers in South Africa must now negotiate sensibly. It is extremely important for them to negotiate sensibly and not to eventually strangle the goose that lays the golden egg.

Sir, the United Party continues to speak here of economic integration. According to them we are already economically integrated with the non-Whites and the Bantu. But, Sir, what we have today is surely not economic integration; it is economic cooperation. What really happens is that the one has the talent for enterprise and makes it available, takes the lead and establishes industries, and the other one sells his labour to the industrialist.

It is purely a question of economic cooperation. What does economic integration mean—for the information of the hon. member for Johannesburg North? What does economic integration embrace? You only get economic integration when there is absolute equality in the economic sphere; when the one race contributes just as much as the other race in respect of capital, land, etc. One has economic integration when there is an absolute partnership between the races, but here there is no question of partnership; here it is a question of cooperation. The Opposition, in fact, wants economic integration to come, because they are not interested in the survival of the handful of Whites in the Republic of South Africa. They also envisage something else in connection with economic integration; they know that economic integration logically leads to social integration. As soon as there is social integration, it goes without saying that political integration will result, and what do we have then? Then we have the vanishing of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, with this I conclude. I once again want to appeal to the Whites in South Africa to think about and reflect on their future in this country.

The hon. member for Hercules gave us an interesting definition of economic integration. He said that we did not have economic integration, but economic co-operation. Sir, the Bantu are part of our economy; they are an integral part of our economy. We cannot get along without them.

Whose economy?

Of the economy of South Africa. He is an integral part of that economy, and that is why we have economic integration. The hon. member then went on to say that if one has economic integration, it will lead to social integration and equality. But if that is the case, then the Nationalist Party stands for equality because under the Nationalist Party economic integration has increased more rapidly than ever before in the history of this country. In 1948 there were 3,9 million Bantu in the so-called White South Africa; today there are 8 million—twice as many as in 1948. As many have streamed into the White areas since 1948 as did from the time of Jan van Riebeeck until 1948. Sir, I know that members of the Nationalist Party have been told to discuss Bantu affairs here, the Natal Provincial Council, and I do not know what else, to distract the attention of the people from this Budget. Sir, what is this Budget in actual fact, stripped of all the clever talk and all the glib statements we have heard here? We find that during the past year money has been snatched and grabbed out of the pockets of the people of South Africa on a scale unequalled in the history of this country —an additional amount of more than R400 million. The income of the people, as the hon. member for Paarl said, increased by R756 million, and of that amount the Government simply took R400 million, more than 56 per cent. What this Budget amounts to is nothing but a scraping together of sufficient money to finance the expensive State machinery of a spendthrift Government. What is the actual position in this country? I wonder whether hon. members on that side were in their constituencies during the Easter recess. Do they not know what is going on in this country? One can hardly believe that that side of the House can be so out of touch with the people and can behave so callously towards the people. For what is the actual position in South Africa? This Budget is a scraping together of the necessary money because they have smothered the economy of the country to death. What is the actual position? Sir, let me quote to you what the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer says according to Rapport, 28th March, 1971 (translation)—

Sir, these are loyal supporters of the Government; these people are not agitators; they are the most loyal supporters of that Government. If we want any further proof, we see that our growth rate has dropped to a little more than 5 per cent and that it is still levelling off, while the target rate of the Economic Advisory Council under the present structure is 5t per cent. In other words, the growth rate has decreased by 16 per cent and is still levelling off. Sir, any economist in South Africa will tell us that if the growth rate drops below 5 per cent, it will be catastrophic for South Africa.

What economists say that?

Dr. Frans Jacobz, the chairman of Union Steel, said that in Rapport on 28th February, 1971. He said that a growth rate below 5 per cent would be catastrophic for South Africa, and the growth rate is now below 5 per cent. Our physical volume of consumer goods has decreased to 4,9 per cent, and is still levelling off. We see that company tax brought in R42 million less than the amount budgeted for by the Minister, and we know that the Minister always underestimates.

Are you going to take Wit-bank?

Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that a Deputy Minister attaches so little value to the fate of the people of South Africa that he can make such a nonsensical interjection. Why did company tax yield R42 million less? Because the companies are less profitable today. And what is the Minister of Finance doing? Instead of encouraging them, he slaps another 5 per cent loan levy on companies, a loan levy which is nothing but taxation under a nom de plume, to yield him R36 million and to level off company profits even further. Our balance of payments sheet shows a deficit of R788 million. Our imports have increased by 20 per cent, but our exports have decreased by 5 per cent.

What was the reason?

That is a very good question. Why did it happen? Any economist will tell you that it happened in the first place because the Government failed to create the necessary infrastructure for growth.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. The second point is that there is a shortage of capital because the interest rates are so high that it does not pay an entrepreneur to start a new enterprise today. Who can start a new enterprise if you have to pay interest at 10 or 11 per cent, coupled with all the labour difficulties? The third point is that there is not enough trained labour in South Africa. Those are the reasons. [Interjections.] Sir, I wonder whether hon. members will allow me to make my speech?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

To come to the first point, that of the infrastructure, look at the state our Railways in South Africa are in. Here they tell us that we are going to lose contracts to the value of R25 million for anthracite during the next five years because the transport facilities are not there. Then the General Manager of the Railways, Mr. Loubser, says in the Cape Times of 1st July, 1970—

Look at the state our Post Office is in. There is a shortage of 120 000 telephones. And since the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is here now, look at the state our abattoirs in South Africa are in. Here the people of South Africa are crying out for meat. What did they have to pay over the Easter weekend, and over Christmas, for meat? And the farmers are begging for permits to slaughter their sheep, but there are not enough abattoir facilities in South Africa. Here we have lost, if Die Burger is correct, a contract with the European Common Market and the French, where we could have sold lamb to the value of R25 million at 40 cents a pound, but none of our abattoirs in South Africa were hygienic enough. And what is the Minister doing about it? One would have thought that he would have said, the very next day: Get the architects in and build abattoirs. But nothing is being done and we will simply have to lose that R25 million in spite of an unfavourable balance of payments of R788 million. And the wool farmer, who has now been ground into the dust, could have supplemented his income by that R25 million, but now he is getting nothing.

What R25 million is that?

Did the French want to buy lamb here, or not?

Where must they slaughter the lambs?

Now the hon. Minister of Agriculture is asking me where they must slaughter the lambs. He must see to it that abattoirs are built.

Where are you going to find 5 million lambs?

Sir, it surprises me that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is so out of touch that he does not even know that there is a surplus of meat in this country. He must simply go to the farmers of South Africa for a change; he will then see how they are begging for permits, because they cannot dispose of their sheep. Over Christmas I had to give my sheep away to the local butcher for 19 cents a pound, and I had to give him a case of whisky to boot. That just goes to show how out of touch these people are with the position in South Africa.

I must apologize to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because I forgot that he discussed the universities. But in what state do we find our universities? What is the position in regard to housing in South Africa? Six months ago one was unable to obtain a single brick or bag of cement in this country. We had to import it. One could not get any steel. We want to export our crude iron ore to Japan, but there was no planning by this Government, and that in a country which has the most raw materials in the world. But there was no planning.

But I want to come to the second point, i.e. capital. I went back a little through the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Finance to see how he is supposedly combating inflation. I went back to 1967 and this is what he said—

This was said on 15th June, 1967, Vol. II, column 4682 of the Senate Hansard—

Then he went on to say—

Of new enterprises, Sir, and that was in 1967. Could you find a clearer exposition than that of how the entrepreneurs of South Africa have been strangled to death? Since that time they have been bombarded with bank credit curbs, increased taxation, increased loan levies, increased interest rates and sales duty. Now they are asking us why the country is in the condition it is in. But if you want to destroy your industries and the growth of your country, this is the condition it will be in, and that is what the hon. the Minister did.

Poor but White.

Yes, poor but White. But now I want to ask whether the Minister has combated inflation with these methods? On the contrary, inflation has increased on a scale unequalled in the history of the country. It has already reached 4,3 per cent, but he persists in these methods. And the hon. the Minister himself said, when he was addressing the German Chamber of Commerce—

But what new methods has he applied? He still persists in applying those old methods which he knows have not succeeded and which have had just the opposite effect. [Interjections.] We want to allow the country to grow. We have stated clearly, over the years, that the country must grow. To allow the country to grow you should have created the infrastructure in the years which the locusts have eaten, and you should have trained the labourers in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us now come to the question of labour. In this country there is a shortage of more than 2 000 doctors, and I do not know how many thousand engineers. Wherever you look there are opportunities for the young people to fill vacancies, but what chance do they have of filling those positions? Before you can fill those positions, you have to be trained, and what training facilities are there? The figures prove that one-third of the children who pass Std. 6 never pass Std. 8, and two-thirds of those never pass matric.

Is that because of a lack of training facilities?

Wait a minute. What is even more tragic than that is that two-thirds of the children who get a first-class pass in matric, never set foot in a university.

Are there enough mechanics?

Wait a minute, I shall come to that. Two-thirds of the children who get through matric never set foot in a university because their parents cannot afford it. It costs any parent R1 000 per year to keep a child at university, and who can afford to keep three children at university? Who can afford to keep only one child at university? And if you can afford it, you are not certain that your child can be enrolled at the university. In 1968 there were 791 applications to the medical faculty at the University of the Witwatersrand, but only 181 could be accepted. The other 500 applicants had to be turned away because there were no facilities. At Cape Town University another 500 had to be turned away. A thousand potential doctors, young people who wanted to devote their lives to alleviating human suffering, were turned away, and this may be attributed to the incompetence of this Government.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry, but my time is very limited. What do we see in this age of science, while the whole future development of South Africa depends on science? We see that 77 per cent of the teachers teaching mathematics have not even been trained for that subject. Twenty-seven per cent of those teaching science have not even been trained for that subject. Then this Government talks about education! We told them clearly that they should elevate the White man and that free university training should be given to all White children in South Africa, as far as their ability extends. Secondly, the older workers must be trained and retrained. Short courses should be introduced so that people may equip themselves for a higher position. As the Whites are elevated the non-White workers can be brought in on the lower level. We have stated repeatedly that the position can be solved in this way. But this Government is not doing it.

To return to the hon. the Minister of Finance, he continued with his policy of extracting money from the population of South Africa by means of loan levies. On 18th June, 1969 he was still not satisfied. He then rose in this House and said that the money should be drained out of the country and that it should be sent abroad. He said that exchange control should be lifted. Now they are telling us that there is no capital. They say that they do not know why the interest rates are so high. That hon. Minister took those steps deliberately. After they had been taken, there was a general election in which the National Party lost nine seats. They got such a fright that they all thought of inflation vanished from their minds. The hon. the Minister of Transport at Langlaagte simply dished out R60 000 000 among the Railway workers. Let me make it clear now that we did in fact say that the Railway workers deserved this, but the United Party would have allocated it gradually, as the cost of living increased. We would not have used it as an electioneering instrument, as this Government did, and would not have waited until just before an election to grant the increased wages, which they needed. In this way they threw millions of rands into the economy. It did not help. The majority vote for the National Party at Langlaagte decreased by 1 400. Then they simply threw R147 000 000 into the economy to win the provincial election. The election was hardly over—only three days had elapsed— when the Government came forward with its hire-purchase restrictions. I am not opposed to them as such, but why did they introduce them only three days after the election? Three weeks later the hon. the Minister got such a fright when the industrialists threatened him to some extent that they relaxed the restrictions again. After that they came forward with the Post Office increases. These increases did not amount to only 5 per cent; the tariffs were simply increased by 66 per cent. They did not need this, however, because they had budgeted for a R77 million surplus. The hon. the Minister of Transport increased rail tariffs as well by slapping on an additional R58 million. In the subsequent Little Budget the hon. the Minister slapped on a further R47 million. [Interjections.] Yes, those hon. members can laugh. They are not having such a hard time as the people of South Africa are. Then motor car insurance increased by 20 per cent. Petrol increased by R58 million, although Caltex showed a profit of R18 million. Nevertheless, the Minister granted an increase of between 3 and 6 cents, and then it was said that the Minister’s officials had been wrong. It is not the Minister, but his officials, who were wrong. Now, with this Budget, the Minister is again taking an extra R175 million from the people of South Africa. What must we now hear from that side of the House? We hear from the hon. member for Paarl that the young people of South Africa have gone soft through prosperity, and that they must be disciplined. During the Little Budget we heard from the hon. member for Sunnyside that the people should be hit hard by the Government. What did we hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture? I am very fond of him, but this just goes to show how quickly he has picked up the ministerial jargon. At Tygerberg he told the people that inflation was being caused by women who were buying too much. It is not the Government or the Minister who are causing inflation, but the women of South Africa. If the Minister of Transport says that he cannot make ends meet, and that he wants tariff increases of R58 million because he cannot get his Railway Budget to balance, then the Deputy Minister agrees, but when I tell him that the farmer of South Africa cannot make ends meet, he says that farmer is incompetent and should go to the city.

Who said so?

You said it here. I shall show it to you. You said that the incompetent farmer should go to the city. That is what the National Party is saying, Mr. Speaker. Let us see what the National Party newspapers have to say about this. What did their newspapers say about the way in which the Minister handled this matter? I am quoting from Rapport of 14th March (translation)—

Let us take a look at Die Burger of 13th February, 1971. There we read (translation): “The confusion still continues”. In Die Burger of 12th February we read the following—

Then the Rapport of 21st March, 1971 goes further—

Then the hon. the Minister of Finance came to light with his Budget, and what comfort did he have for us? He said we had coarse rice to eat, water to drink and a folded arm for a pillow, and in the midst of all these things we have peace of mind. Sir, he is quite right. We have coarse rice to eat. We have water to drink. We have a folded arm for a pillow, but peace of mind the people of South Africa do not have. The people of South Africa are going through hell under this Government. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members can laugh. It shows again how out of touch they are with the people of South Africa and how callous their attitude is towards the people of South Africa. However, there is one ray of light on the horizon for the people of South Africa, for here they have an Opposition which will hit out and hit hard and go on hitting in the interests of the people. This is an Opposition which will fight for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have once again had the unpleasant experience now of listening to the hon. member for King William’s Town, who has just resumed his seat. He is the hon. member who became notorious for his statement that he would give up his Afrikaner principles for closer co-operation with the English-speaking people. I now want to challenge him to tell us how far he would go in sacrificing principles in order to implement labour and political integration, if his party were to come into power. He accused the National Government of promoting integration of the Bantu in our economy. He says the Bantu form an integral part of our economy, but this is not the case. Under the régime of the National Government there has been tremendous industrial growth, which has brought about a phenomenal demand for Bantu labour. It has had the effect that the National Party has had to deal with such an influx of Bantu labour as has never been the case before, but the National Party has controlled the matter in a manner which has been acceptable to the White employers as well as the Bantu. During the United Party’s régime that labour influx was allowed to continue unrestricted; where were those Bantu labourers housed? They were housed in shanty towns surrounding our larger cities, in slums and in locations in the air. The National Party implemented disintegration in that regard. Was that not the case? And then we are being accused of having implemented more extensive integration, because there has been an increase in the number of Bantu labourers. The National Party’s labour pattern is based on sound and orderly principles, in which the colour bar and job reservation are implemented for the sake of safeguarding the White employees, also for the good of the non-Whites.

The hon. member launched an attack on the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He said that the facilities at our abattoirs were inadequate and that the abattoirs could not handle the supply of slaughter-stock, but who should actually be blamed for that? I am accusing the U.P. city councils of Johannesburg and other cities, whose primary duty it is to make provision for their inhabitants to obtain meat. It is their duty to ensure that adequate slaughtering facilities are created in their cities. They have not done so. They have failed. Even with the greatest insistence, offers and concessions on the part of the State, they have always failed to keep pace with growing needs. Before coming to my own speech, I just want to make one last observation. The hon. member also made an attack based on the steel shortage. It was his party that refused permission for Iscor to be established. Now that tremendous expansion has taken place in respect of steel production in South Africa, he is levelling accusations of this kind. If his party had been in office, we would most probably not even have had a steel factory as yet.

But in spite of the clangour of so many bells of doom rung by the hon. Opposition and all its minions, inter alia, that the Budget presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance will cause the economic sun to set in South Africa, it is very clear that the majority of these bells had nasty cracks and mainly produced discordant sounds. The Budget-phobia that was blown up by the hon. Opposition and its minions into a pregnant mountain, was delivered of a mouse. The hon. Opposition’s attack, which was to incite South Africa into condemning the hon. the Minister and the Government as had never been done before, fell flat the moment the first speaker on the Opposition side rose to speak. The hon. the Minister granted that it was extremely difficult to prepare this Budget, perhaps more difficult than it was to prepare many other budgets taken together. The economic climate for presenting a mild and generally acceptable budget, was an extremely unfavourable one. What applied in this case, was not only the situation in South Africa, but also the situation in other countries of the world. South Africa experienced a consumer growth such as had never been the case before. The aggregate expenditure has exceeded the production completely. This creates a position in conflict with all sound economic principles. Unfortunately for the hon. the Minister this overspending has become so ingrained, so much part of the pattern of living in our present social life of luxury, that it has become virtually impossible to neutralize it by one stroke of the pen. The hon. the Minister does not have the means for neutralizing such a situation by way of one single resolution or new tax levies. That is impossible. Overspending has become a cronic disease, which in the hands of the Opposition will probably result in the early death of the patient, but which in the hands of the Government, correctly diagnosed and cautiously treated, is not incurable. The measures for that purpose are being taken and are definitely meeting with a great deal of success. Somebody once said that inflation was a many-headed dragon; if one head were cut off here, another head appeared somewhere else. It is like the proverbial cat which has nine lives and which cannot easily be killed or stamped out.

It is true that the hon. the Minister, with the assistance of his colleagues and officials, put in his show-window everything he had. The hon. member for Hillbrow, one of the leading speakers on economics on that side of the House, called this Budget a shop-window in which the hon. the Minister, with the assistance of his colleagues, staked his whole reputation, and said that the Minister had failed miserably. He said—

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the hon. the Minister, assisted by his colleagues and officials, put everything he had in his shop-window. And what an imposing display did that Budget show-window give for South Africa! Actually, the delivery of the Budget speech sounded more like a masterly rendering by a practised and competent guide on an imposing show-window, intended for the eyes and the ears of the whole nation of South Africa. Consider the display in the Budget window to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred. Concessions were made to the aged. An additional amount of R23 million was voted for pensioners. The Budget also contains new benefits for border area developments. An amount of R20 million was voted for homeland development, for the purpose of stimulating separate development further. An amount of R3,7 million was voted in respect of higher salaries for university staff. Furthermore, an amount of R4,l million was voted in respect of an interest subsidy for housing. Relief was granted to city councils. All of these are articles displayed in that window to which the hon. member for Hillbrow so insultingly referred as a show-window which was not worthwhile. In fact, he disparaged the efforts made by the hon. the Minister.

