Order! Before I proceed to questions. I wish to inform hon. members that as notices of questions for oral reply appear on the Question Paper, I have decided that it will not be necessary for members to put these questions in the House in future. I shall merely state the numbers of the questions whereupon the Ministers concerned will reply.

Similarly, I shall no longer call upon Ministers to answer questions to which replies are standing over but shall merely state the number of the questions whereupon the Ministers concerned will reply.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Second Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

I owe the hon. members of the Opposition a debt of gratitude for their co-operation in disposing of this Bill. If this Bill is passed, the existing Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme Act, which was passed last year, will be repealed. This step is necessary as it has been decided to admit not only Members of Parliament and Administrators, but also members of the Provincial Council and members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, to the scheme.

In terms of clause 2 of the Bill, contributions to the scheme may now be deducted from the salaries of members whose membership is no longer compulsory by virtue of a change of office, but who have decided to remain members of the scheme and to whom a salary is still paid by the Government.

These are the two most important provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether or not this Bill will interfere in any way with the rights of Members of Parliament who at present belong to this medical aid scheme. Will their rights be interfered with after leaving Parliament? Will they be able to continue being contributing members of the present medical aid scheme?

My information is that they will remain members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the discussion of the Appropriation proposals such as those at present before the House, one expects members of the Opposition to exercise their right to criticize. It is in the interests of the country that they should do so and they are fully entitled to level that criticism. It is in the interests of the country that every measure and every proposal be closely scrutinized and that where criticism is necessary, it should be expressed. But, Sir, people who advance criticism also have a great responsibility. They must level responsible criticism because criticism must not only be destructive and negative. The criticism they advance must also be objective, constructive and scientific. There are surely many aspects of these appropriation proposals with which all of us, as good South Africans, can agree, and which we can encourage. But, Sir, when I consider the criticism levelled by hon. members on that side who have taken part in the debate thus far, and the criticism that has appeared in their newspapers, then I find that it is characterized by negativeness and destructiveness. Listening to these debates, one is justified in asking the question: Are these people only against this Government, or are they in fact against South Africa? I find that this year an extraordinary degree of venom is to be detected in their criticism. There is exceptional venom and a sharp, poisonous barb concealed under this so-called concern about financial matters. The question occurs to me whether this venom is directed at the merits of the Budget proposals or whether it is perhaps directed at the man behind the Budget? It is still very difficult for those hon. gentlemen to accept that an English-speaking person who joined the National Party can come and sit in these benches and make such spectacular progress as to be able to sit there as Minister of Finance. That simply does not suit them. They should so much like to go and tell the people and the world outside that the English-speaking person in the National Party remains a stooge. In spite of the methods they want to apply, I want to tell them that this hon. Minister will become a great Minister of Finance and that he will make his mark in our national economy.

The most important point of criticism raised against this Budget is the so-called unbridled increase in Government expenditure, and the contention that this will lead to a new wave of inflation. Now one is justified in asking this question of those who complain about the increased Government expenditure: Where do they want it to be cut down? Under what Vote, under what item do they want it cut down? Do they agree with the Financial Mail which states that a 36% increase in defence expenditure is excessive? I should like to quote a scandalous remark that appeared in the Financial Mail—

I ask whether hon. members opposite, as good South Africans, agree that too much money is being spent on defence? I note no reaction on the other side of the House. Every good South African knows that this amount is still too little and that our security and continued existence is more important than a few million rand and that in fact we should use even more money for this purpose. Or is there anyone on the other side of the house who believes that the 22% increase in regard to our universities is too much and that it must be reduced? Or do hon. members want to cut down on the 20% increase in regard to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development? Where do they want to cut down on Government expenditure? The increase in Government expenditure in this Budget amounts to about 16% or R695 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance deserves great praise from the other side of the House, too, for having been able to accommodate this enormous increase of R695 million in the Budget without increasing income tax by a single cent. This is a very positive aspect of this Budget and one that deserves appreciation. When increased expenditure is criticised, it must be borne in mind that South Africa is a young, growing and developing country and that the State has a particular obligation in regard to the creation and initiation of an economic infrastructure in this vast country. Provision of employment for all our population groups is one of our top priorities and consequently there must be continual development, growth and expansion. If things should come to a standstill, there would be stagnation and deterioration. In the economic climate we are experiencing, it is necessary to steer very carefully between two great dangers namely recession on the one hand and inflation on the other. In the United States of America, a large and economically strong country, somewhat harsh anti-inflationary measures were taken in October last year. Barely three months later, namely in January 1975, President Ford had to take stimulatory measures with excessive haste in an attempt to combat a recession which they are still struggling to overcome. In this world we are living in, a World comprised of a number of economically interdependent states, all subject to a variety of economic conditions and a variety of factors in regard to political power, predictions in regard to economic conditions for tomorrow and the next day are a very difficult undertaking. People who do not want to find themselves in trouble would do well to keep away from that. A wise politician will therefore advocate a reasonable stimulatory and careful policy like the one which the hon. the Minister of Finance adopted in this Budget.

One of the great economists of this century, John Maynard Keynes, said that the causes of the depression of the ’thirties was ascribable to unsystematic utilization by the authorities of economic resources resulting in the curtailment of the demand for goods and services. If the hon. the Minister were to listen to the wise councillors on the other side of the House, and curtail Government spending drastically, then quite apart from the strategic disadvantages, this could very easily lead to a higher rate of unemployment—a lower rate of employment— a drop in buying power and a drop in the effective demand for goods and services— the same factors which, according to Keynes, were responsible for the depression of the ’thirties. The question is whether hon. members opposite are advocating reduced Government expenditure in order to promote depression.

In discussing the combating of inflation, an accusing finger must not always be pointed at the State, because this is a case where every man should search his own heart. Dr. Wassenaar, who serves on the board of directors of Sanlam recently wrote the following (translation)—

I want to give Dr. Wassenaar my fullest support. I want to emphasize that the effective combating of inflation is to be sought by means of a project of training or education. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please converse more quietly.

Every man, woman and child of every race group must be involved in this. This education project must have one aim only, namely training people to practise judicious and productive consumer expenditure. I believe that television, when it comes into operation, could play a very important role in this regard. Prof. Leon Weyers, chairman of the Co-ordinating Consumer Council, says the following (translation)—

We have moved too far away from the period when the housewife knew exactly what goods she required for the week, when she could give her husband a note to buy 12 lbs. of sugar, 2 lbs. of coffee, one packet of tea, one lb. of salt and a bottle of castor oil when he went to the shop. We have entered the era of the supermarket. The woman goes to the supermarket on a Saturday morning, perhaps, with her husband and children and they are confronted with between 8 000 and 12 000 articles. They take a large wire basket on wheels which they push between the shelves while they carefully look round and put in what looks interesting. It is not a question of what is necessary or what their exact requirements are. There is such a large variety of makes of the same product that confusion is caused. There is no ability to compare prices, nor is there any consumer resistance, because they are confronted with this mass of goods. There is the psychological idea that because there are so many of these goods, they must be cheap. The idea is that because everyone uses them, then they too can use them. Therefore the basket is loaded full of necessary and unnecessary articles. This is injudicious expenditure owing to ignorance on the part of the buyer. It is interesting but tragic to think that every person requires an average of 15 years training to earn money, whereas he does not receive five minutes of training in the judicious expenditure of that money. Injudicious consumer decisions are taken because the purchaser is confused by too great a variety and too many duplicates of the same article. I ask whether we should not consider this matter; whether there should not be a greater degree of rationalization and stabilization. Above all, the consumer must also be trained to resist the extremely seductive influence of advertisements that urge and challenge him to buy all the so-called essential articles. One cannot stop the seller and the manufacturer from manipulating their articles. They are fully entitled to get the articles sold. However, they employ advertising agents who make use of some of the best psychological and scientific knowledge in the world to make their articles irresistible to the public. Before this great scientific and psychological knowledge the buying public is entirely powerless and ignorant as to the technique of buying. They go like lambs to the slaughter. I want to repeat that an important factor in our struggle against inflation is a national training project particularly in the art of buying.

