Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 4,—“Prime Minister”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

Sir, I do not think any Prime Minister in my time in Parliament has faced the discussion of his Vote with more problems unsolved and more problems piling up, and so obviously piling up, as the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. I think with the limited time available in this debate, one can only deal with a few of those problems, but I want nevertheless to take this opportunity of underlining certain of them.

Less than four weeks ago in the Budget debate, I described the Budget as a gamble. I think in the short time that has passed since it has been introduced, the signs are more than evident that in so far as the Budget is concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have gambled and lost. I think they knew, or should have known, that since they could not contain inflation, since they could not contain the ever-rising living costs because of the policies they have followed over the years, their only hope was to promote economic growth, which could give rise to higher living standards for our entire population—Black, White and Brown. Sir, growth has posed a problem to this Government in the past and it is continuing to pose a problem for it at the present time. Our population is growing faster than that of almost any other country in the world today. As a result the improvement in our living standards has tended to fall far behind the improvements in many of the civilized countries of the Western world and to fall even behind the rate of improvement in countries such as those in the European Common Market, where they have highly developed countries. I believe that today the situation is even more serious. It is more serious today, Sir, because living costs are rising at a much higher rate than the growth rate of the country. Last year our growth rate was of the order of 3,7%, while living costs from March last year to March this year increased at the rate of very nearly 10%. Most economists, I think, foreshadow an even bigger rise in the coming year. If one has regard to the rise in February, then the annual rise is going to be of the order of 13%. If one has regard to the rise in March, then the annual rise is going to be of the order of 16%. It is interesting, Sir, to see what that is going to mean to people with small fixed incomes, to pensioners, to some of the employees of the hon. the Minister of Railways earning less than R200 a month and to many of the poorer classes of people in South Africa. One notices that when there was a rise of 8% in the cost of living in the United States of America the President, Pres. Nixon, found it necessary to warn the nation that an annual increase in living costs of 8% was unacceptable.

Sir, what happened here? In the No-confidence Debate I raised certain economic issues with the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman was not prepared to discuss them. He said that they could stand over until the Budget debate took place. Well, Sir, we have had the Budget debate, but we still have not got any answer. You see, Sir, living costs are rising faster than ever and the Government is as incapable as ever of containing inflation. No doubt the hon. the Prime Minister will say today that he is not going to discuss economic problems with me because there is going to be a Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill later on this session.

He runs away.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the people— die volk daarbuite—are suffering more and more and becoming more and more conscious of the utter incompetence of this Government when it comes to dealing with this issue of the cost of living and the ever-rising inflation. It was most significant, Sir, that after the Umhlatuzana by-election the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, the hon. Senator Horwood, ascribed the Government’s poor performance to the fact that the United Party had fought on bread-and-butter issues, issues which it was not easy to counter, he said. Sir, let me tell him, and let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister, that these issues are becoming even more difficult to counter at the present time because they are affecting the livelihood of all our people, and they are leading to more and more dissatisfaction, to more and more bitterness and more and more privation. The strikes we had earlier this year were merely symptomatic of the sort of situation that was developing. The strikes were also symptomatic of the unfairness of the gap between White wages and non-White wages, which has not only developed under this Government but has grown even bigger and has been accentuated under this Government in the time that it has been in power. The whole trouble, Sir, is that this Government is prevented by its own policies from applying the only solution that is really left open to it today, and that solution would be to have a far faster rate of economic growth so that the income per capita of the population would rise. Then, in spite of inflationary pressures, the standards of living of the people in the country would also be higher.

But, Sir, an improved growth rate is important for another reason, too. If we grow fast it improves our position and our importance in the outside world, but it also ensures that we can give employment to those 50 000 Blacks who are coming on to the labour market every single year and looking for work in South Africa. Sir, people who study this matter and are able to make enlightened forecasts are unanimous about one thing, and that is that if we are to achieve a growth rate of even the 5½% to 6% per annum which is envisaged by the Economic Development Programme, then within seven or eight years we are going to require in South Africa far more skilled people than the White population can supply, and where are those skilled people going to come from? Of course, Sir, immigration is a possible solution, but the figures at the moment are not the least bit encouraging, and there is no doubt whatever that we will not get adequate supplies of skilled people through following a policy of immigration. Accordingly, the only solution is the training of our non-White population, to become not only factory operatives, but also skilled workers, and it is precisely in this sphere that the Government has fallen down in the past and appears to be falling down at the present time. Sir, how much training is actually going on? Much of the training is done on the quiet; there is no permanency; there is no job security, and more and more we are falling behind in the number of skilled workers we need to try to maintain a decent rate of growth.

Sir, some years ago in a Budget speech we heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance that steps were to be taken in respect of the training of non-Whites. That statement evoked tremendous interest amongst the businessmen and industrialists of South Africa, but the hopes to which that statement gave rise were very short-lived, because within a matter of a few days we had a statement from the Minister of Labour and a statement from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development which conflicted with the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance and which made it perfectly clear at that time that nothing really serious was envisaged, that nothing really realistic was going to be done. Of course the hon. the Minister of Transport ignored both these statements and went happily on his way consulting his staff and his artisans’ associations and using non-Europeans in ever more responsible jobs inside his organization. We suggested crash training programmes for Whites and non-Whites, to be trained for more skilled work. One of our members, the hon. member for Hillbrow, even introduced a private Bill providing for manpower training, but nothing whatever was done. Now, once again, we have had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Finance. We had a statement in his Budget concerning pre-service and in-service training of non-Whites in industry. This has been supplemented by a statement by Dr. Van Zyl, the Secretary for Bantu Education, about the steps being taken by his department in regard to a system of training factory workers. But what he said makes it perfectly clear that we are a long, long way from the training of skilled workers necessary to get the sort of growth rate which will be essential if we are to maintain our living standards, let alone improve them, in the face of the inflationary pressures to which we are subjected at present. There was also an interesting statement from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Other Place, which seems to conflict with certain of the policies of the hon. the Minister of Labour, which makes them more interesting on that account. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs told us that in consultation with his staff association he is training non-Whites amongst other things as electricians. Coloured and Indian electricians are apparently to be used by the Post Office throughout South Africa. Bantu electricians are apparently to be used in the Bantu homelands and in the Bantu areas inside white South Africa. Now, I do not propose to quote what the hon. gentleman said. I take it he accepts that I am not misrepresenting what he said. But of course it is only a matter of time before the Bantu also will be used throughout South Africa as electricians, as skilled electrician artisans, because the hon. the Minister is going to find himself in the position where there will be a shortage of skilled personnel to do that work. Now, whether he takes this step sooner or whether he takes it later is not really of much importance. What is of importance is what system of communication and negotiation is going to be used with these workers in spheres outside the Post Office. Because as sure as night follows day what he is doing in the Post Office and what is being done on the Railways is going to be done by industry in South Africa very soon. Now, what system of negotiation, what system of communication, will be used in respect of these people? Quite clearly a system of works committees will be totally inadequate to cope with workers with the status and the skills of artisans. This matter has been debated in this House before and it is quite clear that the Government’s approach in this regard is totally unrealistic. The failure of the machinery which it has called into being was only too evident earlier this year when there was a series of strikes by Bantu workers, the overwhelming majority of whom were unskilled workers. When those strikes took place it was quite clear that the machinery existing at the present time was quite inadequate. It led to adjustments in wages because of the inflationary situation which had arisen. Now, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, those strikes were virtually all illegal, yet so far as I know no steps were taken to prosecute either the strikers or those who organized the strikes. I think we all realize that a new era in industrial relations in South Africa has been rung in as the result of what has happened. What we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister today is how the Government intends coping with this situation in future. Some system of collective bargaining to cover not only the unskilled workers, not only the semi-skilled industrial workers, but the increasing number of skilled Bantu workers now and in the future has got to be evolved and it has to be evolved quickly.

I said earlier that if we are to attain anything like the growth rate which is essential for improved living standards in South Africa, we are going to require far more skilled artisans than the White population can supply. Those skilled artisans are going to come from the Bantu population. If we want to have industrial peace in South Africa, then a system of collective bargaining will have to be evolved for those people, but nothing which the Government has proposed to date comes anywhere near meeting this problem. We, on this side of the House, have indicated that that collective bargaining should, in our view, be on a three-tier system with full trade union rights for the educated and most highly skilled, with affiliated membership through the existing trade unions for those not so highly skilled or highly educated and with works committees for the tribal Bantu doing manual and totally unskilled work. However, as yet there has been no indication of a realistic approach from the Government side. [Interjections.] Let me say at once that the Bill published for information by the hon. the Minister of Labour in the Government Gazette is certainly not the complete answer in so far as the skilled and more highly educated Bantu workers are concerned.

The essential economic growth and development which will have to be sought by this Government is going to raise certain other problems for it. One was mentioned only the other night by Dr. Van Zyl in his broadcast when he spoke of the importance of trained industrial workers being retained permanently in the White area. You will notice it is true that he spoke only of “temporary permanency” but it is quite clear that if we are to have economic growth, we are going to require an ever-expanding permanent labour force of trained industrial workers in our White areas. No suggestion of border development to meet this problem can ever be entertained realistically at all. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote what the hon. gentleman said. However, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in Tegniek of April this year in which it is said—

They then go on to say—

Nor is there any prospect, now or in the future, of industrial development in the reserves being either of the order or at a rate which will give us the industrial growth rate we require in South Africa or will give job opportunities for the Bantu coming on to the labour market every year. This is what they say in Tegniek—

This brings me to another facet of the problem with which the Government is faced and in respect of which it has been quite incapable of giving us an answer up to the present time.

That is that this Bantu labour force is not only going to become permanent but that it also is growing. It is growing in numbers every year; it is growing vastly in numbers and it is becoming one of the most rapidly expanding portions of our population in South Africa. If we are to have the economic growth which is vital to our survival as an industrial nation and which is vital to improved living standards and good race relations, which in turn are essential for our security, that population of permanent Bantu workers must not only grow, but it must grow at a faster rate than it is at the present time. It is precisely in respect of this population that the Government has no answer at all in its present policy. I have raised this matter in this House on many occasions before and I have indicated that the urban Bantu population has been the flashpoint historically, and will undoubtedly continue to be the flashpoint, for racial disturbances in South Africa. The mere fact that by a fiction their permanency is not recognized, that they are given no proper stake in the maintenance of law and order, that they have no political rights where those political rights are of any importance to them, and that is where they live and where they work, that their families have no security and tenure and that they are still regarded as temporary sojourners, makes the situation the danger that it is. The hon. the Prime Minister will be aware that we on this side of the House asked our Native affairs group to consider the whole position of the urban Bantu over the last year. That group toured the country, visited all the big complexes where these people were situated and tried to make contact with those whom they regarded as representative of them. They contacted and held conversations with as many as they could of those whom they regarded as representatives of these people. They sought out those whom they believed could give them an insight into the thinking and into the aspirations of these people and into the problems of what today has become a very big section of our community.

The findings of that group were revealed by the hon. member for Transkei when he spoke in this House earlier this session. Those findings bore out very much the policies for which we have stood in the past, but what was interesting was that they evoked no response whatever from the ministerial benches. There was no response whatever; in fact, one got the impression that the Ministers concerned were indifferent to the views of hon. members on this side of the House in respect of that situation. What was important from our point of view was to find how much support there was from leading members of the Bantu community for the proposals which we on this side of the House have put before the Government in the past and fought for so long in this House. There was a very real appreciation for our proposals that they should be allowed to have home ownership in their own Bantu townships, for undisturbed family life, for a greater say in local government, for assistance in the development of a responsible class of urban Bantu, for better educational facilities and for the development of the use of their skills in the national interest. I do not propose to read from that report, but those facts are all covered. All these matters have been raised before, but they are of greater importance today because the hon. the Prime Minister is faced with the situation that many of the leaders of the Bantu people are no longer striving—if they ever did strive—for the ultimate objectives of Nationalist Party policy, of Government policy. They are no longer prepared to accept independence on the terms on which the Government is offering it to them.

The hon. gentleman is faced with the fact that he has to try to accommodate these people in the plan which he envisages for the future of South Africa. So far what have we had from the hon. gentleman? All we have had from him so far is an indication that if the various homelands were not prepared to accept independence on his terms, the situation would continue as it is at the present time. This is obviously ridiculous. If he plans for and believes in self-determination as he says he does, then the choice that he gives the present and former inhabitants of the various homelands cannot simply be independence on his terms or a continuance of the existing situation. That is not self-determination, not by any definition. Any suggestion that that is self-determination, or will be understood as such, is utterly ridiculous.

What then is your definition of self-determination?

I do not want to lose my trend now. I will deal with that later. He knows that all thinking members of the public know that the present situation cannot continue either indefinitely or for a lengthy period of years. The situation is going to change and the hon. the Prime Minister is going to find out what self-determination means. He is going to find out that the future of these people is going to become the subject of negotiation between the hon. the Prime Minister and these people. He is going to find that if he wants to continue to use Black labour as he does, that Black labour is going to have a very material say in the terms on which they are used and on the position they occupy in the country. Then the hon. the Prime Minister will find out what self-determination means. Then he will find that he is dealing with people who have got something to offer and something to lose and who can exercise a very real influence on the course of events in the country in the future and at the present time.

What we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister today and what the country wants to know is what his answer is going to be to this situation. He is faced with this problem to a limited degree with the Coloureds and the Indians, but thus far he has given us no satisfactory solution. Even his own people appreciate that he is in difficulties there. I do not believe that he has a real answer in respect of the urban Bantu population either, this vastly growing section of our community. We on our side of the House have made our views clear but the hon. the Prime Minister, I submit, has offered us no realistic solution whatsoever. To suggest, as he has suggested in the past, that these people will be satisfied with some form of political representation in their homelands, which can have little or no effect in the areas in which they live and make their living, is utterly ridiculous; just as it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that they will be satisfied with no adequate means for collective bargaining to determine their conditions of employment. These questions are fundamental to the future of South Africa; they are fundamental to future peaceful race relations in South Africa. I believe they have been evaded by the Government for too long. The time has come to get clear answers not from an odd Minister, but from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The country wants to know what his blue-print for the future is and how he hopes to deal with these problems.

We are living in a time of change; things are changing far more rapidly today than ever before in our history. There have been unbelievable scientific advances which have clothed us with new powers, but are also presenting us with new problems in a world which is changing more in a matter of weeks and months at the present time than it did in decades in the past. The population is increasing out of all knowledge; improved means of communication are bringing the people of the world closer together than ever before. We have no hope whatsoever of believing that we can continue to live in a state of isolation or that we can remain unaffected by what is happening in other parts of the world.

We on this side of the House will always try to adopt out policy wisely to the changing situations in the world. In our plan there is an important place for the Coloured people; there is an important place for the Indian people; there is a place for the urban Bantu and there is a place for the Bantu in the homelands. There is also an appreciation for what the might of the White man has meant to South Africa and for the contribution he has made. There is a recognition of the fact that that contribution deserves to be recognized and to be appreciated. But there is also a realization amongst us of the fact that times are changing and that adaptations are necessary. The essential weakness of the Government’s policy is its “either or” approach. We all know the Government’s approach. Complete equality or complete separation; complete independence or complete subjugation; and no acceptance of the possibilities offered by new experience and new development. I believe those policies will not only lead to disaster, but are in fact leading to disaster at the present time. We feel that the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to give this House a clear statement on the solutions that he is offering to the questions which I have raised. We feel that time is now. With the world changing as rapidly as it is, I do not believe that the hon. gentleman can remain silent any longer. I urge him not to fail South Africa in this regard this afternoon. If he has a reputation for anything it is a reputation of one who is concerned with the safety of the State. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that the safety of the State is dependent upon the answers which he will give to these questions.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess I was considerably flattered to hear my name mentioned right at the beginning of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech this afternoon. He referred to Umhlatuzana and to what I was reported to have said about the cost of living. I am pleased to take this opportunity to put the record straight. I did not say that we had done as we did at Umhlatuzana because of the high cost of living, that we could not answer the argument. What I said was that with the rise of the cost of living which was taking place …

The facts of life.

Of course, which I concede. I conceded it there. In the No-confidence Debate I said that it was too high for our comfort and that was why the Government was taking these steps to counter it.

What steps?

Let us deal with the facts. I am not running away from the facts. What I said was that with this condition of rising prices, what had made our position so difficult was the extent to which the United Party in that campaign had exploited the position. [Interjections.] There are members of my party here who heard me say this at a public meeting. I said it quite openly. Do you know what one of the United Party campaigners said in Umhlatuzana? He said that the cost of living in South Africa was rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the world. I said that was a complete and utter distortion and it was virtually impossible to answer that sort of distortion in the course of a campaign like that when you are dealing with the rank and file voter. But let us look at the facts. This hilarity on the part of the Opposition let us look at the facts and see what they look like then.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and gives us today a complete statistical fallacy, an absolute logical fallacy. He says that the cost of living is rising faster than the growth rate. The growth rate he quotes is the real growth rate. In other woods, the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says the cost of living is rising by, let us say, 7½% or 8% on the average … [Interjections.] I am dealing with official statistics. Then, he says, you take the actual increase in the growth rate, which is about 12% per annum at the moment in terms of the rand as we measure it, and adjust that by the rise in the cost of living and you find it is then 4%. The cost of living is therefore rising faster than the rate of growth. [Interjections.] Now I ask you! At least the hon. member for Durban Point did not try that one at Umhlatuzana, because even the humble housewife would have laughed in his face. I listened to the same fallacy in the Other Place last year and several of us took time off to try to explain this. Yet we come here today and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply repeats it as a fact. It is completely illogical and means nothing at all. You have to compare the increase in the cost of living with the increase in the actual rate of growth in terms of the current rand, and that is 7½% with 12%. I will tell hon. members something else: That 12% increase in the current rate of growth per annum is at the moment one of the fastest in the world. Would hon. members like to deny that? I said in the No-confidence Debate that one could count on fewer than the fingers of one hand the number of countries that can beat us in that respect. I repeat the challenge today to members of the Opposition—to name those countries.

