Mr. Speaker, if there is one word which is beginning to occupy a special place in our vocabulary, then it is the word, the concept “inflation”, and this to my mind is probably justified, too, because it is starting to play an evergrowing role in our lives. However, it seems to me that when we talk about it, both here in the House and outside, we are not always on the same wave-length; that we are not always talking about precisely the same concept and that we do not always know on which body or person the blame is to be laid. I just want to exchange a few ideas about the concept “inflation”. Mr. Speaker, as we know the word “inflation” is actually derived from the latin word; it means “to blow air into” or “to blow up”, and in an economic sense it means an increase in the amount of money available. What we must understand is that basically inflation means that there is too much money. Sir, money is not a product of nature which grows on trees like fruit which one can pick off; money is something which can only be made by the Government. I cannot make money; if I were to try, I would land up before the courts and would probably go to gaol. The only people who can create money and can make money are the Government. The word “money” in its English form is derived from the Greek word “numisma”, which means “law”. [Interjections.] If that hon. member would only listen for a while, he too would learn something. He knows absolutely nothing about what is going on. Sir, I say the concept “money” is derived from the Greek word meaning “law”. In other words, money is created by the law. If, therefore, inflation means too much money and the only body able to make money is the Government, then the Government is responsible for inflation. When we talk about inflation here, we immediately find that hon. members opposite are saying that our inflation is imported from overseas; it is in fact like some germ blown in from overseas. Mr. Speaker, surely we all know that we in South Africa produce locally five times as much as we import. Almost all our food is produced locally. When hon. members opposite, who are supposedly so terribly clever, stand up at a meeting, as the hon. the Minister of Police did, and tell us that we import inflation from overseas, they do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Sir, if one produces locally five times as much as one imports, then we can at most import 2% of our 10% rate of inflation. Sir, the position as it is developing at present is a cause of concern to everyone, although some members on that side probably do not see it in this light. We all know—and anyone who has any insight into this matter can tell you—that in the next twelve months the total demand for goods and supplies and services will far exceed the supply. Sir, there is no one on that side who can prove to me that wages and salaries are not rising faster than productivity today, and this immediately gives rise to the conclusion that we are not only going to have demand inflation in the coming year but also cost or price inflation, and if these two coincide, then the one lends more impetus to the other. But Sir, there is another important factor which is developing in our country, and that is a kind of inflation psychosis. Our people just do not want to save any more, because they say: What does it help to save, since the value of money is declining steadily? Their approach is thus: Spend today because tomorrow you can get less for the same amount of money. But, Sir, there is a further situation which is developing here. When I came to this House for the first time, the predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Finance was worried because the rate of inflation was something over 2%. Sir, during the past year or two the rate of inflation has reached double figures, and the present hon. Minister does not even make a pretence of being able to control inflation. We need only take a look at what the Financial Mail has to say in this regard. You will remember that on previous occasions the hon. the Minister was always holding up the Financial Mail here, but that was when they praised him. However, they are saying very different things about this particular Budget of his; they say—

The hon. the Minister is no longer even trying to make an effort to control inflation. Sir, this hon. Minister has been in control of our finance for the past seven years, and he has combated inflation so well that the buying power of our rand has fallen by at least one-third over that period; that is how well he has controlled it. Sir, the people have lost confidence in the Government’s ability to control inflation. I should also just like to add this: If the Government comes along, as it has done in this Budget, and pushes up State expenditure by 23%, which is inevitably far higher than the growth in our national economy, then, surely, this Budget is inflationary, and no one can reason that away.

There is yet another dimension of our inflation problem, and that is what one could call labour inflation. I find it very interesting that we have had a somersault on the part of the Government in this regard. Sir, we should remember that our country has a young economy, that there is no over-employment; in fact, there is under-employment. I can still clearly remember how we on this side were saying 10 years ago that we should start training our labour and how a chorus went up from the other side: “You just want to open the floodgates so that Black people may be trained.” Sir, when we spoke about a crash training programme here, we had the sneering remark from that side: “You want to open the floodgates; you want to train Black people.” And now, in this Budget, the Minister comes along and he does not merely grant tax benefits for the training of Black people, nor does he merely grant them at the rate of 100; he does so at the rate of 200% and 225%. Sir, something really wonderful is happening here. He is in actual fact pleading with the industrialists. This is really a form of tax bribery in that they are being told: Please be so kind as to train Black people now. But I want to make a prediction here and now, and that is that the Government, which is only now, after 10 years, realizing the gravity of the matter, will fail totally in this effort they are now making, because, in the first place, no industrialist is going to spend a lot of money on the training of Black people unless there is permanence and stability. But the, hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration tells us that these people are here temporarily; they are migrant labourers. I know of no country in the world which tries to base a modern economic system on a migrant labour system. But the second reason why they are going to fail is that the shortage of workers is not on the operator level; what we need is Black artisans. And now I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance: With this new arrangement he is making now, is the Government prepared to allow Black artisans to be trained? No, Sir, he is silent. I ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether it is at present the Government’s intention to allow Black artisans to be trained in a White area by way of these new facilities which are being created? That hon. Minister is silent too.

Why do you not read the statements which have been issued? If you do, you will not put such absurd questions.

The answer, then, is “no”.

They will be trained as semiskilled workers, as operators . ..

We can see that this thing is a failure before it has even started. But, Sir, there is also a third reason why this scheme will not succeed, namely that the Government is denying the Black workers the normal bargaining machinery. Throughout the world one finds that established bargaining machinery is in operation, but in this country it is not available to them because their skins are black. Interjections.] In this way we know precisely what is going to happen. There will be labour unrest and strikes will take place. It goes without saying that we should not like this to happen, but it is inherent in the whole scheme. [Interjections.]

Order!

All I want to say is that after this labour unrest has taken place, and after it has contributed further to fanning inflation and aggravating racial feelings in this country, the Government will come along, 10 years after everyone has seen the necessity of this move, and make these adjustments, too.

But, Sir, let us just look at another aspect of this Budget, and that is the so-called process of growth which the hon. the Minister now tells us he wants to stimulate. It is interesting to note that in his Budget Speech he states that in all the years he has presented Budgets, he has consistently tried to encourage growth. But how do we reconcile that with his previous standpoint? After all, he used to be the great protagonist of the damping theory. He was the man who told us on a number of occasions that we could not grow too fast because that would stimulate inflation. After all, he is the man who created the damper. But now, all of a sudden, we have to hear that over the past seven years he has been the man who advocated growth. But, Sir, what is going to happen within the compass of this particular Budget in any case? Our economic planners set 5,75% as a target, and that was not just a figure they sucked out of their thumbs. That was the absolute minimum they regarded as essential to ensure a reasonable degree of employment for our Black people. What is going to happen now? It is true that our growth-rate is higher this year, but there are two factors which gave rise to that, namely a very favourable agricultural situation and the high gold price. Surely those are variable factors. Who is there who will base future Budgets on that? Is there anyone on that side who will tell us that the growth-rate next year will remain on the same level it is on this year? As a matter of fact, Sir, I know of no one who is knowledgeable about this matter and expects a growth-rate of more than 5% next year. If we want to achieve an average growth-rate of 5,75%, which has been envisaged over this economic planning period, then we will have to grow at a rate of about 10% this year and at a rate of about 6,5% in the next few years. And, Sir, let me just tell you this: Because the investment in the private sector is so low, there is every indication that we will not come near to this figure. Here we have the position, therefore, where the Government has lost all control over this situation. They are trapped in a kind of vicious circle. They are unable to make the necessary adjustments on the labour front, because if they do so it will, after all, clash with their apartheid ideology. If they were to organize the economic system according to our requirements, then that, again, would clash with their multi-national approach which they are forcing on South Africa.

There is another aspect I want to refer to. In this regard I want to say that I am very pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is present here, because this is something about which he expressed an opinion on a former occasion. I should like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Prime Minister on this matter. The aspect I want to refer to is the position of the pensioners in our country. This is not something dramatic. This is something in which most of us probably do not take much of an interest at the moment because we consider it to be an academic question. However, I just want to point out that statistics show that 20% of the Whites in this country are over the age of 50 years. They are therefore well on the way to their retirement. Statistics show, too, that within 20 years there will be 1½ million Whites in this country who will be over the age of 50 years. I refer to pensioners in particular, also because when he presented his Budget the other day, the hon. the Minister of Finance spoke about the “proud record of this Government in its care of the aged”. We remember what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say about this on a previous occasion. When we asked him to give us an indication of those respects in which we in South Africa were flourishing and making progress, he had this to say to us: “Look at the position of the old-age pensioner. When you were in power in 1948, a pensioner received R10 per month. Now that our Government is in power, at this stage, he is getting over R50 per month.”

How much more than R50 do they get?

Never mind, the idea is there. At the moment a pensioner is getting R52 and later this will become R56. I do not know why that hon. Minister of Police is so talkative today. I wish he would stand up and talk so that all of us may hear what he has to say. Now I want to say that when the hon. the Minister of Finance talks about a Government which has such a “proud record” because of what it has done for the aged, there are, of course, various angles from which to approach this. I know that these státistics are not always directly comparable, but the Dutch, who by no means have a socialist state, spend 17% of their gross domestic product on subsidies and payments to households. The West Germans put this figure at 15% and in Sweden they put it at 14%. But in South Africa, according to all the calculations of which I am aware, it is no more than 4%.

But let me put it another way. In Britain, so they say, 23% of their total expenditure is in respect of social services. In Germany they employ another concept; there they talk about social security, and here the state’s contribution is 36%. In regard to America we can draw an even more direct comparison. What the Government spends there on a central basis in respect of education, social welfare, pensions and health, amounts to about 32% of their total expenditure. Here in this country, in the Budget which the hon. the Minister presented the other day, the expenditure in the same spheres amounts to something less than 12% of the total public expenditure. When, therefore, one starts analysing this so-called “proud record”, it does not look like anything to be particularly proud of.

I should like to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s example of our supposed economic prosperity when he said that our pensioners were so terribly well-off. He said they received more than R50 per month. That is true. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is surely aware of inflation. When one takes inflation into account, one finds that that R50 mentioned by him is worth barely R18 in terms of the value of money in 1948. Surely no one wants his position to remain unchanged. Throughout the world people expect their position to be improved. Hon. members of the Cabinet, for example, have great ambitions to improve their positions. Throughout the world, and this is also the approach of trade unions, they expect their standard of living to rise by about 2½% per annum. Therefore we must make this adjustment too. Surely every pensioner expects his pension to keep pace with the rise in the national revenue. After all, he helped to build it up.

In 1948 the national revenue was about R1 200 million, while this year it is about R12 000 million. In other words, the national revenue of South Africa has risen by about 700% since 1948. Should pensioners not share in that? Let us look at public expenditure over the same period. This Government’s expenditure has risen by 1 300% since 1948. If one were to make that kind of adjustment in respect of pensioners and if their pensions were to keep pace with that, a pensioner would not just be receiving R50 per month today, but a few hundred rand a month. That is the kind of calculation which the hon. the Prime Minister must make. The hon. the Minister of Finance, too, says that he is proud of what the Government is doing for pensioners. I just want to add that thus far we have only been speaking about Whites.

As we know, Coloureds receive about half the pension of a White person. We all know that Black pensioners only receive about R9 per month. Have hon. members any idea how one can make a living and buy food today on R9 per month? I have worked out that one has only to be a fairly heavy smoker to spend R9 per month on smoking requirements alone. However, the hon. the Minister says that he is proud of the role the Government has played in this regard. I want to state that this is nothing to be proud of; in fact, it is a national scandal. We are dealing here with old people who have devoted their entire lives towards helping to build up South Africa. When they reach retirement age, this is the kind of compensation we give them.

We need not only discuss old-age pensioners. There are civil pensioners too, and all of us are probably potential civil pensioners. What point is there today in paying reasonably good money into a pension fund if, when one draws that money, it is valueless? Now I do not hear any laughter from the other side any more. Sir, we all know ... [Interjections.] There the laughter starts again. We all know that at the present moment the buying power of our rand is dropping at the rate of almost one cent per month. This means that within a single year the buying power of our money drops by almost one-eighth. Have hon. members any idea what this means over a period of 10 years?

Sir, the object of pensions is, after all, to try to help us to be able to maintain our standard of living. But at a rate of inflation of 10% it means that after every 10 years the buying power of the rand is only 42% of the original. This means that our standard of living, based on the money which you and I are today paying in so as to draw a pension one day, will at the present rate have dropped by 58% after 10 years. This is not a situation with which we can persist. We shall have to change it. I want to say at once that our standpoint on this side of the House is a totally different one.

We feel that the position of the civil pensioner should also be protected, but you know, Sir, the major factor which gave rise to this situation is the fact that the Government insists that 50% of the money of the pension funds has to be invested in so-called “fixed deposits” which the Government prescribes. Twenty per cent of them, according to the Government’s own requirements, must be invested in Government or quasi-government stock. This means, therefore, that the pension funds are unable to protect their own members against inflation because they are forced to invest money in assets which do not grow. We on this side would approach the problem from a totally different angle. We would ensure that pensions were linked to the cost-of-living index.

Sir, a great deal has been said here about indexing, and here I have a classic example of where such indexing could profitably be applied. It is clear, of course, why the Government is so much in favour of this whole concept of prescribed investment. It is a cheap way for the Minister of Finance to acquire capital. The money which the pension funds collect every year amounts to more than R350 million. It is therefore a good and easy means of enabling the Government to acquire cheap capital, but how does that help the pensioner? How does it help any of those hon. members sitting here, those members who were so talkative a moment ago. Sir, the kind of contribution which you and I are making now, the money which is still worth a reasonable sum now, will be absolutely worthless within a period of 10 to 15 years. To continue with this kind of pension scheme is an absolute waste of time.

Sir, there are so many other aspects of this Budget to which one should like to refer. One matter which is causing more concern than anything else at the moment is the way in which we in this country, under the leadership of this Government, are engaged in establishing a socialist state. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not want to believe me, I want to point out to them that a rebellion is taking place among our Afrikaner businessmen.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a minute; the Minister is getting so terribly perturbed. I can do no better than to quote Dr. Willem de Vries in this connection. He is an Afrikaans-speaking businessman. Referring to the way in which the Government is involving itself in the economy of the country, he writers (translation)—

Dr. Wassenaar, too—surely his credentials are very good here—recently referred in an interview to “creeping socialism”, which the Minister of Defence is getting so agitated about. Dr. Wassenaar states—

He goes on to say something which, in my opinion, should cause every Nationalist’s hair to stand on end. He states—

Have hon. members ever heard anything of the kind? Surely, to think that the hon. member for Carletonville is further to the left than Harold Wilson, is inconceivable! Mr. De Necker says ...