In conclusion I want to discuss of a matter which is not often mentioned in this House. It is more appropriate to the Provincial Administrations. I refer to municipal rates. I raise this matter because complaints are being made throughout the country and by the most responsible section of the population concerning the ever-growing burden of municipal rates. I do not want to insinuate that local authorities such as municipalities and divisional councils are incompetent and impose oppressive taxes, because the fact is that local authorities provide important services and perform a valuable function in our overall domestic economy For example, they provide water, health services, communication and electricity. This makes our urban areas essential strategic and economic growth points, which is a very important facet of our national economy. But the cost of providing these services is rising steadily. Let me give an example. In my own city, Port Elizabeth, I can say that the gross expenditure on the part of the city council amounted to R9,8 million in 1970. In the 1974-’75 financial year the expenditure was already R22,3 million. This means that over a period of five years there was an increase of 127%. Now I want to know who has to pay for this and who has to shoulder this burden. It is only 6% of the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth who have to do this. They are the 33 000 people who own fixed property and they have to pay this large amount to provide for the needs of a population of 550 000 people. Who are these 33 000 people? They are the responsible, the hard-working and the thrifty people in our society. It is they who refuse to be indigent and it is they for whom the State need not provide accommodation. Some of them are pensioners who invested all their savings in property while they were working, and now, in spite of the fact that they do not receive higher pensions, they have to pay higher rates. They are the people upon whom the entrepreneuring potential of our entire community rests. They are the people who stand between our present system and that of a welfare state, and they are the people whom President Ford asked to be protected. We dare not take away the independence of spirit of these people. They are the backbone of our community. They are the people who do not have time to gad about our streets and waste petrol or lounge in hotels and bars, because they work. This is the man who works in his garden and who works on his house. This man is already carrying a very heavy burden. He pays his income tax and high payments to a building society to whom he has to pay interest at the rate of 10½%. Not a cent of that can be deducted for income tax. This is the man who pays for his telephone, for his water and for his electricity. He has a hard time of it, but he sets his teeth because to him it is a matter of honour. Now, however, there is also the onslaught of municipal and divisional council rates. Last year the amount he had to pay was perhaps still R500 while this year it is something in the vicinity of R600. Then he comes to me and states that I am his representative for whom he voted. He requests my assistance. Then I tell him: “That is not my task, thank goodness.” I then tell him that he should consult his representative in the City Council. If I wanted to be malicious, I could tell him that it was his United Party Council that was governing so badly, but I do not want to do that. The man is desperate. He says that I represent his Government and that his Government must see to his interests. He demands protection, because he cannot go on in that way. We must consider two aspects of this matter. The one aspect concerns the State properties in municipal areas. In 1971 the State properties in Port Elizabeth were valued at R59 million. If the State were to pay the same rates as the ordinary man, a further R1,2 million would have been paid to the city council in that year, but in fact, since 1972 the State has only paid a nominal amount of R213 000. The actual rates which the State would have paid this year, based on the valuation of their properties, would have amounted to more than R2 million. If the State were to have paid this amount, it would have afforded substantial relief to the ordinary man, but the State only pays a nominal amount. The 33 000 oppressed people to whom I have just referred have, therefore, to subsidize the State as well. Then, too, there is a second aspect that is intimately bound up with this matter. It is still permitted in the Cape that a second local authority may impose rates within the area of the other local authorities. The municipal ratepayer has still to pay divisional council rates as well. Why should they have to do so? To finance a second set of luxury offices and a second set of highly paid officials.

Why do we have this kind of financing? Why these two local authorities are unable to team up together, is beyond me.

The municipal rate payers in my constituency have reached the end of their tether; they can go no further. Something must be done. The question that will be asked now, is: “What is the solution?” As far back as four or five years ago we decided on a solution for this problem, namely that the Government should be the only body that may impose taxes and that local and provincial authorities may not have those powers. Some formula will have to be found in accordance with which, taxes can only be imposed by this Minister and this Council and not by local authorities. Such a formula has already been found in the case of provincial administrations, which still receive their money although they cannot impose taxes. That formula must be extended to include local bodies as well. Hon. members will ask where the money for municipalities is to come from. Perhaps a form of rates could still exist if it was reasonable and fair, but I think that in this regard we could learn something from America. If one was to buy a watch, for example, in New York, San Francisco or some other place in America and the watch was priced at 100 dollars, the shop assistant would tell one that one would have to pay 7,50 dollars extra in tax. Consequently the public knows what the price of the article is and What he has to pay in tax. I think they have something there. Everyone who wants to buy, has to pay this tax. I believe that the local authorities should be assisted in a similar way. I do not know what the solution is. I am only asking thé hon. the Minister please to investigate this matter without delay and to afford some relief to municipal ratepayers as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa has certain problems with his constituents and he hopes to find solutions in this House. I think there is a very simple solution to the hon. member’s problems. He should simply resign so that another member of Parliament may take over, for then his people will have no more problems. The statement made by the hon. member is a statement one frequently hears, i.e. that services are required without people wanting to pay for them. Of course, this is the problem of the hon. member. He would like the city council to render services for which no taxes should be paid. This really is a fine system he is advocating! [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, since this debate started this week, two events have occurred on which I would like to comment briefly. The first is the question of the announcement concerning the project of uranium enrichment. In this regard I want to say that I think every South African is filled with a degree of pride that we were able to achieve this in our country. I would also like to say that I think the announcement was obviously made at a very propitious time. If anything arises from this announcement, it is I think that people in Africa should be able to see that there are benefits attached to friendship with South Africa, and for that reason alone the announcement was a timeous one.

The second matter I would like to comment on briefly, is the question which was dealt with by the hon. Prime Minister today, concerning the shots that were fired at a S.A. Airways aircraft I think that quite obviously everyone in South Africa is disturbed at this news, although I think that, at the same time, they are pleased that there has been no loss of life and that no serious damage was caused to the aircraft. I think we can also say that, as on previous occasions, we are filled with a degree of admiration for the manner in which the staff of the S.A. Airways conducted themselves. I am referring not only to the manner in which they pilot their aircraft, but also to their ability to remain level-headed at times of stress. However, there is another matter I would draw attention to: I think it would be very dangerous if ill-informed persons were to over-react in respect of this matter. I think this matter needs to be handled with care because, whatever the position, relationships between South Africa and other States should not be prejudiced as a result of the irresponsible actions of a number of individuals. For that reason I wish to issue a word of warning, if I may, against over-reaction by people who may not be in possession of all the facts.

