I move—

Mr. Speaker, I intend making my Budget speech on 20 March. As hon. members know, it is however necessary, whilst awaiting the passing of the Appropriation Bill, for provision to be made in the meantime for State expenditure. Usually provision is made to cover a period of three months, but in this Bill funds covering a period of three and a half months are being asked for to avoid embarrassment to the Treasury in case the promulgation of the Appropriation Act should be delayed somewhat. It is very difficult at this early stage to say how long the Session will last. As hon. members will have noted, R240,000,000 is being asked for on the Revenue Account, R6,000,000 on the Bantu Education Account and R3 5,000,000 on Loan Account, making a total of R281,000,000. If approved of, these funds can be used to cover only the cost of existing services already approved by Parliament, and new services are excluded.

Although I do not wish to anticipate my Budget speech by painting a general picture of the finances of the country and the Government and the state of our economy, there are nevertheless a few matters of financial interest I should like to mention for the information of hon. members. In the first place I wish to refer to the scheme of selling gold R2 coins abroad. That is the scheme I announced a year ago. This scheme has been reasonably successful, and with the approval of the Treasury the gold mines during 1962 exported altogether 700,000 R2 coins for sale abroad. These R2 coins are of course not yet as well known in the gold market of the world as the older gold coins such as the British Sovereign, the French Napoleon or the Swiss Vreneli, and the premium earned by our coins above their gold value is still relatively small. However, this premium has increased during the year and has resulted in a useful additional amount to the gold mines. The most important aspect of this experiment is, however, that the wider distribution of gold coins will help to create a wider interest in increasing the price of gold.

In my Budget speech of 1962 I announced two measures to relax currency control in respect of the transfer of the proceeds of South African shares sold by non-residents in South Africa. The first was the issue of a special blocked rand loan. In spite of the many favourable conditions, which were also regarded as such by this House, the interest evinced by foreign shareholders was relatively small, which is evidently an indication that the majority of them preferred to retain their South African shares. They were given the opportunity to take back all their capital within five years under very favourable conditions, but they preferred not to do so. Thus far approximately R1 1,000,000 has been invested in this blocked rand loan, although we expected it to be R20,000,000.

The second measure was the scheme in terms of which permits were issued to South African financial institutions to purchase South African shares on the London Exchange, provided the difference between London prices and the South African prices is paid over into the account for special defence equipment. This scheme was later supplemented by the so-called arbitrage scheme, in terms of which foreign currency was made available to the Exchange from time to time for the purchase of shares in London by recognized arbitrage brokers, provided a percentage of the profits was paid over to the Defence Account. An amount of approximately R20,000,000 has already been invested in these two schemes, whilst further obligations to a total amount of R30,000,000 are still outstanding. That is in regard to permits issued but not used yet. Many permits, however, are not used and the actual outstanding obligation is probably appreciably less than R30,000,000. Hitherto the two schemes together have resulted in a contribution of R 1,600,000 to the Defence Account. Both these schemes helped to reduce the difference between share prices in London and Johannesburg, so that the average discount in London is now between 10 per cent and 12 per cent. These margins could probably have been smaller if the Johannesburg Stock Exchange had not remained so firm.

The favourable balance of payments and the sharp increase in our foreign reserves have resulted in a considerable increase in the liquidity of our economy, which has given rise to certain problems in our money market. The measures I have mentioned have of course reduced some of this superfluous liquidity, whilst the Treasury also assisted by issuing appreciable amounts of Treasury bills in spite of the comparatively high level of the Treasury’s balance in the Reserve Bank. However, these measures were not sufficient totally to absorb the superfluous liquidity, as is indicated by the very low level, below 2 per cent, to which the tender rate for Treasury bills has sunk. It has accordingly been decided to allow the commercial banks to invest limited amounts abroad temporarily in terms of an exchange agreement made with the Reserve Bank. In terms of this arrangement, some R40,000,000 has at present been invested overseas by the commercial banks. This amount is in fact an additional foreign reserve over and above the gold and currency reserves held by the Reserve Bank, and because it is a short-term loan it can be repatriated within a comparatively short time. Attention is being devoted to other measures for absorbing superfluous liquidity should the position obtaining during recent months again develop.

The measures in regard to the purchase of South African shares abroad, together with the blocked rand loan, in fact amount to a relaxation of our currency control measures in respect of capital transactions. Further relaxations were also effected administratively. In that way, for example, certain South African firms were allowed to transfer appreciable capital amounts abroad in order to protect our export trade or when it was considered to be in the national interest to do so. The amount leaving South Africa in this way, or which will flow out within the near future, approximately amounts to a further R20,000,000. If these various amounts are added together hon. members will see that there has been an appreciable relaxation in our control of capital outflow.

We soon expect, however, to reach the lean period in our balance of payments when our reserves normally fall. With these facts in mind, it is intended gradually to reduce the amounts invested abroad by the commercial banks to a level more or less equal to our outstanding obligations under the schemes for the purchase of shares. As I already said, these obligations at present amount to just under R30.000,000. The strength of our foreign reserves has to a large extent restored the confidence in South Africa of foreign investors, as I personally found when visiting the U.S.A, a few months ago. There are now gratifying signs of increased confidence in the country in our economy also. Therefore I move.

The hon. the Minister in his short speech has given some interesting figures to the House. The indications he has given e.g. in regard to the blocked rand scheme not being made use of by overseas investors, indicating their confidence in South Africa, and the fact that the use of the other scheme is diminishing at present in regard to the purchase of shares by our own people, seem to indicate that the lack of confidence in this country is being largely overcome. The Minister has pointed out that in various respects there has been a relaxation of the currency control regulations, and one can only hope that it will not be long before they can be removed altogether, because, after all, they were imposed as an emergency measure and not because anybody liked them or wanted them. The Minister says that in his journeyings abroad he found that the fact that our reserves had increased to such an extent had contributed towards the good opinion held by overseas financial institutions as to the creditworthiness of the Republic. I think the sooner we can get to the stage where we can afford to remove currency control altogether, the sooner that confidence will be restored completely, because after all it is a restriction applied in an emergency and if the emergency is over and the outflow of capital is no longer a serious problem, then obviously it is to our advantage as soon as possible to remove these restrictions and to revert to normal practices.

The hon. the Minister has pointed out the very high figure to which the exchange reserves have climbed—he did not mention the figure, but we ail know it.

I did not mention it, but it is R438,000,000.

He pointed out also that the practice of allowing the commercial banks to invest money abroad, and also the money made available out of the second scheme, in effect increased our available reserves. I know the Minister said that this was the time of the year when we expect our reserves to fall, but normally they do not fall as badly as all that, and one still wonders what the Minister has in mind as to removing the other restrictions which have led to the amassing of these enormous reserves. We hope one of these days to get from the Minister a clear statement as to what he will regard as a safe balance for the country, which will enable him to revert to the position as it was before these emergency restrictions were applied.

The hon. the Minister has been mildly optimistic in his short statement, both in regard to Government finances and the private sector. On a short-term basis I think probably he is justified in being mildly optimistic. I think if you ignore all other factors, which do not necessarily fall under the control of the Treasury, and there are many of them, and if you judge simply and solely by the figures we have to-day; the easy state of the money market referred to by the Minister where he talked about trying to reduce the liquidity, the improvement in the unemployment figures and the increased imports and the increase in private consumer expenditure, although I must say that that has been rather boosted up in the public mind by Government speakers as part of the P.A.Y.E. holiday—that may be so, but if it is so I think we are likely to see a reduction in consumer expenditure after 1 March when people start paying income-tax again. But nevertheless, taking all these things into consideration, I agree with the Minister that commerce and industry and financial institutions and economic activities generally are in a better temper than they were 12 months ago. It all goes to show that this very tough South African economy of ours, in spite of all the multiple mistakes of this Government, has survived another crisis. When one sees over the last 12 years how many crises this country has had to face, financial and otherwise, nearly all due to the mishandling of the situation by this Government, and when one sees that the country has survived them all, one can only sit back with almost tears in one’s eyes at the thought of what might have been if a wise Government had been in power. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh, but it is the laughter of guilty men.

The Minister is asking for R251,000,000 for revenue purposes. That is R35,000,000 more than he asked for last year for revenue purposes. Last year he asked for R176000,000. and therefore he is now asking for R34,000,000 more than last year for the interim period until the Budget is passed. He explained that last year he only asked money for three months, and this year he is asking for funds for 3½ months. I do not know whether that indicates that we will be here until the end of July or not, but if it does not mean that it might alternatively mean that we may expect a very substantial increase of expenditure under the Budget. The Minister may be able to give us a reassurance, because if the country has to look forward in times of prosperity, according to the Prime Minister, to vastly increased expenditure by the Government, that may well temper the fond hopes which are being nourished by the taxpayers that there will be a somewhat easier Budget.

You must limit your demands on the State for further expenditure.

But what demands does the Government make on the taxpayers? That is the real point. The real point is: What is the Government doing with the taxpayers’ money. The taxpayers are very generous and long-suffering in what they give to the Government, and it is a question of what the Government does with their money.

This debate is very often called the “little Budget debate ”. I have never understood why. It is a complete misnomer. It is a general debate and may cover a wide field. But the only thing the debate cannot deal with is the Budget, so I do not know why it is called the “little Budget debate ”.

Because only half the time is allowed for talking a lot of things which are not really sense.

If the hon. the Minister will pay attention for the next five or six hours to the speeches from this side of the House, he will hear a great deal of sound commonsense. Although we cannot anticipate the Budget, what we can do is to tell the Minister some of the things which we expect him to remedy if an opportunity occurs, and if that opportunity occurs during the Budget debate that is when we shall expect him to remedy them. We propose this afternoon to concentrate and try to pinpoint two of what we believe to be glaring examples of the Government’s neglect to do its duty. I am merely going to indicate these two things, and they will be dealt with in greater detail by speakers who follow me.

The first one is the position of the 90,000-odd pensioners in this country who are having a very hard time. The Minister will agree with me when I say that, because in last year’s Budget he said that he had given attention “to the alleviation of the lot of the less fortunate members of the community to the extent that our resources permit”, and he went on to say that “the Government attaches high priority to the needs of the social pensioners ”. Those were good words which had the support of all sections of the House, but he then went on to say that unfortunately last year’s Budget was a “guns before butter” Budget and that all he could spare for the social pensioners, for whom his heart was bleeding, was some R3,800,000. At that time, when he made that statement, the Minister was showing a surplus of some R5.000.000, and that being so he could not see his way clear to do more than he did for the pensioners. But before the end of the session he confessed to this House—I have never seen the Minister blush before, but he blushed on that occasion—that his surplus was not R5,000,000 but R 15,000,000, and what the final surplus was I do not know, but it was not less than R 15,000,000. In other words, his surplus was nearly four times as much as he found himself able to give to these needy pensioners. One can only say that the Minister, in saying that he wanted to help them to the extent of his resources, gravely under-estimated his resources and we hope he will not make that mistake again when he introduces his Budget.

The other point I wish to discuss is the future of the Rand and the threat to the Rand created not only by the expiration of the lives of many mines but also by the industrial policy of the Government. When one thinks of the number of mines which will have to close down within the next few years, and when one realizes that the Government is doing all in its power to discourage the development of new industries on the Rand and is pushing them out under all sorts of bribes to the border areas, one realizes that this matter needs the serious attention of this House and of the Government. I remember that when Mr. Macmillan made his speech in this House the Prime Minister replied to him, and in the course of his reply he said that is all right, but what about the White man? Well, these two points overwhelmingly concern the future of the White man and his welfare, and I think it would be a very good thing if for a change hon. members opposite concern themselves with the future of the White man. [Interjections.]

Just listen to the dogs howling now!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

In order to facilitate the discussion, which I can see is going to be a lively one. I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) the Government’s continued failure to provide reasonable security for the many thousands of our people dependent on social pensions by—
   1. (i) increasing the present pension rate; and
   2. (ii) relaxing the provisions of the stringent means test; and
2. (b) the Government’s lack of plans for industrializing the Witwatersrand when the great majority of mines are rapidly coming to the end of their economic life”,

I second.

I find myself in a somewhat difficult position to-day. For the first time the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) was very brief on this occasion, namely the debate on the “Little Budget ”; and in the second place I find myself in the position of heartily agreeing with three-quarters of what he said. Contrary to what we have always had from that hon. member in the past, namely terribly pessimistic jeremiads, he said here to-day that he agrees with the hon. the Minister that for the time being at least we have reason to be optimistic. He then mentioned all the factors giving rise to our optimism. I completely agree with him. That is a totally new note in the approach of that hon. member.

When we look at the amendment moved by the hon. member on behalf of the United Party, we have to conclude that things are going very well indeed with our national economy, because the only aspects they could touch upon, although I do not wish to belittle the first one, was the question of the increasing of pensions, and secondly, the alleged threat to the Witwatersrand as the result of the closing down of certain mines. Therefore in the whole, wide field of our national economy those were the only two weak points which he, as he himself said, could pinpoint. In regard to the question of pensions, I do not want to make myself guilty of anticipating the Budget. I think this is a matter which, in due course, will be fully dealt with, and a complete answer will be given to the hon. member. I believe that other speakers on our side will also take the matter further after, as the hon. member said, other speakers on his side have discussed it further.

I now come to the second aspect, namely the so-called threat to the Witwatersrand as a result of the fact that quite a number of mines are already closing down and that further mines will close down in the near future. These are facts well known to the Government. In fact, there has already been a commission of inquiry which investigated the matter, but let me now tell the hon. member that in none of those municipalities on the Rand has there been an appreciable decrease in the White population. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that where mines have closed down their place has been taken by other industries, and we find an increase and not a decrease in the number of industries developing in those areas.

Another fact which is also mentioned is that at the moment there is large-scale prospecting taking place along the Witwatersrand, which we hope may lead to new goldfields being discovered. I do not want to anticipate the findings of the mining houses concerned with it, but I believe that this is certainly a factor giving rise to hope in view of the fact that in certain areas the main reef has already been discovered, although not yet in economic quantities. But these are all facts which prove that the hon. member is seeing bogies and that this amendment is not justified. It is possible that in the vicinity of Randfontein and Krugersdorp there may be some measure of depopulation, but on the other hand we should not forget that, particularly as far as Krugersdorp is concerned, there is an appreciable shifting of population from the Johannesburg area itself. This is a matter, as I have already said, which the Government has already investigated and which will, of course, have its continuous attention. I therefore find it significant that where this is the first opportunity we have had to debate financial matters—not much was said in regard to financial matters in the no-confidence debate —we find that the hon. member for Constantia can raise only two points, viz. an increase in the pensions granted and the possible harmful effects on the Witwatersrand of the closing down of the mines.

He also referred to the development of border industries which he alleged would be a threat to the White population of the Witwatersrand. But what the Government is doing in regard to the development of border industries will have the effect of protecting the White man, and will not be to his detriment, and here we differ fundamentally from the United Party. As I will indicate later, economic considerations are and remain the main factor in their whole view of matters. Industrial development, favourable balance sheets, the profits earned, are the norms by which the country’s progress is tested, but I say that this aspect of the development of border industries holds no threat for the Witwatersrand in particular and the Whites in general, but is particularly in the interest of the Whites, because, as has already repeatedly been stated in this House, to the extent that we find the non-Whites are being integrated in the economy of South Africa, to that extent they will also be able to claim political rights in that White area. That is where we differ fundamentally from the United Party. Apart from that, it remains a fact that the industries developing in the border areas also employ White persons. The Government has already made considerable progress in this direction. As announced in the report of the Economic Advisory Council which was published last November, already approximately R 15,500,000 has been devoted to the development of the border industries. Of that amount R1, 500,000 will be spent on housing for Whites. I am not mentioning the provision of water and everything which accompanies it, but I just want to put it to the House that this expenditure will provide work for between 9,000 and 13,000 persons, which will, of course, also include Whites. Let us not lose sight of this basic fact; this development is and remains one of the basic principles of the National Party and of the Government, so as to ensure that, as the result of economic activities in the White area, there will not follow claims for political rights which will be a threat to White South Africa.

We should, however, not dispose so lightly of the amendment moved by the hon. member. I think the idea underlying this amendment is the fact that he considers that the tempo of our economic development is not as fast as it should in fact be, because if it is as fast as he himself would have liked to see it, and as so many hon. members opposite have already intimated, we would be able to pay out pensions to an unlimited extent, and provide social services, etc., to the extent that the United Party imagines they will be able to do if they are in power. I think this is the view underlying this whole amendment, and I therefore want to approach it in that light. We have already had indications of it during the no-confidence debate, when the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) argued on the same lines. What I find peculiar about the attitude of the United Party in respect of the problem with which the Government is faced, namely the slow tempo of our economic growth, is that the accusation is repeatedly hurled at us that we are not actually aware of this problem with which we have to cope. Let me mention just a few facts.

During last session this problem was actually the main theme of the Budget. It repeatedly received the attention of the Economic Planning Council. Not only did the report published last November, to which I have already referred, deal with this in complete detail, but various reports before that date actually concentrated attention on this problem, and if one listens to the United Party one gains the impression that there has been no economic progress for development during the past few years. Just allow me to read what the Economic Planning Council says in that regard [Translation]—

And now comes the important part—

And this sentence is very important—

When the United Party discusses the tempo of our economic development they, however, try to create the impression that there has been no fast economic growth during the past 15 months or two years. I believe that the paragraph I have just read out shows very clearly that there was an increase in the tempo of our economic growth. All the various factors mentioned from time to time by the United Party as factors which may lead to a slowing down in the tempo of our economic growth are thoroughly considered from time to time by the Government, particularly by the Prime Minister through his Economic Advisory Council. But when we talk about new development, the impression is created that new development in South Africa is taking place slowly, an impression which is due to the fact that one is inclined to judge this development according to the number of new industries established. In other words, if a number of new industries are not being established, one is inclined to say that the development is slow, but what is lost sight of is that the existing industries are expanding tremendously in their activities and scope. In many of those industries a chain reaction is set in motion. Let me mention an example. In the chemical industry an amount of R500,000,000 has already been invested and a new industry established such as, for example, the manufacture of synthetic rubber, which in its turn again leads to the processing of other new products. One therefore finds a chain reaction as the result of which existing industries are expanded. That is a fact which in my opinion is often ignored. I can mention another example and that is in regard to the processing of timber, where we are already exporting wood pulp to Canada to be turned into rayon. It therefore does not follow that the necessary increase in the tempo of economic development is lacking unless a whole series of new industries is established. It is equally important to have regard to the expansion of existing industries.

Another point we should not ignore is the fact that here in South Africa we have a total foreign investment in our industries of over R3,000,000,000. What is significant is that during the recent difficult time we passed through, most of the proceeds of those investments were ploughed back into South African industries, which is certainly a factor to indicate how much confidence those investors already have in our economy. I cannot omit to mention that one of the reasons why the United Party says that the tempo of our economic development is not as fast as it ought to be or will be if they are in power is the immigration policy followed by the Government until recently. Let me say in the first place that if the Government adopted a certain policy in regard to immigration, the United Party has to be blamed for it, because they are the people who wanted to make use of an immigration policy exclusively for petty political gain. But that is not my main argument; we have already repeatedly heard the main argument from the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that after we became a Republic and the old traditional differences were eliminated, we could tackle the question of immigration energetically. And what happened? Immediately after the establishment of the Republic, the Government energetically proceeded to establish a special department under a Minister to tackle this important matter. We are convinced that the policy we are following at the moment complies with the necessity to obtain particularly White artisans for the further development of our industries because, as the Economic Advisory Council correctly pointed out, as soon as we begin to feel the effect of the expenditure of the approximately R2,500,000,000 which the Government has set aside for Sasol, the Railways and the Orange River Scheme over a period of five or more years, we will have a shortage of artisans, and it is particularly for that reason that we are now already taking timeous steps to have the necessary manpower. But the point is we could energetically proceed with this policy when we had eliminated the other political problems by establishing a Republic.

Whilst dealing with this aspect, allow me to mention one of the best examples to illustrate how the winds of change which have troubled us so much in recent years, particularly as the result of the unfair and unjustified criticism we have had to endure in the outside world are now blowing in our favour. It is that in the past year, as was recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Immigration, more than 12,000 immigrants entered the country. Nobody can convince me that any person will give up his home to come to a country which according to the overseas Press is a powder keg which can explode at any moment. That to me is the best proof of the restoration of confidence in South Africa abroad—this tremendous influx of immigrants into South Africa and the further fact that there is a regular flow, I am informed, of approximately 600 immigrants a day who make inquiries at our London office. The cumulative effect of these steps taken by the Government must necessarily be enormously to stimulate the tempo cf our economic growth, which will be to the benefit of the whole country.