Now you are being plain silly.

It is not I who am saying so; it is Dr. Wassenaar who says so. Is there anyone on that side of the House who will tell Dr. Wassenaar that he is a liar?

And what if he is wrong?

But he is right! Mr. De Necker, too, had something to say, and I quote from a report referring to it (translation)—

The hon. Minister of Defence is perturbed about this, but it is his own people who are saying so.

I am getting perturbed because you are talking such a lot of nonsense.

We shall give the hon. the Minister of Defence an opportunity, too. We should like to hear what he has to say about this important matter, namely inflation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it looks to me as if the hon. member for Hill-brow has thoughts of retiring, because he devoted 75% of his speech to pensions. I think the hon. member could have delivered his speech under the “Pensions” Vote, because it would have fitted in better there. However, I just want to tell him that his calculations are wrong, in my opinion. If he were to do them over again, he would find that the increases in old-age pensions have thus far continued to be far above the rate of increase of inflation. Since he wants to apply indexing, let me tell him that he has already thrown in the towel as far as inflation is concerned. It is interesting that that hon. member has burgeoned here as the new authority on inflation. This put me in mind of something I read about the struggle against inflation in Tegniek, i.e. about a scholar recently remarking that the economist who found a solution to the problem of inflation would certainly be awarded a Nobel prize. I do not think a Nobel prize will ever be awarded to the hon. member, because I want to tell hon. members that his definition of inflation is so complex in its simplicity that one cannot believe it. He says that the Government is making the money, that the Government is making too much money and that the Government is therefore responsible for inflation. That is the whole story, finished and done with. I think the finest of all his contributions was that we would have demand inflation after the Budget, and when cost inflation is added there will be the devil to pay. I just want to tell the hon. member that things work differently. The inflation prevailing at present is cost inflation, and what will be added is demand inflation. Hon. members need not be afraid of that, because the hon. the Minister of Finance will ensure that this does not happen. In the course of my speech I shall give further replies to other points of criticism which the hon. member broached.

The whole pattern of the criticism of the hon. member, and the other hon. members on that side of the House, stands on two legs. The one is political and the other one economic, in so far as they could criticize that. The political attack which hon. members are launching at us, is nothing more than an attack on the ideology of this party. They are trying their level best to link up the prevailing inflation with the ideology of this party. Let us in the first place state clearly what this party’s ideology is, and in particular what its economic policy is. The ideology of this party is that it does not see South Africa as a political unit state, much less as an economic unit state. The economic policy of this party is surely subservient to its ideology. Therefore it will use policy to implement its ideology, and this Budget is an instrument in that connection. The fact that we are not a political unit state or an economic unit state is the basis of the idea which is central to our ideology, i.e. the preservation of the identity of each people in this country.

The tactics of the hon. members opposite are to tell the people at large that the inflation prevailing in South Africa is created by the ideology of this party. The allegation is nothing new; it is something we have already had before. With this session it began again. The day before we began with the motion of censure, the Sunday Times came out with a report. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to it. I just want to quote a priceless extract from what they stated—one can hardly believe it. They stated—

Then they describe the “remedy”. The next day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands up and copies his favourite newspaper, which has told him he must go, and he tells us—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. Since yesterday hon. members opposite have stood up one by one, beginning with the hon. member for Yeoville, and unreservedly repeated the story that the cause of the inflation in South Africa is the Government’s ideological policy. That is, of course, a specious argument. And they did not only start saying that today either. Before the last election, in February, each of them repeated the same story ad nauseam, but when the voting took place, the electorate voted against them and in favour of the Progressive Party. I want to tell hon. members on that side that the Government has obtained its mandate to implement its ideology, and it will faithfully do so.

When? Tomorrow is another day.

The Government is doing it now. If you cannot understand that, I do not know what you are doing in this House. I want to go further with this specious argument they want to present to the people. Inflation is like the wind that blows—it comes and goes at will. It does not recognize separate development as a factor. My easiest answer to this is to propose that we take a look at America and compare it with South Africa. America is a very highly developed country. There are Black people and White people there, and they do not have separate development. Inflation is nevertheless rampant there. Take a country like Rhodesia, which is underdeveloped in comparison with South Africa. There Black and White people are also mixed, and inflation also prevails. Yet these hon. members want to proclaim to the people and to the world that here separate development is the cause of inflation. I want to say that the United Party possesses no ideology ...

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any time for questions. I want to tell the United Party that they really have no ideology. If their policy and their ideology is what the hon. member for Yeoville proclaimed here yesterday, what he calls his new economic order, then all I want to say is this: Then I have listened very well and very attentively to the Progressive Party’s economic policy because that is all it is.

Yes, that is so.

The hon. member for Houghton is in full agreement with me. The United Party no longer maintains one of the standpoints it has maintained in the past in respect of its economic policy. If the United Party continues to apply its policy in respect of influx control, and to apply its policy of separate residential areas with limited proprietary rights for Black people in those areas, is that not actually the highest form of political hypocrisy one can get? There is also the labour policy which it applies. If it continues with those policies, it is as guilty as the National Party, if the National Party is to be singled out as the cause of inflation. That is so, and I am convinced—though we do not know yet—that the United Party has already relinquished all its old standpoints in respect of principles. I believe that with its policy of a political and economic unit state there will eventually be no other way open to it than that of following the policy of the Progressive Party. I think it has already accepted that policy. One day, when the economic dam walls break—something that will happen under their party’s policy—and the economic flood waves wash across the whole of South Africa, it will be the end of both their federal political state and of the White man in South Africa. This political attack on their part indicates how completely impotent they are when it comes to attacking this party on the merits of the Budget, economic and otherwise.

For the proper consideration and evaluation of this Budget before us, we must read it in conjunction with the Budget that was introduced in March last year. The background to that Budget was that we had a growth rate of 4% and an inflation rate of 7,4%, and there was a 20% under-utilization of production capacity. The central theme of that Budget was growth, investment and the utilization of the productive capacity, as well as bringing relief where inflation was weighing heavily upon the under-privileged individuals of our country. By all standards that was an inflationary Budget. We budgeted for a deficit of R407 million, which was to have been covered by the Stabilization Fund. In other words, a large amount of new money would be injected into the economic mainstream. As the hon. member for Paarl explained, the ex-member for Parktown, Mr. Emdin, predicted that we would have an inflation rate of more than 15% as a result of that Budget. What happened? The fact that the Government was prepared, at that stage, to give the economy that shot in the arm, notwithstanding the fact that we had an inflation rate of 7,4%, indicates that they acted very courageously. It was also a very successful step. What happened in respect of the Part Appropriation of 1974? All that happened was that the growth process was continued and that concessions were again made to allow that growth process to continue and to ease inflation. What actually happened was that the 1973 Budget created the framework and the climate for growth. Most important of all, however, was that it was a climate that created confidence. It created tremendous confidence. The South African industrialist, the South African entrepreneur, was not found wanting; he seized the opportunity, and so successfully did things develop that if one had not experienced and seen this, one would hardly have teen able to believe it. Nothing came of the prediction that the inflation rate would be 15%. Not a single cent of that R407 million was used to defray these Estimates. South Africa’s economy grew and flourished to such an extent, so much profit was generated and the under-utilization of capacity was absorbed to such an extent that the revenue not only exceeded the expected deficit—the R407 million—but over and above that there was still a surplus of R319 million. A colossal amount of R726 million was collected over and above the expected revenue, and the growth rate increased to 6%. Sir, I call that a fabulous, successful achievement, and that is all thanks to the insight, judgment and wisdom of this wonderful Minister of Finance of ours. But the Opposition now wants to wave this aside here; they say we are lucky. The hon. member for Yeoville, for example, spoke here yesterday of “a year of windfalls” and said that we could ascribe our sound position to the increased gold-price. Sir, I do not want to minimize that; we had a measure of luck, but I want to point out that only R133 million of that R726 million is attributable to the increased gold-price. But the better our administration the better our planning, the better our correct decisions at the correct time, and the better the adjustments that we make, the “luckier” we get in this country under the National Government. No, Sir, we owe our present situation, on the one hand, to the spirit of enterprize of the South African businessman and industrialist, and on the other hand to the efficient planning of the National Party Government.

Sir, we now come to this Budget. Several hon. members on that side have alleged that this Budget will not combat inflation and that it will be inflationary. I want to reply to that at once. What is the first step the hon. the Minister took in this Budget? In this Budget the hon. the Minister had a surplus of R319 million which was transferred from the previous Budget, and he had to decide what he would do with that money in this Budget. What was the first step the hon. the Minister took? It was a deflationary step. He took R200 million of that money and transferred it to the Stabilization Fund. A portion of it he used to cover deficits and costs, and kept a small amount of R32 million for unforeseen circumstances. That is what happened to that money, and then hon. members on that side say that this Budget does not combat inflation. Sir, let us take a further look at this Budget. This Budget follows in the footsteps of the previous Budget. It plans and stimulates growth; it develops and stimulates productivity and production, and continues, in certain circumstances, to relieve the pressure of inflation on the public and it is making all these concessions which I do not want to mention here again, to encourage productivity; it lightens the sales duty and it is doing all these things without being inflationary. A surplus Budget can never be inflationary unless one incurs certain expenditure. I have examined this Budget and found only one single item that could perhaps have an inflationary effect, and that is the net amount being loaned from abroad. The net amount that will come in under this Budget is about R288 million. Sir, if it is new money that will be pumped into the monetary stream, it will be inflationary, but I expect—and I think this will indeed happen—that that money will never enter the country, that it will be used to purchase goods abroad, and if that happens then this Budget is really deflationary.

I now want to come to the other points of criticism that have been mooted. The hon. member for Yeoville and, I think, the hon. member for Gardens, want to pretend here that the Minister locks himself up with his officials in a small hole in the wall and then determines all the aspects of taxation. No, that is not so. I think the hon. members have not done their homework, in any case, they do not know what they are talking about. Are they not aware of the fact that there is a standing commission of inquiry into tax proposals? This commission was instituted long ago and given certain directives, and I should like to quote the directives which the hon. the Minister gave to the commission. It is a commission consisting of a business man, a prominent economist, an accountant and an academic. The directive to the commission was to investigate taxation policy continuously; to undertake specific investigations into taxation matters, as requested by the Minister from time to time; to act in an advisory capacity in respect of international taxation agreements and, if necessary, with the Minister’s approval, to appoint expert advisers to assist the commission in carrying out its directives. Sir, I want to tell hon. members that if they want to make such allegations, they must first make sure of what they are talking about. Here the hon. member for Yeoville comes along with a long list of proposals for reforms he wants to introduce. I could not examine all of them; there were too many, but I just want to refer to one or two. He referred to married women who should be assessed separately. I am not going to reply to that in detail, but he is surely familiar with the report of the Franzsen Commission. If he were to read paragraph 130 he would learn all about that. That was drawn up by experts. Then he will find out the story he was telling here is not as easy and as simple as he thinks. The second point he proposed has to do with foreign loans, interest and dividends. I refer him to chapter 4 of the second report of the Franzsen Commission. He can study it and will then also find out that it is not as simple a matter as he thinks. But he may rest assured that if changes have to be introduced, the Minister will introduce them if they are in the interests of South Africa.

Sir, then I come to another point that was raised here. It came across like a refrain from the other side, from Mickey Mouse across to Madam Rose. One person after another came along with the same story, i.e. that State expenditure had increased, and because State expenditure had increased we have inflation. I am surprised at those people saying this, but let us now just take a look at it. In the first place, if one has a Budget that balances, or if one has a surplus Budget, one takes more money out of circulation than one puts in. Even though one’s expenditure increases by 20%, one’s revenue has then also been increased by 20%. Therefore the amount of money in circulation does not increase and the Budget is then definitely not inflationary. The majority of state expenditure, except for defence, is expenditure aimed at building up infrastructure in the country. It is productive and can therefore not be inflationary. I think those hon. members must please go and do their homework again as far as that point is concerned.

Now I come to another point, and this is in connection with expenditure on defence. The hon. member for Yeoville said that side of the House supported this expenditure; then the hon. member for Gardens came along and said he also supported it, but in the same breath he went on to criticize it because it would supposedly be hyper-inflationary and unproductive. He repeats exactly the same old story which the Financial Mail published in this connection. They also say this. But the Sunday Times of last Sunday goes further and states—

Sir, I am absolutely shocked at that kind of criticism. I reject the idea that it is hyper-inflationary, and I shall tell you why. In the first instance, all those factories manufacturing arms are, of course, also factories producing by-products. Those by-products then enter the mainstream of goods. Those factories would not have been there had it not been for the fact that the arms must be produced. Secondly, the majority of arms are purchased overseas—I take it that is the case; I do not have the particulars. If they are purchased from overseas, a large portion of that expenditure goes abroad and does not enter our monetary stream at all. Therefore it cannot be inflationary. In the third place, it is surely an acknowledged fact that all arms-producing countries in the world also sell arms. Why must South Africa then be an exception to the rule?

They know little about that.

Yes, South Africa also sells arms; then that is after all productive too? That is consequently a complete exaggeration of the true facts. This newspaper, from which I have quoted, states that it is due to our policy that our Defence expenditure is so high. I now want to ask this question: What is Rhodesia’s policy? What is the policy in Mozambique and Angola? Do they have separate development? They surely do not have the same policy as ours. But the same dangers and forces threatening us are threatening them as well. I want to tell these people, and that hon. member, that were it not for that expenditure which appears in the Estimates each year, they would not be able to maintain the high standard of living which they do maintain, and they would not have the happiness and prosperity they do have here in South Africa. Those people who criticize so extensively would not be able to publish their newspapers either. They should be grateful for this Defence expenditure. To disseminate such criticism abroad is disloyal to South Africa, and I want to tell those hon. members that they must realize that it is a foregone conclusion that if there must be a choice, this side of the House will choose viability and the security of the country. If that brings about inflation, we shall just have to find a way of living with inflation.

