Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned yesterday, I had stated that the attack of the Opposition stood on two legs. In the first place there was the attack in respect of the question of inflation, and in the second place in respect of the so-called ideological policy of the National Party, the policy of multi-national development which, according to them, stood in the way of dynamic development in South Africa. I am of the opinion that it is precisely as a result of the policy of multi-nationalism that everyone in South Africa, every people in this country, is able to lead a decent life regardless of race or colour. This is the very reason why we are going to meet a new era of economic welfare in South Africa. In the midst of the gloom shrouding, the economic positions of most countries in the world, which is characterized by monetary crises and balance of payments problems, we see in this Budget a shining light emanating from the southernmost point of Africa. Indeed, we are setting the rest of the world an example. I think that this Budget has given us new hope for the future, and although we do have to take stock of inflation as such, the fact remains that inflation is a mighty political weapon in the hands of any opposition in any country in the world. This Opposition fought an entire election against the National Party on inflation, and they came off a very poor second best.

As a result of the development of economic systems it is a fact that a government has to exercise an increasing measure of control over its economy. But the fact remains that there are certain factors in controlling any economy which are beyond the control of any government in the world. If this were not so we would not have had the situation that almost every Western country, as well as many other countries in the world, are experiencing inflationistic conditions. In other words, the problem is there, and it is the task of the hon. the Minister of Finance to make adjustments from time to time as a result of changing circumstances. That is why one must constantly review the causes of inflation. It is a fact that during the years of economic prosperity in South Africa we arrived at a situation where there was too much money in circulation, and the hon. the Minister had to adopt certain measures to counteract the demand inflation of that time. This he in fact did by introducing measures to curb and reduce the amount of money in circulation and by introducing savings measures. The latest wave of inflation is in fact again a result of other causes. We know that in the recent past the countries which are our important trading partners and which have to deliver capital goods to South Africa have experienced an unprecedented period of inflation.

In view of the free trade economy which we maintain here in South Africa, there are only limited measures which can be applied on the part of the authorities to cope with all the aspects of this inflation. We are dependent upon these people for the provision of capital goods, and that is why we have, during this period experienced cost-push inflation here in South Africa. It appears as though there has recently been a further additional factor, caused by the new economic prospects in South Africa, i.e. a new wave of demand inflation. The Opposition has described the measures which the hon. the Minister of Finance has adopted in this Budget, as merely having a cushioning effect in respect of counteracting inflation. What they lose sight of, however, is the fact that the financial measures which the State adopted in the past comprise a continuous process and that those measures, to a large extent, still apply today, apart from those which are no longer applicable.

Let us consider for a moment the large number of effective measures which this Government has adopted in counteracting inflation in South Africa. This is in strong contrast to what has been stated in this debate by the Opposition. In my opinion they have not yet made any really positive contribution in respect of any proposals in regard to counteracting inflation.

Did you listen carefully?

I have already said that the measures which were adopted are constantly being adapted to changing circumstances. It is a fact that this Opposition prescribes the same medicine every year for different ailments. It is true that inflation is an ailment, but that the causes of that ailment vary from time to time. This Government is realistic enough to make the necessary adjustments from year to year. If we consider this problem and analyse it in a systematic way, we realize in the first place that there have to be measures in respect of savings. In the second place we must see whether liquidity should be increased or decreased, whichever the case may be. In the third place we must ensure that consumer spending is curtailed. It is also necessary for us to adopt measures from year to year to adapt production and productivity in South Africa, and also to apply price control and to ensure the necessary growth.

Sir, the United Party blew hot and cold in this debate. When one listened to the few of them who spoke, this debate did not always sound like a financial debate. On the contrary, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South came here yesterday with a whole series of charges which he levelled at the Minister of Agriculture, without first having taken the trouble to assure himself of the correctness of his so-called facts. That hon. member regards himself as an expert in respect of agricultural economy in this country because he owns two cows and three pet lambs. Sir, this Government sets about its tasks in a systematic way. As far as savings measures are concerned, the interest rate on Post Office Savings Bank accounts was raised.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

That hon. member had an opportunity to make a speech yesterday; this afternoon he must give me a chance to speak.

Which facts were wrong?

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point does not have a point. The measures introduced by this Government were in the first place introduced to encourage savings. The interest rate on Post Office savings accounts was raised; national savings certificates were introduced, the tax-free limit were raised, and the periods of notice in respect of withdrawals were also extended. A tax on foreign debentures was introduced, and we have again this year had this wonderful supplementation in respect of the house ownership scheme.

Sir, the second aspect in regard to counteracting inflation is the question of the increasing or the decreasing of liquidity, as this becomes necessary. When it was necessary to decrease liquidity in South Africa under the prevailing circumstances, the increased discount rate contributed considerably towards doing so. The liquid assets ratio of the commercial banks was raised during the same period and appeals were made for less creation of credit. Sir, the capital programme of the State was curtailed considerably and the same applies to the provincial administrations and the local authorities. That is how this Government set about this task. Non-inflasionistic financing has been maintained throughout these years we have had to counteract inflation in South Africa. Treasury debentures and Government stock were sold, Government loans from abroad were paid back, a step which is also of a non-inflationary nature.

Sir, the third point to which the Government devoted its resolute attention was consumer spending. Restrictions were imposed on hire purchases, and in cases where these restrictions could harm the economy, they were relaxed. In other words, the flexibility necessary in any financial policy was in fact applied here as well. Loan levies were introduced by this Government during the years when there was major demand inflation, but when it became clear that we had to bring more money into circulation, this Government was immediately prepared to do away with these levies. Sir, sales tax was introduced in those years when we were dealing primarily with a demand inflation, and in due course, as the need arose, it was gradually relaxed, as is again being done in this Budget this year. Income tax was constantly adapted to the financial circumstances of the country. Credit ceilings were introduced for the commercial banks. Sir, these were sometimes very unpopular steps, but this Government has had the courage of its convictions to take even unpopular financial steps if these are necessary to keep the economy of this country sound.

Sir, production and productivity were encouraged and great progress was made. The Opposition repeatedly tries to simplify the problem of inflation by reducing everything to the one aspect, viz. labour. Sir, the problem of inflation is really not all that simple. For many years now the accent with every Budget has fallen on labour, and in every case as far as this Government is concerned, higher productivity was constantly encouraged. The utilization of Black labour is not the policy of the Party opposite. It is the policy of this Government which has for years had the far-sightedness to have been applying this to an increasing extent.

Sir, I can mention examples to you from my own constituency, from my own home town. The Government has for several years now been subsidizing the training of non-Whites at the Veka factories, and I think the Government is now subsidizing the training of non-Whites there to an extent of almost 100%. In the building industry in Newcastle we have for 2½ years, as far as the building programme is concerned, been maintaining a rate of one house in under one working hour. Increasing use has been made there of non-White labour. It would not have been possible to perform this task if it had not been for this Government which ensured that the necessary manpower was available. Sir, I also want to point out to you that in the Iscor factory the services of non-White operators, particularly in respect of coke ovens, have already been utilized for several years; this began in the time of Amcor, before Iscor took over. These are people who are already earning considerable salaries.

Sir, as far as the new engineering industry, i.e. VENCO, is concerned, I want to mention to you an example of how non-White and Bantu labour is being utilized there to operate highly sophisticated machinery. I want to mention to you the example of a non-White who for many years was the assistant of a plumber in Newcastle, i.e. the person who handed him the pipes, and who is now operating a highly sophisticated machine and earning R500 to R600 per month. Sir, it is this Government which created those possibilities for these people. There is no lack of training facilities as far as non-Whites are concerned in the vicinity of my town; a number of new State institutions have been established there.

The far-sightedness of this Government has ensured, in these years of economic prosperity, that our manpower has to a great extent been supplemented by our realistic immigration policy, in terms of which we imported artisans from overseas to perform skilled work at such places as Iscor, Newcastle, and Saldanha. During this period this Government has stimulated production and productivity further by means of its policy of tariff protection and the measures adopted in terms of it. In addition, rate of interest control was previously, and has again now been, introduced with the sole aim of further supplementing production and productivity. Sir, we have had this sales tax relief which I have already mentioned, as well as concessions in regard to re-invested profits and concessions to working wives, which has again been supplemented to a considerable extent in this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, this Government has also ensured that proper measures in respect of price stabilization were introduced. Import control has been relaxed and price control introduced. Perhaps hon. members do not realise that several thousand prosecutions were instituted last year against dealers who exceeded the price restrictions laid down by this Government.

Sir, the subsidizing of interest rates in respect of farmers and home owners here in South Africa has been one of the strongest anti-inflationistic measures adopted by this Government. In addition, the Minister of Finance ensured timeously that he acquired the legislative powers enabling him to make certain adjustments in respect of our economy even during the recess. I think, in view of these arguments, that there is little left for the Opposition to say against this Budget. Sir, the devaluation of the rand which we had at that time was one of the strong factors which supported our growth programme in South Africa. We have again now, as a result of the farsightedness of the hon. the Minister, had an adjustment in respect of the rand/dollar exchange rate. This is a step which is going to contribute to maintaining our growth programme. I need not elaborate on the increasing expenditure on education or on how this Government has created the infrastructure to make sound economic growth possible. The position is simply that the Government has, over the years, displayed far-sightedness in exercising balance of payments control in respect of capital flow, production of goods and gold sales, to such an extent that we were able to maintain the necessary equilibrium. I put the question whether the Opposition had anything to say about this except to come forward when it was too late, and make futile noises when something was already an accomplished fact. What were the results of this realistic policy of the Government? The results are reflected in our improved balance of payments for South Africa, the upsurge along our entire economic front, the increased production which is already obvious and, in addition the optimism for the future as reflected in the comment of economists and people in the trade in South Africa. We have, through this Government’s actions, created possibilities for expanding the economy, for the coming new year as well. Therefore we can state with pride that although we have a problem of inflation in South Africa, we have fared better than any other comparable country in the Western world. But the question of inflation does not stop with the Government. The facts remains that the private sector in South Africa has an equally important task in respect of inflation. Control over inflation is the responsibility of each and every individual in South Africa, and here we are looking to the buying public, to trade and to industry and to many other sectors. As far as the buying public is concerned, inflation is very frequently created not by purchases made by people to meet their needs, but by purchases made to satisfy their desires. That is why it is necessary to educate the public. Sometimes there is a buying mania among the public which is encouraged by this modern “high pressure salesmanship” which is at work like a canker in our people. Sir, there are thousands—I think it is in the order of 7 000—of salesmen who exercise what is in effect a form of parasitism, who compel our people and urge them on psychologically to buy what they do not need. I think it is necessary for us to equip our people with spiritual powers of resistance to the modern psychological onslaught of advertising. I think it is time, just as we had a Water Year last year, and just as we had a year celebrating the plant-life of South Africa, we gave serious thought to a Savings Year, for South Africa really cannot afford to be largely dependent on the influx of foreign capital indefinitely. I think it is also necessary to educate our people to buy far more selectively, and I think the Minister of Agriculture stressed this yesterday very clearly in respect of the purchase of foodstuffs. But commerce and industry in South Africa have as great a task. For years the farmers have been told that they should gear their industry to greater productivity, but I think it is necessary, as well, to address an appeal to commerce and industry to bring down their costs, for, Sir, I can tell you that the wastage which occurs in our trade and industry is something our people can no longer afford. Sir, there are thousands of motor vehicles in the towns of our country which can still be used. I want to tell you, Sir, that we will to an increasing extent, and in respect of our commerce and industry as well, have to direct our efforts at making these people aware of costs. It is time commerce and industry made increasing use of the realistic concessions which this Government has introduced in respect of the establishment of industries in the border areas to support the decentralization programme of the Government and in that way combat costs. The financial assistance which this Government is giving to these people is quite remarkable. There is, for example, capital provision in respect of the renting of buildings, subsidized interest rates, housing benefits, tax concessions, automation concessions and payments in respect of the dismantling, removal and re-erection of factories. It is this kind of financial assistance which one does not find in any other country in the world. Therefore it is necessary for us to create, in the case of commerce as well, a psychological motivation so that they will make their contribution to the problem of inflation.

Sir. I should like to conclude by pointing out that the sound economic climate created by this Government is a guarantee to us. The policy of separate development has become an accomplished fact in this climate which that party cannot alter. They now have a policy of federation. I think they have changed that policy of theirs thirteen or fourteen times. It would pay them to change it once again, for the policy of separate development cannot be replaced in South Africa, even if that party were to stand on its head. Sir, it is time the Opposition became realistic. In a recent article in To the Point there was some good advice for the Opposition. I quote—

Sir, the fact remains that if that party ever wants to make a positive contribution to the politics of South Africa, it will have to face up to this fact. Only then will we be able to go from strength to strength in South Africa, for then we will be able to get rid of the retarding elements which are having a detrimental effect on this country of ours. Sir. let us be realistic. Let us believe in ourselves. Let us get rid of this guilt complex in South Africa that everything which goes wrong in this country is the fault of the Whites. Sir, we must take into account that the people who have really been wronged in the world, are not always the lesser privileged; it is those who are hated for their good qualities who are the wronged ones. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member for Newcastle and setting him right—if it is possible to do so, which I doubt—there are a few remarks which I feel obliged to make in connection with the largest single item of expenditure in this Budget.

†I believe it is encumbent upon us, the official Opposition, at this stage of the debate, i.e. at the Second Reading when we deal with the principle, to refer to the single largest item—apart from provincial administrations—and the largest ever increase, one of 47%, which has taken place in respect of the Defence Vote this year. The cold hard fact which we have to face is not just a matter of R692 million on Revenue Account. If you add to that the capital expenditure, the Vote for Armscor, the PWD vote for buildings and on Community Development for housing concerned with defence, the defence expenditure is in actual fact R714 million. If you add to that—to get the picture of security as a whole—the amounts to be voted for the Police and the Bureau of State Security, another R177 million, you find that the total cost of sleeping soundly at night in South Africa is R891 million. To this must be added the incalculable factor, viz. the man-hours of the thousands of national servicemen doing their national service in defence of the country. Then there is also the additional cost to the economy of South Africa, to the productive capacity of industry and to the individual himself. It is not my intention in this debate today to deal with the detail of defence expenditure because we will deal with the Defence Vote shortly. But I do think it is necessary to look at the total expenditure in the context of this Budget.

The statistical picture is not an excessive one when compared with other countries. We are spending 16,2% of Revenue Account, or 14.8% of the total expenditure, on security. This is 8% of the real gross domestic product—based on the latest available figures. Related to the daily life of South Africa, however, we find that the defence Budget is well over twice the total appropriation of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. We find that it is more than twice the total Vote for Social Welfare and Pensions and four times the Vote on Education. I am certain that both sides of the House would have preferred to see a different picture. Equally, no responsible person could pretend that if these figures were reversed our borders would suddenly start looking after themselves and that we would not have to spend money on defence. But we can and do say, and we have been consistent in this attitude, that if things in South Africa were different we could perhaps sleep easier than we do, because the ultimate and real security of South Africa lies in the loyalty of our people. And the loyalty of people is linked to the stake which they have in a country. I want to say this so that there is no misunderstanding about the attitude of the United Party. We would like to see the picture different from what it is, but it does not mean that we could spend less on the Defence Vote, which makes up a major part of this Budget. When we look at Europe and remember the tragedy of Hungary and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, we know that it was not because of a shortage of schools or because pensions were inadequate. In Asia, what happened in Korea and Vietnam was not because pensions were inadequate or there were not enough schools. The situation in Angola and Mozambique is not the result of petty apartheid. All this is part of a global plan for the conquest of the world. And so, Mr. Speaker, we in this party believe that the expenditure which is required to protect our borders from foreign aggression is necessary. But we believe that the defence of those borders would be more easily accomplished and the security of our country would be greater, if we could change things within South Africa. What we would like to see is not an attempt to buy off the terrorists with gestures or words, for that one cannot do. We would like to see the destruction of the seed beds within which the real aggressors can sow their poison and instigate their revolution. When we think of the costs—some of these have been supplied to me—of some of the requirements of defence, we see that an armoured car costs approximately R50 000, a 25 pounder cannon about R15 000, a freight aircraft R4½ million in contrast to R2 million ten years ago, i.e. more than twice the cost of 10 years ago. You will remember that we purchased three submarines which then cost R8 million and today it would be R20 million to replace one of them, or one frigate R30 million, or one fighter aircraft R1¾ million. When you look at figures such as these, then I believe that we as a Parliament should be responsible when we talk of an increase of R220 odd million and realize that within the concept of the security of South Africa, when we are dealing with items that cost this kind of money, we cannot buy it with peanuts. We on this side of the House accept the principle, we accept the increase of defence expenditure and we are prepared to back it. We will under the Defence Vote question certain aspects of it and will raise certain problems, but I want to make it clear where we in the United Party stand in regard to this major item of the Budget.