Provision was made for new and more attractive savings projects with interest rates on a sliding scale from 5j to 8 per cent and an additional bonus of 4½ per cent for re-investments on a basis of seven years. In addition there are the interest rates on local stock in order that larger savings investments may be attracted. Tax surcharges and levies have been implemented in such a way that the rich are paving more and the poor are paying less. All of these are displays in the show-window—a magnificent display! It boomerangs on the criticasters and on the United Party and causes their eyes and mouths to water unpleasantly while they are window-shopping. For many years to come they will just have to do window shopping past the show-windows of the Government before they will ever have the opportunity again of arranging their own display before the electorate of South Africa.

But let us linger for a while before that show-window, the show-window in which, according to the hon. member for Hillbrow, “the Minister put everything he had”. Let us look at the agricultural corner of the display. An amount of R25 million has been voted for the Land Bank—RIO million of which at 2 per cent—in order that the Land Bank may still grant loans to farmers at 6 per cent. Then we find that there are amounts of R7 million for the wool farmer and R4 million for Agricultural Economics and Marketing in respect of interest subsidies. In another corner of the show-window we find concessions in respect of estate duties; surely, this is tax relief? A 10 per cent surcharge on loan levies is being imposed only on those persons who basically pay R150 in income tax. In addition there are the generous amounts for Defence, Higher Education, Social Welfare and other services. In short, the variations in the Minister’s window are surprising and soothing to the eye of the realistic onlooker, especially to the eyes of members of this side of the House who had a share in it. In contrast to that the Opposition window-shopper finds this display frustrating. He wants to break up that display, but he is incapable of doing so. I suppose that the show-window also has corners which one does not find quite as soothing; there are various causes of friction, but I challenge the Opposition to mention any budget which was prepared during their régime and which did not contain causes of friction, which did not hit the public hard and in which the Minister did not put his hand deep into the pockets of the taxpayers. A budget which is applauded by everybody, is still to be presented!

I cannot help referring also to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton, and I am doing so because there are statements which must be corrected. She painted a picture here of, what she called the meagre wages of the non-White workers under this Government. The low productivity, the labour shortage and especially the health of the non-White children are attributed to the workers being paid too little. But when we determine the income of non-White workers, there are many fringe benefits which must also be taken into account, for instance, the housing with which they are provided at equitable rentals; effective transport facilities, subsidized by the employer and the State—all these things must also be taken into account. Then there are education facilities which are being provided free of charge, as well as medical and hospital services, which are amongst the best in the world. In calculating these benefits in terms of money, we find that they make a considerable difference to salaries, and then we have quite a different picture. These things must mean a tremendous deal to the Bantu workers. On the farms they are provided with free housing, free water and fire-wood, milk and food, medical and hospital services. If a Bantu takes ill on one’s farm, one telephones the magistrate and then the district surgeon is sent out and the patient is taken to hospital—free of charge. The State is therefore doing a tremendous deal, which must be taken into account when we speak of the wages being paid to the non-White workers. Therefore, when the hon. member for Houghton makes such a speech, we must accept that she is doing so for consumption abroad and for the purpose of inciting the non-White workers through her angelic, so-called ethical statements, i.e. statements made by a soap-box orator intent on inciting people and winning over their sympathy.

The failure of the Opposition’s offensive against this Budget is characteristic of every attack made by them on the Government. Since 1948 this has caused them to suffer a series of humiliating defeats. Their powerlessness and lack of political insight are the result of inter alia their total lack of knowledge of human nature in the political sense. They do not know the people and the needs of the various population groups of South Africa; they cannot fathom these things; they have no understanding of the wishes and feelings of the various population groups. Nor do they know the South African political history, or if they do they are not viewing it in the proper perspective and are not learning any lessons from it. They do not understand the far-reaching significance of separating colour groups in this multinational country, nor are they familiar with the feelings of their own supporters. They do not realize that United Party members in the rural areas are in complete agreement with the Government’s policy of separate development and are only supporting the United Party because at a certain stage in the past their leaders were people such as Gen. Smuts and Gen. Botha, and because they think that an Opposition is necessary for keeping the Government on its toes. Nor do they know the Afrikaner with his ideals, his philosophy, his national consciousness and his love of his religion, culture and language. They have never been able to form any idea of the Afrikaner’s political aspirations—that is why they have been resisting every attempt at breaking down outlandish symbols; that was why they were so vehemently opposed to our becoming a Republic. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition can and will never govern, because they are languishing owing to a lack of insight and knowledge. With them it is a case of falling into a decline owing to a lack of knowledge, as the prophet in the Old Testament said of his people. Furthermore, they do not know the farmer in the rural areas with his love of the soil and his powers of endurance in the battle against the elements, elements which at times hit him hard and which makes his occupation the most risky one in our national economy. It is for that reason that they are not representing one single rural seat in this House. They only know the capitalist in his concrete and office atmosphere and his obsession with his profits and dividends. They are political opportunists and are trying to exploit the rural areas for their own gain. In the rural areas they pretend to be nationalist, but in the cities they are liberalist. In that manner they are trimming their sails to the prevailing winds. Nor do they know the Bantu, the Bantu with their deep-seated aspirations, their national pride and their hopes set on development along individual lines and the retention of identity.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for King William’s Town is not present in the House at the moment. One does not really like reacting to a speech of that nature, but he did say certain things which one simply cannot leave without comment. I am thinking, for example, of his statement that we should give free university education to all White matriculants in South Africa.

When did he say that?

In his speech.

A few minutes previously he complained about the people being so heavily taxed, and now he comes here and says that we must give free university education to all Whites in this country. I wonder whether he has calculated what the real cost involved in that would be. He made a further statement, to which I just want to react briefly, when he spoke in an irresponsible way of the increase of R60 million the railway workers received last year. He said in reply to an interjection that the United Party would have given that increase in a gradual way. I want the railway workers of South Africa to take note of the fact that the United Party was not prepared to give them an outright increase of R60 million last year, but that they would have given it gradually —I do not know over how many years, but say over 10 years. In other words, they would have given it bit by bit.

Sir, I should like to take the debate back to agricultural matters, and I want to begin by saying—and I have taken the trouble of paging through Hansard—that in the agricultural debates in this House, particularly in the past six or seven years, the farmers have been brutally exposed to pressure as a result of the fact that they had been brought to their knees by a serious drought. Through the years hon. members on the other side have undoubtedly made political capital out of agriculture in this House. I tried to find something constructive in the speeches made by members on the United Party side during the past six or seven years, something on which we could build today. Sir, my hopes were shattered completely, because from beginning to end it was only criticism, and criticism without any positive suggestion as to how we could solve the problems in agriculture, especially with regard to the small-stock industry. There were no positive statements on which we could build or from which our agricultural departments could derive any benefit for agriculture.

Sir, at the outset I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the amount of R7 million granted to the wool industry. Nobody has ever denied, nor am I going to do so today, that the wool industry is going through very difficult times at present, as a result, firstly, of the fact that there has been an enormous decrease in the price of the product, and, secondly, of the fact—which is perhaps the most serious reason—that the wool-producing area has been hit by such a serious drought. Having expressed my gratitude for this R7 million, I also want to thank the Almighty for the widespread rains that fell in this country during the past few weeks. Sir, I want to tell you that the Minister has made it possible for the present floor price of the Wool Commission perhaps to be maintained during the next season. If prices remain as they are, it means that we will continue to receive about 30 per cent more than the present world price for wool in this country. All things being equal, and if the purchases and supplementary price are maintained on the same level, the Wool Commission will pay approximately R14 million above the present world price to farmers at the end of this season. The Government saw fit to subsidize that amount by a full 50 per cent, and I think the Government deserves the gratitude of every wool farmer in this country for doing so.

The drought had an normous effect on the wool industry. As a result the production decreased, and together with that we had terribly heavy fodder expenses. This Government and the Department of Agriculture have been accused across the floor of this House of not having taken sufficient measures to bridge this difficult period. Sir, today I just want to mention a few examples of measures that have in fact been taken to deal with these problems. Since it was established in 1966 the Department of Agricultural Credit has granted a total amount of R123 million to farmers, including that in this year’s Budget. Rebates on the transportation of stock amount to more than R3 million, including those in this year’s Budget. Rebates on the transportation of fodder amount to more than R6 million since 1960-’61.

I want to point out that in 1947-’48 we had a very severe drought in the Karoo. Those of you who were farmers at the time will probably remember it. The total amount paid in rebates at the time was R750. From 1964-’65 to date a total amount of R12 508 000 has been paid in fodder subsidies in this country. This year’s Budget makes provision for a further R1,2 million. I again want to refer to the position in 1947-’48, because at that time we also had a very severe drought in the Karoo areas. I looked for a figure for that period, but in vain. There was no such scheme at the time.

Sir, I want to continue by mentioning the question of interest subsidies. An amount of approximately R500 000 was paid to the Land Bank in interest subsidies during the past five years. Last year alone, more than R1 million was paid to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure in order to equalize interest. In the Budget provision is also being made for interest subsidies to farmers to an amount of more than R4 million. Sir, I could continue ad infinitum mentioning examples of measures taken by this Government to bridge this difficult period.

It is easy for the United Party to say that these measures were not sufficient, but in the Hansard reports of the past five years I have looked in vain for any constructive suggestions made by that side of the House in this connection. Last year we went to the disaster areas of Prince Albert, Steytlerville, Willowmore, Laingsburg and Kirkwood and met the farmers there. After the meeting we held with them, special measures were taken in those disaster areas. Interest-free loans were granted to creditworthy farmers and social welfare assistance to non-credit-worthy farmers. I do not want to mention the amounts now. Labour subsidies were paid to the farmers in those areas. As a matter of fact, they are still receiving them. Now I want that side of the House to tell us where the Government failed during this drought period. Where did the Government fail to provide sufficient assistance? Where did the Government not grant sufficient subsidies to help these people through this difficult period?

Why did you not build abattoirs?

I shall come to the question of the abattoirs. [Interjections.] I shall come to the abattoirs. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for the additional R10 million that has been given to the Land Bank. This, together with the amount given last year, makes it R25 million in two years at an interest rate of 2 per cent. I wonder whether our farmers realize what an enormous effect this has on the financing of agriculture. I think the fact that the Land Bank can still maintain its interest rate at 6 per cent today, is a feather in its cap.

But they cannot get loans.

I am glad about that interjection. I do not think the Land Bank has ever been done a greater injustice in its history than it was done last year or the year before when this slander campaign was started. I do not think the farmers of South Africa have ever been done a greater injustice. Innocent people were dragged into the matter. People’s private affairs were blazoned forth in the newspapers. I want to invite the hon. member who made the interjection to come to me, if he has problems with a Land Bank loan which is economically justified, and I, as his Member of Parliament, will see to it that he gets it, and that applies to the hon. member for Newton Park as well.

You lay down your own conditions.

I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that the farmers of South Africa have never been done a greater disservice than when they, and he specifically, blazoned forth people’s private affairs in the newspapers during the election. I think it was an unprecedented scandal. I do not even think that fish business the other day can be compared with it.

Did you see what happened to Die Beeld?

I want to submit today, and I am speaking on behalf of my constituency, of which he too is a member, that if it had not been for the Land Bank’s timely intervention in hundreds of cases in my constituency those people would have been in the cities today. This goes for the Department of Agricultural Credit as well. But enough of this. The rehabilitation period lies ahead now. We must now bring about financial rehabilitation on a large scale where it is economically justified. Over and above the assistance given by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit I think there are certain further steps one should consider. I am not concerned about people whose mortgage bonds and liabilities are with the Department of Agricultural Credit or with the Land Bank today, because extensions of time are readily granted for instalments and there is a bridging period for these people. But the people I am concerned about are those who have mortgage bonds with the private sector, with public companies. I want to mention names, not to bring those people into discredit, but to show where these mortagage bonds actually are in the Karoo area. There are the four banks, Sanlam-Santam, the Old Mutual, Syfret’s Trust and the Boland Board, The interest rates on those mortgage bonds are still being increased. People who have mortgage bonds with that sector definitely have problems. We owe all these organizations a debt of gratitude for having been prepared throughout the years to do financing for agriculture. I think they all deserve our thanks, but we must nevertheless ask the question whether these mortgage bonds and these moneys that were advanced to farmers by these organizations have always been advanced on an economic basis. I want to ask whether they were always granted in a discretionary way. When money was plentiful and wool prices were high, it perhaps did not matter so very much, but we knew that difficult times would have to come.

I want to make an appeal today and ask whether the time has not come for us to ask these bodies to make a contribution to the rehabilitation of the small-stock industry. I want to ask whether the time has not come for these bodies to have high-level discussions with the Department of Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank, perhaps even on a ministerial level, so that they too can make their contribution towards the rehabilitation of the small-stock industry. Land prices have now become more or less realistic in the Karoo, I think, because I know of farms being sold at R5 and R6 per morgen. We know that if the above-mentioned concerns were to clear out these farmers and declare them bankrupt, they would lose thousands of rands I think it is necessary that these people should make a survey of their investments in those areas, and that they should strongly consider, in order to protect a part of their capital, to make large write-offs in respect of mortgage bonds where discretion had definitely not been applied when they were originally granted. I want to make an appeal today, and I want to repeat with all the emphasis I can bring to bear, that these various chambers and money-lenders that have provided funds to these people over the years, for which we are extremely grateful, should hold discussions on a high level and should make their contribution to the rehabilitation of agriculture and the small-stock industry.

Mr. Speaker, as one of those who represent a country constituency in this House—and there are many members on our side who also represent country constituencies—I want to say that, if ever there was an apt comment on the state of the farming industry, it was the appeal which has been made now by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I think that every single one of us, who represent farmers, is conscious of the fact that the whole farming industry today is going through the most difficult time that has been known for many, many years. The hon. member represents an area which has had an absolutely killing drought. If the Government had not taken steps to attempt to rehabilitate that area and had not done what they have done, this Government would have been totally and completely irresponsible. By the way in which the hon. members on the other side mention the help which has been given, one would almost think that this has been done as a measure of charity towards the people concerned. The complaint of this side of the House is not against what the Government has done, but it is against the actions of the Minister of Finance and the Government as a whole, which have destroyed the economic climate of the country as a whole in which profitable farming can take place. That is the complaint we have, because the economic climate is what dominates the whole background against which a farmer must operate. Measures taken by the Government to subsidize interest rates to farmers are an admission that farming cannot be continued at interest rates as they were prevailing at the time.

And we had to prompt them to do that.

It came as a suggestion from this side of the House, as the hon. member says. It is something which we have insisted on year after year, but it has fallen on the cold shoulders and deaf ears of the other side until, eventually, they were forced to recognize the justice of the claim which this side has made.

The hon. member promised he would come to the abattoirs. I never heard a word from him about abattoirs. Perhaps someone on the other side is going to talk about abattoirs. I should like to hear about it. One of the problems we have had, as far as abattoirs are concerned, is that they are being run by municipalities for the use of their own local communities. The matter of meat export was only a sideline. It was something which was never considered when municipalities went into the building of abattoirs. They were primarily a health service. The abattoir in Durban is covered by a special ordinance of the Natal Provincial Council, which limits what they may do. It was not intended as an export agency or to make export markets available. If there was meat available, it was exported, if there were countries prepared to receive the meat from the abattoir facilities here in South Africa. The complaint has been that there should have been some kind of forward planning. Even now, today the onus is on the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell this House what they are planning for the future as far as exports of meat are concerned, if we are ever going to export meat. One of the biggest problems is that the small stock industry to which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred, is today in a parlous condition indeed. At the same time I am quite certain that, the farming community being what it is in South Africa, if it is faced with this challenge and given the opportunity to participate in export markets, we will be able to produce the lamb, mutton or beef, or whatever it is which has to be produced. We would be able to meet that challenge. It is now clearly incumbent on the Government to take the right action. We meet the flat refusal of the City Council of Durban to continue with the construction of a new abattoir, which is going to cost them millions of rands of the ratepayers’ money. According to my latest information, the matter is back in the hands of the Abattoir Commission. They are going to have to decide. I think that it is a very parlous condition indeed, when the Railways have said that, beyond 1975, they will not be able to deliver slaughter stock to the abattoir in Pietermaritzburg. From 1972, deliveries are going to be irregular. Here is one of the biggest markets in the whole of South Africa, but what planning has been done to take care of the situation which has been looming over us for years and years? The matter has been shuffled about and papers have been passed backwards and forwards and no decisions have been taken. I believe that this is one of the matters which has to be taken care of by this Government immediately in the interests of the farming community.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort, just in passing, asked what this side of the House has done to encourage the teaching profession. The hon. the Minister of the Interior will remember that in the Natal Provincial Council some years ago, there was a motion moved by the member of the Executive in charge of education, to increase the salaries of teachers on a notch per year basis. I believe I am correct in saying so.

Just before the election.

Yes, it was just before the election, but do hon. members know what the Nationalist Party did? They voted against it in the Provincial Council of Natal that there should be an increase in the teachers’ salaries to make it more attractive for the young people coming into the teaching profession and for teachers who had left the profession to come back. The Nationalist Party voted against it. Here we have the hon. member for Koedoespoort saying that we on this side of the House, have done nothing to assist the teaching profession. What a lot of absolute balderdash! That is what it is and nothing less than that. The question of teaching and people going into the teaching profession, is totally a social phenomenon. It is a matter which depends a great deal on the outlook of people concerned. I am among the first, and I always have been, to pay a tribute to the Afrikaans-speaking teachers who have borne the burden of teaching in English schools. I have always said that and I say it here and now again that I express the gratitude of our people for the way in which they have borne that burden. For that hon. member to say that we never give credit to these people or that we feel nothing towards these people, is totally wrong.

Where were the English then?

Mr. Speaker, I have said that this is a social phenomenon. It is up to the people concerned to decide what to do if there are avenues open to them which are more remunerative or if they feel that they would rather go into business and so forth. It is a matter for the freedom of choice of the individual. I am quite certain that if it had been the other way round and if those hon. members were in the same position, exactly the same thing would have happened. Their young people would have seen the opportunities were open to them and they would have gone ahead into those opportunities. The only other alternative for hon. members would have been to come along and draft people into these professions. That is all that they can do if they are not leaving the freedom of choice to the individual as to what he will do. There are hundreds and thousands of English-speaking people who go into the teaching profession. We are extremely grateful for those who do, because under the régime of the Nationalist Party, this has been a profession which has been less and less well remunerated in relation to the commercial world. One of our biggest problems is that the trained teacher has left the teaching profession to go into other work opportunities for the sake of himself, for the sake of his children, for the sake of what he will leave to his children when he dies.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

We will discuss this again, Bill.

If the hon. member has quite finished his speech when he is sitting down, I will continue.