I now want to say a few words about the galloping inflation, the hyper-inflation we have heard so much about. The prevailing inflation at the moment is cost inflation. It has, to a certain extent, developed as a result of imported inflation. South Africa has an open economy. We import a great deal and we are very sensitive in that field, but we shall never be able to do without that, no matter what we may do. The second portion of this cost inflation is seasonal. It is the result of food shortages that occurred, something one has no control over. In the third place, inflation has developed as a result of the growth process we have in South Africa. One cannot grow if one does not also have a certain degree of inflation. Fourthly, there is what I call political inflation. This develops as a result of agitation and political convictions, with wages being increased arbitrarily. This is, of course, a problem throughout the world, with all peoples, and if they cannot control their trade unions, they will never be able to get rid of inflation. Inflation is two-fold: on the one hand we have cost inflation, and on the other demand inflation. The prevailing inflation in South Africa consists to a very small degree of demand inflation, and we shall not be able to do much about that. But what is the history of our inflationary situation? For the year ending 1972 our inflation rate was 7,4%. Then came the 1973 Budget. In that year the inflation rate increased to 10%, but the growth rate increased at the same time to 6%. In the first six months of this year inflation rose to 12% and during that period the impact of the petroleum crisis was felt, and so was the food problem we had. But as far as the whole year is concerned i.e. for the 12 months ending July 1974, the inflation rate was 9,7%. This means that the inflation rate in the first six months was 7,4% while in the second half of the year it was 12%. This is a very good situation and one that undeniably proves to us that the Budget introduced last year by the hon. the Minister, the growth Budget, brought more goods into circulation and kept a tight rein on inflation so that it could not get out of hand. When we view the fact, as the hon. member for Paarl has also said that the only other developing country with a lower rate of inflation than South Africa is West Germany, this is certainly an achievement.

I want to conclude by saying that the recipe of this Budget and this Government to combat inflation is bleak. In the first place there must be a permanent growth process and increased productivity, thereby to bring more goods into circulation and therefore force down prices. Secondly, there must be a combination of fiscal and monetary measures to control demand inflation whenever and however it may occur and to maintain sound reserves and a sound balance of payments. Thirdly there is the maintenance of the principle of free price competition which is such an integral part of our economy system in this country. With this combination an attempt is being made to lighten the burden of inflation. In addition there is also a selective method of price control of strategic goods and staple foodstuffs, as well as a form of subsidizing of foodstuffs and loans for relieving inflation.

I hereby want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance very heartily on a fine Budget which he has submitted to us this year. He must not pay any attention to the cavilling arguments we hear from that side about too much here and too little there. Like the poor, we will always have them with us.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me today to make my first contribution here as newcomer. However, it is also a considerable responsibility of which I am very thoroughly aware at this moment, to represent the constituency of Virginia in this Chamber. I want to express the hope that in the years to come I will be granted the necessary strength to make a positive contribution here. But it is a responsibility in another sense as well, for I am succeeding a person who, for 15 years, rendered exceptional service here. This is a person who, as a result of his unimpeachable integrity, his honesty, his firmness of principle and—I think everyone will agree with me on this score—especially as a result of his humbleness, inspired exceptional confidence in this Chamber as well. Hence the fact that he served here for many years as chairman and also as a member of various Select Committees, and also as a beloved Free State Whip. I therefore wish to pay tribute today, humbly but also with the necessary pride, to Mr. Boet van Wyk for the excellent service he rendered here in the interests of his country and his people, and also for having represented his constituency in such an exceptional manner.

I want to discuss a rather comprehensive subject very briefly today, and leave hon. members with a few thoughts. I am, to be specific, concerned about the loss of manpower as a result of the fact that we have people who are undergoing certain training for which they are not equipped, academically nor intellectually. Over the past few days, during this debate, we have heard that inflation is one of the greatest problems of the present time. We also heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance that one of the best methods of solving this problem is to increase production. I want to discuss this matter in the light of that statement. As background I want to mention a few facts. In the first place the total appropriation for educational services for the year 1972-’73—unfortunately I was not able to obtain the figures for a more recent period—was R440 million. We find that in 1973 there were 90 000 students studying at our universities, excluding the University of South Africa. According to a projection made by the Human Sciences Research Council it is thought that by the year 1990 approximately 197 000 students will be studying at our universities. The 90 000 students who were studying at our universities in 1973 represented 16.83 per 1 000 of our population. This is thought to be one of the highest ratios in the world, if not the highest. We could compare it with the figure for the U.S.A., where only 12,6 per thousand of the population are studying at the universities.

I also want to point out that the unit cost per student in 1971 was calculated to be R1 045,56, and this does not include capita] costs. In 1971 we had 56 824 students at our universities—again excluding the University of South Africa—of whom 34.6% failed. The matriculation failure rate in the same year was 27,71%. To that we could also add the failure rate in the various other standards in the secondary schools. If we take this failure rate and the unit costs into account, you will agree with me that it is a considerable amount which is being wasted annually. If we add to that the earnings revenue per student or pupil who has to repeat a year, and will only begin earning a year later, as well as his contribution to the production factor, you will agree with me that this is a major problem to which we must give attention. It is a fact that we must maintain a high growth rate. But if we want to do so, it is most certainly necessary, too, that we have maximum utilization of our labour force in all spheres. By that I do not mean only the professional or very specialized spheres, but we must also ensure that we have a corps of workers with their distinctive qualifications and skills.

I want to concede at once that a certain percentage of this failure rate is due to the fact that students and pupils simply failed in their duty. But I am also convinced that there are a large number who failed because they did not have the intellectual faculties to complete the course in question. So we find in our schools every year, particularly in the secondary schools, that a child with an above-average achievement and also with special attention on the part of the teachers passes a certain standard. But because the child passed that particular standard, the parents and the child gained sufficient confidence to allow him to proceed to the next standard; only to fail that standard. We find the same tendency among persons attending universities. It is unfortunately the case that the staff at the secondary schools are frequently judged, with a view to their future promotion by the results of their matriculants. I could perhaps say this afternoon, because the above statement is true, that certain malpractices frequently arise in this sense that a child is coached specifically and purely for an examination. Special attention is given to him. I have no real objection to that, but the fact remains that there is specific coaching for a particular examination. This child now succeeds in obtaining only the minimum requirements for matriculation. Again this gives him confidence, and the parent on the other hand thinks that this child is also intellectually capable of completing an academic course at a university. Hence the high failure rate which we find at the universities.

Unfortunately the reproach is sometimes heard that the schools offer a course which is not adapted to university training or, on the other hand that the university should be blamed for not getting the child who passed his matriculation examination through his university courses. I want to advocate today that the school principal, as well as the school psychologist, should make it their task to liaise with the universities and with the parents, so as to keep them informed of the abilities of the child in question to pass his matriculation examination, i.e. whether he is an over-achiever, an average achiever or an under-achiever, as measured against his intellectual abilities. If this happens a prospective student will definitely know whether or not he is capable of taking a degree course. The same principle could also be applied in standard five, before the pupil enters the junior secondary phase.

I am fully aware of the National Educational Policy Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, in which it is provided, inter alia, that education shall be provided “in accordance with the ability and aptitude of and interest shown by the pupil”, but, and to my mind this is particularly important “in accordance with the needs of the country”. As a result of this legislation we then had differentiated education up to matriculation level, for which I personally am very grateful. I believe that it is to the good of our country and of our people, but that it is also to the benefit of the child, the worker of tomorrow. I am also fully aware of the Advanced Technical Education Act, from which the colleges for advanced technical education developed. In that Act provision is made for an alternative form of training after matriculation level. This takes place alongside training at universities, although it is more directly vocational—orientated. I want to assert this afternoon that if we want to make Act No. 39 of 1967 a living reality, we need the close co-operation of the educational establishments, the child and the parent.

In respect of the child it is my opinion that he/she should in his/her school career already, be informed by an expert in respect of his intellectual abilities. I am fully aware that one could harm the child psychologically if this is tackled in an incorrect way, but I have much gratitude and praise for the guidance service which is being applied at the schools. I am afraid that up to this stage the guidance service in schools is not yet perfect, in this sense that there are still many children who simply proceed to a higher standard without having been warned in time. I think we should make it our task to identify that child, and then to provide the child with whatever is necessary, so that he will himself realize what his abilities are without furnishing the child with the so-called naked IQ figure. This applies to the secondary school, and it also applies to the matriculant who contemplates attending a university the next year. It is necessary that the university itself should have cognizance of this, and that the university itself should know whether or not the prospective student who will be studying at that university the next year has the intellectual abilities to take such a course. I am fully aware that we should also take into consideration the specific achievement of the pupil, for it is most certainly more than just the intelligence quotient which is responsible for achievement. I am of the opinion that the universities should in fact take thorough cognizance of this.

The third factor is the parents themselves. I think that the parents, to an even greater extent than they are doing today, should pay attention to the advice given to them by the school, the school psychiatrists and the school principal. I suspect that the university has currently become a status symbol to many people. A child simply has to attend university after matriculation for the so-called status and honour attached to it. I want to suggest on this occasion that in these difficult times in which we are living, in a time, inter alia, on inflation, we cannot afford the luxury of having a large percentage of failures at the universities, especially in view of the fact that some people are attending universities not to make academic progress, but to pursue various other objectives for which they need not be at university.

I want to conclude by expressing it as my opinion that if we are able to apply this system of guidance more thoroughly, although I am grateful for the way in which it is being done at the moment, and if we are also able to obtain the co-operation of the parents in particular, then it will also be to the benefit of the child himself. When we have a person who is happy in his vocation, he takes a joy in his work. When one experiences this to the maximum extent one will also be able to produce to the maximum extent. This, I believe, is in the interests of the country and its people, as well as in the interests of the child itself.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the hon. member for Virginia. This is the second occasion on which I have had to welcome members from his party after their maiden speeches. I hope that hon. members will bear with me when I say that I hope the ratio will improve over the years. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Virginia. I fully agree with his view that we need to make our people as productive as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. the Minister of Finance had to draw up his Budget this year within a framework which imposed certain constraints upon his freedom of movement. Some of those constraints on his freedom of action were imposed on him by forces outside this country, over which he naturally does not have complete control. For example, there is the fact that South Africa is part of one world capital market. He is to be congratulated upon a belated recognition of that fact, a matter on which I shall have more to say later. The other impediments or constraints to his freedom of movement have their birth in the policies of the National Party. South Africa, too, has been fortunate in that the terms of trade have moved so dramatically in her favour. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Government on that because, when they receive good luck, it is no cause not to congratulate them. The price of gold and the prices and quantities of our agricultural products have given substantial benefits to the Minister over that which was anticipated. I naturally hope that this will continue to happen and that these will continue to grow but, as the hon. the Minister knows, both are subject to vagaries in the sense that they fall outside of his control as they are partially determined outside this country. Therefore they do not have the same strength of continuity from the point of view of South Africa. It is also pleasing to see growth at the improved level, although I shall also come to that later.

Within this context the hon. the Minister has juggled the balls around slightly and, with his normal apparent dexterity, the concessions to be made by him are to be welcomed, albeit that the relief to those on pension at the bottom of the earning-capacity ladder is limited and totally inadequate. It is misleading to talk of percentages as the hon. the Minister has done when they start from an intolerable base and are still not within striking distance of what could be regarded as acceptable. This is a social obligation on all of us which should have been honoured to a much greater extent, as we all enjoy the fruits of the past labours of pensioners in the development of this country. The encouragement for married women is also totally inadequate. It will in most cases cost them far more than their allowance to equip themselves to go out to work. The extra or additional expenditure on clothes and transport and, possibly, in respect of additional domestic help as well as the lost opportunity in the sense of time to be more selective in their buying, will exceed that allowance. I find it almost beyond comprehension that the hon. the Minister has failed to eradicate the injustice—and it is an injustice beyond argument—whereby Black South Africans commence paying tax at levels below those of White South Africans. They do not have the advantage of abatements either, though presumably the reason for that is that it would be too difficult and too costly to administer. However, could the hon. the Minister not have raised the initial level at which they become liable for tax in order to take that into account?

The major cause for concern in South Africa is the rate of inflation. It is in excess of 10% and it is still rising. To some extent it is not to be denied that there is an imported element which comes in through the purchases of our goods and services from overseas. However, by far the largest portion arises domestically within South Africa and is a direct result of the policies of this Government. We are at one with the hon. the Minister when he says that it is imperative for this country to grow and to create the wealth and prosperity which could be realized for all the inhabitants of this country. It is against that fundamental that this Budget should be judged. The hon. the Minister has not gone to the heart of the matter at all and we shall all therefore have to continue to pay the price exacted by this Government of a severely reduced standard of living as compared to that which we might otherwise have enjoyed. Inflation is simply an equation. When it gets out of balance, that is, when there is too much money in demand for the available goods and services, that is when inflation occurs. In the past, when this disease reared its ugly head, the Government and this hon. Minister have tended to try to cure it by cutting back on the money supply rather than going for an increased production of goods and services to solve the equation. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the latter is clearly the preferable alternative in anything but an immediate or short-term sense. It is much better to enlarge the pie than to have greater competition, which is simply more money, for a pie which remains the same size.

However, it is necessary to deal with both sides of the equation and I should like to deal with the money side first. Expenditure by this Government has consistently and continuously risen faster than that in the private sector. This in itself is stoking the fires of that scourge inflation in ways which I should like to deal with. Indeed, the very surplus which the hon. the Minister referred to as having accrued to the Government last year is in one sense to be questioned as it was necessary for the Government to borrow R134 million from the banking system. Government expenditure is inflationary in a number of ways. In the first instance it is not so productive as that spent in the private sphere nor indeed is it subject to the same objective economic criteria. This arises from the fact that by far the largest proportion of it is not concerned in any direct or immediate way with what the inhabitants of this country wish to buy.

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

I have very little time, Mr. Speaker. Let us take defence as an example. We all agree that it is of real importance that this country should be in a position and indeed should have more than the capability of withstanding any external onslaught upon it. At the same time, however, let us realize that from the huge allocation to defence of R700 million, flows a number of consequences. Firstly, it is non-productive to finance the production of a tank. It goes in no way to add to the goods and services which people can buy. Secondly, a large part of the defence Rand is spent on salaries and overheads. This money is then again free to chase and compete for the limited quantity of goods and services produced by the private sector.

What is your solution?