*I now want to come to the hon. member for Newcastle, the new financial expert of the Nationalist Party. He is fortunate, of course, Mr. Speaker, for with an economy which comes to a standstill one moment and starts going again the next, the stop-go economy of South Africa, he found it easy to trace everything back to the actions of the Government. One moment he quotes an example of where the Government stimulated growth and development, and the next moment he quotes something which put a stop to growth. He is always right; he proves both sides of the Government’s economic policy.

I also want to warn the hon. member for Newcastle that I am going to tell those thousands of people whom he mentioned that he called them parasites, i.e. the salesmen of South Africa, my own staff who work in my firm, the men who act as a link between the industrialist, the wholesaler ...

You cannot even sell your own party’s policy.

... and the retailer, the people who act as a link between the commercial world and the public. The hon. member for Newcastle calls them parasites. I take it that he speaks for the Nationalist Party. I am therefore entitled to tell every salesman in South Africa: “The Nationalist Party regards you as a parasite.” [Interjections.] I am going to tell the housewives of South Africa that he regards them as people suffering from a buying mania. Of course, I expected this Utopia which he outlined, and I want to reply to it.

†In this debate we have had a sort of euphoric orbit into which the hon. the Minister of Finance has launched the Government speakers—floating around as though they did not belong to this world; at least that is what it seemed like to me. I have an ambition to understand the norms of finance which I have heard from the Government speakers in this debate. I just want to make sure that I have it right. I hear from them that this is a wonderful Budget. Is that correct? I am sure they say so.

Yes.

The hon. member for Newcastle says so, but I notice that the hon. the Ministers present are more cautious. Am I correct in assuming that they too believe that this is a wonderful Budget? It must be, because they do not deny it. Obviously the Cabinet will agree that this is a wonderful Budget. These are the two things that have merged from the Government benches—a wonderful Budget and a wonderful Government. I want to seek the help of hon. members opposite. I want to go back to my constituency to tell them what a wonderful Budget this is and what a wonderful Government this is. I want to tell them that over the last four years expenditure by the Government has risen from R3,l billion to R6 billion. This means an increase of 91%. I can understand how this happens. It happens in my own home. Things cost more and so if I want to have the same I have to pay more for them. I can explain to people that the Government is spending more money because everyone of us has to spend more if we want to have the same as we had before. So you can explain that higher prices cost more. But what I want those hon. members to explain is how it is that people like myself, and perhaps some Government members as well who, have had a fixed income for the last four years, either have to get into debt or buy less because things are costing more. I want to explain to the voters in my constituency, the people who have not had a 91% increase in the money they have to spend, how they can pay more for things unless they either buy less or get into debt. But not only that, I also want to explain to them how they can do what this Government does—which is to spend 91% more, not get into debt but end up with a surplus of nearly R700 million. This is the explanation which I hope hon. Government members will give me. How do things cost more, your income stays the same and you end up with more things and a surplus at the end of the year? In my simple arithmetic it means that that Government has taken R700 million more than they needed out of my pocket and the pockets of the taxpayers. If the Government has paid for its extra expenditure and still has a surplus the simple explanation is that they took too much money from the people of South Africa. They took more than they needed. I want them to tell me how I must explain to my voters that although things cost more they can end up with a surplus and not get into debt.

I want them to tell me how I can explain another thing to my voters. 99,9% of my constituents live in flats, hotels or rooms. We are living in a wonderful country, with a wonderful Government with a magnificent Budget! [Interjections.] Yet I have people in my constituency with problems. One of their problems is how they are going to pay their rent. I have been informed of a few increases that have taken place. Here I have a letter from a person who was notified by an estate agent that his rent was going to increase from R57,44 to R61,89. This person comments:

I quote this because it is a practical example. I received it this week. The R5 increase has been taken up in one single increase in rent. I have plenty of other examples here. I have one from a person who had to move from one flat into a cheaper flat in the same block in 1971. He moved into a flat costing R57,80 in 1971. Now, three years later, he is facing a rental of R85,55. What is more, that is the cost of the smaller flat which he moved into because he could not afford the flat he had before. This is a one-roomed flat, and its rental has now gone up to R85,55.

Are you not perhaps the flat owner?

No, I am not a flat owner, thank goodness. I would not be able to sleep at night if I had some of these rises on my conscience. Because wages and the interest on bonds have gone up, the rental has been increased. My information is that in Durban alone there have been 214 applications for increases in controlled rentals in June and July of this year alone. What is more, the number of applications is going to escalate.

I sent a telex to the hon. the Minister of Finance and I want to thank him for the courtesy and detail with which he replied. He wrote me a letter running over 2½ pages of foolscap. He was courteous and considered every aspect, but the answer to my request for a subsidy on the interest rates on bonds was in a single word “no”. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not here. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that my suggestion is not the answer; the answer is the various schemes for sub-economic and economic housing administered by the Department of Community Development. He says:

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development—I have done so already and I also warned him that I was going to do so formally—whether he will undertake to house 100 families whom I can bring him next week in economic flats administered by the Department of Community Development. The hon. the Minister of Finance says the Government will look after these people. I challenge the Government to do so. I say that it is untrue because the Department of Community Development cannot house people normally. It cannot even house people in emergencies because they simply do not have the housing. They money they are spending on housing for non-Whites is being used to house people who have been removed and not to house those who have no housing. Can the hon. the Minister of Finance give me the undertaking that, if I take a family to the Department of Community Development because they cannot afford to stay any longer where they are now living as a result of his Budget, his taxation and his economic maladministration of South Africa, he can accommodate them? I want his assurance that he will guarantee that they can get a home which they can afford to live in. He cannot give that assurance. They speak of “this wonderful Government”, but every member on that side of the House who has ever been through his constituency, knows that his voters are struggling because they cannot meet the cost of housing.

These are the working people, but when one comes to the pensioners the story is a tragic one. Not only was the first R5 increase, the election R5 increase, swallowed up before they got it, but now the Christmas present of R5 has been swallowed up five or six months before they are going to get it.

Disgraceful!

Hon. members know it. Do they really believe that a person can live in a city on R57 per month? It is absolutely incredible that any hon. member on that side has the nerve to stand up in this House and brag about this Budget because social pensioners are going to receive an increase in pension of R5. If I were on that side of the House I would hide my head in shame before I spoke about this Budget in those terms. I say that this is a black blot on the conscience of White South Africa—that we should allow pensioners to have to live under the conditions under which they do have to live at present.

Quote them.

I do not have the time to quote all of them now but I do have example after example here of the sort of pension that people are getting. It is not only a question of the old-age pensioners either. There is also the question of the war veterans. People write to me and say: I can never be patriotic again; I would never again be a patriot and serve my country. People write to me and say that they do not know how to live and that they want to put an end to their lives. There are people like this woman who says that for over 40 years her husband contributed to this Government’s Post Office pension fund and that her total income now is R64,90 per month. This was after he had contributed for 40 years. Forty years of slaving to build South Africa and her pension is R69 per month! And they say that this is a great Budget and a great Government!

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying applies to every retired civil pensioner who retired five or ten years ago. I have a telex here regarding someone who came pleading to me for help. I received this telex on 15 August, last week. This person says that the pension received is R62 08 plus a bonus of R3 and a temporary allowance. And then there is a PAYE deduction for tax. This person is receiving a total pension of R86 and then the hon. the Minister takes R3,57 off for tax. This is the Budget which hon. members opposite brag about, a Budget which allows people to live in these conditions! We heard the hon. the Minister tell us about the R700 million surplus that he had. He could not spare some of it to assist these people. He put it back into the reserve account—I was going to call it an election account, but I will not. Then there are the old-scheme pensioners, the pensioners of commercial undertakings and the people who retired on investments and whose investments have remained the same. Take the 1914-’18 war veteran. I have one case here where R192 was taken back because this pensioner received a gratuity from a firm he used to work for. This was discovered and R192 was deducted from his miserable war veteran’s pension. Surely, with a Budget like this, we could have removed the means test in relation to the incomes of the 1914-’18 war veterans, the war of sixty years ago. These people are all in their late seventies now. However, even a little gesture like that is too much for this Government. It is too much for them because they do not care about those who are not numerically strong enough to affect their position in power

They talk of closing the gap. We all want to see the gap closed. We want to see the gap closed by lifting the standard of the non-Whites to the standard of the Whites and then lifting the standard of both them and the Whites even further. We do not want the gap closed by bringing the standard of living of White people down to that of other races; we want to do it the other way. There are many people of colour earning R100 or R200 a month, but we expect a White pensioner to live on R57 a month. The gap is not closed, it is reversed. The Coloured gets a pension of twenty odd rand, and yet hon. members opposite talk about this being a magnificent Budget—a magnificent Budget from a magnificent Government, which allows this sort of thing to happen in South Africa; a Government which, in every constituency in South Africa, including mine, allows people to live, as I have often said before, in backyards and in rooms in which it is a disgrace to ask people to exist. Sir, those hon. members opposite know that this is true; they know of the shanty towns and the shacks and the hovels in which these people have to live. Sir, when I talk of accepting an expenditure of R740 million on defence at a time when we have a surplus of nearly R700 million, I believe that some of that money should be used to help people to live according to the standards which we proudly boast make South Africa a great country. Sir, when we go overseas we boast of South Africa and its high standard of living and how we look after our people; we are proud of it, but at the back of my mind there is a feeling of guilt; there is a blot on my own conscience and on the conscience of every hon. member over there because while we talk like this we know there are thousands in South Africa who are not enjoying that standard, who are not living as we want people to believe they do live. In my own constituency, Sir, in the constituency of the hon. member for Potchefstroom and in the constituency of every member of this House there are people living on R57 a month, and yet hon. members opposite are happy to leave them there. Sir, I say let us spend on defence but let us remember these small groups of people. They may not be politically important, but they are important for the conscience of South Africa. The hon. the Minister gave us a wonderful bit of news about sales tax in his Budget speech. He is reducing the sales tax on luxuries like cups and saucers and plates and pots and washing machines; he is going to reduce the sales tax from 10% or 15% to 5%. Big deal, Mr. Speaker! On essential items needed in every home he is going to make a concession of R5 million this year by making people pay a sales tax of only 5%, and yet he does not know what to do with his surplus. Sir, what we need is the sort of compassionate society for which my leader has pleaded over and over again, the sort of compassionate society which can make us stand up with pride and say, “I believe that South Africa looks after her people better than any country in the world; I am not ashamed of the way we treat the citizens of South Africa.” Sir, against that test, I say to the hon. member for Newcastle, when he talks of this magnificent Budget, that I will remind some of his voters of what his opinion is as to how they should live.

Mr. Speaker, like my new colleagues I should also like to say that it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in the proceedings of this House. I am also aware of the responsibilities this entails, and I shall endeavour to maintain the standards laid down.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. member, for Walmer informed us of the conditions at Port Elizabeth. Permit me to take you more than 100 kilometres northwards along the same coast-line and to acquaint you with the conditions at Richards Bay. Virtually a century ago an Irishman, Comm. Richards of the British Navy, was serving in Northern Natal. He and his crew studied the coast-line and recorded on a map the position of a certain lagoon, calling it Richards Bay. That was in April 1879. Comm. Richards later became an admiral of the British Navy and contributed, amongst other things, to the modernization of the harbour at Simonstown. Twenty-five years later, in 1902, a leading consulting engineer, a certain C. W. Methven, made a survey of the harbour potential of the Richards Bay lagoon on the instructions of the Prime Minister of Natal. His report indicated that a complete harbour, with wharfs and cranes, could be built there at a cost of £1091 310 and further, that Richards Bay was more suitable for a harbour than Durban. The fact, however, was that Port Natal was at that time a well-known harbour and also had an established trading post. Consequently Mr. Methven’s report was shelved and Richards Bay was forgotten. During the ’forties of this century South Africa experienced its first industrial growth, and this reached a peak during the second half of the 1960s. Foreign trade increased considerably as a result of an increasing demand for capital and consumer goods and as a result of a lack of local manufacturing capacity. The South African harbours had to handle this increase in goods, but notwithstanding considerable extensions to existing harbour facilities, they could not keep pace with this greater traffic, and this was particularly the case after the closing of the Suez Canal in 1967. For example, more than R40 million has already been spent on extensions to the Durban harbour, but congestion of harbour traffic is still taking place. The development of harbour facilities to accommodate increased foreign trade has been and still is a need. The decision on principle, by this Government in 1968, that a deep-sea harbour would be built at Richards Bay, was not a political decision, being based as it was on sound economic considerations. Fortunately it is now universally accepted that that decision was the correct one. Considerations that led to this decision were inter alia—to mention but a few—the fact that the tendency with most shipping lines is to switch over to bulk cargo, and it has therefore become necessary to have a harbour that can handle coal, crude oil and other raw materials in bulk and where large ships can be accommodated. Geographically Richards Bay is no further from the Rand than Durban. This is, of course, an important factor as far as transport costs are concerned. A further consideration, of course, is that the export of agricultural products and basic raw materials will continue to increase. A last consideration to which I can refer is that Richards Bay is situated near the KwaZulu border. Consequently labour opportunities can be offered, in the Richards Bay industrial complex, to large numbers of Zulus who can travel daily between their homes and places of work.

Under the guidance of the Department of Planning and the Environment extensive technical investigations were instituted, not only to investigate the practical aspects of the establishment of what will be South Africa’s greatest harbour at the spot, but also to investigate the establishment of a giant industrial set-up. All possible influences were investigated, for example the effects of winds, waves, currents, silt and other environmental factors. The results were favourable and the creative aspect of the task was handed over to expert planners. The overall planning has been completed and is already being implemented

Sir, permit me to sketch briefly what is at present being created at Richards Bay and what is being planned for the future. The urban complex of Richards Bay covers an area of 310 square kilometres. Its eventual population is estimated at 800 000. Within the area lie three natural fresh water lakes. They will not only be natural and picturesque phenomena in a large city, but are also the source of sweet, fresh water. Although a large industrial city will develop, it will be a place where the inhabitants can enjoy the benefits of planning, for example safe footpaths, under-ground streets to schools, and street lights with all the electrical conduction underground. That is planning that is already being done today. Consequently it is a place where ski-boats and yachts can have safe passage to the sea, where there are many places to go fishing, boating or to take walks, a place where the workman can make the optimum use of his environment in his leisure hours.

As far as the industrial set-up is concerned, the planning has made provision for the grouping of various industries. For general industrial purposes an area of 1 250 ha has been set aside. This is comparable to the total industrial development to be found at present in the Durban-Pine-town area. A further 330 ha next to the harbour have been set aside in particular for harbour-bound industries. And then, in addition to all this, a further 1 200 ha have been set aside for chemical industries and for the refining and processing of minerals.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport announced recently, the construction of the harbour is progressing well, and it will be put into use within two years. The establishment of the infra-structure is progressing rapidly. Several large industries have already established themselves there. Others are in the planning stage.

My closing words, Mr Speaker, I address in particular to the industrialists and business entrepreneurs of South Africa. This Budget debate evidences unanimity in one respect, i.e. that it is in the interests of the South African economy that the industrial development in our country should be intensified. The establishment of a harbour of the scope of Richards Bay offers an exciting challenge to industrialists and business entrepreneurs. Unparalleled opportunities are being offered to them to apply their knowledge, labour and capital there. Not only would it be to their advantage, it will also be to the advantage of the South African economy as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be able to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Eshowe on making his first bow to this House. As you have heard, Sir, he is a calm and composed person who can put his case well, and I think that his prospects of being able to make a very good contribution in this House in future are-excellent. He gave us a splendid glimpse of Richards Bay, a small part of his constituency. Along with extending my congratulations to him, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to give you the tip that if the hon. member for Eshowe should approach you with a view to inviting us all to go and have a look at Richards Bay, you should certainly give it thought, for this hon. member is a large-scale cattle farmer and I think that he could then, at the same time, treat us to a delicious braaivleis there one evening.