What is the position? We have just had the latest announcement by the chairman … [Interjections.] The hon. member sitting at the back should rather listen; he might learn a few facts. The chairman of Union Acceptances, Limited, whom our hon. friends opposite know quite well, has just said in his chairman’s speech—and it has been given headlines in the paper— that incomes in South Africa at this moment are rising faster than the cost of living. That is the position as we have been stating it all along. Increases in salaries are substantially higher than the increase in the cost of living.

There is another point, another simple fact: In real terms, the growth rate is increasing by at least 4% per annum today. The population is increasing by 2½%. A Std. 6 pupil would conclude from that that in actual terms, the standard of living is rising in South Africa today. That is the position.

Sir, we are told that America has shown us how to deal with the increase in the cost of living. Have hon. members seen the latest figures published in the papers over the week-end? The cost of living has suddenly shot up so high in America that, on the basis of the last jump in March, they say that—at the moment they abandoned phase 2 of their fight against inflation and embarked on phase 3,—the cost of living could rise by 15% to 20% in the coming year. They say it could happen; I do not say it will. That is the position at the moment. This is the country we are told to look to.

Again in the last few days we have been told that we lag in the growth rate. We have just had the latest figures for the European countries, official statistics which show that the average figure is under 3,8% per annum at the moment. Last year it was 3%. These figures include all the countries, and in neither case can the percentages be compared with ours. That is the position. I just want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the members on his side a simple question. They talk about the cost of living and how to counter it. I want to ask a few simple questions. They talk about the rise in the cost of living and say that we are not countering it. What is their policy? We have not heard a single remedy. I want to ask them: What are the classical, established remedies for countering the rise in the cost of living?

[Inaudible.]

I am talking now! The hon. member can talk in a moment. Do hon. members want interest rates to be raised? That is a classical remedy. Why do hon. members not say whether that is what they want? Do they want taxes to be put up? That is a classical remedy. Do hon. members want a restriction on bank credit? Complete silence, Sir! These are the classical remedies. Do hon. members want a restraint on wage increases?

What do you want?

We are dealing with the matter. We are working for a higher growth rate and for the raising of living standards. That is what we are doing: Stepping up production wherever possible. That is our policy and I challenge hon. members opposite to take each one of these four remedies and to tell us whether that is what they want. I challenge them to say whether we are wrong in concentrating on stepping up production and productivity in every possible way.

Finally, Sir, they talk about the urban African and the homelands. My hon. colleagues and friends on this side of the House will be able to answer that, but I want to say this in the minute I have left: I would like any member on that side to tell me in what country in the world, in the last 15 to 20 years, there has been such a fantastic achievement in the provision of housing for non-White people as there has been in South Africa. I want them to name one. I have travelled a lot and I have kept my eyes open. I have seen nothing to compare with this. That is the sort of issue which of not raised. Instead of that we get a lot of ephemeral and theoretical nonsense about giving the vote to urban Africans, when in fact they have the vote; they can vote in their homelands. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that it does not look as though the descent of a new star from the Other Place to this House is going to solve many of our problems. The hon. the Minister says that the cost of living is high; he agrees with that. He says he is satisfied with our growth rate. He says he is satisfied that incomes are rising faster than inflation. And then he accuses us of exploiting a situation. But if everything is satisfactory, what is there to exploit?

He asks what our policy is. We are not the Government. The Government got into this mess and the Government must get out of this mess. He wants to know something about the classical remedies to curb inflation. He wants to know whether we want to impose them.

One by one.

Yes, one by one. But why cannot we impose these classical remedies? We cannot impose them because the country is in the state where we have worse than stagflation, because we have a growth rate of probably less than 3% …

That is nonsense.

What is nonsense? [Interjections.] The growth rate was 3%, maximum, and we have an inflation rate which is running now at 10%. This is what prevents us from using the normal classical methods of curbing inflation. Our growth rate is too low and it is too low because of the policies of this Government. That is why we cannot use the classical remedies. I want to tell the hon. the Minister and the House that when we discuss this question of inflation we are not speaking for ourselves. We are speaking for 22 million people in South Africa who are wilting under the pressure of unprecedented inflation, inflation of a degree that they can no longer tolerate. The people who are paying the price of inflation have lost confidence completely in the Government’s ability ever to halt inflation. They have lost confidence with very good cause, Sir. Year after year we have had measure after measure imposed upon the public of South Africa in the guise of curbing inflation. We had the compulsory saving levies, we had higher taxation, we had monetary controls, all to fight inflation. They were all measures that hurt the individual and they were all measures that retarded the expansion of the economy of South Africa. All this was done to stop inflation and what was the result? In 1967 inflation in South Africa was 1,8%. In 1968 it was 2.7%. In 1969 it was 3,5%. In 1970 it was 4,2%. In 1971 it was 7%. In 1972 it was 7,4% and at the moment, from March to March, it is running at 9,86%. And the hon. the Minister is happy! [Interjections.] If one projects these figures on a graph, God alone knows where we are going to. But what is the attitude of the Government? That inflation is imported, that inflation is a world phenomenon and that we have done the best we can to stop inflation. Those are the three classic reasons we are given time after time. There is some truth in them, Sir, but only in part. Inflation is imported but only to a very limited extent. Inflation is a world-wide phenomenon. Of course, it is, but the countries of the world are tackling it, and in the other countries of the world we do not have the high rate of inflation that we have here, with a low rate of growth—what I call “dragflation”. And, Mr. Chairman, they certainly do not have something which is peculiar to South Africa, something that happens in no other country in the world. I refer to one of the remedies against inflation, namely the using of your potential labour, which is not allowed to be used by law in this country. You see, Mr. Chairman, we get the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us that “there are, however, factors which may perhaps later during the year exert a restraining influence on the rising trend of prices”. This is all we have had from the Government as to what is going to happen with regard to inflation in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that that statement impresses nobody, and I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he has a situation on his hands at the moment where the feeling of the public is one of utter helplessness when they talk about the cost of living. They are in a situation of complete perplexity as to how to cope with a situation over which they have already lost control. The wife is asking the husband month after month for a bigger allowance, and when the husband, if he can —because his means are stretched taut— manages to give the wife a little more housekeeping money, by the time the end of the month comes, she is in the same position in which she was when she asked for the increase because there has been a rise in prices all over again.

Sir, it is no longer only the lower income group that is finding itself in trouble. This applies to every single income group in South Africa, except for the very rich. Even the wealthy, the higher income group, the middle income group, the lower income group and, of course particularly the non-European, just cannot take this any longer, because a rise in prices, or inflation, is a cumulative process. If the rate of inflation last year was 4% and it is 2% this year, it does not stop there, because the 2% is on last year’s 4%. And what have we had? We had 7% in 1971, then 7,4% in 1972 on top of that, and if this year we are going to have 8, 9 or 10%, it is going to be a cumulative position, so it is no longer a question of a rise of 7 or 8%; we are running into rises of 21%, 22% or 23% over a period of time; that is what is happening to us in this country today, because the base changes all the time. When in 1970 we had a base of 100 and there was an increase of 7%, the increase in money terms was 7%, but in this year, when we probably have a base of 122, a rise of 7,4% will represent an increase of 9%. That is what is happening to us. Sir, prices are rising all along the line. The prices of foodstuffs and services are rising all along the line. The public is not concerned with statistics. I do not want to go into the increase in the price of butter and cheese and what have you, because there are hundreds of other items that one never even hears about. Rates and taxes are up; the cost of refuse removal is up; water services are up; electricity is up; bus fares are up; holiday accommodation is more expensive; telephones are up; the cost of school books and school equipment is becoming impossible for the average person; the cost of school clothing is up; dry-cleaning is up; shoe repairs are up; even the price of a haircut is up to R1-50. They wanted to cut my hair today, Sir, at that price! Even hon. members opposite will realize what it means when you have to pay R1-50 for a haircut, and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will support me here ! We also have the situation where prices controlled by the Government are rising. Because of this vicious cycle, the cost of producing controlled commodities is going up and the Government has got to allow those prices to be increased. We are finding ourselves in this cycle which is jamming us and which is affecting every single person in this country.

Sir, what is the position that we have arrived at as far as the man in the street is concerned? We have arrived at the stage where he is fearful of what is going to happen to himself and his family, if not next month, then the following month. The public are worried sick, Sir. That is the fact of the matter as far as inflation is concerned today. We can talk from morning till night and the hon. the Minister can make comparisons between South Africa and other countries of the world, but the reality of the situation in South Africa today is that people are terrified of their own futures and their ability to take care of their own families if prices are going to continue to rise as they have been rising in recent months. The hon. the Minister of Finance fights inflation but he is thwarted by his colleagues on one occasion after the other, and we have the situation where one begins to feel that the Government does not really care. We have a front-bencher from the Government getting up and moving a private member’s motion thanking the Government for what they have done to stop inflation. What do you think the public’s reaction to this is, Sir? The reaction is that the Government is fooling with the question of inflation. That they see no urgency about the question of inflation. That they are not concerned with what happens to the public and the burden they have to bear as the result of inflation. Sir, let us make no mistake about it: I think the country is entitled, where you have a situation such as that, where you have the situation that on an annual basis inflation is running at the moment at the rate of 16% per annum, to have assurances from nobody less than the hon. the Prime Minister himself that every arm of Government will be utilized to curb inflation before this country ends up in tragedy; because we have tens of thousands of people in this country who cannot afford to buy the bare necessities of life. The hon. the Prime Minister is as concerned as we are with that problem, and he also knows that unless we are going to get an expansion in our economy following the lines mentioned by my hon. leader, we are going to have the twin problems of high inflation and of insufficient job opportunities, and the hon. the Minister has already told this House how he feels about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown really astonishes me this afternoon. The hon. the Minister asked him what his solution was to inflation, and then he replied: “No, but I am in the Opposition; I need not tell the Government.” But what kind of politician is he then? What kind of party are they? If he does have a solution to inflation, then he should go to the people and say, “This is my alternative; this is my solution.” And if he has a just alternative, surely he can take over the Government. But apparently he is the kind of politician who does not want votes and does not want to sit in the Government benches either. But, Sir, I say they have no alternative. They cannot provide an alternative. The hon. member for Parktown has destroyed himself here.

Order! I appeal to hon. members not to make such a noise while an hon. member is addressing the Committee. I cannot allow this. The hon. member may proceed.

I am telling the hon. member for Parktown that his party has no alternative. Sir, he contradicted himself. He made the statement here that all the Government speakers would rise and say that there was inflation throughout the world, that the same position obtained in other countries, that we were not interested in that in South Africa, and then went on to say, “Yes, but we have it in the world; we have that situation and we cannot argue that away.” Then the hon. member compared the rate of inflation of 1969 and 1970 with the rate of inflation we have today. But he cannot compare the two. Surely he knows that there are various kinds of inflation, that the structure of the rate of inflation is the result of three or four components. Surely he knows that the inflation of 1970 was demand inflation and that the inflation prevailing today is basically cost inflation, owing to seasonal food problems which we had and over which the Government had no control. He knows, secondly, that this is inflation caused by cost increases in countries abroad and also by the devaluation which we had and over which the Government also had no control. But it seems to me as if the Opposition has seized upon the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister in order to start a fight about inflation and to make a fuss about it, and as the only solution to it, the hon. member for Parktown spoke about our labour policy. I should like to know this from him, and I think the hon. member for Houghton also wants to know this. The hon. member spoke about our labour policy, and if he wants to solve inflation in that way, it means there has to be an absolutely free inflow of labour throughout the country and that any person can go and sell his labour at the best price. This is what he says, and this is also what is said by the Progressive Party. This is their policy, and I understand it and I accept it. But what in the name of Heaven is the policy of that party? The hon. member for Yeoville says they are applying influx control. But what do they really want now? On the one hand he pleads for that; he uses the policy of the Progressive Party. But now I also want to tell him this: Even if he had a free inflow of labour, and even if he applied the policy of the Progressive Party, he would still not escape from inflation, for in any country where there is complete integration one still has inflation, and today only 3% of the labour force is protected by job reservation. Then I want to tell him that at present Bantu labour is being enjoyed to the full in South Africa.

No, really!

That hon. member may go to the border areas and he may even enter a homeland and establish a factory there and he may use as much Bantu labour as he pleases. Those hon. members want the Bantu to pour into the urban areas, where we would then have to provide them with employment at the same or at a much higher cost than that at which they can be provided with employment in the homelands or the border areas. No, the factories must go to the homelands and there we shall provide the Bantu with employment. However, that will not result in our evading the problem of inflation, for inflation is an international problem which we cannot evade. I shall come back to that later on.

Now I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The speech made by him has astonished me more than has any other speech I have ever heard. He said that the hon. the Prime Minister had so many problems. Allegedly no previous Prime Minister had ever had so many problems. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has fewer problems than any previous Prime Minister had. How many problems does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not have! [Interjections.] Consider the problems his party has! We should like to hear about the burning problems and issues of that party. We should like to hear how things are with the Sunday Times. We should like to know to what extent the Sunday Times has now become the Opposition of this Government. We should also like to know who is in charge of the United Party. I see the Sunday Times has now elected a new leader for the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now the chief leader of the United Party and he is also the person who is supposed to become the Leader of the Opposition. It does not seem to me as though the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has found out as yet how his party’s federal policy works, for the hon. the Prime Minister invited him to come forward with it, once he has found out what is what, so that the federal policy may be discussed. However, not a word has been said in that connection. One would very much like to hear what happened in connection with that meeting on the Rand, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to go there in order to argue with his own people, in order to make it clear and justify to them that his party is, after all, still the party which wants to support the maintenance of the security of the state in this country. So far he has not discussed these matters, yet he refers to the problems of the hon. the Prime Minister! His own party does not even want to accept the fact that certain members of his party are serving on that commission and want to promote the security of the state. Therefore, who is talking about problems? No, I want to say that he has major problems.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to escape from his problems, and in order to do so he followed the safe course of talking about economic matters. He blamed us for the inflationary conditions. He levelled the accusation at us that we could not effect a satisfactory growth rate. He did omit something though, for it has after all become fashionable now to level accusations at us in connection with devaluation. He might as well have done that, too. He should have said that we should not have devalued, for all the Opposition speakers have after all become clever enough now to tell us in retro-respect how we should and how we should not have devalued.

The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that our growth rate has failed in this country, is quite incorrect. Such a statement is completely unfounded. After all, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs did explain very clearly that a growth rate such as ours was a real growth rate—i.e. 4% after inflation. On a previous occasion the hon. the Minister of Finance explained to the hon. member for Constantia that it was a profit, an addition to the extent to which we had goods available and rendered services. It is an asset in the sense that the people’s standard of living has risen correspondingly. The hon. member is complaining about the growth rate of 4%, but he should tell me who prepared the Economic Development Programme. It was not the United Party, nobody in the outside world, not a person who acted as an umpire, but we, this National Party, we prepared it ourselves. We prepared it at a target rate which was considered to be ideal. What happened? Unfortunately we cannot surpass ourselves, and we are sorry about that, but the fact that we have still had a growth rate of 4% is very encouraging. Then I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that one may not judge these matters on one year’s results only. These matters are very difficult and very delicate. Our country has an annual gross domestic product of approximately R13 000 million, and it is not always possible to prepare estimates and to say that one wants to have a certain percentage of growth within that framework. In respect of the one year one’s estimates may be 1% too high and in respect of the other year one’s estimates may be 1% too low. Something of that nature must be judged over a period of 5 years so as to obtain a mean. Only then can one judge it and say whether or not we were successful. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if he tells the country that we have failed, I want to tell him that we may have failed in terms of the level we set ourselves as an ideal, but that we have not failed the country. We have had more than enough growth for meeting the added needs of our population and for absorbing all our people into the labour market. Hon. members must show me whether there is any unemployment in the country. That is something one does not see. That is the basic principle of a growth rate. I think that this idea of the Opposition, i.e. always to attack us on the basis of our growth rate, is quite wrong.

Now I come to another point. I want to tell the hon. member that we have in fact succeeded in controlling our inflation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, … [Interjections.] The hon. overlooked aspirant deputy has not done his cause very much good this afternoon. We have heard that the answer to inflation is to discuss the United Party’s race federation policy and the Sunday Times. That is the new answer to inflation. For that hon. member’s benefit, let me remind him that we have put our alternative in all the economic debates and we make no apology for coming back to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon with a demand for answers to the questions raised by my hon. leader. We make no apologies because when all the plans have been planned, all the hon. the Prime Minister’s dreams have been dreamed and schemes have been schemed, when you have dissected budgets, when you have talked of imported inflation, cost-push inflation, demand-pull inflation and all the rest, at the end of it all the hon. the Prime Minister is still responsible for the fact that 20 million mouths have to be fed in South Africa every day. There are 20 million mouths which should be fed three times a day but which in fact are not being fed three times a day as is the case in millions of South African homes. The hon. the Prime Minister is responsible for a Government …

Will you please repeat that?

I said that there are millions of people in millions of homes in South Africa today who are not being fed three times a day but who are only eating twice a day. They are only eating twice a day for two reasons. Firstly, they cannot afford it. Secondly, the Government policy means that they have to get up so early in the morning that they do not have a chance to eat before they travel to work. The hon. the Prime Minister is responsible too for roofs over the heads of 20 million people. Then we have the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs, the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, whom even the housewives of Umhlatuzana do not believe and which they showed quite clearly in the recent by-election. He quoted figures. He can quote all the figures he likes but when we deal with the basic problems of the housewife and of the breadwinner who has to feed the mouths of his or her family, the hon. the Government shrugs it off. When we talk about the increase in the price of bread we are asked why they do not eat brown bread. Hon. members will remember that in this House this year the hon. the Minister of Agriculture or one of the members said: “Let them eat brown bread”, when we complained about the increase in the price of bread. There was somebody else who said: “Let them eat cake” and what happened to her!

I think that this Government has completely lost touch with the ordinary people. It has lost touch because it has sheltered under the umbrella of privilege. When we tell of the difficulties and hardships of people here, the Government translate it into economic theory. I have heard hon. members on that side of the House and on this side say over recent weeks: “I cannot come out on an M.P.’s pay”. An M.P.’s pay is over R500 per month. Members on both sides have said that they cannot come out on it. And they indeed cannot. Many of us, if we did not have other incomes, could not decently bring up our families on the pay of an M.P., which is about R540 per month. But the hon. the Minister of Transport has in his department 83 000 Whites earning less than R300 per month. I have the figures here: There are 83 000 earning between R101 and R300 per month; there are nearly 47 000 earning between R200 and R300 per month and 36 000 earning between R100 and R200 per month. It is those people we are talking about. If those people are Whites, what about the non-Whites? We have tried to get it across and I am trying to think of a new way of getting across to the Government what their glib percentages which the hon. the Minister of Tourism talked about mean to the housewife.