The problem of growth in this country is one which is absolutely vital to the future of White South Africa as well as Black South Africa. I say it is the policy of this Government now, in terms of this Budget, as enunciated by the hon. member for King William’s Town, in the words of the hon. the Minister himself, in 1967, to slow growth down to the absolute basic minimum, because the hon. the Minister feels that in that way he can get himself some kind of a breathing space, that time may help him to catch up on the problems which face us economically here in South Africa. This will never help the Nationalist Party because of the rising standards of the people, both Black and White, in this country and because of the explosion of our population which is every single year putting more and more people in the demand market, people who are wanting goods and services. Unless the growth of this country is considerably accelerated we will never break out of the inflationary circle in which we find ourselves in because of the growing demand on the part of a rising population. I believe it is a fallacy on the part of the hon. the Minister to believe that by damping down and by controlling the whole business cycle and the whole demand he will get us anywhere. Every single farmer knows what it is like to sit with a bank manager breathing down his neck. Every single farmer throughout every single country area has seen this happen. Businesses are slowing down throughout the whole of the rural areas of our country and business is dying down to an absolute minimum. The reason is that the Government insisted that this is the way in which they are going to break inflation in this country.

One of the problems which the hon. the Prime Minister himself so eloquently said gave him sleepless nights, is unemployment among the Bantu population. How is unemployment avoided? It is avoided by investments, it is avoided by growth and it is avoided by the profits which are derived from industry and which are in turn reinvested because they will again earn a profit. I say that this Government in its actions today is the foe of profit, the foe of growth and the foe of investment because it is applying the Physical Planning Act in such a way that it is stifling development in the metropolitan areas. Furthermore it is using the artificial labour shortages to such an extent that it is stifling development in the metropolitan areas. It is from these metropolitan areas that the whole future of South Africa has to be derived. It is from the profits of those industries that the future of South Africa has to come. In fact the Government needs additional taxation precisely because business is decreasing, because investment is decreasing, and the profits of companies are decreasing. The hon. the Minister has come short for the first time in many years. The Nationalist Party is under the amount that they have budgeted for. We on this side of the House believe that the Government is spending its money unprofitably.

I now wish to refer to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and I want to refer to the R20 million which is to be spent this year on the development of growth points in the Bantu homelands. For 23 bitter years we have suffered under a National Party Government while the time went by and while they floated on their psychedelic clouds, dreaming their dreams about what South Africa was going to look like. They did nothing at all to develop the Bantu areas. They did not do one thing to develop the homeland areas. In fact, when this side of the House suggested that the White man’s money should be taken and that the White man’s skill should be made use of to develop the Bantu homelands for the benefit of the Bantu people, we were told that we were economic colonialists. We were told that that cannot happen in our country. We just cannot do that here. We cannot go and exploit the poor unfortunate Bantu people in their own areas. Now, all of a sudden this year, in 1971, when interest rates are at their highest. when capital is unobtainable and when industry is in a complete mood of disenchantment with investment in this country, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration suddenly takes R20 million out of the pockets of the White taxpayers in order to develop growth points inside the Bantu areas. If ever there was a time when this was ill-advised, surely it is now. I am sure it could have been done in a little while, in a year or two when things presumably, if we get a new government, may improve. Surely, this would have been the thing to do. What has happened is that the Nationalist Party is being caught up by its own timetable. The timetable is now beginning to dominate economics in this country in the same way it has dominated politics in this country for so many years.

What is next on your timetable?

The next on my timetable is to take over the Government of South Africa, and it will not be long. What is happening is that the Government is taking the money from the taxpayer and that they are creating growth points. They are subsidizing in a variety of ways. They are subsidizing people to go and invest in those growth areas. It is subsidized development. It is money which was taken out of circulation in the White economy. It is taken to remote areas where development is uneconomic by its definition. If it were not, development would have taken place there. Development is bought and forced by the Nationalist Party in those particular areas, when there are still areas in White South Africa which are crying out for development. The hon. the Minister of the Interior and I share the Tugela Basin. If ever there was an area which was crying out for R20 million to be invested in production, it is that area. It is an area which will be able to generate growth and capital and which will be able to pay the bills of South Africa in a very few years’ time. But what happens to us is that we find this area is being neglected.

Only now. in this famous year, we find the Nationalist Party once again waking up. I think they must have fallen out of bed when they were 21 years in government and all of a sudden things seemed to start happening. But what is happening, is that this Government is undertaking a sort of foreign aid. That is what it comes to. It is foreign aid in terms of their own policy. There are countries which are going to be independent, although the Chief Councillor of the Machangana territorial authority does not really think they are going to be independent. According to the Nationalist Party, however, they are going to be independent. I want to ask this Government where do they think we have the sort of finances, strength and growth where we can afford that sort of foreign aid at this particular stage. The American people spend thousands of billions of dollars on foreign aid, and they could probably write off the whole of their dollar drain by simply ceasing to give foreign aid. Of their colossal national growth product, only 4 per cent is exported. But I do not believe that we in South Africa can afford this kind of foreign aid that the hon. the Minister has in mind at this particular stage.

The Department of Bantu Administration in this country has become the dictator. both of economic policy and of political policy. It will be seen from the attitude of the hon. the Minister that there has to be complete separation between Whites and Blacks. There will follow separation between Coloureds and Whites, Indians and Whites and everybody and Whites. That is the logic of the party on the other side. My hon. Leader said the other day that the chickens of the Nationalist Party are coming home to roost. We remember that there was another occasion when the chickens of the Nationalists came home to roost.

At that time they were actually the tough old roosters of the Nationalist Party, our friends, Dr. Hertzog, Jaap Marais and others. But when they came back to roost, they found that the Nationalist Party had moved the tree. That is what is happening today. They find that the Nationalist Party has moved the tree. What is happening to our economy today, is that the follies and faults of the Nationalist Party have come back to be visited upon us and to put us in the parlous condition in which we are today. In the middle of it the Minister of Bantu Administration is taking money out of the existing growth areas, out of the reach of the people who would be using it, the industrialists, the private sector, the people who make a profit. He is taking R20 million out of their hands to spend in areas which are subsidized, where growth has to be bought, where the production costs of every single product are enhanced by precisely that amount which is the contribution of the Government. Is this economic and efficient production? Is this the answer to beat the adverse balance of payments from which we suffer? Is this the sort of development which is going to allow us to export on the scale on which we have to export if we are going to survive economically, if we are going to be able to continue the full employment, without which the Prime Minister will not be able to sleep? This is taking place in areas of the Black population who are the least suited and least orientated to the money economy.

If the Government really wanted to have a growth point in a Black area, there is a place like Soweto, where the people are orientated to the money economy. These are the people of today, the sort of Bantu people who are integrated into the economy of South Africa. These are the people who could derive immediate benefit from the programme of the hon. the Minister and his department and not the areas to which he is now going to move and to which he is now going to draw this kind of development. There is also an additional point. The hon. the Minister has told us that the agency basis on which industrialists will operate will spread over a period of perhaps 25 years. I want to know what is going to happen to an industrialist who has a factory in the growth point of Sitebe for 15 or 18 years when he has about 7 or 8 years to go before the 25-year period expires.

This is the time he should really be modernizing his plant, when he should be catching up with modern technology and when he should be spending money to get his plant up to date. Is he going to spend his money then or is he not rather going to try to get every single cent that he can out of that factory before his 25 years expires? He will then leave behind an outmoded, out-of-date and obsolete plant to be run by the Bantu population. And this is what the hon. the Minister regards as economic development for the Bantu people. This is the future basis of the viability of the Bantu countries which this hon. Minister and his department are now wishing onto the Bantu people.

You are talking nonsense now and you know it.

Seeing that the hon. member for Potchefstroom will not be allowed to speak in this debate, I would like him to write me a letter and let him tell me why I am talking nonsense. If there are factories which are 25 years old and if it is the policy of the department that they should then go into the control of the Bantu population, will this not then be in fact what will happen? The whole object of going there is to educate the Bantu population through all the stages of production. When the agency expires, the White man has to leave quietly and leave it all to the Bantu population. If this is not logic, what does the hon. the Minister intend to do? Whoever is the next speaker let him tell us. How is the Government going to modernize and ensure in these growth points when the agency of the White man is withdrawn that there will be any kind of modern manufacturing capacity there which will be able to compete not only in the South African market but in world markets as well? The whole problem is that the development of the economy in a backward area is not merely a question of money.

It is bad enough that the Government is doing it in this way, but the problem has been seen in area after area where the economic development of backward areas had to be undertaken as in Italy, in France and on the island of Malta. It is the minds of the people concerned which have to be attacked first before any development of a real nature can take place. This is all merely window-dressing on the part of the department. They are trying to convince themselves and the world that they are really achieving something of an economic nature. After 22 years, having realized that they have to do it, they are still doing it on the wrong basis. I want to make it quite clear that it was our party’s idea that the development of these areas should and must be undertaken.

When?

It has to be done at a time which is convenient to the economy of South Africa.

Why should we then not spend R20 million this year?

Because interest rates are at their highest, inflation is at its highest and every single thing which is an economic factor in production is against taking off that extra R20 million this year to invest in those areas. It is also an inefficient and dead investment. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can make a speech later on. When the economy of South Africa in which White and Black are integrated can afford to develop those areas …

The time has never been right for you people.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, I think, said that in 1967 the inflation rate in our country was about 2 per cent. Why did the Nationalist Party then not develop these areas in those years when they could borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest? Do you know why did they not? Because they had not yet got around to the point of view of the United Party, namely that one can take the White man’s money and his skill into the Bantu areas. They were still walking around on the border and they could not take the one little step over the border into the Bantu areas, because they were tied by the dictum of Dr. Verwoerd that this was going to be colonial exploitation of the Bantu population.

They have changed their minds.

Of course they have changed their minds. The logic of events outlined in the policy of this side of the House has forced them to change their minds, as they have time after time. This is merely another illustration. If it goes on long enough, then one of these days we might even get that party right. South Africa’s progress is spluttering along and stuttering along because every now and then they see the light of the things that we have proposed and put forward for so long.

Sir, the only inducement that is offering to industrialists seeking to establish themselves in these growth areas is labour— abundant labour, untrained labour, backward labour, raw labour, but nevertheless labour; it is something that the implementation of the Physical Planning Act by that hon. Minister has made virtually unobtainable in the areas where industry is located today. Sir, they have not yet told us whether the wage determinations are going to apply in these areas. They have not told us what the relationships are going to be between the Government of the Transkei for instance, who were making demands the other day, and these industrialists. When a person establishes a factory in that area what are his relationships going to be with the government which this Nationalist Party is going to make independent in relation to the wage scales that he has to pay his labourers? Who can tell us and who knows, and what kind of security do they guarantee? The only guarantee they have is the guarantee they have had from the Prime Minister who has said that he will make sure that people who invest in those areas will not suffer a loss if they have to pull out in a hurry. Is that a secure investment? Is that the sort of thing that is going to induce people to invest there, unless the princes of the Nationalist Party, the shortage of labour and the implementation of the Physical Planning Act, force them to go into the Bantu areas and to invest there in this particular year? We believe that this is something which is completely out of tune with the needs of the day in this particular Budget. It can be done, it must be done, it will be done but there is a time and a place for everything, and this is not the time and not the place for that kind of development.

I am particularly glad that we have eventually succeeded in forcing the United Party, as it were, to crawl out of their burrows and speak about agricultural matters.

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, made a great deal of the development of the Bantu areas. I gained the impression that he and his party have developed such a fear complex about Bantustans that they are even afraid of any further development in the homelands, and then he speaks of further development in Soweto. I want to ask the United Party this question: They are apparently prepared to develop Bantu homelands only on condition that there will be a tree influx of White capital. Do they place no restrictions on that? They must reply to us on that question. Do they want an absolutely free flow of White capital to the Bantu areas so that the Bantu areas can be exploited to the full? They must be more specific about that.

Sir, I should like to react to another argument of the hon. member for Mooi River, i.e. the question of abattoirs. We must ask ourselves whether the problems we are experiencing at present in connection with slaughtering facilities in the controlled areas can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the present Government. Sir, surely this is not the case. In South Africa the construction of abattoirs and the slaughtering of livestock has traditionally been the function of the local authorities. This has developed traditionally over many years. Last year the hon. the Minister made a statement here in Parliament which I should just like to remind hon. members about. He said that if any local authority contemplated modernizing and extending its abattoirs at great capital expense, he would give them the necessary protection. He also acknowledged this traditional function of local authorities in making such facilities available. The hon. the Minister even went further. He was even prepared, in the absence of any reaction from these people, to allow the abattoirs to be erected, if necessary, by the Abattoir Commission in the course of time. What is very important is that the majority of these abattoirs, particularly the larger ones, such as the one at Johannesburg, are under the control of United Party city councils. These people have eventually come round to having plans approved. We hope that within five years the new abattoirs will be in use.

I should like to come back to the Budget. and particularly to its effect on the agricultural sector. The Government realizes that in this Budget agriculture should be given the necessary high priority, as in all other budgets, such priority because agriculture is one of the most important and most basic production sectors in our economy. If we look at the gross domestic product we find that agriculture’s contribution was 9,5 per cent. As against that, the manufacturing sector’s contribution was 22,7 per cent. That is the largest contribution of all sectors concerned. The contribution of the mining industry was 11,7 per cent. When one compares these figures, it would ostensibly appear as if agriculture does not play such an important role in the gross domestic product, but at; additional fact is that 40 per cent of our agricultural products are supplied to the manufacturing industry in the form of raw materials at a value of about R300 million. In other words, agriculture also plays a tremendously important role as far as the needs of our manufacturing industry are concerned. Hence we find that the old addage that “the farmer is the backbone of the country” is now being reflected in this Budget once again.

I want to challenge any United Party member in this House to prove to me that any Government in South Africa has ever done more to stimulate agricultural production than this Government is now doing in this Budget. I challenge the hon. member for East London City to prove to me by way of figures whether there has ever been any Government that has done as much to consolidate uneconomical agricultural units in South Africa as this Government. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet quoted figures to prove how, by means of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, we protect our own soil against erosion and deterioration as a result of the tremendous droughts, and how we protect our small stock by way of subsidies. livestock withdrawal schemes, etc. Sir, this is indeed a tremendous endeavour.

Agricultural financing is still creating problems for us. It is inherent in agriculture that one will always have the problem of liquidity. As long as we have 92 000 members of this industry, all subject to various circumstances and producing various products, one will continually be faced with this problem. Specifically because agriculture is extremely sensitive to a scarcity of capital, special provision has been made for that in this Budget. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to it. R25 million has been made available by the Land Bank. R15 million of that is for the erection of bulk granaries. Sir, this is an amount that will truly be of great value to the agricultural industry. In agriculture we have now reached the stage where we must modernize and mechanize in order to save labour and for the better handling of agricultural products—in this case grain. With this amount of R15 million the grain industry can make very great strides in the erection of bulk installations. Provision was made for equalizations of interest amounting to R4 million. We have the wool industry in mind with all its problems, an industry which is getting R7 million in this Budget. These are large amounts. In addition to interest subsidies, there was also, therefore, the necessary provision of capital to stimulate agriculture to further growth. But, on this occasion it is also a good thing for us to look at the financing pattern in agriculture, particularly in respect of the financing bodies that are under the Government’s control and over which it exercises a reasonable measure of control, i.e. the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit over which it exercises total control. Let me mention the debt position of farmers in respect of the Land Bank, particularly in the case of mortgage bonds. The Land Bank holds 34 per cent of the total mortgage bond liabilities of farmers in South Africa, and Agricultural Credit holds 11,1 per cent. This gives one 45,1 per cent of the total mortgage bonds in South Africa that are held by these two bodies over which the State exercises control. But this is only 19,4 per cent of all debt liabilities of farmers in South Africa. If we weigh this up against the debt liabilities of farmers at commercial banks, we find that the total liability in this instance is 23,1 per cent, of which 7,8 per cent are mortgage bonds. In other words, the position is that the commercial banks chiefly do farmers’ short-term financing. The amount involved here is in the region of R300,2 million. Seasonal amounts, advanced for only a year by commercial banks, total R192,9 million. This is chiefly production credit. This makes agriculture’s financing pattern extremely sensitive, because we know that commercial banks are public companies. Their primary object is to make profits because there are shareholders, and consequently—and sometimes one cannot blame these people—they sometimes call in capital when it suits them, and agriculture is extremely sensitive as far as that is concerned. In an investigation conducted recently by the S.A. Agricultural Union, we find this remark about this provision of short-term credit by commercial banks (translation)—

But what is important is what the hon. the Minister of Finance did, as far as he could, to improve this position for the farmer in South Africa. While credit was reduced and a credit ceiling established, as far back as June of last year the Minister of Finance raised the credit ceiling by 3 per cent. When the problem cropped up again this year the Minister of Finance was approached once more. He approached the president of the Reserve Bank, and again the credit ceiling was lifted, specifically with the purpose of making more capital available for the production sectors, inter alia, agriculture. But unfortunately the Minister and the Government do not have control over the individual relationship between a bank and its client. Consequently banks can handle these additional credit funds on their own initiative and according to their own policies. I want to quote to you from the statement made on 1st March, 1971 by the President of the Reserve Bank (translation)—

The following is very important:

There lies the problem which also had a serious effect on agriculture. We trust that in future our banks will co-operate in correcting this situation.

I want to look at another aspect of agriculture, i.e. the price structure. If we look at the White Paper—it is important for one to look at these figures every year— we see that there was a slight levelling off of the prices of products as against production costs. Producer prices decreased by 1,2 per cent, while farming requirements increased by 2,2 per cent. In reality the prices of agricultural products are still very much higher than those of farming requirements. In other words, the general position, viewed for agriculture as a whole, is still a sound one. When we look at the price structure it is important for us to take note, with great joy and gratitude, of the valuable work done recently by our control boards and of the way in which they formulated and substantiated prices so that the Minister of Agriculture was in a position to accept most of their price recommendations. I refer here again to the maize price of 370 cents which was announced this year. I also refer to the wheat prices and milk prices which have increased. It thus appears that the price structure in agriculture is once more placed on a sound footing.

I now want to look back to the days of United Party policy. Hon. members must not tell me again that those were the years of the rinderpest because, as far as I know, many of the members here present were already United Party supporters. In the years 1946 and 1947 we had big exports, particularly as far as the maize industry is concerned, on which we made tremendous profits. In 1947 we had an accumulated profit of R10 million on maize alone. In the same year the price of maize was 22s. 6d. per bag In the following year, 1948, when this Government came into power in May, the price had already been fixed by the then U.P. Minister of Agriculture, Adv. Strauss, at 21s. 3d. per bag. In other words, the price had decreased, notwithstanding the representations of the Control Board of the time, of which the hon. member for Ladybrand was a member, representations to the then United Party Minister of Agriculture for the price to be increased by an additional 9d. per bag to 22s. because, as they put it, it was a good supply year because there was a great deal of maize to export at a profit. There were already export surpluses, which the then Government kept for itself. Notwithstanding these representations that the price should be increased, the Minister refused to do this. Shortly after this Government came into power, in May, Minister S. P. le Roux increased the price by 9d. per bag. It is very important to point out that the R10 million, which the then Government kept for itself from export profits, was the money, not only of the farmer, but of the entire maize industry. At the time it was the recommendation of the Mealie Board that a portion of that money, inter alia, the 9d. increase they asked for, should be paid out from the aforementioned R10 million. In the following year another final payment was made from this R10 million. The eventual amount remaining was in the region of R5 million. This meant the initial establishment of the stabilization fund in the maize industry. Mr. Speaker, I am just referring to this point to say a thing or two about the United Party record as far as the maize industry is concerned.