But there is another basic difference between us and the United Party which I cannot neglect mentioning. The hon. member for Jeppes, during the no-confidence debate, stated very clearly in his final paragraph that we are only concerned with the political development of the non-White and that we are neglecting the economic as well as the educational aspects of their development. In other words, he says that we are setting about it the wrong way. We put the political development of the non-Whites above everything else. Here we are dealing with a fundamental difference between the United Party and this side of the House, and on the other hand with a real misconception on the part of the United Party in regard to our policy. I do not want to detain the House long, but I just want to state clearly that it is the policy of the National Party throughout to ensure, in regard to our non-Whites and particularly the Bantu, that there will be simultaneous development in the economic and educational as well as in the political sphere. There we differ fundamentally from the United Party. The United Party, for whom the hon. member for Jeppes acted as the spokesman, sees in the non-White merely a person to serve the Whites for the sake of profits. To them only the economic aspect is decisive, whereas it is our policy to ensure that the educational and the economic as well as the political aspects should be developed simultaneously; in other words, to make them fully developed people. Where we are now dealing with the development of the political aspect it should not be interpreted to mean that we are exclusively dealing with that; everything the Government did in the past to ensure that the emphasis falls on the economic as well as the political development of the Bantu should be born in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I have not much to add to this. As I said, the hon. member who moved the amendment has to-day adopted such a changed attitude, with which I associate myself, that we are really looking forward eagerly to the Budget debate. I want to repeat that it is significant that, on this first occasion we have to discuss financial matters, the only weaknesses to which the hon. member should point were that on the one hand pensions should be increased, whilst on the other hand he sees imaginary dangers which may affect the Witwatersrand if the mines there close down. In the whole of our great and flourishing national economy, those are the only weak points he could find in the policy of the Government. I think it would have been fitting if the hon. member who moved the amendment had moved a motion of full confidence in the economic and financial policy of the Government.

Most of the points that have been raised by the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. H. G. Luttig) who has just sat down I will reply to in the course of my speech especially his reference to the border industries having been created for the benefit of the White man. I think that is quite a new point which nobody on that side has had the impertinence to raise up to now. I wonder what his constituents in Mayfair are going to say when they read what the hon. gentleman has said when they see the danger to which they are going to be exposed. I wonder what the Veka factory would say. I understand that that factory has now completely closed down and that it has set up its factory in Charlestown. Sir, is that for the benefit of the workers who were working before in the Veka factory of Johannesburg?

They have now dismissed another 41 White workers.

What about those people who have built up their whole life there, whose children have gone to school there, whose friends are there, who have paid off bonds on their houses and who own the houses; are they going to tear themselves up by the roots and go to Charlestown or are they going to have to be without work and try to find a job somewhere else? How the hon. gentleman has the gross impertinence that that is for the benefit of the White man I really do not know.

Sir, he congratulated the Government on its immigration policy. I could hardly believe my ears. In 1947 when the very best type of immigrant was available in Europe and anxious to get out of Europe because of the shambles that the war had created, when they were trying to come to this country, when Australia and Canada and New Zealand threw open their doors to immigrants not only from Britain but from all over the Continent, this Government came into power at a time when our scheme was working and when we attracted 45,000 immigrants in one year and proceeded to close down straight away. The reason given for discontinuing our policy was that there would not be work for our own people and that the immigrants might not have houses.

We do not want scum here.

How do you know what you are getting here now.

Sir, I ask the Government across the floor of the House: Where were the houses and what work did they have to come to when our ancestors came here 300 years ago? If they had not come here then, there would not have been a White South Africa to-day. Did they wait for houses to be built for them? Did they wait until there was work for them? They came here and created work and built up the country. What the hon. member said was quite fantastic; it was almost unbelievable. Instead of saying, “I admit on behalf of my Government that we made the greatest mistake that any government ever made in stopping that magnificent United Party immigration scheme in 1948”, he comes here 14 years later and brags about their having tried to create an immigration policy. Honestly, Sir, it is quite fantastic.

In supporting the amendment of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), I would like to say that in the sphere of monetary policy the Government seems to have acted too cautiously in some matters and too precipitately in others. At a time when business was sluggish, when a strong boost was called for all round not only was taxation not reduced but it was very effectively increased, a misjudgment of the situation which the Government now has to admit and for which it is to blame and of which it should be ashamed. If newspaper reports are correct, the people are overtaxed by R45,000.000. In passing it is amusing, if you have a morbid or sardonic sense of humour, to reflect that under the P.A.Y.E. scheme the taxpayer is forced, even if he only runs a small business, even if he is a simple farmer with no idea of how to keep accounts and lacks the means to hire a specialist to do it for him. to estimate his income to within 10 per cent; otherwise he will be heavily mulcted in penalties. Yet another branch of the same Treasury with all the brains, all the experience and all the knowledge at their disposal, cannot calculate the income and expenditure of the country to an extent of R45,000,000.

In what year was that?

I prefaced my remark by saying “if newspaper reports are correct The hon. the Minister should have listened to what I said. I was speaking of this year. To my knowledge those newspaper reports have not been denied. According to those newspaper reports the public will be overtaxed to the tune of R45,000,000 this year. The Treasury can make this mistake with complete impunity. And this is not in respect of one year only but in respect of the past ten years. [Interjections.] For the last ten years there have been surpluses every year. Either the Government are mutts or the Minister’s policy is misleading the country every year by deliberately overestimating the expenditure and under-estimating the revenue. It shows that it is the policy of the Government every year to come along and tell the taxpayer: Our expenditure is going to be so much, our income is to be so much, therefore I have to increase your taxation and I will get a small surplus of a few hundreds of thousands. When the end of the year comes what do we find? Huge surpluses of millions and tens of millions. It is very easy to get a surplus. As I have said you merely have to under-estimate the one and over-estimate the other and you have it. But, Sir, to get back to Government policy: When financial institutions are smothering in money no steps are taken to relax the hire-purchase conditions, for example, thus making it easier for the small man to pay the required deposit and thus obey the Minister’s exhortation to spend. The Government has rightly, in my opinion, increased the salaries and wages of public servants. At the same time the authorities must have realized that this would sow the seeds of an inflatory trend sooner or later—it was obvious it had to come—and therefore steps should have been taken immediately to meet this as a wage spiral was likely to ensue. But I can see no effort on the part of the Government to counter what must occur in the near future, namely, a wage spiral and therefore an inflatory period. The increase in railway rates, of course, does nothing to off-set this potential inflation. Some prices have already risen, others are bound to follow. To give one example: Cement prices have risen at a time when the building industry is in the doldrums and is trying to regain its position and when the price of cement is an important factor. The price of other essential commodities for commerce and industry, such as coal, has also gone up.

Sir, to debase the coinage is a criminal offence for it robs the widow, orphan, pensioner, rentier class and the unorganized salaried man or wage earner. And I particularly mention the pensioner because that is one of the legs of our amendment. Whether the coin is debased by clipping it as it was in the old days, or eroded by inflation makes no difference in the ultimate result to the unfortunate man who has a fixed salary or a fixed source of income. Therefore, the Government which encourages inflation or, where it can, does not take steps to prevent it, is guilty of a criminal offence against its people as a whole.

To revert to the Government’s budgeting: As I have already said, for the fiscal year 1961-2 the Government is going to have a large surplus. The newspapers say R45,000,000, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea. He must have some idea by now what the estimated surplus is likely to be. Was this due to lack of adequate statistics or does it reflect the Government’s extreme caution and perhaps lack of confidence in the country’s economic life? One way or the other this poor forecasting has meant that money has been diverted from the taxpayer’s pocket into the coffers of the Government which is unsound. It is not good to tax people more than is required. In passing, Sir. let me say this: We are continually told that we are the lowest taxed country in the world. If this were entirely true it would not merit great praise because a young developing country must have low taxation if it is to develop. You have to give an incentive to industrialists to expand. You have to give him a chance of making money. You have to give him a chance of building up a reserve against bad years and as a whole you have to give him some fat to live on when the lean years come. In a young developing country low taxation is one of the first essentials. Britain was able to fight a world war on the reserves of money earned and saved when taxation was almost negligible over a period of one or two centuries. Our taxation to-day is almost on a par with old and long-established industrial countries in certain brackets. I have taken very great trouble about the figures which I am about to give the House. If I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me but I have taken a great deal of trouble to see that they are correct. Our taxation exceeds in certain categories and brackets that of the United Kingdom. For instance—I am talking in pounds now—in the £10.000 bracket on earned income it is lower in Britain than it is here. In the £5,000 bracket it is only £120 more in Britain, in an old industrialized country which has been developed to its full.

It is a walfare state as well.

Yes, as my hon. friend says: in addition it is a welfare state. In the bracket above £6,500 to £10,000 we pay more taxation than they do in Britain. So do not keep on telling us that we are the lowest taxed country in the world.

Are you talking about income-tax or taxation generally?

I am talking about income-tax. In the £11,000 earned income bracket the taxation in the United States of America is lower than ours. Our view is that whilst adequate taxation is essential to meet the Government’s requirements excessive taxation retards the country’s development, for we all know that a rand in the hands of a taxpayer does twice the work of a rand in the hands of a Government Department and there can be no excuse for this gross and continuous miscalculation which is happening every single year.

Exchange and import controls to a large extent still exist though the position of our reserves has improved phenomenally since the low point of mid 1961. Is this calculated to enhance South Africa’s standing with overseas investors who were assured that the control measures were reluctantly imposed only as a temporary measure? How does the retention of import control, admitted with minor restrictions lifted, fit in with our obligations as a subscriber to the G.A.T.T.? Will retaliations from other nations not perhaps eventuate? There was a rumour in the newspapers to the effect that Japan was considering taking counter-measures. I believe that rumour has since been denied, but the mere fact that a rumour such as that could arise shows the position in which South Africa finds herself and shows that the Government’s policy is wrong.

Serious, indeed vital, issues are bound up with the Government’s doctrinaire approach to Bantu labour. The removal of Bantu labour from the Western Cape is apparently now firmly accepted. In fact it is to be speeded up. Yet no answer has been given to the replacement of the large numbers involved, apart from the vague talk of the Western Cape being the traditional home of the Coloured man. How can businessmen be expected to show faith and energy in an atmosphere of this kind? The Government casually talks about the Coloureds being able to replace the Bantu who are to be moved, yet no real investigation has been carried out as far as I know to ascertain whether there will be sufficient Coloureds to replace those Bantu. Can the Minister give us any figures to show that the Bantu to be removed will be replaced by Coloured labour? Does the Government really suppose that the Coloureds, especially the highly skilled ones, will be prepared to replace the Bantu in such work as the handling of coal in discharging trucks, bunkering ships, removal of refuse, distribution of milk, etc.? I know that in the country you cannot get any Coloured man to do your milking because he is not prepared to rise at two or three o’clock in the morning to milk the cows. Only the Bantu will do that.

Is that considered “kaffir work”?

Sir, I thought we were trying to get away from the use of such words as “kaffir work”, and that sort of talk. The point is simply that there are so many other opportunities for the Coloured man that he is not prepared to get up at two and three o’clock in the morning to do the milking. That has been my own experience. Whilst the farming community find it difficult enough now to get sufficient labour, how are they to replace their Native labour which is to be taken away from them in the near future? Furthermore, by creating scarcity of labour the Coloureds in the platteland will be attracted still more to the industries where city life and higher wages are more attractive. The result will be that the man on the platteland will be completely without labour. While one economic edifice is being demolished another is being set up on very shaky foundations, and here I want to come back to my hon. friend, the member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) who has apparently left the Chamber. He has probably gone to Mayfair. Some R20,000,000 worth of textile factories are to be built on the borders to be let to industrialists at nominal rentals for the first five years. All this, of course, at the taxpayer’s expense. A man who has an established industry, say, on the Rand, will now not only have to face the competition of a border industry but he will have to face the fact that he is helping to create, as a taxpayer that very competition. Income-tax concessions and favourable railage rates are designed to lure manufacturers to these areas. What will the effect be on those who wish to remain where they are? Those people who have homes there? Will not this policy tend to reduce the salaries and wages and therefore the standard of living and the spending power of those employed in established industries? Once you reduce spending power, Sir, you immediately retard the rate of a country. How are those people who have bonds on their factory premises going to meet their commitments? Clearly, Sir, the differentials involved will give the bordermen a cost advantage, and, although the Government intends to watch developments to prevent unfair competition—I admit they are going to do that —it seems only natural that the bordermen will in time be treated as the ugly sisters, whilst those industrialists who choose to remain in the White areas play the role of the Cinderellas. Now, Sir, what a foundation for economic efficiency! Must this not cause a setback to our industrial development? That is a question which any ordinary South African is going to ask himself. Increasing tariff protection must give rise to some concern. There is some suspicion that the Government would like to establish as many local industries as possible regardless of their possible lack of any competitive advantage over overseas concerns. A well-known economist recently stated that “because of the attempt to give tariff protection to virtually every type of textiles, current prices of clothing in South Africa are substantially higher than they otherwise should be”. He continued and said this: “Because of the ill-conceived and even worse administered programme to increase the South African content of cars, the average man’s car will cost him from R100 to R300 more.” Official interference in what is essentially a private sphere is also seen in the Railway’s handling of the petrol pipeline scheme. At first the Minister would have nothing to do with it, now he has agreed to do it but on one condition that the Railways handle it. This means delay and our attitude on this side of the House is that we stand for private enterprise. Where private enterprise is able and willing to handle a certain sphere of industrial development it should be left to them and the Government should not come and stick their noses into it and take that business away. Where a new industry is too big for private enterprise to handle—such as the Railways, Iscor etc.—the position is different.

Sir, the gap between skilled and unskilled wages is steadily widening, with all its implications of poverty and resentment for the lower-paid workers, particularly Bantu. This should receive immediate attention, but the Government—one of the largest employers of labour in the country—has failed to point the way. The position is aggravated by job reservation whereby the lower-paid worker is refused the incentive to qualify for higher responsibilities and higher pay.

It also needs to be stressed, once again, that the growth of real national income per head of the population of this country, though not lower than that of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A.—I fully admit that …

On a point of order, Sir, may I draw your attention to Rule 60 which lays down that an hon. member may not read his speech.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am not reading my speech; I am looking at my notes. Hasn’t he got the guts to take what I am saying? The national income per head of this country is still far too low for a country where the standard of living of the majority of the population is far lower than in the industrialized countries I have referred to. Even though at present the short-term outlook for the economy might be favourable, there is no guarantee that the impetus of any boom that may develop now will be strong enough to accelerate the tempo of growth not simply over one or two years but over a span of ten years, so that at the end of the decade the standard of living of the non-European population will have doubled which we submit is the minimum requirement if the Government’s policies of segregation are to be successful. This guarantee is lacking for the following reasons: (1) The outlook for the expansion of world trade is doubtful; (2) An increase in the price of gold is also extremely doubtful. The insistent milking by the Government—and this is another leg of our amendment—of the country’s most profitable stable industry, the gold mining industry, has brought us in a position where after a few years the gold mines will have reached their maximum expansion. I am not talking about a decline in production; I am talking about their maximum expansion, which is the only expansion which is to-day taking place in our economy in this country. I ask the Government this: What is to replace the mines? (3) Even at times when it is blatantly unnecessary the Government has followed, as I said before, a policy of budgeting for a surplus—whether accidentally or deliberately does not arise at the moment; I have dealt with that. By reducing the mobility of labour and an obviously under-co-ordinated wage policy (which is merely a complete lack of policy) the Government has failed to keep creeping inflation in check, which is essential particularly for the unorganized worker and for the rentier class. (4) Lack of co-operation at the highest levels has caused some Ministers and the controllable radio to undermine overseas confidence even more by their insistence on communist infiltration and sabotage in this country. Sir, in order to try to bluff the people outside, so that they can pass laws here which are against the ordinary beginnings of a democratic State, in order to befog the issue, the Government goes on talking about communist infiltration and sabotage, and there sit the biggest saboteurs; they are the big saboteurs of our good name overseas. By spreading such stories they are causing doubt in the minds of other people. What they say here to frighten our people in order to fog the issue is reported abroad and that gives South Africa a bad name overseas.

Sir, a substantial inflow of capital and the removal of exchange control seem, therefore, improbable. To sum up what I have been trying to bring to the notice of the House: There is no active, co-ordinated policy for growth and in its absence it is not likely that the present, admittedly favourable situation will persist.

Sir, on a point of order…

I am not prepared to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to ask the hon. member a question. I only want to ask whether I heard him correctly to say that the saboteurs were sitting on this side of the House.

Of the good name, yes. Sir, I said that the saboteurs of our good name were on that side of the House by spreading stories about communist infiltration and sabotage and all the rest of it and by making all these laws they were besmirching our good name.

In conclusion I should like to say this: To-Day our currency is one of the soundest in the world and every South African should be proud of it. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) says “daar sit die saboteurs ”… [Interjections.]

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Pelser): Order! I wish to point out that it depends on the sense in which the word is used. The way in which the hon. member used it is quite in order.

Thank you, Sir. Our economy is also strong viewed from the short term point of view, but on a long-term view it is not nearly as healthy as it should be. It seems to be a contradiction in terms, but a man can be strong but that does not mean to say that he is healthy. The position is this that whilst our economy is strong, in my own view, in the long run it is not healthy. Let me put it this way: Whilst the country is bursting at the seams with money and short-term investment has spilt over into the long-term category, and whilst it is earning interest, it is not really working for the expansion of our economy. It is earning interest for the owner of that money but it is not in any way really working to develop the country. It might just as well be kept in a sock under the bed for it is not expanding the growth and the economy of the country. What I mean is that risk capital whilst available is not being given the opportunity or outlet to widen our growth and development as it should be doing if it was given such an opportunity. It is the efficient employment of risk capital which develops, creates growth and expands the economy of a country and keeps it moving forward, and this leads to a higher standard of living for everybody concerned. If that risk capital had the confidence it would go in and start to expand the country but it has not got that confidence; it is only being invested to earn the owner some interest. The present position is that money is piling up but it is not really working due to the lack of confidence on the part of investors in the long-term view of the political situation here in South Africa which is deliberately being created by that side of the House. Sir, politics is holding this country back. For the reasons I have already given, risk capital investors cannot be expected to be enthusiastic to rush into helping to create new industries if they do not know, for instance, what border competition they will be faced with; what their labour problems are going to be; what labour they will be able to get. All those points that they are uncertain about, destroy the confidence of risk capital investments in this country.