I want to try today to get across to the hon. the Minister what it means. I have here a loaf of bread. For this loaf of bread a person used to pay 10 cents or 11 cents. Today he pays 18% more. I have cut off 18% of the loaf to demonstrate what the Government has done to the bread-eater of South Africa. The family of five which used to get the full loaf of bread, now gets 18% less for the same money. Either one member of that family does not eat or five people have to eat that much less. The potato I have here cost six cents this morning. These fives potatoes cost 30 cents. Through the hon. the Prime Minister’s Government’s administration a man who six months ago could buy those five potatoes, one for each member of his family of five, can now buy only three potatoes. The other two have gone into inflation. The hon. members laugh! They are laughing because I have shown to them in real terms what inflation really is, what inflation really means to the mother feeding her children, what inflation really means to the breadwinner who has to scrape out an existence on his R50 or R60 per month and to whom a 10% theoretical inflation rate—which does not affect those hon. members—means that much less bread for his children to eat when he gets home with his pay at the end of the week.

When we talk of inflation we are talking of the problems of the people. We are talking of the problems of the people who must be fed and who want to bring up their children to be decent South Africans. We talk of imported inflation, but there is such a thing as hunger inflation. I do not accept the cost of living index, because that is based on an average basket of food. However, the low income group of people in South Africa do not have that average basket of food; they do not have that average spread of expense which makes up the statistical index which is quoted here by all the members. The hon. the Minister of Planning comes with his index—that is all fine in theory, but the lower you come down in the income scale, the more basic food fills that basket. It is not the motorcars, the cinemas and luxuries that fill the basket, because those have disappeared. When you get down to the man earning R10 per week, that basket consists almost entirely of food. He has lost all the other luxuries. What he has left in that basket is food. When we come to food, a Chamber of Commerce calculated—and I quote from its Digest of 14th April—that on food alone a person who before required R36 per month to feed a family of five, in January, 1973 required R43 per month to feed that same family. That loaf of bread is cut even more. More and more of the staple foods are the ones that are going up. In two months this year over 1 000 items of food, canned and fresh, increased in price from 4% to 25% and 30%. I do not have the time to list them but I have examples of them here. The price of milk went up again this year. You cannot cut a bottle of milk as you can cut this loaf of bread. You still have the bottle for which you must pay more. It means that you buy less and that people all drink less. Meat today is almost an unheard-of luxury in many homes, certainly a joint in any working man’s home is an absolute luxury. These things have gone—have disappeared—from the normal life of people. Those members laugh … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has, in recent times, been adopting a completely different role when entering a debate, i.e. that of a film-star. [Interjection.] When, at the time, we were dealing with the Second Reading of this Appropriation Bill and could speak of a sound financial policy, the increasing cost-of-living and inflation, the hon. member for Durban Point came in here quite dramatically with a handbag in his hand with Mr. Wood’s name written on the one side. He should have written “Holly” on the other side.

I still have it.

We know the hon. member. He entered the debate here in order to be dramatic. He came in when he had the chance to make a contribution in connection with the high cost of living in the Budget Debate, but was then acting here as a film-star. However, he fell flat. I thought what would happen if we were to allow someone to come in after each election with an M.P.C. in a handbag. Would you, Sir, want him to take the oath of allegiance to South Africa? He would not be allowed to do so. I wonder what would happen if the hon. member for Yeoville came in with such a handbag on which the name Harry Schwarz was inscribed. What kind of scenes would we then have in this House? Is that now the way? Today the hon. member comes along again as a vegetable seller with potatoes, bread and I do not know what else, and that under the Prime Minister’s Vote. It is surely a ridiculous business.

Are my facts wrong?

I want to make one matter very clear. We have had the No-confidence Debate, the Main Budget Debate and also the Part Appropriation Debate in which the attention of the House was centred on economic and financial matters. Why does the Opposition latch on to that today? Because they are afraid to confront the Prime Minister about the big national questions. [Intellections.] It is no use your making a noise. I am getting under your skins.

Is the increase in the cost-of-living not a national question?

The descendant of Andrew Murray must not put such a question to me now. He has just been dealing with state security and why is it his wish to try to put me off my stroke now? He will not be able to do so. In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition arrived at the word “self-determination”. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to fix the word “self-beskikking” or “self-determination” by way of definition. He must do so so that we may obtain clarity about this word “self-determination”. He will not do so and that is why that party is suffering from befogged and confused political thinking in this country. It is no use talking about self-determination if the concept is not entrenched by way of definition.

What is your definition?

I shall give it to the hon. member if he does not know it.

If the hon. member wants to listen I will instruct him, as a teacher, so that he will know something in a short while, including how to prescribe a policy for his party. What is self-determination? Before a nation can have command of itself, one must at least give it some content; one must lead it to that spiritual emancipation; one must lead it to a kind of economic and political independence before it can adopt the attitude of an independent, self-determining nation. While we, the White nation, are still the guardians, it goes without saying that we must place them on the road to development, so that they may eventually conduct themselves with self-determination. But what do the hon. gentlemen want? They want us, as guardians, to allow the Black man, when he reaches independence and self-determination, to use his self-determination to destroy our self-determination as a White nation. That is what it is all about. There is not only the striving towards self-determination as far as the Black man is concerned; there is also the self-preservation urge on the part of the White man. These appear to be two conflicting urges; but I want to tell you that we can reconcile them beautifully. It is specifically this policy of Christian guardianship, whereby the Black people, the Coloureds and everyone are being placed on the road to development, so that they can eventually find themselves. It is this self-preservation urge on the part of the White man and the Black man’s urge to self-determination that can be reconciled in this way. The policy of separate development is a policy of reconciliation in this respect. It takes world opinion into account and even takes into account what the U.N. says. The U.N. knows that the world is going through very difficult times in the sphere of human relations, more difficult than ever before. There they have an international machine and also an inclination to try to neutralize the impacts between nations, thereby bringing about peace, and to ensure quiet, peaceful relations between states. But that is exactly what we are doing. If they want to lead the states to international maturity, it is our task as a White nation also to place these separate peoples on the road to development, so that one is not master of the other. They must not all occupy the same living area, they must live in adjacent areas as independent states on a basis of mutual esteem and respect. What is wrong with that? That is also self-determination. The end product of our policy is that when these nations have self-determination, with our policy we will have led them to take up a place as full-fledged states. Surely one does not only serve one’s own people, one also serves the world, humanity. That is what we are doing. That is why I hold it very much against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having said that the Bantu will not exercise this right to self-determination as we want to prescribe it to them. But let me say this: We are the guardians, after all; they are the wards. “They are the wards and we are the guardians.” It is wrong in principle for the wards to prescribe to the guardians.

For how long?

Long after the hon. member is dead. For how long? It is a natural development that must be taken the full length. Can the hon. member then not understand that the relationship of Christian guardianship is not that of an M.A. Bantu to an M.A. White person; it is the relationship of one people to another. We as Whites are the key to the solution of this complex problem. It must be expected of this guardian to determine the policy on a sound basis, a dynamic policy that will not result in the people remaining in a kind of servitude. We are not oppressing the people. But hon. members want to give them freedom, and in what way? To cause tension in the same Parliament? Do they want freedom over the bodies of White and Black people when it comes to revolution in this country?

That is your policy.

Whose policy? What policy? The policy I am proclaiming is local, one that was born in this country, which grew out of the experience of the White man and which we process into knowledge and into the wisdom of statesmen, so that you and I and our descendants can live, not lumped together with those people, but peacefully next to each other. Does the hon. member now understand it? Sir, I want to state it clearly again: The Opposition is now doing again what they did when the present premier became Prime Minister of South Africa. Then the Leader of the Opposition played the same game. When he is afraid of confronting the Prime Minister, he comes along with the kind of capers he displayed here today. That is why that side of the House falls so flat. That is why they have to allow the film actor of Umhlatuzana to stand up here with his bread and vegetable basket. Why did he not refer to tomatoes as well? He was afraid the hon. member for Yeoville would hold it against him. That is the trouble.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Chief Whip on the Government side, who normally tries to emulate the Prime Minister in his joke telling, today fell flat completely. I do not want to devote any time to him. The subject under discussion is the economic situation in South Africa, and more particularly the labour issue. I want to return to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs who was at one time a professor in economics. He showed surprisingly little perception and understanding of what is happening in South Africa. He is so happy with himself because he says that our growth rate compares well with that of other countries. Why does he not tell us that we have 50 gold mines? Where do you have another country in the world with 50 gold mines? Why does he not tell us that we have the biggest untapped reservoir of labour in this country that you find in any of the free enterprise states in the world? But in any case, Sir, he ought to know that you do not compare our growth rate, in a young economy, with that of mature countries. It is a totally different situation, and he ought to know that.

What we are driving at is that in South Africa, to secure our future survival, we ought to have a rapid economic growth rate. We have all the ingredients to ensure a rapid, non-inflationary growth rate. We have liberal natural resources. We have, as I have indicated, a vast reservoir of labour. We have entrepreneurship of a very high calibre. We have all the investment capital that is necessary. And we have a trade union movement that is on the whole responsible. But why is our growth rate so depressingly low? Why is our economy so sluggish? Why can the Government not cope with inflation? Because of the Government’s own policies. They have failed in the first instance to evolve a long-term cohesive economic strategy for South Africa. Secondly they have failed because of their antediluvian approach to the labour issue.

I should like for the moment to concentrate on this labour issue. Was it not from the Treasury benches that we were told that this Government would bend or break the laws of economies to conform to an ideology? I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he supports that point of view. And what has happened? To-day we are plucking the fruits of this economic short-sightedness of the Government. You see, Sir, they now realize that they have made a disastrous mistake, and they are trying to change their direction. But if they did so, they would blow up the whole myth of their ideology. That is why all these adjustments they are making are made in such a half-hearted way that they will have no impact at all.

What is happening is that pronouncements on labour now seem to come from the hon. the Minister of Finance. He probably is to a lesser extent compromised on this issue than some of his other colleagues are. Last year he told us that provided industrialists observed normal social conventions, they could make freer use of labour. What does that mean? This year he has told us that they can now have pre-service and in-service training. But the hon. the Deputy Minister told us today that this would only extend to operators. So what does this add up to? Here is a patient who is dying; he is pining away and they are giving him Aspros. That is the situation we have in South Africa.

Let us look at the latest statistical position, Sir. I want to draw my statistics from the EDP, as was issued to us recently. In 1970-71 the real output per worker in South Africa increased by slightly more than 1%, whereas the EDP projected an output growth rate of almost 3%. That is the kind of situation that has developed. In secondary industry, which is the generator of our whole economic system, it in fact declined by almost 2%, and there the projected output growth rate was more than 2%. That is why we have inflation. It is not what we import from outside, but what is being done here, and in fact what is not being done here which leads to inflation.

What is quite apparent too is that there are major distortions in the distribution of our labour force. I contend that this is primarily due to the Government’s ideological obsession. When you look at the composition of our labour force you find that almost 30% of the people who are economically active are employed in agriculture, and yet their contribution to the GDP is only 9%. In secondary industry, on the other hand, we employ 13%, but their contribution to our GDP is 23%, and in the tertiary sector we employ about 13%, but their contribution to the GDP is 37%. Sir, here you have the two most productive sectors of our economy and the Government, by virtue of their ideology, is inhibiting the growth in these sectors. What is of even more concern to us is that the Government or Public sector itself employs nearly 14% of the total labour force of South Africa, yet their contribution to the GDP is only slightly more than 9%. Mr. Chairman, here we have one of the fundamental problems of South Africa. Forty-five per cent of the people employed in the Government sector are White; this compares with 19% for the whole of South Africa, but do you know, Sir, that of all the White people in South Africa who are economically active the Government sector employs 30% of them? Even worse than this is the fact that 44% of all graduates and diploma-holders in South Africa are employed in the Public sector. Don’t you see, Sir, what is happening? The Government is syphoning off all the cream of our labour; most of the high-level skills are being employed by the Government, and yet their output level is lower than that of any sector of our economy, and this is a direct result of their ideological obsession. This situation will get worse; it will not improve; it will become endemic; it will have a self-generating sort of force until there can be a complete change in approach.

Sir, we are continually asked from the other side, “What is your solution?” I want to put a few to the hon. the Prime Minister, because I think the country expects him now to react to this labour issue. I think there are certain short-term remedies and also longer-term ones. The first short-term remedy is that the Government must drop all these ideological plans, because what is happening is that ideology is seriously retarding our economic development. What the Government does not realize is that if this happens it will in fact inhibit the achievement of their ideological objectives in any case. I think the second thing that the hon. the Prime Minister must realize is that his whole organizational system is wrong. He has four Ministers dealing with labour now—not only the Minister of Labour, but the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Coloured Relations. Sir, labour in South Africa has become indivisible. The hon. the Prime Minister must put one man in charge of labour. I think in the third instance he must realize that his present Minister of Labour has failed; he is inadequate to deal with the immense problems which face us. He has forfeited the confidence of both organized industry and of the trade union movement, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister should find him one of these cushy diplomatic jobs that he seems to reserve for his cabinet failures.

In the fourth instance, Sir, we will not get on top of this situation unless there is greater mobility of labour in the vertical sense. People must be able to move up in the hierarchy of jobs and they can never do that as long as you perservere with job reservation. They must also be able to move laterally; they must be able to move from the less productive sectors of our economy to the more productive ones, and the Physical Planning Act is planned to stop precisely that movement. Sir, in the fifth instance, the industrialists must be given the green light; they must be told to make optimum use of our human resources. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us every second day that he wants to narrow the wage gap between White and non-White. I say to him now, Sir, that he will not have success in narrowing that wage gap unless our real growth rate is 7 % a year or higher. You cannot do it unless you have a high growth rate. The hon. member over there says that there is no unemployment in South Africa. This is rubbish, too, because the figures camouflage the real state of affairs. But let me accept for the moment that there is not a high unemployment rate in South Africa; then I want to say that our labour force is probably the most under-employed one in all the industrial states of the world. There are a series of long-term steps which obviously ought to be taken. We must phase out the migratory system because you cannot build up a modern economy on the migratory system. Secondly, there must be far more emphasis on education. All the work that has been done overseas shows that increases in output and in productivity to the extent of 80% stems from improvement in education, and only about 20% from increased capital investment. [Time expired.]

We have just had another typical example of how the United Party operates. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, should just have told us whether he was a member of the United Party or of the R.R.P. We would like to know whether he is a member of the United Party or of the “Rejuvenated Reformers Party”? Listening to him, we can come to no other conclusion than that he and the hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Wynberg are definitely members of that party. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us where we stand with this R.R.P. or the H.V.P., the “Hervormde Verenigde Party”. I say it is time they told us. This argument concerning labour which the hon. member advanced here today, is one we have been hearing year after year under this Vote. However, the hon. member knows we can duly discuss those matters when we come to the Labour Vote. [Interjections.] Let me say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that if he had been a traditional U.P. supporter, I would still have listened to him, but I pay no attention to a testament United Party supporter. Year after year we hear this sorry about labour. There is only one policy which they want and that is this: Throw open the flood-gates and abolish influx control. By this time we are sick and tired of that story.

However, I should like to dwell on another matter for a moment, one which to me is far more serious and of far greater importance. Sir, throughout the world the Republic of South Africa has always been noted for the peace which prevails here. We have the highest degree of industrial peace. This is a factor which has contributed enormously towards the foreign investor, the economist and the industrialist investing their money here in South Africa. I say that this is a factor which has resulted in these people not only investing their money in this country, but also playing a tremendously important role in the sphere of industrial development. But recently a cloud has appeared on the horizon, one which is somewhat disturbing. As far as industrial peace in this country is concerned, there is disturbance and confusion, and I should like to dwell on that for a moment. It is something of which we must make a very serious analysis and when we do this, some very important questions arise. One of the first questions is why we now have that threat of more and more strikes. Is it simply as a result of the lower wages which are allegedly being paid to the Bantu? I want to say at once that this is not the only reason. It seems to me that there are certain militant influences which are active behind the scenes and which are the cause of this labour unrest which is rearing its head these days. I am the very last person, and this applies to the National Party as well, who is opposed to justified increases in wages, whether for Whites, Bantu or Coloureds. But I say that there are unambiguous signs that there are influences, and here I want to refer directly to certain influences in this country. I refer to Nusas. I also refer to certain groups of students at some of our universities and, yes, I want to refer to the “Young Progs” who have been coming to the fore recently. These are the people who are creating labour unrest in this country. In making these accusations, I want to tell you, Sir, that I do not wish to do so lightly, nor do I wish to drag in innocent people. Even businessmen, every employer, every person in this country is worried about this situation. Now I want to ask you, Sir, where does this inclination to strike which has taken root come from and who is behind it? I say that Nusas is behind it and I want to refer to a report which appeared in the Financial Gazette of 6th April, 1973, under the heading, “Militants behind Black strikes”.