They hate the farmers (boerehaters).

This side of the House saw to the stabilization fund in the wool industry.

The hon. member for East London City must just give me a chance.

I wasn’t speaking to you at all.

Yes, but I am speaking now.

At a time, when we have this problem of inflation, it is also important for us to appreciate the position of agriculture in the set-up. All the developing countries of the world are attempting to let growth take place. In the process they try to combat cost and price inflation as far as possible. This is also the case in South Africa. But it creates problems for agriculture throughout the world, and not only in South Africa. I have here a report of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. It is a report of a conference held in 1969. I should like to indicate what agriculture’s problems in this respect are. I quote (translation)—

In addition it is stated:

I conclude by saying that if this is the situation as far as agriculture in developed countries is concerned, there is only one method whereby prices in agriculture can be reinforced, i.e. by way of subsidies and assistance, as this Government is at present offering agriculture in this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to touch upon agriculture for a moment. I would be glad if I would be allowed just to mention one or two small points again.

When the hon. member for King William’s Town spoke, he said that it was their policy to grant all Whites free training at universities. When the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet repeated this, a chorus resounded from that side of the House and hon. members opposite said that the hon. member for King William’s Town had not said so. This is but another manifestation of the phenomenon we find among hon. members on that side of the House, namely that they say one thing but mean two. In my hand I have the Hansard report of the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town, in which he says—

We told them clearly …

That is, the National Party—

When the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet repeated this, there was a chorus of voices from members saying that the man had not said so. This is the two-faced policy again, where one moment they say this and the next something else. It is a pity the hon. member for Durban Point is not here. I would just like to tell him that when the hon. member for Pinetown spoke, he used the following sentence—

Thereupon the hon. member for Durban Point said—

There is nothing to celebrate.

This is typical, of course, of those who fought and shouted against the establishment of the Republic and who now, after 10 years, see nothing to be grateful for in South Africa. I think that, economically speaking, the establishment of the Republic meant a tremendous amount for South Africa. Before referring to agriculture, I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Mooi River said. He put his party’s policy in respect of the Bantu very nicely this afternoon. It seems to me they want to assimilate the urban Bantu into the White community in the social and political spheres. Then they want the Bantu in the homelands as a mere labourer without a soul, without a heart and without a life. It seems to me they want to divide the Bantu into two groups. The one group in the cities they want to integrate in all spheres and the other group, the millions in the Bantu homelands, is to be a reservoir of labour, at their disposal to make use of whenever it suits them. When the hon. the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech, he said that the Government influenced almost every sector of the economy through its fiscal policy and could exert an important influence on the economic situation. I just want to state briefly how the Government has assisted agriculture. I am not going to weary hon. members with many figures, because I still want to refer to the hon. member for Newton Park. For that reason I want to be brief. I want to tell hon. members that this Government, because it believes in a healthy farming community and because it knows that a healthy farming community is a source of good human material and a powerful element in our society, and because it believes that a vigorous farming community is an indispensable pillar in the building of the South African nation, this Government has supported, aided and assisted this section of our community over the years. This the Government has done by means of subsidies, stabilization funds, the equalization of interest, funds for research. and information and assistance provided by both the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank. The Government knows how to assist, and this party believes in assisting, the farmer by means of its economic arrangements so that he may satisfy the local needs of South Africa economically and also earn as much foreign exchange as possible. As a result of the assistance rendered in past years agriculture has, in spite of unprecedented droughts and other hampering factors, been able to maintain an annual growth rate of 3,9 per cent. Over against that the annual population increase is only 2,3 per cent. As a result of this assistance agriculture has been able to make a contribution to the gross domestic product which grew from R283 million in 1948 to R869 million in 1968. As a result of this assistance experts are today speaking well of State assistance to agriculture. I can read to hon. members from the latest report of the South African Agricultural Union (translation)—

A study has been made under the title “The Importance of the Contribution of the Agricultural Sector to the Growth Rate of our Economy”. It was written in 1968 and I quote one paragraph (translation)—-

Mr. Speaker, I quote yet another important paragraph from what was said about protein at a symposium in Bloemfontein:

I want to quote a third expert: In a study called “The Economic Nature of the Challenge to South African Agriculture” the author says:

Then I want to quote a fourth person. Unfortunately I cannot call him an expert. He is the hon. member for Newton Park. In a lucid moment he spoke of “the fantastic change made in the yields in agronomy as a result of scientific progress” (Hansard, Vol. 29, 1970, col. 893). I think the Government has made a tremendous contribution to the agricultural sector by its Budget proposals this year as well as in past years.

Before coming to our hon. friend, the member for Newton Park, I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Paarl said in his speech in connection with the excise duty on brandy and fortified wines. I am not going to discuss this at length. Many people think the wine farmers are rich and well-off. Most people think they are all big farmers. I want to mention figures to you, Sir, which may interest you. They are K.W.V. figures. Last year 88 per cent of our quota holders pressed less than 250 tons of grapes. The K.W.V. calculates that an annual harvest of 250 tons of grapes, calculated at 50 per cent good wine and 50 per cent distilling wine, yields a net income of approximately R1 800 to that farmer. Fortunately the increased wine prices which have been announced have altered this picture greatly. Therefore we join the wine farmers and the hon. member for Paarl in expressing thanks for those increased prices which have been announced. But this excise duty on brandy has now increased by 341 per cent since 1952 up to this year. This is what is worrying the wine farmers. If we compare the relative position of excise and import duties on certain types of liquor, we notice that the percentage of preference up to now enjoyed by brandy over whisky has shrunk from 209,1 per cent to 47.4 per cent. The percentage of preference over cane spirit has shrunk from 45.4 per cent to 16 per cent, and over beer from 42 per cent to 3,8 per cent. This has resulted in the sales of brandy having shown an annual growth rate of only 0,2 per cent in the past 13 years. Hon. members should remember that our industry operates in such a way that the K.W.V. has to export the surplus to foreign countries in the form of fortified wine and brandy. If the foreign market cannot expand and there is a decline locally, it constitutes a potential danger for the wine industry. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the problem in the light of the following three points which I just want to mention first. In Britain there is an import deposit scheme in terms of which all imported liquor is discriminated against in favour of the local product. In the second place South Africa has never been able to obtain an import quota for our own wines in France, while French wines enter this country without impediment. Thirdly, the value of Britain’s liquor exports to South Africa is extremely high today compared with our exports to them. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister, when we, the K.W.V. or the wine farmers discuss matters with him, to consider assisting us to obtain more distribution points in South Africa, especially for our natural wines, in order that our local marketing, especially of our lighter wines, may be promoted. Secondly, we ask that our wine industry be protected against foreign competition, because, as the figures have shown, our exports are decreasing and our imports increasing. Thirdly, I ask the Government to grant the wine industry, which has to incur tremendous capital costs for the refinement and maturing of brandy, a larger percentual preference over other kinds of liquor.

I would like to return to the hon. member for Newton Park. Over the years the hon. member has pretended and made himself out to be the expert in the agricultural field, the man who has a monopoly of all knowledge and the man who is always telling us how mistakenly and how badly the Government is acting. Then he usually quotes, and I want to quote from his speeches too this afternoon. In Hansard, volume 29, column 2195, of 20th August, 1970, he said:—“The financial and economic position of the farmer was deteriorating.” In Hansard, volume 25, column 1106 of 20th February, 1969, the hon. member said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister does not know about it, but I then came across a piece of Africana in his office. This was a White Paper from 1946. I am not going to quote from it, But I want to say that these things said by the hon. member for Newton Park appear in this White Paper in exactly the same words. The things he is always casting in our teeth he takes from this White Paper. I want to submit here that it is a thoughtless and parrot-like repetition of what appeared in a White Paper of his Government which he is now simply repeating and applying to us. I want to read out a few phrases from this White Paper: “A state of economic pressure has forced the farmers to apply wasteful exploitation …; farmers have been very hard hit by sharp and repeated price fluctuations.. These are old stories of the hon. member for Newton Park. He is simply quoting what his Prime Minister said of his agricultural policy. I quote further: “A heavy mortgage burden is pressing on the farmers…: farmers are being forced to apply wasteful exploitation by economic weakness …”. By quoting from this White Paper I am trying to prove that when the hon. member for Newton Park attacks us, he is only quoting from this White Paper. He repeats it like a political parrot. I read on: “Impoverishment has taken place among the farmers …; poor veld control is taking place on a large scale …; erosion has increased alarmingly …; water sources have been damaged …; our agriculture is not even providing the majority of our farmers with a reasonable existence … These are things the hon. member for Newton Park keeps telling us. These are the profundities proclaimed by him. The White Paper goes on: “The average production of our milk cows is pitifully low …; the quality of our beef cattle is poor …; many farmers are struggling to make a living … I can go on in this vein. This is what his government said of their agricultural policy, of the position of farmers in 1946, and now the hon. member for Newton Park merely quotes or repeats these facts as being sins of the National Party.

What solution does the hon. member for Newton Park offer to these problems? He has offered us a solution for improving the agricultural policy. He said: “The agricultural industry must receive special assistance.” We can keep the hon. member occupied for hours by telling him of the special assistance that agriculture has been receiving from this Government for years. He also says: “Agricultural credit committees must invite farmers to come along and discuss their problems with these committees.” But this has been done for years. The agricultural credit committees consist of local people who know the farmers in their vicinity and talk to them. But the hon. member for Newton Park comes along in his wisdom and tells us to do this. He also says: “The applications for agricultural credit assistance and other assistance must be dealt with more promptly.” The hon. the Deputy Minister said last year how many days it took for an application to be finalized after it had been received. There is no problem of long delays. The hon. member also says: “The assistance of the Land Bank must be called in.” A man such as he, who made a political issue of the Land Bank last year, now tells us that the Land Bank should be used to assist the farmers. He does not know what he is talking about. Then he goes on to say: “The Minister of Finance should ask financial institutions to show greater sympathy to the farmers.” Sir, if he reads the newspapers, if he reads the reports of the Reserve Bank and if he reads the reports of the banks, he will know that this has been done for years.

I want to conclude, Sir, by just quoting what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and also the Deputy Minister said, and I want to leave it at that. If hon. members do not accept this, they also do not accept the integrity and the honesty of the two men who are in charge of the agricultural industry today. In 1969, when speaking of the financial assistance rendered to the farmer by the State, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said (column 808)—

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister said in 1969 (Hansard, cols. 1109 and 1114)—

Sir, I now ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he agrees with these words. If he refuses to do so, he has no faith; then he is telling me that he does not accept the integrity and sincerity of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy and that they are not sincere and honest in what they say and do.

Sir, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Newton Park who, I hope, will speak later in this debate, will deal with the majority of the points which have been raised in regard to him by the hon. member for Worcester. I am quite sure that a far lesser man than the hon. member for Newton Park would be capable of doing so. But, Sir, there are one or two points made by the hon. member for Worcester and by the hon. member for Bethal that I should like to deal with. Firstly, it was interesting to hear the general tenor of the speeches made by those two hon. gentlemen. You know, Sir, it was not long ago that we had in the Budget debate from speakers on the Government benches, an opening phrase of thanks to the Minister or thanks to a variety of Ministers, and then one had those thanks followed up by numerous examples to make out a case which warranted the opening phrases of thanks.

They even thanked the Minister of Sport.

Indeed there was a time when that also happened, although not many of us will remember it. But in this debate there has been a noticeable change. We have the customary opening phrase of thanks to the Minister, but it never lasts for more than a minute or two, and then what do we get, Sir? You then get criticism, although admittedly muted, of what has appeared in this Budget and what has been done by the Government in the recent past. What was the main topic of the speech of the hon. member for Bethal? It was to deal with the question of the relationship between the commercial banks and the farming industry; and what is the position there? Much as the commercial banks would have liked to assist the farming industry in the recent past they have not been able to do so because, amongst other reasons, the money which they ought to be using to help the farmers has been driven into the grey market, and because of the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance in relation to the Reserve Bank that money has not been forthcoming. There are few sections of our community who have suffered more as a direct result of the implementation of the financial policy of this Government than the farming community in their relationships with the commercial banks.

The hon. member for Worcester also comes from a farming constituency and he also began by thanking the Minister, but what was the most important part, the pith, of his speech? It was to voice veiled criticism again of the excise on wines and spirits ...

I did not criticize it.

Are you happy with it?

I suggested a few things.

Sir, I do not mind how the hon. gentleman dresses it up; I give him credit for dressing it up in as good a manner as he could while at the same time supporting the hon. the Minister of Finance, but the effect of it was to criticize the arrangements that had been made in regard to the taxation of wines and spirits in South Africa as compared with certain imported liquors.

Sir, the hon. member for Worcester also dealt with the attitude of his party in regard to higher education. I do not know what the National Party has in the way of literature in the field of education …

Very little.

If it is the same as their policy in regard to the Bantu, then there is nothing in their literature. It is interesting that when hon. gentlemen opposite wish to avoid knowing what United Party policies are, then, of course, they do not know of the little book which they quote so often on other occasions. But our policy in regard to higher education is clearly stated as follows—

That is not what the hon. member for King William’s Town said.

So far as I understood the hon. member for King William’s Town, he did not go outside the bounds of what I have just quoted.

He said “all European children”.

No, he did not.

Sir, the hon. member for Worcester then went on to deal with the question of the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Republic, and he went on to say that one of the reasons for celebration was the economic prosperity in this country during the past ten years. Sir, there is one thing that I cannot understand—indeed one finds it almost irritating—and that is the fact that hon. members opposite attribute South Africa’s economic prosperity in the last ten years merely to the change in our constitutional status. Can you imagine the businessmen of South Africa, the farmers and the workers of South Africa, to whom the credit should go for our industrial prosperity … [Interjections.] Are we to accept that on the relevant day in 1961 they all sat down and said, “Now we are a Republic; we are going to invest more money in our businesses; we are going to work longer hours for lower wages; we are going to make our businesses more prosperous”? Sir, this sort of line of thought is utter rubbish. Sir, the inherent wealth and strength of this country and the enterprise of its people are the factors which have brought about our economic prosperity, very often despite the policies of this Government, despite Budgets such as we are having to labour under at the present time. Those are the attributes which have brought about our economic prosperity, and this would have taken place regardless of our constitutional status over the last ten years. I think that deals with those aspects of the speeches of the two hon. gentlemen who spoke before me which required comment.

Sir, in the Budget debate of last year I attempted to analyse the policy of separate development which is applied by this Government with a view to finding out whether it was likely to cure our ills and whether it was a philosophy from which the country could derive benefit. It has been pointed out by speakers who have spoken before me, by the hon. member for Mooi River in particular, how that policy in many respects has brought about the Budget which we are debating today. Sir, I should like today to look at that policy, at a different stage of our development, through the eyes of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that is to say, through rose-tinted spectacles; to look at it as though we have reached the magic year 1978 which is now only seven years hence, when, according to that hon. Minister, the policy could be seen to have been a success. Assuming this Government is still in power in 1978—and day by day it becomes more difficult to accept such an assumption— their policy will have been applied for 30 years, a generation of the application of the policy of separate development. It will be in 1978, by which time the pressures upon us will have become, if they continue at the present rate, well high insupportable, unless this policy of separate development has eased the position by producing some solution to our problems. The whole emphasis of this policy at the present time—and it will be in the future, on present evidence—is directed towards the question of who should have ultimate political control of the Bantu Reserves. All thinking, planning and administration is directed towards that end, as though the settlement of that question, namely the ultimate political control of the Bantu Reserves, solves all the other problems which stem from the multi-racial or multinational character of this country. It is apparently thought in Government circles that to secure the acceptance and implementation of this policy of partition or separate development will cure the many other evils and will ease the many other pressures which South Africa is subject to at the present time.

Let us assume that by 1978 all the Bantu Reserves are under the jurisdiction of Bantu self-government, and that whilst there has been some consolidation of the Native Reserves by the compulsory purchase of White-owned land, there is still a fair measure of fragmentation in South Africa. I say that we should make these assumptions because I believe that that is the likely course of events in the next seven years, should this Government continue in office.

I should like to ask the House to remember that the whole thinking of the present Government is directed towards the point of view that you have merely to solve the problem of the ultimate destination of Bantu political power and that you will thereby have solved all South Africa’s problems which stem from our multi-racial or multi-national character. I may say at once that in my view the ultimate destiny of Bantu political authority has been, over the last 20 years, one of the least pressing or our problems. But that is not the Government’s point of view. It has in fact been elevated by the actions of this Government into the major point of difference between White and Black at the present time. One has only to look at recent events in the Transkei to see the truth of that. Now, let us look and see what the problems are, if any, and to see which, if any, will have been solved by the accomplishment of this ideal in 1978, the accomplishment of the Government’s declared policy of separate development, namely the acquisition of self-government by the Bantu areas. What will South Africa look like in 1978? The White community will have grown slightly. The Bantu will have grown rather more. The Coloureds and the Asiatics will have grown still more in numbers. All these people will be resident largely where they are now. Business and industrial activity will, I think, have increased considerably, the bulk of it in the White metropolitan areas such as the Witwatersrand or in the border industrial areas such as Rosslyn, Hammarsdale, Mdantsane and Pinetown, etc. These places, one has to remind hon. members opposite, are in the White areas. Bantu urban development will have been growing apace, but at the level of dormitory suburbs either to these metropolitan White areas like Soweto or to border industrial complexes like the Bantu townships near Rosslyn. But they will be essentially dormitory suburbs. Whichever way you look at it, the pattern will have been unchanged by the magic year 1978, even if you accept that by 1978 the curve of the graph of the flow of Bantu will have begun to flatten out. That change which we have been told about does not mean that the flow will have commenced in the opposite direction. It means merely that the rate of increase into the White areas will have slowed down. The picture then in 1978 will be much the same as it is now so far as the make-up of South Africa’s industrial population is concerned. It will present a picture in 1978 of White leadership and enterprise at the level of direction, administration and top skills, but largely non-White personnel at practically every level below that. Farming will be the same. It will be based almost entirely on non-White labour or Bantu labour, as it is now, either resident on the farms or increasingly resident in nearby reserves. Government departments and service industries will be largely dependent on non-White employees as they are now. With the application of partition or separate development for a whole generation, with the goal of sovereignty for the Bantu areas probably having been achieved, which of our problems will have been solved by the achievement of that aim? That is the question. Which of our problems will have been solved?

What are our problems? When you hear debates such as we have had, one wonders sometimes what appreciation there is among hon. members of this House of what our problems are at the present time. Let us look about us. Let us look at the economic sphere first. You have a growing economy hampered by a shortage of usable manpower. This is now generally accepted.

No, it is not.