Permit me to say that it is a special privilege for me to be able to represent the Maraisburg constituency in this House. This constituency is not unknown here, since its former representative was known as the hon. the Minister of Transport, and later as the Leader of the House as well. On behalf of the voters of Maraisburg and myself I should like to give thanks and pay tribute to this political colossus. He was a member of the House of Assembly for 31 years, and of that period he was M.P. for Maraisburg for 26 years. He came here in 1948 as a junior member of the Cabinet, and in 1974 he retired at the crest of the wave as a senior. In his constituency his reputation, his competence and his popularity are reflected in the fact that his majority of 962 in 1948 increased to 5 018 in the last election in which he participated. It was my privilege to be his M.P.C. for Maraisburg for 25 years. I make bold to say that we are the only two persons in our country who served together as M.P. and M.P.C. in the same constituency for an uninterrupted period of a quarter of a century. As an honest person and politician I stole much from him by watching him and listening to him without his being aware of it. To me it is a privilege and an honour to take over the seat of such a political big-game hunter and of a man of such firm principles as the hon. Ben Schoeman.

As is the case with all other hon. members, I too have come here to contribute my modest share in the interests of South Africa and all its peoples. There is the well-known proverb which says the labourer is worthy of his hire. The labour situation in our country is today, more so than ever before, a topical problem. Labour vests in man and man is the bearer of labour. Because I represent a predominantly working-class constituency, and because I am also human, I too love work, labour. In making my bow to this House today I wish to make a brief and humble introductory contribution on labour training, labour relations and labour peace.

The Creator commanded the first man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, i.e. through his labours. To live one therefore has to work. The reverse of these words would have been an outstanding motto for every person: Live to work, live to labour! The importance and the loftiness of labour is symbolized by numerous examples taken from the Bible. As a single example I suppose I may refer to Solomon’s wise advice to the sluggard to consider the ways of the ant. In literature labour is also commended and glorified in numerous instances. In the wider sense of its meaning, labour is meant for all—rich or poor, old or young, educated or uneducated. We must all work, we must all labour. We must all get a good day’s work done. Blessed is that person who can look back with pride and self-satisfaction in the evening of every day on a good job of work that he has done. It is a pity that a celebrated poet such as A. G. Visser should have considered it necessary to make this jeering remark (translation): “Labour ennobles, but nobility never labours.” One yearns for the old days, when father and son and mother and daughter, with the aid of old Jantjie and old Mieta, their faithful servants, met their labour commitments together, and when each of them could, in his own particular way, look back on a task well done and on the labours of the day. It is a pity that certain Whites today regard certain jobs as being the work of the Black man or the Brown man and, by doing so, forfeit the pride of labour. In my opinion it is necessary that, in the process of our day, everyone who has to work should be taught to have a will to work and to be proud of the work that he does. The modern employer and employee must return to the pride in labour, and this should once again become part of the labour pattern of the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled worker. The labourer should be able to take the same pride as does the employer in the undertaking which had a small beginning and grew into a large concern as a result of hard work. In his field the employer, just as should be the case with the employee, should be able to look back proudly every evening on the good job of work that was done during the day. We should therefore, through our daily labours, by will and deed, make it clear that we shall not survive if our highest goals are only mediocre ones. It is a pity that we are living and working at a juncture where materialism dominates and where inspiration and the joy of labour are pushed into the background. On the part of the employer or the entrepreneur the spirit of materialism is evident in an endeavour to go on accumulating more and more capital and investment goods in the battle to come out on top in the competitive capitalistic world. A good example of this is the numerous take-overs of smaller firms and farms by the financial giants. In the feverish race against time—a central factor in our economy—the possibility of warm, intimate, personal intercourse is superseded by hurried, materialistically orientated, secular, rational dealings, and in this way money becomes the only criterion for value. On the part of the employee, in turn, we find a one-sided interest in the material things in his search for an easy living and security. The inability of the worker to find security in the ephemeral human contact situations, results in his pinning his hopes on material and economic security. He is greatly encouraged in this by socialistic and communistic views of life which prophesy that economic security is the basis of all security. It is in this spirit, therefore, that the worker approaches his labour, in other words, to sell it at the best possible price and to bargain collectively for more money and rights without stopping to think of the nobility of labour as well. What do we mean by the “nobility of labour”? In the first place it means the privilege of possessing the vitality and health to be able to work. Secondly, it means helping to develop the creation which God has given us; thirdly, making a contribution, through collective labour, towards the understanding and development of human society; and, fourthly, enjoying the fruits of labour. The Bible says very clearly: If any would not work, neither should he eat. In the fifth place it means glorifying God through labour as the Good Giver of all.

In the process of human upbringing parents are often blamed for speaking about their children and of their children but too seldom to their children. As far as the labour dispensation in our fatherland is concerned, I should today like to address in respect of all races, the same warning to both the employer and the employee: Too little discussion, too little deliberation or too little consultation is taking place between them. On the part of the employer the lamentable tendency to dismiss his employee when he is not productive enough is too strong, and the employee too readily takes his jacket and walks out without giving the employer his reasons for leaving. All of this points to a weak relations situation. There can be no doubt that effective legislative measures are imperative in the South African labour dispensation, especially if one has regard to the extent to which Black labour is currently present within the borders of White South Africa. There is close on a total of about 2,2 million Bantu as against 900 000 Whites, 260 000 Coloureds and 130 000 Asians who work in the mining industry, in factories, in commerce and in transport undertakings. Expressed as a ratio this means that for fewer than every two Whites there are more than four Bantu active in the abovementioned spheres of labour. If one’s attention is then directed at the recent strikes in Natal, in which approximately 10 000 Bantu textile workers were involved, the question arises whether these were really necessary, especially if one has regard to the statutory provision for works committees and the granting of the power to strike. There are two important factors which may be advanced as reasons why those events took place. Firstly, there were illogical and relatively larger salary increases for comparatively new workers in comparison with the old and more established workers in these factories. Secondly, there was a major lack of communication between the employee and the employer. A lack of the necessary labour peace leads to estrangement between employer and employee, which leads, in turn, to the one’s constructing a distorted image of the other. If one should start thinking of positive steps which may be taken to improve labour relations, one should answer two questions. Firstly, what do the employees expect of the employers? In the first place, the employee expects a sense of justice: judgment on the grounds of generally accepted norms and not on prejudiced grounds. Secondly, there should be an understanding of the weaknesses and the shortcomings of the workers. Thirdly, there should be healthy leadership which gives rise to broader development of the human being. In the fourth place, there should be sincerity and frankness towards the worker with regard to his labour position in the broader economic set-up concerning the prevailing wage structures and the financial position of the undertaking. In the fifth place, I should like to mention willingness to communicate with the worker, especially with regard to his problems, charges and even grievances; in the sixth place, knowledge of the intrinsic human dignity and cultural heritage of each person, irrespective of colour, race or shortcomings; and last but not least, a living wage should be paid to each person, i.e. a wage which will meet his minimum requirements for subsisting. Together with this every employer should ask himself whether it will not, in the long run, be more profitable in all respects if he gave consideration to an incentive bonus which could be awarded annually according to profits and would, subsequently, be paid out to the employee on a monthly basis as an incentive. What I mean by this is that the employee should get the feeling that he, too, is sharing in the profits of the employer. In my opinion a happy and satisfied corps of workers should be the first and most important objective of any employer. In order to achieve this, the employer should provide his workers with convenient working conditions, satisfactory conditions of service and security. He should cultivate loyalty and enthusiasm in his workers, for then the workers will feel inclined to work more and harder. The workers should not feel that they are being stifled.

We should also determine what the employer expects from the employee. Firstly, he expects a spirit of diligence which will give rise to the highest possible degree of productivity. He also expects respect for authority and for the decision of the entrepreneur who takes the risk of guaranteeing the stable development and the continued existence of his undertaking. He expects him to respect the property of the entrepreneur and to refrain from acts of sabotage or causing damage. He also expects him to identify himself with the objectives of the undertaking and to display responsibility, accuracy, devotion to duty and promptness in carrying out his instructions. This approach should already be instilled in him through his education. He expects friendliness and comradeship towards his colleagues in the daily working process in order to promote group morale and solidarity in the undertaking or organization, and labour ethics leading to a correct approach towards labour in the realization that, through labour, one not only provides for one’s own needs, but also serves the people and the country. If we in South Africa want to continue with our rapid industrial development, we shall necessarily have to be prepared to work harder. The difference between success and failure will depend on the utilization of available labour potential; i.e. the way in which the intelligence, talents and energies of our people are going to be channelled into the essential and desirable activities at the right moment.

It is my humble opinion that respect for only this necessarily incomplete list of mutual expectations by the various parties will be sufficient to bring about goodwill and labour peace in the prevailing, complicated South African labour set-up. I am further of the opinion that the all-embracing foundation for labour peace is to be found in the unbiased mind of the person with a pure, Christian outlook on life, for it is only in that that all differences are settled. I have said that I have come here in order to work and serve in the interests of South Africa and all its people. Mr. Speaker, you and other hon. members of this House must form a part of my employment, and I—your obedient servant!

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. member for Maraisburg on his excellent maiden speech in this House. I want to compliment him on the calm and composed manner in which he approached his case, on the thorough preparation that went into it, the thoughts or philosophy that underlie it and his objective and constructive approach to the whole question of labour which is a matter of such great concern to the hon. member. I think that he has maintained the high standard of maiden speeches we have had so far. Mr. Speaker, this hon. member has a difficult task. He has taken the place of a previous hon. member of this House who made his mark, not only on the history of this House, but also on the history of our country’s politics. We wish him a happy and constructive career in this House.

I think it was the hon. member for Durban Point who referred to the defence aspect of the Budget. I want to steer this debate in a different direction, although a related one, namely the question of the relations between our country and the Governments of the Black countries in Africa.

The Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance is certainly the largest Budget presented to any council or parliament in any independent state in Africa. I use the words “independent state in Africa” advisedly, for that is what South Africa is. It is this fact, that we are an independent African state, which makes its impact, not only on the Budget, but also on our country’s economy and to an increasing extent on our whole way of life as well. The amount of R700 million which is being budgeted for Defence expenditure has a direct bearing on the deteriorating relations between ourselves and the rest of Africa.

How dare you say that?

It is true; it is generally accepted. It is the result of this unfortunate situation. In addition to this direct monetary expenditure there is the indirect expenditure for the losses we have to bear as a result of this situation. There are the lost opportunities, the lost markets, the lost manpower—to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred—the lost growth, the lost investments, the lost agreements in the fields of defence, of trade, of technology, which have been lost to us as a result of the pressure which the rest of Africa is able to exert on the other members of the international community. I want to make it clear that South Africa is not the only loser. Another loser because of this situation is the rest of Africa. We on these benches believe that our country could have played a positive, constructive role as the leading independent state on the African continent. We could have made a major contribution to the development of the entire Africa in fields such education, research, health, mining, agriculture and industry—in any field in which our country commands the service of experts. We could have been the industrial power basis for the economic development of emergent Africa. The tragedy of the sixties and the early seventies is that for all practical purposes we in South Africa have been isolated from the rest of the continent to which we belong. This is not only to our detriment in South Africa, but to the detriment of everyone on this continent.

You are a stranger in your own country.

It would be easy for hon. members on either side of this House to blame, to recriminate, to reproach, but that is not the purpose of my entry into this debate. I believe that the issues facing South Africa and Africa are too important for political point-scoring. The fact is that Africa is getting closer and closer to us and is becoming more and more relevant to our politics, to our economy and to our defence. The question which we are going to have to ask ourselves is: What are we going to do about it; indeed, is there anything that we believe can be done, or have we reached the stage where we feel that we must just become resigned to increasing tensions, to increasing isolation and in due course the inevitability of conflict in Africa? Sir, we on these benches, while we realize the dangers of conflict, are not prepared to accept the inevitability of conflict with the rest of Africa. We believe that however difficult it may be, we must still try to reach out to the rest of Africa in order to try to resolve the matters which are in issue between the rest of Africa and ourselves. Mr. Speaker, the importance of South Africa reaching out has been emphasized time and time again in this House by both sides of the House ever since the tide of independence started flowing in Africa towards the end of the 1960s. Hon. members may recall that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Eric Louw, repeatedly stated his concept of South Africa’s being the bridge between the West and the emergent States of Africa. Hon. members will realize that the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, fashioned the policy of the Nationalist Party so that it would be able to identify with the developments which were taking place in Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister himself has made frequent attempts to reach out to the African States. I refer in particular to his report to this House in 1971 of his attempts to try to reach President Kaunda on the basis of personal communication at personal meetings. Subsequent to that we had the move on the part of the Government towards an outward-looking policy. Sir, this is how we hoped to find common ground between us and Africa. The question is whether we should continue to proceed along these lines or whether we believe that the stage has now been reached where we will not succeed. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on these benches have made dialogue both with Blacks inside South Africa and with Blacks outside of South Africa a matter of top priority. It is known that this process of seeking to develop contact with Black leaders outside of South Africa has taken us to Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Zambia, Ghana, Senegal, Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya and Nigeria. Sir, we realize that we have taken political risks in these dialogue missions. Nevertheless I want to make it quite clear that we have no apologies to make. We believe that in undertaking these dialogue missions we have contributed to some extent towards a better mutual understanding between South Africa and the States to the north. Mr. Speaker, clearly the most desirable contact would be Government to Government contact. Nevertheless I believe that where there is a situation of mounting tension, we should maintain contact no matter how tenuous; indeed, any communication between responsible people within our country and Governments to the north. While there is some prospect of conciliation as long as the lines of communication are kept open the converse also applies; when the lines finally break down, conflict becomes inevitable.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I wonder whether we in this House and the South African White public really realize how close Africa is to us. I know that there is a tendency for hon. members to think of Black Africa as lying to the north of the Zambesi, but I think it is important for us to realize that on the eastern banks of the Caledon river and five miles west of the Transvaal, there are the capitals of two independent Black States. Swaziland is another. States with votes in the United Nations, States which are active members of the O.A.U. In a sense these States, because of their geographic and economic situation, are captive of South Africa, they are part of us. Yet important trends are developing in these countries, trends of which I think we should take note, especially if we are going to give independence to homelands like the Transkei, because the trends which are developing in Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are more than likely to develop in any independent homelands emerging from South Africa.

The first important trend which is developing in these countries is that new links are being forged between themselves and the rest of the world and that these links, emotional, political, diplomatic, are all away from South Africa and all towards the rest of Africa. This is the situation which is developing. There is a growing desire on the part of these states to identify with Black Africa, to adopt the postures and to express the attitudes and the philosophies of Black Africa. It is sad to think that diplomatic representation which was formerly shared with Pretoria is now being shared with Lusaka and not with Pretoria. Embassy officials of Black States, Nigeria, Zambia and others, sit in these countries and read our newspapers and they listen to our radio. They listen to what we say and what we do and they analyse our behaviour and our development. At the same time I sense that as the citizens of these small, relatively underdeveloped States identify more and more with the mood of Africa, so as individuals they become more and more angry with the humiliation which they receive as individuals under the apartheid system when they visit South Africa. Sir. it is as if the ordinary offence to their dignity is compounded by the fact that it is now an offence to a citizen of an independent State. I believe we should take this into account in formulating our policies for the future.