On the surface the stock exchange is booming, but this is also entirely misleading. Prices have risen for several reasons which are not necessarily due to an expanding economy. Share prices may rise although there may not have been an equal boom in trade and industry and commerce. When a stock exchange is booming in most countries of the world it means that the whole expansion of industry, trade and everything else is bubbling over like a boiling pot and people are anxious to put their money out. But that is not the position here because, as I have explained, our economy is not expanding. Nobody can deny that. Let me given some of the reasons: Due to currency and import control, money must pile up. This is responsible for the financial and investment institutions, building societies and banks not being able to use it efficiently or effectively. When this happens and there is no expansion in the economy which demands risk capital, there is a shortage of outlets for investments and naturally interest rates drop. Immediately anything is in abundant supply as money is to-day, it becomes cheaper—the interest rates drop. When this happens, blue chip equities and other shares rise in price to meet the dropping interest pattern and gold shares rise above what they really should be priced at in view of the risk that is associated with any mining venture. A mine can be the most honestly run venture in the world but nobody can tell exactly what he is going to find until he gets down there. Therefore the interest rate on a gold mine should be a good deal higher than the ordinary investment rate of say, 5 per cent or 6 per cent, because of the risk and also because amortization should be provided for in any wasting asset. Again, Sir, because investment capital can find no outlet as risk capital in an expanding economy it must therefore look to existing markets for investment, the result is a shortage of scrip and this, whilst boosting the stock market, does not mean that the country as a whole is booming. I am trying to show that a boom on the stock exchange does not mean that there is a boom in the country as a whole. In other words, too many investors are chasing too little scrip. In short, it is a circle, I won’t say a vicious circle, but a circle nevertheless which gives a distorted picture of the actual position. And here is the point, Sir: All this is the outcome of the Government thinking only in terms of idealogies and not of economic developing and of discouraging inflation. The people are never given a chance to settle down. The dust is not given a chance to settle. As my hon. friend the member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) so wisely said one crisis follows another. Every session we have some new legislation which again upsets the people and the confidence in the country. Crisis follows crisis like a wild duck at sunset. What the country needs is tranquility. Stop making these laws, stop raising people’s anxieties. Stop undermining confidence overseas. Let us have confidence in the future. Let the Government just for one moment allow the country to settle down and this country will go ahead and boom.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to keep an eye on his colleagues so that they do not make speeches in this House which completely ignore the real position in South Africa, speeches which they make in spite of and in conflict with well-known facts. Instead of saying something which you can accept from somebody who uses his brains, they make wild statements in spite of most well-known facts, such as we again had here this afternoon. The big complaint this afternoon was that the economy of South Africa was not making sufficient progress and that it was not developing smoothly enough. But I want to leave it at that. The South African Digest happens to lie here on my desk. All hon. members opposite have it at their disposal. What do I read on the front page? I read that an American financier said this—

Listen to this—

Listen to it; “The best of the lot!” Did hon. gentlemen hear that? But in spite of that they come this afternoon and make those senseless speeches. I want to quote further—

He has never before had greater confidence in the economic future of our country. This is somebody who can speak with authority but in spite of that hon. gentlemen make wild statements and then they still talk about “saboteurs” who undermine the economy of South Africa. Then he goes on—

It is not a politician who is saying this, Sir, but somebody who can speak with authority on these matters. He says—

Exactly what we have always said in the past that where the mining industry has always played and still plays the important role, which it does in the economy of South Africa a substitute must gradually be found.

That was what I said.

Yes, but then the hon. gentleman added that the position on the Stock Exhange could also be misleading.

The “boom” is misleading.

The question is what those hon. gentlemen over there really accept as a yardstick. They do not accept the opinion of authoritative financiers. They do not accept the opinion of the Stock Exchange as yardstick. They do not want to take the fact that there is full employment in the country as a yardstick. They do not want to take the good crops which are in the offing in consideration. What on earth is the yardstick then by which you should measure a country’s prosperity? I wish that question would penetrate to their minds. Let them reply and tell us what they regard as the yardstick of a sound, prosperous economy? And let them then tell me where South Africa has fallen short of that yardstick during our time as a result of Government policy. Then they will have a case. But what do we find this afternoon? All sorts of statements which, on analysis, mean nothing. The hon. member who has just sat down (Major van der Byl) referred to the hon member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) and said:“Factories have closed down in your constituency. *Veka’ has closed down”. But that is not correct. That happened at Standerton not at Mayfair. Does the hon. member know where Standerton is? It is about 140 miles away from Mayfair. I notice that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is leaving the Chamber. He is the one person who should be hauled over the coals properly when these matters are discussed.

Just explain to us …

I shall explain a great many things to the hon. member if he would only exercise a little patience and be a little less nervous. But I was dealing with the hon. member for Green Point. I was explaining to him that the Veka to which he referred as being at Mayfair was at Standerton and that Standerton did not form part of the area which we have in mind when we talk about possible disruption on the Witwatersrand when certain mines close down there. The hon. member must listen and he will learn something. He is young and still has a lot to learn. I like to explain things to the hon. member for Yeoville, of course, to the best of my ability. There is Charlestown. The hon. member spoke about the factories there, but Charlestown did not come into being as a result of the establishment of border industries. The factories there have been in existence for years and in the past the hon. member for Yeoville has always referred to it as the “Hong Kong” of South Africa. What else is there for me to explain? I am trying to ascertain what the hon. member meant when he said all those things which he had scraped together. I am not an authority on the subject of taxation because I represent poor people but I do know that when the hon. gentleman wants to compare the taxation in England with that in South Africa, the taxation in England to which he has referred is only in respect of personal earnings and that dividends do not fall under that. Am I right? Yes. Another explanation! Let us now explain the position in regard to immigration. As the hon. member for Mayfair has also said, we have said all these years that under the former constitutional set-up not many people in Europe, or even in Britain, were anxious to come to South Africa. For various reasons but the main reason was that the Opposition continually proclaimed to the world that South Africa was sitting on a big powder keg and that it would soon explode and that everything would be lost. to-day the people of Europe and Britain and elsewhere no longer believe the stories of the Opposition because they realize that the statements which the National Party made before we became a Republic and the policies it proclaimed have become a reality under the republican set-up which we have to-day and to-day the potential immigrant throughout Europe and Britain has full confidence in South Africa and that is why immigrants and capital are flowing to South Africa.

Why did you not do that before?

What about the ploughing under?

*The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Pelser): Order! Hon. members should ask questions in the customary form.

May I ask the hon. member whether the Afrikaners will not be ploughed under now?

Let me explain again. The Afrikaners will no longer be ploughed under because the people who will be coming to South Africa will not have been recruited with the idea of ploughing the Afrikaner under, but they will be coming to a new fatherland. [Laughter.] Can I have a little silence in the classroom where I as teacher have to enlighten those hon. gentlemen? People will now have confidence in South Africa as a new fatherland. They are not being recruited with the idea that they should plough a certain section of the nation under. The danger of being ploughed under which was the idea of the Opposition in the past no longer exists. That was proclaimed by the Opposition. I heard Deneys Reitz say that in this House. Referring to the Afrikaans-speaking people and to the National Party they said they would plough that element under.

That is not true.

I should like to see the plough which will plough the Afrikaners under to-day. It will have to be some plough! That argument falls away completely. We can no longer be ploughed under. Those people will to-day become free citizens of a free Republic and they can bring their language and their culture here, everything that is dear to them, and they can live according to their own way of life under the National Party because we like the English language and we like the Afrikaans language. [Laughter.] Yes, the hon. member for Green Point laughs because he has never yet understood this basic doctrine which applies to the birth of a nation and its development. I say that both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking have a home here, and the English-speaking people can be as happy, no happier, here than in any other part of the world. Is the hon. member satisfied now that the danger which lay in their threat of ploughing us under will never materialize?

The hon. member for Green Point also said that they were in favour of private initiative. Yes, so are we. But the hon. gentleman must also admit that South Africa would have been poorer and that its economy would have been much more unsound and weaker had it not been for the opportunity which the National Party created for undertakings such as Iscor, Sasol-burg and others; undertakings which stand there to-day as monuments, as ornaments in the economic field. Had we adhered to the “rigid” system of purely private initiative advocated by the United Party, South Africa would not have had the benefit of such wonderful industries as Iscor and Sasolburg and many others. That is the difference between the private initiative of the National Party and that of the United Party. The United Party wants to leave everything to the whims of private capital. Whether it is essential for the future of the country or not, they only want private initiative, and if private initiative does no tackle it. South Africa must simply suffer. The National Party says no, when a proposition is of the magnitude of Iscor, of Sasolburg or the Orange River Scheme, it rests on the entire population of South Africa and then you must have a party in power which is strong enough, whose outlook is broad enough, to spot those things which are essential for the development of South Africa.

The hon. member for Mayfair, under pressure from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), made a few remarks in connection with the position which has developed on the Witwatersrand as a result of the worked-out mines. Let me say at once that many of us were very perturbed about the possibility of mines becoming worked out, something which will create a big gap that will cause great suffering to large areas on the Witwatersrand. That was the case but, thanks to the sound economy of South Africa, those people who had to move as a result of the closing down of the mines have all been absorbed by the mining industry which has expanded and opened new mines elsewhere. I should like to paint the correct picture to you, Sir, in this connection. I shall first say something about the East Rand, and then I shall deal with my own constituency, Krugersdorp, because it has been referred to here to-day. As you know, Sir, the New Modderfontein mine on the East Rand was the richest mine in the world. A few years ago we were all afraid that it would become a ghost town. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) will confirm it when I say that there is not one house which belonged to the former staff of the New Modderfontein mine which is not occupied. As a result of the new industrial development there has been such a demand for houses that they have all been sold. I think that whole area is to-day included in the municipal area of Benoni, and I think they are grateful for it. That is one picture which you find on the East Rand. I come now to my own constituency, Krugersdorp. As you know, Sir, the West Rand was also one of the areas where we expected to have serious disruption. Well, I have been representing Krugersdorp for many years, and I want to tell you that during all the years that I have been representing Krugersdorp there has never been such a great demand for houses as there is to-day. We were very grateful when the Minister of Housing announced in Pretoria that the State would make ample funds available to city councils which required money for housing schemes. But what does that prove? That there has not been any disruption at all. If there is a great demand for houses in a certain place, it is surely an indication that there is an influx of people and why do people concentrate there? Because expansion is taking place there, because it has a sound economy, and because the industries there attract them. I am very sorry that you cannot get those hon. gentlemen to realize that. It is incomprehensible to me, Sir, that they cannot grasp the elementary fact that if there is a demand for houses it points to sound economic development. The demand for houses is bigger than ever before in the past, and that is a good yardstick. We were afraid of what the effect of the mines becoming worked out on the West Rand would be, but that fear has been allayed because of the demand—it is almost a rush— for houses as a result of the new industries which have developed there. Just as the problem of the poor Whites was raised in every second sentence from platforms 30 years ago. and just as we no longer hear about that problem to-day, the so-called disruption which we fear on the Witwatersrand as a result of the mines becoming worked out will likewise be something of the past shortly, because that fear has been completely removed by the development of secondary industries.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) professes to be a champion of the workers and one would expect that in a debate of this nature, the hon. member would perhaps have given some indication as to what he would urge the Government to do to alleviate the position of the poor, the unemployed and the aged. One would also expect from him some suggestion in regard to the unemployment caused by the establishment of border industries. For instance, in the Sunday Times of 3 February, it is stated that some 41 White Johannesburg employees have lost their jobs due to the transfer of “Veka Beperk” to Charlestown, near a Natal Native location. Here is a definite and glaring example as to how unemployment can come about through the establishment of these border industries.

How can you say that they are unemployed?

They lose their present employment due to such transfer taking place.

The question of the aged and the poor is another matter which requires the urgent attention of this House. The hon. member for Krugersdorp was at great pains to suggest that there is a great boom in South Africa, and he called various witnesses to prove his point. But he did not suggest that some relief should be given to those persons who are not benefiting from the so-called “boom ”. If for instance he were to approach people living on fixed incomes, people living on small pensions, he would find that they are not reaping any benefit from the so-called “boom ”. The position is that if a boom is taking place, the less fortunate persons should be given some share in that boom and prosperity. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions is in the House at the present time, because, Sir, I appealed last year during the course of the debate on his Vote that the Minister should try and alleviate the present position of the old age pensioners and other social pensioners. I know that this is a very real problem. I realize that the hon. the Minister has shown his sympathy for these people. But you require more than sympathy. We require positive action. Because when you look at the figures to-day, you find that there are some 110,000 European old age pensioners, and I submit that a large number of these people are struggling under the most severe financial hardships. I am sure that most members of this honourable House have seen for themselves in their own constituencies these hardships that this section of our community is suffering under to-day. And after all if there is a so-called boom in South Africa, surely the older generation who have strived and built up the country, should receive some recognition for their services. That is why I believe it is a great tragedy in South Africa to-day that you have a large number of old age pensioners and other social pensioners struggling to eke out an existence on a hopelessly inadequate pension, a maximum pension of R24.50 per month. Therefore the hon. member for Constantia has moved this important leg of his amendment in order to try to bring that position again to the attention of the House and the responsible Ministers, the Minister of Social Welfare and the Minister of Finance, and to try and find some way to alleviate the plight of those people. The question of the adequacy of pensions has often been discussed here, and the argument is often put forward that the cost-of-living index as compared to increases in pensions show that the pensions are keeping pace with or are even ahead of the rises in the cost of living. But the fact is that many of these people when they come to pay for their necessities in life—shelter, food and clothing—have nothing left or a minus quantity and they have to draw on some meagre savings that might have accrued to them. Because to tell them that their increases are equal to the increase in the cost of living over the years is quite nonsensical. Fact is that these people cannot exist on these pensions. As I said just now, the maximum pension payable to White pensioners is R24.50, and that has also its effect on the non-European pensioners, because we know that it is the policy of the Government to pay a ratio of 12:6:5 in respect of the White pensioner, the Coloured pensioner and the Asiatic. Consequently those persons, too, are living in dire poverty in many instances due to the total inadequacy of their pensions. I would like to come to the Bantu pensioner, because the position of the aged Bantu is another severe problem in South Africa, one which is gaining momentum and proportion because the age-old custom of the Bantu people in some instances of caring for their aged—their own families caring for the aged—is now becoming a thing of the past. In the constituency that I represent there is a large non-European hospital, and there we had an occasion where an aged Bantu was left by relatives in the waiting-room. There was no suitable institution where he could be admitted. He was merely suffering from old age, and that provincial hospital had to care for this Native, because they could not throw him out on to the streets. That I think illustrates how in some instances this trend is now developing. But what does the Bantu old age pensioner receive? In reply to a question last year, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development showed that there were some 217,615 old age pensioners amongst the Bantu people, and he also divulged the information that these pensioners in the city areas draw the sum of R3.52½ (£1 15s. 3d.). This is a hopelessly inadequate amount, and that is the maximum amount paid in the city areas. And, according to the information supplied on 1 April 1962, the Government granted an increase to these people of 15 cents per month, an amount of ½ a cent per day. I feel that the position of the aged Bantu, particularly those in the urban areas, who are increasing in number, requires serious attention. Unless an amount is paid to these people so that they can at least survive, you will find that there will be an increasing number of Bantu beggars in our urban areas. As it is to-day, there is an increasing number of aged Bantu who have to beg in the streets so as to obtain some money in order to exist and survive. These are matters which affect the livelihood of all racial groups, and I strongly urge that steps should be taken to alleviate the hardships experienced by them.

There is the other matter in regard to those persons who just fail to qualify for an old age pension due to the means test. I intend dealing with this question of the means test in detail, hoping that perhaps during the course of this debate the Minister of Social Welfare will find himself in a position to be able to state that he will grant some relief to those persons who fail to qualify for an old age pension or a disability grant. The whole basis of the means test to-day is completely unrealistic. We find that those persons who were thrifty and looked to the future and took out endowment policies or invested their money in property are finding to-day that the amounts they are deriving from such assets or investments precludes them from obtaining any pension whatsoever. This is a most discriminatory step and it is one of the greatest demerits of the means test.

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he has a motion on the Order Paper on this subject.

I withdrew that motion yesterday, Mr. Speaker. According to the means test, an applicant receiving an income of R180 per annum does not have any deduction made from his pension if he qualifies in all the other respects, but over and above that amount of R180 per annum an amount of R12 per annum is deducted from the basic pension for every R12 per annum in excess of R180 per annum. The question of the maximum amount permitted just means that any person receiving an income from any source whatever in excess of R312 per annum is precluded from drawing any pension. This means an amount of over R26 per month. In present circumstances I feel that this amount should be subject to review, particularly the R180 which is permitted as free income. The basis of calculation of the means test requires urgent review by the Minister. There was a case only the other day which concerned a person applying for an old age pension, who had made certain investments which were giving him R30 a month and in those circumstances he was disqualified from drawing a pension, whereas a person who could have been a squanderer, when he reaches the age of 65, and he has made no provision whatever for his old age, receives the full pension of R24. This question of the income earned is quite unrealistic by present standards.

The other great group of people disqualified from getting pensions are those who are disqualified because they own property. The means test takes into account the occupational value of the property at 1½ per cent on the first R800 on the unencumbered value of that property, and it further takes into account another 2½ per cent of the unencumbered value of the property in excess of R800, and in addition the calculation is based on an amount of R2,400, the value of the property, and it is subsequently also reduced on the unencumbered value at the rate of 2½ per cent in excess of the allowable amount of R2,400. The whole basis of this calculation is on the R2,400 which is a municipal valuation. With revaluation having taken place in all the major municipalities, this ceiling amount is also unrealistic to-day and not in accordance with the means test as it was applied at that time. Therefore we have the anomaly of finding persons who have applied for pensions before revaluation took place obtaining some measure of pension, perhaps the full pension, whereas a person living almost in the same street—and this is a definite example of a case— who had a similar property, because he was a younger person he now applies for a pension at this stage and finds that his property has been revalued and it is of almost the same value as that of the previous person who is already drawing a pension, but the new applicant is unable to draw a pension because the value of his property precludes him from obtaining it. This is a point which I believe is one that the Minister of Social Welfare must take into account in reviewing that ceiling.

Other difficulties arise in regard to overpayments. If a person’s circumstances change after having been awarded a pension, he may find that he has been overpaid certain amounts. The administration of the means test must be considerable. We know that when we approach the Department they are most sympathetic. Huge files are produced covering cases of overpayment. Sometimes the over-payments take place due to the ignorance of the pensioner. Remember that we are dealing with old people who sometimes are not conversant with the regulations. They are then faced with a huge amount which they must refund to the Government. Great hardship results. A pensioner may suddenly find that he has to repay R300 and the anxiety and anguish of these aged persons is a blot on our system. These amounts such as the income that is earned and the assets that are allowed in terms of the means test are all matters which I believe the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions should give us some undertaking on, in view of the fact that we have been told by the Government that there is a boom in the country. This is one way of relieving the hardship experienced by these people. There are other matters concerning the aged, matters concerning research. Some time ago. during 1959. the Department of Social Welfare requested that the Bureau of Educational and Sociological Research should investigate and inquire into the problem of the welfare of the aged. It would be interesting to know whether anything further has been done in this respect, because in reply to a question last year the Minister said that the inquiry had been completed and that the report was to be considered shortly. There are all sorts of matters affecting the welfare of the aged, like accommodation. I mentioned earlier the number of aged pensioners living in dire poverty, in the back streets and in old buildings. These people find it very difficult to obtain reasonable accommodation. Particularly aged women find it difficult because most old age homes for women have long waiting lists. Some of these people live in back rooms in old buildings, and when those buildings are demolished to make way for progress they are put into the dilemma of finding alternative accommodation, and unless they can find alternative accommodation within their means it means that they have to pay more for their shelter and accommodation, which means that they have less to spend on food and clothing. Some of these people already suffer from malnutrition, and if they have less to spend on food it will create a greater problem of ill-health. There is also the cost of medicine, which is very high for a person who is trying to live on R24 a month. I think attention should be given to finding ways and means of having sufficient funds, if possible sub-economic funds, to establish more homes for the aged, more cottages and flats for these people who are struggling to find alternative accommodation when they are deprived of their present accommodation.

Whilst dealing with the old age pensioners, I would also like to refer to another matter which should receive attention, the question of radio licences fees. This matter was raised in the House last year and I understand it is receiving consideration by the Government and the S.A.B.C. But I have a case here in my own constituency, in a home for aged women, where these people have been denied the concessionary licence fees because they are living in a home which is not registered as a home for the aged and is not receiving any Government subsidy. Here is a home which was established and built by private welfare organizations where people, through their own toil, raised sufficient funds to provide a home for aged women and which cost the taxpayer nothing. They are not being subsidized in any way, and because of that fact the inmates of this home are denied the concessionary licence rate of R1 per annum and have been called upon to pay the full amount of R5.50. Here is an example of how these people are discriminated against. I believe that the Government should give consideration to bring about concessionary licence fees for all pensioners who live as a couple or on their own because this will be a great relief to them. In this particular home one aged person has already received a demand for payment and has been told that unless she pays within seven days she will be prosecuted. This is the sole means of entertainment for a person who is too old to read or write and who relies upon the radio as her only means of entertainment. Sir, some people might consider these to be small matters, but it affects the everyday lives of the people who contributed towards building up South Africa, and I believe these people must be given due consideration.

Another matter which causes these old people concern is in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act. where as the result of amendments which have been passed the older persons who are genuine work-seekers are unable to qualify for further benefits despite the fact that they might have built up credits over the years because they are unable to find employment for a period of 13 weeks following a period of 26 weeks’ unemployment. This is a matter I thought perhaps the hon. member for Krugersdorp might have mentioned, the difficulty of these people who are unable to find employment or to derive benefits from the fund to which they have paid contributions. In addition to that, the older people find it increasingly difficult to find employment and we are told that some of those who by virtue of their age apply for the old age pension are being subjected to the stringent provisions of the means test and in some instances those people fail to qualify for any benefit because of the means test.