That is simply an additional dose of inflation. The cake is the same size but there are more people with the cash to bid for it. There is one element where it may perhaps be disinflationary and that is where the expenditure, which is simply revenue taken from all of us living in this country, is used for the purchase of defence items from outside the country. That will be taking money out of the system and to that extent it may be disinflationary. At the same time, however, it will bring an added burden to bear on the balance of payments position. This is a matter I should like to deal with shortly. It is not without interest to note that this has been confirmed only recently by the hon. the Minister of Defence. I have said that I do not wish in any way to question the necessity or desirability of this country’s being able to defend itself. That goes without saying. I think, however, that it is reasonable to ask, and to consider the question, as to whether the expenditure of nearly R2 million per day is going to give the best rate of return in respect of that objective. A stable, increasingly prosperous population in this country seems to me to be far more preferable. In this context the hon. the Minister is now proposing to go further. He is proposing to spend 23% more on Revenue Account and 25% on Loan Account. It does not matter which way you look at it, Sir; that is inflationary. Indeed, Sir, we are reaching the point, if we have not already arrived there, where our present productive resources are fully utilized and demand is in excess of their capacity to meet it. If that happens, Sir, demand will spill over into imports with effects upon our balance of payments and reserves, to which we will now have to add the purchase of defence equipment from outside, and if that happens then no doubt the Government will go into a stop phase. This is true, Sir, even if the Government, as has been its wont, continues to err on the side of conservatism in relation to its estimates of revenue, because in simple terms all that this means is that the Government is taking a larger and larger amount of money away from the people of South Africa for its own purposes. The same basic fact is true of much of the expenditure on the myth of the establishment of viable homelands, leaving aside the fact that much of the expenditure is totally non-productive since the land is already part of South Africa and to transfer it from one hand to another does nothing to add to the wealth of the country. I am not arguing against the provision of appropriate services in those areas or where conditions prevail for viable investment. It must be understood, and clearly understood, that the development of the homelands can only be seen as the consequence of and not as an alternative to the economic growth of the established industrial and mining complexes of South Africa.

When did Harry write that speech for you?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Money or revenue which accrues to the Government from all of us and which is spent on any other basis is simply going to have an inflationary impact. It is also important, Sir, that the fiscal and monetary policy of the Government be clearly understood and be seen to be acting in accord. I assume that the hon. the Minister remains responsible for the activities of the Governor of the Reserve Bank though in view of his statement to us last week you could reasonably have a doubt and that he will now allow those authorities in control of the money supply to stifle growth in South Africa without stopping inflation as they did in 1971 and 1972. That is why we lost the growth of those years, growth which we can never recover. A further additional crunch through the medium of a cut-back on money supply will have a most severe effect upon business confidence. It is perhaps a small grain of comfort that the victor between an expansionary fiscal policy and a restrictive monetary policy is normally the former.

Sir, this country does of course need finance to expand its productive capacity, and it is to be hoped therefore that the Governor of the Reserve Bank will see the necessity for the availability of funds and for that purpose. A too tight monetary control of credit on the private sector will simply repeat the errors of the past and result in inflation without growth. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that as a result of the Minister’s proposals, it will put out of kilter even further the balance between Government and private expenditure in our mixed economy and add to inflation to the detriment of all. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Sir, will indeed need the wisdom of Solomon.

Sir, there is another element where the Government is adding to inflation, and that is the spending on infrastructure. Of course, Government spending on infrastructure is to be encouraged, but it is no use making provision for the expenditure of the vast sums of capital which will be involved if industry and mining and commerce are prevented at the same time from making full utilization of the other factors of their enterprise. That will simply again add to the cost of living. Sir, it is of course important that the base of the platform for the economic growth of this country be expanded to reduce the importance of gold and agriculture in the balance of payments. But, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet is responsible for setting the priorities and the level of expenditure. It needs to prune that expenditure very severely, both as to size and timing. If they do not, the likely outcome will either be inflation at an even higher rate or curtailment of growth, or both, as we had before. The medicine will be the same, even though it failed on the last occasion. The terms of trade, even if they continue on such a favourable basis as we have now, will give but a breathing space. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the equation which produces inflation there is absolutely no doubt that the primary fault lies at the door of the Government.

The other side is, as I have said, the production of goods and services within South Africa. Now the production of those depends very simply on the proper use of all the available factors. Here I would like to draw attention to the fact that market forces sooner or later will prove themselves sovereign over any attempt to ignore them. This applies to all the factors of production without exception, raw materials, labour and capital. This country, Sir, has been blessed with two of those factors, should it choose to use them for the mutual benefit of all our inhabitants. Capital, however, is at this point in time a problem, as indeed the hon. the Minister has pointed out. To increase production, finance and capital will be required on a very large scale. It is therefore welcome that the Government and the Reserve Bank—and it is necessary to refer to both, in view of the hon. the Minister’s speech—have belatedly recognized that fact. They have now moved to reduce the gap or the difference between what a person can earn without significant risk by lending his money elsewhere rather than to South Africa. They have realized though it has already cost us much in missed opportunities, that you need to be competitive with other countries to attract money from the modern world; that there is one world capital market and that this country cannot stand alone, nor apart from it. It is to be hoped that their new-found nerve and recognition of market forces will not fail them now. When that differential is closed we can expect, or at least reasonably anticipate, that at least some of the substantial capital which left the country will return. That, Mr. Speaker, will be in the nature of a one-off return of money. Thereafter, whether this country succeeds in attracting the capital which it requires—there has been a deficit between domestic saving and domestic investment every year since 1963, with the exception of 1968-will turn on the real growth rate in this country in comparison with others. In this connection, therefore, this action of the Minister’s is to be welcomed, as indeed is the additional forward, exchange cover for the importation of capital goods together with a relaxation in non-resident shareholder’s tax, or NRIT, and the permission given to borrow for approved purposes for six months or longer. The latter, however, leaves an important question to be answered, since investment normally has a much longer lead time before it reaches the revenue-producing stage.

It is, Sir, imperative for this country to grow, and it has the facilities, other than capital, to do so. It is to be hoped therefore that the hon. the Minister and the Government will consider other measures to make investment by foreigners more attractive in this country rather than elsewhere. He could consider a reduction of the non-resident shareholder’s tax on dividends. I would like, Sir, to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the Government in one respect, where they are so different from countries in other parts of the world. They have always carried out their responsibilities and have never sought to change the terms once an investment has been made, and this is of very great value in the modern world.

The hon. the Minister and the Government seem to have accepted the fact that market forces sooner or later will catch them up. The hon. the Minister has said he rejects a freeze on wages, prices and profits. We have the evidence that he accepts that the interest rates gap has to be closed. We have the recognition, through the necessity to subscribe for as much as R130 million for additional capital for Iscor, that the market cannot be avoided. Whatever the hon. the Minister may say, the necessity for that injection of R130 million arises simply out of the fact that this Government has chosen to subsidize the price of steel within this country, so that that corporation has failed to earn sufficient profits to finance its operations or its expansion. There may well be an element of the fact that in the growth of any company in an expansionary phase a rights issue is appropriate, but it has nothing to do with Iscor’s borrowing capacity, because that turns on the fact that the Government of South Africa stands behind it, and not the debt to equity ratio. But is it equitable, Sir, that all the taxpayers of South Africa, rather than the users of steel, should pay for this R130 million?

If the hon. the Minister is to avoid a basic inconsistency, will the hon. the Minister and the Government now accept the force of the market in regard to labour? Will he now realize that there are no longer enough White hands available and that the simple truth is that the primary cause of inflation in this country is the shortage of skilled labour? There is no more to it than that. The additional concessions which have been announced are of course welcome, but they do no more—even if they do that—than scratch the surface. The approved schemes in so-called White areas constitute in essence the establishment of only eight technical colleges and the concessions in the economic development areas suffer from the fact, as I have already mentioned, that the homelands should be seen as a consequence and not as an alternative. It is clear that South Africa has a rare advantage, compared to other countries. It has a vast potential, waiting and willing to be turned to account. The Government up to now has set its face against this. It should delay no further because the proper utilization of the Black and Brown people of this country would both in time drastically reduce inflation and also serve as a lasting bastion against aggression from without and frustration from within. It would also be the best medicine, should the inflation in the world stop and depression set in, something which is no longer to be dismissed as being beyond the realms of possibility. All that is required to unlock this enormous asset which no other country in the world possesses, is the provision of educational facilities, formal and technical, on the necessary scale. It cannot be done overnight, but it is beyond doubt that this country could afford it if it were given the priority it deserved.

Of equal importance, it is no use to provide the training and then prevent the proper use of the trained people. South Africa already suffers too much from that. The Government has little or no choice, because South Africa must grow in order to provide job opportunities now and for the future, otherwise the unemployment figures will be intolerable. The economic development plan highlights this and it in itself is probably conservative. If South Africa is to keep unemployment below 200 000 in 1977 it will have to achieve a growth rate in excess of 6%. There are of course other estimates which put the figure much higher.

South Africa’s growth leaves a very great deal to be desired, even when compared with mature and developed economies, which it should not be—or is the hon. the Minister trying to tell us we can do no better than that? Our real per capita growth over the ten year period to 1973 was only 2,2%, and over the last five years was 1,9%. That should be compared with growth rates of 4,7% in Canada, 8% in Brazil. 7,6% in Japan 4,9% in France. Happily, of course, the terms of trade have now improved, but we have much ground to make up. The argument about the birth rate does not really stand up when you consider Brazil and the other examples which I have quoted. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government to stand back, take stock and follow a new direction. Let us look beyond this year’s Budget or any particular year’s Budget and say we are going to go for unprecedented growth in South Africa over the next five years. If the Minister does so, he will find that the vast potential of this country will be realized. I would ask the hon. the Minister not to allow himself to be dissuaded too easily from that course by a temporary worsening of the balance of payments. Rather relegate emphasis upon it, utilize the facilities of our present reserves, where the gold element certainly is undervalued, and use the facilities of the IMF. A high growth rate too will in itself attract further capital to this country. It will take time to gather momentum, but we could use these facilities to finance ourselves over the transition. The alternative is the gloomy one to which I have referred. Sir, if the Minister does that, the benefits will be enormous. Inflation will be drastically reduced, savings will as a consequence rise, productive capacity, both industrial and mining, will increase and business confidence will abound. This will not be at the expense of stability. In fact, stability will increase, though there may be temporary distortions. The financial capacity of the country will be dramatically enlarged. In short, Sir, everybody would benefit.

Mr. Speaker, both Germany and Japan achieved real growth rates, the latter in the ‘fifties and the former in the ’sixties, which were and still are regarded as economic miracles. In neither case were they so richly endowed as is the country. It should therefore be practical and feasible for this country to emulate and indeed to surpass them. We could reasonably look to doubling the real gross product of this country within five to seven years, and to doubling the standard of living for all who live here. If we do not come close, let it be understood that this is the price each of us pays for the policies of this Government, because if all South Africans woke up White tomorrow, this is undoubtedly the road that we would go. All we need to do, to be capable of adding this further dimension, is to realize that there is only one economy in South Africa. If we do this, then the means for South Africa’s economic miracle will be at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has had his first opportunity today, as a new member of the Progressive Party, to act as their speaker on finance. For obvious reasons I shall not be able to devote much time to the hon. member this afternoon. However, I want to tell the United Party that I hope they have taken note of the hon. member’s statement that a large portion of South Africa’s inflation was imported. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon. member that the financial implications of what we are spending on defence, are possibly all he said they were, but this Government will continue to ensure that every cent that is necessary for the defence of South Africa will be employed for that purpose. In addition I also want to tell the hon. member that notwithstanding his eloquence, we shall continue with the development of the homelands. In spite of the fact that we have been carrying on with that for 26 years now, we are time and again still receiving a mandate from the South African electorate to proceed further. No electorate will continue to support a Government if things are not going well for them financially.

† just want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the South African economy is as buoyant as that of any country in 1974. This brings me to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. Yesterday afternoon in his speech the hon. member said—

The first point I wish to refer to is the admission by the hon. member that there has been growth in the South African economy. That is something which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never wanted to admit. Only last year he quoted to us the growth which was taking place in Japan. I suppose the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that the growth rate in Japan today is hardly 2%. He also accused this Government of a lack of responsibility because we only had a certain growth rate. Now everything is changed. In the year 1973-’74 we will have a growth rate higher than anywhere else in the world. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for this admission. The hon. member also said that the hon. the Minister and the Nationalist members in these seats would never claim that these bounties from the Almighty could be ascribed to the efficiency of the Nationalist Government. But this Government in fact ascribes everything that happens in this country to bounties from the Almighty. We believe this Government came into power in 1948 because of the will of God Almighty. From 1948, through all these 26 years, we have had consecutive Ministers of Finance and consecutive Prime Ministers, but are nevertheless going from strength to strength. The great leader of the United Party in 1948 said unequivocally that their defeat then was just a slip and that this Government would be out of power within a couple of months, because the banks were going to close, and the financial position would be so chaotic that nobody would be able to live. Where is the old general? He is not with us any more, but he prophesied wrongly.

Where is the hon. member for Hillbrow? What has he been saying year after year? What did he say to the hon. member for Houghton in a debate in 1973? He said: “Well, I want to say goodbye to you." Well, what was this “goodbye” worth, she is back again?

It was “hello and goodbye”.

By whom was she bid goodbye? By hon. members opposite. In other words, everything they prophesied, has proved to be wrong. That is why I am not following up the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Year after year they are telling us that this is the end of this Government and of South Africa. When we return to this House, under what circumstances do we do it? I remember so well when these hon. members walked in here in 1970, especially the hon. member for Durban Point. He was so buoyant and happy. I wish the younger members could have seen them that day, as we say in Afrikaans, “stert in die lug”, the whole lot of them!

Then something happened that perturbed me. A list was issued by the U.P. concerning all the constituencies, and they again prophesied what would happen. I do not think my friend, the hon. member for Turffontein, was there. It must have been the hon. member for Hillbrow. They came out with a list of every constituency in South Africa, giving the position as it was then and as it would be in 1975. I was perturbed when I saw what the position of Smithfield would be in 1975. I would still have been here, but according to them with a majority of only about 1 250 votes. In fact, I came here unopposed.

Let us have a look at Aliwal North. You will remember the rejoicings about Aliwal North. The position there was that we only had a majority of 900. The prediction was a United Party majority of some 2 700. But my hon. friend, the member for Aliwal North, is back with a Nationalist majority of 2 000. Why?

Delimitation.

No, that is not true. The delimitation of Aliwal North remained the same. Now I want to tell this House and South Africa why the position in the United Party is as it is. I am again referring to Aliwal North. I had no opposition in my constituency, so I could spend quite some time in Aliwal North. I attended a meeting in East Griqualand—congratulations to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District for good meetings he held there—and some U.P. members came to my bedroom to ask me whether I had seen their candidate. So I said “No, I have not”. They said: “Please, make a point of it and go and see what the position really is”. I went to Aliwal North and heard a confession from the candidate of the United Party. He confessed that never before had he been a member of the United Party. He was not a member of the United Party that evening. He is definitely not a member of the United Party this afternoon. This is the true position.