If we are going to fashion a strategy to deal with Africa, I suggest that it is important that we should try to understand the mood of a very complex series of communities. At least this will enable us to evaluate the importance and to make an assessment of the significance of some of the things which African leaders do and say from time to time. Sir, I believe that the first thing we have to realize in fashioning our policy is that Africa is in an immediate post-colonial phase and that this is an exceptionally emotional phase for any community. The emotionalism flowing from this post-colonial era concentrates in two main areas. First there is a great pride—almost, I should say, almost an excessive pride—and sensitivity about their newly achieved independence. This, coupled with a degree of uncertainty about the future, causes individuals and leaders in those communities to close their eyes to, or to ignore, or to sweep under the carpet, the things which are wrong in those communities—the inadequacies of those societies, whether this be in the field of corruption or of mismanagement or of authoritarianism or of the lack of civil and political liberties. The second field which has a special relevance to us and to them is that in their highly emotional state they have a tremendously intense reaction to what they call “White racialism.” They see in enforced apartheid the same rejection of themselves as individuals as existed in a colonial era. They see in enforced apartheid an extension of the colonial era, and when to enforced separation is added manifest inequality or discrimination in the treatment of those who are Black, they find this offensive to their dignity as Black people. Now, Sir, we can argue as to whether this is a valid point of view or not, but I do not believe that we can wish away this emotional attitude towards rejection plus discrimination as an potent political factor. It is one which is articulated, it is exploited, it is pandered to, it results in bluster and in posturing, and it results in the design of grand strategies which have no relevance to reality. Nevertheless this is an emotional factor and it becomes the emotional divide between the Government of South Africa and the States in the rest of Africa. This is a factor whether we like to admit it or not.

But I am pleased that behind this emotionalism of the immediate post-colonial era, other trends are developing of which we should take note. There is a growing realization of the vast social and economic problems that still have to be solved within their own communities—problems relating to education, housing and employment. There is a growing realization that you do not solve problems merely by achieving independence in the political field. There is a growing acceptance of this very harsh reality.

Behind the facade of bluster and emotionalism, I sense that there is growing a cadre of well-informed, level-headed men who are involved in the process of decision making. These men are not unmindful of the problems of their own societies. They have an understanding of what economics and power is about. They have a very real assessment of what can be achieved in real terms on this African continent. I think we have tended to concentrate too much on the bluster and the posturing, rather than to look through at the new substance which is developing in these African States. We have tended to think of Africa as being far more homogeneous than it is, because of resolutions passed unanimously at the OAU, instead of looking at the very real differences of personality, of need, of strength and of strategy which exist in the various areas of the continent. We have tended to play into the hands of the communists by lumping too many Blacks to the north together as communists, cryptocommunists, dupes of communism or fellow-travellers. While communists are always on the look-out for situations that they can exploit, I believe that we are making a fatal error in equating African nationalism with communism, or even in equating anti-colonialism with communism, because in doing so we are giving communism a respectability in the eyes of Blacks in Africa which I do not believe it deserves. Many African States and African leaders do not share the aversion to communism which we have, nor do they distrust communist motives in the way in which we do; nevertheless, their societies are not moving towards the acceptance of the communist economic system. Indeed, except perhaps for Tanzania, in spite of lip service being paid to African socialism, these States are developing economic societies based on capitalism.

These countries, together with the rest of the world, have made moral judgments on the South African Government’s race policies. The African States have taken their moral judgments further. They are linking the Government’s attitude with the attitudes of a colonial era and have expressed their determination to force a change in South Africa. They have backed this determination by announcing strategies either of isolation or of support, moral or material, for those who might use violence as a means of change in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, let me make this quite clear. We in South Africa, quite rightly, find this assumed right of Black or White States to try to coerce South Africa into change, quite intolerable. It is an affront to our status as an independent State, and I believe that the South African society, the nation, will resist any invasion of South Africa’s sovereignty, from no matter what quarter it comes.

*But, Sir, when all these people have made all these moral judgments, when all the new strategies have been declared, there follows the consideration of the realities of the situation in Southern Africa by people who have to take the decisions on real action. In my opinion the realities recognized by these cadres of people are the following: the first is that the Republic of South Africa is a sovereign, independent state, and that it will react as such against any threat to its sovereignty. But here a sharp distinction is made between the Republic of South Africa on the one hand and the Portuguese territories, Rhodesia and South-West Africa on the other. These last three territories are seen by other people, not as sovereign, independent states, but as unresolved problem areas, relics of an old colonial period.

In the second place I believe that these people accept that South Africa has a determined, self-reliant population which has built up a strong economy and which has made considerable social and economic progress. In the third place I believe that they realize that the plural society of South Africa is experiencing problems in respect of group loyalties, fears and tensions, and that any political solution must of necessity take these factors into consideration. In the fourth place they accept that while it may be easy to design a strategy to punish or perhaps to damage South Africa, it will not be so easy to design a strategy which will be able to force the reformation of South Africa from outside. Finally I noticed that there was acceptance of the fact that the White in South Africa is an African, that we are in Africa and are determined to remain in Africa. I believe that this is generally accepted, even in countries which regard us with hostility.

If the problem of the rest of the world is that they regard Africa as a homogeneous unity, may I ask the hon. member whether he regards the Republic of South Africa as a homogeneous unity?

I have just said that it is not a homogeneous unity. We have a plural society here, but it is still one country. There are only South African citizens. They may be Black, White or Brown, they may be Jews, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking people, but they are still citizens of South Africa and they are all united in the development of one country and one national economy.

†It is against this background that we must ask ourselves whether there is anything that we should be doing in regard to our relationships with Africa. I believe the time has come for us once again to fashion a positive strategy towards Africa. This positive strategy falls under three headings. The first I believe is that we should identify with Africa. I realize that this is an emotional concept, but it means that we should see ourselves not as a part of Europe in Africa, but as a part of Africa in Africa. This means that we must avoid creating the impression or adopting policies which indicate that we have a greater respect for the dignity of people of another continent than we have for citizens who are of our continent.

I think it is very important that we should make that clear. Secondly, I think it does involve our understanding the mood of other nations in Africa and their desire to get rid of colonialism; I think we should also identify with their stated goals of trying to obtain self-determination for all the peoples in Africa. I believe it involves a conscious attempt to find areas of co-operation. In spite of all the rebuffs this Government has had, I believe it should continue to try positively to look for areas of co-operation. This means trying to keep the lines of communication open. The Prime Minister should once again state his willingness to meet with any African leader on the basis of the Lusaka Manifesto, something which he said three years ago in this House he would be prepared to do. The time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to restate his willingness to meet under those circumstances. Even if Government to Government contact cannot take place, I think this Government should encourage as much people to people contact as possible, because on the spot talking amongst people of common interests is the best way to get rid of misunderstanding and to start finding an area of common attitude towards the problems of this continent. This Government should have an open-door policy on the basis that we have nothing to hide. There is no substitute for personal contact and the viewing of South Africa from within as a means of resolving what is, after all, a human problem and not necessarily an ideological one.

Secondly, I believe that in this new strategy we have to see to it that no confusion exists about the Government’s attitude towards the unresolved problem areas of the colonial era, namely the Portuguese territories, Rhodesia and South-West Africa. Events in Portugal have moved very rapidly since 25 April. I believe that the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government in relation to these developments has been very correct indeed.

Indeed, I believe that the Prime Minister’s statement that the South African Government was only concerned about good government in Mozambique, no matter what its colour might be, has done much to undo the damage which has been done by detractors of South Africa who have suggested that the South African Government has expansionist or imperialistic aims for Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will agree with me that the Rhodesian situation is far more complex. The total information existing on that situation is not available to the public, nor is it available to all the members of this House. What I believe is necessary, is that this Government should make it clear that South Africa’s involvement in Rhodesia does not imply any political commitment by the South African Government in relation to the as yet unresolved disputes consequent upon UDI in 1966. This Government must also meet the charge, which is being made rightly or wrongly, that South Africa’s involvement in Rhodesia is in conflict with the Government’s own declared commitment to a policy of self-determination.

As far as South-West Africa is concerned—I shall have to skip the recent history of it, save to say that I believe the time has once again come for the Government to seize the initiative. There was only one moment in which we had the initiative in the last 20 years. That was when our counsel before the ICJ in The Hague said that we would refer this matter to a plebiscite of the peoples of South-West Africa. That offer of a plebiscite has fallen away. There is now a dispute as to whether self-determination should be on a group basis or a territory-wide basis. I would urge this Government to seize the initiative by setting a time-table for the self-determination, to which it is already committed, and also to state quite clearly what machinery it is going to use in order to achieve that self-determination. I believe that this will not only seize the initiative, but it will pull the carpet from under those people who have been trying to detract from South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the last point. Should we make any changes within South Africa in order to improve our relationship with the rest of Africa? I do not believe that we should make changes merely as a result of pressures from outside on South Africa. But I do believe that a new era of communication and of understanding with the African States requires no more and no less than the changes of policy that are essential within South Africa if we want to enjoy the goodwill, the co-operation and the loyalty of Black and Brown citizens of our own country.

Mr. Speaker, by and large people are not ideologists; they are concerned with the lives of the people. I do not believe that they can think of South Africa changing radically overnight. I do not believe that what is needed right here and now in South Africa is a radical restructuring of our South African society. What we do need is a clearly stated change in direction, a firm commitment to get rid of racial discrimination with all its economic, social and political consequences.

*Mr. Speaker, the Government believes that it is going to get rid of racial discrimination, at least in part, by means of independent homelands. I believe that generally speaking there would be no objection to this strategy if it were to be brought about by the freely expressed wishes of those affected by it. But when this Government has created the independent homelands, we shall still be faced with the problem of racial discrimination against the millions of Coloured people, Asiatics and Blacks who will remain in the rest of South Africa. There will remain the problem of actual discrimination, which still prevails in South Africa in the fields of education, wages, employment opportunities, housing, home-ownership and facilities required for leading a full life.

What about the Sea Point swimming pool?

Yes, the Sea Point swimming pool, too, is a situation we shall have to rectify one of these days. We cannot evade these problems. I want to tell you that I believe that there is a kind of veiled respect in Africa for the pragmatic approach of the present Prime Minister. They see that he is allowing apartheid to crumble in a very natural way. They see that political discussion across the colour line is continuing in South Africa, in spite of the fact that there is a law which prohibits political interference. They see that Blacks are doing skilled work, in spite of the fact that there is job reservation and that a colour bar exists. They see that our airports, our aeroplanes and our luxury hotels are being desegregated in spite of the Nationalist policy of apartheid. They see that more and more South Africans are participating in mixed or multi-racial sport, although it has been given a new name. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years the hon. member for Sea Point, together with other members of his Party, has on more than one occasion—he did say 1970, and apparently during the first half of this year—paid a number of visits to African countries. He also made discoveries in Africa, discoveries which were not news or anything new to us on this side of the House, but are matters of which we in this House of Assembly have been aware for many years. He also came forward with proposals in respect of Africa which are not new proposals either. And then he made the mistake which hon. members on that side of the House are wont to make—he, too, made another diagnosis. He made a diagnosis of the problems which exist and of the cause of the problems, and he found that all the germs, all the diseases are on the part of South Africa.

Quite wrong.

The first matter with which the hon. member began was South Africa’s defence budget. The hon. member began by saying that South Africa’s defence budget was attributable to the fact that our relations with Africa have deteriorated. Now, is this true? Should a country, in the face of threats being made against it, simply continue as it did in the past? Should it not be ready and prepared to repel attacks? Is the hon. member for Sea Point aware that in 1972 Nigeria already had a military budget of R538 million, when South Africa had a military budget of only R631,5 million? Why is this tremendous military build-up in Nigeria in progress? A tremendous military build-up is also in progress in Zaire. Should South Africa not take cognizance of this? Should South Africa not ensure that it is strong for the sake of its own integrity and its autonomy.

Another of the diagnoses which the hon. member made was in respect of South Africa’s domestic policy, which he did not term multi-national development or separate development, but apartheid and suppression ...

And discrimination.

... and discrimination—the word which the hon. member used. Once again it is laid at the door of South Africa’s domestic policy that problems with Africa exist. He made the absolutely nonsensical statement that South Africa has grouped all the Blacks to the north of us with the communists. Where did we do this? When was this done?

Nonsense!

That is, after all, what the hon. member said. It is nonsense, but the hon. member said this explicitly. It will be in his Hansard report. He spoke of the humiliation, as a result of our internal measures, which visitors from African countries experience when they visit South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated time and again that official visitors from African countries will be received in this country in the same way as official visitors from any other country. I also believe that all the guests from African countries at all the gatherings-—sports meetings and so on—which we have held recently, departed from South Africa without any complaints of discrimination or humiliation. The hon. member said that we should identify ourselves with Africa. Are his eyes only now being opened? Is he not aware that there are people here who call themselves Afrikaners and who speak the Afrikaans language, the only language which, through its name, is associated with Africa? We are of Africa, and we have been saying this for a long time in this House of Assembly and elsewhere. The hon. member asked the hon. the Prime Minister to issue invitations. I think that the invitations which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs have issued from time to time, still stand. The doors are still open, but I shall leave it to them to discuss this matter further themselves.

If the hon. member wants to raise the matter of dialogue with South Africa, I think it is a good thing that I tell him, firstly, that we on this side of the House do not adopt a negative attitude to dialogue between South Africa and other States. On the contrary; we are more than 100% in favour of it.

If one considers the history of South Africa’s dialogue, it is apparent that after the Second World War, with the establishment of the UN, South Africa began to endure ever worsening criticism, at the time mainly from India. This was concerned, as India put it, with the treatment of “Indian nationals in South Africa”. With the beginning of the decolonization of British Africa and the rise of Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism, despite South Africa’s absolutely positive attitude towards decolonization. Nkrumah and others made vicious attacks on the policy of the National Party, in order to build up for themselves images as the champions of the Blacks in Africa, to distract attention from themselves and their own shortcomings and failures and to establish for themselves a uniting factor so as to camouflage their differences which resulted primarily from ambition. Let us be objective and realistic. Where did Nkrumah and the others obtain the material for their attacks on South Africa? I do not want to elaborate on this, except to say that hon. members on that side of the House, from both parties, and the Press which supports them, made a great deal of material available to Nkrumah and the Pan-Africanists of approximately ten years ago. In this way, over the years, a distorted image of South Africa, of the National Party, the Afrikaner and the White South African has been built up abroad, and particularly in Africa. This has been going on for more than twenty years now. Men who now hold powerful governmental posts in African states, absorbed such poisonous anti-South African propaganda on the school benches that they carry this with them throughout their lives. Something which you learn from your mentors, particularly if it is coupled with appeals to your desire for liberty, your national development, your patriotic development and your national sentiments, is not something which you simply reject, to say nothing of forgetting. It is in the face of this build-up which this hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and this hon. Prime Minister, and their other colleagues and officials, have to make a breach in Africa for South Africa. It is in such a tremendously anti-South African climate that people like President Banda of Malawi had the courage to conclude diplomatic relations with South Africa, and President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast had the courage to convene his famous Press conference on dialogue with South Africa. During the February session this year the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave extremely revealing elucidations of the problems and uncertainties of present world politics. I want to refer the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members to Hansard, Vol. 47, particularly to col. 35 as far as the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, and then to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the same Hansard, col. 212 et al. I just want to quote the following brief passage from col. 212. This is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking. He said—

In col. 218 the hon. the Minister had this to say—

This is what is important. Because there are people who want to wreck dialogue, or who want to colour dialogue a certain way, it has become necessary for dialogue to go underground. There are still many influential leaders in Africa who continue to believe in contacts with South Africa and who continue to work towards this end.

If this entire matter of dialogue with Africa should lead to détente between South Africa and its fellow African states, it should be handled with the greatest circumspection. It is an extremely delicate matter and years of positive work could be destroyed in an instant.

The National Party has destroyed it.

It could be destroyed by one wrong word. It is against this background, the delicacy of the situation, that I followed the lightning tour of the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party and his friends through Africa. This was not his first tour. In 1970 he also toured through Africa with the hon. member for Houghton. It was not they who took the initiative. Their visit to Africa began shortly after it was made known here in Cape Town and in Abidjan that dialogue existed between certain Black African states and South Africa.

Absolute nonsense. The preparations were made long before that time.