I think one can draw comfort from the fact that that hon. member does not know what the position is. Except by that hon. member, it is generally accepted, I believe, that there is a shortage of usable manpower in South Africa, and there is that shortage because our system debars the non-White from doing certain jobs and acquiring certain skills in those areas where the shortages exist. One is forced to quote, although I had not intended quoting, but I have here a statement from the Daily Dispatch of 14th April of a meeting in Johannesburg two days ago, where the hon. member for Brakpan spoke. He said—

It did not end there. He went on to say—

Sir, how close to United Party policy events have pressed even hon. members such as the hon. member for Brakpan.

I was dealing with the real problems which face us at the present time and the first point I referred to was the shortage of skilled and usable manpower in South Africa because of the policies relating to jobs which we follow. The successful establishment of sovereign or independent Bantu governments in the Native areas will not solve that problem, or any of the problems associated with it. It will have no bearing on it at all. Then there are the problems of the social and economic type which arise from the existence adjacent to our large White towns of vast Black townships like Soweto, problems which arise from the inability of Bantu to own a house in places like that, to have stable family life there, to obtain in those townships adequate secondary education for their children, to obtain suitable jobs for those children who have had the benefit of advanced education. These are problems which arise from the fact that many of the institutions for higher education are situated remote from the places where the sophisticated Bantu live and work. None of these problems— and they are vast—are solved by the valid and successful achievement of the aim of Government policy, which is the political control of the Bantu Reserves under self-government by the Bantu. None of the numerous social problems, which are becoming increasingly pressing and which arise at the recreational and entertainment level such as at hotels, cafés and beaches, where one has to deal with the sophisticated and educated Bantu, are touched upon by the successful achievement of the policy of partition or the establishment of Bantu self-government in the Native Reserves.

Let us take the question of defence. One has only to look at a map to realize that the policy of partition will not in any way assist in the defence of South Africa, if one looks at it purely from a strategical or tactical point of view. That goes without saying. But let us look at that problem a little closer. Suppose that, in 1978, South Africa were unfortunate enough to be involved in an armed conflict somewhere other than in South Africa, and that the bulk or many of our young White men were called into the armed forces. What would the position be then? South Africa’s industrial machine, as essential to the successful prosecution of a war as the armed forces itself, since the one cannot exist without the other, would be manned almost entirely by non-Whites, either Coloured, Asiatic or Bantu. Can anyone tell me that the successful achievement of the policy of establishing self-governing Bantu reserves in Southern Africa is in any way going to contribute towards our stability in circumstances of that kind? One could continue to paint this canvas, but I hope that I have said enough to show that the successful conclusion of this policy which we call separate development and of the efforts of administration, expenditure, planning and direction which have gone into it, will not, by 1978, have touched most of the real problems with which we are faced and have been faced for the last 20 years. It leaves them aside. It has sought to establish a goal which, when related to the realities of South Africa, is totally unreal. Indeed, it is suggested, and there is a lot of truth in it, that it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant and unreal because our problem stems from the physical presence in the White areas of South Africa of vast numbers of non-Whites, Bantu and others. That is what the problem stems from. This policy was designed, I believe, long ago on a basis that, ultimately, all the Blacks would be moved out of South Africa. On that basis there was some prospect of this policy contributing to cure the problem South Africa has, although, admittedly, it would have been a very painful process. If one reads the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, that goal has now been given up. If that is so, this policy and all that has gone into it, serves no useful purpose in South Africa at all. The latest deviation is to turn the Bantu into migratory workers. We are led to believe that that would enable this policy to solve our problem. Will it? It will solve nothing, because at any one given time in South Africa we will still have present hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Bantu people. As long as they are present in Southern Africa and our economy is entirely dependent upon them, the problem exists. We live at a time when we have a growth rate, which it is Government policy to maintain, of some five or six per cent. In the light of that policy and in the light of the economic development for which we all hope in this country, the presence of the Bantu in South Africa will continue to be a reality. This policy Which we have, a very expensive policy, a policy which uses a very great deal of the efforts and the industry of our people, will continue to serve no useful end in South Africa.

Indeed, one has only to look at the front page of the Cape Times of this morning to realize what a worthless exercise we are indulging in at the present time. What do we have on that page? We have, first of all, a leading story on the recent elevation in status of the Shangaan territorial authority. We do not have there a long speech of thanks from the chairman of that territorial authority for the enhanced status. What do we get?—A deluge of criticism of what is taking place, not in the Reserve where the Shangaan territorial has its jurisdiction, but what is taking place in the White areas of South Africa. “More debits than credits” is the phrase that is used by the gentleman concerned.

What do we have on the same page? We have a comment on recent events in the Transkei. I do not wish to go deeply into that. I am sure that that will be dealt with on another occasion. But the only astonishing thing about that event, is the fact that the hon. the Minister was astonished. What is the gravamen of that speech? Much of it is criticism of what is taking place as a result of the implementation of the policy of this Government in the White areas of South Africa.

What is the third matter that is referred to on this page? It is a comment on a scene at Johannesburg airport involving the chief executive officer of the Zulu territorial authority. Here, on one page of a newspaper, we have reports, some of them highly critical, of the administration of this Government of its policy in South Africa from three separate territorial authorities which in 1978 will be three independent Governments.

They followed your leader’s criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time left, but this is the one criticism which will not wash. Chief Kaiser Matanzima spoke in Umtata minutes after talking to the hon. the Minister and hours before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had anything to say on this subject whatsoever. This is the one baby that cannot be laid at the door of the Opposition, not in any respect or by any stretch of the imagination.

But I want to come back to illustrate the case that I am trying to make from the front page of the Cape Times.

What is the fourth topic of criticism of this Government? It is the fact—and their photographs appear—that four prominent, educated and apparently civilized Coloured people, invited by error to attend a chamber music concert at a university function in Port Elizabeth, are found to be embarrassed and have to be turned out from a function of that kind, because it is not in accordance with Government policy.

Where are we going if, on one occasion, we can have petty apartheid applied, as it was in respect of these four Coloured people in Port Elizabeth and at the same time and on the same occasion you devote all your political energy and talents towards creating the stick which it seems is being created in respect of the Bantu territories, to beat this very Government with. I believe one can say the Government is getting perilously close to losing the initiative in the ordering of Black /White relations in South Africa. We are reaching that stage and I would say that the time has come for us to review the priorities when it comes to sorting out relations between the various coloured races and the White people in South Africa. The emphasis has been wrongly placed and nothing has been more misguided than to think that we can solve our problems by placing all the emphasis on the Native reserves where really there are no problems other than those relating to economics, by devoting all attention to elevating these people, too quickly in many cases, and at the same time leading the White people, in an area right next door where the majority of Black people work and have their being to believe that they can go backwards. Now these two situations exist. One community, that is the community of the White people, is being led backwards as they have been led through the last 20 years. They are being led to believe that they can continue without any adaptation or change in the ordering of their lives in South Africa. That is what this Government has come to power on. It cannot be done. The one community cannot be led to believe that there is no need for any change of attitude of any kind while we are at the same time advancing, in many cases prematurely. The Black leaders of those very same people who live next door, into an elevated status and then expect that everything will be peaceful in this country. Here, as had been said earlier on, the chickens are coming home to roost. I do hope that before this course goes much further and before it leads us to a conclusion which we would regret, there will be a change of thinking on the benches on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. member evidently went to a great deal of trouble in order to prepare himself for this speech. Despite the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had indicated that he would deal with the question of Kaiser Matanzima under his Vote, the hon. member thought it fit to give us examples here today of the demands made by the chairman of the Shangaan Territorial Authority and of the demands made by Kaiser Matanzima. The hon. member for Zululand held these up to us as the dangers of the policy of the National Party, and said these things were the consequences of that policy. To this he added that in this process we were making provision for one thing only, i.e. the political development of the Bantu homelands while we were neglecting to give rights to the Bantu in our midst. Let me now tell the hon. member that the National Party has never adopted an attitude which suggested that there would be no Bantu within White South Africa. On the other hand we have always said that those people will be here for a purpose. The approach we adopt in dealing with this problem is completely different from the approach that side of the House adopts to the problem. It is an over-simplification of the situation merely to say that it is not necessary to concern ourselves with the Bantu in the homelands and that it is not necessary for us to pay special attention to spending R20 million all of a sudden in one year on the economic development of the Bantu homelands, as the hon. member for Mooi River said. The hon. member for Mooi River said one important thing here today, and hon. members on that side of the House may well pay attention now because this is very important. I mean the hon. member for Mooi River in particular. The hon. member for Mooi River said we were coming forward here, to use the words of the hon. member for King William’s Town, to pull and tug at the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa, by spending R20 million on the Bantu homelands. Then- in addition to that, he asked whether it would not be far better to spend this money in a place such as Soweto. This is precisely the attitude of the United Party. There is no point in saying it is not—it is. They know it just as well as we do. The attitude of the United Party is that the reserves should be developed up to a certain level only, and that they should be a reservoir for labour. “Let the other people come in and sell their labour on the best market”, as the hon. member for Yeoville said. Then, if they were to come and sell their labour on the best market, and their best market happened to be Johannesburg, this United Party tells us it would stand for residential separation and social separation. The hon. member for Zululand should not get so excited about the four people who might have been placed in a difficult position. He just has to say whether he will accept them, or whether he will invite them and go with them. In any event, those gentlemen now come along and say that they will apply residential separation. Hon. members were asked across the floor of this House yesterday whether they would admit the children to the same schools, if there is talk of petty apartheid now. In that case the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has told his own leader that if the Prime Minister were to be prepared to accept the challenge issued by the hon. the Leader to the Prime Minister last year, i.e. to ask the Economic Advisory Council to say whether separate development can work or cannot work, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be committed to accept that finding of the Economic Advisory Council. But do hon. members know what the member for Bezuidenhout wanted to tell the Leader of the Opposition? He wanted to tell him, “If the finding were to be”, to use the terms of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout “that major apartheid could work, we as the United Party must accept major apartheid. The only thing about which we would still differ would be the question of petty apartheid”. But let us now take a look what there is to the challenge issued by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister last year. He said—

This is, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, the one leg on which this Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister must work. Now, when it concerns the kind of policy of the United Party, he said—

These are the two matters which the Economic Advisory Council should investigate. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has told his own leader that if either of these two standpoints were to be adopted by the Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, he should reconcile himself to that. In saying that he was hoping that the Prime Minister would do such a silly thing as to accept this challenge by the Leader of the Opposition. I mention this because the hon. member for Zululand made quite a song and dance today about what is happening in South Africa. The hon. member for King William’s Town actually said in this House today that the people of South Africa “are having hell under this Government”. These are his words, not mine. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition today that we appreciate the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town in this House today. I appreciate the speech, the tone and his choice of words.

But let us return to the so-called challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition issued in regard to the United Party’s standpoint which is to be investigated by the Economic Advisory Council. Let us now take a close look at the standpoint. This is the second leg of this investigation. I quote again—

This then is the only thing which has to be investigated, in terms of their policy—nothing else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He was not prepared to take up a standpoint, neither was he prepared to state what his policy was and how he would implement it. He mentioned seven conditions in terms of which this second leg had to be investigated. As far as the standpoint of the National Party policy is concerned, in other words, the first leg, the hon. the Leader had no conditions. Let us take a look at some of these conditions. It is necessary for us to do so in order to take a closer look at the nagging about the labour shortage, the better use of labour, and so forth. The third condition laid down- by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that the obligation to reduce Bantu labour by 5 per cent annually in certain areas should be suspended. These are the conditions laid down by him in terms of which the Economic Advisory Council should investigate the matter. When the hon. the Leader spoke of the suspension of the 5 per cent reduction annually, he was probably speaking of the Western Cape. His sixth condition was that job reservation under section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act should be done away with and replaced by more effective measures to maintain White workers’ living standards. But the hon. member for Maitland said that job reservation should be abolished statutorily and that the matter could be dealt with conventionally. What is this conventional job reservation? This again is precisely the same story as the one we get from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When inflation is discussed they say, “Make better use of labour and of the labour resources of South Africa”. They do not say what this entails. I shall return to this later. The seventh condition laid down by the Leader of the Opposition was that the training of Bantu for industry was no longer to be limited to the homelands and the border areas. In South Africa we have never trained Bantu for industry and production in the Bantu homelands only. Most of that training takes place at training facilities established by this Government. However, my time is running out and I should still like to broach another matter.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave an explanation here of petty apartheid. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the Leader of the Opposition accepted Prof. Nick Rhoodie’s definition of petty apartheid. On reading the Hansard of the Leader of the Opposition, one sees it is not true that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accepted it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should like his Leader to accept Prof. Rhoodie’s definition of petty apartheid, but it is recorded in Hansard that the Leader of the Opposition has accepted Dr. Jan Moolman’s definition of petty apartheid. It is important to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that Prof. Rhoodie’s definition rather than that of Dr. Jan Moolman be accepted.

I now want to return to the question of labour and inflation. The hon. member for Hillbrow, in fact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well, held up Japan as a typical example of how a country could outgrow its inflation. The whole speech of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with that. Last year the Leader of the Opposition did something extraordinary again. Obviously not satisfied with the way things were going, he entered the debate himself. And what did he do? Knowing full well that they could no longer rely on Japan’s growth rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent—once the hon. member for Hillbrow even went as high as 12 per cent, but at the moment he is moving back to a more reasonable 7½ per cent to 8 per cent— Japan had to be left alone. I want to tell hon. members why. The latest reports indicate that Japan cannot outgrow its inflation, because this is impossible. He spoke of better utilization of our labour, of making more labour available, and so forth. I wish hon. members on the opposite side would tell us how and where labour might be utilized more effectively. I am not prepared to quote every Tom, Dick and Harry when I say this. G.A.T.T. said the following (translation)—

If we have inflation in South Africa, we cannot detach ourselves from world-wide inflation. Today this is a world-wide trend. If hon. members on the opposite side tell us we are able to detach ourselves from world inflation, then they must tell us in what way. Our economy has become interwoven with that of the world. There is one single reason why we are contending with inflation, and that is simply because we cannot produce as much as is asked of us. It is a pity that the hon. member for Hillbrow is not present at the moment, because I want to refer to some of his friends. In addressing the Randburg Chamber of Commerce in February, one Mr. W. S. Yeowart of Union Acceptances said the following—

He said there were two reasons for difficulties we were experiencing. The first was, and I quote: “There was and is a shortage of capital capacity or complementary resources and the available manpower is inadequately used.”

Hear, hear!

I am glad that the hon. member for Yeoville says: “Hear, hear!”. The hon. member for Yeoville knows nothing about this matter. The hon. member for Yeoville has no knowledge of this. What does the better utilization of labour to which Mr. Yeowart referred, amount to? He said—

Even if one discounts certain local problems …

The hon. member for Yeoville must pay attention now; I do not have the time to read out everything, but the “local problems” to which this Mr. Yeowart referred, are section 77 of the Act—

“Irrespective of its colour.” Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic. We see what the position is today. A week or two ago the Institute for Productivity in South Africa gave a radio talk through the mouth of their chairman, Mr. Visser, and it is illuminating that the productivity of the worker and the manager in the European countries is in the following relation: Where we have to use three people to do a certain job here, it is done by one person over there. Sir, let us go into this. Hon. members on that side kick up a fuss about the money which is being spent; they say: “Bring in more physical manpower to do the work.” But this is not what it is about. Even if you were to bring in more physical manpower, if there were an iota of truth in the statement that they were being trained better, etc., then I tell you, Sir, the only solution to this problem would be found in more and more mechanization, and therefore the Minister of Finance has to make provision in his Budget for foreign exchange to be earned so that the necessary goods may be imported. The Minister also makes provision for stimulating exports and in turn the things which are exported earn us foreign exchange.

I must make haste. A general picture of a weak South African economy has been painted here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the No. I person as far as painting a poor picture of the South African economy is concerned. But the facts state the very opposite. What do we find in an investigation of 263 companies quoted on the Stock Exchange? What do we find in their reports for the past financial year? If one would only go to the trouble of looking at the annual reports of all the big companies, one would see that there was a levelling off of net profits only in the case of gold production.

Let us look at what had happened here. 263 companies were investigated. The average increase in the net profits over those of the previous financial year was 24,4 per cent. Now is this a net profit to be scorned? Is this a country, the economy of which, in the words of the Opposition, has gone to wrack and ruin? Sir, it is not. These companies could show these profits despite the Government’s policy of job reservation and despite the stupid Ministers who, according to them, do not know how to organize finance. Yesterday an hon. member said that the youth of South Africa would like to live in this country and that they, too, would like to make progress, but that they could not do so under a National Party rule of 23 years. Let me say today: The youth of South Africa is prepared to accept these challenges. Under this very National Party Government there have never been more employment opportunities for young people than there are today. If I may be permitted to use the example, let me mention a banking institution which was certainly established under National Party rule. The average age of the managers of that bank is 31 years. Is this not enough to serve as proof? Sir, let us be positive, and if we make statements in this House, let us prove them. Let us now get a final answer from the United Party to this question of labour: How should our labour be utilized more effectively?

Mr. Speaker, a budget debate naturally affords Opposition parties a very good opportunity of subjecting the policy of the Government to close scrutiny, with this difference, that that party, which sees itself in the role of an alternative government, should however act with greater responsibility. It is clear, however, that this Government has taken the fire and spirit out of the United Party to such an extent that there is nothing left in it that makes it look like an alternative government in any way. During the past three days hon. members on that side of the House got up one after the other and exclaimed in a torrent of words what a poor Budget this was. However, not one of them told us what the Budget should actually be like. One thing which revealed itself once more in the course of this debate, is the fact that the United Party no longer shows any will to take over the Government. This is also proved, of course, by an urban constituency such as Bloemfontein East. The only role which is being fulfilled by the United Party, is the one that is being fulfilled by the Progressive Party, namely the role of an Opposition for the same of opposition. I am not the only one who says this either. An experienced parliamentary reporter, William Greenberg, who is at present financial journalist with the Rand Daily Mail wrote, inter alia, the following in New Nation of July 1970—

and then further—

What is important, is that this article was written after the general election of last year and was published under the significant heading “The Party that lost its way”. For this statement made by Mr. Greenberg we find adequate proof in the superficial approach towards key issues and the absence of constructive criticism on the part of the United Party. The United Party has only one refrain, and that is: See what happens; see what the Government does and oppose it. If the Government gives something, say it gives too little; if it takes something, say it takes too much; that is our job and that is the end of the story— opposition for the sake of opposition. For the rest the United Party is leading a carefree and happy existence.

Of course, there are two things they are very sensitive about and which they guard jealously, i.e. comfort and money. For that reason the solution to every kind of problem is, for that side of the House, ready to hand and all one has to do is to apply it; open the sluice and allow non-White labour to stream into our factories and our industries; let them overrun our backyards and our business undertakings, but not the Railways, of course! Let us be served, let us produce, let us grow, let us enjoy wealth and, lo and behold, every problem will be solved and inflation will be something of the past!