*I want to speak to the hon. member briefly about labour, but more about that later. I now want to come to the hon. member for Von Brandis. Mr. Speaker, the daily Press stated clearly before the 1973 session that the financial experts were sitting on that side of the House. They said: “The United Party is a star-studded party as far as finance is concerned.” When they get round to the National Party they say we have virtually nothing. I reacted to that and really did not think they would again come along with something like that. I considered their ability to be overrated. How right I was! Where are they? Where are those “stars” who were here? I want to point out to hon. members that they lost the hon. member for Parktown, and that the hon. member for East London City is no longer here either. Thus we can continue, but I now want to come to the present position. According to the Sunday Times, the hon. member for Von Brandis is one of the stars, but they say nothing anymore about the hon. member for Hill-brow. Just look at what the hon. member for Von Brandis has done. He stood up—we all have a little fun at times—and said that he had never heard anything of a poorer quality than the contribution of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He was thinking that the hon. member for Paarl would get the opportunity to show that he could make a better speech than the Minister of Economic Affairs. That is what he said, but I do not want to quote everything to the hon. members. At the end he said . ..

Read it all.

He said—

In this disparaging way the hon. member for Von Brandis disposed of what the hon. the Minister and the hon. member had said. Now I want to refer to a debate in this House on 23 February 1973 where the hon. member was just as disparaging and was proved wrong.

When are you going to begin with your speech?

No, you people have not given me a chance. On 23 February 1973 the then financial star, the erstwhile hon. member for East London City came along to this House with a motion in respect of the promotion fo exports. It was a first-class motion. If I remember correctly, the present hon. Minister of Indian Affairs was then the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who handled that debate. The then hon. member for East London City had a whole long story to tell, dragged in the Reynders Commission report and quoted from it. The report from which he quoted is a good one, but the hon. member’s approach that afternoon was such that I had to move an amendment because we really could not accept this approach. We could not accept it, and that is why I moved an amendment. When I moved the amendment, the hon. member for Von Brandis came along and spoke about it. I am not going to quote everything to hon. members again.

Why not?

I shall tell hon. members why not. The hon. members want me to quote further so that I will not be able to tell them some truths later in my speech. The hon. member for Von Brandis then came along and spoke about me in disparaging terms. He quoted from the Rynders report ...

That is just his way of doing things.

That is why I am dealing with it here. He said (Hansard, column 1363)—

I said “Yes, I am”. He quoted this passage and said that if one accepted that one knew everything about the promotion of exports, etc. After the hon. member for Paarl had spoken, the hon. member for Humansdorp came along. When he started speaking, he made use of the same Reynders report, the Reynders report on which we three worked together as a team on our side. The hon. member for Humansdorp then said (Hansard, column 1379)—

That is the point.

What?

That the hon. member for Von Brandis quoted a piece from this report, as the hon. member for Humansdorp said, which did not actually convey the spirit of the report. The hon. member for Humansdorp went further and said that he wanted to quote a paragraph in which the spirit of the report was explained very well. He then quoted the report, a quotation which conveyed the spirit of the report in a way totally at odds with that conveyed by the passage quoted by the hon. member for Von Brandis. Hon. members of the Government conveyed the spirit of the report.

What was the spirit?

What I want to say is that from the same flower from which a bee draws honey, a spider can draw the bitterest poison. I want to acknowledge that they have side-tracked me, but I thought we should show these people up for what they really are. We should also just like to let the hon. member for Johannesburg North know that if he does the same silly things as the hon. members over there, the same will happen to him.

Mr. Speaker, throughout we have heard of this tremendous problem of inflation. Time and again these hon. members say, as my hon. friend has again said, that inflation is a problem throughout the world, but that here in South Africa the solution for inflation is very simple. We have heard that like a refrain. They say that in South Africa the labour problem must be put right. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has also said that if all hands were White, there would be no problem. As I have indicated this afternoon, in respect of this matter my hon. friends are not being politically honest either. I just want to ask hon. members whether they realize what has happened in this country over the past 20 years in significant and orderly fashion? When I entered the Free State Provincial Council 21 years ago, all the work being done on our roads, for example, was done chiefly by White people. There is nothing like that any more. The same applies to the adjustments made in a meaningful and sustained fashion over the past 20 years, and particularly over the past four years, in respect of the South African Railways and Harbours. The hon. member for Durban Point will know what went on at Durban harbour two or three years ago.

I know that the ships there are queuing to get into the harbour.

Do not compare those times with the present. I also know about that. That is for a totally different reason.

I am speaking about now—there are about 20 to 30 ships lying waiting.

The previous Minister of Transport came along and introduced significant changes there in respect of certain jobs which were originally done by Whites and are now being done by non-Whites. All these changes took place in an orderly fashion, with the permission of either the staff associations or the trade unions. When we get to the secondary industries and manufacturing industries, what is the position there today? The hon. member for Houghton was good enough to come and carry out a small inspection on one occasion. From the lowest to the highest level, up to and including computer work, we find that work previously done by Whites is now consistently being done by Black people, and this is the position to an ever-increasing extent. At Rosslyn and at Hammarsdale we find the proportion between Blacks and Whites steadily increasing. The numbers of Black people are increasing, and the numbers of Whites decreasing. This is how the position will continue to develop. But it is not “too late”, as the hon. member for Hillbrow has said. It is surely not “too late” is it?

Too slow.

Too slow? I just want to tell hon. members that since 1964 the training of those Black people has been taking place without interruption. If that training had not taken place, we could not have made the progress that we have made. I do not think there is anyone amongst us who will say that the position is to our satisfaction. That could never happen. I want to say, however, that the person or body or, please note, the political party desiring to hide this truth, will find itself in the position of the United Party in the recent election. Everything will grow except the United Party. If things go on like this, then the Progressive Party has stopped growing. We shall have to accept the policy of the National Party. We need you all to help us. Instead of trying to stir up the Black people and Brown people, for whom we are trying to do everything in our power, co-operate with us, otherwise there will be no peace and quite in South Africa.

I do not want to delay the House any longer. Those two gentlemen have delayed me because they have made me angry. I just want to say that our progress is phenomenal. As the hon. the Minister put the position to us, he is making it possible for us—I do not have the time to elaborate on that—to have social and industrial peace in our country. With the support of the other Ministers in the Cabinet, we are going to continue to have that social peace and quiet, that labour peace and quiet. As long as we have that, things will go well for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. There is one thing ...

Thank someone else.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister. I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for what he has done for us as Minister of Finance with or without the help of hon. members on the Opposition side. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he did when he was still Minister of Economic Affairs. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, also argued with me here one day about the courageous steps taken by the Government in respect of the manufacturing industry, and with special reference to the motor industry. Now we want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he did in the days when he introduced Phase One into the motor industry. We want to thank him for his fearlessness in taking that course. We want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Government not to flinch in the face of the courageous steps that must be taken.

Sir, this was a time when I also hesitated slightly, until this latest Namsa report was published a week or so ago about the sale of motor cars. I want to quote to you what they say. It is not the Minister saying this, and neither am I saying it; it is Namsa which is saying it without even being asked (translation)—

We say thank you to the hon. the Minister and his successors for that courageous step. Let the Opposition cry and shout; let them say that we are too late with everything. I want to tell them that we are grateful for the fact that they are the only ones who think we are too late. The electorate in general believes that every step we take is a calculated one taken at the right time in order to bear fruit at the right time.

Sir, I conclude with this idea: I want to refer hon. members on that side to the hon. member for Florida. Yesterday he made a very trim maiden speech here. He said that if one puts those computer gadgets in one’s ears for a short while one learns a lesson so quickly it is almost unbelievable. He says some small children learn amazingly quickly, but some fellows have to listen 3 000 times to learn the lesson. Sir, I not only believe, I am convinced, that after 10, 12 or 200 lessons, every Opposition member will have progressed to the point of joining this Party.

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary for me as a newcomer to this House to say that it is to me a tremendous honour and a privilege to be here with you in order to try and serve the cause of our country and our people to the best of my humble ability. Permit me, Sir—and I hope this will be the last occasion on which I shall say “Thank you, Minister”—just to say thank you very much, on this occasion, for the great privilege I had in being able to work in such close conjunction with Minister M. C. Botha and Mr. Vosloo, who is the Administrator of the Cape at present, and also to say thank you for the fine experience which I was able to gain there. Sir. I believe that it is only a person who works in such close conjunction with those people who knows what it really means, in terms of personal sacrifice, to be a Minister or a Deputy Minister. Sir, permit me, too, to say thank you very much for the privilege of having been able to sit in the bench for private secretaries and to judge the proceedings of the House from there. I must say it was much easier to judge things from that bench than it is to put one’s case across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few thoughts to express. We live in a time when we can rightly say that the wealth of yesterday’s world of thought often becomes tomorrow’s worn-out and blunted ideas, and that the wealth of today’s world of knowledge often becomes tomorrow’s stale news. Things that will make the front page today, will probably barely make the middle page tomorrow, and that, coupled with the fantastic population growth in our country and the bewildering pace at which we live, only serves to prove once more that the concept of change has become the predominating concept in the world in which we live today. Change, Sir, is a mighty and a mystical concept. Change is a concept which causes people to rejoice and jubilate. It is a concept which fills some people with resistance. Change is a concept which drives people to rebellion. It is a concept which drives other people to resistance. It is a mighty tidal wave which washes over the entire community in all its spheres, and it does not matter where one is, it does not matter what one is doing, sooner or later one will experience the effect of the tidal wave of change to a greater or lesser extent. Sir, nowhere in the world is the effect of change on humanity as visible and as palpable as it is in the very sphere of race and human relations. If you will permit me, Sir, I should like to refer fleetingly to a few thoughts in this connection. Change also has one other concept that goes with it, and that is the concept of confusion. In this connection we may look at early firm attachment to the church which changed to indifference to the church, and the confusion which resulted. Similarly, we may refer to a more defective parental discipline which led to confusion. Mr. Speaker, when we speak of change which leads to confusion, then there is probably no single sphere where it is quite as visible as in the field of race relations. It is in this changing world that we in Southern Africa and all the people of the world are experiencing, in respect of race relations, what certainly is the greatest challenge of the time. May I say that, during the next decade or two, we as the youth will experience the greatest challenge here in Southern Africa in the very field of a changing situation in the racial sphere.

Sir, it is often asked why so much reference is made in South Africa to the youth. It may be a good thing to go back to the census figures of 1970 to see how important the youth in Southern Africa are. Of the total White population of 1970, more than one-third were under the age of 20 years. Of the total Black population, the Brown population and the 618 000 Asians, more than half were, in 1970, under the age of 20 years. We all know that at this stage the average age limit, the median life expectancy, is already lower in the case of the non-White peoples. In Africa at the present moment, 45% of the population is under the age of 15 years. To us as young people, to us as the youth in South Africa, these facts are most certainly of great and profound significance; not only the fact that the youth will play such a major role, but also the fact that, in the light of the census figures, the White youth are without any doubt, showing a diminishing numerical ratio in relation to the non-White population groups here in South Africa. In 1960 we as Whites constituted 20,9% of the total population. In 1970, 10 years later, we constituted only 17,5% of the total population. In the ten-year period from 1960 to 1970, the White population increased by 662 000 as against more than 4¾ million in the case of the Black population. Sir, it took the Black population less than 10 years to show a bigger numerical increase than the White population has shown since the arrival of Van Riebeeck. If this is not a fact which must provide us as young Whites with food for thought in the days ahead, then I really do not know. It is in this changing situation, in this situation where we as Whites are to an ever-increasing extent building up a numerical backlog in relation to the Black peoples, that we must deal with the challenge of the future. But we must also deal with the challenge of the future against the background of the fact that we find ourselves in a world which is pregnant with a sickly humanism and liberalism, and the children of this sickly pregnancy, i.e. equality and liberty, are the children we shall have to deal with in the Southern Africa of tomorrow. Let me say this. It does not matter whether the young person of today and the young person of tomorrow is White or Brown or Black. We shall have to join forces in tackling in this Southern Africa the struggle that lies ahead. In the years that lie ahead, we as the White youth will at all costs have to guard against trapping and entangling ourselves in a false guilt complex about the backward position of the Black people as against our position as Whites. There are two scientific facts which we should not lightly lose sight of and which, in the years ahead, we should continually emphasize in this regard. I know that the mood of the times in which we live does perhaps not make it desirable or necessary to say this, and that one often stands accused when saying this. But the backlog in the development of the Black peoples in South Africa, their relative economic backwardness in relation to the Whites, can basically be ascribed to two factors. In the first place there is the backlog in the development of the Black peoples. I say with great soberness and without trying to be offensive that every people in the world, every individual at any given moment, finds himself at any given stage at a point in a process of development. How far one can develop in that process of development, only history can show. Similarly, only history can show how much progress the Black person, the Brown person and the White person will make in South Africa on the road of development. However, there are basic facts we may never lose sight of. It is not our fault, i.e. the fault of the White youth, that according to the census figures of 1970 we notice that in the whole of South Africa there are only 80 Black engineers, only 40 Black lawyers and only 120 Black medical practitioners. And so we could go on. A few days ago the hon. the Minister referred to figures according to which there are at present only two Black people who are being trained in pharmacy at universities. This backlog in development is a reality of which we need never be ashamed. It is a reality which we should approach soberly, because it is not our fault that that backlog in development does exist.

There is also another factor which contributed very positively to the relative economic backwardness of the Black people particularly in relation to the Whites, namely the tremendous and rapid numerical increase. We may as well tell one another soberly that for as long as that rapid numerical increase continues, the Black and the Brown people will go bowed down by the pressure of not being able to progress rapidly. When we look at the numerical increase of the Black peoples in South Africa, we must realize that this must have a radical effect on the progress of these people. We can look at many facets in the picture of progress we should like to provide for these people, but there is one aspect which stands in the centre of it all and which we can pick out in order to show to what extent the numerical increase is impeding the development of the Black peoples in South Africa.

Last year 3,3 million Bantu children were attending school. If the number of Bantu children at school increases at the anticipated rate of 6% per annum, it will mean that over the next few years there will annually be 200 000 to 250 000 more Black children attending school. Those 200 000 to 250 000 extra children at school will mean that, at an average of 50 per teacher, 4 000 to 4 100 Black teachers will be necessary annually in order to teach them. At an average of 300 children per school it will mean that 680 to 800 new schools will become necessary annually. That means almost three new schools per working day in order to meet those needs.