Whether it is nonsense or not, the credit for dialogue with Black Africa must go to the hon. the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa and his Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Progressive Party shot off after it had been announced and went to visit Houphouet-Boigny. After that they visited Senghor and others. I am mentioning this specifically so that it may be placed on record that the hon. member for Sea Point’s African visit were not the brainchild of him and his party. It took place after dialogue with African states had been initiated by the leaders on this side of the House. After they had started it, it was possible for closed doors to be opened. This time the team was picked with a few minor changes; this time the hon. member took with him a person who calls himself an Afrikaner. I do not have the time to elaborate on this, but you know, Sir, it has become a kind of in thing for sects and groups who are not Afrikaans to find a tame Afrikaner and say: “Here I have an Afrikaner; look at him”; that man then nods his head and says: “I am an Afrikaner”. They omit to mention that this Afrikaner is a one-swallow type of Afrikaner, viz. the one swallow which does not make a summer. But I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, it is significant to note which states were visited on this tour: Zambia, the springboard of terrorism against South Africa; Nigeria which, south of the Sahara, is the most vehement attacker, the most vehement opponent, the most vehement critic of South Africa at the UN, and which is in fact the leader of the anti-South African elements in Africa. Sir, let me once again state unequivocally that I am not opposed to visits to African states by any person from South Africa; on the contrary, I am in favour of them. I should like to see ordinary South African tourists visiting those African states which will receive them; some of these states lie along their route to Europe. I should like to see businessmen, where possible, concluding trade ties with African states. I should like to see reciprocal contact being made by various professions in South Africa with the same professions in African states. I believe that there are numerous matters of common interest on which they could hold consultations, to their mutal benefit. Sir, if this could be accomplished, this would be dialogue, and this would be in the interests of the whole of South Africa. Sir, we very recently had an example of such a visit when the Africa Institute sent a mission under the leadership of Dr. Leistner to Abidjan and Dakar.

Sir, I am, to say the least, sceptical of the visits of people who go to visit African states in the name of dialogue, people who receive wide publicity but who pay these visits with the object of short-term political gain for themselves and their Party.

Mr. Speaker, dialogue has to be approached with responsibility, circumspection and delicacy. I do not think that dialogue should in any way be approached in an obsequious and apologetic manner; I am not saying that this is what should be done; I am simply warning against that. I do not think that any gossip should be directed at the Afrikaners or National Party when one goes to conduct dialogue elsewhere. I do not have the time now to go fully into the replies to the questions put to the hon. member for Rondebosch in a column in Die Burger to which he replied on 1 August, but when I look at this, it seems to me that gossip is being directed at the Afrikaner. Mention was even made in the African States of a Boer war. [Interjection.] In his letter to Die Burger the hon. member spoke of the Boer war and the Afrikaner. Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have. I just want to say this: He said, inter alia, that discrimination should not merely be laid at the door of the Afrikaner, but the Afrikaner was mentioned as the one at whose door discrimination should be laid; that is gossip. There is one thing we must remember: The people of Africa do not see the Whites of South Africa as being composed of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people; they do not see them as comprising National Party, United Party and Progressive supporters; they see them as Whites, and it is very dangerous to go and create certain expectations among the people of Africa, to hold up certain promises to them and to depict certain situations to them. Did you say on whose authority you came to them? You do not need authority; you go on your own authority. But you did not say what status your party has in South Africa, that it is only the Houghton /Rondebosch clique which you represent. Did you go there on any other authority than that, and what expectations did you arouse in them? We are still waiting to hear, not what Gowon or Kaunda said, because we know what they said, but we have not yet heard what you said to them.

Mr. Speaker, dialogue is not humble-pie politics. It is not hat-in-hand diplomacy.

Dialogue is something one conducts from a position of strength and as a right, as one man to another, one leader to another, one colleague to another. You are not ashamed of what is your own, and do not hold what is the other man’s in contempt. In its initial stage dialogue is to become acquainted, to eliminate misunderstanding and iron out differences. Dialogue, in inter-state politics, is the elimination of points of friction and the search for matters of common interest. Flowing from this, dialogue could also lead to inter-state association on a commercial, industrial and diplomatic level. For us who are of Africa—White, Black and Coloured—this mighty continent, dialogue could mean the commencement of unprecedented prosperity, growth and development. For us in South Africa dialogue could mean the crumbling of the walls of hate and prejudice which have for so many years been built up against us.

Sir, I read in conclusion a letter which I received from a very important man in a West African State. The letter was written in French, but I have had it translated, and I am reading the Afrikaans translation. He writes (translation)—

Has anything like this been said to you in Africa? This is what has been said to me, and I was not ashamed to say who and what I was, and what party I supported.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this House today for the first time, I am doing so in gratitude towards Him, the Disposer of the destinies of peoples and nations, but also towards individuals, who made it possible for me, too, to take a seat in this House. My earnest endeavour will always be to glorify His name through my actions as a member of this House.

It is with modesty and humility that I take part in this debate today, not only on account of the prestige and the high regard attaching to this House, but also on account of the high standard which has been set in this House by famous predecessors through the years, as well as on account of the high standards, the high principles and traditions which this House has established. In my actions as a member of this House, I shall always endeavour to be faithful to the best principles and the highest traditions of this House. I am also deeply aware of my responsibilities towards my fatherland, my people and my constituency and I shall at all times try to serve the interests of country, people and constituency to the best of my ability.

It has been my privilege during the past number of years to be intimately concerned with municipal government. One particularly strong impression which I gained was the necessity of good and efficient local and municipal government for the successful execution and implementation of the central government’s legislation and policy on the local level. In fact, local government forms an integral part of our public administration as a whole, it is, after all, at the level of local government that public administration ultimately finds expression. Therefore, it is necessary that there should continually be the closest liaison between the levels of central government and local government. While liaison between local authorities and the various provincial authorities takes place through the agency of the executive committees of the various provincial municipal associations, liaison with the central government takes place through the agency of the United Municipal Executive. The central government, as well as the United Municipal Executive is undoubtedly aware of the necessity for liaison, and liaison therefore takes place regularly. Local authorities really have reason to be grateful for the sympathetic understanding the central government displays towards their problems.

However, the problem is that the United Municipal Executive normally only meets twice a year. Since the Secretary of the United Municipal Executive does not have executive powers worthy of mention, very little justice is done to a continuous liaison between the United Municipal Executive and the central government. It often happens that draft legislation, which intimately affects the level of local government, is referred to the United Municipal Executive for comment, but that the introduction and adoption of the legislation concerned cannot be held back for long enough to enable the United Municipal Executive to respond to it. On the other hand, however, the central government also does not have at its disposal one co-ordinating channel through which it can liaise with the United Municipal Executive. Liaison therefore takes place through the United Municipal Executive, or its particular ad hoc committees, with heads of departments or with particular Ministers. It even happens that liaison between the central government and the local government level is sometimes lacking completely. You will now understand, Sir, that it could hardly be otherwise than that this state of affairs will lead to considerable misunderstanding and misconception between the central and local government levels as will be evident from, inter alia, the following examples.

During August 1972 the United Municipal Executive requested the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to (1) give representation to local government on the inter-departmental committee which was appointed to go into the expropriation laws; (2) grant an extension of time until February 1973 for the submission of memoranda with this committee; and (3) make available any draft legislation which might arise, for comment by the United Municipal Executive. Requests (1) and (3) were turned down, but the opportunity for submitting memoranda was extended to 30 September 1972. Renewed representations were made to the hon. the Minister in February 1973, to which he replied, in a letter dated 28 Macrh 1973, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

The existing liaison procedure was, therefore, too cumbersome and too long winded to be really effective in the light of the urgency of the legislation which had to be disposed of.

I mention another example. Since the constituency of Mossel Bay has a coastline of approximately 200 kilometres and that a number of the most popular coastal resorts in the Southern Cape are situated in this constituency, it is understandable that the pollution of our beaches by oil is a very real question to the constituency of Mossel Bay. Last Friday the hon. the Minister of Tourism, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Transport, confirmed in this House, in reply to a question, that the Department of Transport accepted the responsibility for the pollution of the beach by oil, on condition that the pollution derived from an identified source at sea. However, the department is not prepared to contribute more than 50% of the costs of cleaning the beach should the origin of the pollution not be identifiable, even if it is clear that that pollution derives from some or other origin or source at sea. Local authorities regard this standpoint of the department as unfair, since local authorities have no control over the sea and are seldom able to identify the source or origin of the pollution of the beaches by oil. The local authorities therefore see the effects of the Department’s standpoint as a shifting, from the department to local authorities, of the responsibility for the pollution of our beaches by oil from a source at sea. In spite of repeated representations to the Department of Transport by the United Municipal Executive, the department’s standpoint in this regard has remained unchanged. When one goes more closely into the matter and examines the negotiations, it appears that inadequate or ineffective liaison should actually be blamed for this state of affairs.

There is a third example to which I wish to refer. Bantu administration boards can practically be regarded as another form of local government. It is therefore understandable that these boards will draw personnel from the local government sector. The salary scales which have been fixed for high officials of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are so attractive that it has resulted in a great exodus of municipal officials to the Administration Boards. This does not only apply to officials who were formerly concerned exclusively with Bantu administration at local authorities, but also to town clerks, treasurers and other similar officials. Due to the fact that the salary scales of town clerks are fixed by the local authorities, local authorities are not in a position to compete with these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and to retain the services of their senior officials. I am convinced of the fact that consultation between the department and the local government level could probably have prevented this state of affairs.

Other instances where legislation has been adopted by the central government without sufficient prior consultation with local government, which is intimately affected by it, or would have to carry out and implement the legislation are, inter alia, the following: In 1970 an amendment to section 75 of the Housing Act was adopted in terms of, which local authorities are required to surrender to the National Housing Fund any profits which accrue through the sale of property which was initially purchased with funds from the National Housing Fund. That may sound quite acceptable, but it is nevertheless an example of a case where there was no prior consultation with the local authorities in order to find out what its implications would be. A second example is the levying of a surcharge on water in order to defray the costs involved in water research, Thirdly, there is the recent Health legislation and the amendment of the Public Health Act, whereby the repayment of expenses which are incurred by local authorities in respect of the treatment of contagious diseases was decreased from 100% to 87½%.

I want to emphasize that I am mentioning these examples in order to illustrate the fact that a better form of liason and consultation is undoubtedly necessary. In an effort to promote liaison with the central government, the United Municipal Executive envisages establishing the necessary authoritative body in order to liaise between meetings of the United Municipal Authority and the central government, and to represent the United Municipal Authority in its negotiations with the central government.

I wonder whether the time has not arrived that provision should also be made on the part of the central government for the establishment of one co-ordinating channel through which liaison can take place with the local government level. Possibly such a liaison channel can even, in the course of time, develop into a full-fledged department. Just as a department for local administration exists at provincial level, there can also be a state department for local government. It is my humble opinion that such a liaison channel is not only necessary to convey the standpoint of local authorities to the central government, but that it will also promote the implementation and the execution of the central government’s legislation and policy by local authorities. In my opinion, its establishment deserves serious attention for those reasons.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it is my special pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Mossel Bay on his first speech in this House. As one Southern Cape man to another—and in addition I have known the hon. member for Mossel Bay for some considerable time—it is my pleasure to wish him everything of the best for the future. I hope he will have a pleasant and fruitful stay in this House. The hon. member raised interesting points to indicate that he has excellent and expert knowledge on matters concerning local authorities. It is not surprising that the hon. member chose that as his theme, because for a long while he was mayor and also, as far as I know, vice-president of the Cape Municipal Association. Therefore the hon. member could speak about this subject from experience, and with knowledge and self-confidence. I think that if he goes on in this way in the future, he will be able to make an excellent contribution in this House.

I should like to get down to the Budget, but before doing so, I want to refer to one specific point that was raised in this House yesterday afternoon. I want to refer to the answer the hon. the Minister of Agriculture gave to the hon. member for Jeppe.

†The hon. the Minister tried to indicate that the hon. member for Jeppe had said in his speech that there were quite a number of people in South Africa who were underfed.

He said that I had said “millions”.

This is what the hon. the Minister said: “Then the hon. member for Jeppe says the people of South Africa are underfed.” The hon. member for Jeppe never used the word “underfed”. What he said was the following:

It is the same thing.

The meaning of these words is completely different and if the hon. member for Jeppe used these words, I want to say that the hon. member for Jeppe was perfectly entitled to do that. I say that because here I have a cutting which appeared in The Argus of 30 June 1973. This article refers to a lecture which was given by a certain gentleman of the department of Paediatrics of the University of the Witwatersrand. He said—

*He furnished additional proof in this lecture, proof that indicates why he says this situation developed and what can be done about it. If the hon. member for Jeppe used these words, I think he was quite entitled to do so. In fact, I myself have already alleged in speeches that there is a large degree of malnutrition in South Africa. The experts tell us that this situation will get worse, as a result of the increase in the number of mouths that have to be fed in future, unless we can increase our agricultural production considerably. Unless we succeed in doing that, we shall in the course of time have more malnutrition throughout the world, and this applies to South Africa as well. The experts tell us, for example, that in the year 1980 we shall not only have malnutrition; by that time millions of people throughout the world will be going hungry. That is the point we have repeatedly been making in respect of our agricultural industry. We have repeatedly been telling the hon. the Minister and the Government that our future agricultural industry planning must be such that we can not only play our role here and feed our people, but also play a bigger role in this respect throughout the world, and particularly on the continent of Africa. In the course of time they will increasingly regard us as a developed agricultural country, with a tremendous potential, having the necessary technogoly and expert knowledge. In this way we shall have to play our role, so that we can not only offer our farming population a future, but also so that we can contribute towards helping the world when it suffers from this food shortage in the course of time.

Sir, over the past seven or eight years, as far as I can remember, we have spoken about inflation in this House repeatedly and ad nauseam. What we had to say gained the attention of people outside and of people here in the House, but we regret to have to say that we cannot yet see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as the fight against inflation is concerned. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite are always trying to dispose of our arguments by saying that inflation is imported and that conditions in South Africa are better than in many other countries of the world. The argument used by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and many other members opposite is that wages and salaries are increasing more rapidly than the cost of living.

That is the case, after all.

The hon. gentleman said here that in 1960 a mine-worker could buy so many bags of maize with his wages, so many bags in 1966 and so many bags in 1970 ...

More.

Is the hon. the Minister then forgetting that mine-workers are not only dependent upon the maize they can buy? There are surely a tremendous number of items they need. And, Sir, at the same time we surely have to give the people out there, the public, new horizons for the future. They must have the chance to enjoy a higher standard of living. The argument advanced as a last resort by hon. members opposite is usually, Sir, that the Government is doing what it can; more than that it cannot do; therefore we must simply have an increase in the inflation rate.

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

No, I am not going to answer questions. We on this side do not want to say that we do not welcome the relief this Budget has brought. Of course we do. While the hon. the Minister was announcing a slight decrease in the price of certain domestic articles and granting certain concessions in respect of married women and transfer duty, what state of affairs coincided with the announcement of these aspects? In the Press we saw the announcement that money would become even more expensive. At the same time the Press announced to us that prices were going to increase further. What the hon. gentleman wished to do by means of his Budget, is immediately neutralized as a result of the increase in the inflation rate outside. A few years ago it was said that we were growing too rapidly and that there was too much money in circulation. That was as a result of the demand inflation we were experiencing. That is why interest rates in South Africa had to increase so that the public could spend less money. Bank credit also had to be restricted to achieve the same objective. The situation is now such that in order to draw money to the banks and to make money more plentiful, the interest rates have now to increase again. The hon. member for Newcastle said here today that the United Party prescribes the same medicine for various diseases. Here is a specific example of what the Government does. The moment money is plentiful, the Government says that the interest rates must increase to make the money scarcer. Now that money has grown scarcer, they say that the interest rates can increase again to make the money more plentiful. It is completely incomprehensible to the general public, as it is to me, that we can be told at one and the same time that we must grow out of our problems. That is something I welcome of course. All of us on this side welcome the fact that we should grow out of our inflation problems. However, how are we going to make is possible for South Africa to grow if we make the development capital and the working capital in South Africa more expensive? All we will then get is an even higher cost structure in South Africa. Such a step would create a further lack of confidence. This is specifically placing obstacles in the way of systematic growth in South Africa. I believe that this line of action will have a damping influence in this respect. The hon. the Minister of Finance ought to know that there are many businessmen, big and small, who are today experiencing liquidity problems. It ought to be the task of the hon. the Minister and the Government to ensure that these people do not develop greater problems in this respect or that this process does not lead to their undoing. The hon. the Minister had hardly announced these concessions when it was stated in the Press that there was a possibility that rail tariffs and postal rates would increase one of these days.