In discussing the Budget, I think if one were to be charitable to the hon. the Minister, one would say to him that his Budget is actually a non-event. If one were to be a little less charitable one would be able to say that it was a flop. The hon. the Minister has set himself two priorities, namely defence and infra-structure. What he has apparently overlooked is that these are spending priorities. They are not actually budgetary objectives within the meaning of ordinary public finance. The authorities on public finance indicate clearly that budgeting is a financial plan, a central instrument of direction and planning. The planning must extend beyond the 12 months in respect of which the estimates of income and expenditure are tabled. The Plowden report on the control of public expenditure saw a budget—

The previous Minister of Finance sought to do this in his last Budget. He set himself as objectives the control of inflation, the improvement of the balance of payments and the encouragement of growth. On his own admission, however, the present Minister of Finance has as his priorities purely spending priorities. We feel that there should be far more dynamic objectives which need to be demonstrated in the Budget; a Budget needs to set out what the financial plan is. For that reason we propose a 14-point plan for South Africa’s economic welfare. If I may I wish to move this in the form of an amendment—

1. (1) there is not only growth of the economy, but growth specifically in those sectors which will give the greatest benefits to the community as a whole;
2. (2) newly created income and wealth will be equitably distributed;
3. (3) the earnings, savings and pensions of the community will be afforded protection against the ravages of inflation;
4. (4) families will be given relief in respect of shortages of accommodation;
5. (5) there will be incentives to encourage foreign investment not only of loan capital, but also in equity;
6. (6) there is real encouragement of productivity;
7. (7) abnormalities and inequities in the system of taxation will be removed;
8. (8) assistance is given in capital formation for investment in productive enterprises;
9. (9) a just system of priorities is determined in respect of public expenditure, and such expenditure is subjected to cost benefit analysis;
10. (10) South African currency and trade are strengthened, further encouragement is given to exports, and steps are taken to improve our balance of payments;
11. (11) meaningful action is taken against consumer exploitation;
12. (12) effective training and education of all South Africans is undertaken with greater speed and determination;
13. (13) conditions safeguarding the internal security and territorial integrity of our country are created by giving a more meaningful stake in the wealth of our land to all its people; and
14. (14) the quality of life of all our people is improved.”.

That would be an objective for a budget to have. It would be a plan on which one could work. The plan which the hon. the Minister has put before this House is purely a plan of spending, and spending in particular directions. The Budget itself has failed to take certain fundamental anti-inflationary measures. As others have pointed out, this is one of the major failures of this Budget. It is, however, not enough only to condemn the Government as certain speakers have done. In fairness, the question has to be asked: What should in fact be done and what would one in fact do if one had the authority and power to do so? If I may I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a quotation from the 1970 OECD report which I think he should take to heart. It reads as follows—

Sir, this is one of the matters which the hon. the Minister might well bear in mind, that you cannot just ignore inflation at these rates and hope that it will go away and that the people will be satisfied if you distract attention from it.

Sir, there are a number of angles from which one can deal with inflation. I want to deal with it, first of all, from the angle of the under-privileged people, with specific reference to the question of subsidies on essential foodstuffs. Sir, this is a major safeguard in respect of the under-privileged, and there is nothing in this Budget to show that there are to be any increases in food subsidies, increases which will make any difference of any consequence whatsoever. On the contrary, in some instances there is in fact a decrease in certain subsidies, and this at a time when it is known that the prices of basic foodstuffs are not only going up, but will go up further, and yet there is no action on the part of the Government in this regard. Sir, when we deal with the question of food, one of the matters that also needs attention is the clean-up of the food distribution procedures in order to reduce costs. When you compare the price that the consumer pays for agricultural produce with the price that the farmer gets, then it is quite clear that there is something wrong with the food distribution system in South Africa that causes these fundamental increases to occur from time to time. The third respect in which the Government has failed is that it has not kept a tight rein over the tariffs and duties and prices which it itself determines. On the contrary, Sir, we have had a steady stream of price increases where the prices are in fact under Government control and about which they have done very little except to increase these prices in order to add to the inflationary pressure.

Sir, a substantial point has been made throughout this debate in respect of the control of public expenditure, and in particular the point has been made that the growth in public expenditure must be below the actual growth rate of the economy as a whole. Put, Sir, one of the matters which we forget is that there is a continuous demand for services which are of a non-productive nature and that the more we have services of a non-productive nature from the Government, the more we will have inflation. It is a matter of simple arithmetic. If a society acting through its Government decrees that the proportion of the total income which is transferred to non-productive sectors is to be increased, the proportion which is left for the producers must decline if the social policies are in fact to be validated. It is quite clear that with an ever-increasing amount going into services of a non-productive nature in so far as Government expenditure is concerned, we can only get more and more inflation, and it is for that reason that one must analyse Government expenditure and that one must not only cut down services of a non-productive nature, but that in regard to productive services one must apply a cost benefit analysis in order to establish whether in fact the benefits to the community as a whole warrant the expenditure at this particular time. Sir, the hon. member for Algoa, who spoke a moment ago, wants to introduce more sales taxes. But in an inflationary situation such as this, Sir, one calls for the abolition of sales taxes; one certainly does not call for the introduction of more sales taxes.

The other matter which I think one cannot ignore in these inflationary times is the relief which should be given to home owners and to people who occupy rented accommodation within certain specified income levels. Here there is an urgent need for attention to be given to matters which the hon. the Minister has overlooked until now. Sir, I should like to refer specifically to the question of accommodation. We have a situation where many home-owners can virtually call out an SOS at this moment of time. The building and the township industries have had extremely difficult times. It is said that housing for Whites is too luxurious and that there needs to be a reassessment. That may be, but what is important at present is that there is a critical shortage of funds, that in respect of the provision of housing a backlog is being built up, that mortgage participation companies’ funds have virtually dried up and that building societies are not attracting sufficient money to be able to grant the loans which are required for housing. In these circumstances it is obvious that the hon. the Minister should do something about investment in building societies and that in particular such things as subscription shares should have their rates of interest increased so as to be able to compete with the Post Office, which now is able to offer 8% tax free on an investment which is only fixed for six months and thereafter is on demand, which makes competition by the building societies extremely difficult. Furthermore, the irregularity of the flow of funds for housing is harmful, not only to the housing industry but also to the building society movement and there should be some State intervention …

Order! Hon. members must refrain from conversing so loudly.

There should be some State intervention in order to ensure that there is a more even flow of money. While everybody is enthusiastic about television, they appear to forget that the purchases of television sets are going to provide an even greater drain on the savings of people, which will in turn affect the money available for housing. Also, we should subsidize mortgage levels to a higher level. The figure of R25 000 would be a reasonable one. The interest up to certain levels paid on a bond in respect of mortgages should be tax deductible and, furthermore, local authorities should be instructed to create fewer obstacles for cheaper housing such as the cluster developments which are taking place, to enable cheaper housing to be provided. The sectional title procedures also need streamlining. The legislation is far too complex at the present moment.