We as the young Whites of tomorrow’s generation must view these facts very realistically for, in spite of it all, in spite of the backlog in development and in spite of the problems caused by the numerical increase, it is a fact that we in this world in which we are living will not ever be able to evade our obligation of being co-instrumental in the socio-economic upliftment of the Black peoples here in our midst. In that lies, to an increasing extent, the challenge to the young generation of tomorrow: We as a small group of Whites will have to take along with us and help to uplift these rapidly growing Black and Brown populations, for there is one matter about which we should have no illusions. The pivot on which everything will hinge in the future and on which everything has hinged up to the present, is sound human relations. We as the young generation of Whites accept that a key element in that pivot of good relations is the development and upliftment of the Black and Brown peoples here in South Africa. We are not afraid of that task; on the contrary, we should like to tackle it with enthusiasm. In the years that lie ahead, using upliftment as our instrument, we want to make a sober and realistic effort to bring about good relations in South Africa, building on the fine and good foundations which have already been laid. There are many facets of good relations among people. There are the person-to-person relationships, but there are also the essentially practical things, the tangible things, that which every person feels, i.e. the desire for a home of one’s own, the desire for food and clothing and the desire for material progress. We as the White generation of the future see that challenge clearly before us. What is more, we are possessed with an idealism to take up that challenge. We know and we believe that there are several in which ways we can cause the upliftment of the Black man to gain more impetus and greater stature in the coming years.

There is one basic starting point for being able to bring about the physical development and upliftment of the Black man in South Africa. That is something about which a great deal is being said and on which I may not comment today as a result of the nature of my speech, i.e. the question of wages. I believe that increasing the wages of the Black man is a basic starting point in the process of upliftment. There are two truths which we as employers very often and very easily circumvent. The one is that as one improves the wages of one’s Black people, so one instinctively regulates one’s affairs in a more effective manner, and productivity does not necessarily suffer. Like Anton Rupert I believe that the starting point can be to increase the salaries and wages, and that productivity will automatically become part of that process. By increasing the wages of Black workers in South Africa, we are more actively bringing them into the picture as regards their own upliftment programme. It has been estimated that the total buying power of the Black people in South Africa was in the region of R2 800 million last year. We know that the wages of Black people have risen tremendously in the past few years. In total, viewed over the sectors, it amounts to an increase of 14,5% from 1970 to 1973. In certain sectors it even rose by as much as 100% during the same period. The construction industry is an example of this. With these increased earnings of the Black people and with the channelling of that money into their own upliftment programme, there are far more rays of light on the horizon in this task of upliftment which we as Whites have here at the southernmost tip of Africa. Many of us here are employers of the Bantu workers. By means of our direct monthly contribution of R1,50, which is at present paid to the Bantu administration boards, viewed against the background of the rising costs such as building costs, transport costs and the infra-structure, we as employers can make a further contribution towards the upliftment of these people. I think that in the near future it may indeed be necessary to do this and to make adjustments. As far as we as employers are concerned, a drastic increase in that monthly contribution, through which the housing and the transport of Black people can be improved, will certainly make a major contribution. There are many elements in this picture of total upliftment. You will agree with me that in the years ahead we as the youth will have to paly a key and a cardinal role in the meaningful evolution of race relations here in Southern Africa. There are many locks we will have to unlock for the sake of good relations. One of the important locks is, I believe, the lock of the upliftment of these peoples. We are prepared to tackle that task as well, we, the White youth of today and tomorrow. It is in that spirit and in that disposition that I am speaking here. I know that, whatever the faults of the youth may be, there is one important element in its make-up, namely that it seeks action. We want to tackle this task in an action-charged spirit. It is in that spirit that I want to say to this beautiful country of ours that South Africa may call us, and that it may ask of us what it will, for we want to sacrifice whatever it asks of us.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Innesdal on his maiden speech. I was impressed by the competent way in which he acquitted himself of his task, because I myself realize under what circumstances a maiden speech has to be made. I am sure that the hon. member will play an important part in the politics of our country.

Sir, this is in fact my second performance in this House. My first performance, as hon. members may recall, was during the division on the motion of censure, when I nearly voted with the hon. members on the opposite side against a motion moved by my own leader. I am thankful that you, Mr. Speaker, did not see my blunder, in spite of the noisy calls for order; because a blunder of this kind would not have been something which could easily have been explained to my caucus or to my constituency.

However, this is the first time that I have the honour to address this House, and I must confess that I do feel nervous to perform in this renowned Chamber. I am deeply impressed by the responsibility resting on this House. In all humility I hope and pray that the Almighty will bless my activities in this House, so that I may be able to make a positive contribution in the interests of our beloved country and all its people.

As other members who addressed the House this session, I, too am concerned about the uncertainty which prevails with regard to the international monetary system of the free world. We are living in a time in which inflation of the money of the Western world is increasing at an unparalleled rate. The economics of the leading trading nations are sending out distress signals. Interest rates have reached totally untenable levels. The whole basis of international credit is handicapped by a mistrust in all paper money. The world’s gold reserves are to a large extent frozen as a result of a completely unrealistic official price. It is a tragic situation that we as interested spectators, as the months go by, cannot but become more sceptical about the ability of the different international authorities to co-operate in the mighty effort which is required to stabilize the situation and to avoid a crisis. In this connection I can do no better by way of illustrating this situation than to quote Mr. Gavin Relly, chief of the executive of Anglo American. In a published interview he said the following:

At a later stage he puts the question, and I quote again—

He answers his own question by saying—

†In the light of a statement of this nature coming from such an eminent authority as Mr. Relly and in the light of similar views expressed by other international authorities of repute, I am convinced that we would be making a major error if we were to underestimate the seriousness of the international monetary situation. Let us not fool ourselves. We could well be set on a course which perhaps even in the life of this Parliament will result in the inflationary collapse of the money systems of the Western world and we would have to face the consequences that would follow from that. In my opinion Mr. Relly hit the nail on the head when he suggested that we were no longer dealing with a classic economic situation, but in fact with a political situation. It is this political situation that I would like to say a few words about today.

The problem is that the short-term political objectives of Governments seeking frequent and regular re-election have been found to be irreconcilable with the long-term requirements of a healthy monetary system. The reason is that short-term political objectives demand an increase in the money supply to ensure boom or near boom conditions which are required for a commitment of full employment and rising living standards while the long-term objectives of the monetary system demand that money hold its value. This must be done by keeping it scarce in relation to available goods and services. While the short-term political objectives have forced Governments to expand the credit base of their economies to unrealistic levels in relation to goods and services, this imbalance has led to the inflation of money due to its lack of scarcity. This situation has been aggravated during the past decade by this political commitment to full employment becoming almost a doctrine, a doctine to be maintained irrespective of what the long-term economic considerations may be. The credit base required to achieve this doctrine has had to expand to such proportions that politicians have found it necessary to remove the one major discipline that has traditionally limited their ability to create money at will and that is of course gold. While gold remained central in the monetary system it imposed limits upon the amount of credit that could be created. The reason for this was that the credit base could not be extended beyond the limits imposed by the actual quantity of gold in existence. By removing gold from its central position politicians effectively rid themselves of this imposed discipline and could create money as fast as their printing presses could print it. This freedom to print money at will makes it absolutely impossible to fight inflation. Inflation can only be controlled if people accept that there is in fact no more money to be had. This belief is impossible to create with paper promissory notes capable of unlimited supplies. So when politicians removed gold from its central position in order to free themselves from the disciplines it imposed upon them, I believe they did this in the mistaken belief that they could devise some other standard which they could control among themselves. The fact is that to date all their systems have not produced a satisfactory alternative to gold. While they continue in their search for a satisfactory new monetary system the situation is fast getting out of control. The present system of floating exchange rates has led to the creation of vast international credit, based solely on the paper promissory notes of Governments. This process has now escalated to such vast proportions that, to quote Mr. Relly again:

It has allowed the Western world to consume wealth which it has not yet created.

I cannot stress too strongly that it is this expanding imbalance between the creation of money on the one hand and the inability to match this money expansion with a like level of production of goods and services on the other that has created the inflationary problem of the Western world. This phenomenon is in fact what inflation is all about. It is very interesting to read what the then Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, had to say in 1925 about our present monetary system. He said then:

He went on to say:

It is also interesting to note the recent remarks of the Editor-in-chief of The Times of London, Mr. Rees-Mogg, when he referred to this quotation and said:

Other factors are now beginning to rear their heads, not the least of which is that the classic methods of fighting inflation are not only proving ineffectual but are in fact resulting in such stresses and strain in the major economies that they present a real threat of financial collapse to those economies, a financial collapse that would in turn lead to a depression. I shall ignore Italy. Britain and France and give you an example of this in the mightiest economy of all, namely the United States. In their endeavours to beat inflation by the traditional methods including monetary stringency, a major bank has had to be saved from collapse, major industries such as the motor industry are in dire straits, corporations such as Lockheed, TWA and Pan-Am require massive financial assistance, the Real Estate Investment Trusts on which the majority of the real estate development in America is dependent, are in a precarious financial position, and concern is growing over the ability of major Wall Street brokers to survive. Only a vast injection of new money can save the American economy from the threat of collapse. This in turn will naturally result in more inflation.

To recap, gold has been dispensed with and no satisfactory alternative has as yet been provided. This means that there is no international discipline to prevent Governments from printing as much money as their printing presses can handle. This alarming freedom to print money at will is aggravated and even encouraged by new economic factors which do not seem to respond to classic economic remedies, but in fact demand in themselves the printing of vast quantities of new money. The cumulative effect of this has been to push the Western world into an inflationary spiral which, unless events change dramatically, must end in the inflationary collapse of the paper currencies. Because of all this, eyes are now turning to those who in their wisdom, or perhaps lack of it, discarded gold in the first place. They must now timeously agree on some effective measure to regulate international credit and also to deal with our economic problems in their new shapes and forms. Mr Relly, as I have quoted previously, is sceptical about their ability to do this, Because of their past performance, the conflict of interest which now exists and the difficulties which are quite clearly inherent in the whole situation, I would tend to support him in his scepticism. The consequences of failure will, however, be disastrous for the Western world. There comes a stage when either your promissory notes are rejected or you reject the promissory notes of other countries. This in fact is already happening. Italy has had her promissory notes rejected and the oil-producing countries have rejected the promissory notes of other countries. As this process of rejection escalates, as it must, we will witness a degeneration of the whole monetary system until the stage is reached where the rejection is on such a massive scale, not only between countries but also in countries themselves, that world depression coupled with hyper-inflation becomes unavoidable. Because we are part of the Western world we in South Africa will also find ourselves sucked into this vortex. It is inevitable. Fortunately, however, by reason of our gold and other natural resources, we are in a position to avoid the more dramatic consequences of a major depression. We shall however have to plan extensively for this contingency and in the light of the facts, I would suggest that the time to start doing so is now. We are fortunate in that our Stabilization Fund is adequate to finance extensive stockpiling. In the past stockpiling has been motivated by the threat of boycotts and not by the possibility of a depression. Perhaps the Government should now, however, give consideration to stockpiling those essentials that would become unavailable in the event of serious disruption in world trade. Should we do this I am sure that it will prove, as in the case of oil, not only to be prudent but also to be profitable. Secondly, the Government has with the approval, I am sure, of everyone in this House, substantially increased expenditure on defence. The motivation for this is the escalating threat of external aggression. I would suggest that the Defence Force should also be trained to act as a sympathetic law and order force so that they could supplement the police force if the exceptional circumstances of a lengthy world depression made such a force necessary. Thirdly, if a depression does become a reality, gold, despite the endeavours of politicians will, in the words of Montagu Norman, be restored to its former position. As Mr. Rees-Mogg whom I quoted earlier put it so graphically: “When the paper system collapses, the survivors will dig in the rubble and find gold.” I would suggest therefore that the South African Government and our nation take a view on gold. I think we should make it our objective to hold as much of our newly mined gold as possible within the bounds of what is politically and economically feasible. This means embarking on extensive programmes to borrow foreign exchange to meet balance of payments deficits, holding as much of our reserves in gold as is possible and perhaps even waiving the restriction on the issue of Kruger Rands so that individual South Africans can protect some of their savings and also help to keep as much of our gold as possible inside South Africa.

Finally, in these times of high inflation, pension funds, because of the obligatory prescribed investments, will run the risk of bankruptcy and will also perhaps prove unable to provide that protection which society demands of them. In the case of pension funds in particular, the need for a hedge against inflation is a real social necessity. Perhaps the Government could make indexed bonds available to pension funds for prescribed investment.

What I have said today might perhaps strike may hon. members as being bizarre and far-fetched. I hope this proves to be the case. The facts of the matter are such, however, that I believe that this House can no longer afford to ignore them.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Rand-burg on his maiden speech in this House. We wish him well and everything of the best.

*Mr. Speaker, over the past few decades man has ventured into space and has gone to plant his beacons in distant spheres. He has conquered outer space and has gone to collect rock samples on the moon. He has suspended a satellite at a fixed angle from which he projects images through space. He links time and space, and London is a day’s journey away. But in the midst of these technological achievements and man’s expert abilities, the essence of man remains the central point, the pivot on which everything turns. He is the supreme creation of God and in him is interwoven his character, which gives an undercurrent of significance to a people; in him is voiced the language which forms the realm of sound in which a people can breathe; and in him is the trace-element of growth, the child who shapes the nations. With the child we begin with the individual who has been shaped as a creation in its own individuality by a Creator. In its individuality lies its greatest capacity, its greatest strength—the creative power, the ability to think, to plan, to grow, to develop and to cause to develop and to scrutunize, has been allocated to him, and it will fall to him to lay down guidelines. But, Mr. Speaker, man is not only an individual. If what is involved is only the individual and his individuality, then he becomes a distorted person. Our science defines these people in fine-sounding terms; we know the concept of schizophrenia. Here we shall simply call them the distorted persons. We could project slides for you of a man with explosives in his hands in a courtroom in Potchefstroom; we could mention a person in Kroonstad who gassed himself and his children in a motorcar; we could mention to you a mother in Bloemfontein who took her own life and that of her children; we can mention to you a father in Durban who strangled his two-year old son. Sir, these are individuals who grew distorted and were unable to form part of the general community, and who did not want to merge into the growth and responsibilities of even that smaller community, the family. Therefore we should like to see the individual being taken up into the community as well. He belongs in a family, in a family context, and this family is the nucleus of a community, and this community belongs to a larger community, to an ethnic group and its responsibilities permeate through to the highest level. Sir, we ask ourselves this question: What scaffolding is necessary to lead this individual, in the milieu in which he moves, to development within the framework of a responsible concept of obligingness, integrity and usefulness? We come then, in the first place, to the components of the family; that is why it is a good thing to have healthy families, and that is why it would be a good thing, if this were possible, if children did not come home to an empty house after school, but to homes in which they could be enfolded with warmth and love.