That is a fact.

Yes, that is a fact. One hand gives and then the hon. the Minister and his colleagues take away again with two hands. Instead of South Africa growing, we find ourselves marking time, if not retrogressing. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is the person responsible for ensuring that the price of essential foodstuffs remains constant or more or less stable. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg? He says he cannot subsidize the price of milk for the consumer and that not one of his considered methods will work. That is why he said to the Minister of Finance: “Look, the subsidizing of milk is impossible; we cannot do it; forget about it.”

I did not say “forget about it”.

Excuse me, Sir; the hon. gentleman did say he was prepared to look at it. I want to appeal to him today to think it over again and to give consideration to this possibility. Sir, it is not the first time that this Government has adopted the attitude that it is impossible to do something. A few years ago, when we asked them to subsidize interest rates, the hon. the Minister of Finance told us he could not do it because he could not benefit the farmers more than the home-owners, but just a year or so afterwards the hon. the Minister did do so. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture now tells us he cannot subsidize milk because the people he actually wants to benefit, the lower-income groups, are the Black people in Vendaland and elsewhere. Sir, I accept the hon. gentleman’s sentiments in this respect; he is quite correct; but what about the thousands upon thousands of Black people in our urban areas? Sir, the Black people in the Bantu homelands are certainly in a position, as the result of their rural and agricultural backgrounds, to obtain milk more cheaply than the Black people in the urban areas. Why must the hon. the Minister penalize the less well-to-do urban Black people because he cannot give a subsidy to the lower-income group in the rural areas? It is surely not wrong to have a discriminating form of subsidizing in South Africa, because the Government is already discriminating against the industrialists in the cities by encouraging industrialists, by means of tax concessions, to establish industries on the borders of the homelands. The industrialists in the border areas have many more benefits than the urban industrialists. Why would it then be wrong to subsidize milk for people in the cities although one cannot apply this throughout South Africa?

By how many cents per litre must it be subsidized?

If the hon. gentleman would be prepared to subsidize it by three cents ...

Make it five cents.

Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance had a tremendous surplus, and a portion of that surplus can be used in such a way that it benefits the largest number of people, i.e. by keeping food prices as stable as possible. Sir, the supplying of fresh milk is today under the strictest possible control. Both the producers and the distributers are subject to control measures. At the present prices the fresh milk producers can make a living, but for how long before their profits are again swallowed up by increased costs? Because of many factors it is not a popular industry either. Everyone involved in the fresh milk industry knows this. But it nevertheless remains an essential service, an essential industry, which must constantly be stimulated in this country. Sir, here in the Peninsula the number of fresh milk producers has decreased, in the past four years, from 214 to 167. These producers who disappear never return, and the obligation and responsibility resting with those who remain becomes even greater, and for them there would have to be ever greater expansion to provide for the demand. That is one leg of the hon. the Minister’s dilemma with respect to the milk industry throughout South Africa. The one leg of his dilemma is that he does not have the producers.

At least I have De Grendel.

Secondly the per capita consumption of dairy and milk products lags far behind that of certain European countries, and there is still great room for improvement. The thousands of mouths that have to be fed are growing in numbers. Therefore, with improved climatic conditions we shall find that production will increase considerably in the next few months. There is even a possibility that we would have a temporary surplus in certain parts of South Africa. But that is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture’s responsibility and a problem only he can solve. He cannot dump increased prices on the consumer and at the same time neglect to encourage the producer. I want to point out that in March of this year the housewife using two litres of milk per day was asked to pay three cents more. In May she was again asked to pay more. Therefore, within two months, there was about R2,10 extra per month, and that for milk alone. The Minister says that this cannot be subsidized. If he is not prepared to do it, I want to tell him now that in the long run his dilemma will only be greater, i.e. a shortage of an essential foodstuff in South Africa. He thinks he is now being blamed by the housewife, but he does not know what awaits him unless he is prepared to do something.

What awaits you?

I see, according to The Argus of Friday, 28 June, that the Minister met Mrs. Hope Hughes and a few other housewives in his office in Pretoria. What did he tell them? He did not tell the ladies what he was going to do to keep prices stable. No, he told them of all the reasons why prices have to increase. And then, according to Mrs. Hope Hughes, in her interview to the newspaper, they left the Minister and he invited them to come to Cape Town during the Parliamentary session and to discuss the matter further with him here. But surely they did ask the hon. the Minister about food subsidies. I want to tell him that unless he is prepared to do something to get the Minister of Finance heading in the right direction, his problems in this respect are going to increase steadily. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he must twist the hon. the Minister of Finance’s arm slightly, and when the hon. the Minister of Finance takes a rest one day, he must still feel the pain of that twist in his arm. I also want to say that if a subsidy is possible on butter and cheese, why ever not on fresh milk? The producer as well as the consumer will thereby be protected. In his speech the hon. gentleman alleges that butter consumption has decreased as a result of the cheaper margarine. He is quite correct, now he makes butter even more expensive. He must encourage its production. Unless he subsidizes the price further, without loss to the producer, butter will surely be pushed more steadily out of the market. Is that not a logical argument? He alleges that a butter subsidy is a “rich man’s subsidy”. That is what he said in his speech. What he will cause to happen, however, is that only well-off people in South Africa will be able to afford butter.

It will become a status symbol.

Yes, it will become a status symbol and disappear completely from the tables of the lower-income groups. Is that what the hon. gentleman wants? The butter supply in South Africa is so small, however, and there has been such a long delay in encouraging local producers, that the hon. the Minister must now import New Zealand butter into South Africa at an extra four cents per kilogram. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of anything like it? We export butter at a loss and then import butter again, not at a profit, but also at a loss. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. gentleman told us in the course of his speech. He said that the butter he is importing is more expensive than the locally produced butter.

That indicates what is being paid for butter in New Zealand.

Instead of making butter available to the South African housewife at the proper time, what did the hon. the Minister do? He rather exported the butter at a loss. Unless the hon. the Minister corrects this kind of thing ...

Oh, that was old, rancid butter.

Then the hon. gentleman, who is a dairy farmer, threw even more dust in the eyes of South Africa’s housewives by eventually making available to them, at 35 cents per 500 grammes on the local market, a butter surplus that had become old and rancid. Surely it is quite unfair to do such a thing to the housewives of South Africa?

Surely that is not true?

I honestly wish that what I have just said were not true. What worries me the most, however, is that it is. I do not expect that from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

Who bought our rancid butter?

It was sent to Holland and other countries. They use it to make oil and cake. [Interjections.]

I have only a minute or two left, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the cost structure in South Africa will, in my opinion, increase as a result of the increase in the interest rates. A month or two ago that hon. gentleman told us he was prepared to increase the subsidy on mortgage bonds to 2,5%. I want to tell him that since he made that announcement there have been increases in the interest rates on farm mortgage bonds, and that that is going to happen again.

That is logical.

Of course it is logical, but what is the hon. gentleman going to do about that?

We shall grant further subsidies.

If the hon. members on that side of the House are proceeding from the assumption that because interest rates are increasing, they cannot do more at this stage, they will be instrumental in the ever greater increase in production costs in South Africa. That is the difference between their side of the House and our side of the House. We notice these things and if the United Party were today in the position they are in, it would use these surpluses to keep our production costs in South Africa as low as possible. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance not to allow our interest rates to get out of hand, unless he is also prepared to help the South African farmers in this respect. If he does not do that, our problems will only continue to increase even more.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I stand here as a new member trying to bring the attention of the House away from the troubled areas of dairy subsidies to the somewhat more placid waters of a maiden speech.

Any politician must apply his mind to what government as such is all about and what we in this House hope to attain. The basic reason for the existence of any Government must be to ensure that the people who are governed can live in the best possible way in happiness and in reasonable comfort. In other words, government is concerned with the quality of life of those whom they govern. Under bad or inferior government the quality of life could be unbearably low, while under good government the quality of life of the people governed could attain a maximum of happiness, contentment, opportunity and physical and mental comfort and well-being. The opportunity to attain these things should be the goal for an able and efficient Government. To that end due attention must be paid to the fact that the physical environment in which we live plays a vital role in our ability to attain happiness. Put into simple basic terms, people live better if they live in a congenial environment.

We live in a changing world and regrettably things are not what they used to be. The world is confronted with ever-growing problems. Let us take the population explosion as an example. In a world which cannot adequately feed its present population this is going to put an ever-increasing strain on world agriculture as well as on agriculture in our own country. Rapidly diminishing raw material sources such as oil have already brought us to an energy crisis which can only get worse as demand grows and supply diminishes. It is interesting and, I think, salutary to note that most of the underdeveloped countries of this world have virtually no chance at all of ever developing to the stage of, for example, the United States of America. There are simply not the raw material resources left on this earth to enable this to happen. Of course the advance of technology is continually alleviating the situation and bettering our ability to cope with our increasing problems, but scientific advance is not keeping pace with our troubles. So enormous is the impact of the population growth that our difficulties on a global basis sometimes appear to be insurmountable. There are something close to four billion people alive in the world today. In 25 years time this figure could well be seven billion. In South Africa our own population explosion is already ringing the alarm-bells for the future. Is the world ever going to be able to cope with the situation, allowing all its peoples to live full and contented lives? In South Africa we are in a far happier position than most of the rest of the world in that we have not yet reached the same stage of overpopulation with the inevitable accompaniment of mass starvation and pollution. We have the raw material resources, we have the mineral resources, we have the space. In the beauty of our countryside, the grandeur of our mountains, the splendour of our rugged coast-line, and the unique interest of our wild life, we still have an environment that should enable us to live in congenial surroundings, provided that we protect this environment against the encroachments resulting from the very necessary development of our natural resources. It is necessary to keep a very careful balance between the urgent need for industrial development and the retention of a natural environment which today is seriously threatened. Going further, I would suggest to all the hon. members of this House, that unless the relationship between man and his environment is carefully planned, the effect on the environment could be catastrophic. Certainly, as a result thereof, there would be a deterioration in the quality of life. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the effects of man’s failure to protect his natural surroundings. We have seen encroaching deserts, in place of the fertile countryside; thick layers of unhealthy smog enveloping our cities; the uncontrolled slaughter of our wild life by trigger-happy gunmen, oil pollution on our beaches and the irreparable and irresponsible desecration of beautiful scenic areas by the artefacts of man.

*Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been done in South Africa to ensure that our environment, which can so easily be disrupted and damaged, will be safeguarded for the future. One of the first guardians of our wild life was Pres. Kruger of the old Transvaal Republic. Between the years 1886 and 1898 he waged a bitter struggle in the Volksraad chamber which eventually met with success in the proclamation of the old Sabie Game Reserve, the present Kruger National Park. Eugene Marais was another. His paper in 1914 on the causes for the drying up of the Waterberg area, which was published by the Smithsonian Institute, was applauded by the whole world. Gen J. C. Smuts, one of the founders of National Veld Trust, also had a great love for nature. Over the years our State departments, such as Agriculture, Water Affairs, Forestry and now the Department of Planning and the Environment have done much to safeguard our heritage.

†There are many organizations in existence today, which reflect the growing awareness of more and more people of the urgent necessity to protect what we have, and to ensure that development only takes place on a well-planned, co-ordinated basis. The Southern African Council for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil has done excellent work in the field of advanced ecological planning. There are many wild-life conservation societies, which have contributed enormously towards public awareness of and interest in conservation, thus preventing the wholesale extermination of our animals, including many endangered species. The care capaign, for example, run by the Johannesburg Star has done a tremendous service towards the education of the community regarding environmental control. People are more aware that more must be done. It is not my place at this stage to discuss the pros and cons of either side in controversies such as the Knysna forest highway, the Kirstenbosch motorway or the Sandy Bay development scheme. The fact that there is controversy is a clear indication that people are worried and are thinking very seriously of the consequences of ecological and environmental disruption of any area. Public opinion is awakening. I am certain that a close watch will be kept in future on unplanned developments. With the inevitable growth of our cities, the problems of creating living conditions therein to allow urban dwellers acceptable standards, are escalating. More money will have to be spent in planning at all levels of Government central Government, provincial government, and municipal government levels. Outside the cities the fact that our national parks constitute only 2% of our total land area shows a crying need for more expenditure on land for this purpose. If our children and their children in turn are to be able to live in the sort of environment which so many of us have been fortunate enough to enjoy in our beloved country, more money will have to be spent on the preservation of our natural resources which, once destroyed, are impossible to recreate. I note, with interest, that the hon. the Minister of Finance has allowed an additional R6 million for the Department of Planning and the Environment in his Estimates. A maiden speech is not the time to discuss details of this expenditure, but I would urge the hon. the Minister and all hon. members of this House to realize the urgency of our situation. For the future more money must be available, because our problems will grow larger and not smaller.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Orange Grove most sincerely on his maiden speech. I think that I should also congratulate him on the subject be chose. The subject he discussed is definitely appropriate as regards his constituency, Orange Grove, where one has a high population density and where, in the nature of things, many problems will develop in respect of pollution, the protection of the environment, and so on, in the future. Once again I want to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. member.

I should like to deal with what my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, had to say, and I want to say at once that when one is arguing about the problems of the dairy industry, one has to regard surpluses or shortages as an inherent factor in the production of dairy products. There will be continual surpluses or shortages. Just as long as we produce dairy products in this country, we shall be faced with surpluses and shortages. I recall that it has happened a number of times in the past that we in South Africa did not know what to do with all the dairy products, and that we had to distribute them at sub-economic prices.

Your policy is completely wrong.

When one continually discusses butter and milk—this is something which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, for example, cannot drag himself away from—then that in my opinion is merely a sign of political bankruptcy, because ...

You were hurt.

... dairy products are exceptional products. The situation could arise that while butter was on its way to South Africa from overseas, from Australia for example, a local surplus could develop overnight. This is simply inherent in the nature of dairy production in South Africa.

Why do you buy expensive butter from New Zealand?

I have something to ask the hon. member for Newton Park. They are terribly concerned about the underprivileged, those people who are not really underfed but who are not really very well-fed either. If a subsidy of three cents, for example, were to be proposed at the present time while there is a shortage, what assurance would he give us that that subsidy would be to the benefit of those very underprivileged people about whom they are so concerned? When there is a shortage, what control can be applied to ensure that those “malnutritioned” people will in fact obtain that milk where they have access to it? It is the privilege of the more privileged people, too, to obtain that milk. In other words, no guarantee for that can be given.

And bread?

The matter of applying a subsidy is not such a simple process. A proper system of control is required for rendering it possible. Checks and control are necessary because millions of rand are involved in subsidies. Therefore it is not such a simple matter.

Let us deal with another matter. Hon. member are concerned about producer prices, particularly food prices for the consumer in South Africa. There is a very simple way of rectifying this problem. One way is to reduce producer prices. I do not know whether the United Party is so naïve as to argue that producer prices should be reduced, but I think it is essential to take a look at the position of the producer as far as the production of more expensive food in South Africa is concerned. The hon. the Minister quite rightly said that agriculture was not a charitable industry. The farmer who embarks upon the production of agricultural products, has a business undertaking and he has to make a decent and respectable living. He is also responsible for ensuring that his Black workers and his labourers are properly housed and that they can earn a decent livelihood. It is therefore essential for him to acquit himself well of his task as the owner of a business undertaking. It is imperative, too, for our producer industry to be such that it gives the producer an incentive to produce a particular product. If it does not pay a man to produce a product, he simply leaves the industry. We in South Africa are in the position today—and I shall refer to this in more detail later—where we produce the cheapest food in the Western world.

In spite of the Government.