Sir, there are other matters in respect of inflation which we can deal with. I refer to specific matters. There are the incentives to productivity to which we have referred in the past, the action which is needed in order to avoid exploitation of the consumers and to take action against monopolies in a more meaningful manner, the removal of the restrictions on the use of certain labour and a revision of the procedures in regard to wage determinations so that wage determinations can keep up to date rather than have a backlog such as that on the part of 25 of them which exists at the present moment. Then we may well consider that where we have industries at the present moment in South Africa which are in need of help, such as the textile industry, the clothing industry and the furniture industry, the Government should intervene and assist them in order to avoid unnecessary insolvencies and unnecessary unemployment.

There is also a further measure which could be applied in order to reduce inflation, and that is that we could have a reduction in import duties on goods which cannot economically be produced in South Africa and which are therefore no competition to local industry. There is the question which the hon. member for Algoa referred to, namely education in regard to buying, but there needs to be some facility to enable the consumer to go with his complaints not just to newspapers in order to complain against exploitation and matters of that sort; in fact, we should have machinery to enable the consumer legitimately to complain in an easy fashion. The question of home ownership was referred to by the hon. member for Algoa. Home ownership is in fact a hedge against inflation, and one of the problems that exists today, not only in the White community but also in the non-White community, is that that hedge against inflation is not available to the ordinary man and that he is unable to purchase that hedge to protect himself against the ravages of inflation.

But of all the people who are affected by inflation, no one is more affected than those who are living on fixed incomes. The lower income groups are obviously hit in that they have to spend more of their money on food which has gone up at a higher rate than any other item in the consumer price index, but those who are able to work are still with varying ability able to bargain either directly or through their labour organizations for increased wages. Those who are not in employment and who rely on fixed incomes either from pensions which are not adjustable and which do not move with consumer price indexes, or from savings, are unable to do this. These are the individuals who have made provision for their old age and retirement, who are not a burden to the State, who have been and are being robbed by inflation of the purchasing power of their pensions and their savings. Inflation is in a considerable measure the responsibility of the State. The Government is not the only cause of inflation, and I am not one of those who ascribe all the causes of inflation to the Government. But, without doubt, the Government is the one entity with authority which is able to take action, and if it fails to take action, it has a responsibility towards those who have been prejudiced. Also, the Government is the greatest beneficiary from inflation. It borrows good money and pays back cheap money; it collects more in taxes without increasing the rates of taxation; it can print more money; and it can manipulate credit control. If, therefore, the innocent saver and the worker lose, the Government is at least morally obliged to take some action to protect them. This principle has received some support in a decision of the German Bundesarbeitsgericht, the Federal labour court of Germany, which held that pension payable to workers had to be increased even by private firms if the cost-of-living index rose beyond a certain level—they specified a 40% loss in purchasing power—as it was considered by the court that the pensioner has no bargaining power and carries the entire risk of loss of value and is no longer able to work in order to make up his loss. If we look at the South African consumer price index, we find that it has risen from a base of 100 in 1970 to 150,4. For the lower earner, who spends most of his money on food, the index has gone even higher because the index in respect of food has risen to 168,4. In the case of vegetables it has risen to 180,7 and in the case of meat to 201,3. In other words, meat has, in the period 1970 to 1975, doubled.

Whom are you quoting now?

It has recently been established that 80% of White retired persons earn less than R167 per month. If you earn so little, you spend it all on food, on clothing and on shelter. As the rent goes up, your clothes become shabbier or you simply eat less. The aged become the genteel poor. The case for those on fixed pensions and incomes is, therefore, morally a sound one. The Government has, however, an even greater obligation to the saver in his old age. The Government has consistently encouraged people to save and to put aside money for their old age. Cabinet Ministers have said that ours is not a welfare State. They have encouraged people to save and people, by saving, have in fact lost money as a result of listening to Government advice. Secondly, investment in Government stock and other public fixed stock is made compulsory by law for pension funds. To take a simple situation, over a period of five years the Government will pay back a third less than it took. Thirdly, in the booklet on inflation which was issued by the Government and in statements by Cabinet Ministers we were told as long ago as in 1972 and in 1973 that inflation was in fact only a temporary phenomenon which would disappear. In all these circumstances it is the man who lives on a fixed income from his savings whom the Government must assist.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. member may not rather table his speech instead of reading it?

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but he must not read his speech.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is this the Government must either create a savings medium in terms of which there is protection against the erosion of money, or it must create for the pension funds a medium of investment in terms of which they can protect these people against the erosion of their money and their savings.

I want to deal with one other matter, viz. the question that in South Africa today people regard our major problem as being a political one. The need and desire of people to exercise political power is based upon the fact, in many cases, that they seek to improve their economic position. We in South Africa are talking continuously about growth and the need to expand, but do we actually mean that the new growth in wealth and incomes is going to be equitably shared, or is it going to be a case of the rich getting richer and the poor remaining poor in South Africa? It is not enough in the South African political scene merely to say that we must grow. What we need to do is to ensure that we grow in the right sectors and that, in fact, the element of growth which comes about will be equitably shared among the population as a whole. One of the major factors which we need to look at in respect of the future of South Africa is that there should be a fairer distribution in respect of income and wealth. If we do not share more fairly what is to come in the future in respect of new growth there will be demands by those who are have-nots for the existing wealth of the country to be shared out on some socialistic principle or other. But it is quite clear, when we look at the economic development programmes which exist, that nowhere do we talk about how the new wealth is going to be shared. We talk about increasing it, but we do not ensure that we are going to get a reasonable distribution of this new wealth and growth in our society. This is a major problem in South Africa, because you find yourself with a situation where the Whites as a community, whether we hope it will continue or whether we do not, sit with the majority of the wealth in South Africa at the moment. They sit with the bulk of the income and, in fact, pay virtually all the taxation. They sit with all the wealth of the country and do not create a situation where a new society can be built up in which other people will be able to share in this new wealth. The major issue which confronts us …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not answering questions. The major issue which confronts us is how the new growth is going to be canalized in the future. If we insist that there is not going to be a fair division and apportionment of the new wealth and income which will be created, we will find that people will turn in desperation to other means in order to get a fair share of the society they believe they are entitled to have a share in. I believe this is one of the matters we need to pay attention to. We do not only need an economic development plan; we need a capital and labour planning council which will not only ensure the growth, but will ensure it in the sectors where we need it most. We can then ensure that the newly formed increase in South African wealth is distributed in an equitable fashion, that job opportunities exist to avoid unemployment which occurs and that we have a stable society in the future.

There is one other matter I would like to touch on, viz. the question of the increases in the price of petrol. I do not agree with the point of view that has been put here that we can use petrol as much as we like, that the question of using petrol is only a question of fighting inflation or that we should use less petrol in order to fight inflation. With great respect, I hold the view that those who do not agree that we need to keep our stockpiles are not acting in a responsible manner towards the interests of South Africa. Any day you can have a situation, even today while we are able to buy petrol, that the whole situation may change overnight. If the Government did not stockpile and did not see to it that we were adequately protected, they would be acting irresponsibly. In my view, what needs to take place in the present situation is that we need to look at the use of petroleum in a slightly different way. In the first place it is no use suggesting that by increasing the price of petrol less petrol is going to be used. This is one method that has been suggested elsewhere in the world, but all that is going to happen is that the increased prices are going to be passed on even more. All that this means is more and more inflation. Therefore, if we look at this particular increase, it seems that we could have financed the second Sasol from another source. We have to bear in mind that we are likely to get another increase in the price of petrol by virtue of the demands of garage owners who have not been able to make reasonable margins of profit on petrol sales for a considerable period of time. It is another increase which is likely to be passed on to the consumer and which is likely to be passed on in the secondary stage. What is significant is that it is necessary in South Africa today to remove the inflation expectancy. At a time when we hope that inflation may take a down-turn, we are now building in another inflationary pressure which is going to build up as a result of the increased cost of industry over a period of time. If we want to save petrol in South Africa, not only must we enforce the speed limit in the proper manner but we must also, I think, persuade the public that they need to save petrol and save it voluntarily. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville referred appreciatively to the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday about the spectacular achievement of South Africa in connection with uranium enrichment. I appreciate it. However, it is more than a spectacular achievement. It is also a unique achievement. I think it is no less than amazing that one United Party speaker after another stood up here yesterday, but that nothing was made of the opportunity for them to rejoice in South Africa’s achievement and honour. And yet this is a unique achievement which falls to the lot of only a few countries in the world.