The second components which helps and contributes in this forming process, and serves as guide, is certainly the Church and the community, which imparts to the child restraint within the freedom of movement, binding him to the concept of acceptance of authority and respect, respect for those to whom it is due, acknowledging the authority of those to whom it belongs. The third component which I want to dwell upon for a moment is the school.

The school is such an important asset because it comprises almost 80% of the childs life. In this important phase in the lifetime of a child he moves in the hands of teachers from the pre-primary, through the primary and secondary to the tertiary level. These people have been entrusted with the task of allowing this individual to grow and create opportunities, to care for him with great love, warmth and patience and to leave him with an open ear and a clear-sighted eye, to understand his language so that when he asks for bread, a stone will not be thrust into his hand. It is these people who have to implant in the child the growth element of the good values recognized by the national community in which he moves and to which he belongs. It is these people who teach him from the initial states what generosity means as opposed to selfishness, what integrity and reliability means, and what enthusiasm for life means at a time when some people are beginning to flag.

To be able to give the child the best instruction and to create for him the ideal conditions, we want to point out two components. The first is certainly ideal supportive conditions. We want to include here the physical amenities, the equipment and facilities, the utilization of aids, more recent creations, the retro-projector, computer and language laboratories, closed circuit television—all items which create conditions to facilitate teaching. The second component is people—men and women—who are able to work with that child. We can define these people, and we can see them as the bonding agents which must incorporate and interweave that human building material into a graceful unity. It is these people who can handle the child for us with understanding, people who understand, and continue to understand, throughout the development process of that child, people who see that child in its totality as an individual child, and not simply one of a great many, people who understand the child even though he cannot speak a word. I call to mind a little boy who had been crippled by polio and who walked with the aid of crutches because of his handicapped body, but who in his heart was an athlete. With his body, however, he was unable to compete. A teacher who understood his language thrust a stopwatch into his hand, gave him a programme and entrusted to him a few athletes whom he had to put through their paces every afternoon. In this way he was able to participate. At the paraplegic games held in Munich, this little boy with his weak body won two gold medals for South Africa in swimming! We are looking for staff who can understand.

I am putting forward a plea in this highly esteemed House for these people today. I am pleading for each and everyone of us to carry a message to those outside and to inspire our young boys and girls with the highest qualities for this task. It may sound selfish, but education is the parent vocation from which all other vocations flow, and if there should be an erosion of manpower, it had better be in other vocations, for I think this vocation has prior claim and it makes no difference to what language unit this applies. I make a plea for these persons who, with understanding and love, have to lead our youngsters along the road our people have to wander, who have a difficult but such a wonderful and great future!

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Standerton, for he dealt with such an important subject in an almost lyrical way. If he is able to speak with so much devout conviction in all the discussions in which he will participate in this House, it will probably be a privileged and an exceptional pleasure for each one of us to listen to him.

Permit me, as directed by the voters of Losberg, and also on my own behalf, to convey greetings and express thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance who has represented this constituency in such an exceptionally dedicated way in this House over a period of 16 years.

I should like to say a few words about delegated legislative power, and then link up with what the previous speaker had to say about the importance of effective education. It was my privilege to serve for a number of years in the lower echelons of Government, to be specific in a local authority and subsequently in the Provincial Council. I am therefore acquainted with the problems which are being experienced there and, if I may put it like this, also the frustrations which are experienced from time to time. There are people who, for some reason or other, maintain that a system of government cannot function effectively if it does not have powers of levying taxes. This is an idea which met with a wide response during the amendment of the Financial Relations Act a few years ago. However, I think time has shown that there is no truth in this argument. On a local government level we have the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas, which geographically-speaking, is the largest local authority in the country. Apart from its local regional committees it has no powers of taxation, but yet it functions very effectively. There is another school of thought which alleges that a system of government which performs its functions by means of delegated powers cannot make a substantial contribution to the upliftment and development of the community it is serving. In this respect as well I do not think that that is the whole truth of the matter.

None of us will deny that powers on a provincial and local government level have been curtailed in recent years, but that has not affected in any way the important work which is being done in these spheres. I think we could perhaps, to good effect, take another look at the work which is being done there in the interests of national administration.

It is perhaps possible that in some spheres, and I am thinking particularly of regional planning in our rapidly-developing urban areas, there could be a smoother functioning between Government departments and the Provincial Council and between the Provincial Council and local authorities.

In spite of all this there is reason for local authorities and provincial councils to be justly proud of the work they are doing in the national interests. We think for example of the roadbuilding system, the recreational resorts, planning, and other services, but particularly of hospital services and education. One would like to pay tribute to the young women of our country who, in spite of there being so many opportunities for young people today to find easy and convenient avenues of employment, still dedicate themselves to the care of the sick. One pays tribute to those young women, for it is not the easiest work and they do not work the easiest hours and yet there is so frequently a smile on their faces. There is another group as well to whom one should like to pay tribute, viz. the teachers who have made it possible for our young people, with a few exceptions, to be regarded as young people of whom one may justly be proud. How South Africa needs these men and young women! Consequently, it is of primary importance that we never neglect or fail to do justice to education.

One of the saddest phenomena of this technocratic century is the increasing extent to which young people are falling by the wayside. They are no longer able to stand the pace, and are overcome by neurotic tensions and anxiety. The challenge and the problems of the future offer them only overwhelming frustrations so that they turn to a flight from reality and live in their own dream-world of “peace” and hallucinations. Such young hypogenes are found throughout the world, and the tragic part of all this is that it is mostly due to parental neglect and the prevailing permissive climate in which we are living. Mankind cannot withdraw from the life it has created for itself. There is no question of going back. For man there is only one course, and that is that ways and means should be created which will be of assistance to those who are disrupted by the unimaginable confusion of the present day life climate particularly in the big cities. Owing to the essence and the nature of instruction and training this may, if it functions effectively, find the route along which a way out of the labyrinth of our time can be achieved. Through effective education, which unlocks the secrets of knowledge and science, the child finds the spiritual equipment and the norms with which he can deal with life. Through instruction and training we have been able to achieve the level of civilization which we have today. However, there is one condition attached to the key role which education plays in our society viz. that it has to be made possible for education to fulfil the role which it really should fulfil. Education which lacks aid and support from the authorities, which does not have those dedicated people to accomplish the task and the importance of the services of which are not recognized, cannot fulfil the uplifting function which it ought to fulfil in society. Many examples can be quoted of societies and civilizations which perished because proper heed was not paid to the education of the child.

Progress in any sphere of life is meaningless if the destination is not clear. Every individual cherishes an inner desire to progress without always establishing clearly in his mind what such progress really implies. To the child the desire to progress is a characteristic of his life, and he is dependent on the adult to lead him. We may not deceive or lead the child astray. Education is indeed the mother of all vocations, as the only means by which a people can uplift themselves on all levels and make meaningful progress. In some Western countries the devastating effect of an education which did not succeed is clearly discernible. If we want to escape such a situation the obvious route is a sustained, serious and honest attempt to safeguard education from such a decline. We shall constantly have to demonstrate, through positive action, our correct attitude towards education, particularly in a country such as this with its complex problems and powerful challenges. Our education, particularly in view of the loss of function of many families in the modern world, is all that can guarantee that our country will not be subjected to erosion of the youth and the loss of young people who fall by the wayside. To us, particularly with our manpower shortage, every person is important. It remains the task of education to inculcate and develop in our youth the right attitudes and frame of mind.

Educational qualifications and influencing is not an ornament which one can simply pin on or remove as one pleases. It is not something of snobistic or prestige value. It is vitally important equipment for veryone who is capable of making a meaningful contribution to the present day and the future. Education has in truth become the necessary apprenticeship of modern life. The uninformed and undeveloped will not be able to contribute their full share to the establishment and development of the enterprises of our day, but will fall prey to the moral decline which is such a tragic feature of the modern world. If this happens because of factors apart from the child, it is time society examined its own conscience and decided for itself whether it is still supporting an educational system which allows every child to do justice to himself. I am making this plea for education, because I regard it as being the forefront of the fight against ignorance and the turbulence of life, because it is irreplaceable for unlocking the necessary knowledge which the modern way of life, the science and the technology of our age demands, and because it is the only route along which the child can find meaning and significance in a world which appears to him confusing and complicated.

I am grateful for what everyone who has been associated with education has done to create the opportunity for effective education and preparation of the youth, and for the sense of responsibility which has been cultivated by them. I am grateful that they have succeeded, with purposeful dedication, in safeguarding the most important asset of our country, our youth, from the moral decay of our times and in making them mentally prepared to meet the challenges of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on the presentation of his maiden speech this afternoon. I should like to assure him, that I share with him, the concern that he has for the problems which our youth have in this modern world of ours, and also for the need for extended educational facilities. I am sure that his obvious concern for these particular subjects, will enable him to make a positive contribution to this House, and I would like to wish him a very successful career while he is here.

Like my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, I would like to use a portion of my maiden speech to pay tribute to the ex-member for South Coast, Mr. Douglas Mitchell. Prior to the recent delimitation, more than half of my constituency fell into Mr. Mitchell’s constituency. Over the past five years, it has been my privilege to become more closely acquainted with the people living in this area, many of whom worked very closely with Mr. Mitchell over many years. I doubt whether there is, or ever has been, a public figure in Natal who is held in such high esteem as Mr. Mitchell. His tireless devotion over many, many years to the affairs of our province, and to the affairs of the Republic, and his great concern for the protection of the environment and the South African heritage, has earned him the respect of all Natalians, especially those living on the South Coast. It is therefore, with a great feeling of humility, that I follow in the footsteps of such a great South African.

I consider my election as the first member for the new seat of Amanzimtoti a great privilege, and it is my sincerest wish that I shall succeed in upholding the dignity and the traditions of this House, and that I will be able to make an objective and constructive contribution to the affairs of this House, in the interests of the welfare of all the people of this Republic of ours.

I also take pleasure in being the member for Amanzimtoti, a constituency which as, hon. members no doubt know, lies along 80 kilometres of the upper south coast from the Bluff in Durban to the Ifafa River. I say this, not only because I happen to be a banana boy who was born on the South Coast, but also because I believe that the Amanzimtoti constituency is a microcosm of the contemporary South African scene. We hear much about change and the need for change these days, especially in this debating Chamber, and I feel that whatever socio-economic and political changes take place in South Africa as a whole, these will also be taking place in my constituency. These are exciting times, times which I am sure we will all agree, are going to test the integrity and the capacity of our people. It is pleasing to me to feel that I have the opportunity of being part of this scene.

The activities of my constituents are extremely varied. We refine oil, assemble motor-cars, brew beer and produce fertilizers, explosives, paper, rayon, sugar and a great variety of other industrial products. We also grow timber, bananas and sugar cane and we play host to thousands of tourists each year.

We are a heterogeneous community in that the voters of Amanzimtoti have as neighbours a large Coloured community on the Bluff, the giant Indian townships of Chatsworth and Isipingo, and the lesser one of Umkomaas and Umzinto. We have Zulu neighbours on almost our entire western boundary. Our constituency is in fact cut in two where KwaZulu reaches the sea at the coastal strip from Karridene to Umkomaas. You will see, therefore, why I say that whatever happens elsewhere in South Africa will also be happening in Amanzimtoti. We are in fact already experiencing these changes. Almost overnight both the landscape and the attitudes and activities of our people are changing.

I could list many of these changes. However, I am going to limit myself to just one endeavour here this afternoon, viz., sugar. I feel that the changes which we are experiencing in this industry at present have a bearing on this Budget debate.

It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister about the contribution which the sugar industry is making to the economy of South Africa. Suffice it to say that its contribution to our domestic economy and also to our balance of payments is considered extremely worthwhile. I consider the sugar industry a model of co-operation between the agricultural and industrial sectors, and also a model of self-sufficiency. The structure of the industry in the form of the Sugar Association unites such diverse people as the farmer, the miller, the refiner and the marketer into a dynamic force for the good of all concerned. As a result it asks for no subsidies—so far at any rate—and it finances its own research and development and it plans and executes the marketing of its product. There has been no increase in the domestic price of sugar for over four years, and the industry has built up a substantial price stabilization fund for the bad years which, as they have happened in the past, must surely also occur again some time in the future.

It is an industry which is highly respected in the international field. Not only does it produce the best quality sugar on the international market, but it is highly respected as a producer and exporter which meets its market commitments regardless of the cost to itself. Its technology and management is highly respected throughout the world, a fact which is borne out by the record attendance of nearly 750 overseas delegates at the fifteenth congress of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists which was held in Durban in June of this year.

I am of the opinion that the secret of the success of the sugar industry is twofold: Firstly, every member of the industry, from the smallest cane farmer to the biggest miller, is an accepted member of the industry, a member who elects and regularly meets with his representatives on the Sugar Association and who is kept fully informed of the day to day happenings and the wellbeing of his industry; and, secondly, while both the cane grower and the sugar miller will fight for their respective share of the proceeds from the sale of sugar, both accept the principles of interdependence, and that in unity, there is strength.

To all outside appearances, therefore, one could say that all is well in the sugar industry. It is indeed fortunate, however, that the industry has the foresight to see the dangers on the horizon, dangers which, I believe, involve people and money. Because of its expanding Black population and because of the rapidly rising aspirations of these people, it is imperative that the economy of Natal should grow at the rate which will meet these needs. This is in fact what is happening today, unfortunately at a time when inflation is taking its heavy toll. This expansion is going to require a considerable injection of capital into Natal, and an ever-increasing number of trained workers. In order to just keep pace with the sugar consumption requirements over the next 25 years, the sugar industry will require an additional capital investment of about R500 million. It is regrettable that, because of inflation, production costs have risen by an average annual rate of 16%, adding a total of R87 million to the production costs over the past four years.

Because of these factors, the industry has realized there must be an expansion in the area of land planted to sugar cane and it becomes evident that much of the suitable land readily available at the present time lies within the boundaries of KwaZulu. This fact has already been recognized by leaders of the sugar industry and the Association has established a special fund totalling some R5 million to assist small growers, most of whom are Black, in the development of their cane farms. The shortage of skilled workers both in sugar technology and in the trades, has resulted in Indians being trained as sugar technologists and the construction of a sugar industry trade school at Mount Edgecombe which is open to Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In addition, individual cane farmers and milling companies are embarking on special training programmes for their employees in an effort to raise productivity so as to combat the evils of inflation. That the hon. the Minister has now granted tax concessions to encourage the training of such workers is most welcome. This is evidence indeed that a change is taking place in South Africa at the present time.