The other group of pensioners, such as the Railway pensioners who retired before 1944, are also struggling to eke out an existence on a hopelessly inadequate pension. They are discriminated against because they draw a far lesser amount than those who retired after 1944. These matters affecting the aged are of the utmost importance to the Government, I think, and therefore I hope that the Minister of Social Welfare and the Minister of Finance will see their way clear to alleviate the hardships suffered by these people by finding ways and means of revising the present rate of pensions to make it more commensurate with the cost of living, to bring it into line with the decreased purchasing power of the rand, and to give relief to persons who just fail to qualify for a pension due to the means test, which is outdated. I believe that these are matters of the utmost importance and I do hope that the Government and hon. members opposite will assist in bringing pressure to bear upon the powers that be to grant relief to these people to make the twilight of their years a little happier.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down and also to the few words which the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said in this connection. The hon. member for Constantia, when he quoted the words of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, referred to the statement made by our Prime Minister that we would look after the White population of South Africa. I just want to say to the hon. member that he need not be concerned on that score. The fact that thereafter the White voters of South Africa have repeatedly rejected the direction in which he and his party wish to lead our people proves that White South Africa is satisfied with what this Government is doing. Why does the hon. member for Constantia now suddenly come along and add the word “White ”? He does so with no other object than to create the impression that they are really the people who are concerned about the Whites of South Africa. They had a great deal of time in the days when they were in power, and even when they were in Opposition. When we were in the Opposition we put forward certain policies as against the stand-noint of the then Government; we were a handful to begin with in the Opposition, but because the White voters believed in our attitude they placed us in power with ever-increasing majorities. Since the hon. member for Constantia has let the cat out of the bag, I think it is just as well that I should also refer to this matter. His only reason for mentioning this now is because he is trying to see whether he cannot make a little political capital out of it. That is the only reason. What other reason could he have? He specifically went out of his way to touch upon this matter. I do not want to deal with the hon. member at any greater length. I leave him to the judgment of the voters of South Africa.

I want to come to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). This question of our approach to the less-privileged section of the population is a social question, a question which is dear to our hearts; it affects the most intimate family and personal life of the electorate and that is why I have been asking hon. members specifically ever since I first came here to let us know if any difficulties arise in this connection. The hon. member for Umbilo paid a tribute, for which I want to thank him, to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. They have a very difficult task to perform. They have to deal with the problem cases of the problem people of South Africa, from the cradle to the grave, and these are all individual cases. They are not cases which can be decided upon broadly or on the basis of groups. Every file that we have in the Department contains the history of a family or of some individual. I have mentioned this here before. Every day 3,000 letters are addressed to the Department, and in each letter a personal case is submitted to the Department. Four thousand files circulate in the Department daily, and the most careful attention is given to those cases. I have made an appeal to hon. members in the past not to wait until Parliament is in session when difficulties arise or when they notice certain tendencies developing but to write to me and to bring those things to my notice; I pointed out that we had 125,000 social pensioners who have to be dealt with by a Department which is intimately concerned with specific cases and that I would give my personal attention to such cases and bring them to the notice of my senior officials. As far as I can remember I have not had a single letter from any hon. member on the other side during the past year dealing with the specific treatment meted out to any single person. [Interjections.]

We have more confidence in the officials.

I said that if there were any proposals which hon. members wanted to put forward, we were continually trying to bring about improvements, where possible. I stated specifically that if during the recess any hon. member wished to submit proposals with a view to reform, I would be glad to receive such proposals, and the hon. member for Umbilo knows that. The hon. member says. “I realize that the Minister has shown his sympathy.” I am glad that he realizes it. but he sought to create a further impression by saying, “All we have got from the Minister is only his sympathy and nothing more.” The first mistake that he made is that he did not heed the appeal that I made to him and which he admits I made. But in the second place he says. “There is a so-called boom in the country”, and in saying that he seeks to suggest to the public that “it is no boom at all, it is a so-called boom [Interjections.] And then the hon. member expects us at this stage, when a boom is expected in the country, to deal in the second-reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill with specific measures on the basis of that anticipated boom. Surely the hon. member knows better.

There are certain things which the hon. member said which do deserve the Minister’s specific attention. I hope the hon. member is not seeking to create the impression that there are certain specific things to which I have not yet given my attention. I think if there is one hon. member who knows that, together with my Department, I am constantly giving attention to every possibility of bringing about improvements, it is that hon. member. He has brought many cases to me and on each occasion I have gone out of my way to give these specific cases my personal attention, and the hon. member agrees that that is so. It would be wrong, therefore, if the hon. member sought to create the impression, as the hon. member for Constantia tried to do, that nothing is really being done.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. member had something to say in connection with overpayments. This is a very difficult matter when one deals with hundreds of thousands of cases. Overpayments are made, and the hon. member himself has said that the greatest sympathy is shown by the Department. I can tell the hon. member that the whole system of overpayments is being examined. We are simplifying the whole system of administration and we hope in that way to reduce the number of overpayments to a minimum. This will eliminate many difficulties and it will facilitate the position for pensioners. But this is a very extensive Department and it has to deal with an enormous amount of detail. It has to deal with many thousands of individual cases and that is why it is not such an easy matter to switch over, but we are giving our attention to this matter and I hope that before long I shall be able to give the hon. member the result of that special investigation.

Then there is another point which the hon. member for Umbilo did not put clearly and which I have repeatedly put very specifically in this House when my Vote has been under discussion and that is this: We have our welfare work in South Africa and social pensioners fall under that welfare work; that is why the Department is known as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and that is why we brought about the co-ordination between these two Departments. I think this was a very sound step and I think the hon. member for Umbilo also thinks so. In bringing about that co-ordination we attempted to meet these people in every possible way. The hon. member of Umbilo will recall very clearly that I stood up in this House and laid down the proposition, a proposition which was received on all sides of the House with the greatest appreciation and which was acclaimed on both sides of the House, that when a child is able to take care of a parent who is going through difficult times, it is the child’s moral duty to do so because his parents took care of him. I repeat that proposition: When a parent is struggling it is the duty of the child to take care of that parent as far as he is able to do so. When we amended the Children’s Act we tightened up the provisions governing the responsibility of parents, but in addition to that I have also emphasized on every occasion, at every conference that I have addressed, that if the child is able to do so he also has a responsibility towards his parents. If we take away that mutual responsibility we shall be destroying the cohesive factor which binds together the family structure, and if we in South Africa want to survive then there is one thing that we must do and that is to see to it that we retain our sound family structure and do everything in our power once again to build up the family structure where it has been broken down. This is an important task and we are tackling it.

The hon. member has pleaded for more old-aged homes. I agree with him but I just want to tell him that the numbers are increasing daily. I do not have the numbers with me at the moment, but I think there were something like 23 some years after we came into power. I think to-day there are 87 in full operation and I think there are still 18 or 19 applications under consideration at the present time. I am invited not only by the Afrikaans-peaking sections but by Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking in various parts of the country to come and open old-aged homes established by us. I myself went to District Six with the welfare officer of Cape Town and others and I spent a whole day there looking at the conditions there. I personally visited these places where people were living under conditions of neglect and urged our people to take them out of those places. to-day most of those people—I do not know whether there are exceptions—are in old-aged homes which are well cared for, either under our control or under the control of Church bodies or under the control of the welfare organizations. This work is not only being done by us; it is being done by the welfare organizations of whom there are more than 2,000 in this country and who take a very great interest in this matter. I just want to repeat what was mentioned here last year, and I do so simply to show how we are bringing about improvements from time to time. I have no other motive in mentioning it. I mentioned these figures here last year and I do not know why hon. members again ask for the same information. In 1947 the means limit together with the pension was R180. Then pensioner’s means plus his pension could not exceed R180. That figure has risen considerably since 1947 when they were in power. to-day the figure is no longer R180 but R324, an increase of 80 per cent. I do not want the impression to be given to the public that we have no intention of giving further attention to all these cases from time to time for that is the task and the duty of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. This matter receives our attention every day. I do not want the wrong impression to be given to the public that nothing has been done, or precious little at any rate; that is why I mention these figures.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is limited but I want to mention a second case. In 1947 the basic pension was R120. That basic pension, together with the bonus, has now been increased to R294, an increase of 145 per cent. In 1947 the actual expenditure, when the United Party was still in power, was R6,574,000; the actual expenditure on social pensions for the financial year 1961-2 was R23,238,000. The picture only comes out clearly when we point out that since we took over there has been an increase of 230.6 per cent. [Interjection.] I did not hear the hon. member’s remark but I think he is talking about the cost of living. The argument is constantly used that the cost of living has risen. The rise in the cost of living since 1947 has been 65 per cent while there has been an increase of 145 per cent in the expenditure connected with social pensions. In other words, the percentage increase in social pensions by far exceeds the percentage rise in the cost of living.

What about the value of money?

He is only waking up now.

This increase in expenditure is due to considerable concessions which have been made from time to time by the Treasury through the Department of Pensions when this matter was still under their jurisdiction and by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Since 1947 oudstryders’ pensions have been increased from R120 to R390. an increase of 325 per cent. The hon. member for Umbilo may turn round and say to me, “Yes, you have tried to do your best in past years but no further improvements are being brought about now; this thing has come to a standstill ”. That is what the hon. member suggested a moment ago; he is afraid that no further increases will be granted. Let me just tell the hon. member what has happened since 1959. I do not propose to go back as far as 1949; I am only going back to 1959, ten years later. Since 1959 the bonus has been increased from R24 to R36. There has also been this further improvement: Formerly there were three areas—the rural area, the periurban area and the urban area. In 1959 we changed those three areas into two areas. This meant a considerable increase in the pension benefits of people living in the rural areas. On the same occasion in 1959 the peri-urban areas, which had previously fallen under the rural scale, were incorporated with the urban areas which meant a considerable increase for people living in the peri-urban areas. First of all we changed the threefold system into a twofold system and thereafter, as I shall indicate, into a single system. There used to be three systems under which people in the urban areas received most and people in the rural areas received least. They have all been pushed up now to the highest notch. Then I want to mention just one further step which was taken in 1959. Where both husband and wife received a pension, the pension used to be reduced by R1. On 1 April 1959 that means limit which had existed under United Party rule was abolished, and this concession in 1959 meant that those people each received an additional R1 per month. Let me take the concessions which have been made since 1 April 1960. I am just talking about the last few years now. As from 1 April 1960 the bonus was again increased from R36 to R48, that is to say, every pensioner received an additional R12 per annum. The twofold system was then abolished and all pensioners were paid at the highest current rate. Let me take a change that was made on 1 April 1960, the relaxation of residential requirements. There are, as the hon. member for Umbilo has correctly said, cases of hardship which the welfare bodies and our field services come across from time to time. We try to trace them and to help them. If the hon. member for Umbilo hears of such cases I hope he will bring them to our notice. We have also increased the attendant’s allowance from R36 to R48 so that a pensioner who wishes to live in his room can get an attendant to look after him and to assist him. Then there is another very important provision that we made early in 1960. One gets the difficult case where an old couple lives together in a house which is their only asset; both of them receive a pension. When the one dies the surviving spouse loses the pension as a result of the application of the means test because there is only one person now. We amended this system and said that even if one died the surviving spouse would still retain the pension if he or she continued to occupy the house. That was a relaxation which was greatly appreciated by the pensioners. In 1962 the bonus was again increased from R48 to R66. I have shown step by step now howl increases have been granted year after year, even in recent times. That applies to all social pensions, not only to old-age pensions. It applies to all social pensions including maintenance and family allowances.

I want to come now to a last comparison and hon. members will then perhaps see the picture in the same light as I do. The hon. member for Umbilo has already said—and I appreciate it—that my sympathies are with these people. I myself grew up in poverty. Let me just give the hon. member this comparison: In the financial year 1961-2 provision was made for R41,000,000 for social pensions and allowances. The total amount provided for in the estimates was R72,000,000. 56.43 per cent of that total budget is spent on social pensions. The total budget in 1962-3 was R72,000,000, and that also includes war pensions, of course. It includes the Government’s contribution towards civil pensions. It includes gratuities and a host of other benefits and it includes salaries and administration expenses. In view of the fact that no less than 56.43 per cent of that amount is being devoted to these people for whom the hon. member for Umbilo pleads, I think he will agree that a large percentage of budget is being spent specifically in their interests. In saying that I do not want to suggest that everything that can be done has been done. There are still many things that are receiving our attention but I want to repeat the same appeal that I made here previously: If there are hon. members here who are really interested in the cases of pensioners then I expect them to bring difficult cases which come to their attention to my notice from time to time and then perhaps it will not be necessary for me at this stage under these circumstances where we are dealing with a Part Appropriation to discuss things which I probably cannot discuss at this stage. Hon. members are fully entitled, of course, to say that they want the investigation to continue; that we should see whether there is not something else that we can do for the pensioners. I want to give the hon. member for Umbilo this assurance that in the future pensioners will receive the same goodwill, the same sympathy from me and my Department that they have received in the past. I want to give everybody the assurance that the contribution that has been made by the State towards the upliftment of our people since we came into power, will continue to be made as long as I have the privilege and the honour to be Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and as long as South Africa is blessed with a National Party Government.

It is a great privilege to me to speak in this House to-day for the first time on behalf of my constituency. I have had the privilege of sitting here for quite a few days listening to what was being said, and I want to say that a new member is faced with a tremendous challenge. That challenge is that one has to say something new. I immediately want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be patient with me because I do not know whether I can meet that challenge. Allow me in the first place to refer to my constituency of Kroonstad, a constituency of which I am very proud. Kroonstad is par excellence the district of blue-green mealie-lands, red Afrikander cattle amongst the sweetthorns, and it is also a very large railway centre and in addition it is a large educational centre, and therefore I shall try in this House, without making any apology, to speak on behalf of the farmer, the railwayman and on educational matters. Let me immediately express my gratitude to the Government for the fact that much of the splendid development which has taken place in my constituency in recent years is due to the Government’s policy of decentralization of certain State activities. I want to take as an example the splendid development in my constituency of the great rehabilitation centre the Prisons Department has established there.

During the course of the debate reference has been made to two types of area, namely the urban areas and the border areas. Now it so happens—I do not know whether I can slip through between the two opposing parties to-day—that I want to step into the breach to-day for a third type of area, namely the rural areas. The type of area which I represent is not a border area, cannot depend on border area development in the future, and is not an urban area either. Let me say immediately that I am fully in favour of an urban area at all times retaining its development in so far as heavy industries are concerned, site-bound industries, and industries which have to be established to take the place of diminishing mining development. I am also an enthusiastic supporter of border areas development, particularly in so far as industries requiring any workers are concerned. But what is the present position? The position is that 84 per cent of our industries are concentrated in three coastal areas and in the Southern Transvaal complex, and only 16 per cent in the rest of the country, and this 16 per cent is a very friendly figure because trivialities like small bakeries and garages are also included in this 16 per cent. Viewed objectively, the continued concentration of development in these four areas only must be detrimental to the country as a whole. I think of the economic aspect, for example, expensive through-roads, expensive transport facilities, expensive Bantu residential areas. I think of the social aspect, slums, family problems, air pollution, etc., as well as an aspect which is obviously very important at a time of atomic warfare, namely the military aspect. The trouble is that the State continually has to spend enormous amounts of money in these areas in remedying certain matters, and after they have been remedied a favourable atmosphere is created for further expansion only in those areas and further development such as decentralization which has a snowball effect of further developments and further problems arising only in certain areas. I want to suggest that the position we have reached is the result of passive planning, to some extent, planning which was directed in the past, by many Governments, merely to comply with the requirements of the entrepreneurs, and I want to suggest that we have now reached the stage of overall planning where broad general plans for the country as a whole should be drafted in terms of which these heavily industrialized areas should be provided for, but certain other areas are also taken into consideration. When we talk about the decentralization of industries the prime consideration is the question of having a better distribution of the population. The Commission of Inquiry into the White occupation of the rural areas, for example, said the following in its report—

I may mention that in the urban areas the position is much more favourable. In 1960 there were 2,000,000 Whites in the urban areas as against 2.5 million Bantu. I want to say further that with border area development, the rural areas which are far distant from the border areas will not derive much benefit because it is my humble opinion that the Bantu who are in those areas will to a large extent remain there. Mr. Speaker, I want to plead to-day for better socio-economic development. I want to plead for planning in terms of which every area and sub-area will be able to develop to its full potential and the natural resources of our country will be used to greater advantage. If these agricultural and rural areas I have mentioned and which do not adjoin border areas are given their legitimate share, it is my opinion that we will find more intensification of rural activities; that much of the sub-marginal ground will be transformed into productive areas, and that most of the disadvantages will be eliminated, the disadvantages I have mentioned if we are to have only purely urban development. I therefore want to plead for positive and revolutionary planning and that inter alia attention should be devoted to the following things in that process. Dr. Francois de Villiers, chairman of the Natural Resources Development Council, said in a recent report that the following matters require urgent attention in the decentralization of industries to rural areas: (1) The provision of basic services and facilities by the authorities; (2) financial assistance in some form, e.g. loans at low rates of interest and reasonable railway tariffs; (3) the provision of facilities for the intensive training of the necessary labour; (4) differentiated wage determinations; (5) the registration of prospective industrialists and the establishment of an Information Bureau where all the necessary information in connection with the available facilities at the various places and the concessions granted by the authorities in connection with the decentralization of industries can be obtained; (6) assistance in regard to the provision of housing for Whites and non-Whites.

I do not want to discuss the question of railway tariff policy here, but I just want to say this: I want to ask that attention should be devoted to this matter. The present state of affairs and the principles which apply at present in this regard, and particularly the principle that raw material is carried at a low tariff whilst manufactured goods are transported at a high tariff, make it impossible for large areas of the platteland to have industries established as economic undertakings. In this regard I also want to plead that the Government and all the other bodies concerned will devote attention to the establishment of industries and factories in the rural areas to process the superfluous agricultural products. At the moment in certain areas shares are being sold on a large scale for the establishment of new factories. It is my humble opinion, Sir, that private initiative cannot by itself establish these factories there unless they have the maximum assistance and guidance from the Government because of the multiplicity of problems facing them, but that if the necessary assistance is granted and these factories are established, many of our problems will be solved. In regard to maize, it will e.g. solve the transportation problem; it will give the platteland industries which will not compete with industries in the urban areas.

Finally, I want to plead that all the various bodies should in every respect try to do more positive planning. As one example, I want to mention the functions of the Natural Resources Development Council which in my opinion at this stage are more of, a negative nature. They are there e.g. to prevent the injudicious sub-division of land. Why cannot this Council, or a large sub-division of it, not be instructed to consolidate uneconomic units throughout the Republic by way of voluntary negotiations? In that way they would be able to solve one of our great problems. I also want to ask that where there are now provincial planning bodies which do excellent work, the Government should not only grant them de facto recognition but that they should also be granted statutory recognition and that there should be the closest links with them. In this regard I want to refer to the splendid work done in Natal by the provincial authorities in planning the Tugela basin, in addition to which the Free State for the last two years has been planning its provincial area on a provincial level very imaginatively.

Finally I want to plead for the greatest measure of co-ordination between all planning bodies, viz. the Economic Advisory Council, the Permanent Committee for the Decentralization of Industries and the Development of Border Areas, the Natural Resources Development Council, and that they should be represented on the Tariffs Commission of the S.A. Railways in order there also to achieve the necessary co-ordination in regard to this planning in so far as the tariff policy of the Railways is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to follow the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Schlebusch) and I wish to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It was an interesting subject: it was well delivered and I am sure appreciated by all members in this House. We expect much from him in the future and I think this House will join me when I wish him well.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M.