We find that the Police officials who conducted investigations into the strikes by the Bantu were informed that the Bantu had gone on strike because payday was on Thursday and not on Friday and because they preferred yellow uniforms to green, etc. When told that that could be no reason to strike and asked whether they were not perhaps striking for more money, they replied in the affirmative but were then unable to say how much more they wanted. Furthermore, I want to refer to the following which to me is very important—

The article is concluded with—

From this it is very clear that a direct accusation is being made against Nusas. However, I want to go further. One of the hon. members of the United Party makes the same accusation. I should like to bring this fact in all seriousness to the attention of this House. I refer to a report in the Sunday Times of 1st April, 1973. Hon. members will of course say, “Yes, but that is the Sunday Times." I refer to a meeting addressed by Senator the hon. Piet Swanepoel. Do you know, Sir, what he said? The report reads as follows—

I have made an accusation here which is not unfounded. I want to go further. It is not only Nusas that is involved in these things. There are also other groups of students in this country who are engaged in these things. I should like to refer to a pamphlet distributed by Wits students. These students belong to the so-called committee of the Wage and Economic Commission of Wits Students. This is a pamphlet of which thousands of copies were recently distributed in the streets of Johannesburg when the Wage Board had to hear representations concerning Bantu wage determinations there. What did those students do? They engaged in nothing other than inciting Black Power in this country. The following, inter alia, appears in this pamphlet—

They go further—

I say that this is in absolute conflict with all laws in this country. These people are engaged in inciting the mass of Black people and in creating unrest on a scale which we will bitterly regret later. The Wits students went among those Bantu and caucused with them. Many of the people who wanted to give evidence, had to be warned that they were not qualified to give evidence. I want to know what those people were looking for there. We have here another report under the heading, “Ikey campaign on wages against German firms”. According to the report appearing under that heading, they demand a signed charter of worker’s rights from certain German firms. This is concerned with the conditions of service of the Bantu workers. What is that filthy, ragged riff-raff doing there? They are only parasitizing on this country. Never have we seen a bigger buch of parasites. They have never done one day’s work for South Africa. They have never made any contribution. Nevertheless they are engaged in inciting the mass of Black people.

I want to address a very serious plea to the hon. the Prime Minister today to extend the terms of reference of the Schlebusch Commission so as to include the activities of these groups of students who are creating unrest in the labour force. It should also be possible to take action against them. The people of South Africa can tolerate this no longer. The people of South Africa will tolerate this no longer. In addressing this plea to the hon. the Prime Minister, I want to ask him that these people be dealt with because they must be eliminated from our community in their entirety. Then we will no longer have all these other problems concerning productivity and the solutions advanced by these hon. gentlemen. They are engaged in fanning the flames of unrest in this country and South Africa dare not tolerate it.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I shall not be able to follow up in detail the emotional remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, for we are bound not to anticipate the final findings of the Schlebusch Commission. Nevertheless, I should like to point out to him …

You do not have all that many fans either.

… that in one of the two interim reports the Schlebusch Commission made it very clear that the English-language universities, the students at those universities, were in general not guilty of the excesses of the Nusas leaders.

I did not say it was all of them either.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that he must remember that even if we were for argument’s sake to concede that there were agitators behind the surprisingly sudden upsurge of strikes in South Africa, we must at the same time concede that agitators cannot succeed where there are no real grievances. I think it behoves us as a responsible Parliament to give serious consideration to why, if there were in fact agitators in this case, and although they probably tried other things as well, they achieved this spectacular success where the issue was the wages and the grievances over wages of our Bantu employees in our manufacturing sector, our Black industrial workers in South Africa. I must today, together with other hon. members of my party, appeal to Caesar. These matters were discussed time and again with the Ministers in question, but we did not receive the replies to which we felt we were entitled. I now come to the source of all authority, to the source of all executive power in South Africa, namely the Prime Minister himself, and I want to ask him to clear up this matter for us. We must realize that inflation in South Africa will show a rate of 16% this year, if one converts the rate of the past month into an annual rate. Even experts who are well disposed towards the Government, warn that we will have to expect a rate of inflation of approximately 12% this year. This is an extremely serious matter for the man in the street and his family in South Africa. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Tourism to say that the wages are increasing more rapidly than the cost of living in South Africa, but the fact of the matter is that the wages are not increasing uniformly for the entire population. The wages of large sectors of our population are not being increased in time to save them from the consequences of inflation.

Take as an example now those many thousands of Whites in the employ of the South African Railways, to whom my hon. friend for Durban Point referred, who are earning less than R200 per month. As a result of the findings of the Hiemstra Commission they recently received an increase of 17% to compensate them for the rise in the cost of living since they received their last increase, and a further 1% or 2% more by way of a pension concession. This is all gone. From now on they are again losing out. When are they going to receive their next relief? Is it going to be in a year’s time, or in two years’ time? Where will they be then? If things continue as they are doing today, i.e. if we maintain a rate of inflation of 16%, they will for one year lose R32 of their monthly salary of R200. People earning R200 per month do not have that saving capacity in their income to absorb a drop in their real income of 32% or even 24%—i.e. if one were to accept that the rate of inflation for this year will be 12%. That is the problem facing us. Just think of our old-age pensioners. Until recently they received R42 per month; now they are receiving R46 per month.

Only with effect from October.

Yes, it will only be with effect from October, but I am still coming to that point. The cost of living is perhaps rising by 16% per annum. However, we must certainly expect that it is going to increase by 12% per annum. This means that when they receive an increase for the first time in October, they are going to buy less with it than they would have been able to buy with R42 when the welcome concession to them was made. I cannot be so dramatic as my friend, the hon. member for Durban Point, but the facts are dramatic. I am coming to the Prime Minister today with facts. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, with all due respect, to give attention to this matter. His Cabinet is not giving satisfaction to the people of South Africa with their replies, to say nothing of their deeds. For that reason I am appealing to Caesar.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism discussed all kinds of measures. One of the measures against inflation is that we should save. Now the hon. the Prime Minister must help us, for what incentive is there for the citizens of South Africa today to save? If they invest their money in the orthodox way with a financial institution, 84% is the maximum interest they may receive. That has nothing to do with any increase in income. It is a maximum which is determined by the Government itself. The citizen invests it for a year and receives his 8½% interest. He does not live off it, but puts all of it back into the bank. If he does that he has less money as far as actual buying power is concerned than he had before he received the 8½%, for the value of money has in the meantime diminished by almost 10%. These are the hard facts.

What insurance agent can today approach a young man and with a clear conscience ask him to take out an insurance policy? It means in fact that he is buying cheap money with expensive money. The National Party has been in power now for 25 years. One can calculate that 25 years ago—I do not want to go back any further than that—ten shillings was worth 250 cents of today’s money. Today a rand has the same value as 40 cents in 1948. Think of an endowment policy taken out 25 years ago, in 1948, for an amount of R10 000. If he had taken out that policy with a good company it would probably, now that it had matured and had been paid out, have been worth R20 000. The policy holder therefore receives his cheque for R20 000 which he bought month after month or year after year over 25 years with better money. With that R20 000 he cannot even buy what he bought in 1948 with the R10 000. He can only buy something to the value of R8 000. That is the position.

Far less.

It could be far less, but I am assuming that the rand of today is equal to 40 cents in 1948. Why should one save? Why should one apply the classical methods of counteracting inflation if one receives no encouragement from the Government, and if one receives those superficial replies the hon. the Minister of Tourism gave us?

Are you certain that you will be able to buy anything whatsoever with that R20 000, as you are carrying on?

Mr. Chairman, I like reacting to interjections. I am very fond of my hon. friend; he and I had a hard time of it together, but he really must not make nonsensical interjections.

I can tell hon. members why these strikes spread so rapidly. It happened because we did not know that they were coming. We did not realize what was happening among the Bantu workers of South Africa. We created no means of communication between them and their employers. We have what is probably one of the best security police forces in the world, but we were ignorant of what was happening among the Bantu workers. I was astonished to find out how effective our security police are, but they were caught unawares by the strikes. Even if there were agitators, the agitators succeeded so rapidly that we were all caught unawares. Why is that the case? If one wants to know why, one must consider what happened. Let me mention for example what happened at the Alusaf factory at Richards Bay. There the strike took place and the employers, fair people, wanted to negotiate. There was no one with whom they could negotiate.

Japie does not agree with you.

That may be, but Japie will have to speak for himself. I reiterate: The employers tried to negotiate with the employees, but there was no one with whom they could negotiate. They were not even able to discover from the people what their grievances were, although they must have had grievances, otherwise they would not have gone on strike. They are unorganized, unrepresented and left to their own devices as individual, unattached people. I believe in all earnest that the time has arrived for us to devise plans now, such as those published in the Government Gazette with the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Labour is going to introduce, and other measures as well which are going to be suited to the more sophisticated and more developed non-Whites, and particularly the Bantu workers in South Africa, in order to obviate such a situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now listened to the feast of words with which the hon. member for Yeoville has once again regaled us. He held a whole long dissertation on the increasing costs of living, and at the end of his speech he returned to the question of labour. He referred to the strikes and advanced reasons for them. I want to say at once that we have again experienced the problem with the United Party that one cannot rely on what they say. The hon. member for Yeoville has just said that one of the reasons for the strikes was inter alia because the Black worker is unorganized, but that is not true. I have here a little pamphlet, Southern Africa, of 10th February, in which Drake Koka, the secretary of the newly established Black Allied Workers’ Union, states that his aim is to organize 5,5 million Black workers in South Africa into one massive organization. Now, a further aspect of the matter is that the United Party, with the kind of statements they make from platform to platform, and from day to day, is being instrumental in ensuring that these people do become organized in this way, which is in fact very perturbing. Such an organized power, within trade union context—for that is what the United Party wants—will in fact be able to do the South African economy tremendous harm. But the United Party is persisting in its conduct and endeavour to see the Black worker in South Africa within a trade union context. We had to listen to this again today. If we think back to the speeches made here during the Second Reading debate only, it is clear that time and again we had only one thing, i.e. that the Black worker in South Africa has to be prompted to rebel against the present arrangements introduced by the National Party. That is the basic difference between the United Party and the National Party. The National Party stands for an orderly labour community in this country. For that reason the National Party is again coming forward with proposed legislation to establish works committees which will be the medium through which the worker in this country will be afforded the opportunity of making his representations. But time and again, and here it is in Hansard, the Opposition says that they want full trade union rights for these workers. The hon. member for Johannesburg North as well as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central advocated this in the Second Reading debate. They are making this suggestion for one reason only, i.e. that they might possibly in that way be afforded the opportunity, when they have brought us to our knees economically, of taking over the political power in South Africa. They made a song and dance here today about the so-called change in the policy of the National Party in respect of the question of training, i.e. pre-service training and in-service training. In this respect as well they tried to create a completely incorrect picture. They placed words in the mouth of the hon. the Minister of Finance which he never uttered. They alleged that what he had said was simply that the training of non-Whites would now take place on a large scale. But they omitted the key section of his entire speech. He said very clearly and significantly—these were his precise words—

Sir, the Opposition has set up their own skittles here which they are trying to bowl over, but surely they cannot get away with it. The fact of the matter is that the National Party has always been very consistent in respect of this matter, i.e. that the productivity of the worker has to be increased. The Government takes the necessary steps, and then a completely false picture is created. They say that this is consequently the solution to all our problems. Productivity has to be increased and the workers have to be employed. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that if this system were applied, there would be far more employment possibilities for non-Whites. All the unemployment among the non-Whites would be eliminated! I can quote it to him if he wants it.

I said it would be restricted.

If this policy were to be adopted and if this system were to be expanded, it would mean that employers would be compelled to limit their non-White labour force. What would that lead to? Surely it would undoubtedly give rise to friction, unrest and rebellion. That is what they are advocating; that is what they have in mind should happen. When we discuss with the Prime Minister here the matters for which he is responsible, is it necessary to drag these arguments on labour, labour shortage, productivity and cost of living into this debate?

What is more important than those things?

Yes, I agree; these are very important matters, but in two or three days’ time the opportunity will be there to discuss these very relevant matters with the Ministers in question. But I find it interesting now that the United Party should try to use this debate to advance arguments which suit their political book. But they dare not discuss matters such as their federal policy. As soon as they discuss that, the Sunday Times hauls them over the coals again. The electorate outside then begins asking questions again, to which they have no replies. For that reason they are shying away from those very essential matters, and are trying to discuss matters which are politically expedient for them at this stage. I just want to reiterate that as far as labour is concerned it must be understood very clearly that the National Party—and it makes no apology for this—is the party of the White worker in this country. It will do nothing to endanger the position of the White worker; instead, it will ensure that the position of the White worker improves. That assurance we can once again give the people and this Committee this afternoon. There are other things which the National Party will still do. During the course of this session there will also be an opportunity for, and we will also be able to discuss that. The United Party with its policy—there can be no doubt about this—is creating a constant danger to the survival of the White man in this country. It is placing the bread and butter of the White worker in this country in jeapordy and this dare not be allowed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very kind to me when he rose today and sympathized with me in all the problems and difficulties I have. I should like to return that compliment to my friend. I want to inform my friend that I am aware that I have many difficulties and problems. I am aware that South Africa has many difficulties and problems. But let me say this in all humility to my friend: I should not like to change places with him, not for anything. When it comes to the difficulties and the problems which my friend actually had in mind when he was speaking, I think that he has more of them than I will ever have, no matter how long I may remain sitting in this bench. But I shall return to my hon. friend in a little while.

I want to reply, as fully as I can, to the matters raised by hon. members opposite. I want to begin with the last Opposition speaker, with my hon. friend the member for Yeoville. I wanted to discuss with him the first argument he mentioned. I want to accept the figure the hon. member mentioned, viz. that the rand of 1948 is now worth 40 cents. For the purposes of his argument I want to accept this fully; I do not dispute …

It should be the other way round; the rand of today is worth 40 cents as compared to the rand of 1948.

Yes, whichever way one looks at it. That is of no importance to me now, but I want to accept the figure mentioned, by my hon. friend. And then, as a fair, objective person, I want to put this question to him: That being the position, would it be sufficient, taking into consideration the depreciation which has occurred over the years in respect of money, if I were to place a person in the same position as the one in which he would have been, as compared to 1948, if there had been no depreciation of money? Would it be fair or not? I think my friend, as a fair person, will grant that if I were to place a person in the same position I would have dealt fairly with that person and would not have done him any injustice whatsoever.

He was entitled to a higher standard … [Interjections.]

Order!

My friend has made the further point that a person, notwithstanding my having placed him in the same position as he would have occupied in 1948, should also be given a further share in the growth of the country at that time, and he is correct in saying that; I have no quarrel with him on that score. It is a fair argument.

Every 10 years the standard of living should …

Order!

I know more about the standard of living than my hon. friend knows about sport. Therefore he need not feel concerned about this. It is quite correct.

Now I should like to meet the argument mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville, for it is the heart of our entire problem. If I cannot meet the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville, then I stand guilty not only before this House, but also before South Africa. Then he could justifiably charge me with having neglected my duty—not only me, but also my colleagues seated around me here. Now I want to take the example which the hon. member himself chose to use. It is an example with which hon. members opposite make a great deal of propaganda. It is also a field in which my hon. friend the hon. member for Durban Point —and I readily concede this to him—is an expert. We have no one who can touch him when it comes to this kind of thing. I am pleased to see that the hon. member has returned. I want to accept now that he, too, as all the people before him did, will take action. This is not original; there have been many who came to this House with loaves and potatoes, and who had a photograph taken of themselves outside so that it could appear in the newsappers the following day. I assume that is what my hon. friend wants to do ! [Interjections.] I should like to take a look tomorrow at a similar photograph taken of my hon. friend.

You will not find it.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend chose to take a sensitive example, and I want to meet him in respect of that sensitive example, viz. the example of the elderly people who are suffering hardships. I have repeatedly made it quite clear in this House, from the days when I was Deputy Minister of Social Welfare, that one can never do enough for those people. But any responsible person knows that one has to cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. Let me take the hon. member’s example now. If my hon. friend’s argument, which I accept now, is correct—and for the purposes of the argument I shall accept that it is in fact correct—then surely I should have seen to it today that the Minister of Finance made provision in his Budget, on the basis of 1948, the year of milk and honey, the year of the generous heart for the orphan, the widow and the poor, for giving them only R25. That is what they should be receiving, according to the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. According to his argument he should now have given them only R25 per month.

The calculation is incorrect.

No, Sir. The hon. member will, after I have spoken, have another opportunity to speak, and I shall gladly listen to him to hear in what respect my calculation is incorrect.

The basis is wrong.

No, the basis is correct. Ten rand of 1948, according to the hon. member’s own calculation, is now worth R25. But, Sir, I am prepared to make him a gift of another R5. What is R5 between my hon. friend and myself? I am prepared to say R30. If I had today given such a person R30, then I would have dealt fairly with him, and I would have done what the hon. member for Yeoville wants me to do. But we are not giving him R30, Sir. We are giving him, and rightly so, what the hon. member mentioned, and what the hasty member for Pinelands also referred to; we are giving him R46. In other words …

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Prime Minister not concede that any self-respecting Government expects to double the standard of living of the people approximately every 10 years

Sir, there are many ideals which every Government sets itself, but if that were an absolute norm, then the Government of my friend, when it was in power, had no self-respect whatsoever. My friend can look up the figures himself. In other words, Sir, not only have we made good the depreciation of money in respect of those people who unfortunately cannot, as a result of circumstances, look after themselves; we have added an additional portion, an additional amount to the concession I made to my friend, of at least R16, for a raised standard of living. Now my friends could easily argue and say that this is not good enough. My hon. friends could easily argue that this is not good enough, but I want to ask them whether they could have done any better, and if they tell me that they could have done better, then I want to ask them why they did not do so when they were in power. Surely those are the practical, political questions confronting us at all times.

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville said, “How can one expect people to buy insurance today?” Sir, it is easy to use an argument like that, but go and ask the insurance companies; they are selling record amounts of insurance every year.

Because of the increase in the population.

Sir, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. Taking into consideration the increase in the population, the increase in insurance premiums are far greater. The hon. member can, ask any insurance company; that is the answer they will give him.

But they do not want to sell him a policy to protect him against Harry.

Sir, the hon. member referred to persons earning less than R200 per month. Sir, I on my part want to make the following statement to the hon. member for Parktown, who is the authority on the Opposition side; it is a statement which I have checked with the best economists, and it is a statement which I make here on the authority of statistics: The hon. member for Parktown can take 1948 as a base; he can take 1955 as a base; he can take 1960 or 1965 as a base. I do not mind what period he takes as a base, but it should at least be a reasonable period of time. It is and remains a fact that the cost of living in South Africa has risen, but I do not think there is one single country in the world in which the cost of living has not risen, and nothing I say here today can argue away that fact; it is a fact. But, Sir, surely that is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that salaries have also risen. But what is more important is this: Surely any balanced person would present the picture in its entirety; surely it is not fair to present only one side of the picture. One can do so from the platform outside, where my hon. friend is the expert, but when we debate across the floor of this House, it is surely an entirely different matter.