However, the results of these developments are bringing still further changes. The raising of the skills of our Black workers in the sugar industry, at the time when there is an extreme shortage of qualified White workers, is resulting in Blacks being absorbed into more and more responsible jobs which are paying higher wages than ever before. This in turn is resulting in a greater desire on their part for a higher standard of living, and both cane growers and sugar millers are now embarking on extensive investments of capital in respect of better housing and living conditions for their workers. This investment is absolutely necessary in order not only to retain the services of the correct type of labour, but also to attract more labour to meet the needs of an expanding industry.

I think I am correct in saying that over the past five years there has been an increasing awareness among cane growers and sugar millers, of the fact that the future prosperity of the industry will be closely tied to the wellbeing of its Black workers. It could be said that the principles of interdependence and strength in unity which have thus far forged grower and miller into such a viable team, must now be extended to employer and employee. This is especially the case in the canefields of southern Natal where, because of the steepness of the terrain on which much of the cane is grown, the problem of economically replacing the skilled manual canecutter with mechanical harvesters, at this stage, appears to be insurmountable. I doubt whether many hon. members present here today realize that the sugar industry’s annual crop of more than 18 million tons of cane is cut almost entirely by hand. While the industry has for several decades appreciated the need for the eventual use of mechanical harvesters, and has in fact over this period spent considerable sums in researching this problem, including the importation of machines from Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, the problem of the steep slopes of Natal has yet to be solved. There are other cane-producing countries with similar problems such as Hawaii and many of the West Indian islands. However, it is clear that the methods being used there are not readily applicable to South Africa nor, in fact, to many of these countries, as is evidenced by the declining sugar production there.

It is imperative therefore. Sir, that the job of cutting sugar cane should remain attractive to our Black workers. Whether the sugar industry will be successful in achieving this will, I believe, depend on the attitude of both the employer and the employee. I feel that we must accept the principle that there is dignity in labour and that every worker is worthy of his hire. I also believe that in order to develop a mutual respect between employer and employee, it is basic that the worth of the job must be correctly evaluated and clearly defined.

In this context it is interesting to note that in many cane-producing countries throughout the world which were formerly colonies of European powers, the Black work force has, since the granting of independence, tended to look upon the cutting of sugar cane as being beneath their dignity, and an undesirable form of employment. On the other hand, Sir, Australia, which has had to rely entirely on a White labour force to harvest a crop far larger than our own, was successful in finding such labour until as recently as 1965, after which time mechanical harvesters came into use in ever-increasing numbers. It is a fact that many Australian cane-farmers started out as cane-cutters, and it is known that many graduates paid their way through university by cutting sugarcane during the vacations.

It is in the light of this experience that we should all view the development of the sugar industry with interest, understanding, and I believe, with sympathy. The industry has at many times in its history been faced with seemingly insurmountable problems, yet with determination and enterprise its members have succeeded in overcoming these problems. This has often meant a change of direction and the introduction of new technology, and so it will be, I believe, in the case of the harvesting of sugar-cane.

There is little doubt that these changes have already started. There has been an increase in the number of agricultural engineers and scientists putting their minds to the problem and the industry has provided the research funds for this purpose. A re-examination is being made of the basic layout of sugar-cane fields in an attempt to accommodate machines, while other investigations are being made into agronomic practices and cane varieties.

But most of all, Sir, it is encouraging to see that a pragmatic approach is being taken towards the human factors of aspirations, wages, living conditions, supervision and training. I say this, Sir, because after all is said and done, the future success and prosperity of the industry will ultimately have to depend upon the most precious of our resources, namely people.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has just resumed his seat, on his maiden speech in this House. It was interesting to listen to him and I enjoyed doing so. He is clearly an authority in the field of sugar and I want to wish him many years of successful service in this House.

Mr. Speaker, although silence in this House during a speech is an extremely unusual event and at the same time a privilege, it is not completely without its disadvantages either. This disadvantage is the total absence of the normal, infallible criterion of reaction, whether negative or positive, and one’s inability to tell whether hon. members are remaining seated because they are listening to you or merely out of a sense of decency. That is why I believe that every new member, and that includes me, wants to believe with Emerson that the words “the silence that accepts merit as the most natural thing in the world is the highest applause”, apply in his case as well.

Before coming to that equally ticklish problem for the new member, i.e. the choice of a suitable theme for his first speech, I should like to say a few words, in all humility and in grateful acknowledgment, about something which is certainly more than ever before very close to my heart on this occasion, and that is the privilege granted me to work so close to the chief leader of my party for a number of years. Sir, what I learnt from him as a leader, as a humble person and as someone to whom one could look up in all respects, while occupying that position close to him, I shall always remember. Thank you very much for that. Hand in hand with this, of course, are the very pleasant associations I was able to have as a public servant with former colleagues in those benches of the private secretaries. Mr. Speaker, from there it looks very easy, but I want to tell you that here on this floor, where I am standing now, it can become very uncomfortable for one, particularly if one is engaged in what I am doing!

To proceed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express a few thoughts which in my opinion are, or at least should be, common ground for all of us in this House in spite of obvious differences, common ground at least as far as the relevant principles are concerned, and these concern the practising of sport and other forms of entertainment on Sundays. Because an attempt to define these concepts and activities in greater detail could undoubtedly give rise to differences of opinion, I should like to content myself by saying that for the purposes of my argument I only want to give them their normal, everyday interpretation, the meaning any reasonable person would attribute to them.

It is realized that a discussion of this subject, chiefly owing to the different opinions held on these matters in a free and cosmopolitan South Africa, will not be without its pitfalls. At the same time, however, I am convinced that among the elected representatives of a people in whose Constitution it is unambiguously stated, “The people of the Republic of South Africa acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God”, and whose highest institution, namely this Parliament, is opened every day with a prayer, there will be no difference of opinion in regard to the cardinal principles involved here, i.e. the preservation and the protection of our Sunday. These principles constitute a directive which is universally applicable to church, people and State. We, as representatives of the people, assembled in this House today, are responsible in this regard, and it is in that spirit and in that conviction that I should like to bring this matter to your attention.

That there is no unanimity among the members of this House, as far as the man in the street is concerned, in other words, the people at large, concerning the way in which his directive is to be implemented in everyday life, is a well-known fact. We all know that people simply act according to their consciences. What is more, even in the Christian-oriented South African community, there existed several years ago wide-spread difference of opinion about the realization of this principle in practice. Notwithstanding this, however, there can be no question that they, the Christian community, are sincerely in agreement that it is our bounden duty and responsibility to respect and protect the day of rest in this country. I say, Sir, the weight of evidence available at present indicates irrefutably that it is also expected of the State in South Africa to guard jealously against Sunday becoming just another holiday.

This protection of Sunday by the State is not a new concept in this country; it is deeply rooted in our history. That, indeed, is why the State already has statutory powers today to control and regulate the practice of sport and other forms of entertainment on Sundays.

Let us deal first with the Cape Province, where section 6 of Ordinance 1 of 1838 provides that it is illegal to have any public snooker room, bowling-alley or other public place of entertainment open on a Sunday. Anyone found guilty of an infringement of this Ordinance may be sentenced to a penalty of not less than five shillings and not exceeding £10 or one month’s imprisonment. I just want to point out that this penalty of five shillings and £10 is still valid today. Gambling, dog or cock fights and the playing of any game in a public place are also declared to be illegal. A police officer has the right to put a stop to such a fight or game, seize the apparatus, including the dogs and chickens, and disperse the gathering. If one is found guilty of this offence, the penalty is not less than five shillings and does not exceed £3 or 14 days’ imprisonment. (The rest of this ordinance deals with infringements in respect of trading, the buying and selling of goods, on Sundays.) In the Cape Province Act 19 of 1895, too, is still in force, and provides, inter alia, that a local authority, subject to certain conditions, may grant permission to such places of entertainment to allow certain public shows and/or performances. Conviction under this Act may involve a sentence of £20 or one month’s imprisonment.

In the Transvaal we are a little stricter as far as this matter is concerned. There, sections 7 and 8 of Act 28 of 1896 contain essentially the same measures as those applicable in the Cape, but they also go quite a lot further and describe in more detail all those things which are prohibited. As I have said, we are a little stricter there because on conviction one may be sentenced to anything from £50 to £100 or imprisonment for six months.

In the Orange Free State, section 21 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1902 provides that the Act which applies in the Transvaal is to be applied in basically the same way in the Free State, but it does not contain nearly as much detail about what is prohibited. The sentence on conviction in the Free State is a fine of £20 or imprisonment for two months.

Then we come to Natal where Act No. 24 of 1878 and Act No. 8 of 1917 provide for the protection of Sunday. Except for regulations in regard to trading on Sunday, there is, however, no provision regulating the practising of sport or other forms of entertainment on Sundays. In Durban, however, certain local by-laws do exist which lay down regulations in this regard.

As indicated, the legislation in three provinces of the Republic differs in certain important aspects while in the fourth province, namely Natal, there is little or no legislation concerning this matter. Juridically speaking, in my opinion such a state of affairs is not in the best interests of our administration of justice. Not only can it sometimes lead to unfairness towards the ordinary public, but it also fails to promote legal consistency and certainty. These are aspects to which a great deal of importance is attached in our legal system, and rightly so. and which should accordingly, be jealously guarded. Examples of anomalies and problems in this regard are obvious and require no further comment.

Apart from the prima facie evidence of existing legislation, however, additional and more recent evidence is available concerning the questions as to whether it is for the State to regulate a matter such as this by way of legislation. In this regard I should like to refer briefly to a Select Committee of this House which investigated this matter during 1963 and 1964. An investigation in depth was made of all aspects and a great deal of evidence, oral and documentary, was collected. This evidence very clearly confirms, inter alia, the really complicated nature of the problem in South Africa, a problem which takes on far greater dimensions in extent and intensity if we bear in mind that thousands upon thousands of our Black people, whose views on this matter differ from those of the majority — Whites, will be intimately affected by any steps taken in this regard. For example, even at that time there were almost 350 000 Bantu soccer players registered at almost 12 000 clubs in the Republic. It was calculated that the annual attendance figure at soccer matches was in the region of 50 million. This and countless other problems are of real significance and solving them will not be easy.

Amongst all these differing approaches as well as the problems which are foreseen, one thing that stands out is that all the responsible representatives of our Christian-orientated community who submitted evidence, replied unambiguously in the affirmative to the question whether the State had any duty in regard to the preservation and protection of Sunday and, if so, whether it ought to be applied by means of uniform legislation. This is what was submitted in evidence by a church with a membership, at that time, of about 22 000, namely the Church of England in South Africa, in a memorandum which it submitted to the Select Committee (see S.C. 5-’64, appendices page xxvi)—

On page 61 of the evidence of this Committee they also state—

The Roman Catholic Church with a membership, at that time, of approximately 1 083 000 of whom about 193 000 were Whites, testified, inter alia, as follows, on page 70—

In a memorandum submitted and evidence Church they say on page xxxiii—

In a memorandum submitted and evidence given by the Presbyterian Church of South Africa, with a membership, at that time, of about 50 000, they make the following statement on page 99—

On page 100 of the Committee’s evidence the following question was put to the representative of that church—

His answer was—

A Church in South Africa with a membership, at that time, of about 1 200 000, comprising 42,9% of the White population, namely the Dutch Reformed Church also testified, inter alia as follows in their memorandum on page xxxvii—

The other two Afrikaans sister churches, namely the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk and the Gereformeerde Kerk are in full accord with these standpoints. Even the Church of the Province of South Africa, with a membership, at that time, of about 1 400 000, of whom about 389 000 were Whites, and which was critical of any control in this regard, submitted evidence to the same effect. For interest’s sake I want to mention that in the state of New York it was the custom at that time—according to the evidence submitted by the Church of the Provinces—that people were in fact allowed to take part in sporting activities on a Sunday after 1 o’clock in the afternoon.

Here then we have the evidence of our largest religious institutions concerning this matter and although they differ in certain important respects, particularly with regard to the practical application and realization of this matter, as already indicated, I think that one would be fully justified, on the basis of the evidence collected by the said Select Committee, to accept that they agree, firstly, that the State in South Africa does in fact have a right and a duty to protect the Christian Day of Rest and, secondly, that uniform legislation should be enforced throughout the country.

A further aspect which, in my opinion, stands out very clearly, is that through the years the State has done its duty in this connection, and that is why the existing legislation was placed on the Statute Book—as long ago as 1928—and left as it was. One would certainly be justified in asking whether this legislation is still adequate in all respects today. As you know, circumstances and viewpoints have changed considerably since then. Although the present legal position in regard to these matters is known to us, we do not know what the attitude of our Christian-orientated community is today ten years after the evidence from which I have quoted. It may still be the same, or it may have changed in the interim; we do not know. However, in the light of the facts I have mentioned, I wonder whether the time has not come for us to take a fresh look, a thorough and penetrating look, at this matter. The question of what is permissible on Sunday and what is not is of course extremely contentious, and I am not going to say anything about it. Bearing in mind, however, the vital principles involved here, it is my humble opinion that a closer inspection of the matter would certainly be justified.

We who live here on the southern extremity of Africa have a very great need in these times of protection and guidance from Above. On that we base our hope and confidence for the future. In my opinion, therefore, it is only fair that we should also try to fulfil our side of the agreement to the best of our ability. That is why I think that the time is ripe for a fresh look at all aspects of the practice of sport and other amusements as well as other activities on Sundays. Inherent in this request is the realization that Sunday is not the private property of any population group in this country. Various standpoints and views are held by our people, and they ought to be respected. I am therefore only asking that we should once again give all the various responsible representatives of the peoples in South Africa the opportunity to reflect on this matter, in the spirit of our Constitution, in order that uniform guidelines may be laid down for everyone. In my opinion, a Select Committee of this Parliament, such as the one which made such a fine job of the investigation into publications, would in this very difficult situation, too, be able to provide the necessary perspective. I believe that we owe it to posterity.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to convey my very hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg on his maiden speech. He is a new M.P. for a constituency with a new name, a constituency which is now, in 1974, known by that name for the first time. It is probably not strange that a man like the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who sat for so long at the feet of such a great political colossus, should make a successful speech and entry into Parliament. We expect a great deal of him in the future. I am convinced that the hon. member will do his duty by this new constituency. Perhaps it has been clear to everyone that if a man has been a private secretary to an hon. Minister, as is the case with the hon. member for Innesdal, too, his maiden speech goes reasonably well. Since the maiden speeches today have been of such a high standard, and I believe the House is scarcely able to absorb any more, I should like to move at this stage—

Mr. Speaker, I move—