J. van den Berg) has asked what the signs of a sound economy are, what is the yardstick, what is sound economy when reflected in the population. I would say to him that in my opinion sound economy means a healthy and a contented nation. If we have those two matters on an even keel it would not be necessary for the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) to move an amendment such as we have had here to-day.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions: This side of the House is not attacking him for the manner in which he is doing his work. We know that his Department and with him as head, is probably one of the most efficient departments in the service. We have no fight with him, But, Sir, what we are against is what has been passed as law. We do not like what has been given to the pensioners and we are going to give the reasons for our dislike. When I heard the hon. the Minister telling us step by step how much he has increased pensions, it made me think that the hon. the Minister was in the process of carrying out an experiment to see how little it takes to keep body and soul together. If our economy is as good as it is said to be, if the coffers are bursting with the money which is in this country—and I have no doubt about it—then I say the time has come for those people who need more help, to be given it, without having to ask for it. I want to say this to the Minister: However good he thinks he is, however good his Department is, our country would be in a very sorry state had it not been for the voluntary social welfare organizations. They are bearing the brunt of the burden of looking after the less privileged people. If the hon. the Minister tells us what he has done and how well he has managed affairs I want to say to him that that is what we expect from him. That is his job and if he did not do it properly we shall soon tell him that. But we on this side of the House have appreciated what he has done in the past but we ask him now to make things better in future for the less privileged section of our population. What does the present pension mean? I asked the Minister whether he intended increasing the pension and we received no reply. If a pensioner gets R24.5 per month and we break it down, let us see what he can get for that. These figures which I am about to give you, Sir, are not my own figures; they were given to me by pensioners. Half of the pension goes for accommodation. That leaves R 12.25. They spend 5c a day on bread; 5c a day on milk; 15c a day on either meat, fish, eggs or vegetables; cooking fat and butter 5c per day; sugar, tea, jam, 5c per day; that also includes soap, toothpaste and cleansing material. This leaves 5c over for emergencies. Then no allowances has been made for fruit, transport, reading matter, radio licence, clothes, any sort of entertainment or any repairs to or cleaning of clothes, which is a very important item to a pensioner.

Where do you get those figures from?

I told the House that these figures were given to me by individual pensioners. I did not get these figures from the Department. I have not seen these figures in any book. I got them from persons receiving pensions. If the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. De Wet) can stretch the pension to go further than that I would like him to tell me, so that I can pass that information on to those people who are struggling. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in particular will notice that I did not include any foods which contain a high percentage of vitamins. The number of elderly people who suffer from malnutrition, as mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) is growing by the day. The Duke formula says that five out of 1,000 will need a bed in a hospital. Let us say for our purposes that there are 80,000 pensioners. For 80,000 pensioners we will require 400 beds. It costs this State or a province R4 a day to keep a White person in a hospital. Can you imagine the amount of money, Sir, that it is costing the State now and that it will cost the State in future to look after these people if something is not done to raise their standard of living. That is all we are asking; raise their standard of living slightly so that the threat of malnutrition will be averted. If it takes a person 14 days in hospital to recover from a bad attack of malnutrition and you multiply that with the figures I have given you, Sir, you will realize what a fantastic sum it is going to cost the State or the Provinces to get these people well. Now these pensioners are not expendable; we need them. We have to make sure that they are happy and contented and that they are able to work as well to augment the little income which they get from the State. I repeat that had it not been for the work done by our social welfare organizations those people would have been in a very, very sorry state. I think that all of us ought to be grateful to those welfare organizations that take such a great interest in the welfare of our less privileged.

What disturbs me even as much as the small sums that are coming from the Pensions Department is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Labour—unfortunately he is not here this afternoon—has thought it fit at a time when things are booming, when the coffers are bursting, when unemployment is falling, when there is no danger of any financial collapse, to restrict the amount of money which the unemployed will receive. It was the worst possible time for him to have done that. And what reason did he give us? He said that there were certain people who were taking advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act; that there were people who were getting something for nothing.

It is strange, Sir, how often it happens that those people who need help most are the last to get it. The worst thing the Minister of Labour did was when he withdrew the right of the sick unemployed man to get unemployment money unless he had returned to work for 13 weeks. I hope the Minister will have sleepless nights over that; that he will be taunted and haunted until he gives back to those people that which they are entitled to get. Most of these people, year after year have paid into that insurance scheme.

How much?

It does not matter to me, Sir, how much it was. It is an insurance and they are entitled to get paid the sums of money that they were told they would get after a certain period. When a man with a serious illness is put out of action for six months and he does not go back to work or cannot find work—that is the crux of the matter; if he cannot find work—even if he wants to go back to work—he does not get a sixpence from the unemployment fund. Those people are going to be a burden on the country and they will have to go to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare. He will have on his doorstep those people who up till now have been waiting outside the Labour Department waiting either to get a job or to get their unemployment benefits. I will say to the House. Sir, that at the present time in this country, such a thing should not take place; that such legislation should never have been passed in this House. We should rather give more, than take away anything from these people. Beside this class of less privileged people there is another class that is suffering. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Information is here, because I am going to say to him that he is one ahead of the Minister of Health in slanting news. Here I have the South African Digest with this headline—

The last paragraph says this—

This was said by the Assistant Medical Officer of Health in Johannesburg. Then the doctor says it is a gradual job. But don’t let us be bluffed by this sort of thing to say “Johannesburg’s Bantu are healthy ”. The hon. the Minister thinks he is dealing with children reading comic strips. But that does not work here. People who read these words should be able to interpret what is stated here. I go on to another article: “Famine threat defeated in the Northern Transvaal ”. When that matter was raised in Parliament it was denied that there was any trouble in the famine-stricken areas; kwarshiorkor did not exist; it was exaggerated; the hospitals were not full; Bara-gwanath hospital did not have 4,000 cases in one day! I read from the South African Digest—

I think that is wonderful and I would like to see it happen in every area where there are any signs of malnutrition. But what I do not want to hear is what the Minister said on 1 October—

And he was quite right. Those were not the only reports.

The hon. the Minister says that the Minister of Bantu Administration was quite right. How does he line that up with his own statement in his own book that 5,000 school children and 1,400 babies had to receive free food? The time has come for us to be honest when we have deficiencies, Mr. Speaker. When we find that some of our systems are failing we must be honest in this House and come with the truth and look for ways and means of improving them not for hiding them. The truth will out and who let it out? The Minister of Information. That is what he has done. And these are the people on whom we have to depend.

Order! The hon. member must not refer to hon. members on this side as “these are the people ”.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I will say the hon. members and Ministers.

What shall we do?

The hon. member ask what we should do. I will tell him what we should do. The time has come for the people of this country to start saving all the surpluses. There is machinery available to-day in this country and in the world by means of which every grain of surplus food can be canned, dehydrated and preserved. It is our job to encourage the canners and the preservers of food to stack it, to keep it for the day of emergency.

Who will pay for it?

If the hon. member wants to know who is going to pay for it I tell him the money can come out of the bursting coffers of the country. How tragic a case when hungry people see food destroyed and buried, such as oranges and bananas. Soon the mealies will go down the drain! It is so easy to do, and again hon. members want to know who is going to pay. I say with good management the Government can subsidize the people who want to pay. You don’t have to give this away for nothing. You can sell it and sell it to people …

Order! I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to a notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) as printed on page 17 of the Minutes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me that there is a motion on the Order Paper, but I was tempted to reply to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, although I am aware that it is a very bad thing ever to answer him.

Arising from this wave of malnutrition that is passing over this country to-day, I find that Dr. du P. le Roux, the chairman of the South African National Tuberculosis Association has given us a few figures which tie up with malnutrition, and they are rather shocking, because if we don’t look after the people’s health these figures are going to increase. The figures he gives are: 60,000 new cases of tuberculosis a year are occurring in South Africa and Dr. du Preez le Roux says that about 1,000 of these were Whites, 8,000 Coloured or Asian and 50,000 Bantu. It is well known that malnutrition is tied up with tuberculosis.

Order! Malnutrition is also covered by the motion of which notice has been given.

Well, Sir, then I will cut out the word “malnutrition” and I will deal entirely with the effects of tuberculosis in this country, tied up as it is with the shortages that come about as a result of the poorness of the pensions that pensioners are getting to-day. This is the danger that we are faced with from people who are not eating enough: 40 of these people are dying every day. An hon. member, I do not know who it was, asked me how many died when we were in power. That is the interest he takes: A comparison in deaths. He wants to justify it.

What did you do when you were in power?

I would say to the hon. member for Brakpan that even if we did not do anything there is no reason why we should not do something now. I ask the hon. the Minister of Pensions and Social Welfare again to get together with the two Ministers of Agriculture and to show them what ought to be done with the surpluses.

And then the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) says that we are “kafferboeties” and that we are doing too much for the Bantu.

Keep that food for emergencies and don't hide the evils in our country. Keep those people alive by giving them good food. There is plenty of food here. Store it. Then this sort of thing will not happen.

I have said what I intended to say. I have said that the hon. the Minister must use his influence to get the other Ministers concerned to see the light. He must show them that it is necessary for people to get a little more to keep alive, that they must be able to spend a little more, and that they must get food when they need it.

I did not expect the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) to say the things which he did say here this afternoon, because he knows better.

We witnessed something here this afternoon which made my blood turn cold. We know the Budget is coming. We are all hoping for a concession here and there wherever it is possible, as well as for a reduction in taxation if that is possible. But if ever there has been a plea in this House during the ten years that I have been sitting here for increased taxation, and a tremendous increase in taxation, we had it this afternoon. The hon. member for Rosettenville pleaded on behalf of his party that taxation should be increased out of all proportion in South Africa. Because what did he say? Like his party he never says anything directly but he says it in an indirect way. He says that all the surplus oranges and other surpluses should be canned, we must store it and when there is a famine we must subsidize it and give it to the Bantu.

Rather that than to throw it away.

To do that you need money. Is that not true? Where must the money come from?

May I ask the hon. member a question: Is he satisfied with the standard of pensions which are paid to-day?

I shall reply to that but we are not discussing pensions at the moment. I shall, however, tell you, Sir, with what I am satisfied and I think the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare will agree with me and that is that I do not think anyone of us will ever be completely satisfied with any standard of pension because your heart bleeds for the old people and you always want to give them more than is practically possible. But what I am not satisfied with is what you find when you compare what the United Party paid in the form of pensions during their regime and what we are paying to-day. However, I want to return to the hon. member for Rosettenville. In order to do the things which he wants us to do you have to have money, and that money can only come from the State coffers, and the State coffers can only get it from the pockets of the public of South Africa. In other words—and my blood nearly turns cold when I say this—the Minister of Finance is fully entitled to increase taxation tremendously according to the pleas of the United Party. The hon. member says we should give those surpluses to under-nourished children in particular and in saying that he really has the Bantu in mind. I am not against it that the Bantu should be well fed; I shall return to that. But on the one hand the hon. member asks for that and on the other hand the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) plead on the platteland not that the surpluses should be stored and handed to undernourished Bantu, but they say that the Government consists of negrophilists and that it does too much for the Black people.

No.

Oh yes. I want to mention a second point and it is this that the hon. member for Rosettenville, in making the plea which he did make and in saying the things which he did say in respect of underfeeding amongst the Bantu in South Africa and the prevention of tuberculosis, he said things which he himself did not think up because he as a doctor knows better. Of course there is underfeeding in South Africa, but there is less underfeeding in South Africa than in any country in the world where there are Black people. Secondly, the reason for that underfeeding is not only because no food or money is available, but it is as a result of a multitude of factors related to the way of life of the Bantu. The hon. member knows that. The hon. member knows better, but he is following the Rand Daily Mail in its slander campaign.

I? The Rand Daily Mail?

Why was it specially necessary for the hon. the Minister of Information to give the real facts in respect of underfeeding and in respect of all these matters? It was because the Rand Daily Mail published slanderous stories about underfeeding, stories which were not true. I do not know whether the hon. member is courting the favour of the Rand Daily Mail, because at the moment the Rand Daily Mail belongs to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

I like the Rand Daily Mail but I do not like the hon. member at all.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that the position in regard to health in South Africa is much better than the position in any multi-racial country in the world.

May I ask the hon. member whether he does not think that a country with our national income and our resources should have a higher standard of nutrition than other countries where there are Black people.

I fully agree that with our national income, with our development, it is obvious that our standard of health ought to be much higher than that of other countries. But I want to say that not only is it much higher, it is disproportionately much higher.

Nonsense!

I want to say to the hon. member what Botha Sigcau said to Mr. Carpio: “What do you want here? Look at my beautiful mountains, look at my rivers, my promising maize crop, the wonderful condition of my cattle, my wives are fat. What do you want here? Why do you not return to your own country?” I wonder whether the hon. member has ever travelled through the Transkei? What was the extent of the underfeeding which she saw there?

You need not go to the Transkei to meet with underfeeding.

You will also find some underfeeding amongst the White people here in Cape Town. You will also find it in New York.

Not kwashiorkor.

The hon. member was in New York. Is there more or less underfeeding in the Transkei than in the Bowery in New York?

That is a very tiny area.

The hon. member says that that is a very tiny area. The Transkei has 2,500,000 inhabitants. New York has nearly 18,000,000 inhabitants. I can understand that the hon. member only visited a few places. I was in the same position. You enjoy yourself so much in a few places that you cannot get any further. But the fact is this—she says that the Bowery is only a tiny part of New York— that in a very large section of New York, not only in that one portion, you find underfeeding. Go to London. Is there not underfeeding? I do not approve of it. We should try to prevent it and to combat it as much as possible, but I say that we are humiliating South Africa if we continue to talk about it and to put South Africa in a bad light. That is all hon. members are doing. Why do they talk about underfeeding and pensions to-day?

Can you mention one case of kwashiorkor in New York or London?

Kwashiorkor is a disease which is contracted particularly as a result of malnutrition but it is also a disease which is particularly prevalent amongst the Bantu. But I want to ask the hon. member how many cases of kwashiorkor there are among the Whites in South Africa? And unfortunately many White people are under-nourished in South Africa. Kwashiorkor is particularly a disease which you find amongst the Bantu. A comparison with New York and London cannot therefore be made in this case. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) will agree with me. He knows the Bantu.

Take the milk away from the Whites and you will also get it amongst them.

What are the facts? You do not only have these cases of underfeeding because milk is not available but a multitude of factors come into play. Surely we know how those clinics where milk is distributed had to struggle not only for weeks or months, but for years, to convince the parents that the children must have the milk and not the father.

That is Bantu custom.

Yes, a number of factors come into play. I maintain that if we want to do South Africa a service we should not come forward with these stories, but we should say that South Africa compares favourably with the rest of the world and that in the years to come South Africa will compare better with the rest of the world.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If he is so satisfied that there is no malnutrition in South Africa …

He did not say that.

… why did he not persuade the hon. member for Kimberley (South) not to place his motion on the Order Paper?

So far I have been talking about underfeeding, but what the hon. member now has in mind is malnutrition, which is something totally different. The point I am making is exactly that there is malnutrition in South Africa because many factors go with it. It is not only a question of a lack of proteins, but of malnutrition. But let me mention something else in this connection: Is it not true that the percentage which is devoted in South Africa to free services, pensions, hospitalization is very high? I think that required to be stated again. There is not a single Black man in the whole Republic of South Africa or in any of the Bantu areas who is not entitled to absolute free hospitalization; secondly, who cannot, when he is sick at home, call a doctor to visit him at his home free of charge; thirdly, who cannot be conveyed free of charge from his home to the hospital although it is over 100 or 1,000 miles away, and fourthly, who cannot obtain, free of charge, absolutely the best specialist treatment, whether the treatment lasts a month or a year? Not a single Bantu is excluded.

Must they not pay 2s. 6d. per month?

That is not true. There is such a recommendation in the Snyman Commission Report, and that is a very good recommendation, but that is not the position at the moment. No, that hon. member and other members keep on harping in that emotional way on these personal matters over which we need not quarrel at all in this House. Who wants to fight about pensions? Those are people with whom we have the greatest sympathy. Who wants to fight about malnutrition? Those are people with whom we have the greatest sympathy. But hon. members think that they can derive a little political benefit from it. However, you do not derive political benefit from these things because in the first place the public is too developed and too intelligent to be misled and secondly—and this is very unfortunate for the United Party— the United Party has a past.

Pitch black.

A glorious past!

Why do hon. members harp on these things? They do so because they are afraid to talk about the matters which are relevant to this debate. We are now dealing with the little budget. They ought to discuss the finances of the country and our economic position. But they are afraid to do so because all the prophets of doom on that side have been wide of the mark. Just think of the dark prophecies made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in the past, Sir. Not one of them has materialized. A few days ago Mr. Engelhard, a world-known financier, said that nowhere in the world was it absolutely safe to invest but that in the entire investment field in the world South Africa was one of the safest, if not the safest. I want to say this to the financiers of the world. The other evening a promiment businessman asked me this question: Will it be safe for me to invest my money in South Africa? I told him that I would like to answer his question but that he must first tell me where in the world it would be absolutely safe to do so. Relatively speaking, the Republic of South Africa offers the greatest measure of safety not only to money but also to the individual and I say this objectively. Let us stop for a moment and study the world. Let me ask the hon. member for Rosettenville whether he would like to live in any African state to-day? No state in Africa offers the safety which the Republic offers. But that safety is not only offered to the White man but the Black man and the Coloured man and the Yellow man shares that safety and security. Can you persuade the Indian in South Africa to return to India to-day? Never. South Africa is a Utopia. Just visit the Jan Smuts aerodrome on a Sunday afternoon and look at the wealth which is displayed by the South African Indians. We do not begrudge them that but I state that as a fact. The hon. member and I am ashamed of our small motor cars when they are parked alongside the long motor cars of the Indians. That is the position of every national group. But to return to the question of safety. Let us go to Europe. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) is looking at me. I know he has close links with France. Would he rather live in France or in Britain or in West Germany? There they are on the threshold of Communism. The British Isles can be destroyed with one single atom bomb so that nothing remains of it.

What about atom bombs on South Africa?

That is possible but I want to tell the hon. member that Britain, because of the position she occupies in the international constellation, will be the target of atom bombs much sooner than South Africa. That is obvious. Does the hon. member want to live in North America? We saw what happened. These issues are really too great to think about, but America is really the country where the atom bomb is the greatest danger. I am not saying that it is a bad country to live in but it is in that position. The fact is that hon. members do not want to give South Africa the credit of being an orderly and safe country.

No.

Let me put a simple question to the hon. member: In which country is the atom bomb threat the greater, the United States of America or the Republic of South Africa? But does the hon. member want to live in South America? I do not really want to have this argument, but it is necessary in order to correct the humiliating image, the bad light in which the Opposition place South Africa; I want to put the position in its right perspective. Does the hon. member want to live in one of the South American states where there is chaos in a number of them; a dictatorship, civil war? Does the hon. member want to be in the Middle East, in Turkey? There is underfeeding in those countries.

Do you want to be there?

There is another country to which the hon. member is very anxious to go. Why does he not go to Israel? I am not saying that Israel is a bad country, to be quite honest I have great respect for that country. But I say that the threat to Israel, because of the constellation in which she finds herself with Egypt on the one side and the other Arabic countries on the other side, is much greater than any threat to which South Africa is exposed.

I want to return to pensions …

You have now taken us round the whole world.

Hon. members are sensitive when anything is said in favour of South Africa.

No.

Yes, I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) this: When he was in America did he put his country in a good light?

I always do that.

Yes, but secondly I want to ask the hon. member whether he painted an absolutely honest picture of South Africa overseas. He will do that because that is his nature. But I want to ask him once again to be honest with this House. When you were overseas, did you tell them that it would be possible or that it will not be possible for a Black man to sit in this Parliament under the federation plan of the United Party? [Laughter.] But surely that is the question which is at issue. Let the hon. member for Durban (Central) tell me whether it will be possible for a Black man under the federation plan of the United Party to sit in this Parliament?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I know I am breaking the rules, but that is the only way in which to get any reaction from hon. members. That is the crucial question around which the whole political situation in South Africa centres. It is not centred round pensions. We are all sympathetic towards the poor people. Political rights and the economic prosperity of our country are involved, but hon. members do not want to talk about that; and if they want to talk about pensions, let me give them a few figures. From 1952 up to 1962 there were only two years in which the Government did not increase the pensions, only in 1957 and in 1958. The amount of the increase varied from R3,300,000 to R4,500,000. There was an increase every year. I notice that the hon. member is again getting fidgety; he gets fidgety as soon as you say something good about South Africa, Sir.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I have no intention of following the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in his Max Wilson type of tour around the world, nor do I wish to argue with him about the safety of the various countries. He asked me whether I regarded this country as safe. Well, even if it were not safe this is my country. I have already served it in two wars and perhaps I am too old now to defend it again but I am certainly too old to run away from it. I am, however, surprised that a young man of his intelligence and education should regard a debate on social pensions and social welfare as something trivial and that he should try to draw a red herring across the trail to prevent this side of the House, which is animated purely and simply by its desire to help the poorer people of the country, from doing so, and to encourage the Government to do more than it is doing.