Why did you not listen properly?

I did listen and no mention was made of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Allow me to say why the Opposition has been so apathetic in this matter. It is because the United Party with its bitter internal struggle … [Interjections.] … and the unpleasant internecine strife, of which we were witnesses in this House, has become totally unreliable and meaningless as an official Opposition and as a political factor. The United Party still has a little entertainment value, although even that form of entertainment is now becoming boring and hackneyed. Continual reports of resignations and other incidents, tricks and utterances, come from the two camps of the United Party. We must make no mistake, the two camps still exist. The hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who have just sat down next to each other, see to that. Because they remained in the United Party, the two camps exist there. It must make the United Party realize that it has come to the point where it must admit serious and deep-rooted policy differences within its own ranks and fight these out, regardless of who will inherit the soul of the United Party and who will get its carcass.

What does it help to ignore the actual position, as it has developed within the United Party, and to persist with the political fiction of United. Party unity, of how White/Black relations and political arrangements have to be maintained in the future on the basis of the sharing of power by means of a multiracial Government? I shall say more about that later. The painstaking attempts to advocate and propagate policy unity even at this stage, are a continuation of the old U.P. tradition which has had to keep the United Party more or less together through the years in a completely unnatural way. I refer to a so-called policy which could be acceptable to a Streicher as well as to a Basson.

I ask: What does it help to ignore the actual position, as it has developed within the United Party, and to persist with the political friction of United Patry unity? We can ask what the actual position is which has developed within the United Party. We witnessed it in this House. The Press, too, told us about it continually, because the Press did not ignore the facts as the United Party did. Not even the English-language Press ignored the facts. On the contrary. One gained the impression that the English-language Press took a delight and an active interest in the resignations from the United Party and its crumbling in favour of the Progressive Party. That is the actual position within the United Party, and to me it seems to be sick; sick; from within. Therefore I am quite entitled to say that all it has is a little entertainment value, that it has become totally unreliable as official Opposition and completely meaningless as a political factor. When last did we read or hear something constructive or something positive from the United Party? When last did they make a real contribution to South African politics? I ask them when last they made a contribution to South African politics. They do not have time for that. Their people who are resigning one after the other say this themselves and the Press says this. Their leaders deny it, however, because any admission by their leaders that there are deep-rooted policy differences, would have caused the sickly old United Party to have died long ago. The struggle for power within the United Party for candidatures and seats in the previous election, the struggle for power to obtain control over the party and leadership within the party—it is still continuing—would originally … [Interjections.] I do not read my speeches as those hon. members do.

This struggle for power was originally to be fought under an umbrella of ostensibly the same policy. Then the entire United Party was to be led in the direction of the Progressive Party. This last phase has arrived for the United Party. The people who deserted have seen to that, as well as people who share their views who remained in the party.

Because the old guard never wanted to force the fight within the United Party on the real reason of the division—the reason is their policy—the fight was centred on personalities. It was so unpleasant and protracted that a large part of the United Party is within the Progressive Party both, inside and outside this House at the moment.

These facts can serve as a warning to the United Party. This warning is that they must get clarity on their relations policy once and for all because their relations policy, that of the sharing of power based on a multiracial Government, has failed even before it could be tried. Rhodesia offers the sharing of power to its Black people, but they reject it and demand a Black majority government. Now I ask the whole Opposition: What formula do they have which Rhodesia does not have to allow the sharing of power with the Black peoples of South Africa to succeed? I want to tell them that they do not have such a formula. Obviously they do not have the necessary insight and sense to realize that they are involved in the abdication of the White man in his own area through their policy of the sharing of power based on a multiracial Government either. Now one has the situation that the United Party’s policy of the sharing of power is bedevilling attitudes between Whites and non-White in South Africa. One also comes across this in the form which it took in the no-confidence debate when the hon. member for Durban Central referred to the so-called rights of people which this Government had allegedly taken away, such as the rights of Coloureds to go to White universities. These people have their own university now. Is it not better that way? Or is it better to move and to study … as an individual … among a mass of people of other races as an individual who are different to them? Is that supposed to be better? While I, as a White, have my own university of which I am proud, why can the Coloured or the Black man not also be proud of that which is exclusively his own? Why must they try to destroy and undermine that which is their own, the Opposition along with them?

What does Pik Botha say?

You keep quiet! I want to ask the Opposition whether their attitude is aimed at creating national pride among the Black and Brown people or whether it is arousing Black extremism among them? Why do these people insist that that which is created and is to be created for other peoples, should not be used by them? The reason is that the Opposition continually tell them to revolt against it and to insist that they want to participate in that which the White regards as his own.

Practically throughout the world, throughout the whole of history, a struggle has been waged by nations and ethnic groups for recognition of their own identity and the establishment of symbols as proof of such recognition, symbols such as universities, schools and Parliaments of their own. That struggle continues in modern times. I want to mention one example to you; there are many others, but I do not have the time to mention all of them. I just want to quote Cyprus as an example. There Greeks and Turks are engaged in a life or death struggle for no other reason than that which. I have mentioned here.

Here in South Africa, however, it is different all of a sudden, at least according to the Opposition. Here it is suppression of peoples if we create the symbols of recognition for them, symbols of that for which hundreds of thousands of people were prepared to die in the past, viz. the recognition of their identity and sovereignty. Now the symbols which we are now creating for the non-Whites in South Africa, are discrimination all of a sudden. How insane can the world become and the Opposition along with them! Why is this the very attitude of the outside world? Because the Oopposition has been telling the outside world for more than a quarter of a century that the Whites of South Africa are not entitled to their own symbols, too, as any other people is entitled to its own symbols as a recognition of its own identity. We must share these with the Black people and the Black people will eventually destroy these symbols in that they would want to substitute their own symbols for them. The United Party is therefore responsible for the hostile attitude of the world to South Africa, as well as the resistance of the Black people to accept the symbols of recognition of their own identity. The United Party has been initiating this resistance for the past 25 years. One asks oneself whether the Opposition does not realize that their policy contains the seed of revolution. In the first place, their policy of the sharing of power causes a tremendous resistance by the Black people to resist against the existing order. In the second place, that policy will eventually destroy the established symbols of recognition of the Whites’ identity and sovereignty, which will then lead to the Whites striving and struggling for these once again. This is the only outcome for which the Opposition’s policy of the sharing of power, based on a multiracial Government, is heading. This is the only direction in which their policy can lead. Now one has gained the impression that the hon. member for Newton Park has read these warning signals, the signals warning of the surrender of the sovereignty of the Whites by means of the policy of sharing of power based on a multiracial Government, which is actually the policy of the Young Turks.