We have had sharp increases in the price of food in South Africa, and we make no secret of it. If we look at the increase in producer prices, which is undoubtedly the cause of the increase in consumer prices of food products, we see that producer prices have increased by about 26%. That is an enormous increase. We see, too, that in the year 1973, the year at present under review, the volume of agricultural production dropped by 16%. In the sphere of field husbandry in particular, we experienced a very low level of production. We see, too, that the cost of farming requisites rose by 10% in the same year. The rising costs and the drop in the volume of production resulted in the net income of the farmer dropping by approximately 8% in comparison with the preceding year. The figure is R799 million as against R865 million in the preceding year. The farmer therefore, derived no benefit from the rise in producer prices of 26%. We know that the coming season looks a great deal better. Things will perhaps go better, owing, too, to an improved price structure. The point I want to make is that although producer prices have risen by 26%, the position of agriculture in South Africa, owing to weather conditions, has been such that there has not been a satisfactory volume of production, and consequently the net income of the farmer has dropped. This is a position with which South African agriculture will always have to contend.

The other method which may be applied to keep food prices low, is the one in respect of which Opposition members, inter alia, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Newton Park, advanced arguments, and that is the introduction of subsidies. If we look at the consumer index, we see that consumer prices in respect of food rose by 18,3% in 1973. As against that, the producer price rose by 26%. In other words, the logical deduction to be made from this is that the subsidy system and the control system being applied in South Africa at present form a buffer between rising producer prices and rising consumer prices in respect of food. I think the Government’s achievement in this respect has been a major one. If we look at the Budget before us at present, we see that an amount of R120 million has been budgeted for subsidies and distress relief. This is an astronomical amount. Then the Opposition comes along and complains about taxation being too high. Subsidies cannot offer an all-embracing solution, either. Since we are already asking for an amount of R120 million and have to grant more and more subsidies, we should ask ourselves where the funds for these subsidies are to come from. Surely they come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. In other words, one is taking away with the one hand and giving back with the other. Therefore, subsidies are not effective enough either as far as this matter is concerned. One cannot apply subsidies in an uncontrolled fashion in order to keep food prices low for the consumer, because these funds must come from the pockets of those same consumers by way of taxation.

It is essential, too, for one to take a look at the level of consumer expenditure on food in South Africa. When one looks at the structure of private consumer expenditure in South Africa, one sees that food, drink and tobacco were responsible for 34,7% of the total expenditure in 1963. In 1973, ten years later, it comprised 33% of the total consumption expenditure. A good criterion would be to take a look at what the rise in consumer expenditure was in respect of durable goods. It is only logical that as far as private consumer expenditure is concerned, money is first spent on the primary requirement, namely food. Only when one has enough food for one’s family, does one consider the matter of clothing. After that one can spend money on other luxury goods, such as motor vehicles, for example. When we take a look at expenditure in respect of durable goods, we find that it comprised 9,1% in 1963. In 1973 it rose to 10,8%. In other words, this is a very clear indication that the standard of living in South Africa has risen otherwise people would not have spent the same percentage of their income on food and more on durable goods.

It is essential, too, for us to take a look at the growth rate of our agricultural industry in general. It is our task to provide a growing population in South Africa with food. In spite of the fact that the rate of our population increase is higher than the world’s average and that we have regions in South Africa which are at a developing stage we can say that our production growth rate as far as agriculture in South Africa, the production of agricultural produce in South Africa, is concerned, is phenomenal and satisfies the demands made on it. Our growth rate in South Africa is even higher than that in the U.S.A.

Let us also look at the available arable land per capita in South Africa. My authority in this regard is Dr.Verbeek, secretary of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. According to him our available arable land in South Africa is, 57 ha per capita. However, as a result of industrial growth and development, roads, factories, the establishment of towns, etc., we shall have a reduction of the available arable land per capita in South Africa in the years that lie ahead. Dr. Verbeek puts it as follows: In 1980 it will drop to 0,45 ha;** in 1990 it will drop to 0,41 ha and in the year 2000 it will drop to 0,32 ha. One can draw only one conclusion from this and that is that it will make ever-increasing and greater demands on the farmers of South Africa, and not only the South African farmer. Farmers of our Bantu areas, of the homelands, will also have to contribute their share in this process. It will demand more intensive farming systems and that process will also involve additional investment, larger capital investment, in agriculture. Therefore we in South Africa will have to change our approach in respect of cheap food. We must regard food as one of the most durable products we produce here because our resources in this regard are particularly limited. This does not concern the farmer only; it concerns the consumer too. It concerns his welfare and his nourishment in South Africa. That is why it is essential that when we speak of food, when we speak of our consumer costs in regard to food production, we do so with great responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I think that today I appreciate how Gamat felt when he was summonsed before the court, pleaded innocent and undertook his own defence. The public prosecutor was calling one witness after the other against him, and eventually it was clear that the evidence against Gamat was damning, when suddenly a voice piped up from the dock: “Your Worship, I think I had better plead guilty now because I see I am not going to make it, after all.” Mr. Speaker, that is how I feel, too. I shall never get past this speech, so I am simply talking now.

Mr. Speaker, since I have the honour this afternoon to be delivering my maiden speech in this highest legislative assembly in our country, I should like apart from giving thanks to my Creator, to express my gratitude yet again towards the voters in my constituency who sent me here, but over and above this I should also like to confirm once again that in the years that lie ahead I shall strive to do my best for my constituency as a whole, for my voters as a whole, irrespective of the political party to which they belong, and I hope that I shall be granted the necessary strength and assistance to do so.

Sir, a new world has developed around us; a new world has, as it were, grown up around us, and in judging that world, together with what it has brought in its wake in its growing-pains and in the process of its development, it is necessary for us to make critical observations, to be selective and to weigh things in the balance. Sir, the change has made its appearance in virtually every sphere of our society and we cannot summarily condemn it, nor can we summarily approve it. On the contrary, it requires of us that we should reflect anew on our ideas and actions and our activities. Surely we cannot continue pursuing the old ways in a slavish fashion, because then we would be making a period, namely the past, normative, instead of making the principle so. But the opposite is no more true. An anxious adherence to and pursuit of the new does not necessarily mean that we would find the correct solution either, because then again we would be making a period, namely the present, normative. Sir, in this changing world, as I see it, it seems to me that the true view of life, the true style of life, is to be found, not in slavish repetition of the old nor in pursuit of the new, but in those principles which are the expression of obedience to God’s commandments in the times we are living in. Sir, it must be found in those rules, which were the same yesterday, are the same today and will be the same in the future, rules which, for reference purposes, I want to call basic principles. Those basic principles we positively cannot and may not change. Sir, if we want to survive as a nation, as a nation with strong moral and ethical principles, we should continue to uphold those basic principles in our lives—“basic” in contrast to minor details which, in fact, can and may be adapted and which also, owing to changed circumstances of life, must be adapted. In this way, Sir, our lives bear the stamp of the future, and adaptations are continually required; it is constantly required of us to know that we have a task and a calling to fulfil, and to look further and to seek further, in the faith, for the will of God in our actions towards our fellowmen, in our actions as individuals; subsequently to think further and formulate further, but always on this basis, always on this foundation, namely that which is the will of the Supreme Beings, with due regard to the •principles of His Law. So it is in this belief that I see the one pillar on which all of us must build the future. But because we are groping and feeling our way forward, we have education as the other pillar on which to build. Now, it is a strange thing that quite a number of our newcomers to this hon. House based their maiden speeches on education, training and instruction, without our having consulted each other in any way concerning the subject we wanted to discuss. But I find this encouraging because it shows that we are in agreement that instruction, education and training must take a special place in the creation of our future. In fact, education, training, learning, the creation of improved proficiency in human beings, or whatever we may call it, is the very basis and the foundation without which the future is simply not possible. Let us not forget that the great Bismarck said that a country with schools was a rich country, and let us not forget what Kemal Attaturk achieved by educating his nation and insisting on training for them. Because it is the key to the future of our country, no amount to be utilized or expended in the interests of education, instruction and training should ever be regarded as being too large. I am not referring only to academic instruction. I am also referring to instruction in the technical sphere, in the spiritual sphere, instruction which takes the moral well-being of man duly into account. That is why we should remember that knowledge is power and that in order to come by and retain that power, the investment of money should never be an obstacle. The best investment is and continues to be in man himself, that human, living being, because, man, after all, is, in his turn, a living factory that creates the other factories and industries in which we are so eager to invest. I ask, therefore, that this House pay particular attention to and take the lead in this matter in order to put into operation all machinery for the improved and extended training and education of our population as a whole in South Africa. The training and education of our population is, after all, essential for creating improved human relations in our country as well. Indeed I see it as the most vital means which will have to be employed. I therefore want to plead that when the provinces come to the central Government and state what they require for education, instruction and training, the amounts they request be allocated to them without further ado. I want to plead, too, that we should not forget to utilize that powerful medium we shall have at our disposal before long, namely television, in the promotion of instruction, training and education in our country.

Arising out of this subject, education, there are two matters which I should very much like to broach in this House this afternoon. I should be neglecting my duty if I failed to do so. The first is the diminishing number of medical practitioners who are prepared today to settle in the rural areas and have their practices there. In my constituency there are no fewer than three smallish towns—I admit they are smallish—which are without medical practitioners. In other towns there are hopelessly too few medical practitioners to do the necessary in those towns and districts. I feel that an investigation emanating from this House into this state of affairs as well as the basic reason for it, will have to be conducted.

It is a fact that all of us, when illness threatens or when we feel somewhat unwell, require the help of a doctor. Some may require it because they have troubled consciences, others because they are not so sure what they will be getting in exchange for this life, and another group, because they can take with them nothing of what they have so carefully accumulated. The reason is immaterial, but the fact remains that all of us, when we feel sick, are anxious to enlist the aid of a doctor. It often happens that no doctor is available or that we are told, “The doctor will only be able to come to the farm tomorrow morning or the day after at the earliest because he has too many appointments.” I want to pluck up the courage to say that I feel that it is the selection of pupils for the medical profession that is to be blamed for this major shortage of doctors practising in the rural areas and even in the cities. It is expected of pupils to achieve a certain minimum percentage in the matriculation examination before they will be admitted to a course in medicine at a university. This is a very poor state of affairs. I have seen girls and boys of whom I personally have thought, with such knowledge of human nature as I possess, that they would have made outstanding doctors, but merely because they did not achieve the required percentage, they were denied that privilege. Recently I again met someone who told me, “I really wish that I could become a doctor”. At the moment this person is frustrated. I feel that we should give this matter our attention. I think that if it is in any way possible, we should allow the selection to take place after the completion of the first year of study at a university; that is, if selection should take place at all. The pupil should at least be afforded the opportunity of starting to specialize in the course he has chosen for himself as a career. If this should be a question of a lack of funds for establishing the necessary additional facilities, I think that attention should be given to that, too, because I see it as a country’s duty to ensure that extensive medical services are available to the population of a country.

Another aspect I want to refer to, is the position of the country attorney. It is a fact that country attorneys are virtually unable to get attorneys to take over their practices in the rural areas or to join them as partners any more. I am not speaking on my own behalf, because I think that I have been fortunate in this respect. I am speaking on behalf of many attorneys in the rural areas. I know how they struggle to get anyone to assist them with their practices. These are not poor practices; they are in fact extensive practices. Money is not lacking in the rural areas. On the contrary, I think the urban attorney would sometimes be amazed to learn of his country colleague’s earnings from his practice. That is certainly not a reason for keeping them from settling in the rural areas. However, there is opportunity for them to get on in the cities. The cities seem to be more attractive because of the facilities they offer those attorneys and consequently it is not possible to attract them to the rural areas. So on what does the country attorney have to fall back? He has to see to it that he recruits a boy from the school in his town, that he makes it attractive for him to do his articles with him, and that he gives him to understand that if everything should go well, that boy would later be allowed to become a partner and take over the firm. But here, too, is a drawback. At most of our country schools, Latin is no longer offered as a subject today. So one talks the matter over with the boy concerned and ascertains that he is interested. As soon as one tells him, however, that Latin is a compulsory subject if one wants to become an attorney, he loses interest because he has not had the opportunity of taking Latin as a school subject. In the past I have championed this cause in other bodies with a reasonable degree of success, but I resolved that if I were to have the opportunity of doing so in this highest legislative council of the country, I should do so. Today I have that opportunity. I am in favour of Latin being abolished as a compulsory subject for attorneys. I do not say that it should be abolished entirely, but only ask that it should be made an optional subject. This could only redound to our advantage and would once again strengthen the profession of attorney in the rural areas where, as far as numbers are concerned, we are severely handicapped at present, and where attorneys have to work themselves to a standstill just to be sent to Parliament subsequently! I am reminded here of a little poem I learnt in my youth—

If I may be permitted the poetic licence to adapt these words a little, I would change this little poem as follows—

I am pleased to have the opportunity of championing this cause in this House today. I do not want those of my colleagues who are in favour of Latin as a subject—I had to take Latin and I think it is a fine subject, but certainly not the easiest subject to study—to think that I am unfaithful, but we must face up to realities, we must face the facts and be practical about these problems. I hope that the plea which I have delivered here and which will emanate from here will not fall on deaf ears.

I conclude with the thought that we in this House sit in our benches which are arranged in such a way that we look at each other, that we look towards each other, that all of us together look to see whether we can face and solve the problems threatening our country. But to make that task, which has been imposed upon us, meaningful and to fulfil it successfully, we shall all have to learn, too, to look up, to cast up our eyes to Heaven because our instructions are clear: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, ... and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Mr. Speaker, by the time I sit down, both the hon. member for Aliwal and I will have lost our maidenhood. If I may speak to him as one onetime maiden to another, I want to congratulate him wholeheartedly on his maiden speech.

*It is clear that he will make a valuable contribution to the proceedings of this House. I should like to wish him all the best for a successful career as a parliamentarian. Years ago the hon. member for Aliwal was Oom Kappie Strydom. I knew Oom Kappie and had great respect for him as a politician and as an uncle, because my family comes from that area. The first political meeting I attended, was in Aliwal North, a meeting of the Nationalist Party. I sat listening right at the back. Oom Kappie Strydom was the speaker that evening. When he came onto the stage, where there were a few other speakers as well—it was a very lively meeting—he said. “Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, friends ...” and from the back of the hall came a deep voice, “You are lying”. I must say that the fellow who had shouted that, was chucked out.

† I hope that the hon. member for Aliwal will follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor. I am sure he will then do very well in this House.

Mr. Speaker, in this modern world, legislation in one form or another, emanating from every level of government, plays an evergrowing role in our already complicated lives. In the fields of labour and race contact in South Africa this trend is no less prevalent. Much of the legislation and many of the enactments of this and lesser bodies, are aimed at the regulation and improvement of wages, conditions of work and the way of life of unskilled workers. It is interesting to note how little the situation has changed over the years, when one considers the productivity, the efficiency, or lack of it, and the conditions of employment of the ordinary domestic worker. While it is clear that, as in other spheres of work and in sympathy with inflationary trends, wages have climbed over the years, it is nevertheless true to record that the average cash wage, not including benefits paid in kind, for a Black woman servant in Johannesburg is something like R30 per month, in Durban something like R25 per month and in Bloemfontein something like R20 per month. This sector of the labour force is by no means a minor one. The October 1972 report of the Department of Statistics, indicated that two out of three urban households employ either a full-time or a part-time domestic worker. One household in five had more than one domestic worker. Despite the fact that domestic work still tends to be of a relatively low status in the eyes of most Black and White people it is none the less a very relevant and important sphere of work. Inter alia it provides employment for a not inconsiderable number of people, it enables thousands of highly skilled workers, mainly women, to continue in their professions, trades and businesses and is perhaps the greatest area of close contact between different races. I would like to suggest that a great deal could be done without new legislation, and in a practical way, both by private citizens and by governmental agencies throughout the country, to achieve three major or important objectives within the ambit of this very large group of workers. The first objective, though I quote no order of priority herein, is to improve the skill, efficiency and reliability, the productivity, if you will, of domestic workers on a broad front. The second objective is to improve the conditions of employment and to raise the standards of living of such workers and also the status of their jobs. The third objective is in the long term to assist in creating an atmosphere in the homes of South Africa in which the goodwill and the trust between the domestic worker and the employer are nurtured.