There is need in social work to stand back sometimes and look and see what is being done, to overhaul the methods and ideas and to try to avoid slipping into set ways which are difficult to change even though they may need improvement. Anyone moving among the humbler people will know that the wind of discontent is blowing hard for them. This wind of discontent would become a gale if it were not for the fact that these unfortunate people have not the resources to draw attention to their condition. Those who are complaining are defeated by age and death before they can make themselves heard. It therefore becomes necessary for the Opposition in Parliament to take up their case and plead for them to receive better treatment. Therefore we on this side welcome this opportunity to state our standpoint in regard to the care of the poor, the aged and the disabled, whether by war, by accident or by disease, and the infirm and the chronic sick. It is extremely difficult for the Opposition in the ordinary course of events to express its wishes as regards pensions and social welfare. It is only under conditions such as these in which the debate has been brought to the House by the Opposition that it is possible for us to draw attention to the state of affairs. It is difficult for the Opposition to vote against a Bill brought to the House by the Government which increases the pensions or the benefits of social pensioners because we do not wish, and no Opposition wishes, to hold back pensions, even though our object in voting against such a Bill would be to point out that the increases are deficient; and such an event would have happened last session when in the last week of a dying session the Minister of Pensions brought forward a Bill to increase pensions. It was given to us a few days before the end of the session and it was rushed through without debate. There was no opportunity either to study the Bill or to debate it. We were not given time to debate it. [Interjections.] It is extraordinary to see how serious matters affecting people outside this House, humble people, cause great laughter on the Government benches. There is only one pain that is easy to bear, and that is the pain of other people, and there is only one poverty that is easy to bear and to laugh at, and that is the poverty of other people, and here we have a good example. Sir, what I have to say is not in criticism of the officials of the Department. In my dealings with them I have found them a knowledgeable and helpful and dedicated group of men, but a group of men frustrated by the laws which they have to carry out and by the difficulties which those laws place in their way in carrying out the charitable work they wish to do, and I can say the same for the hon. the Minister. I know him to be a man whose heart is overflowing with kindness and who is most anxious to help. But bringing cases even to his personal attention will not break through the laws, nor will it provide pensions outside the laws of this country. I want to say that this Minister should undertake the task of breaking the cold grasp of the Treasury upon pensions, he should not allow himself to be overridden in his demands for help. His duty is to see that there are no people in this country who are living below the breadline. The day of subsistence pensions is past. The idea of a pension is not to find out just how little a man can live on, on how little he can exist. This is then regarded as the minimum. But unfortunately in all State departments the minimum becomes the maximum. So we find that the unfortunate pensioner is limited to the small pittance which is provided by the Treasury, and if this Minister would learn that lesson, he would fight the battle of these people. He must not sit down and allow himself to be overridden because the Treasury says it has not the money. The Treasury and pensions are incompatible, and there must always be a fight to the death to provide pensions better than these unfortunate people have at the moment. Supporting the aged and the disabled is not a privilege. They do not ask for a privilege; on the Government it is a duty. The Government must approach this problem in a spirit of positive social responsibility, a responsibility which rests upon the Government, not passively to allow them to drift into penury, dependent on charity and ekeing out a miserable existence. I am not asking that the wasters and the “won’t works” in this country should be supported in luxury, but I do say that we have no right to condemn to penury those persons who are without sufficient resources to meet their requirements, or whose resources, including their pensions. must be supplemented to meet their requirements. It is the responsibility of a civilized people and we claim that. The resources necessary for people to live an independent life can be decided by research by the universities, and not research in the Department of Pensions and Social Welfare. That Department can be arbiter finally, but the universities must be asked to ascertain what is a bare subsistence, and then to determine a standard of living acceptable to the national conscience. I shall be surprised if the universities investigating the various races will not find that subsistence requirements are higher than the pension they receive to-day. The minimum monthly allowance should be sufficient to meet the normal needs of a household at the level demanded by the national conscience. The national conscience is awakening, and it will no longer tolerate that any human being should be reduced to a state where he is not able to live an ordinary independent and decent life. If we wish to know how the State treats its citizens, we must not look at the average, but at the minimum scale on which an unfortunate minority have to maintain life. I would suggest that the Minister discard the ratio between the various races which has been sucked out of their thumbs by the Government. I have never yet been able to decide how they arrive at what the various ratios are for the different races. I would suggest that different universities be asked to investigate the different races, and so in the final decision the various universities can meet the Minister and put before him what they believe to be a decent standard of living for every race. The present system does not encourage savings, because everyone with savings is penalized. Personal savings represent a decision to postpone the enjoyment of income, and voluntary savings are part of a personally disposable income and should remain such within reasonable and easily controllable limits. The research should consider all forms of provision for retirement, together with private pensions and endowment policies. Roughly one-third of the people reach the retiring age without having any provision at all. This is due to various facts, and payments of pensions are deferred payments for services which the individuals have in their way rendered to the State, and it is their due. Certain factors have come out in research and I would commend them to the Minister for his consideration. There is no doubt that single women and widows suffer more hardships under a pension than any other group, and they should be given extra consideration. Pensions should be increased at the age of 70. The reason is that it is about this time that pensioners who have survived to this age begin to feel that they have used up the few things that they had saved for their old age. The old man has put on weight and so his clothes get too small. The curtains are beginning to rot and that disturbs his wife. The small repairs that the house needs, the nail here and the bit of putty there, are now beyond these people; they cannot do it and they need extra money and help. I would suggest that instead of the stringent means test a minimum pension should be arrived at and then any income equivalent to that should be disregarded. In other words, the State arrives at this minimum standard, and this should be consistent with the national conscience. Having arrived at that, if anyone has saved that amount, they should still be entitled to their pensions. Above that there would have to be adjustments.

Other countries have faced this problem. In Britain we find that the dwelling-house is disregarded. Savings invested in Government stock up to a value of £750 are disregarded. In regard to other capital, there is a reduction of 5c for every R50 of capital. Other things which are disregarded are sick pay from a friendly society or trade union up to 15s., superannuation up to 15s. The maximum total for this is 30s. The earnings of pensioners are disregarded unless the wage rises above a maximum of 30s. In other words, 30s. a week —I must emphasize that—is disregarded, no matter where it comes from. This encourages the people to save and not to spend their money in their latter years. It would cost the Government very little. It is the duty of the Minister of Pensions to review the rates to ensure that the awards are sufficient to counteract the effects of inflation, the rise in the cost of living and the fall in the purchasing power of the rand. And if there is an increase in national prosperity—and it is claimed that there is—the poorest sections of the community, the pensioners and the disabled, should receive a larger share of the extra funds available rather than the reverse which is what takes place now. If wages go up, pensions should go up proportionately. May I draw the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs to this. The Durban papers in the early days of December were full of statements by these gentlemen saying that the coffers were overflowing, that there was going to be a spending spree, and they encouraged the people to spend their money. But why did they not give a share of the overflow to the pensioners? They would have spent it. There is not a living pensioner who does not need more help. I want to emphasize that pension for old people, for the infirm, for the widows or for disability, is a right; and it is a disgrace that we allow these people to live in penury, because they do live in penury.

Now I come to the question of social welfare and I want to point out that it is time that we had a completely new conception of social welfare. Social welfare is carried out by kindly, hard-working, friendly people, but here again it is held in the grip of the Treasury, and how can you expect to make laws which will meet exceptional needs, which will allow help to come to the person who is suddenly ill, who is suddenly involved in an accident, whose house has burnt down? How can you hope to do that within the limits of the law? No, we must find some way by which social welfare can supplement and help the needy, not by giving them tins of jam and loaves of bread, but by giving them shelter and help. I have had my attention drawn to a sad case recently. That of a man existing on a penurious pension and who had been overpaid and the Department quite rightly, according to its duty, was recovering the overpayment from him, but that did not make his pension go any further. It is a rule, I am given to understand, that once a man receives a pension he can receive no help from Social Welfare. That is a shocking state of affairs. Here is a man who has been given a minimum pension which does not even allow him a bare subsistence, a pension of R24, R12 of which he pays for a room, and then some of it is deducted by the Department. I am not questioning its duty, but I am merely stating that this is the state of affairs with which we are faced in this country. We are faced with a Government which gives nothing for nothing, and very little for 6d., a Government which is not prepared to face up to its duty to give people a decent chance of living. I think a way must be found to make money available to meet exceptional needs of people in exceptional circumstances, and no such state of affairs exists to-day. It is thrown upon the welfare organizations. Relying upon the welfare organizations is no more than forcing expenditure to meet the common needs from the pockets of the generous few when the need should be borne by the State, here is a positive duty on the State to take care of its citizens. Not only must we do that but we must encourage the welfare societies in other ways. There are many other ways in which they can help. In other countries I find that there are many ways in which it is done. I will come to this in a moment, but I first want to come to the point where I think the hon. the Minister can do a great deal of good if he puts his mind to it, and that is to try to develop a special type of nurse, a nurse who has had some form of training, not too much, with the modern treatment of the sick. Keeping the sick in hospitals after an operation for a very short time, providing the outpatient treatment of mental health, which is most desirable, there is need for a type of nurse, better than the district nurse, who will be able to go and see these convalescent and the mentally ill in their homes, to guide them and to help them, and above all, to guide and help their relations with whom they live. Such a nurse could do great work.

There is also other work that can be done. There is the question of the mending of clothes for old people, domestic help to keep the house clean for an old man. domiciliary dental services for old people, fuel, hairdressing. I do not mean that the wife must have her hair dressed, but cutting the hair and shaving; a mobile library, a service for people whose glasses are broken. Do you think a man with the present pension can afford to get another pair of glasses, or get his false teeth replaced when they hurt him? For safety purposes there should be someone to visit them at their homes to see whether there are not perhaps steps which are slippery and which will make these old people fall and break their legs, etc. There should also be a laundry service so that their clothes can be cleaned, and something which is very necessary, an S.O.S. card so that a pensioner living alone need only send that card to the post office and know that he will be attended to immediately. Sir, there is a great work before this Minister if he will approach it in the right spirit, if he will battle with the Treasury and get funds, and if he will put his own mind—his heart is in the right place, I know—to doing what is necessary to bring comfort and peace and help to these old people.

I rise to discuss the second point in the amendment of the United Party which deals with the effect which the border industries will have on the industries in the large urban areas and I want to confine myself to the effect they will have on employment in the urban areas. Before doing so, however, I want to refer to two statements made during the recess by two of the leaders of the United Party, statements which were in conflict with the facts which were known at the time and which cannot in any way do South Africa’s reputation any good.

I want to refer to the first statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in Cape Town when he opened the United Party Congress at Muizenberg as reported in the Star of 19 September 1962. In that statement of his the Leader of the Opposition said the following: “Unemployment was increasing ”. The second statement to which I wish to refer was made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) at the time of the Florida by-election; it was reported in the Rand Daily Mail of 11 December 1962 and the section to which I want to refer is the following “Unemployment was slowly spreading throughout the country and the standard of living was sinking ”. I ask you, Sir, when responsible people like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville make statements like that, statements which do not take the facts into account, is it that they are talking in their sleep or is it that they are deliberately distorting the facts. It is astounding to think that statements such as those can be made at a time when there is actually a decrease in unemployment in the country. When you think of it, Sir, that in November when the hon. member for Yeoville made that statement, the unemployment figure in the country had dropped to the negligible percentage of a mere .7 per cent in the case of White men and boys, and when you think of it that that unemployment figure also included 500 people who did not want to take up suitable employment, then the picture is even more favourable. But when we think of this further fact that when the Leader of the Opposition made that statement of his that unemployment was increasing there had been a decline in the unemployment figures since March already, the position becomes worse. During the general election the United Party did everything in their power to create a state of unemployment by creating panic in the economic field and by withdrawing capital. At the time of that election we said that the best way of dealing with the problem of unemployment which was rearing its head at the time was to return the National Party to power, something which would create confidence both here and overseas. As a result of that confidence was restored in the country and we do not have an unemployment problem to-day, but the problem is to find sufficient White manpower to do the work which has to be done. When you think of it, Sir, that there has been a spectacular decline of 14.000 since February in the unemployment figure of 34,000, I am astounded that the Leader of the Opposition and another responsible leader of his party could have proclaimed to the world that unemployment was getting worse. It was stated at Muizenberg on that occasion that the Leader of the Opposition has come with a “message of courage and hope ”. Well. when you want to bring “courage and hope” by means of misrepresentations, I am afraid nothing but more misery awaits you. But it is surprising, Sir, that it was done at that stage and in passing you ask yourself the question when a party like the United Party, a party which has recently come to all sorts of conclusions, wild conclusions, as to what the effect of our Bantu homelands policy of separate development will be, what value this House and the country must attach to those conclusions if they cannot even state facts which are well known to everyone correctly.

When the amendment was moved to-day the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said that they were pleased to have the opportunity of talking about the White man. We are equally pleased. It is very difficult for the United Party to talk about the White man either in this House or during elections. During the past general election, as on the occasion on the referendum, that Party preferred to indulge in all sorts of buffoonery so as not to have to talk about the White man. That is why I too welcome the fact that this House has the opportunity to-day of talking about the White man and I hope that we will not once again be entertained by the same old black maps which the United Party has hawked from one election to another.

If the United Party really have serious feelings about the White man, it does not behove them to paint such a distorted picture of our unemployment position to the world outside as the one to which I have referred. It behoves them better to get up in this House, as well as outside, and to refer with pride to the dynamic development which is taking place in our country. If the Opposition want to talk about unemployment, let them refer to the fact that the unemployment figure in Canada is 8 per cent; that of Italy 7 per cent; that of the

U.S.A. 6 per cent and they can refer to it that Canada …

But that refers to the population as a whole!

Yes, to the population as a whole. We cannot accept responsibility for Natives who come here to work from other states in Africa and from the Protectorates. [Interjections.] If the United Party wishes to place South Africa’s reputation in the right perspective, if they want to state the facts correctly, they must admit that South Africa is to-day in a most favourable position as far as the Whites are concerned or, as they call it, the White man’s employment opportunities and they could perhaps test the measure of their gratitude against the fact that there are 814,000 unemployed in Britain at the moment. That is a record over the past 15 years, not only have they had record unemployment, but there was also a record of strikes.

When that is the position and you have to learn in this debate, as we did from the previous speaker, for example, that there is supposed to be starvation in this country, then I want to say this: The best way in which any Government can fight starvation is to offer working facilities to those of its people who can work. This Government is offering that, apart from the fact that as far as pensions are concerned—as the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has shown—this Government has done more in the field of social and other pensions than any other Government in living memory. Apart from that this Government is busy with development schemes which are creating employment to such an extent that it has made South Africa the envy of the whole world. Had that not been the position. Mr. Speaker, those people who left South Africa as a result of United Party propaganda, propaganda in connection with the referendum, would not have been returning to-day. They are returning to-day. however, firstly because United Party prophecies about the misery which would follow did not materialize and secondly because employment facilities and the standard of living in South Africa are the best and the highest in the civilized world. They are returning because there is an opportunity for everyone here who can work and who wants to work. And that is also why we welcome them back.

The only people who are unemployed are the Opposition.

I now want to deal with the matter which really made me rise, namely the effect of the border industries on the employment position in the metropolitan areas.

During the no-confidence debate the Leader of the Opposition really launched a two-pronged attack; and as this House and the country have already become accustomed to, and typical of the United Party, those two prongs are completely opposed to one another. One of them once again reared its head here to-day. In the first place, the Leader of the Opposition said during the no-confidence debate that the development which was taking place in the border areas was taking place at the expense of the development in the whole country. Then we had the second point which was to the effect that this development was taking place at too slow a pace to serve in any way as a magnet to attract the Bantu away from the large urban areas. Coupled with that we get the cry—the cry which has made the hon. member for Yeoville famous, namely the Hong Kong cry—that the development along the borders was adversely affecting the labour market in existing areas. We hear this cry from time to time.

I want to refer firstly to this statement that the development of border industries will harm the economy of the country. I am not an economist, however, and can consequently say very little about it, However, I wish to place on record an observation with which I think every normal person will agree and it is this: During the recess I had the opportunity of visiting certain border industries, as well as industries in the Bantu areas. However, I only want to refer to certain of those areas, particularly because they are relevant to this discussion. I want to refer in particular to the effect which two border industries have had on White areas, areas which are not represented by members on this side of the House, but by members opposite. I want to refer, firstly, to the effect which the Good Hope Textile Factory at King William’s Town has on the economy of the town, secondly, to the effect which the new Cyril Lord textile factory, which is 9 miles from East London on the border of the Ciskei has on minds of the people of East London. I had the privilege of visiting both these areas and of speaking to the responsible city fathers there—not to the political agents who are operating there. I am referring to these factories to test the allegation that they are affecting the labour market in the big cities adversely. Let me deal with the first instance with the influence which that area has over the economy of those White areas. The one thing that I was told by those people, whether they lived in King William’s Town or at East London, was that those border industries were of the utmost importance to the economy of the White man whether he lived in King William’s Town or at East London. It is really the textile factory at King William’s Town which is the biggest stimulant to the commercial life in that otherwise peaceful town at the moment. East London, with all its scenic beauty, is also otherwise peaceful. As a matter of fact, the city fathers told me that themselves. There has been negligible industrial development but now that a border industry has been established nine miles away, the city fathers of that town hope for the first time that it will be accompanied by general industrial development as far as the White area is concerned.

Let me deal more specifically with the purchasing power. In this connection we are often told by the Opposition as well as by other bodies that we should increase the purchasing power of the Bantu because if we increase his purchasing power he will be able to purchase more factory products and more people will have to be employed by the factories. That is a completely logical argument. The Opposition has apparently never realized that if the border industries employed Bantu and paid them wages, they would be creating purchasing power there. If those Bantu have that purchasing power they will always buy more goods which are manufactured in the White areas—or rather in the big metropolitan areas—than goods which come from the Bantu areas. That ought to be logical. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) also reproached us to-day and said that the border industrial development was adversely affecting existing industries in our own areas. He went on to address himself to the hon. member for Mayfair and to ask what the position was to-day in regard to Veka which was closing down in Johannesburg and moving to Charlestown.

I want to say a few words about this removal of Veka particularly because it is one of the favourite arguments of the United Party when they attack the policy of developing border industries. Firstly, I want to say this, that Charlestown is not a border area. It is an ordinary Bantu residential area beyond Volksrust. That is the first point. The second is that the Government and the planning committee who have to plan the establishment of industries in border areas adopt the attitude that clothing factories are not the kind of factories to be encouraged to move to the border areas. It is true, and I am sorry about it, that Veka have closed their factory in Johannesburg and have moved it to Charlestown. As I have already said I am very sorry about that, but the fact remains that Veka has as much right to do so as any other industrialist in the country. What always strikes me in this connection, is the fact that the United Party is always so over-anxious to pick on an Afrikaans factory like Veka and to besmirch it. [Interjections.] I have never yet heard the Opposition attacking other factories in Charlestown. Surely there are other large factories— I have been through them myself. Trumps is one of them; another is Treets. Those are large clothing factories in Charlestown but I have never yet heard the Opposition attacking those factories. It is Veka which must always be attacked.

Mr. Speaker, as long as the United Party continues to direct its politics at Afrikaans institutions, they can be sure of it that, as far as obtaining Afrikaans support is concerned, they will go back further. But I want to add this: In spite of the fact that Veka considered it necessary to move its factory—as I have already said he was free to do so—it cannot operate with fixed wages but it has to pay wages which have been laid down by the Wage Board, wages which apply to every factory in Northern Natal. Consequently the starting wage is precisely the same as the wages laid down in the Industrial Council agreement.

The same as on the Witwatersrand?

This Industrial Council agreement was originally the Transvaal Industrial Council agreement and the previous Minister of Labour extended the Transvaal Industrial Council agreement to Northern Natal. At the time when it was so extended the Wage Board investigated the industries in that area and made recommendations. In terms of that agreement the starting wage was R3.40 for men and it was also R3.40 in terms of the wage determination. As far as qualified labour was concerned, it was R8.75 for women under the old agreement; to-day it is R8.50 in terms of the wage determination. The point is that this wage determination applies to all clothing factories in that area and not only to Veka. If those people can compete with the type of labour which they have there … well, let them do so.