Sir, the increase in wages and salaries has more than kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. If this statement of mine is wrong, then I challenge the hon. member for Parktown to furnish the proof to me in this debate, and then I shall apologize to him for having made this statement.

He cannot.

I beg your pardon? I thought the hon. member for Parktown had made an interjection in this regard. Sir, it is quite true what the hon. member for Parktown says; if he goes to a barber, he has to pay more for his haircut. [Laughter.] But, Sir, the basic fact of life is that the salary of the person who cuts his hair has, after all, not remained static since 1948; surely his salary has also increased, and that is the reason why the hon. member has to pay more. He has to pay more because the salary of the person who cuts his hair has gone up, but my hon. friend’s salary has also gone up; surely it has not remained static. The hon. member also said that bus fares had increased. That is true, but surely the salary of the bus driver has also increased; the salary of the conductor who has to clip his ticket has also increased, and the price of the bus has increased. Surely one cannot view this matter from one side only; surely one has to see these things in their true perspective, otherwise we would merely be arguing nonsensically at cross-purposes in this House, and what would that avail us? But I shall come back to that later on.

The hon. member for Yeoville told us, with reference to the State, that agitators could not succeed if there were no grievances. Once again I want to concede that point to him, but it is nevertheless strange in this case that one had strikes in areas where the grievances had already been eliminated; and it is also significant that one had strikes after it had been announced that one was going to eliminate the grievances. It is also significant, and I shall return to this later on in the debate, tomorrow or the day after, that some of the people who levelled the most vehement criticism at the Government in the past, were themselves guilty of underpaying their employees in South Africa, and some of them are even involved in the hotel industry in South Africa. All those things are significant and, as I have said, I shall come back to them again in the course of this debate.

As far as the Government is concerned, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has definitely taken the necessary steps in this connection. In the first place it was even being suggested in certain circles that the Government lay down for non-Whites a maximum salary which an employer in this country dare not exceed. That is absolute nonsense, and I am pleased to see that it is only in certain circles that that argument is still being advanced.

It is nonsense.

There was nothing to prevent the people from being paid higher salaries.

They may not occupy certain posts.

That is a completely different matter, but the salary he has to pay, is his own affair. And as far as the posts are concerned, this only applies to certain specific posts in the White area, and the hon. member is aware of that. But as I said, and I shall come back to this at a later stage, my friend the Minister of Labour did what the Government could be expected to do, viz. to give the Wage Board the instruction he did.

After the strikes.

That was a little late in the day.

It is very easy for the hon. member to say that it was a bit late. If he had had fore-knowledge of all these things, why did he not say so to the Minister, or across the floor of this House?

I have been saying it for the past 12 years.

Surely to say now that he said it 12 years ago is absolute nonsense.

He was born with a caul.

The Minister also held discussions, very successful discussions, with labour leaders and businessmen in this connection, and he has also given notice of his Bill. I believe that these steps taken by the Government, and the greater awareness shown by some employers, causing them to take a slightly different view of their employees, will also produce results in future. I have already commented on it in this House, and I do not think it is necessary for me to do so again at this juncture.

In a very dramatic, although not very original way, the hon. member for Durban Point held up a loaf of bread and a potato for us to look at here. However, the hon. member for Durban Point knows as well as I do that if it had not been for the drought and the failure of the potato crop in our traditional potato-growing areas in South Africa he would not have held up a potato here. To tell the truth, he would then have had so many potatoes that if a dog barked, he could have thrown a potato at it. It is as a result of the drought which we had, that potatoes are now fetching R3 per bag on the market.

One can mention any kind of foodstuff as an example.

No, I am now dealing with what the hon, member held up here, and one of those items was a potato, if I saw correctly. The hon. member knows that the other foods which he had in mind and which have to a very large extent, to the extent of 2%, been responsible for the rise in inflation, are in fact those foods which became scarce as a result of the drought conditions which prevailed in South Africa. [Interjections.] He knows that the price rose not only as a result of the scarcity owing to the droughts, but he also knows that the costs of the farmers rose, just as did those of any other producer. This is what we get from hon. members opposite: When it suits them they reproach my hon. friend here for not looking after the farmers, and when he announces the maize prices, they reproach him for giving the farmers too much. But one cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides.

But there is not even any bread. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has made a particularly irresponsible statement, seen from the point of view of South Africa. I think if the hon. member ponders over what he has said, he will agree with me that that was a statement he should never have made. I readily admit—who of us cannot produce those examples here in South Africa and in any other country in the world—that there are people who are in fact having a very difficult time and who even go hungry at times. We know that there are such people. However, to refer in this debate to millions upon millions who are starving in South Africa surely does not bear any relationship to the truth. [Interjections.] No,

it is not true.

I did not say that.

I wrote down the hon. member’s words: “Millions that are not being fed …” [Interjections.]

Order!

I referred to people who only had two meals a day.

We can look up the Hansard report of his speech tomorrow. However, I am prepared to argue with him on that statement he made. I say that it is not true if the impression is created that there are millions upon millions of people here who are starving. Most of the Bantu I know—I grew up with them —only have two meals a day. They do not have three meals a day as we Whites do. The hon. member and my hon. friend the member for South Coast know that it is the custom of the Bantu to have two meals a day, not three meals a day. If the hon. member says that, and he appends to it the statment about starving, his offence is even more flagrant than it appears to be at first sight. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that meat had become a luxury. It is true that meat is expensive, but what do the statistics tell us? They tell us that there is a constant increase in the consumption of meat. I want to go further and say that I have the idea— my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture can correct me if I am wrong—that the percentage increase in the consumption of meat is greater than that of the population growth.

That is untrue.

My hon. friend and colleague says that this is correct, and if it is, it proves one thing. Surely my friend and I cannot eat more meat than we ate yesterday and the day before yesterday, and which gives us the constitution we have. All that the increase in the meat consumption means is that the standard of living has increased to such an extent that people who were previously unable to buy meat can now even afford to buy expensive meat. Surely that is the argument we have to meet, and when we do so in this way, we are putting it in its correct perspective.

Tell that to the housewives.

I am coming to the housewives. Since my friend has raised that argument now, I want to say that I know that it is difficult to explain to housewives why prices have risen; it is particularly difficult to explain this to those who, day in and day out, hear only one side of the story. Not one of us likes to see the cost of living rising, but all of us would like to have our salaries increased. It is the easiest thing in the world to make political propaganda out of that. Surely all of us know this, and my hon. friend is having a good laugh up his sleeve at the fact that he was able to make this propaganda, and because he succeeded with it. It may be that he will succeed with it in other constituencies as well, but the fact remains that too much emphasis is being placed on the one side only, while little or no publicity whatsoever is being given to the other side.

My hon. friend was very concerned, and I share this concern of his, about the 83 000 people who are earning less than R300 per month. Has my hon. friend ever for one moment asked himself what those same people were earning when the United Party was in power? Let him go to the older people who can still remember, and they will tell him what happened then. In fact, that is the reason why those hon. members are sitting on that side of the House and we are sitting on this side. My friend can make as much propaganda out of that as he wishes, but the facts of the past speak for themselves in this connection.

I have already issued a challenge to the hon. member for Parktown, and if the hon. member for Parktown thinks that I am wrong I should like him to correct me in this regard. I am not a theoretical economist, and everyone in this House knows that, but what I found significant was that the hon. member for Parktown, who professes to be one, made no attempt to reply to the academic statements of the hon. the Minister of Tourism. That I found particularly illuminating as a spectator. The hon. member then came forward with this lame allegation: “Because we are not the Government, it is not necessary to say what our policy is.” What is involved in respect of this problem is surely not the Opposition or the Government; what is involved is our people. If the hon. member for Parktown has a solution to these problems up his sleeve, it is in the first place his duty to furnish it across the floor of this House …

We have told you often.

Why does the hon. member say that it is not his duty to furnish it because he is in the Opposition and not in the Government? In the second place, since this is again at issue now, surely the hon. member can win great praise for his party by coming forward with solutions —Heaven knows his party needs that praise! But that simply does not happen.

Now I come to the argument raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began by saying that the Budget had been a gamble. He maintained that he had said it at the time, and that he had now become convinced of it. I want to ask my hon. friend who his authority is, because he did not quote any authority to us. Of course, I am not at all prepared to accept either his word or his view as far as this matter is concerned. What I do know—and in this connection I have read just as widely as any normal hon. member on the opposite side has—is that I have not read of anyone of any significance who had arrived at the conclusion that the Budget of my friend was a gamble, and that it had now been proved to be one. It astonishes me that, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes such an accusation and, as it were, reports my good friend the Minister of Finance to me, he does not even attempt to prove it. Or have we now reached the stage where we can say just anything, and think that it is good enough as an argument?

Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance stated the intention of the Government very clearly. He not only stated the intention of the Government, but also laid his finger on the three problems awaiting the Government and therefore the country as well, viz. the problem of the balance of payments, the problem of inflation and the problem of growth. I need say nothing about the target in respect of the balance of payments, for the figures speak for themselves, and have already been debated over and over in this House. Coming to the question of inflation, I do not wish, as I said at the outset, to deny in any way that such a phenomenon exists, for it does indeed exist here in our country and in the rest of the world. In fact, if hon. members had listened to this morning’s news broadcast they would have heard that world experts thought that as far as Europe was concerned there would not only be a further rise in inflation this year, but it would get completely out of hand next year. In other words, it is not a problem which can be viewed in isolation as far as South Africa is concerned; it is a problem in regard to which one must view South Africa against the background of the world which is contending with this problem. This Government, with all the monetary, fiscal and other means which are known to economists and which it has at its disposal, is trying to combat this problem, just as countries all over the world are doing. Up to now not one single country has succeeded, as far as I know, in combating it successfully. One can curb it for a while, as was done by means of a certain policy in America and as is being done at the moment in Great Britain, but as soon as one removes the restrictions and the measures which one adopted, two devils come to take the place of the previous one. That is what most economists tell us. I think the hon. member for Parktown is as aware of this as I am or any other person is. It is true that to a certain extent the consumer price index has risen at an accelerated rate in comparison with the 7,4% for 1972. That is perfectly true, and one cannot argue about it. But it is also true that increases in import prices and food prices were still the main contributory factor to this increase. As far as the prices of imported goods are concerned —these are for the most part goods required by us for keeping our factory production going and for establishing new factories—there is absolutely nothing we can do, just as little as we can do anything in respect of the prices which oil-producing countries may charge for fuel now or in the future—and they are going to charge more and more in the future. Even the mighty America and other countries cannot do anything about it. In the same way we cannot from the nature of the case do anything about it either. In respect of the drought I want to hope and trust, along with all the hon. members here, that we shall have a very good second half of the year so that there may be an improvement in respect of those foods of which the prices have increased as a result of the drought, as I argued with the hon. member for Durban Point. Should an improvement take place, it stands to reason that it must affect the increase. Should the drought continue, it stands to reason that this is not the kind of thing about which one can do anything at all.

But what about foods such as rice, etc.?

But surely we do not produce rice here in South Africa. We are, after all, getting our rice from elsewhere. The little which we do produce here, my hon. friend can finish off before breakfast if he is in a mood for doing so. But my hon. friend referred to bread. Surely he knows that regardless of the loaf of bread which he held up to us here, he is not going to get cheaper bread anywhere else. I challenge the hon. member to go to any other place in Europe and to buy that loaf of bread for the same price for which it can be bought here in South Africa. Surely my hon. friend is also aware that over the years this Government has spent millions upon millions of rands on subsidies for the very purpose of keeping the price as low as it is. He also knows, surely, that whereas this amounts to R40 million at present, we cannot simply go on increasing it to R60 million and R100 million; after all, from time to time one does have to draw the line somewhere and ask the consumer to make his contribution. If my facts are correct, we have only done so twice over the past 10 years. Surely, if in 10 years’ time one has only changed the price of bread on two occasions, it amounts to an outstanding achievement on the part of a Government. Then, surely, it is an outstanding achievement on the part of a Government and not something to reproach it with.

In spite of the fact that we now have these increases, I may point out to my hon. friends that this is not the first time that we have had these increases. We had similar increases in 1951-’52. We also had them on subsequent occasions; they occur from time to time. The question is whether one was able in the past to combat them successfully in the long run. My reply is that one was able to bring very great relief in the past, and that that relief was in fact brought thanks to the measures that were applied and thanks to the way in which this country was governed. But what my hon. friends are forgetting completely, is that this country has a problem which few other countries have. We were, to be specific, called upon to provide in this country, in virtually less than the space of two decades, the infrastructure for the industrial growth that has taken place in South Africa, an infrastructure which did not exist previously. But, what is more, for the information of the hon. members of the Opposition who are now waxing so lyrical about the education of workers in South Africa: Surely this matter also goes back very far, it has a long history. After all, when the United Party was in power, it did not pay any attention whatever to the education of the Bantu or tire itself out in that regard. As the State it did not accept any responsibility in this regard at all. Its responsibility only went as far as to share out a few million of them to churches and mission societies in order that these might care for the education of the Black people in South Africa. This Government, which is being reviled by hon. members opposite, was the first Government which accepted responsibility for Bantu education in the fifties and which raised the level of Bantu education to what it is today. We can, to be specific, boast to the rest of Africa and to many other countries in the world of the fact that within a short space of time we have been able to raise the level of education of the Black people to the extent to which we have in fact done so in South Africa.

Are you satisfied with the level that has been reached?

The hon. member asks me whether I am satisfied with the level that has been reached. I am grateful that we have made a very great deal of progress, and we are still progressing.

Answer the question.

I say that one can, after all, never be satisfied with anything. How can one say that one is satisfied with it? I can say that I am satisfied with the progress we have maintained; but we are still going to make a great deal of progress here in South Africa, because this Government is still going to be in power for a very long time. That is why we are going to make more progress. But if hon. members opposite should come into power, I would of course guarantee nothing whatever to any person.

When we come to the question of inflation, we find that signs of a deceleration in the increase in consumer prices may be expected within the next few months. I base this on the fact that at the moment the statistics show that the wholesale price index in respect of imported goods has begun to show a downward trend of late. It goes without saying that if the wholesale price shows a downward trend, a downward trend in the retail and in the general trade must also follow. In other words, Sir, the prospects are there. At this moment I do not want to hold out more hope than to say that there may be a downward trend.

But, as I said at the beginning, inflation is one of three problems. The first problem, namely that of the balance of payments, has been solved by us to the complete satisfaction of the sharpest critic. The problem of inflation is receiving the attention of the Government, both from the point of view of the workers, as my hon. friend put it here, and all the other possible points of view from which one can give attention to it. At the Economic Advisory Council, and wherever consideration can possibly be given to this matter, we are engaged in deliberations in this regard and in taking such measures as can be taken.

But the growth rate, too, is just as important as the other two aspects. We have set ourselves the task of stepping up the growth rate. I am therefore in a position to reply to my hon. friend, who put many questions to me in that regard, by furnishing him with the following figures. In the first place, in January, 1973, the volume of factory production showed an increase of 8,5% over the figure for January, 1972; in other words, the task which the Government set itself in that regard is bearing fruit, and as this task bears fruit, one will also curb inflation accordingly, in so far as it can be curbed from that angle. This increase of 8,5% occurred on a wide front and serves as a strong confirmation of the signs of revival in the manufacturing industry which already started to become apparent towards the end of 1972.

What was it last year? Was the increase in the volume not only 2%?

Sir, it does not matter what it was last year. We set ourselves the target of improving it, and we did improve it by 8,5% according to the statistics.

But, Sir, let us take a look at the building plans. In January, 1973, the building plans and buildings completed were, respectively, 10,1% and 4,6% higher than the figures for January, 1972. In other words, in spite of the curtailment of public spending, we succeeded in having greater activity on the building front, and I want to point out that in these days in which we are living it is very good if one can achieve a growth of 10,1% and 4,6%, respectively, in South Africa.

But, Sir, we could mention a third example: In January 1973, 11,4% and 7,1% more motor cars and commercial vehicles, respectively, were licensed than was the case in January, 1972. If hon. members tell me that things are going so badly for South Africa on the economic front, then I want to say that according to all civilized countries there are two norms which one may use as a barometer for the economic growth of a country; the one is the units of power consumed and the other is the number of motor cars bought. If one considers the enormous growth in the consumption of power in South Africa and the projections in respect of the power which one will need in the next decade and the two or three decades after that, then one realizes how sound in fact South Africa’s growth is not only in the short term, but how sound its growth can in fact be in the long term if regard is had to those projections. Sir, the well-off people have already bought their motor cars; they are not responsible for all these motor cars that are being bought, but the purchasing power of the man in the street has improved to such an extent that in January, 1973, 11,4% more motor cars and 7,1 % more commercial vehicles could be licensed than was the case in January, 1972; and during the first quarter of 1973—i.e. in January, February and March, motor car sales increased by 31%—31% in three months’ time. Sir, I ask hon. members in all fairness whether they know of any other country which can boast of the fact that its economic position is such that its ordinary people could buy 31% more motor vehicles than they did in the previous year.

In value or numbers?

No, I am talking about numbers, and this is the position in spite of the fact that prices have risen. In spite of the fact that prices have risen, one’s ordinary people could still buy 31% more motor cars, in numbers—and this makes it so much the more remarkable —and the sales of commercial vehicles rose by 7,1%. In addition to that one notices, to one’s regret, that tractor sales showed a sharp decline, and the reason for this decline is obvious. This is due to the failure of the maize and other crops as a result of the drought; one can therefore understand this very clearly, and this makes the figures which we can submit to the House today even more remarkable. But if one goes further and considers, in the fourth place, that during the first quarter of 1973 exports and imports were, respectively, 32% and 12,4% higher than was the case a year before, would one say that this was a Government which was sleeping on the job, Sir? Is this a Government which is sleeping on the job, a Government which administers a country in such a way that its exports showed an increase of 32,6% during this year? And is this a reflection of a weak economic position, i.e. that one’s imports could show an increase of 12,4% as compared with the figure for the previous year, and that was the case while one had a record import year, so much so that it was to a very large extent responsible for our balance of payments problems? I want to go so far as to say that the steps taken by the Government to stimulate the economy are bearing fruit and that even more stimuli will be introduced as far as the economy is concerned. The stimulating measures mentioned in the Budget, the Budget which my hon. friend has now called a gamble here, as well as the downward trend in the rate of interest pattern, are still to have their effect. Secondly, the gold sales by the S.A. Reserve Bank and other exports will have a beneficial effect on the profit position of the country and of the mines. In view of the major share which South African enterprises have in the Sishen-Saldanha contracts, it may be expected that this may have a stimulating effect on a wide range of branches of industry. I want to make this statement that any country which, in the midst of the uncertainty prevailing in the monetary sphere in the world at the moment, can still undertake such schemes as those in which South Africa’s industries and its Government are engaged, may truly consider itself to be most fortunate under all these circumstances. And instead of the Government being accused, I believe that the Government should be praised.