Sir, when one looks at only a part of the picture one gets a twisted image of the entire picture, and where will one find better proof of this than in the introductory words of the hon. member for Parktown when he said the following—

I want to refer the hon. member for Park-town to what Bertrand Russell said—

This, the idea, the ideology, call it what you want, and your belief in it, is what makes a spiritual entity of a people; this is what inspires the people to greater things. Name me one country in the world which achieved greatness without an ideology. No, it is quite clear that this Budget is a great disappointment for those people with a one-sided approach. It is a great disappointment for those people whose interests are limited to financial gain, for people who are exceedingly concerned about the present, but who have no concern for the future.

In order to evaluate this Budget in a meaningful way, it should be seen against the background of the situation in which we find ourselves, a situation we cannot wish away. We should not lose sight of the fact that we, as a people, are still emerging from the pioneer stage, that we, together with the whole world, are experiencing a new dispensation which demands exceptional adjustments in virtually every sphere of our national economy, that we have to protect and guard jealously not only our natural resources but also our human material for the sake of our continued existence, that we have to carve out and maintain for ourselves a competitive place for the sake of our continued existence; but what is more, that we should pay particular attention to safeguarding our future in this multi-national country of ours. We should not lose sight of the fact that our major and immediate task is to avoid our losing our equilibrium in the complexity of a new deal in the whirlpool of confused thoughts and values and in so doing harm our development irreparably.

This entails a major and responsible task for the Government This means that the Government is forced to guard, on the one hand, against the temptation to do spectacular things for the sake of being popular and, on the other hand, against the temptation to take the line of least resistance. If there was ever a time for us to think with our heads instead of our hearts, it is the present time. It is said, but it is true that, in these days of anxiety when we are being threatened by the most formidable and evil forces in the world, we are not being afforded any assistance from that side of the House, from people who regard themselves as good patriots. It goes without saying that ultimate success will depend mainly on correct determination of priorities. For that reason we find that in this Budget, notwithstanding all the problems that confront us, particular attention is being given to our human material and soil. Nobody, and least of all officialdom, our aged and our young people, can point a finger today at this Government for not looking after their interests. We need only look at the amounts spent on personal services: On pensions, R9 million more than the previous year; health and hospitalization, R6 million more; community development, R14½ million more; national education, R19½ million more. In the same way, this Government goes out of its way to render special assistance to agriculture and this the Government does not do with a view to canvassing votes or being popular, but on the basis of sound principles and economic laws and with the object and desire never to undermine the independence and the self-respect of our farming community. I can just refer hon. member to the round sum of more than R300 000 which has been appropriated for agriculture, although I cannot go into details now. But this Government does not only look at the present. For that reason we find that enormous amounts are going to be spent on matters such as defence and activities aimed at safeguarding our future.

There are, of course, certain things that everyone of us would have liked to have seen included in the Budget for the sake of our comfort and pleasure. But one’s common sense tells one that important matters come first There is the problem of inflation. The economists may differ in their analysis and remedies as far as inflation is concerned, but they are in agreement on one point, i.e. that inflation is getting out of hand throughout the world. It is easy to be clever in regard to the symptoms and consequences of inflation, but it is not so easy to break the spiral. What we are dealing with here is not only an economic problem as the United Party tries to make out. What we are dealing with here is a problem which, in its origin, is a psychological problem. This is a human phenomenon. It is a problem of mankind, his relationships, priorities and so forth. We should bear in mind that the present management and labour force in this country consists of a generation for whom the fierce struggle during the twenties and thirties is part of history and who have only a vague recollection of the crisis years of the last World War and the years immediately after that. These are people who grew up during the post-war years during a period of the greatest economic growth and economic wealth ever experienced by the people of the Western world. It is no wonder that communities in the Western world, including ourselves, are today bent on enjoying greater privileges, more wealth and less responsibilities. Let us enjoy life because everything will be more expensive tomorrow and, who knows, perhaps we may succumb in a nuclear war. It is, therefore, little wonder that more stringent control measures and higher taxation are regarded as measures which only antagonize and encroach upon the freedom of the individual. It is this attitude, this lack of purpose, which makes the problem so much more difficult.

I now want to ask what contribution the United Party is making in order to solve or combat this problem Are they doing anything to counteract this problem? On the contrary, they take delight in encouraging and promoting it. The fact remains that there are only two alternatives, i.e. either to take the necessary measures, however drastic they may be, in order to rectify economic imbalances or to lapse into compromises. This Budget reflects in no uncertain way the attitude of the Government. In the interests of the people as a whole, in the interests of the future, time cannot be wasted on compromises and lackadaisical attitudes neither as far as measures for combating inflation nor policies on vital issues are concerned.

The person who does not see this Budget in its true perspective, will never understand it. This is our problem in this House, i.e. that we do not have people on that side of the House who display the necessary sense of responsibility and seriousmindedness, people with whom a dialogue can be entered into in regard to the basic issues which concern the development and the continued existence of our people. How must we argue with people who want to right every wrong with money; people for whom economic prosperity is the ultimate happiness? How must one argue on relationship questions which are of such fundamental importance to the continued existence of our people with hon. members on the opposite side of this House and with, to be specific, a shadow Minister, the hon. member for Transkei, who had so many scare-stories to tell that his colleagues on that side of the House are frightened out of their wits and are having nightmares? How must we discuss important matters with a person such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who does not always say what he thinks, or with the hon. member for South Coast, who does not always think what he says? In regard to an important industry such as agriculture, how must we argue with a party which, for all practical purposes, has been rejected by the rural areas? How must one argue with the hon. shadow Minister of Agriculture on that side of the House, the architect of their agricultural policy, who owns farms in the Karoo but lives in Cape Town and represents an urban constituency in Port Elizabeth? I want to be fair. I do not take it amiss of the United Party that they, from the nature of the case, are out of touch with the rural areas. But what I do take amiss of them is the fact that they pose as people who know better under such circumstances, the fact that they make irresponsible and unfounded statements in this House and particularly outside this House which they know are not true. I want to refer to the hon. member for Newton Park who gets up in this House from time to time and makes statements to the effect that, for example, this Government has done nothing for agriculture over the past 20 years, that this Government refuses to place agriculture on an economic basis, that the assistance rendered to farmers is shocking, that the farmers are leaving the rural areas, not only the bad ones, but also the good ones. And when they are cornered, they advance the weak excuse: “You are the ones that govern, you must solve this”. Surely this is simply a case of opposition for the sake of opposition. I accuse that side of the House of doing agriculture tremendous harm by sowing confusion and by deliberately misleading the electorate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. In order to prove that, I want to refer them to the yellow booklet which contains their so-called policy. They, who regard themselves as the so-called watchdog of the taxpayer, say that when they come into power they are going to reward the farmer reasonably for the work he does and they will afford him a reasonable profit after his production costs have been deducted. They go on to say the following—

What would they say if they were in power and a farmer came along and said that a bag of maize cost him R4 to produce and that a sheep cost him R15 to raise and keep alive through the drought, and asked them to afford him a reasonable profit because that is what they said? What they will say is quite clear, because surely they kept a loophole for themselves. They will say that they are sorry but, in their opinion, that is a reasonable and fair reward. They are hiding behind relative concepts. And when the farmer comes along and says: “I am an able farmer; I am a progressive farmer; I have built myself a shed on the farm and at the same time I have built myself a seaside home and bought a Mercedes. Come on now, you said that the State would help me financially when I need it and for the purposes for which I need it. Come on, help me now”. What are they going to say then? They will naturally say that, in their opinion, he is not an able farmer. Surely, hon. members are able to see now that I am correct when I say that they are misrepresenting matters and in so doing create the wrong impression among the people in the country.

I go further. Those are the people on that side of the House who are accusing this Government of price manipulation. They accuse this Government of reducing the income of the farmer year after year through price manipulation. Let me refer them to their own White Paper quoted by the hon. member for Worcester. I want to quote from that (translation)—

Furthermore—

Unfortunately my time has expired; otherwise I could have quoted many more examples. I want to conclude with this, but before I resume my seat I want to say that the loss of the support of the rural areas was—and still is—the greatest single setback suffered by the United Party. It makes no difference to me if they want to win back the support of the farmers. They are entitled to do so, but then they should do so in an honourable and responsible manner by pitting policy against policy in this House as well as outside. They should not gamble with agriculture with a view to winning a few votes, knowing that if they succeed, it would not be their supporters who would suffer. No, when one looks at this Budget, it is clear why the country is firmly behind the National Party. Our farmers are not stupid people, but they are keen observers and they know who their friends are.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winburg ended his speech by indicating what great confidence the farmers of South Africa have in the agricultural policy of the present Government. I want to ask him one question. Has confidence in agriculture ever been at a lower ebb in the Republic than it is today? I do not think that it has ever been lower. It is no good hon. members on the other side quoting a great number of statistics whereby they try to show how much the Government is assisting agriculture. There is only one test that can be applied. Has confidence in agriculture been restored or not? I say that until that has been achieved, this Government cannot claim that it has been fulfilling the requirements of an efficient government.

There have been a record maize and a record wheat harvest.

Who grew the maize? It is the farmers and not the Government. I challenge the hon. members to go into the platteland and discuss the position of the meat industry with the farmers. They will not find a single farmer who is satisfied with the way this Government is dealing with the meat industry in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is just one little matter. They had a golden opportunity the other day under the auspices of private enterprise to see some 500 lamb carcasses exported to the United Kingdom. There was nothing to stop it. The authorities of the United Kingdom were satisfied that our abattoirs were …

Could the hon. member tell me what the price of meat was when the United Party was in power?

I am coming to the hon. member. He does not know very much about agriculture, but I will discuss other problems of Port Elizabeth with him, because he raised certain matters which I myself raised in a previous speech. However, this is the position. The meat industry is in a mess. This Government has been in charge of it for 23 years. Each year the situation becomes worse and worse. The hon. member knows it. He should have raised the matter in his speech. I raised the question of these lamb carcasses that for some obscure reason were not exported to the United Kingdom. The abattoirs that we have available in Port Elizabeth were completely accepted by the Health authorities in the United Kingdom. It was merely a case of sending them to Great Britain. But for some reason or other it was stopped. This is the kind of situation we find. I do not want to delve further into the problems of the meat industry. There will be appropriate occasions to do so. However, just to reply to that hon. member, I want to make it quite clear to him that if he thinks the farmers in South Africa have confidence in this Government as regards its agricultural policy, he is certainly making a grave mistake.

May I ask a question? Whose meat scheme is in operation now?

I am not interested in whose scheme it is. The Government is responsible for seeing that agriculture is developing satisfactorily. If the Meat Board is not doing its job properly, the Government must do something about it. [Interjections.] I will discuss the matter fully with the hon. gentleman under the Agriculture Vote.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, a colleague of mine, had one or two comments to make about what I apparently did or did not do in Port Elizabeth. I have his speech here. He said last night:

Daardie agb. lid en van die ander kollegas …

He was talking about the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

… het met die eerste geleentheid na Port Elizabeth toe gevlieg.

He was talking about the recent bus riots in Port Elizabeth.

Daar het hulle probeer om die gebeure uit te buit vir eie politieke gewin.

It is the truth.

Sir, there he repeats it. “Dis die waarheid”, says the hon. member. We were confronted with a very serious situation in Port Elizabeth. Let me say that that position has not been solved at all at this stage. I want to tell the hon. member that I went to Port Elizabeth, not to exploit the situation for political reasons, but to make quite sure that I as a public representative of Port Elizabeth know what is going on. I want to advise the hon. member that I know what is going on. Unfortunately, because of his indifference to the situation, he does not know anything about it at all. I would challenge him to quote anything that I said to the Press or at any public occasion which in any way indicated that I was exploiting the situation for political gain. It is completely untrue. [Interjection.]

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that I have called upon one member to speak. I want none of this debating back and forth. The hon. member may proceed.

It is the Minister.

Order! I shall myself establish who it is.

A further allegation made by this hon. gentleman reads as follows:

I saw a very good reason why the Deputy Minister of Transport should visit Port Elizabeth to do an overall inspection of the whole situation. Like responsible members we interviewed the Minister concerned and invited him to go to Port Elizabeth to deal with the situation. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister has not gone. The reason why he has not gone is his own, I do not know. What I do say is that it would have been in the interest of Port Elizabeth and of the country as a whole in so far as race relations are concerned had the hon. the Minister seen fit to look into the situation there. He goes on—

That was only half a quotation. I ask the hon. member, if he has a conscience, to put this matter right. What I said was that it was Government policy to resettle certain racial groups in their own particular group area and that when this happened they were very often situated far from their source of employment. I said further that if this was Government policy, it should also be Government policy to see to it that where resettlement areas were planned, adequate planning was done with regard to transport facilities. The Government should not first establish the settlement and then find that the transport facilities are inadequate. This is what I said to the Press and I say again that it is vitally important that such planning is done in advance so that they do not create a situation such as the one in Port Elizabeth.

Was it not just a question of increased fares?

The whole situation cropped up because of increased fares. The hon. the Minister of Planning has also been concerned with this matter and has been approached. I want him to know that there are many other problems and that this was only an element which brought things to a head. I believe the hon. the Minister is going to look into this matter and I think it is a matter which should receive not only the earnest consideration of the Government but also that we on our side do our job to put it right.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. The hon. member went further and said:

I am just wondering, Sir, if the hon. member is implying that I might well have been there. That is what his statement leads one to believe. I would like to deny that most emphatically and say that whatever

I do in any matter in which I am involved and is concerned with the wellbeing of the public, whether it be White people, Bantu or Coloured, will be done in public. Everyone will know exactly what I am doing and what I am saying; there will be no secret meetings. I deplore the fact that this hon. member has coupled me with agitation.

He thinks you are a member of the Broederbond.

He is thinking of the Broederbond.

Sir, I want to deal with one particular matter in the Budget affecting the farmers of South Africa. As the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, and I am glad to see that he is here, there are many problems that are unsolved, but there is one problem that we can solve quite easily. I refer here to the money that has been voted for the interest equalization fund—somewhere in the region of R4 million. Sir, we on this side of the House have been asking for a long time and have been suggesting for a long time that an interest subsidy was the most effective way in which farmers in general could be helped to solve the problems which are now besetting agriculture. We were naturally delighted last year in September when the interest subsidy of 1½ per cent became available to certain bond debtors. The report of the Franzsen Commission also suggests this quite emphatically and they do so for several reasons, such as the fact that increased production costs cannot be readily passed on to the consumer; the fact that our policy is to keep food prices low—I believe that is the policy of the Government—the climatic uncertainty and risks, the violent fluctuations in prices. For these reasons the commission says that agriculture must be protected against high and increasing interest rates. That is the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission and we on this side of the House fully support it. The Franzsen Commission also accepts —this is the important point—that an interest rate of per cent on long-term loans, which is the interest rate charged by the Land Bank, is probably the maximum that agriculture can stand, bearing in mind all the difficulties that it has to face. We on this side of the House as well as the Franzsen Commission also accept that in the long run all agricultural financing should be under one roof. We believe on this side of the House, and we have made strong representations in this regard on many occasions, that it should be the long-term policy of the Government which it certainly will be when the United Party is in power, to get all agricultural financing under one roof, preferably under an institution like the Land Bank, with certain extended powers. I am talking now about long and medium-term financing. Sir, there is very little evidence in this Budget that this is the direction in which the Government is moving, although the Franzsen Commission makes very strong recommendations in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much mention of what the Government has set aside in this Budget for agriculture. A sum of R25 million has been set aside for the Land Bank. Naturally we are grateful for this. But when one considers the volume of capital invested in long term agricultural farm bonds, then this R25 million does not take us a very long way along the road towards getting all agricultural financing under one roof.

While I am discussing agricultural finance I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is with us now, when we can expect the report of the Marais Commission, We have waited for a very long time for this report. The commission is dealing with the financial problems of the farmer, and these are the real problems which are biting into his wellbeing today. There seems to be no certainty about this. I believe that there are certain depressed areas in the agricultural industry today—the small stock areas which cannot diversify—which are in desperate trouble. I wonder why the Minister does not ask the Marais Commission to investigate the position of those farmers who are suffering most severely at this stage and to bring out an interim report in respect of the financial problems which are besetting the sheep farmers.

I want to say that if the United Party comes into power it will go out of its way to bring all agricultural financing under one roof. It must be obvious to any Government, as it must be obvious to this Government, that if this can be achieved there will be a tremendous saving in administrative effort; there will be better control; there will be more certainty; the farmers will have more faith in their industry. I believe that this is something which the Government should expedite with all the power that it has at its disposal. There are hundreds of farmers today who wish to obtain long-term capital from the Land Bank but what is the position? They have the security to offer, but the Land Bank simply has not got the funds to accommodate them. There are hundreds of farmers today who want to enjoy the privileges that the Land Bank offers, but simply because that institution has not got the funds, they still have to rely on the private institutions for their long and medium-term financing. Only one-quarter of the long and medium-term financing is provided by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit. The balance is provided by private institutions. Something in the region of R1 000 million is provided by the private institutions, and it is in respect of this money that the interest subsidy has been granted. As the hon. the Minister will know, the subsidy is H per cent, and that was granted from the 1st September, 1970. Since then interest rates have gone up by I per cent, so any benefit which the farmers got from that interest subsidy has now been almost completely neutralized. This Budget, as the hon. the Minister must acknowledge, can only lead to a rise in interest rates and in the very near future the subsidy of 1½ per cent that was granted last year will be completely neutralized. I want to make a very strong plea to the Minister this afternoon to approach the Minister of Finance to see if it is not possible for this interest subsidy to be increased from 1½ per cent to 2 per cent to meet the present case. If that is not done the farmers will be back to exactly where they were last year at this time, in square one. I believe that this is a matter of urgent necessity. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that this is the best and the easiest way to help those farmers who cannot get loans from the Land Bank or from the Department of Agricultural Credit. They are obliged to take their long-term financing from financial institutions and the rate of interest today is 9½ per cent and in many cases 10 per cent. It is this high rate of interest that is going to cause an absolute debacle in many of the major farming areas in the Republic.

Sir, there is another matter that I would like to raise with the Minister of Agriculture. Many of the bonds that are granted by private institutions do not qualify for an interest subsidy. In this connection I want to refer to overdrafts. There must be a tremendous volume of money borrowed by farmers today on overdrafts. These overdrafts do not qualify for the interest subsidy. Sir, I am not suggesting that a straight overdraft must qualify for the subsidy. What I am asking is that if a farmer is able to obtain a loan from a private institution to pay back his overdraft and to take up a bond with a private institution, that new bond that he takes should qualify for the interest subsidy. The position at the moment is that such a conversion of an overdraft to a bond does not qualify for the subsidy.

That is accepted.

Since when?

Then it must be a very new arrangement. That has not been so in the past.