But to create the impression that it is because of the industrial development along the borders that factories such as Veka and others in Johannesburg have to close down and move elsewhere, is incorrect. When I learned about Veka’s decision I instructed my Department to go very thoroughly into the position. A proper report was submitted to me from which I just want to give a few points which are relevant here. As against the one factory, Veka, which has moved, there are at the moment ten other clothing factories which are in the process of opening in the Johannesburg area. If it is alleged that the development in Charlestown and elsewhere is having an adverse affect on the development of the clothing industry elsewhere, then these ten factories should not have started.

But there is another aspect of the clothing industry to which I want to refer.

With how many machines did these ten factories start?

I do not have that information, but I think the following facts should be of great interest to the hon. member who is very interested in labour matters. He will remember how the United Party continually accused this side of the House that we would accomplish nothing with job reservation. We are told that we did not save the clothing industry for the White man. I want to mention this, that at the time of the inquiry to which I have already referred, I asked the Department to determine to what extent job reservation had assisted in securing or saving the White man’s position in the Witwatersrand area. I have just received the following revealing facts from the Department, namely: On 2 June 1961 there were 185 clothing factories in the central area of the Rand and 1,831 White were employed in those factories. In October 1962 that figure stood at 1,960. This attempt on our part, therefore, assisted in the first place in stopping the outflow of White and in the second place in making the clothing industry in the central area of the Rand attractive to the Whites for the first time. Since 2 June 1961 35 White men and 492 White women have entered the clothing industry as learners! That, to my mind, deals adequately with the criticism of the United Party, on the one hand, as far as job reservation is concerned, and on the other hand that there was no longer any employment for the Whites as a result of the development of the clothing industry elsewhere.

I now wish to return to the question of the textile industry. What struck me at King William’s Town were the advantages which that industry brought with it, and also of how little danger it was to the country’s economy and to the labour market. Over 3,000 Bantu are to-day working in the Good Hope Textile factory in King William’s Town. This figure is expected to rise to 4,000 within a year. The position is that the purchasing power of those 4,000 Bantu will stimulate that area more than anything else. I hope the hon. member for King William’s Town accepts what I am saying with gratitude. However, purchasing power is not the only thing which is being created there, but the textile industry has not been developed there purely by chance just as it was not the case with Cyril Lord’s at East London. Before an industry is granted the concessions which the United Party complain about, the Government’s committee for the establishment of industries along the borders of the reserves conducts a very thorough investigation with a view to determining what kind of industries can be encouraged to begin in the border areas. One of the requirements laid down is that such industries should not compete on an unfair basis with industries in the metropolitan areas. It, therefore, has to be an industry which can go there freely and which employs labour intensively. If it is established there it must be an asset to the country. And that is also the position in regard to this textile industry which we are discussing now. When you think of it, Sir, that it was only last year that the country still had to import textile goods to the value of R100,000,000 you realize the value of the border area policy of the Government, and the object is to make this country in the course of time totally independent of imports from overseas.

At the time when I visited the Eastern Cape I also had the opportunity of talking to textile industrialists and of putting the pertinent question to them as to whether this textile factory at King William’s Town or the one which will be established at East London constituted a threat to the existing textile factories on the Rand. The industrialists concerned replied definitely “no ”.

Which textile factory on the Rand? I want to know to which factory you are referring?

I do not want to mention the name of the manager here at the moment. In order to assist the hon. member further, let me just say this that the textile factories at King William’s Town and at East London manufacture material which is not manufactured elsewhere in the country. The Good Hope textile factory manufactures the so-called printed material and Cyril Lord’s will manufacture a fine cotton which is not manufactured anywhere else in the country. These factories are therefore not competing on an unfair basis with any existing factory.

In the first place border industries are planned most judiciously and only those industries which are essential and which will not constitute a threat to existing industries, can depend on encouragement from the Government. I want to say this to the United Party who are always seeing bogeys, that if they think that the border industries may develop to the detriment of existing industries, we have sufficient labour machinery at our disposal to cope with any unfair competition. Wage Board investigations can be instituted—as was done in the case of North Natal which is not really a border area. Furthermore, an Industrial Council agreement can be extended. Seeing that the United Party is continually seeing bogeys as to what can happen if Bantu homelands are established, with spring boards for the Russians and I don’t know what other nightmares, I wish to say that I harbour no fears that even the Bantu homelands will constitute a threat to us and that co-operation will not always take place on a sensible basis because if there were to be industries in the Bantu homelands which did not carry out Wage Board agreements and who paid low wages which would enable them to enter into unfair competition, I think they ought to know that this Government would have no alternative but to seek tariff protection. For that reason I do not believe any responsible government in a Bantu area will do anything as irresponsible as that.

On the contrary, this development is to the benefit not only of the economy of the country but it will also create better employment in future. Let us look at the United Party who have such a great deal to say about the danger which those industries will constiture to the White areas. Do they want to tell us that there is no danger in their policy of establishing industries in the Bantu areas with the assistance of White capital? It is United Party policy, is it not, to establish industries in the reserves with White capital? Will such industries not constitute a greater danger to us? Let me say this to the United Party, namely that the voters of the country are confident that the Government is administering this development in the right way. As against that and in the light of the United Party’s record, they are not confident that the United Party will administer that development in such a way that the White man will be protected.

I want to conclude by saying that in order to test the correctness of the allegation by the United Party that the development of the border industries is affecting the development in the metropolitan areas adversely, you should find out what the workers’ feelings are in the big industrial areas. In this regard I do not wish to refer to all our election successes which must, of course, be a little painful for the United Party to swallow, but I want to refer to something else in particular …

Florida!

Mr. Speaker, for the United Party to talk about Florida to-day is amusing in more ways than one. That is a sign that there are people in this country who find solace in very little. I do not think we should begrudge them that in the long run; they have so little in any case. However, the test to-day is what the feelings are of the workers in the great urban areas in the country—to what extent there is satisfaction amongst them in view of the way in which the United Party has incited them over the years as to the dangers connected with these border industries. What has been the effect of that? Surely the workers are not completely uninformed. For years the United Party have been trying to make the workers believe that this development along the border areas will deprive them of their bread and butter in the cities. We have had to fight elections about that and we have had to appear on platforms in Germiston and elsewhere in order to give the facts concerning the Hong Kong story. Had the United Party been correct in their view of the matter, you would have expected the workers to be perturbed to-day and you would have expected unrest in the labour market. But the reverse is the position. South Africa is to-day in the fortunate position that we have had so few strikes, strikes reflect the industrial peace in a country, that we have commanded the admiration of the entire civilized world. During the past year the number of strikes in this country has dropped to 33. While the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is boasting about the United Party legislation, I want to ask him why it is that the United Party legislation did not have the same salutary effect just before this Government came into power? In 1947— just before we came into power and when the United Party had the same machinery to a large extent—there were not 33 strikes but 62. While the amount lost to the country last year in the form of wages was only R192,000, is the hon. member aware of it that the corresponding figure for 1947 was R3,000,000.

That. Mr. Speaker, shows that no matter how good the legislation may be, it is essential that the White voters should have confidence in those who are in power. And the White voters of this country do have confidence in this Government. They are confident that as far as this industrial development along the borders or any other development is concerned, the Government will always ensure that the economy and prosperity of the country is promoted and that it will give the necessary protection to existing White manpower against unfair and unreasonable competition. They have that confidence in this side of the House but not in the United Party. That is why the United Party is continuing to lose more urban seats.

What about Germiston?

The hon. member must not talk about Germiston. During the general election the United Party did not have the courage to put up a candidate at Germiston. Nor did they have the courage to put up a candidate against the hon. member for Mayfair, or against me at Alberton. No, Mr. Speaker, those people who spread the Hong Kong and other stories, when they had to put it to the test, lacked the courage to go to the electorate. They sheltered behind toadstools then.

I want to conclude by saying that the workers with whom I am in close touch, have confidence in the manner in which this Government is applying its border area policy. As intelligent people they realize that it is one of the most powerful weapons to protect them against being inundated by the Blacks in the urban areas. Because they realize that increasing numbers of workers in this country are supporting this Government more and more. The only condition they make is that the Government must carry out its policy as quickly as possible.

The hon. Deputy Minister of Labour has accused my leader and the member for Yeoville of misleading the public by making statements which were false. He was referring to unemployment, and in this connection he told the House just now that the unemployment figure for Canada was 8 per cent. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. Deputy Minister confirms it then. But now I want to accuse him of misleading this House. I have here the latest available statistics of the UNO dated November 1962. Under the heading of Canada the unemployment figure is shown as 4.1 per cent. Now, that then is the hon. the Deputy Minister who has the impertinence to accuse this side of the House of having misled the public. The position is that the hon. the Deputy Minister with his entire Department behind him cannot produce the right figures, and therefore we are entitled to accuse him of misleading the House and South Africa.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister came with false figures to the House?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to quote figures in this House, he should then quote the official figures which are available to him from the library of this very House. These statistics are available in the library of this House and are available to any member. The hon. Deputy Minister could therefore have got these statistics out of the library if he wanted to take the trouble to do so. But yet he came here and accused my leader of having misled the people and thereafter proceeded to give figures to this House and to the country which were not correct! If he was half a Minister of Labour he should have known that they were incorrect. [Interruptions.] If these are the sort of facts which this hon. Deputy Minister gives to this House then how can we believe anything which he tells us. There is a second factor. He accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of claiming that unemployment was increasing when in fact it was decreasing. What the hon. member hid from this House, and I say that he deliberately kept that fact back, was the fact that he bad changed the Unemployment Insurance Act in the last session so that the pregnant working mothers of South Africa were no longer regarded as unemployed. And I challenge any hon. member on that side to deny it. Other people who have not and cannot get employment after 6 months are also not regarded in the statistics which he quoted as being unemployed. The law which his Minister introduced regards an expectant mother as not being unemployed, unless she has worked for 13 weeks after her pregnancy. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not take any notice of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) because I never know to which party he belongs at any particular moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister failed to tell this House that his statistics no longer reflected those two large groups of people whom his Government had deliberately and with intent prevented from drawing unemployment insurance any further. In this debate Government members have stood up and asked why the United Party were pleading for the interests of the White man? Because this Government and this Minister have deliberately turned down thousands upon thousands of people who have contributed every week to an unemployment insurance fund and denied them the right to draw their unemployment insurance; they are no longer regarded in the official statistics as unemployed. The hon. Deputy Minister ought to know, if he does not know it, that according to the Steenkamp investigation 75,000 Bantu enter the labour market every year, and only some 40,000 are absorbed; some 35,000 are not absorbed into the labour market every year. He did not mention that fact to the House. But he quotes the unemployment figure for Canada, which is an incorrect figure and then he accuses us of giving wrong information.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) told us about the half a million unemployed Bantu. Where are they in the Minister’s statistics? According to him they are not unemployed. Where are the aged, those people who have contributed all their lives to an unemployment fund and who to-day cannot find work? They are not regarded as unemployed to-day because they have not worked for 13 weeks. That Minister’s attitude is typical of that of his Government and that was the reason why of all the hundreds of things for which we are entitled to hold this Government blameworthy, we choose to pick on this particular attitude towards the aged and the unfortunate in South Africa and to pin-point it in this debate; because of this callous disregard, this complete and utter disregard of anything which does not have a political value to members opposite. Because there are only 90,000 pensioners who are mostly in the cities where the United Party holds the seats anyway, they can afford to say “To hell with the interests of the old aged; we do not care about them; they can live on £12 per month.” Two of the sheep of that hon. member over there— sheep is about the only thing that he knows anything about—are worth more than £12. How can a human being live on £12 per month? This Government is not interested in the welfare of the ordinary White worker in South Africa unless he is able to get a vote out of him. And this Deputy Minister of Labour is one of the worst. Because when we fought hour after hour last year for the interests of the unemployed he was the Minister who stood up and said: “I am sorry.” He could not care less.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) said this afternoon “We do not want the scum”, I want to deal with that because the Deputy Minister of Labour spoke about immigration.

What is wrong with that? You wanted the good and the bad.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that there was so little unemployment that we now had to have immigrants. The member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) came with a new concept namely that we could not have immigrants before because we had to wait for the Republic. I have here, Sir, the official policy of the Nationalist Party. This particular pamphlet was issued by one M. D C. de Wet Nel, P.O. Box 1246, Pretoria. He agrees with the member for Ventersdorp, because this is what this pamphlet says. He said this in 1948 when his Government was in opposition. A few months later they became the Government and could not then bring immigrants into South Africa because of the Republic. But the Minister of Bantu Administration said the following—

Gedurende die tweelf maande eindig 12 November 1947 het 24,000 immigrante hulle permanent in Suid-Afrika gevestig.

He ends off—

So word u kinders se toekoms aan die vreemdelinge verkwansel.

That was the official policy of that party in 1948. The member for Mayfair says they could not have immigrants until we became a Republic. The Minister of Bantu Administration says “No, you must protect your children against those * vreemdelinge'." The hon. member for Ventersdorp implied that they were the scum.

May I ask you a question?

No. If I thought the hon. member could ask an intelligent question I would have allowed him to put a question. The Deputy Minister said this evening that he wanted immigrants because of the lack of unemployment. But what is the record of their party? I have here a letter dated 14 December 1962; it is addressed to me. This letter is from London—

This is not an isolated example, Sir. The hon. Minister of Information laughs. Does he wonder why immigrants are not coming to South Africa? Does he wonder why they do not come here when he issues pamphlets showing the new foreigners in South Africa as being Black people? The Minister of Labour wants immigrants. But when people are prepared to come with their skills and their capital this Government puts every obstacle in their way. I will tell you why obstacles were placed in the way of this applicant. Not because he was separated, but because of his religious belief. I challenge this Government to deny that they are preventing immigrants from entering this country because of their religious beliefs.

That is not true.

Mr. Speaker, nobody can prove that fact. It is just these many, many instances of people who will be valuable immigrants to this country and who suddenly find all these obstacles put in their way, which make one come to that conclusion.

As I have said this Government shows a callous disregard of the interests of the White man. We have now reached the stage where it is our duty as an Opposition to bring to the notice of South Africa in clear and unequivocable terms the extent of that disregard and that callousness. I want to ask one simple question of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour: Does he believe that a human being, a White person, and his wife can live on the present rate of pension in any of the cities of South Africa? Can his Government believe that a person can live on that? I am not interested in statistics as to what the figure was in nineteen o what; I am interested in whether people in 1963 can maintain a decent standard of living on what this Government is giving them.

All the increases were granted by this Government.

I am not interested in the increases; can a pensioner exist to-day on £12 a month? That is the simple question, The hon. Deputy Minister can say “yes” or “no ”. The hon. Deputy Minister cannot say “yes” or “no”, because he knows in his heart that it is “no ”. But he must give us statistics to show how much better off they were than three years ago or five years ago or 15 years ago. If they were so badly off in 1948 then it was a disgrace and a blot on the government pf the United Party. But that does not excuse the existing state of affairs. Members are quoting figures here to-day which completely ignore devaluation. They take theoretical academic cost-of-living figures and try to prove that they have done such a great deal. [Interjections.] I do not want to get involved in any sort of statistical argument. I am interested in the fact of whether this Minister who is now running away, believes that a person can live on the sum of £12 per month. The person who cannot buy a loaf of bread or a glass of milk on the 30 th of the month is not interested in what he would have got in 1948; he is interested in how he can live in 1963. That is the question which this Government has to answer. Have they accepted that as a standard of civilized living? If that is the standard of living which they have set for the Whites of South Africa, then it is time that the White people of this country …

What figure do you suggest as the best?

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a person living in a city cannot exist on less than £20 to £24 per month. I do not believe that any person can live in a city, pay rent, buy food and clothing under £20 plus per month. It is a scandal that they should be expected to eke out this miserable existence because the Government says they got less many years ago. That is no answer; the answer this Government must give is to the pensioners of to-day. I have a letter here from a pensioner dated 12 January 1963 in which he says this—

Mr. Speaker, are the aged and the poor of South Africa to feel that they are beggars pleading for charity when they come to ask from their fellow-citizens who are more fortunate the right of security in their old age? This Government which is bragging about the richness of South Africa, bragging about the strength of our economy, make these people feel that they are beggars pleading for charity when they claim what is their right, their right from a society which they have served and from which they have the right to ask that that society should care for them in their old age and give to them something of what they gave to the country.

I agree with other hon. members that the officials in the Department in nearly every case are most considerate but they are bound by laws and regulations. I had a case last year in December of a man without legs and with two fingers on one hand and none on the other. He could not get a pension; he could not get a disability grant; he was living on his unemployment insurance. And that was stopped by the Minister who has run away because he cannot face facts. This man could not get a disability grant because his wife was earning R12.17 per week working in a tearoom. You know the sort of hours a tearoom waitress must work, Sir. Because she was prepared to try to raise their standard of living by working with her hands from any time in the morning to any time at night earning R12 odd a week, he was not entitled to one penny assistance from the Government because his wife was earning 17 cents more than a rigid line drawn.

I do not believe you.

That hon. member says he does not believe me. I will bring to him the evidence of that case. That person is now going to get a disability grant because his wife has lost her job and has got another job under R12 per week.

I do not believe you.

Sir, that hon. member is so used to his own approach to truth that he does not recognize truth when he hears it from other people. These are the issues which we want the Government to face; these are the charges which we level at the Government, that they are so obsessed with their colour politics in South Africa that they have forgotten the existence of the needy White man in this country. The charge which the hon. member for Constantia made in his opening speech has not been refuted by any hon. member on that side of the House. This Government has become so obsessed with colour, has become so obsessed with its ideological legislation that it has forgotten that there are Whites in South Africa, blood of their blood and flesh of their flesh, White people who also deserve from the Government some recognition for what they have given towards building up the security and stability of South Africa.

We are not led off the track by speeches like that of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). I will not waste my time answering him but that sort of nonsensical political claptrap is not going to detract the attention of the people of South Africa from the hard cold fact that this Government is so tied up with its own ideology that it is unable to pay attention to those things which we in the United Party believe form an essential part of the responsibility of any government.

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as far as the labour aspect of his speech is concerned, but I found it interesting that he referred to the report of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in which reference is made to the 1,000,000 foreign non-Whites in this country. He now objects to the fact that there are 500,000 non-Whites who are unemployed; and then his party is the party which reproaches us for having introduced influx control. I do not know what the hon. member really wants. Must we allow more non-Whites to enter from the Protectorates and create more unemployment here? Or what does his party really want? They do not know themselves what they want; that is why they are all talking at cross purposes. The hon. member also complained and said that the pensions were inadequate. The hon. member for Rosettenville also asked that increased pensions should be paid to the aged and that more should be done in the way of health services. On the other hand we had the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who said that the time was long overdue that the Government reduced taxation. The hon. member for Point has just asked for the pensions of the aged to be doubled. That means that the hon. the Minister of Finance has to find between R40,000,000 and R45,000,000 per annum to give that 100 per cent increase to the aged. I want to know where the money must come from if we have to give an additional amount of R45,000,000 to the aged alone as well as those other ancillary services which hon. members opposite also expect. I think that party, because it is in the Opposition, has made completely irresponsible demands in order to create an impression outside. They do not want to face actual reality.

I just want to refer to a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). The hon. member for Rosettenville talked about kwashiorkor and what we were doing about preventing it. The hon. the Minister of Health has already been talking for years about this malnutritional disease which is prevalent in this country. It is not a disease of under-nourishment but it is a disease of malnutrition. The Native, instead of buying milk for his child, buys him a cool drink. He expect the child to remain healthy on bread and a cool drink instead of spending that money on vegetables and milk. You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister of Health told us that powdered milk was being made available to these people in hospitals and clinics and in the reserves in order to prevent kwashiorkor. The Government is subsidizing it to the tune of 6d. per one pound tin. They expect the local authority to contribute a sixpence and the consumer to contribute a sixpence to that tin of powdered milk. In that way the Government is assisting and helping in the prevention of this disease as far as possible.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) had something to say about tuberculosis a day or two ago. He said that the Government was not doing its duty as far as tuberculosis was concerned. Mr. Speaker, the Government is already spending over R 11,000,000 per annum on the combating of tuberculosis in its active form. The hon. member also mentioned the B.C.G. vaccine last Friday. He wanted to know why the Government did not make use of the B.C.G. vaccine to prevent tuberculosis. I want to tell the hon. member that the Government has instructed all local authorities—the Government has given them the right—to give everybody who comes to the clinics a B.C.G. injection in order to prevent tuberculosis and as you know, Sir, the Government reimburses the local authorities to an extent of seven-eighths of their costs in providing this service. The Government is, therefore, carrying 87½ per cent of all the costs incurred in the prevention of tuberculosis. We were also told by hon. members opposite that the pensions paid to the aged were inadequate and that the Government had not done its duty in this regard. But when we think what the value of money was in 1948 when the present Government took over we find that the value of money has dropped by 63 per cent but that pensions have been increased by more than 100 per cent. I do not think, therefore, that anybody can say that the Government has not done its duty towards the aged people.