That is right.

There he is saying that this is the policy of the Young Turks, but the United Party still has the same policy today. The hon. member for Simonstown confirms the fact that this is the Young Turks’ policy. But they still sit with that same policy. There is that division on policy among the United Party. They admit it.

The hon. member for Newton Park even warned against the arising of a new jingoism within the United Party.

Not within the United Party.

Within the United Party. The hon. member’s warnings fell on deaf ears, however. Why? Because the two camps within the United Party did not have the courage to come out into the open and say, “I am a member of the Old Guard; I am a member of the Young Turks”. They hid away from one another. If this is going to remain the rigid and naïve attitude of the United Party, viz. that these two camps avoid each other or hide away from each other, then the United Party will fade away quietly and die without even a little accompanying funeral music. It will no longer be able to live. [Interjections.] Behind us here sits the proof that the Young Turks found it unendurable to sit with the Old Guard in the same party. Those who did not break away, are consuming one another, just as caustic soda does bad fat, especially in the Transvaal where the whole foul-smelling action began.

This presumptuous element within the United Party came up against a National Party and a Government which are on the move with South Africa, and which have brought home all the more clearly that they want to assure a safe refuge here not only for the Whites of South Africa, but also for all peoples of South and Southern Africa. There is no other group or party inside or outside this House of Assembly which offers anything which comes anywhere near this. [Interjections.] What is more the Young Turks and the Progressives actually established only last year what the realities of South African politics were, especially National politics. This experience was terrible. We have proof of it, and they will recover with difficulty. They came to this House of Assembly with great banner headlines and with a loud fanfare. In this connection, the Sunday Times wrote the following on 28 April 1974—it boasted with its horses, but these have since changed into clay oxen—

In respect of this gain of 10000% in quality, one asks oneself when one looks at the opposite side: Who sat there before the election and who is still sitting there? I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In fact, all the frontbenchers are still there. All that I miss there, is a few of the backbenchers from the previous Parliament. If they exchange a few backbenchers for another few backbenchers, and that gives them a gain in quality of 10000%, what did they have in quality before the election? In the meantime those people have deserted them; they are no longer there. One must ask the question: What has become of that quality? According to the Sunday Times, they have less than nothing; they have absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] But let us see what this 10 000% gain in quality of the United Party and the 500% gain in quantity for the Progressive Party which came to the House of Assembly look like. You will agree with me, Sir, that expectations were colossal, and then the mountain brought forth a mouse, a mouse with a fez as another hon. member said during the previous session. In this connection, John Scott wrote as follows on 21 September 1974 in The Cape Times—

They still are, Mr. Speaker.

What do they say about you?

John Scott spoke with a little praise about the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to say immediately that I differ radically from him as far as the hon. member for Edenvale is concerned. He went on to say the following—

This, Sir, is what the 10 000% gain in quality for the United Party looks like. In other words, there is no longer any gain in quality nor any gain in quantity.

Sir, the United Party and the Progressive Party should just continue, respectively with the process of consuming one another in the United Party and with the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission of the Progressive Party on the qualified franchise for the Black people in the affairs of White South Africa, while the National Party, under its Leader, will calmly continue to make a real contribution to peace, progress and development for the whole of Africa, and these are not only the personal words of the hon. the Prime Minister, but his personal triumph as well. All people, White and Black, who wish Africa and its people well, will one day be grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for this, but the United Party will have no share in that, neither in the planning, nor in the implementation thereof, and even less in the gratitude therefor.

Sir, one is left wondering, after the diatribe which the hon. member has just delivered, what on earth it had to do with the Budget. One can only commiserate with the hon. the Minister. He has a party on that side, all of whom are assembled here in phalanx to defend the Budget that he has brought forward, and here we have a member from Parys who is so far off the track that I think he is in the wrong film altogether; he should be in a Western, shooting left like John Wayne and falling down dead and alive. The hon. member has not only written off Rhodesia; he has sent a torpedo to the Prime Minister’s whole policy of détente. He has repudiated everything that ambassador Pik Botha ever said.

That is nonsense.

This is absolutely true. Sir, so far does the hon. member appear to be out of touch with the modern enlightened thinking of the verligte Nationalist Party that we have been seeing lately that I am left wondering whether, if he puts his hand in his bosom, it will still come out White.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a form of economics. I am, as Mr. Douglas Mitchell used to say, a simple farmer, and I would like to bring to the discussion of a Budget like this the simple logic that a farmer would use. Sir, I would like to establish the first stage of what I wish to! say by saying that I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the Budget is a tool that is set to the purpose of developing South Africa in the interests of i all the people of South Africa, Black as well as White. That tool is shaped by the hon. the Minister and by his department. It is shaped year by year, and every year new challenges arise to which the Minister has to adapt himself by means of that year’s Budget. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the Budget that has been introduced this year is really a Budget of “running for cover.” I believe the hon. the Minister has seen something coming from overseas. He has taken notice of the difficult economic conditions overseas and he has decided to run for cover, to put his head down and to rely on gold, and to ride on the back of the reputation of the previous Minister of Finance, Dr. Diederichs. Now he has produced a Budget which I regard as being a “non-think” Budget. It is a Budget which is designed only to hold the pass as it is today and without taking cognizance of the problems which are coming to South Africa in the future. When I say that the Budget ought to aim at developing South Africa not only for South Africa’s sake but for the sake of Africa as a whole, I do so because there is no question at all that the future of this country and of us as White people and our place in history will be determined by the way in which we face the problem which South Africa poses and which Africa outside our borders poses.

I want to say that it is common knowledge, it is agreed between us, that strong growth is essential to maintain rising expectations of the population, of Black people as well as White. I make a particular point of saying that strong growth in this country is necessary also to meet the rising expectations of the youth, the young people and the Black people particularly. Let me say that I believe one of our problems is—in South Africa as well as throughout Africa—that the age group under 25 is increasing in proportion to the total population. Their expectations are rising. They want more; they are faced with this problem that the graph of their expectations is rising but that it is going to meet a graph of population pressure which is going to frustrate all the hopes that they have and that they are building up. I think we must take cognizance of the potential for violence which is generated in the hearts of frustrated youth throughout Africa and also here in South Africa. Economic development and growth are, I believe, the key to White survival, because economic development and growth will be the factors which will open the doors along the corridor, of the future. And every single young Black person in South Africa today is looking down this corridor. We are set in this historical process. It is not something we sought; it is not something we want particularly, yet we face a particular set of historical circumstances. We are set on the scene. As White people we face the challenge that if we are to survive, we have to master and overcome our problems. Sir, let me say that the development which we seek is fueled by people of vision and initiative to invest money to produce goods and services and to create wealth. And may I point out to the hon. the Minister that I see a great danger in South Africa today of people of initiative and purpose, the people who wish to build for themselves, the people who wish to create—if you want to use the word—empires of business for themselves, the people who are responsible for development, being frustrated and not being given the freedom of movement which alone is going to allow this country to grow at the pace at which we want to grow and which our historical situation demands. Wealth and profits are the motive force of the economy; they underlie the efforts of the private individual, and I believe that the private individual is all-important. I also believe it is the primary task of the Government to manipulate the tax system of the country and the economy as a whole in such a way as to create and generate wealth in private hands.