Sir, my time has almost expired. There are two other categories to which I want to refer. You have the case where you have a bond between private people but it is administered through a registered financial institution. There are many of those cases. I believe that with proper investigation it will be found that there are many bona fide cases which should qualify for this interest subsidy but which up to now have not qualified for it. Sir, there will be no problem in this connection. The Franzsen Commission said there are administrative difficulties in granting subsidies in respect of bonds which are not taken out with proper banking institutions, but the whole thing is arranged by the department through committees of the Department of Agricultural Credit. If these things are properly investigated, I believe that hundreds of additional farmers will qualify for the subsidy, thus making their position far more satisfactory. I believe that if the Minister is not prepared to meet them, then we are going to see a very serious situation in the near future as far as many farmers in the Republic are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I have actually risen to discuss certain matters which have received a great deal of inflated attention over the past few days, and in regard to which all sorts of slanted conclusions and statements were drawn and made. Statements were made by certain newspapers and also by hon. members of this House, amongst others by the hon. member for Zululand. The statements I want to discuss, were made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei a few days ago. Since I mentioned the hon. member for Zululand, I just want to refer to a few things which the hon. member did here this afternoon. The hon. member for Zululand ventured boldly, or may I say had the hardihood, for this is more direct, to misrepresent me in connection with those statements.

Your colleague did so …

No, I listened to what the hon. member had to say here this afternoon. As was done by several newspapers, the hon. member also said that I was allegedly astonished at what Matanzima was reported to have said.

Did you not say so yourself?

No, I did not say it. If that hon. member wishes to open his woolly ears, he can listen to what I said, for I am going to repeat it. One of the newspapers even said, “The Minister was shaken.”

The newspapers said so.

It is correct that the newspapers said it, but it is not true that I said so.

[Inaudible.]

I deny that, and the hon. member should now bottle up his excitement and listen to what I am saying; then he will hear everything. What I did say was reported correctly by certain English newspapers. I very explicitly said that I was astonished. I never said that I was shaken or whatever. I said that I was astonished. I never said that I was shaken or whatever. I said that I was astonished at the method—not the content—followed by Chief Minister Matanzima in raising the matters he did. I objected to the method, since shortly before he. together with his whole Cabinet, had with me a lengthy discussion, in the course of which some of the matters that were raised later on, were put to him and explained by me. However, he did not, in pursuance of that, ask the further questions which provided him with the best openings. Afterwards I reprimanded him in private, in the presence of his other members. I summoned him for that purpose only. I reprimanded him in private by telling him that governments did not negotiate with each other from platform to platform, but that in matters of this nature we, as far as I was concerned, conducted negotiations with each other in my office and, if necessary, in the office of the Prime Minister. But I was definitely not shaken, amazed, overwhelmed or whatever at what was asked by Chief Minister Matanzima. Why not? The answer is that he had already asked all those things on so many previous occasions. One becomes accustomed to it. It forms part of their policy. I shall now tell hon. members why.

Why reprimand him then?

I did not reprimand him for what he asked. Really, is the hon. member for Pinelands still unable to understand that? I reprimanded Chief Minister Matanzima for the fact that he did not put these things to me directly, but that he broadcast them at his party congress.

This afternoon the hon. member for Zululand went even further by also mentioning Chief Counsellor Prof. Ntsanwise, who was here and, I think, is still here today. He presented that person here as an ardent opponent of our policy. What are the facts? Those two leaders of their peoples are both persons who are the head of Native governments which are implementing the policy of this Government, i.e. the policy of separate development.

That is what he thinks.

The hon. member says, “That is what he thinks”. Here I have the actual text of Matanzima’s speech. I am now going to read out to the hon. member for Pinelands what he had to say under the heading “Separate Development”. He said this in that very same speech. But one will not find that reported in any Opposition newspaper. After all, this is positive. The following is stated in the text of the speech—

This was said by him in that very same speech.

Of course he will say that.

Prof. Ntsanwise, who is at the head of the Shangaan Government, as they have it now, and who visited us here and who also paid a visit to the Prime Minister and made voluntary statements to the Prime Minister himself, is a person who held a chair at the University of Turfloop, where he earned a larger salary than he would earn as an ordinary chief councillor in the service of a government; consequently we had to make a salary adjustment for him. He relinquished that professorship. He went to his people in order to lead that government in implementing the policy of separate development. He did not have to do that; nobody forced him to do so. Why did he go there? Because he believed in that policy and wanted to implement it. Now, these are the people on whose backs the hon. members opposite are jumping in an attempt to prove that they are opponents of our policy.

You are missing the point.

No, I am not missing any point. I know what that hon. member is missing. And then the hon. member for Zululand came along, and, naturally, he tried to drag in as many of these Bantu leaders as possible, and he also dragged in another one on whom there was a report in the papers, namely Buthelezi. The hon. member for Zululand referred to certain incidents which, according to the hon. member, allegedly took place at the Jan Smuts Airport. Quite dramatically he pulled out a large sheet of newspaper and mentioned the large number of misrepresentations on that page. Sir, I have reason to believe that one should have very grave doubts about the correctness of that report in regard to the Buthelezi incident, which allegedly took place at the Jan Smuts airport. I have reason to believe that there are very grave doubts about the veracity of that report, and we shall, I hope, be able to hear more about it shortly.

The hon. members and the newspapers that have been gloating over these matters to such an extent, must appreciate that in this leader of the Xhosas in the Transkei, whom I want to discuss now, we are dealing with a person who is a political leader as well. Every political leader, and apparently this applies to every people, has his own methods of practising politics. In that respect they are very much like our Opposition. They have their own particular methods.

What about the Nationalists?

Surely they are not Nationalists, but you will permit me, Sir, to say that on the opposite side they seem to me to be pink Nationalists. The Chief Minister addressed his political congress, and there, of course, he proceeded to say things in an attempt to soothe his political followers. That may have been a good political manoeuvre on his part, but it certainly is not something which revealed good statesmanship, and I think he has already realized it by this time, or will realize it soon if he has not done so yet.

What about the motions?

The motions introduced there are sometimes just as irresponsible as are the motions introduced in this House. The hon. member for Yeoville should listen to me now, for I want to give him a reply to his little interjection. In terms of their procedure there is a committee which scrutinizes the motions, and I already know that those motions which are totally beyond the scope of the powers of that Legislative Assembly, will not appear on their Order Paper. Apparently this is being done there with all sorts of political motives, just as in this House we also hear motions with political motives introduced by the other side.

Have you told them what motions they are to introduce?

No, they have a committee that does its job. (Interjections.] It is obvious that the hon. members are doing their utmost to put as many obstacles as possible in my way so that in my limited time I cannot have my say.

Now I should like to deal with a number of the points raised by Matanzima, points in which hon. members opposite have also been taking a great deal of interest. He wanted to know why the Departments of Health, Posts and Telegraphs, Transport, Police and Defence had not yet been handed over to him in their entirety or in part. This is the one point for which I resented him so much. I am not saying this behind his back, for I said this to him to his face when we saw each other after that speech had been made. On the occasion when I met him, I reported to him that considerable progress had been made with the negotiations which he, by request, raised with me in the course of previous discussions, in the correct manner, namely that certain services in regard to Police matters and in regard to Prisons could be transferred to him shortly. I told him that they might be delayed for a while by legislation which might be required here. We still do not know for sure. I told him that certain police stations and certain prisons in the Transkei could be transferred to them from the South African Police and from the South African Department of Prisons. The specific places are not relevant here.

I also told him that, as regards the third group of functions on which negotiations were conducted in the past, i.e. those of Health services, the negotiations between me and my colleague the Minister of Health had not yet been finalized, and that they would probably be finalized shortly. I sent him word that the matter had been delayed slightly owing to the quite extensive reorganization of Health which we had in the country, namely that my Department along with that of the Minister of Health had to take it over from the provinces, and that we first had to devise a completely new system on the lines of which we could model the services. I said that as a result the matter could only be raised with them a little later. I said this to him, and now I am also saying this to the hon. members opposite so that they may know.

As regards the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, this is, of course, a department which has been excluded from the powers of the Transkei functions, and the same applies to the Department of Transport and Railways, if he included it under the word “transport”, and the Department of Defence. He ought to know this very well. If he does not know it, he has shortcomings as regards knowledge as far as this matter is concerned, namely that a constitutional amendment is required in respect of those functions. They do have a major share in certain aspects of the Department of Transport, namely the local Road Transportation Board in the Transkei. They have a major share in that body, and a great deal of progress has been made in that respect. For instance, I may tell the hon. House that over the past five years the local Road Transportation Board, on which they themselves have representation in the Transkei, has effected an increase of more than 60 per cent in all the licences granted by them in the Transkei. They have made it possible for their own people to get them. I do not know whether he is not familiar with these particulars.

He also mentioned the Department of Defence. I can understand his mentioning the Department of Police, but I really do not know against whom the Transkei Government wants to defend itself, something which we could do much more effectively than the Tranaskei would be able to do. Therefore, I cannot understand what he is aiming at as far as the Department of Defence is concerned. To my mind these were merely political stage-effects for the benefit of his own followers. What is often confused both outside the Transkei and even inside the Transkei, is that bound up with the handing-over of the departments, there is the question of nationalizing those departments, i.e. of employing in those departments more and more of the members of that people. That policy is in fact being implemented by all the departments which are directly under the jurisdiction of the Transkei. They have to absorb more and more of the citizens of the Transkei into the services of those departments. But this is also the policy followed by the other departments which are operating directly in the Transkei, i.e. not via the Transkei Government. For instance, I may mention to the House that during the year ended 31st December, 1970, there was in the Department of Posts an increase of 60 per cent in the number of Bantu members, the Transkeians, employed there in the Department of Posts. What hon. members opposite and the Transkei Government must appreciate, is that it is by no means in their own interests that some of their own citizens be placed in departmental posts in which they are incapable of doing the work. There is a major task, not for this Government and for me, but for Matanzima and his own Government to train their people to acquire that competence which will enable them to take care of those posts. They are aware of that, for they have just completed there a well-equipped technical college—and I have visited it—where they can train people of their own blood to obtain higher qualifications for these services.

Then Chief Minister Matanzima raised the point of land, as he said. For the ump-teeth time he referred—earlier this year he did so on several occasions—to the districts of Mount Currie, in which Kokstad is situated, Maclear, Elliot, Matatiele and Port St. John’s. He referred to historical claims which they have to them, for until 1883, according to him, there were 29 districts which formed the Transkei. If a historic claim is only valid up to 1883, I wonder what has become of the value of the historic events which took place after 1883. The period from 1883 up to the present is very nearly a full century. What about the history made during this period? That is what is being overlooked by Matanzima and his people and those people who are afraid that we are going to make those districts Black areas. Furthermore, there are historic events which are relevant here and which took place after 1883. [Interjections.! Hon. members on that side of the House must listen now. I assume that what I am going to say now, is something which they themselves would after all like to know and accept. Now it seems to me as though they do not want me to say it.

What did happen there, is that those districts have become White districts through tradition, by convention and by legislation. They were not annexed and taken away from them. There were no quarrels about them. Some of these things came into force as far back as during the old colonial period. In this Parliament of ours, in the year 1913, an Act was passed which dealt with the position of Elliot and Maclear and in terms of which they were declared to be White areas in practice. Surely, this is history, too.

But when does the history start?

Mr. Speaker, the history starts way back, but for the information of that hon. member I want to add that the history does not stop at 1883; it goes on up to the present moment.

I want to state here very clearly that the above-mentioned districts are White districts. This Government has no intention whatever of incorporating those districts in the Bantu area of the Transkei or of the Ciskei or of any area whatsoever. Every now and then statements are made by politically motivated people in order to upset the inhabitants of those regions. In such statements it is being said that uncertainty prevails about the market value of that land and that the market value of that land is dropping. There is absolutely no justification whatever for any uncertainty about those districts. Uncertainty can only prevail if at one moment this Government, through the mouths of its various speakers, said one thing and the next moment said something else again, or if the Government created doubts by saying it was still being considered whether there would be an inquiry into what was to be done in that regard. Since we came into power, no member on this side of the House has ever left any doubt as to the position of those districts. We have always said what I am saying now, and that is that we have no intention whatever of incorporating those White districts in the Bantu areas. Therefore, the hon. members must realize that if so-called uncertainty is being created in those districts and if those people are complaining about uncertainty which is causing the market value of their land to drop, that uncertainty is not being created by us, but by the Opposition members on the other side of the House and by their minions, i.e. their newspapers, to see whether they can fish any political advantage out of that mud-puddle. Something which, to my mind, is proof of how badly the United Party is acquainted with the Bantu peoples in South Africa, is the fact that it is inherent in any Bantu to ask, to go on asking and to ask ad infinitum …

Until they get it.

No, that hon. member does not know it. It is equally inherent in the Bantu to realize that if one says no to him, he cannot get it. However, he nevertheless goes on asking, as this very Chief Councillor Mabandla, who was here recently, put it to me, “I am their father and when they see me, they must ask.” When they see me again, even if they did not get anything last time, they will ask again, for they must ask. Really, it is deplorable that those hon. members opposite are taking advantage of this characteristic of the Bantu in an attempt to make political capital out of it for themselves.

In conjunction with this land question, Kaiser Matanzima said, “The Transkei is over-crowded.” He said that there was no room for the people who were being sent back, and that Dr. Verwoerd had allegedly been sympathetic towards their being granted more land. That was why these districts had to be bought now. This is a whole mouthful of slanted and untrue statements. In the first place, the Transkei is not over-populated; on the contrary, in certain regions the Transkei is wrongly populated. If one were to drive through the Transkei, one would see how many parts there are in the Transkei where agricultural planning has been carried through and where soil rehabilitation, etc., has been introduced. We know that there are many such parts, and one can see these things where the Natives who used to live scattered all over the area, have been properly concentrated in certain residential areas and where camps for grazing and lands, etc., have been provided. At these places soil erosion was combated and contour ploughing, etc., was introduced. Almost half of the Transkei has already been replanned in this way, but the other half has not yet been replanned. We know in fact that sometimes that kind of work causes faction fights in the Transkei, because they do not want it. The Government of the Transkei must realize that this Government—and I swear that even an Opposition government, if it should ever come into power—will not grant any Bantu area more land simply because the Bantu Government has not been looking after its own land and allows erosion to go on unchecked. The land which has traditionally been their own, and which we have, what is more, enlarged by way of additions, must be looked after and preserved. That land must be planned and utilized in the best possible manner, and that is our policy. We are helping them in that respect and we are educating them for that purpose. However, this is an extremely difficult task, for to deal with land in the way we are advising them to do, clashes with the mentality of many Bantu persons. What Dr. Verwoerd did say in regard to the Transkei, was as follows: In referring to the Lambasi flats in the neighbourhood of Lusikisiki, he said that the flats were so fertile and that, generally speaking, the soil in the Transkei was so fertile that with sound planning the Transkei would be able to support 50 million people. These are the words which Dr. Verwoerd used in this very same Chamber. He never said that the Transkei was so over-populated that it had to be granted more land. That is a misrepresentation, and I want to correct it as soon as possible.

Then I want to mention this last point in regard to the land claims. Kaiser Matanzima said, “The land question must be settled,” for it was not right that 12 million people had to live on only one-eighth of the land of the Republic, and that 3 million Whites had to live on the rest, i.e. seven-eighths. He said, “It is not Christian ethics and our claims are reasonable.” In the first place, I want to say that there is no land dispute whatever between this Government and the Native governments in South Africa. We are granting them more land than they traditionally chose for themselves in South Africa. We are implementing an Act, which the predecessors of those members helped to introduce in this House when they were in power. We are busy adding to the 1½ million morgen of land and exchanging wrongly situated Black spots and reserves for better White land. But we do not have any dispute, as Matanzima says. He and everybody must appreciate this. This is a word of honour, which we gave to the Bantu without being asked to do so and which we are honouring now. We are implementing it in terms of our consolidation policy. I hope that in this regard we shall receive from the other side more assistance than opposition.

I want to say that it is highly regrettable that in his speech Matanzima referred to the whole of the Republic. He is a mouthpiece for his people, and not for all of the 8 or 9 Bantu peoples scattered over all four of the Provinces of South Africa.

What did Buthelezi say?

It is immaterial to me what Bantu leader says it—he is a mouthpiece for his people, not for all the peoples. Hon. members must acknowledge that I am right in saying that it is not Christian ethics to give away, merely on demand, land to Natives who are not looking after their own land properly, land which the Whites own and have developed with their energies, know-how and money. [Interjections.] Those who do not know that this is not Christian ethics, must be taught this lesson. Therefore, those who are making the opposite demands are in fact making unreasonable demands. [Interjections.] I find it interesting to note that the facts I am presenting here are causing hon. members to shout, moan and be tortured to this extent. May I hear from the hon. members who are moaning and groaning so much about what I am saying now, whether they think it is in fact Christian ethics to give away our White, developed land to natives who are not looking after their own land? [Interjections.] Hon. members would be well advised to digest what I have said now, and at a later stage we can discuss it again.

Now I want to mention another point that was raised by Matanzima. He said that the Republican Government had to give attention to Transkeians seeking employment. He said that a complete reorganization—not a “re-orientation”, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—of our system of labour control had to take place and that influx control was detrimental to the Transkeians. All of this is lop-sided; what are the facts? The facts are that the Government of the Republic has, by means of our system of providing employment through the labour bureaux, provided more Transkeians with employment than the Transkei Government itself has created for its people. During the past year alone we provided almost 185 000 Transkeians with employment outside the Transkei. The influx-control machinery, about which he is complaining so much maintains industrial peace, sound wage levels and good working conditions for his own people. He ought to be grateful for the benefits which this machinery implies for him.

Furthermore, the Chief Minister of the Transkei said that he was studying the development of the other homelands. He would express publicly his criticism on the political development in regard to the other homelands. I am telling the Chief Minister of the Transkei that if he is claiming for himself the right to express publicly criticism on the politics of other homelands, he will have to put up with such criticism also on his politics by the other homelands. We know that that is not the right thing either.

What I mentioned here, was a few examples to point out what a tremendously great deal these people are still to be taught. This is our major task, namely to teach them up to the level of governing. In that task we must receive assistance and not mockery, such as we are getting here today. The most important thing which Matanzima himself and his Government can learn, is to ensure that they are getting their people ready, equipping and enabling them to take up those many opportunities which are open to them and to take care of their own affairs. It is not in the first place, our task to do this, but only, in the second place, to help them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we witnessed the spectacle of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development which we on this side of this House had predicted several years ago would take place. We predicted that the sooner the Nationalist Party implemented its policy of separate freedom and of sovereign independence, the sooner we would see the real problems with which South Africa would have to contend in implementing this policy. When we discussed these matters, hon. members opposite always said that we could trust the Bantu, even up to the level of governing and that the Nationalist Party would always negotiate with them. Today, however, we had to witness the spectacle of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development reprimanding his friend, his confidant and his creation. I wonder how many karosses the hon. the Minister will receive from them in future, after the speech he made here this afternoon. I should now like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to what he said here a moment ago. In the first place, the hon. the Minister said that the United Party and its Press had misrepresented what was said by Mr. Kaiser Matanzima. In addition, he accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of having used the word “re-orientation”.