Because of the nature of a first speech in this House, I wish to deal with one aspect only of the means to attain the objectives mentioned. I refer to the aspect of education, both of the worker and of the employer. This task is already being undertaken in a small way by private orgnizations. This is praiseworthy and it deserves support, but it is none the less true to say that no non-governmental agency can make the nationwide impact that is so essential. I believe it would be a wonderful start if a series of lectures were arranged for domestic servants and prospective domestic servants through for instance the many Bantu Administration Boards. Subjects would, inter alia, include literacy, dressmaking, cookery, flower arrangement and numerous other matters which would result in better housekeeping both in the homes of the employers and also in the homes of the workers themselves. It is not only the worker who needs education. Employers throughout the country would benefit from lectures arranged by the same authorities. For instance, a knowledge of Bantu customs and ways would do much to help housewives in understanding the make-up of their employees. Subjects could include matters to be discussed when engaging an employee such as the salary, the notice period, overtime pay, working hours in the day, days off and annual leave, sick leave, food, workers’ visitors, methods of arranging a pension, requirements for workers’ rooms, methods of address, where courtesy plays such a great part, and dental and medical problems. This list merely scratches the surface of the information which housewives should have; regular clinics on these and other subjects would be of tremendous value. For instance, many housewives are ignorant of the law relating to the employment and housing of domestic workers. A lecture on this subject alone would greatly assist in smoothing out difficulties which by virtue of ignorance could become major obstacles. A booklet for housewives which deals with these and other matters which regularly arise could for instance be drawn up and sent out or given to registered employers by the department. I am certain that organizations such as the S.A. Bureau for Racial Affairs and the S.A. Institute of Race Relations would be more than delighted to co-operate in the production of such a booklet. Though I concede that I have only dealt with one aspect of the question arising out of the employment of domestic workers, I do believe that the implementation of some of these suggestions will prove beneficial on a broad front to employers and employees throughout the country.

I should like to conclude by saying a few words in a slightly broader vein. In the 64 years since Union men and women have been motivated in numerous ways and by varying ambitions to seek public office. In past decades many English speakers have sought positions of power in their quest to preserve the British connection, to rescue the Empire and to stem what they termed the rising Afrikaner tide. On the other side numbers of Afrikaans-speaking people have entered the political arena in their drive to achieve recognition and equality for the Afrikaans language, as well as for the Afrikaner culture and for their identity. For generations political debate hinged on the attitude of South Africans to countries far over the waters, on allegiances to monarchs long since dead and on questions of political power as between Boer and Brit. Far be it from me to attempt to pass judgment on the sincere strivings of my and our forefathers. I have long held the view with Calpin, so well expressed in his book entitled There are no South Africans, that—

Suffice to say, that I believe that the battles of the past are over and done with. I am not interested in fighting them again. There are today new different and urgent problems facing South Africa, requiring new, different and urgent solutions which will involve attitudes untrammelled by past animosities and “hang-ups”.

The challenge to all of us is to face up to the realities of today and tomorrow in which our Republic finds itself seemingly in conflict and perhaps truly in conflict with a hostile world; in which the English/Afrikaner debate is less relevant than the joint task we are charged to fulfil, namely, of building a South Africa which offers a home, prosperity and goodwill to its inhabitants of all races, colours and languages, of creating a land of opportunity for all of our heterogeneous population and of fostering a climate in which the Black. Brown and White peoples of Southern Africa may co-exist in permanent tranquility. I have confidence that this challenge will be faced, met and honestly grappled with by all the members of this House. However, that is not sufficient. I agree with Alfred Hoernle, who in his presidential address to the South African Institute of Race Relations in January 1941 said—

He went further and said—

I like to think that these are the challenges and motivations which account for the presence here of many men, young and not so young, who have forgone their businesses and professions to enter the uncertain realms of politics, for these are the reasons why I am here.

Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that the hon. member for Sand-ton, who has just spoken, was my favourite opponent in the Transvaal Provincial Council. In spite of that it gives me great pleasure, at this late hour this evening, to congratulate him on his exceptionally trim and smooth maiden speech. For our part we want to wish him a long and happy stay in this House.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not mention the fact that I owe particular thanks to my three predecessors in this House. Since I am representing a new constituency, I refer here in particular to Deputy Minister Rall from the Middel-burg constituency, Deputy Minister Raubenheimer from the Nelspruit constituency and then my good friend, the present hon. member for Ermelo. These three gentlemen gave exceptional service to the areas that I have to represent in this House at present, so much so that to this day I do not have much trouble from the voters of the Barberton district or the Belfast district because they prefer to approach Deputy Minister Raubenheimer and Deputy Minister Rall respectively with their problems, perhaps to their annoyance, I believe. As far as the hon. member for Ermelo is concerned, may I mention that we have come along way together in politics in recent years, and to him, too, my special thanks.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, after having had to listen to such a long string of maiden speeches, I had to cast about for a subject for my own speech. My bench-mate here next to me could speak about the culture of his constituency, a culture for which even we philistines beyond the Hex River have a great appreciation! I then thought to myself that I could possibly speak about the history of some parts of my constituency. You know, there was a time in our history when Barberton experienced a gold rush and when less savoury types arrived there. I could tell you interesting stories. I could perhaps entertain you by telling you where Whiskyspruit got its name, or Sopieshoogte or Jam Tin Creek. On the other hand I considered boasting here in serious vein about the feats of arms of the Carolina Command during the Anglo-Boer War at Spioenkop, Dalmanutha and Witkloof. But then I gave thought to the good earth of my area, the ground and what is under the ground. If there are two primary industries of the utmost importance to my constituency, and not only my constituency, but also the whole of South Africa, they are the agricultural industry and the mining industry and those of agriculture, that in a particularly small area clashes can and do occur between the interests of the mininb industry and those of agriculture. Because of the small dilemma that exists, in particular in my constituency, I want to sketch for you briefly how the allocation of land in my part of the world has developed over the years.

Initially the farmers of the Transvaal occupied their farms. The farms were allocated to them and they obtained proprietary rights by way of later registration. There were no provisos. The owner of a farm was also the owner of what was under the ground, of the mineral rights. However after the discovery of considerable mineral deposits in the Transvaal, the Volksraad of the Transvaal Republic provided by Act No. 1 of 1871 that the mining of gold and of precious stones would in future be reserved only for the State. That was the position in the Transvaal up to the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War. All owners of farms were also the full owners of the mineral rights on those farms, but with the proviso that only the State would be able to mine gold and precious stones.

However, it also happened, particularly in those parts of the Eastern Transvaal, that with a view to trying to settle a denser population in the Lowveld areas, large portions of the land were granted cheaply to the burghers who did not have much use for them. Those farms, in turn, were sold on a large scale by the burghers to mining companies. These companies were not interested in the surface area of the land, having bought those properties chiefly to mine the possible subterranean wealth. They in turn resold the surface land to buyers, if they could get buyers, but retained the mineral rights for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, after the Anglo-Boer War it became the general custom for the State to also adopt the pattern which had been adopted by the mining companies. The State granted agricultural land at its disposal to the farmers, but in all cases retained for itself the mineral rights. But there was also another problem that cropped up. Very early on the State was already proclaiming certain areas as mining land where the general public could peg off claims for themselves after they had obtained the necessary permits or licences, land upon which they could then prospect, and if they found something, go mining there. After the Anglo-Boer War the opinion was held that such land could under no circumstances be distributed by farmers for settlement, but after public pressure, and with the land hunger of our people, the State initially gave some of those properties in those proclaimed areas to our burghers, not with proprietary rights, but merely on long-term leases. But again as a result of public pressure, it was eventually decided to deproclaim large portions of that land which had been proclaimed as mining land, to make that land available for agriculture. It is, in point of fact, unfortunate that this happened, because as a result of that deproclamation a large portion of land, which might have valuable mineral deposits, was lost to the mining industry. In order to prevent this, the State brought about a change in Colonel Reitz’s time, and within these proclaimed mining land areas they did give proprietary rights to some of our people, but retained the mineral rights in favour of the State, giving the general public the right to go and prospect there and peg off claims.

Mr. Speaker, now I come to our people’s actual dilemma. Where initially our legal rule was that the owner of the land was the owner of everything above and below the ground, a split began to occur by way of an evolutionary process in our country, and although it had been the standpoint of our law throughout the centuries, it being a legal rule, that one should make use of one’s own property in such a way that one did not prejudice another, this principle of our law was prejudiced by this splitting of surface area rights and underground rights, because it is virtually impossible for the owner of the underground rights to exercise his rights without encroaching upon those of the surface owner, and frequently there were clashes in that respect, and clashes are still occurring today. There is no legislative rule in that connection, and we had to resort to our common law to give finality about which person’s rights enjoyed precedence. At a time when land was plentiful and mining was of paramount importance, our courts, perhaps quite rightly, decided that the rights of the owner of the underground rights enjoyed precedence over the rights of the surface owner. If it should happen that the owner of the underground rights, in his prospecting and mining activities, should cause the surface owner to suffer losses, it is to be regretted, but nothing can be done, and the surface owner has no right of recovery for any losses he has suffered. That is a dilemma as far as many of our people are concerned.

As a result of the fact that there has in many cases been a split between surface rights and mineral rights, without satisfactory arrangements being made by way of legislation or private agreements, although private agreements are concluded in many cases, I think it has become necessary, not only in the interests of agriculture—it would substantially be in the interests of agriculture—but also in the interests of the mining industry and the possible search for unexploited minerals we may still have, for the legislator perhaps to give attention to finding a solution to this dilemma.

Mr. Speaker. I am detaining you too long, but another problem in this connection is that it has become a custom of many of our people, when selling their properties, to reserve the mineral rights for themselves, and very often those rights are lost after the owner has died. There are no indications in his estate and eventually no one knows to whom those mineral rights belong. In certain areas rich mineral deposits are suspected, but the nature of those deposits can only be determined after proper prospecting. In my constituency we have succeeded in tracing some of the rightful owners of such mineral deposits, but not all of them, because it is no longer known to whom those mineral rights belong. In this connection I also think it is in the interests of our country, and in particular in the interests of our mining industry, that an attempt be made to find a solution by way of legislation, with due regard for and protection of the interests of the interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Barberton on his maiden speech and I also wish him well in his career as a politician. If he can always be as calm and objective, he will, to my mind, make a very useful contribution in this House.

†Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how honoured I feel, to be a member of this House of Assembly, and to be the first member to represent the new constituency of Pietermaritzburg North. History has seen great statesmen and Parliamentarians sit in this Legislative Assembly, men who have established the proud democratic traditions of our country. I feel humble to be in such close association with their memory, and I shall endeavour, to the best of my ability, to uphold these same intrinsic democratic traditions. I am also conscious of the confidence and trust that the voters of Pietermaritzburg North have placed in me, in electing me to represent their interests in this House. I am aware of the responsibility linked to this trust and I shall in all humility and conscientiousness endeavour to serve the best interests of all the citizens of Pietermaritzburg North.

My theme, Sir, is for the preservation of our natural environment. This choice is logical because I have the joy of living in one of the most beautiful little cities in South Africa. To me Pietermaritzburg is symbolic of the beauty of our country, the same beauty that Langenhoven has woven into our national anthem. And while I am proud of my city, there are other hon. members of this House who are equally proud of their homes and constituencies. The hon. members for Swellendam, Worcester, Etosha, Paarl and Barberton, to name a few, represent areas of particular natural beauty. Yet, it is my contention that our natural heritage which we so admire is in danger of disappearing, and in recent years the danger has rapidly increased.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has delivered a Budget to encourage growth in South Africa and while we all wish to maintain our economic growth, it is a fact that industrial expansion is accompanied by a deterioration in our environmental health. This deterioration is most noticeable in the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink and less noticeable, but just as corrosive, on our natural vegetation, crops, wild life, livestock and buildings. The quality of these facets of our environment determines our physical wellbeing or misery. With heavily increased discharges of chemical waste into the environment the situation will become worse, unless effective controls are undertaken.

The polluter, however, is not easily controlled for, like the arms manufacturer, he knows that to stay in business is advantageous to him. The legislator has to preserve an economic climate in which business or growth can flourish. In view of this principle and of the tremendous strength of the economic lobby, it is difficult to place effective anti-pollution legislation on the Statute Book until a disaster or crisis develops. The Clean Air Act of England, for instance, was only passed after the smog disaster of 1952 which led to the deaths of almost 4 000 people from respiratory causes.

The population explosion and the sheer scale of modern industry in South Africa is creating shortages in and demands on our natural resources which will become, increasingly, more and more difficult to meet and these resources are being further depleted by pollution. To recognize the growth of the pollution crisis and to ensure preventive action is a responsibility that a government cannot ignore. Ex-President Nixon, in his message on the environment delivered on 10 February 1970, said:

As a result Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, the principal of which is “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment”. As a consequence a politician in the United States of America ignores the ecology lobby to his cost. But it was only the extremes of America’s environmental pollution that aroused public awareness and concern.

My concern is that we in South Africa do not wake up too late to the slow, daily, invisible poisoning that gradually breaks down human health and lowers our resistance to other diseases; that we do not wake up too late, as did the city of Los Angeles, to find that forests within a radius of 100 kilometres of our cities are dying of sulphur dioxide poisoning; that we do not wake up too late to find that our lakes and rivers are sterile as has happened to the Great Lakes of America and is happening to the Baltic Sea. We are witnessing in South Africa the same urban sprawl that affects other industrial societies. In France, for example, it is estimated that 150 000 rural dwellers are absorbed each year into the cities. This concentration of urban populations has led to an accumulation of natural wastes in quantities too large for natural biological dispersal. Added to these is the addition of synthetic wastes. Prof. Passino’s figures claim that bronchitis is ten times more prevalent and lung cancer twice as prevalent in smoggy, industrial areas and he concludes that cities “are large disease factories”. Prof. Ribant, also a Frenchman, makes a further observation, namely that between 10% and 25% of urbanites show signs of less serious mental disturbances. He concludes that “We are engaged in a form of chemical and biological warfare against ourselves, and especially, against our children.”

Apart from local self-created pollution problems we also have to contend with pollution from the international community. Atomic tests from as far afield as the Pacific distribute Strontium 90 and radioactive fall-out with long-term effects on human and vegetable life throughout the globe. Vessels passing our shores are wrecked, as has happened recently, and we suffer the consequences of oil pollution on our beaches. The take-off of one Boeing international flight emits the same quantity of carbon monoxide as 6 850 Volkswagens accelerating. To my mind, the only way that any nation is to safeguard its national health from international pollution is to have membership on the international bodies that regulate these matters.

Internally, one is faced with the problem of who is to finance anti-pollution measures. Is it the industrialist, is it the public, or is it the Government? Whoever foots the bill will find it to be very substantial. It would therefore appear that the giant industrial corporations in conjunction with the Government are the only bodies in a position to put up large amounts of money. My plea is for an independent Ministry of the Environment to co-ordinate, on a national basis, the efforts to combat environmental pollution. I would like to see environmental studies included in the civic responsibility curriculum which is now being introduced into our schools and to see encouragement given to the organizations which train our youth in the habits of conservation and litter control. I would like to see the present penalties for pollution raised to a level that will oblige polluters to invest in filtration equipment. I would like to see more attention given by the Water Research Commission to the positive identification of polluters. Finally, I would like to see the Drakensberg escarpment traversed from the Cedarberg in the south to the Lebombo in the north with a trail and shelters at the end of each day’s hike, so that the majority of South Africans can benefit from the beauty of these wilderness areas and the therapy of the pristine mountain air.

These pleas with which I close my speech stem from the desire to see mobilized, South Africans of all races, to play a part in a national effort to prevent the decay and disruption of our environment so that we may hand on to our children a prospect of life which we have enjoyed and which is their right to enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much gladness, and I emphasize the word “gladness” to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. It so happens that he touched upon a subject here this evening which is dear to my heart. It is so dear to my heart that I would forgive him other political differences, as shallow as his political differences may be, if he agrees with me on the matter which he spoke about this evening. For me it is something of deep gravity, and I want to congratulate him, and I mean this, on the way in which he put the matter and what is more, on the exceptionally calm way in which he approached a matter very closely related to science. In science one is not imbued with sensation; in science one speaks calmly because one is speaking with authority. Authority implies calmness. I want to congratulate him and I shall be expecting a great deal from him in the future. Although he is a U.P. man, his speech has brought about a contact between the two of us which in the interests of our Fatherland, I shall not relinquish. Since it is now my turn to speak, and I want to speak about contentious matters, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—