That requires an infrastructure, does it not?

Yes, it requires an infrastructure, but it also requires a climate of thought, a climate of mind, and it requires a Government which recognizes the individual as being all-important and if necessary taking priority over the State when it comes to capital investment and this kind of thing. I will return to that in a minute. It adds up to free enterprise. The hon. the Minister and I are ad idem on this; we both agree. The hon. the Minister’s own words were that we are a free enterprise economy. We are agreed that this is something which is absolutely vital, absolutely essential and that it is the basis of our economy. But I want to say that this is a White concept and I want to make no bones about it. The idea of free enterprise and the individual as opposed to the communal tradition of Black Africa is a White concept. The idea of the individual working in the economy, the idea of work as a means to and end, the idea of Work which was accepted in what the Americans used to call the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethic is something which is a White idea which was brought here by us and which was implanted here in South Africa. The measure of our success is going to be the extent to which we can transplant and graft on to the root-stock of Africa this idea which is essentially alien to Africa. I think that we have got to realize that the encouragement of the individual in this economy of ours should have the highest possible priority. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs to a process which is taking place in the Western world, where Socialism, the idea of the mass, has almost eliminated in many Western countries the idea that the individual has any significance in development, in the political scene, the economic scene or anything else. Even in the churches we are in many cases finding the idea of mass salvation as opposed to the salvation of the individual and I think that is something which is of the utmost seriousness and significance for the whole Western way of life which we follow. I was perturbed to see this as a happening which is going on every day and which is gaining in strength. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter in Western Germany with one of the vice-presidents of the Bundestag who was out here recently. He confirmed what I said, because he said that in Western Germany, which was the last stronghold of the individual in Western Europe, Socialism was sweeping away the rights and the position of the individual on a frightening scale. There is a tremendous danger in Western Europe, which is after all a source of so much of our inspiration, that as a result of this idea of the mass, the idea that everybody has got to have exactly the same thing and that there has to be a tax ceiling on the reward that individual effort can draw, the fuel cells of the economy, the effort of the individual person, is going to be frustrated and so damped down that the economy and the economic system which we follow is not going to be able to persist and to survive. I think that the tax structure mut be so loaded as to give the maximum reward to the individual effort and particularly to new businesses; I believe that young Europe is today looking for countries with that sort of image, where they know that they can go and invest money and where they can by their own individual effort, build themselves up, build businesses for themselves and build a future for themselves which they cannot find in the prevailing economic climate and political climate in Europe. It was my plea to the hon. the Minister and the governing party that we should protect that image and I do not think that we are doing it at the moment. I think that this should be a haven, a place where we can draw—and I say it specifically—young Europe. We want those young people who have their lives to invest and who have the ability and the initiative. There are already many instances in our country of young people who have come from Europe and have developed flourishing businesses and who have made a most worthwhile contribution to the economy of South Africa. I would like to see our country with that image overseas, so that we are able to draw to us people who are absolutely vital to the future and to the success of everything that we are trying to do. What we as White people are basically trying to do, is to create enough wealth here so that there is enough for everybody to share. I think that that effort by the young people, the new people and the new elements we introduce into our economy go a long way towards helping us solve the problem. The hon. the Minister will probably say to me that I talk so much but that I do not give any examples. For one thing I believe that the Industrial Development Corporation, which has fingers in many pies in the economic life of South Africa, might well be induced to float off companies it owns or in which it is a major shareholder and allow those to go into private enterprise. This would do two things. Firstly, it would generate additional income for the Government by way of taxation through dividends which are released into the private sector rather than into the IDC. Secondly, it would also enable the Government to realize a great deal of capital, which is taxpayers’ money and which is today tied up in businesses which can perfectly well be operated by private enterprise. I believe one can well recover a great deal of the capital which the hon. the Minister is raising now by means of a tax on petrol to generate the sort of money he wants to build, for example, Sasol 2. This is what I mean when I say that I want the image of South Africa to be the image of a country which is really based on free enterprise rather than on the intervention of the State. The State is all very well when it intervenes to start businesses and to use its capital resources, but when they are on a flowing basis and they can be sustained, I believe the State has no further part to play in that kind of development and that it should withdraw. The implications for Africa of what we are trying to do in the country are absolutely immense. If we can succeed in inducing in our Black people a wholehearted acceptance of the capitalist idea of the freedom of the individual, the idea of individual initiative, the idea of free enterprise, we will go a long way towards solving a problem which I can see coming in Africa. The problem is simply that where, you have nations in Africa which have nothing to invest, how do you generate development? I want to repeat that you have the rising expectations of the younger generation and the rising pressure of the population on all the available resources. Without capital growth you cannot satisfy the demands of those people. What do you invest? What you invest, and we have already seen it happen historically in Soviet Russia, is the total lives of the population. What a brutal process this is! Anyone who has read The Gulag Archipelago or any of the works of Solzhenitsyn or Dudintser or similar works, will know that the Soviet economic system is operated at the barrel of a gun and by the complete investment of the total lives of the population. People are brutalized by such an investment. They create production. The Soviet Union was the first to put a Sputnik into orbit, but at what cost to the lives of the people? This is one aspect in which I believe we as White people who have a different system and know the power of money invested to generate growth, etc. can make such an example of South Africa that other countries in Africa to the north of us will see that at least there is an alternative to the investment of the total population and that there is an alternative to the forced development which Communism entails.

It is so often inefficient development when you have a group of bureaucratic state planners insisting on norms of production for this and that and the other. Anybody who has studied the new economic programme, etc. in Soviet Russia, will know that it has been totally inefficient. There have been ghastly mistakes and overlapping and other things which would have been avoided under any kind of efficient private enterprise system. These are the polarities of our time and the problems we face. At this moment in history as we stand here we see Africa facing that challenge. What alternative is there to the forced investment of the total lives of the population other than what we are trying to do here in this country? I think one can illustrate the point by looking at what is happening in South Africa and what is happening in our neighbouring country, Mozambique. I believe Mozambique is facing a very parlous economic future indeed. Here is a country from which all the initiative and leadership such as it was, because theirs was not an ideal situation being exploitative in many respects, was suddenly withdrawn. It is a country which is an absolutely barren field. One of the American information service broadsheets came out the other day stating that that was a profitable field for American business to invest in. However, that is a country with virtually no development. They have a very rudimentary infrastructure and transport system, but they want everything. I say there is not enough free and available money in the world today to invest in Mozambique to make it a modern, civilized State within 25 years. To do so is going to take a long time. It must be a strong temptation to the leaders of those countries—I am specifically mentioning Mozambique—to use the system of forced development which Communism lends them, to take their people and invest them, to make them work, to make them deliver the goods, to make them build as happened in China. Enormous dams were built by the back-breaking labour of millions of people carrying earth on their backs. We regard Communism as a great enemy of ours, an enemy of Africa, an enemy of the freedom of the human spirit, which it is, a godless thing, which it also is, but if one has a country like that to develop, I think we have to view the matter sympathetically and say that unless we or others are available to help them, this is the only system they can follow. I would like to think that we in South Africa can offer such prospects to our own Black people that we will be able to present a realistic alternative and help in that neighbouring country to the maximum possible extent. I make no bones about the fact that in my view the reason why South Africa has gone ahead in the way it has is because of White leadership this is perhaps a phrase which has an unfortunate connotation. That is why. It is because there is a big White population in this country with the financial expertise, the knowledge, the financial backing, the ability to raise loans and having the confidence of overseas countries, etc. It is because we are here that the Black people in this country can expect to see the doors in this corridor of the future opening. I think that White strength is also the strength of Black South Africa. We are the hope of Black South Africa. We have got something to offer Black South Africa that no one else in the world can offer, not the United Nations or the United States or anyone else. We have it to offer because we are here. What the White people have to offer is leadership, which boils down to sharing.