It appears in the newspaper.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister said that these words had never been used.

They were used in his statement.

Whose?

The statement the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made to the Press.

They appeared in the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition but were they not used in the speech made by Mr. Matanzima?

No, he said “reorganization”.

I should like to read to the hon. the Minister from the Burger in which the entire speech made by Mr. Matanzima was reported. The Burger clearly said the following (translation)—

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No …

Is the hon. member prepared to allow me to read from the typed speech of Matanzima?

We do not have copies of that speech. I want to concede to the hon. the Minister that that word may appear in the speech, but the fact remains that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not have that speech. He obtained the speech made by Mr. Matanzima from the Burger and from other newspapers. Now the hon. the Minister says that we misrepresented what was said by Mr. Matanzima. The hon. gentleman said that “he was not shaken”, that he was not shocked. He was not disconcerted; no, he was merely upset about the way in which Mr. Kaiser Matanzima did it. But, Sir, there is nothing wrong with that method because Matanzima has already said all these things in the past. The hon. the Minister took almost half an hour this afternoon to reply to what Kaiser Matanzima had already said in the past. I should now like to quote to the hon. the Minister from the report of this speech in his own newspaper (translation)—

He has said all these things before. He stated them in a direct and undisguised manner. It has never worried the hon. the Minister before that he stated these things so directly, but today the fact that Kaiser Matanzima had put his case in such direct and undisguised terms, worried him for half an hour. Sir, what did Mr. Kaiser Matanzima say? He was referring to what he had requested from this Government—

Listen now, Sir—

Year after year they requested this from the Minister and his Government, but the hon. the Minister received these representations in the secrecy of his office. The conclusion one must draw from this, is that Matanzima and his Government could obtain no satisfaction from this Government, and what is he doing now? He, who previously had great confidence in the Minister, is now rousing the feeling of nationalism among his own people, taking his own people along with him, and making more and more demands to the Government and the Republic in public, i.e. no longer in the secrecy of the Minister’s office. This is why the hon. the Minister is so angry, not about what Matanzima had said; he was rather honest; he said, “I was shaken about the method.” But what did Chief Matanzima say?

You must not lie. I did not say “shaken”.

He was not shaken; he was surprised.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that.

Sir, I said most explicitly in this House that I had not used the word “shaken” or “shocked”, and the hon. member has now said that I did use it. If he says that, he is lying. I did not say the hon. member was lying I said he should not lie.

Sir, it seems to me as though the hon. the Minister is still angry.

I repeat that you must not lie.

The point is merely whether the hon. the Minister was upset or whether he was angry. He was definitely upset and angry, because he said so; he said he was upset about the method. He was not surprised at the things Chief Matanzima said, but merely at the method. But, Sir, let us listen to what Matanzima said about the treatment he received from the hon. the Minister in comparison with the treatment he had received from the previous Minister of Bantu Administration. He said this of Dr. Verwoerd—

He was referring here to land he wanted, namely Mount Currie, parts of Elliot, etc.

That is not true.

I just want to say in passing, Sir, that I remember Mr. Kaiser Matanzima putting forward these claims during one of his previous election campaigns. At that time we asked the Government in this House whether it was its intention to hand over these areas to the Transkei …

And we said “no”.

We never succeeded in obtaining a reply from these hon. members. But today they have suddenly given a reply.

You are telling an untruth now.

What did Mr. Matanzima say of Dr. Verwoerd? He said—

Dr. Verwoerd never said so.

How is it possible for Mr. Kaiser Matanzima to say now that a previous Minister adopted a sympathetic attitude towards them, but that so far they have submitted to this Government year after year, claims to this land and to the control of these Government departments, and that they have never been able to obtain any satisfaction from this Government? No, Sir, the Nationalist Party mounted a tiger when it made those promises. Less than a year ago the hon. the Prime Minister said to these people: “You who want independence, must come and talk to me,” and now that they want to discuss these matters at a congress of theirs, the hon. gentleman has said to them: “No, your method is wrong; you have said all these things in the past, but the method you are using now is completely wrong; you must come to our office where we will then discuss matters and negotiate over a cup of tea but, please, do not say these things in public.”

“You must plot and scheme in secrecy.”

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the hon. the Minister said that as far as he was concerned, the Transkei might as well gain independence during his lifetime. All Mr. Kaiser Matanzima requested, was that the control over four departments be transferred to the Transkeian Government, but now the hon. the Minister has been seeking all sorts of excuses, whereas a few years ago he said that these people could come and ask for independence during his lifetime.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Sir, the hon. member says I am ridiculous, but it was his Minister who said that sort of thing. The hon. the Minister’s excuse is this: He said the Bantu had their own way of conducting politics.

So have we.

The Minister said it was their way of conducting politics. But what sort of politics are being conducted in the Transkei at the moment? After all, Mr. Kaiser Matanzima is not conducting an election campaign. Surely it is not necessary for him to outwit his opponents at this stage. Sir, today these people are in the position where promises have been made to them, and they now expect the Government of the Republic to take action and their demands to be met. This is the hon. the Minister’s problem. Of course, there are a number of by-elections at hand, and the people are looking to see what the reaction of the Government will be in regard to these demands. After all, my hon. friends opposite are the people who, on their house-to-house visits, have been saying to the people over the years: “But, do you know what the policy of the Government is?” They promised sovereign independence to the Black man. But what are they saying to us? “This is not true. It is for overseas consumption. It will never happen.” Sir, I think it was at the time of the election last year that an M.E.C. of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province was asked this question: “When can these people gain their independence?” To this he replied: “It may take 10 years; it may take 20 years; it may take 200 years.” I now come to Senator Danie Potgieter the present Deputy President in the Other Place, who was the candidate opposing the hon. member for Walmer in Port Elizabeth last year. He was also asked when these people would gain their independence. The question was put to him at a public meeting. His reply was: “Never.” [Interjections.] “Two hundred years—that is how long it will take.” That hon. gentleman is surprised now, Sir. It was he who made the promise that those people could come and demand it within 10 years, i.e. within his lifetime. The Prime Minister also invited them and said: “Come to us and ask for your independence.”

Sir, I want to leave this point, because I think I have dealt thoroughly with the hon. the Minister. If a person is uncomfortable and feels uncomfortable in his political seat, why should we rub it in more? I shall now leave the hon. the Minister there.

Where, here?

Just for the moment. [Interjections.]

Now you are talking about cricket. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to talk about the blunders of the hon. the Minister of Sport but I think we shall do so at a later stage. He need not get excited. When this matter is dealt with, he will be very sorry that he ever took the bat into his hands. Sir, I should like to come back to the Budget. I want to point out that hon. members opposite were not prepared to listen to the cardinal charge we made, namely that if they wanted to fight inflation, they would have to look into the labour situation in this country. Sir, I can believe that at present many countries in the world have inflation problems, problems which were caused after they had reached a saturation point in regard to their labour resources. Some Western countries are examples of this. West Germany, Britain and to a large extent America and many other countries are examples of this. Their inflation problems cannot be compared with what is taking place in South Africa, because these are not analogous cases. In South Africa we have the situation that there are still thousands upon thousands of people who can be trained and who can be used as unskilled labourers, semiskilled labourers or skilled labourers. However, because this Government is not prepared to change its political outlook in this regard, it has to put up with the fact that we shall be in a position of continuous inflation in South Africa. That will be the position, unless they are prepared to change their cardinal approach in this regard.

Do you see, Sir, what is happening today? The industrialist would like to expand, but he has no labour because he cannot obtain more from his skilled labour resources; therefore, if he has to employ more people he must draw from the semiskilled people and let them do skilled work; and if he has a shortage of semiskilled workers, he has to take completely unskilled people; and the Government is not prepared to see to our existing labour forces being retrained. Furthermore, they are not prepared to ensure that the untrained workers whom we have at present, will be trained better. For that reason I maintain that unless these matters are changed, we shall find ourselves in a continuous inflationary situation in South Africa, a situation which will not be comparable with any overseas country where they have sufficient skilled labour. And what do the hon. members say now? They are laying the entire blame for South Africa’s position on over-expenditure, and the hon. the Minister of Finance stated this very clearly in hi§ speech. I want to quote him so that there may be no mistake in this regard. He said:

Then he mentioned the examples of the sales of semi-durable and durable articles, but in the same breath the hon. the Minister of Finance said that consumption expenditure—this refers to the private sector —had increased by between 10 and 11 per cent for three successive years and that as far as he was concerned, this was a bad sign. But only a paragraph or two later he said: “Consumption expenditure by general government (mainly salaries and wages) increased by 12 per cent during 1970, compared with an increase of 13½ per cent during the previous year.” In the one and the same speech he criticized private consumption expenditure, but also mentioned how the consumption expenditure had increased in the public sector, but this is allegedly not a mistake. The main reason why we have these problems, is that the private consumption expenditure increased too much. Then we had a speech such as the one made by the hon. member for Carletonville. What did he say? He said one saw examples of the tremendous waste of money all over South Africa and that when rugby matches and sports meetings were held, one saw this mania of South Africans for spending too much money; one saw the empty beer cans and the empty brandy bottles. These were the remarks made by that hon. member, and he went on to say that in backyards one saw good second-hand motor cars and farm implements, etc., which could still be used. But his Minister of Finance imposed heavier excise duties on beer and on brandy. He hopes the people of South Africa will consume even more so that he may obtain more revenue for the Treasury. What a ridiculous argument the hon. member put forward! This is one of the problems we have with this Government. They tell the people simultaneously: “Produce more, but, please, consume less.” The hon. member for Paarl stood up here and speaking as fast as he could—actually, it sounded as though he had a bunch of grapes in his mouth—he tried to get past the increased excise duties. What are the facts of the matter? The more the Government taxes the people, the more problems the wine farmer, for example, will have in selling his product. In spite of the fact that the Government has now agreed to an increase in the price of wine being introduced for the farmer, the action taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance has completely frustrated the sound decision that was taken i.e. to grant an increase in price. I now want to put a question to the hon. members for Paarl, Stellenbosch, Swellendam and Worcester. All of them are people who represent wine-producing areas in this Parliament.

And Caledon.

Caledon to a much lesser extent. They are aware of the dissatisfaction among their people. Special meetings have already been held by the K.W.V. Mr. Jan de Villiers, who is managing director of the K.W.V., and Mr. André du Toit …

He is the general

manager.

Very well, he is the general manager. What is the difference? Besides him, Mr. André du Toit and all the other persons involved, have expressed opinions on this matter. The hon. member for Paarl said that the wine farmers were disappointed. That is what he intimated. He and the hon. member for Worcester himself are also disappointed. If they are as disappointed as they pretend to be, I want to ask them whether they would be prepared to propose to the hon. the Minister of Finance that the excise duty on brandy remain the same as it was the previous year. If they are not prepared to do that I want to ask those hon. members whether they are prepared to agree with us if we propose that that item be deleted when we come to the tax proposals.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I cannot reply to questions now. If they are so serious and so disappointed about the disadvantage which the wine farmer of South Africa has now been made to suffer, they should either have the courage of their convictions to insist that it be restored to the old position, or be prepared to support us in this matter. If they are not prepared to do so, the attitude adopted by those hon. members is absolutely meaningless. This is once again an example of the double-talk found on that side of this House. We ask the people to produce more, but the moment they do so we levy more taxes on them.

The motor-car industry in South Africa is another example. Let us look at what happened recently. As a result of the hire-purchase terms being stepped up, the increase in the sales tax of motor cars of a month or so ago, and the next phase programme, there has been an increase in the price of motor cars. What is the position now in regard to the South African organization which represents the motor car assemblers? Recently they wrote to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. They have only received an acknowledgement of their letter so far, but nothing further at all. What did those people ask? They said that as a result of the hire-purchase terms being stepped up, there had been a fantastic drop in the sale of motor cars. This is another example of people being asked to produce more, after which they are taxed. In that case there is only one alternative for the industrialist, namely to ensure that his production is adapted to the demand. For that reason he shall have to produce less. Where is the hon. the Minister of Finance who hopes that he will obtain increased revenue from this source, and where is the hon. the Minister of Finance who hopes that because more will be produced there will be a lower price in the course of time? Therefore, things have remained exactly the same. In spite of this, the Government claims that this Budget is a budget for the farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park made a few challengeable remarks in connection with the Budget and I most certainly need not respond to them. Then, however, he also remarked that the Minister of Finance wants the people of South Africa to drink more in order that more revenue may be derived from that source. That is very definitely a scandalous remark which is unworthy even of the hon. member for Newton Park.

The first part of the hon. member’s speech, which was a reaction to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, was in itself a statement which was irresponsible in its entirety and which can do the United Party more harm than good. The basis of the actions of this side of the House with regard to the non-Whites has been very clear all these years and will remain clear in the years to come. This is that we are always honest with the non-White peoples of South Africa, that we are always fair to them and that we base our case and our relationship with them on facts. Our attitude is one of always acting fairly towards the non-Whites. This has always been the point of departure of this side of the House and it is the only way in which two different peoples and two different states can have a relationship with each other. The hon. members on that side of the House so it would seem to me, want to bedevil the relationship between White and non-White in South Africa completely. The National Party and the Government have always set an ideal for the non-White peoples. This ideal is one of independence. The word “guardianship” is written into the National Party’s programme of principles. It is stated in that programme that the non-Whites are under the guardianship of the Whites. Throughout the years the National Party Government has carried to its logical conclusion every policy that it has had. The logical conclusion of guardianship can be one thing only, and that is that it must lead to emancipation. Since we are now engaged in a process of emancipation, we must unquestionably expect small problems to arise in the initial stages, just as small problems arise when children are emancipated from their parental home. It is the United Party which seizes on these circumstances like vultures and exploits them. They try to make use of them in order to attack Government policy. The hon. member for Newton Park should rather have spent his time telling us how the United Party is going to satisfy the aspirations of the non-White peoples. How is the United Party going to satisfy the justified aspirations of the non-White people of the Transkei? How is it going to handle a situation like that? Under National Party policy and under the National Party Government it is clear, after all, that we are creating an opportunity for these people to develop. There is increasing evidence that a national aspiration is developing among the non-White peoples. But how is the United Party going to satisfy it? It is not enough for the hon. member to tell me that such a situation would never arise under their policy, because he wants in other words, to tell us in this House that under United Party policy there will be no national aspirations among the non-White peoples of South Africa. Surely that is absolutely rubbish. The non-White peoples of South Africa have a right to what is their own. They have the right to develop and they have the right to build up their own national identity. How is the United Party going to handle that situation? The situation which we have in South Africa is pointing ever more clearly to the fact that under a United Party policy we could only head for a disaster in this country.

Before coming to another aspect which I want to deal with in this House, I would just like to put a matter right in passing. In a previous debate I referred to a report in the Sunday Times, published as Hogarth de Hoogh’s political report. On that occasion I referred to two specific reports in this Progressively oriented column in the Sunday Times. I said the hon. member for Kensington had written those particular reports. The hon. member for Kensington told me afterwards that he had not written those particular reports. I am, of course, fully prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for Kensington in that connection. But unfortunately this is not the end of the story.

Why did you talk such nonsense in the first place?

I did not talk nonsense. I shall tell the hon. member why I did not talk nonsense. It seems to me from this side that the hon. member for Kensington is getting very nervous now. When I asked the hon. member whether he did contribute to that column, he would not tell me. When I told him that he did contribute and that he wrote under the name of Hogarth de Hoogh he did not deny it. We can now declare with the greatest assurance that he is indeed one of the persons contributing to that column. I challenge him to deny it. Moreover, in terms of the law because a by-election is in progress, there is a small notice in the Sunday Times saying who is responsible for the political comment in the paper. This notice contains the names of the editor, Mr. Joel Mervis, Mr. Stanley Uys and also a certain Mr. G. D. Oliver, the hon. member for Kensington. This means that the hon. member for Kensington is, legally and factually speaking, responsible for what appears in that report. He is co-responsible for what it contains. If he does not accept responsibility for it, I challenge him to dissociate himself from certain things which have been written in the Sunday Times. His association with the Hogarth de Hoogh report indicates that he is the father of that line of policy and the entire political trend in that column. At this stage I shall not refer to what Confucius said but rather to what the old Romans said in this connection. They had a Latin expression which ran as follows: “Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”, which means: “He is the father who is indicated as such by the marriage”. The hon. member for Kensington is married to the Sunday Times. He is the father of the illegitimate children of the Sunday Times. It is improper for him to deny responsibility in that connection.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Is a member permitted in law to do that under the privilege of this House?

This matter has two aspects to which one must respond immediately. One is the legal aspect and the other the moral one. I know of no legal hindrance to prevent the hon. member from shooting political arrows from the column of Hogarth de Hoogh at his colleagues sitting with him on that side of the House. There is no legal hindrance to prevent him from attacking his colleagues.

May I put another question? Does he have the right to earn money outside for services rendered by him under the privilege of this House?

As I see it, there is no legal hindrance for him to sit here in his bench under the privilege of this House and write reports for the Sunday Times. But what is very important in this connection is the moral aspect of this matter. It is an aspect which may interest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a great deal. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Kensington, under the pseudonym of Hogarth de Hoogh, is co-responsible for what appears in that report, and it aims one blow after another at the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He also makes personal attacks upon hon. members on that side of the House in that report. The moral aspect of this matter is very important. The hon. member has no moral right or justification for doing this. Loyalty is of great importance in politics. On this side of the House we are proud to be able to say that every hon. member here is loyal to his leaders, loyal to his party and, of course, loyal to South Africa as well. It is very obvious that hon. members on that side of the House, and this also prejudices the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, cannot say the same. There is disloyalty on that side of the House. There is growing dissension on that side of the House and one of the spearheads in this connection is the hon. member for Kensington.

I also want to refer to a matter which was raised in this House yesterday and again this afternoon. This matter was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. He referred to the actions of certain clergymen and to the events which occurred in Port Elizabeth. What was very important was the reaction of the hon. members opposite. What happened in Port Elizabeth? A procession was staged there, led by certain clergymen. The procession resulted in stones being thrown at five buses. Now the question presents itself whether we should not dissociate ourselves completely from what took place there, the entire protest march as such as well as the stone-throwing. In this connection the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, according to his Hansard, said the following:

What I want to know from the hon. the Opposition is whether they approve of the actions of the clergymen in this connection. The hon. the Opposition must tell me this across the floor of this House. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must now tell us whether the Opposition approves of the actions of the clergymen in Port Elizabeth. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central sits here laughing. This House knows him as a person who does not have to be invited twice to speak or to make interjections. I challenge him to tell us across this floor of this House whether his party approves of the actions of the clergymen in Port Elizabeth. Perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville can tell us. The hon. member for Yeoville can tell us now.

Mr. Speaker would not allow me to. I tried today … [Interjections.]

Perhaps I can assist the hon. member for Yeoville. We have, of course, already had a reply in this connection and I should like to know whether he agrees with this. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District replied as follows: “I hope you are ashamed of yourself.”

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