I want to go into a few other matters, matters which were also raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely the care of the aged. The hon. member knows as well as I do that it was announced in 1961 that the new formula to be followed when any local authority wanted to erect an old people’s home was that private undertakings could raise loans with the Government on the rand for rand basis to build such homes. I also want to mention the fact that if any public body wishes to erect an old people’s home it can borrow the money from the National Housing Commission at 1/20th per cent per £100. In addition the pension of the inmates of such a home is subsidized to the tune of R3½ per month and where they are infirm the subsidy amounts to an additional R10 per month. The furnishing of such homes has been increased from £15 per room to £45. That was done so as to encourage public bodies to erect homes and in that way provide the aged with cheap housing. If there are authorities who do not make use of these facilities the Government cannot be blamed for it. I think it is rather a case where some people are too indifferent about making use of the facilities which are available and rather blame the Government subsequently for their own shortcomings. We were also told about the aged who were not properly cared for. Last Friday the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) pleaded for it that we should accept the report of the Snyman Commission and that the Government should put its recommendations into effect. As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of those recommendations is to the effect that the Government should recommend to all workers in this country to join a contributory pension scheme. It does not matter what work he does, but as long as he is a wage-earner he should contribute to a pension scheme so that it will not be necessary for him to go hat in hand one day when he is old and beg for a pension but so that he will be entitled to draw a pension on which he can live. I hope the Government will see its way clear to give effect to that suggestion of the Snyman Commission and that the workers will contribute to a pension scheme while they are working, so that they will be better cared for in their old age than they are to-day. I also wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that no Government has done more in the field of Native housing and Native health than the present Government. I think we are all agreed on that. Even hon. members of the Opposition have a great deal to say on the platteland about our being negrophilists because we had moved them from the slums in the cities and housed them on a proper and sound basis. But to-day they come along and say that we are not doing anything for the poor people in this country. I think hon. members opposite should be more conscious of their responsibility as an Opposition towards the public of this country before they level accusations at the Government which cannot be substantiated.

The hon. member for Geduld (Mr. Jurgens) mentioned what it would cost the country to increase the pensions of the aged. I will during the course of my speech give some figures dealing with this. He also referred to some of the problems raised by my colleagues but in the main his speech was an expression of sympathy with movements helping the people of our country; he came forward with no worthy, practical suggestions. Mr. Speaker, one of our previous speakers said that nothing could be truer than that this Government has so concentrated on ideologies that the real problems of the country have been side-tracked and have not received the attention that they should have. During the last six years over £120,000,000 have been taken out of the pockets of the public and transferred from Revenue Account to Loan Account. Now again there is talk of an additional surplus of R45,000,000.

During the recess, Mr. Speaker, I was asked to interview some of my constituents in regard to the effect of the new Pneumioconiosis Act and the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. One meeting led to another. In my area and in the areas of many hon. members on that side there is great worry and distress. A petition was sent from one meeting about the Unemployment Insurance Act to the Minister of Labour. This petition was signed by 31 men. I can assure you, Sir, that I had nothing to do with the 31 men coming there. I was asked to come and talk to them. We got a reply from the Minister to this petition acknowledging receipt and advising that the contents had been noted. The fact that the 31 names on that petition were English names may have influenced the Minister’s view of the matter, this particular Minister, especially, who is in the Cabinet to watch the interests of the English-speaking people, we are told. The same hon. Minister yesterday in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) Mr. Oldfield) concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act, referred to people who were “out of the labour market”. If ever there was a more cynical phrase used in this House, I would not like to know about it. These men that he referred to are the men of over 60 or so, able-bodied and able to work. Out of these meetings, Mr. Speaker, arose one definite fact more and more clearly each time, namely that thrift does not pay in this country. A number of men at these meetings were over 65, fine men who had been good citizens; the majority of them owned their own homes and had spent the best of their lives on the mines. The mining industry is a good employer and kept them in employment as long as it possibly could. Mines have closed down on the East Rand, and these older men are finding it more and more difficult to get jobs, and because they have been thrifty and saved a bit and have their own homes, they find themselves precluded from getting the old-age pension. It is the old story we have brought up so often in this House: Thrift is really a foolish virtue here. Mr. Speaker, the last report of the Department of Social Welfare in my possession give the following number of pensioners in 1958: Old-age, Europeans 87,000 odd; non-Europeans, 50,000 odd; war-veterans, Europeans, 29,000 odd; non-Whites, 1,100 odd. And in 1961, the then Minister of Pensions said that the total number of pensioners handled by his Department was about 280,000. These are big figures, and do not include the African pensioners. In 1960-1—I am quoting again from this report—social welfare pensioners received an increase of 5 per cent. This 5 per cent cost the state £1,200,000 (we dealt in pounds in those days). So an increase of 20 per cent would have cost only £5,000,000, certainly not an excessive figure to me where a surplus of £20,000,000 is socked away every year for other purposes, and last year’s surplus too was arrived at after very, very considerable expenditure on defence. Over seven years there has been an average of over £20,000,000 a year ploughed back, and it was seven years in the desert for the old-age pensioners in many cases. I must say that I do not think there would have been any public outcry, no, it would have been welcomed had a reasonable increase been given to the pensioners.

I want to concentrate really on two points only in regard to pensions. The first is known as the “time limits” under the War Pensions Act, and the second is the present form of the means test.

In regard to the time limit I cannot understand why this Government will not move in this matter. Under the War Pensions Act of 1942, as amended, if a war pensioner marries more than ten years after his discharge from the army, he gets no allowance for his wife and if any children are born more than ten years after his discharge from the army, those children get no children’s allowance. On this point we also must remember that if a man marries after a period of ten years and then dies of his pensionable disability, i.e. of his war wounds, his widow and children receive no pension whatsoever. I submit that this is manifestly, shockingly unfair. This time limit exists no longer in any of the sort of countries that we regard as our associates. Let me just quote quickly: In the United Kingdom the time limits were entirely abolished in 1946. The time limit never existed in Australia for World War II pensioners, and was abolished for World War I pensioners in 1950. In Canada it did not apply to World War II and was abolished for World War I in 1958. In New Zealand there is no time limit, but the War Pensions Board may disallow a war pension if there is evidence of a deathbed marriage. In Rhodesia this time limit was abolished in 1958. Now we have got to realize that we are a country practically under arms. We have brought in the new law making our boys go and train for these long periods, and we have to bear in mind that the provisions of this War Pensions Act apply to these boys. Anybody really hurt, and fellows do get hurt sometimes when training, will fall under this same disability. If ever there was an injustice crying out to be remedied it is this one. In none of the countries mentioned was there ever any outcry whatever about the additional cost once this position had been accepted. We are still over-taxed by £20,000,000 a year and we cannot meet this just claim. I listened this afternoon to the hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. He gave us the usual honeyed words about the little bits that have been given by this Government over the years. I am not prepared to say that these people have been completely neglected, but I say that these little bits and small improvements were crumbs from the rich man’s table—the Government were considering other matters most of the time. I would like to point out to the people who are in command of the money that it will only need a circular to every war pensioner to find out what amount this removal of time limits would cost the country. But I say that that is not even necessary. The claim is so just that such an inquiry should not be necessary.

I now want to come to the working of the present means test. I know the official view is that if a man has assets and receives an old age pension which enables him to protect those assets, then his old age pension really benefits only his heirs finally. I accept that this is a difficulty, but I do not accept it as an insuperable difficulty, either from the point of view of the necessary legislation or from the point of view of the amount of money concerned. I certainly don’t think that this should be allowed to remain as it is, because we know now that the number of these men is increasing.

We are continually preaching that thrift is a virtue, and we can say, as one of my colleagues said, that our people are not charity-seekers and would prefer to stand on their own feet, but, as I say, this problem is increasing. With the increasing expectation of life more and more old people find themselves in a position when, through force of circumstances, not their own fault, they need the old age pension. Sir, even if the Government had accepted our pressure in regard to bringing in a contributory pension scheme, it would still have been necessary to do something about these people, because there would have remained a large number of citizens who could not possibly be brought under such a scheme and would have to remain under the cover of a social welfare pension.

I am not against the means test. I think a means test under present conditions is essential. But I am against the means test on the present basis, and I say that it must be altered. A roof of your own when you get older is equally essential. The older you get the more precious your own home becomes. The very fact—it has been said before and I do not apologize for repeating it—that having been a good citizen entitles you in your old age to reasonable comfort and to be free of the fear of being cold on a winter’s night. I cannot understand why this Government put so many of these people who own their own houses in the position that they are in many cases practically forced to sell their house or to borrow on them and spend the money until such time as they fall within the present means test. It does not make sense, and it would not be expensive. All the honeyed words in the world don’t help us. We have got to put this means test on a different basis. I hope that this Government does not agree with the Minister of Labour that people of 60 and more, are “off the labour market” and that he can do nothing about them. I referred to the view that the heirs would benefit at the expense of the State. That is possibly correct. But I want to make a suggestion and it is a practical suggestion. There is a definite way of dealing with this official objection. Why cannot the law be altered to give the State a preference claim on an estate for the total amount of old age pension paid, or for a certain number of years prior to death? I think the second suggestion is possibly better. The total pension paid to a man over the last eight years of his life under present conditions, if he is getting his maximum, would be something over R2,000 in the eight years. That figure is well under the maximum they work on in regard to these matters—but of course the present limit in the view of this side of the House should also be increased. I know that I will be attacked immediately, mainly by the officials I suppose, with the argument that there are many loopholes. But I have discussed this matter with a number of people and I cannot see any loophole that cannot be closed. So the effect of it would be that if you go into this suggestion and find it practicable, don’t approach it from the point of view of looking at all the difficulties to see whether you can prevent it being brought into the law. If you don’t look at it from a basis, this is a practical suggestion and the difficulties can be overcome. The hon. the Minister this afternoon did say that he had given a concession in regard to the surviving spouse in respect of the couple’s house. Why not take this a step further and disregard the house, at the same time protecting the State against the fact (it is a fact) that the State’s money although being paid to these older people eventually will reach the heirs? I have no objection to the heirs getting something, but as a practical businessman, I cannot see why under our conditions of life this old age pension paid to the people, should not be charged against the estate.

From pensions I want to turn to the question of dying mines which is mentioned in our amendment, and in the course of that I will have to mention new industries and industries on the borders of the reserves, as our economy, as everybody knows, is so closely interlocked to-day that one part of it cannot be divorced from any other part. I would like to say that this question of taking industries to the borders of the reserves of course should really be called “bringing the borders of the reserves to industry”, the way it is tackled by this Government. I repeat that our economic life is becoming more and more interwoven and as mines die on the East Rand or on the Rand, more and more of the old men experience difficulty in finding jobs and then of course naturally more pensions become necessary. If industries grow in those areas, these older men have a chance then to find a job in one of the industries and keep themselves alive and relieve the state of the burden of a pension in their case. It must be remembered that a very large proportion of men over 60 to-day are really in their prime. The normal expectation of life, I believe, has increased from 48 in 1900 to 70 in 1960. I repeat that as mines die, more and more people would be looking for work. But it does seem to me that the present Government policy is directed towards killing oft the low-grade mines and discouraging industry from taking their place in that area. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago the hon. the Prime Minister appointed an Economic Advisory Council, accountable only to him, and one hoped that the patch-work handling of our economy would cease and we would find a certain amount of guidance and control at the top where it is so necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, what has been our experience? The hon. Minister of Railways attended a banquet of the F.C.I., the Federated Chamber of Industries in November, and I would like to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 14 November under the heading “Shocked Schoeman in turn shocked industrialists ”—

Knowing the Minister of Transport, I am prepared to accept that. But he went on to say—

Mr. Schoeman then is reported in the Financial Mail—

In other words, he rules a private separate kingdom, having nothing whatever to do with the economic life of the country. I want to examine the railway attitude a little bit further in connection with the mines. In 1958, a round-table conference on low-grade mines took place. This conference consisted of representatives of industry, the mining industry, the unions and the Department of Mines and produced what was really a model report. Out of this report emerged the fact that, while it was sitting, railway rates were increased, and the report furnished the following information about certain five low-grade marginal mines: These five mines at that time produced gold to the value of £13,000,000 per annum. The total estimated profit of the five mines was £480,000. Furthermore, these mines were making an estimated l/2.2d. per ton profit. The increase in rail rates at that time cost an extra 1.9d. per ton milled, nearly 16 per cent of the profits of those five mines. Those mines employed 4,890 Europeans and 30,000-odd non-Europeans. The report went on to suggest that the Government should investigate relief to any classified mine, which would in essence be a marginal mine, from part or whole of the rail transport charges on bulk commodities such as coal, lime and timber. The railage paid on these items in 1956 averaged 7.3d. per ton. Mr. Speaker, the increase in railway rates at that time brought an income to the Railways from these five mines of £64,000 per annum. The total profit of these mines was £480,000 per annum, and the £64,000 taken by the Railways at that time obviously jeopardized the future of these mines, as I shall show just now by quoting certain further figures. I want to make the point that this is an extraordinary way in which to treat your best customers, simply increasing their costs to the stage where they finally are going to be put out of business. To get an extra £64,000 out of them, he was prepared to jeopardize his own income, from the railway point of view, of many times that particular amount. What a way to treat your best customer! I repeat that these five mines produced at that time £13,000,000 worth of gold a year, but all the mines that were considered at this round-table conference as marginal mines produced at that time £37,000,000 worth of gold and they were all affected by the increase in the railway rates at that time, without any consultation whatsoever! The conference represented, as I said, the industry, the unions, the Department, and was sitting to consider ways and means of helping the marginal mines. And just as when the Economic Advisory Council was sitting, out of the blue came an increase in railway rates. What about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? Mr. Speaker, that round-table conference stressed the fact that those marginal mines should be assisted in every possible way and not chosen as a target by the Minister of Transport to balance his own budget, and that their future should not be jeopardized by the stubbornness of the Minister. Gold, Mr. Speaker, is precious and it is the backbone of our industry, the backbone of our whole standard of living, but unfortunately this Government forgets that fact all the time. Every year we have got a new Minister of Mines, every year these facts are brought before him; he does not have the time to consider them before somebody else is given the job, who then thinks it too difficult a matter to tackle. But it is a matter that has to be tackled. The same remark in regard to changing Ministers applies in the case of the Minister of Social Welfare. Since I have been in the House, I do not know how many we have had, and all sorts of problems have to be brought up to the new Minister, and then they have to be rediscussed and obviously he has got to investigate them anew. To my mind these two Departments should be headed by senior members of the Cabinet, because they hold in their hands our whole economic wealth and future.

I have in my possession certain figures relating to two low-grade mines on the Reef. In the one case there has been a drop of 17½ per cent between the tonnage milled in 1958 and 1961, and yet the rail transport charges during that period have gone up by nearly R11,000 a year, an increase in cost per ton milled of 3.3 cents, and as the present total charges for this particular mine are 12.7 cents per ton milled, the latest increase will be another 1.25 cents. It sounds little, but their total profit per ton is something under one shilling. So it means a great deal. In the other case that I have here, the increased cost of railing coal and lime was as follows—here I want you to remember again that the round-table conference recommended that the Government should give special consideration to assisting in respect of railway charges on coal, lime and timber—I have here the costs of the increase in rail charges on coal and lime of this particular mine, namely, over R17,000 a year, and then on top of that there is this latest increase which will add another R5,600 per annum in respect of these two items alone. I am going to quote from a letter from the one mine which says—

To add to the troubles that the Railways have brought to our marginal mines, we hear that the hon. Minister of Transport has now appointed a committee to investigate ways and means of helping so-called border industries by preferential railway rates. This is bound again to bring unfair competition. There is no shadow of doubt about it. I must say that the Rand must regard the Minister of Transport, although he is one of us, as its arch enemy. And this bull in a china shop scorns the Economic Advisory Council, scorns any report submitted to him by people who know what they are talking about. His whole view is limited purely and simply by the Railways and the cost of running them and he does not care where the revenue comes from. He is like a bull in a china shop, and he should be tethered and his activities should be stopped. He is costing us far too much. If he were trying, as he might well be, to kill off the low-grade mines and the industrial growth on the Reef he could not do much better.

Now I want to turn to the gold-mining industry. Both Mr. Koch and Mr. Anderson pointed out that the peak year of production of gold will be 1970 and as modern methods are enabling the industry to rip more and more gold out of the ground at a faster and faster rate, production is swelling considerably. Mr. Speaker, we had the same thing in the 1920s. We were told then that the production of gold would reach its peak in 1927 and then Johannesburg would revert to a mining camp eventually. But then came 1932 when thanks to General Smuts we followed Britain and devalued our currency, and this increase in price, as was stressed by the leaders of the mining industry, brought new discoveries and brought about a boom. The war came and that was a set-back, but then came a further devaluation of the £ in 1949, which put the price of gold up to 250 shillings as compared with the 1930 price of 84 shillings. Mr. Speaker, at present great forces are working against a further increase in the price of gold, although such a rise would be in the interest of the whole world, and not only in the interest of South Africa. But then there is the question of finding new deposits. Mr. Anderson, President of the Chamber of Mines, as quoted in the Star of 6 November 1962, said the following—

The report goes on to say—

And here we have this Government giving this great industry, our economic saviour at present, lip-service only, to say the least of it, and such extraordinary treatment as that of the Minister of Railways. In addition as far as the Reef is concerned, this Government is making every effort to keep industries away from those areas, where the mines are closing down and where every amenity exists already for the establishment of industries. Just before I came down I spoke to an industrialist who is connected with an industry opening up on the new ground outside Pretoria, and being from the East Rand I naturally said: “Why do you go there, why don’t you come to us, to Benoni or Springs?” He is establishing this industry 25 miles from the East Rand on the border of Pretoria. I do not know whether Pretoria is now a Native reserve, but I asked him why he was going there, what induced him to go there. I asked him whether he got cheap money, cheap rents or what, to go there. He said No, his only reason for going there was that he had been told that there he could use as many Natives as he liked. He got the ground cheaply of course—all municipalities offer ground cheaply to industry. Mr. Speaker, why worry about the Whites and the Natives on the Reef? This man is opening up his factory 25 miles away because he is told that he can use as many Natives as he likes, and that there is no proportion laid down between Black and White. But we, 25 miles away, are told by the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs—he said this in Alberton in December 1961—that where the ratio between Black and White is 1:1, such an industry will be encouraged to establish itself in the metropolitan areas. It really has boiled down to this that if we want a new industry in Benoni, we are limited to one Black to one White, but 25 miles away, a factory producing competitive goods can have as many Natives as it likes. Under this Government, Mr. Speaker, the whole of the Reef faces a very bleak future. Just at the time when it is brought to our notice, and we realize, that the gold-mining industry can't last for ever and when we should be exerting every ounce of our strength and wealth to establish industries to take the place of the gold-mines when they go out of existence, we quarrel with the whole world, and particularly with those people who have always been regarded as our natural market, the Black states to the north of us. I must say that unless we have a new government very soon, we are going to go under.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has just said that a very black and sombre future awaits the Witwatersrand and particularly the East Rand unless we get a new government immediately. To me and all the members on this side of the House the suggestions and the representations made by that hon. member and other members on that side of the House are unfathomable. The hon. member comes along and blames the Minister of Transport and says that he is responsible for the fact that the increased tariffs are retarding the development of the gold-mining industry on the Witwatersrand, but last year it was the same members of the Opposition who stood up here and put forward a strenuous plea for salaries to be increased. The Minister then asked them how salaries were to be increased. He pointed out that there was only one way in which salaries could be increased and that was increasing the tariffs, and now that he has increased the salaries the hon. member comes along and squeals about it in this House.