What was the position in the past? I have made inquiries in this regard. The answer to the one aspect is one which we know very well, namely that we can expect matters to improve with the revival, because it was generally accepted that there was unutilized capacity in our manufacturing industry, and that unutilized capacity can now be utilized. But I am told, and I must accept it, that this was only one part of the picture, and that there was not only unutilized capacity, but also an over-employment of workers. People kept workers in their service in spite of the fact that it was not an economic proposition for them to do so, because they did not want to lose those workers. They kept them in their service and consequently there was unutilized manpower, and the stimulus that has now been given and the growth which one already sees and still expects, will have the effect that unutilized capacity will be absorbed and that those workers who were under-employed will be fully employed, and this in itself will make a considerable difference to the overall picture in South Africa.

Sir, I am concerned about one thing, and it is by no means my intention to say that the front-benchers of the Opposition are indulging in this practice, but I am afraid I shall not be able to say this of others. The hon. member for Parktown, for instance, has already come very close to doing so— this is the impression I have gained from listening to him—and outside this House there are a very large number of people who are playing a very dangerous game, that of breaking down to the ground this system which we have, this free economic system of ours. I am very afraid of arguments which begin to propagate socialism in a veiled form here in South Africa. I am afraid of people who are advocating a redistribution of possessions here in South Africa, and I want to make an appeal to all hon. members, irrespective of whether they are on this side of the House or on that side of the House or whether they are outside this House. We can afford many things here in South Africa, but if regard is had to the problems with which South Africa has to contend, if regard is had to the composition of its population, there is one thing which we cannot afford. That is to say or do anything which will eventually amount to a redistribution of possessions in South Africa, for then this country will pay until it cannot pay any more, and that will spell its ruin. I want to take up the stand that the labourer is and should at all times be worthy of his wage. I want to take up the stand that in so far as this is its responsibility, the Government has a duty in that regard. I want to say that the Government is fulfilling that duty. However, the private sector also has a duty in that regard. In most cases this duty has been fulfilled, but unfortunately there are also cases where it has not been fulfilled. However, I want to sound a warning against salaries being increased in a haphazard manner simply because a man is Black and because pressure is being brought to bear on South Africa from America, Britain and elsewhere. In this country a man should not be paid simply because he has this or that skin-colour; he should be paid according to the production he yields. [Interjections.]

He must be given the opportunity to learn how to yield it.

He must be given the opportunity to learn, and what has this Government done over the past number of years other than raising his standard of education so that he may be a better worker than he would otherwise have been? What has this Government done other than establishing schools for him …

That is inadequate!

… so that he may become skilled not only academically, but also in other ways? What has this Government done other than going out of its way to promote in-service training to the best of its ability? The hon. members have read the report of Dr. van Zyl to which reference was made by my friend, and they have heard what he had to say on the radio in this regard. If hon. members say this is not enough, there may be some substance in their argument. However, the fact of the matter is that one is improving it all the time, as the need arises, as one has the manpower at one’s disposal and as one has the money at one’s disposal.

Take the matter of the housing of our people. It is terribly easy to talk the way my friend and others did by saying that the people should simply come. However, they must be housed somewhere. Surely this story of housing has a long history. After all, we know what the housing position was. Admittedly, there was a war. But, surely, we know what the housing position was just after the war. What is more, not only was the position as wretched as it was at the time, but we had a colossal influx as a result of economic and factory development which took place in South Africa. All of this has to be bulwarked by providing houses. However, the Government cannot be expected to do more than can be done in that regard. To those countries which are so fond of pointing a finger at the South African Government I want to say today, for the sake of the record, that we can compare our housing for Black people with anything which our accusers have, and that from such a comparison we could at any time come off very well and even better than they would. Having said all these things, I want to say to my friend that notwithstanding the arguments already advanced during the Budget debate and other debates, this Government has fulfilled its duty in the economic sphere as well as possible and just as well as any other past Government was able to fulfil it under any circumstances in South Africa.

For the time being, therefore, I want to content myself with this reply. I shall take a look at the other points later on and, having done so, I shall reply to them further.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a special privilege to us on this side of the House to conduct a debate with the hon. the Prime Minister, for we admire the spirit in which he debates, we appreciate his sense of humour and we sometimes join in the laughter at his jokes. Still I fear that although the hon. the Prime Minister replied at length today to our questions and to the matters raised by us, he unfortunately passed by the crux of the Opposition’s arguments. The fact is that he neglected to say what was happening to the ordinary family in South Africa today as a result of inflation. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister did not do so on purpose, but it happens because he is an impassioned speaker and he gets excited about his case. However, he made several statements which were simply not supported by the facts. I want to mention a few of them so that we may understand each other better in this respect. The hon. the Prime Minister attached great importance to the fact, for instance, that the ordinary family could not be in such a plight because the consumption of meat in South Africa was increasing. According to the reports of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing this is not the case, however. I have here the reports dealing with the meat prices from 1964-’65 up to last year. If one compares the two one finds a very interesting situation. One finds that the consumption of pork and chicken has increased slightly, but that the consumption of beef, veal, mutton and goats’ meat has decreased. In general the consumption of meat has decreased, because it had to decrease. The other day I talked to a Johannesburg friend of mine who is a Nationalist, and he told me: “In Johannesburg we buy a leg of mutton, but we no longer put it in a refrigerator, but in the display cabinet in the lounge, because it is so precious.” The facts are that in 1965-’66 the per capita consumption of meat in South Africa was 100 lbs., i.e. 45,4 kg. Last year, in 1971-’72, the per capita consumption was 42,5 kg.

What kinds?

All kinds of meat. I have already said that there has been a small increase in the consumption of chicken and pork, but in general it has dropped because there has been a great decrease in the consumption of mutton and beef. Now we have the very interesting situation that the hon. the Prime Minister has told us that my hon. friend for Durban Point should not have referred to potatoes because we are experiencing a scarcity of potatoes. It was due to that scarcity, he said, that the price had gone up. If there is a scarcity of potatoes under his Government, the price increases—that I can understand. But does the hon. the Prime Minister realize that when there is a surplus of maize the price goes up as a result of the surplus, too? Last year, for example, there was a big maize surplus. We had to export in order to get rid of the surplus and to obtain foreign exchange. The cost to the end consumer rose by 21½%; 11½% was required to cover the cost of bags, the other 10% was required for strengthening the stabilization fund. So the more maize there is, the more expensive it is for the ordinary consumer, and it is in the interests of the maize consumer that there should be a drought, while a drought is not in the interests of the potato consumer.

Do not joke about it.

No, I am not joking about it; it is a very serious matter, because maize is the food of the poorest people in the country. If there is an overproduction of maize they do not benefit by it, but they have to pay more for it. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister would be well advised to give some attention to this. Will the hon. the Prime Minister deny that 9,3 million sheep were slaughtered in South Africa last year, while it is believed that the figure for this year will be approximately 6,8 million? Does he deny that the price of bread was recently increased by 18% in the case of white bread and 22% in the case of brown bread, while at the same time the price of wheat to the farmer was reduced by 20c a bag? How is one to understand that?

There is overproduction as well.

There is an overproduction of wheat, but the price of bread goes up! The price of bread to the consumer goes up, but the price to the farmers goes down.

But you know that bread has been subsidized by millions all these years and that the subsidy increases every year.

Let me reply to that at once. A country which is able to produce a deficit Budget such as the one produced by the Government during this session can afford to continue subsidizing the staple food of the poorest of our people. However, this still does not explain why the price of bread to the consumer has to rise while the farmer gets less money. The hon. the Prime Minister made a great point of it. He said that because the farmers, too, were entitled to better prices because their costs also rose, one should expect the price to the consumer to rise. In the case of maize, too, the price paid to the farmer goes down while the price to the consumer rises. This contradicts the hon. the Prime Minister’s argument. I think he should go into the matter again.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister rightly said—I am glad that he said this, because we cannot give enough publicity to this; it is in the interests of our country—that there were no legal restrictions on the salaries or wages that people might pay their workers of any colour in South Africa. The sooner we can get rid of that slandering of South Africa the better. In this respect the hon. the Prime Minister will certainly receive the assistance of the Opposition. But then the hon. the Prime Minister must also be fair and admit that there are of course other restrictions on the possible earnings of particularly the Bantu in South Africa. I have already referred, by way of interjection, to the job reservation that exists, statutory as well as conventional. There are other economic laws in South Africa as well that result from Government policy, for example the limited training received by these people. As the hon. the Prime Minister said by way of interjection, they are only being trained in the Bantu homelands where there is not the slightest possibility today of sophisticated labour being used. There is the question that they have no permanent residence where they are employed in White areas. I do not know what this new term means which I heard today, “temporary permanence”, for to me the one excludes the other. I cannot see how one can link those two words. The fact that the workers are not permanent in the White industrial areas where they are needed must mean that their productivity is restricted.

Then there is the fact, too, that we have not yet succeeded—in this respect the two parties together can do something too—in removing the unreasonable fear on the part of many of our White workers that if you do justice to the non-White worker the White worker must be done an injustice. This idea, too, we can try to destroy to the great advantage of everyone in South Africa. I want to say—and I say this advisedly—that there has been very little enthusiasm to be discerned on the part of the ordinary hon. members on the other side for accomplishing this in South Africa. Allow me to say to the credit of the hon. the Minister of Transport that he for one has set an example in this respect, with the assistance and the good advice of the Opposition, for counteracting that tendency in South Africa. I want to say this of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as well. I think that he, too, sets a fine example in many respects. He is thwarted and frustrated by the Minister of Labour, of course, but I hope that the two of them will get together and come to an agreement in the interests of South Africa.

When we discuss the question of inflation and the question of South Africa’s interests, both locally and in respect of the world, we are still faced with the problem of labour in South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister did not devote a little more time to this. If I understand him correctly, he intends to elaborate on this later on.

I have said quite enough about it for the time being.

I just want to tell him that what we missed in his speech was the fact that we are not utilizing the human potential of South Africa as we could, and that we seem to be acquiescing in the excessive and unforgivable poverty of a large part of the population of South Africa.

Which part?

The part in which one would expect my friends on the other side to take the greatest interest, namely the Natives in the Reserves. Just under half of the total Native population of South Africa is still in the Reserves.

When were you there last?

I have not been there, but I am using official statistics supplied to me by the Government. Just under half of the total Native population of South Africa, approximately one-third of the total population of all race groups in South Africa, are producing only 2% of the national income of South Africa. If you look at it objectively you realize that this is handicapping the progress of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to a few of the statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Firstly, I just want to say that the Prime Minister was quite correct in saying that there was an increase in consumption. The hon. member referred to the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the period up to the end of June, in which this is mentioned.

Per capita?

Since then an increase in the consumption of certain foods has been clearly perceptible from the time that salary adjustments were made. That report ends on 30th June, and the hon. member is quite correct. If, however, one takes the subsequent figures, one sees that there is an increase in consumption. After all, the hon. member can see for himself what is happening. This year we are going to slaughter two million head of cattle in South Africa.

What about the human population?

The increase in the human population is a fact; that is true. However, one should always keep in mind that the consumption of certain commodities has increased. In this way the consumption of fish has increased by 21%.

We do not include fish with meat.

Yes, we mention it as an additional food with bread or porridge. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member. I am not lying and I am telling the hon. member the truth. I do not want to take chances. Why does the hon. member not want to listen now when I give him the correct information? After all, we are not playing politics now, we are talking about food. The hon. member asks why the price of potatoes increases when there is an inadequate crop.

But the Prime Minister said it.

That is true, but I am replying to that now. I am still in full agreement with what the Prime Minister said. The price of potatoes increased because we did not have a crop. In the normal course of events ours is a country which exports potatoes, but this year we cannot export a single potato. At present we are unable to meet the demand, because there is a shortage of potatoes of 23%. What must we do? Must we do what you did prior to 1948? You said at the time: We set a maximum price of 75 cents for a large bag of potatoes. When there was a surplus, you did absolutely nothing and the price of potatoes then fell to 1s. 6d. per bag. That is the love you have for the farmer. That is what history has taught us. But we say no.

But let me reply to the hon. member on the question of maize. Last year we had a maize surplus and what did the Minister of Finance and the Government do then? We said we would subsidize maize so that a supply might be stored in this country. We than told the consumer that he had to contribute 10 cents per bag and to the farmer that he had to contribute 30 cents per bag. The consumer price must increase, because we had more than 100 million bags of maize while our consumption was 55 million bags. What did the State do? Last year the State subsidized the whole industry to the tune of R37,8 million. Now we come to a year of shortage and what do we do? That farmer does not have a harvest; he only has half a harvest. Now the Government says that his price has to be increased by R1 per bag. The Government brings a consumers’ subsidy of R9,9 million, i.e. 18 cents per bag, and the farmer gets R1 per bag more. In order to meet this price, the consumer need only pay 50 cents more per bag. Are hon. members opposite dissatisfied with this policy? This year, too, the subsidy on maize amounts to approximately R30 million.

Let us take bread. We said to the baker and the miller, “You may import your machinery from overseas after we have devalued. You may pay your labourers more. Your railage has increased. The Government will ensure that the price of bread does not increase by more than 2 cents per loaf, having last had an increase nearly more than two years ago.” We originally thought that this year’s subsidy, with an increase in price of 2 cents per loaf, would drop from R47 million to approximately R34 million. I can tell hon. members now that with the recent increases in costs, the subsidy on bread this year will again be R40 million.

Why?

Because of the increase in the wages of the bakers, the Bantu who work in the bakeries and in the mills.

But the baker gets nothing of that increase.

But, after all, the baker is paying his Bantu more. Upon my word, Sir, hon. members do not understand how this subsidy system works. We say to the baker—if hon. members would only listen—“The Government will foot the bill for your increases in cost. Through a type of subsidy we pay your increases in costs, but you may not make bread more expensive.” That is how the thing works. Do hon. members understand it? I think the most half-witted city U.P. supporter ought to understand it. It is a very simple thing. But now I should just like to know something: Next year the baker increases his price because of an increase in shipping charges and consequently in the price of imported baking and milling machinery. Must we continue to subsidize bread? Must we pay a subsidy of R50 million or R60 million next year? Or, after two or three years, must we say, “All salaries and Bantu wages have risen. Would we not be justified in allowing the price of bread to increase?” Or should we say that taxes must be increased? Where will we get the subsidy from? After all, this is a simple question. I want to ask hon. members, “If there is a general salary adjustment of 15% throughout the country, are they in favour of a salary increase of 15% being granted by my farming colleagues and myself to our Bantu on the farms as well? Are hon. members satisfied? Just answer me. Must we, too, have the opportunity of giving our Bantu a salary increase of 15%? I am asking a question. Is the answer “yes”, or “no”? Then, may I receive 15% more for my agricultural products?

But you should not have reduced the wheat price.

The wheat price was reduced because of the larger crop and because the volume income of the farmer was higher. [Interjections.] Sir, I am so sorry I have suffered some damage to my voice, otherwise I would have wiped the floor with them about this nonsense they are talking here. They cannot understand that the total income of the farmers was R100 million last year and now, after a good crop, it is R150 million. The unit price has dropped, but the total income, the proceeds, has increased. [Interjections.] Now I can see that they are trying to make political capital out of this matter.

As far as meat is concerned, we had discussions with the Meat Board this morning, and we said to them, “For the sake of the consumer in this country and to the detriment of the producer, let us reduce the export of beef”. They were magnanimous and said, “We agree. We shall reduce the export of beef”. Remember, we are still an importing country as far as meat is concerned. We shall take any amount of meat Botswana can supply. At present we get 1 000 carcasses per week from them. They say, “We are not going to give you more”. This is an old agreement, but we make a tremendous profit on the export market. We make a profit of 9 cents per kg. Is one of the hon. members prepared to stand up and say that it is not magnanimous of the South African farmer to say that we should not export our meat, but that we should rather keep it in the country at a lower price in order to supply our consumers with cheaper meat? Then those members stand here continually venting their spleen about the price of meat. They are a bunch of farmer-haters as far as these matters are concerned. The hon. member for King William’s Town is sitting over there laughing up his sleeve, but when he comes to the country areas, he attacks me violently about these things. Then he says that this Government is not looking after the farmers.

He is also going to say so at Aliwal.

That is quite correct. He is also going to say so at Aliwal. Last week the hon. member for Newton Park told the Natal Witness—I enjoyed reading it, because I am going to use it; I am going to use it in any election—

[Interjections.] I shall quote it to the hon. member when my Vote comes up for discussion. Sir, in this way they are canvassing the support of consumers in the cities. Sir, the whole matter amounts to this: Hon. members opposite were satisfied and applauded when we devalued.

Under the circumstances brought about by the Government.

No, hon. members opposite said that it was the right step to take. The Financial Mail and each one of the Opposition publications said that devaluation was the right step. Well, as a result of devaluation the price of tractors and agricultural implements increased. Rubber and tyres and fuel and everything became more expensive as a result of devaluation. These things which are the means of production of the farmer to have become more expensive and now he is receiving a small increase in the price of his product simply to bring him into line with the rest of the public. Hon. members opposite are all satisfied with the increase in pensions, salaries and wages. Now the farmer is receiving a small adjustment in his price and now hon. members opposite are venting their spleen about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I always believed that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was a friend of the farmers. After what he said here this afternoon, I am convinced that he is neither a friend of the farmer, nor of the consumer. He has been at pains to explain to us that this whole fixing of prices, as far as the consumer is concerned, is a very artificial business indeed. I think the criticism of this side of the House is perfectly justifiable. The criticism on this side of the House is that with the available surplus that the Minister had when he introduced his budgetary proposals this year, it should have been possible for him to keep down the price of certain of these agricultural products to the consumer, particularly for the less fortunate members of our community. Sir, I believe it could have been done. I believe we could have afforded it and the farmer would not have suffered at all.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister who dealt with the question of the activities of the Minister of Labour at the time of the strikes and the instructions which he gave to the wage boards after the strikes and the discussions which then took place. Sir, I think the hon. gentleman has not met the real criticism of this side of the House. That criticism is that the necessary machinery for negotiation was not in existence.

They did not make use of it.

The Minister of Labour was caught with his pants down, without any question at all. The fact is a perfectly simple one, and that is that the necessary machinery did not exist. No steps had been taken to see that it was in working order. But I think the other point that the hon. the Prime Minister has missed is that with the growing number of non-White workers, particularly Bantu workers, being engaged in semi-skilled and, in future, in skilled work, the machinery as envisaged by the Minister of Labour at the moment is not going to be adequate. He is going to have to have more sophisticated machinery; he is going to have to have another method of negotiation which has got to be tied to the existing trade unions by way of affiliation or some method of that kind. It is quite certain, Sir, that the system as it is working at the moment is not going to be satisfactory.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that the objectives of the Budget were to deal with inflation, to improve the balance of payments and to encourage growth. Of course, Sir, I have pointed out once before that these are likely to be mutually contradictory objectives to a certain extent. While we have had success with the balance of payments, inflation is taking place at a great rate, and unless we have adequate growth we are going to be faced with inflation towards the end of this year such as we have never seen before in South Africa, and the question is whether that growth is going to be adequate. The criticism of this side of the House has been that we are not making adequate use of the labour we have available or planning to make use of it in the future. The hon. the Prime Minister has had a lot to say about the activities of the old United Party when it came to Bantu education and labour training. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister will tell me who it was who tried to close down the trade training school in Soweto run by Johannesburg municipality, and who it was who prevented the extension of that trade training school in Soweto. The hon. the Prime Minister has talked to us about Bantu education. Is he so young in politics that he does not remember the propaganda made by his party in the days when the United Party was in power against expenditure on Bantu education? Here is a copy of a pamphlet given out by none other than Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel, Secretary of the Herenigde Nasionale Party in 1944—

Then he says—

This, Sir, was the propaganda which was made. This is the same pamphlet in which he complained so much because the Government had spent £78 000 buying stud bulls and stud cows to be used in the Reserves. That is the type of propaganda we were faced with. How was the late Mr. Hofmeyr not denigrated by that side of the House when he wanted to spend £4,5 million or R9 million a year on Bantu education? For how long was the amount to be spent on Bantu education not pegged by that side of the House? R13 million was the maximum they would give, year after year, despite our protests, and then they started incurring bigger expenditure but tried to hide it in the account. No, Sir, I do not think that that hon. gentleman should refer to what was done in regard to Bantu education. I think the record of his party is a shocking one in that regard.

But then we come to the point we have been hammering, and that is the training of labour not only for the present, but for the future in South Africa. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister entirely that we want to tie, as far as we can, better wages to greater productivity. I agree with him also that there are dangers from those people who want to improve the lot of certain sections of the community by dragging others down. That is not the object of this side of the House. The object of this side of the House is to uplift the entire population and to improve conditions for everybody in South Africa. Our problem at the moment is that we have a vast potential in our labour force which we feel is not being used to the best advantage at present. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what his plans are for the training of that labour force in the future; what is he going to do to make use of it? He is already faced with the situation that he knows he will not have sufficient skilled workers among the White population in a few years’ time. If he is to retain anything like the rate of growth which is going to be necessary for this country he will have to undertake the training of non-Whites in South Africa to do skilled and semi-skilled work. What we want from the hon. gentleman is a statement of his policy; what is he going to do about it? The second thing we want to know from the hon. gentleman is to what system of collective bargaining he is going to adopt for that labour force, once it is trained, to ensure that there is proper negotiation and understanding between employer and employee.

The Minister of Labour gave you that reply.

All we have had from the hon. the Minister of Labour is the publication in the Gazette for information of a new Bill and that Bill, I can tell the hon. the Prime Minister now, is not going to meet the case. It will do for unskilled workers and it will do for manual labourers but it will not do for our skilled and semi-skilled workers in South Africa. And it is as well that he should be told that now, Sir, because it will not meet the problems with which we are faced. Then we have heard nothing more from the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to his policies in respect of the urban Bantu, the so-called semi-permanent Bantu.

The temporary Bantu.

I will reply to that tomorrow.

Then I will take it no further than that, but I hope that when he comes to dealing with that we will have from him a clear statement of his views of the policy of his party in respect of the urban Bantu and what the situation is going to be in respect of those Bantu leaders and those homelands who will not accept independence on the terms on which the hon. gentleman is offering it to them. Those are the problems to which we want answers. We are emphasizing once again that in a changing world the old answers are not adequate. The hon. the Prime Minister must tell the country what his plans are in this regard.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections] … I am satisfied with the hearty welcome with which I am being greeted by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I should like to cross swords with the hon. member for Yeoville about his allegations concerning the per capita consumption of meat in South Africa. The hon. member said that the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement to the effect that more meat is being consumed per capita in South Africa is untrue. Have I understood the hon. member for Yeoville correctly?

Yes, if you compare the various years.

May I then know from the hon. member for Yeoville to what years he was referring?

I have given that information.

I did not understand him very well at that point.

I compared 1965-’66 with several years up to and including this year.

I shall quote the authentic figures in that connection. The per capita consumption of beef and veal decreased from the 27,4 kg of 1965-’66 to 25,7 kg in 1970-71. The year 1970-71 is the last year for which authentic figures are available. Let us now look at mutton and goat’s meat. It will be seen that the per capita consumption of mutton and goat’s meat increased from 8,8 kg in 1965-’66 to 10,1 kg in 1970-71.

And subsequently?

But I have just said that 1970-71 is the last year for which correct data exist. Data in respect of the later years are mere estimates. Let us now look at the consumption of pork. Since 1965-’66 the per capita consumption increased from 3,2 kg to 3,7 kg in 1970-71.

What now?

Oh, would you just restrain yourself a little? I now want to give the total per capita consumption of, jointly, beef, veal, mutton, goat’s meat and pork. The per capita consumption in South Africa has increased since 1965-’66 from 39,4 kg to 39,5 kg in 1970-71. Therefore, over that period of five years we have had an increase that cannot be disputed. As I have said, the figures in respect of the subsequent years are based on estimates. The figures I have quoted are the only official figures.

I now want to go further. Up to now I have only referred to beef, veal, mutton, goat’s meat and pork, but our people surely eat other kinds of meat too. They also eat chicken, which is very much in fashion these days. Unfortunately the figures in respect of chicken are not included in this per capita increase I have just referred to. I should like to say what has happened in respect of the quantity of poultry slaughtered in the Republic. In 1965-’66 we slaughtered only 61 600 tons of chickens in the Republic, but in 1970-’71 we virtually doubled the amount and it stood at 105 100 tons. In other words, the consumption of chicken has doubled over that period. We did not export that chicken, we sold it locally. If I add this increase in the consumption of chicken to the total consumption of meat from 1965-’66 to 1971-’72, there is sufficient proof that there was a per capita increase over this period.

What do you say now, Marais?

In other words, the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement is quite correct when we calculate this for the period from 1965-’66 to 1971-’72. Then we see that the people of South Africa ate more meat than in any other previous year.

You are wrong, you know?

Do you want to dispute these figures? The hon. member may examine the figures with me. He may put any question to me in connection with these figures. However, the hon. member’s figures are not quite correct. The figures I have furnished are the official figures I obtained from the statistics of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing’s research. The figures to which the hon. member referred are figures which have subsequently been estimated, but these figures I have furnished are the only official figures that are available.

On what page are they?

They are on page 52 of the epitome of agricultural statistics. The hon. member for Yeoville thought he had raised a very clever argument when he said that we have a maize surplus but that the consumer prices have nevertheless increased. He also added that the price which the farmer received for his maize was not in accordance with this. The hon. member for Yeoville must surely know that when we produce a surplus of a certain agricultural commodity in South Africa we do have to do something with that surplus. We surely cannot give it away for nothing; we surely cannot throw it in the sea. That surplus must then be exported and sold to the overseas buyer on the world market. On the world market one must negotiate the best price that can be negotiated under the circumstances. It therefore goes without saying that if the realization on the world market is low, the local prices must be increased slightly in order to be able to pay the producer a viable price. That is what the whole matter boils down to. The Government is the shock-absorber, the balancer, and it must surely protect the domestic producer and consumer. When there are fluctuations on the world market, there are two ways in which the shock waves can be absorbed. The one way is by paying a subsidy to the industry or to the consumer and the other way is by increasing the local price moderately so that stability may be achieved in the agricultural industry. The hon. member asked why the price of bread increased while the price of wheat paid to the farmer was lower. I just want to say in passing that in the present Budget this Government is employing about R90 million as a consumer subsidy.

It is R87 million.

The amount of R87 million is being employed as a consumer subsidy so that the price which the farmer receives can be kept sound on the one hand and so that the price to the consumer does not become disproportionately high on the other hand.

While we are now on the question of the maize price, I want to raise another matter. In the Second Reading debate of this Budget the hon. member for Newton Park began by speaking about the Coloureds. Thereafter he spoke about the cost of living; he touched on all kinds of matters. I asked him five times—and this is recorded in Hansard—when he was going to lodge a plea for a maize price and when he was going to propose a maize price. However, the hon. member for Newton Park was too afraid to open his mouth about that. The hon. member for Newton Park and his party were too afraid to make a proposal about what the maize price to be paid to the farmer should be. I challenged the hon. member five times across the floor of the House, and he did not have the courage of his convictions to tell us what he proposes in that connection. I shall tell hon. members why. If the hon. members propose a higher maize price they cannot go and barter there in Umhlatuzana or in Aliwal North with the high cost of living. Hon. members are not prepared to accept responsibility for higher prices to the agricultural producer. After all, hon. members are accusing the Government all day long of the fact that the cost of living is increasing. I have asked the hon. member for Newton Park time and again to make his proposal as far as the maize price is concerned, but he does not want to do so. I want to go further with my statement about what the Government is doing. Although the maize price this year has increased by 20,5% as far as the producer is concerned, the Government has subsidized the industry and the consumer price of yellow maize has only increased by 11,5% and that of white maize by 15,5%. In other words, the increase in price which the producer has obtained is higher than the increase in price which the consumer must pay. In other words, there the Government has also done its best to try to make this increase in the costs easier for the consumer as well as for the producer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

You are going to get into trouble.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that I find it difficult to learn about the meat question, but there is nevertheless something that bothers me. The hon. member for Lydenburg spoke about the per capita meat consumption. Let us just get the hon. member’s argument in perspective. The statement of this side of the House is that the meat price today is so high that meat has, as it were, become a luxury article in numerous homes in South Africa. On the other hand, the hon. the Prime Minister has come along with the argument that it might in fact be so, but that South Africa’s meat consumption is still increasing. I listened to the hon. member for Lydenburg, and all the consumption figures he quoted only went as far as 1970-’71 when the prices were fairly normal. The question that arises as far as I am concerned is this: “What has happened to the meat consumption in the last six to nine months, or even in the last year?” I want to put my head on a block that the per capita meat consumption has decreased and not increased in South Africa in the last six or nine months. I do not have the statistics here, but if it has decreased, it is exclusively attributable to the fact that meat has become unpurchasable in dozens of homes in South Africa as a result of high prices. That is the perspective. I do not want to argue about beef, chicken or pork …

Why not?

It is a question of the cost of living. I have already fold the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that one of his most unpleasant acts here in his career was that of increasing the price of bread. To come and tell me that the subsidy would have increased if that had not happened, is no excuse. If this Government wants to pay food subsidies, it could not do so to better effect on any other product than specifically on bread.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Chairman, I have only ten minutes. My argument is that even if the hon. the Minister has to subsidize bread by R50 million or R60 million, I am still saying that he should pay this, but he should not increase the price of bread because he is dealing here with a basic food of millions of people in South Africa.

If it is R100 million?

We must not begin mentioning hypothetical cases.

It would have been about R100 million.

As far as I am concerned bread for the people is so important that I would be prepared to consider a much greater amount than is now being paid to subsidize bread. That is my answer to the hon. the Minister.

Then I come to the second point I want to mention. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that one does not easily or willingly argue with him across the floor of the House, and I am respectfully doing so. I want to say that I think that the hon. the Prime Minister is making a fatal mistake in continually comparing the present position in South Africa with the 1948 position in respect of the cost of living and incomes and salaries. To compare the present position with the position in 1948 as far as the standard of living is concerned, one could just as well compare a donkey cart with a moon buggy. In the past 25 years a new generation has emerged throughout the world and also in South Africa, a generation with new needs, with another standard of living, with greater needs, and to come and tell me that today my children and I must still live as my forefathers lived or as we lived in 1930 or in 1948, is really no argument in the new era in which we are living. I really think the hon. the Prime Minister is doing his argument no good by coming along and telling us that he is satisfied that the Government is doing its best in comparison with 1948. I do not think that is any comparison whatever, because we have entered a completely new era in South Africa. And this does not only apply as far as South Africa is concerned, but though out the world.

I have said, surely, that we have gone much further than that.

The fact is that we had to go much further because I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that even in spite of the Nationalist Government there has nevertheless been an increase in the standard of living in South Africa. We could really not stand still. We surely cannot now be where we were in 1948; that is surely a completely wrong argument.

The third point I want to make is to ask how far we could not have been if we had specifically accepted the arguments and the advice of the Opposition merely as far as the word “productivity” in South Africa is concerned. The hon. member for Randburg called out very effectively in this House the other day that the real answer to inflation is productivity.

Then you said “hear, hear”.

Yes, I said “hear, hear”, because I almost thought a United Party man was speaking there, but when I looked it was the hon. member for Randburg. He is almost a United Party man, and it is perhaps only a question of time before he becomes one. He is coming closer to the colour of his seat. I do not say he will turn, but he is coming nearer to the colour of his seat.

Is the M.P.C. yours?

The hon. the Prime Minister now wants me to argue with him on quite a different level, which I should not like to do as far as the M.P.C. is concerned. I do not want the hon. the Prime Minister to ask me questions, because I should like to deal with him on the level of Prime Minister. The other argument I want to use is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to this House and stated a case that is fundamental to the whole future security of South Africa. He said that our biggest problem is inflation and that in order to combat inflation, as the hon. member for Randburg also says now, one must produce. In order to produce, one must have labour, and not only labour but trained labour to meet the modern world’s needs. The hon. the Prime Minister says they have done enough, but I want to ask what the Nationalist Party has done in 25 years as far as the training of labour in South Africa is concerned.

A great deal.

I am not speaking of sporadic attempts, but of an attempt that would go to the root of the matter. In this respect nothing has really been done in South Africa. In fact, if one looks at the Riekert report, one finds that it is still their standpoint that the training of the Bantu has to take place in the Bantu homelands. Even the Minister of Labour said a year ago, as it were, that the Bantu would be trained in White South Africa over his dead body.

Those days are past, and now I am not speaking of education. The Nationalist Party’s record as far as Bantu education in South Africa is concerned is one which we should preferably not trace back to before 1948. It is not a record which the Nationalist Party can be proud of. In fact, I do not believe that they can even be proud of their record since 1948. But let us leave it at that as far as education is concerned. I am speaking of the mere training of the Bantu which has clashed with their ideology. They dare not train the Bantu in White South Africa because then the people become permanent, temporarily permanent if they want to call it that. And if they become permanent, then one is scratching at and discrediting the Nationalist Party’s philosophy, and that may not be done. That is why it has not happened.

If the hon. the Prime Minister were to stand up today and say he supported the idea of the training of Bantu in White South Africa, I would say thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, but remember that you are digging your own policy’s foundations out from under it. All that will remain is a situation such as we had in 1948, and throughout the years you would have done nothing to improve the position. This is the position: It has become relevant to speak about the Bantustans and the development of reserves. The real problem between one person and another, between Whites and Blacks, does not arise, to a large extent, in the Transvaal. It crops up here where the White man and the Black man are building up South Africa shoulder to shoulder. As far as that question is concerned, they have never yet thought of an answer over the past 25 years of Nationalist Party rule because you see, Sir, they did not want to think. I shall tell you why. The moment they think of the urban Bantu as a permanent being, the ideology collapses, the Nationalist Party’s Bantustan policy again. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the financial debates conducted in this House. I have listened with considerable interest in particular to what was said on that side of the House. Let me put it quite clearly: To me it is most disturbing to hear to what extent and in which way hon. members on the opposite side of the House want to fight the question of inflation in South Africa. We on this side of the House realize that, where we are dealing with a cost-push inflation, the obvious solution in this regard would be to fight this inflation by means of higher productivity and a higher growth rate. But we appreciate full-well that we have to bring about this higher productivity and growth rate within a framework which would ensure political order and long-term stability.

We appreciate full-well that we could only bring about higher productivity and economic prosperity if we could ensure political order in South Africa. It is for this reason that we are prepared to sacrifice a certain measure of production for the sake of long-term political order. We are prepared to bring about a high productivity and a high growth rate within a framework which will ensure security for every person in South Africa. Just as a farmer will sacrifice a certain measure of production by contouring his lands and in this way putting aside a certain proportion of his lands for the sake of long-term security, productivity and order on his farm and, for example, by not planting maize on those lands, so we on this side of the House are prepared to sacrifice a certain measure of productivity for the very reason of bringing about long-term economic prosperity within a framework of political order.

But something which perturbs me even more, is the utter inability of hon. members on that side of the House to display some financial reality. I believe that if one makes inflation an integral part of the system, he cannot be serious in his aims to fight inflation. For that reason I find it perturbing that members on the other side of the House want to make inflation an integral part of our financial structure. I think it was the hon. member for Yeoville who suggested in the Railway Budget debate that we should make provision in the cost structure of the Railways to fight inflation by making a certain concession for the sake of inflation. If we were to make inflation an integral part of the cost structure of the Railways, whether in the wage policy or in the policy in respect of pensions, we would ensure that we would always have inflation far into the distant future and then we would not be honest and genuine in our endeavour to fight inflation. It is for this reason—because all the members on this side of the House and I are serious in our aims and in our fight against inflation—that I appeal to hon. members on that side of the House in all seriousness to act in a very responsible manner when making any statements in respect of the labour policy in South Africa. Sir, we are at present dealing with a cost-push inflation and we are combating it by means of a policy to outgrow inflation, but the greatest danger threatening us here is that demand elements could be dragged into the question of inflation; that, together with a cost-push, we would also be making demand an integral part of inflation and if we were to introduce unrealistic wages into this system owing to irresponsible actions and an irresponsible wage policy in respect of the Bantu, we would have to take into account that, together with the cost-push, we would also build in demand elements which would ultimately become uncontrollable in our fight against inflation. For that reason I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House cannot adopt a negative attitude towards any attempt to increase the standard of living of any group of the population in South Africa, but such an increase of wage levels, even if it were for the non-Whites, should always be most realistic and in accordance with reality.

Sir, it was in another place at another time that Pres. Nixon, addressing the American people over television, gave an indication of the fact that he as the head of the State recognized that fundamental to the nation’s welfare as the necessity to win the battle against inflation. What he said was this—

He went on to say that one of the most terrible costs of the war that faced America in the East had been inflation. Sir, we have not had the problem of a major war to make worse our own problem of inflation. He went on to say that having recognized four years ago that the rate of inflation was becoming unacceptable in America, his Government had taken steps and succeeded in halving the rate of inflation and today —to quote his words—

Pres. Nixon went on to say—

Sir, inflation today is doing tremendous harm to our country. The hon. the Prime Minister said he had heard nobody else describing the Budget of the Minister of Finance as a gamble. In this connection I want to quote to him from a speech by Prof. Jonathan Suzman, given to the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg only recently, where he said—

Then, too, Dr. Hupkes, addressing the Association of Accountants at Hermanus only recently, again warned that the gamble taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance could become disastrous unless his objectives were achieved and, to use Dr. Hupkes’s words, we could be faced by unimaginable runaway inflation. Sir, we are playing with the nation’s wealth; we are playing with the welfare of the individual, and what worries me most is that the Prime Minister does not seem to realize that it is not the privileged White South African we are discussing in this House today. In our battle against inflation it is not the United Party versus the Nationalist Party; we are fighting to save the value of the money of every individual in this country. We tend to overlook that when we talk about commodities such as meat and other basic foods, most White families are relatively privileged, but it is the families who spend most of their income on food who are the greatest sufferers under the inflation which this country is experiencing. It is not enough merely to indicate, as has been done before, that wages are keeping up with inflation. We have had sufficient warning to make us see that time is running out and that by the end of this year we may have inflation which can no longer be matched by wage increases. For as long as we have been in the Opposition we have been calling for the better utilization of the manpower of South Africa and of our natural resources, our capital and our know-how. We have pleaded for greater attention to be given to drawing immigrants to this country in order to increase the size of the total cake which now has to be divided amongst so many more people because of the population explosion. It has been said time and again that perhaps we have in this country five years in which to create industrial peace where the majority of our people do not feel frustrated, do not feel that they are forced to live under restricted circumstances and do not feel that they are not allowed to use what may be their God-given graces and skills. When you read the daily Press, and when you come to this debate itself, you see that this is the first time that the hon. the Prime Minister has realized—as Nixon said about Truman, that he had a notice on his desk saying the “buck stops here”—after 25 years of the Nationalist Party being in power, and they will be celebrating the fact shortly, that he has to face up to the fact that successive Nationalist Ministers of Finance and successive Ministers of Economic Affairs have maintained that they would stake the Government’s reputation on containing inflation, but this is what they have failed to do. They are not containing inflation. In fact, it was said only recently that the seasonally adjusted annual rate of inflation during the first three months of 1973 was 13%, which is a rate four times that which we used to regard as the maximum a couple of years ago. This is the problem which the Government just does not seem to be able to face up to, and it has given us no solution whatsoever. There is no indication that the present Budget is having any success. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that he was very proud to see that motor vehicles have had record sales. That is so, but the bottleneck which the motor industry is going to come up against immediately will be that after two or three months of record sales they will run out of stocks and they will not have the manpower to continue the production of motor vehicles at that stage. Then the Prime Minister has also not indicated the fact that out of the frustration of our people, our lack of public transport, the increased wages that have been made available are being canalized into a pent-up demand for motor vehicles which was at an all-time low only during recent months.

It is nonsense to say it was at an all-time low.

I accept that. Then again the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that he is very proud of our export performance, but just as he has blamed the drought for the high price of potatoes, he does not give credit to the fact that it is an act beyond the control of this Government which has resulted in our gold price reaching an all-time high, that our wool prices have been restored to their old levels, that we are getting higher prices for minerals and that the overseas markets have increased. That has nothing to do with the efficacy of this Government. The fact is that we are merely, as has been said before, riding on the back of the old philosophy that “Alles sal regkom”.

But what does the man in the street see in the final analysis when he takes home his pay? Compare 1968, a year when the Government was in power, with 1971. The basic figures show that in food there was a 30% increase since 1968, in meat a 46% increase, in fish 49%, in vegetables 61%, in fruit 39%, in sugar products 12%, in rental for homes 41%, in fuel and light 24%, in furniture 29%, and so it goes on. The burden lies on the man in the street who has a fixed income and not on those who are privileged to be entrepreneurs, speculators or property owners who can benefit from increased prices. This burden is today becoming a real one which they can no longer face. Again we have only five years or less in which to reconcile the attitudes of the White people with that of the non-Whites, the Bantu and the Indians. At the present pace this Government is moving there is no indication whatsoever that their desire to achieve productivity, the much-talked about productivity, can ever match the need to achieve that productivity if we are to maintain the situation that is so necessary and that has been stressed by my Leader, namely that if we want to increase our productivity to the range of 7% or 8%, an increasing intake of African labour must be found a home for. The situation of the African in the urban areas is something which will get out of control. As has been said before—I think by the hon. the Prime Minister himself—what we fear is friction between the races based on frustration of the lower-income races in not being allowed to achieve what they know they can achieve with their God-given resources and with State training.

Mr. Chairman, in these times, students in South African politics are particularly interested in the persons of Mr. Harry Schwarz, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They are not only interested in these two persons as individuals in South African politics, but also in their schools of thought and the ideals which they cherish for South Africa. Moreover, they are also interested in these two persons because of the connection which exists between them in present-day South African political life and also because of their connections with the major political directional trends of the modern world. In addition to this, students in South African politics are also interested in these two persons because of their particular association with the Press in South Africa.

I do not wish to say a great deal today about the hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, because I should like to express a few thoughts concerning the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular. The hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, however, revealed himself during a debate in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal as a person incapable of occupying a responsible position in South Africa. I think the hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal is suffering from conceited chauvinism. In this connection I want to quote a single example and then leave the matter at that. During a debate he referred to the member of the Provincial Council for Pietersburg in the following terms—

He spoke these words and he referred to the hon. Mr. Hough and also to other members. Not only did he refer to the Houghs, but also to the Steyns, the Fouries, the Malans, the Bronkhorsts, the Pypers, the De Villierses, the Graaffs and also …

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

I do not have time now to reply to questions.

He withdrew those words.

Yes, and I want to read his withdrawal. It is very interesting.

That shows you what goes on in his mind. [Interjections.]

When the hon. Mr. Schwarz withdrew this, he said, inter alia, the following—

Contained in that withdrawal, to my way of thinking, is the idea that we as politicians in the Transvaal are dealing with a leader of the United Party in whose personality and political aspirations there is a built-in standpoint which is dangerous not only to sound human relations in South Africa, but also to all those population groups who see meaningful values in their own identity and in their own continued existence. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is a good friend of the hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. Earlier this year he said the following in the course of a debate, and I quote from Hansard of 5th April, col. 4027—

He was referring to us on this side, but then se went further and made the following general statement in column 4208—

I want to point out that if there is one party in South Africa that realizes that the largest percentage of the students in South Africa are fine young men and women, it is the National Party. I think most of the members of the United Party agree with what I am saying now. [Interjections.] Do hon. members not agree that the largest percentage of the students in South Africa are fine young men and women?

Of course.

The point I want to make is that in this regard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a statement which was untrue. I want to state categorically that the largest percentage of students in South Africa are fine young men and women. What is interesting, is that the hon. member as a front-bencher went further and said that it appeared to him—

I can say a great deal about student communities in the world. In many parts of the world student communities have really become a problem, but I want to leave this matter at that because it is a wide field of study. The hon. member for Yeoville said, inter alia, that Nusas as an organization was engaged in painting conditions in South Africa as black as possible in order to give an impressing of the necessity for its own activities and for the financing of those activities. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, however, said that it seemed to him as though some people in the country were losing their balance in regard to students. The hon. member for Yeoville also said (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it seemed to him as though some people in the country were losing their balance in regard to students. The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say (translation)—

The hon. member went on by saying (translation)—

And consequently he mentioned these. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said however, that it seemed to him as though people in South Africa were losing their balance in regard to students in South Africa. In contrast to what the hon. member for Yeoville said, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went further and said that what was necessary in South Africa was not that the members of the Schlebusch Commission, United Party members such as Mr. Marais Steyn and National Party members, should set out investigating organizations such as Nusas with all their connections and investigating a finding submitted by a commission, but that we should appoint a commission to investigate all apartheid measures which had been made applicable since 1948 in South Africa. This afternoon, in this hour, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I as a member of this hon. House, together with the hon. member for Mooi River and other hon. responsible members on that side of the House would like to see peace, stability and order in this country of ours and now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the light of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us, to indicate to us under this Vote what measures he as alternative Prime Minister of this country wants to abolish. What measures does he want to abolish in respect of the contact situation in White South Africa. We want to know this because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a frontbencher of the United Party. He is a frontbencher who co-operates very closely with the Leader of the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Schwarz, and it is very clear from the Sunday Times not only that these two gentlemen have a bond between them, but also that they consult the Sunday Times and the political correspondents of the Sunday Times.

It is only fair towards the electorate of South Africa for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give us a very clear indication of what role and what place a man such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout takes in his party. What role does he play? What role does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout play in the agreement we reached with regard to the security of the State, which concerns the security not only of the White man but also of the non-White, i.e. the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian? If it is true that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not satisfied with the findings of this commission, it is his duty to stand up here and to tell us precisely where he differs from those findings. I want to ask him whether he wants to allow us to create student communities in South Africa who want to move in the same directions as the student communities we have seen all over the face of this earth. In the times in which we are living, the student is in contact with the major philosophic trends in the world. He is experiencing a time of the greatest uncertainty in his own mind, a time in which he is seeking for meaningfulness and value for his own existence and for his continued existence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. member for Rissik should wait until after the next election before he questions our leader, who will then be Prime Minister. He has obviously forgotten what this discussion is about. We are discussing the Prime Minister’s Vote. The questions are being put to the Prime Minister.

See how your leader is blushing.

Well, you of course never blush, even when compliments are paid to you! I do not know whether that is something to your credit or not.

Now he is blushing!

Is he blushing now?

I am blushing for him at his embarrassment.

I do not intend dealing with the hon. member for Rissik. Mr. Schwarz of the Transvaal has already dealt with the charge against him that he was insulting the Afrikaner race. I understand that he apologized and said he was only referring to one particular man who happened to annoy him. In any event, it was not original. Disraeli said the same thing in England. I do not know whether there was an uproar about it when Disraeli said that, but it was not an original remark when Mr. Schwarz said it. In any event, it ill behoves members on that side of the House to come with race relation charges against us after the Boerehaat campaign we experienced in Oudtshoorn.

However, the hon. members are not going to relieve the hon. the Prime Minister of our charges against him. They are not going to draw red herrings across the trial of the queries we want to put to him. The hon. the Prime Minister’s portfolio is now being discussed and he is the man who has to answer for his Government. He is the man who must tell us what his policies are. We have been left out in the dark far too long with regard to which direction the hon. the Prime Minister is taking. Mr. Blaar Coetzee said in a recent article that the Nationalist Government had been in power for 25 years and that they had had four main leaders. He said that at no stage during that time was there any dissatisfaction with them. Dr. Verwoerd, he said, was expected to be a very controversial leader but he had achieved many significant things and was at the peak of his political power when he was assassinated. He certainly was a controversial leader and he was unfortunately assassinated at the peak of his career.

Read further. What did he say further?

You can get up and read it to me when I sit down. He was quite right that Dr. Verwoerd was controversial, and had Dr. Verwoerd lived longer he would only have fallem from grace because it has been proved that his whole policy of separate development, his whole ideology and his theories were blunders. The rigid observance of apartheid is gradually being broken down by this Prime Minister. I give him credit for it, but it is being broken down grudgingly and almost surreptitiously with plausible exonerations about reasons for multi-nationalism as against multi-racialism. The reluctance to depart from the teachings and the ideologies of Dr. Verwoerd still exists today. I do not know why that should be. Mr. Blaar Coetzee, now that he is an ex-member of the Cabinet had something to say on this score. In writing about the Nico Malan Theatre he said that he could see no reason why multi-racial audiences should not be allowed. He said that when he mentioned it, many people would say “oh yes, the decision was Dr. Verwoerd’s”. Then he goes on to say that Dr. Verwoerd could have changed his mind and continued: “Dr. Verwoerd said at Loskop that Maoris would not be allowed to come to South Africa. But they were allowed to come and if the policy in regard to Maoris could be changed, why could not the policy in regard to the Nico Malan Theatre be changed?” There is therefore no doubt about it that Dr. Verwoerd was a controversial politician …

A great Prime Minister.

A great Prime Minister, but his critics have been proved correct. He was wrong in everything he did. His critics have been proved right. I say he was saved from ignominy, of having to admit failure and to yield from this granite-like impression he gave that he would stand firm. The Government has been compelled to depart from Dr. Verwoerd’s philosophies by the ordinary facts of life.

The cornerstones of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy of separate development were political and economic separation. He visualized a commonwealth of White South Africa and independent Black states which he was going to establish. How the Coloureds and the Indians were to fit in was not clear. He was obsessed with the Bantu. Fundamental to his ideology was the policy of industrial decentralization. This was a fallacy, a delusion. There is nothing wrong with industrial decentralization. We approve of industrial decentralization and it is done in every country of the world. They are all trying to do it, at any rate. We approve of it, but not for ideological purposes. Where Dr. Verwoerd’s policy failed was that he tried to do it for ideological purposes. The whole facade of his depiction is crumbling and it is also crumbling as far as the decentralization of industry is concerned, the decentralization to the borders of the Reserves. Dr. Verwoerd was opposed to allowing White capital in the Reserves. He wanted industrial development to take place on the borders of the Reserves and not in the Reserves. He did not want private White capital to go into the Reserves. One of the reasons he gave for the rejection of private White capital was that it would promote the idea of economic partnership leading to political partnership. Foreign interests could be involved in this way competing from the homelands in the South African market as well as possibly complicating the country’s political problems. Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what his policy is in regard to allowing private White capital into the Reserves. Does he still stand by what Dr. Verwoerd said?

It has been discussed across the floor of this House many, many times.

I am putting forth another point in connection with White capital. What we have not discussed before, is allowing foreign White capital into the Reserves. If the Prime Minister …

We have discussed it time and again.

Well, then the Prime Minister is also departing from Dr. Verwoerd’s policy with regard to the issue of White capital. Surely, it is another one of Dr. Verwoerd’s plans which are being discarded by the Prime Minister. We do not disapprove of the Prime Minister discarding Dr. Verwoerd’s policies. What we condemn is the hesitancy and the reluctance on his part to face up to the facts. The Prime Minister is said to be a pragmatist, and that approach is to be recommended, but then there must be direction, and at present the Prime Minister is not giving direction. He cannot keep on stalling on the fundamental issues such as, for instance, the political future of the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Bantu. It is time he told us what his policies are with regard to these peoples.

What is your policy?

I am not saying what our policy is now; I am asking the Prime Minister what his policy is. The country is entitled to know what his policy is. For far too long we have had to sit here, being put off by witty speeches and evasions by the Prime Minister. But with the state in which the country is at present, with the uncertainties prevailing in the country today, it is only right that the Prime Minister should tell us what the position is.

It is not necessary to become so agitated when they ask you about your policy.

Sir, I am not agitated at all. This hon. Prime Minister will not agitate me. I do have a policy. I can tell him what my policy is. But he cannot tell me what his policy is. I challenge him to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei merely emphasized one fact, i.e. that the Opposition is clutching at straws—or should I say “leaves”?—to come into power. It was alleged here that the hon. the Prime Minister was supposed to disparage the policy of apartheid. I want to say to you, Sir, this afternoon that this hon. the Prime Minister is not disparaging a policy; under his guidance our policy is being expanded and developed even further. I think I can say this afternoon— and I do so with the utmost responsibility —that the position of the hon. the Prime Minister is as strong as anybody’s could be in South Africa, just as strong as any of his predecessors, if not stronger.

Having also listened to speakers on the Opposition side, one could easily—if one does not know what the true state of affairs is—get the impression that the sun will not rise over South Africa tomorrow morning. I have listened to what was being said here this afternoon and, according to Opposition speakers, this country is in a very poor state economically and, according to them, there are probably millions of people who will go to bed tonight without their having had anything to eat. One does not have to go back very far to prove that the Opposition is wrong. What they said this afternoon, is further proof to me that this Opposition does not have any contact with the practical situation outside this House and that they have completely lost contact with the outside world.

The past long week-end alone served as clear proof to us that the economic situation in this country is not as bad as they have alleged here. In my constituency there is a major attraction for holiday-makers and I went to the trouble during the past week-end to go and see what was happening there. I want to say to you this evening, Sir, that there were thousands of holiday-makers—not tourists from abroad, but our own people, Whites and non-Whites, who visited those places. This we do not begrudge them. It was the same at all the other holiday resorts in our country. I want to make the statement this evening that millions of rands were spent during the past week-end by people who simply went on holiday.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.