Now you must stop. [Interjections.]

Order!

Just listen a moment.

If that hon. member would care to listen, it is just possible that he might be able to learn something. It is just possible.

Do not look at me, I did not say anything.

All right, Cas, you cannot learn anything. If one takes the total wealth in the hands of the White population today and one spreads it out among the population at large, nobody is going to have anything. Our job must be to create enough wealth in this country so that everybody can have enough. When I talk about sharing, that is what I mean. Yesterday the hon. member for Von Brandis said that of the five million people in top responsible jobs in 25 years’ time, three million will be Black. That is what I call sharing. They will be getting high salaries and they will be in a privileged economic bracket. They will be people who will be drawing the maximum benefits from the economic inter-co-operation between Black and White. When I say “sharing” I do not mean that we share what we have with the total population, but I mean that we use what we have to generate enough so that there is a share big enough for everyone. I see the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, nodding his head in agreement. Therefore we are at one and so my hon. friend from Carletonville does not agree with the people on his side.

Mr. Speaker. I haven’t done anything to the man. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the idea of soaking the rich which is so popular in socialist countries and which was used for so many years as a sort of slogan for socialism, is something which we in South Africa cannot afford. I think we have to understand that the small group of entrepreneurs in this country, the people who have created wealth for themselves, as well as those who have inherited wealth, are important and vital for the future of not only the White man but also the Black man in this country. If that message gets across and the hon. the Minister agrees with me, I think I will have achieved what I set out to achieve this afternoon. I want to say that by and large the new wealth that is going to be generated in South Africa is going to go “Blackwards,” if I may use such a word. The new wealth which is to be generated is going to come into the hands of the non-White population of this country because the White man has by and large achieved such a lot today that his margin of improvement is narrowed down. Take the position of Black South Africa, the position of the tribesman, the man who is living in the Transkei. He comes from a society which is communal and tribal and which is not orientated to the system which we are practising in our modern economy. The difference between that man and the man who is living in Soweto and who is modernized is tremendous. It is the biggest difference in the whole Continent of Africa. I have often said that that is the only real revolution we are seeing in Africa. We see a man who is taken out of his old social, tribal system and put down in a new system. The one system is communal while the other is individual. This is the greatest step that is being taken in Africa. It is a permanent change in the status of the individual. I classify that as a revolution in the status of the person. It is permanent here in South Africa and it is our intention and our hope to see it extended throughout the other countries of Africa, as a result of the example we are setting here.

As I said earlier on, the hon. the Minister tends to look at the troubles prevailing overseas. He tended to play it more than safe— I regard it as ultra safe—with this Budget. I think that every economy is cyclical. I read with interest about the position in the United States, where interest rates have fallen so low because there was no demand whatsoever for money in the economy. The position is now beginning to recover; the interest pattern is rising and it is expected that the outflow of capital will be reversed because confidence is recovering in that country. So much, of it depends on the confidence which we have in ourselves. If I may say so, I think the hon. the Minister has let the country down; he did not display the sort of confidence which he should have displayed in this particular Budget. I think the final judgment will be how this Budget has set the scene for the next upswing. It is not a question of holding the pass for today; we must look over the hump to see what is coming. What I hoped the hon. the Minister would have aimed at in the Budget was that he would use this tool to try to create increased productivity in this country with all the means at his disposal, such as education, training, etc., that he would have seen to it that investment of money in this country was undertaken with the maximum return, and that, if necessary, he would even, for a period, scrap any kind of ideological investment he may be making. At this particular stage he could well have afforded to do so, namely to invest with a view to maximum return and to see that the personal incentive is maximized for the people whom we may call the fuel cells of the economy in this country in order to make absolutely certain that the incentive for growth exists, that the people who are going to do it are not put off as I have heard time and again from people with whom I have discussed these matters. The people say it is not worth-while working any harder. They say that even if one has a business going and one is quite capable of branching out into another, diversifying or taking over another business, it is not worth it, because one is merely working for the Government. They say the additional taxation which would accrue would be so great that one’s personal gain from it would not be worth the effort which it demands. I think that this is probably the most serious aspect of all. I would like the climate in this country to be such that the individual is able to maximize his own personal efforts and work for a maxium return without having so great a tax burden placed on him that it leads him to say: “It is not worth-while working any harder than I am doing”. As soon as that becomes the situation, we are starting to turn down the energy on which this tremendous economic development is running, development that has such potential for both Whites and Blacks in South Africa and for Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the speech and the contribution made by the hon. member for Mooi River have really been a very refreshing sound among the other sounds we have heard from the other side of the House. Allow me to congratulate him on this at once, unless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that I need not do so, that it is not necessary. I agree with many aspects of the philosophy which he advocates. If time allows me, I shall come back to several points made by him.

I want to begin by making a brief statement to the House in respect of the establishment of Sasol 2. I want to give a serious warning at this stage against land speculation and expectations of profit in this particular regard. When the approval for the erection of Sasol 2 was announced in December 1974, it was also announced that the exact siting of the coal mine, and consequently of the plant itself, on the coal fields of the Eastern Transvaal highveld would depend on the results of further geological investigation and surveys. Even at that stage it was disclosed that these investigations should be completed during the first half of 1975. This is still the expectation, in spite of the heavy rains which have delayed the drilling work. It is known that Sasol has owned coal rights in the areas concerned for many years, but nevertheless there were still quite a number of farms with coal potential within the area on which these rights had not yet been obtained. Since the announcement of Sasol 2, therefore, it has been necessary to take coal options at various places. Sasol has also taken area options at several places within the region in order to enable it to undertake further expansions and to obtain land within the area for the siting of mine-shafts and for factory and township purposes. Even at this late stage further area options are still being taken in accordance with this policy. Two large and six smaller towns are situated within the boundaries of the coalfield concerned. However, I want to give a serious warning even at this stage that persons who want to speculate with land at any of these towns which are situated in the vicinity of Sasol 2 will be running a great risk, for the fact that Sasol takes options at certain places does not mean that Sasol 2 will be established there at all.

But what does it mean then?

I shall tell you in a minute. I can explain it to the hon. member, but I cannot give him the sense to understand it. Although it is not my intention to deprive towns of any possibilities of growth, I do want to point out, further to this warning, that it is important for land investors to take cognizance once again of the uniqueness of the oil-from-coal project on which we are presently engaged. In the first place, as a result of rapid escalation of costs, unnecessary delays would we fatal to such a project. A housing shortage, for example, may be one of the most important reasons for delay. For this reason such an enterprise cannot depend on outsiders or other bodies for the provision of housing or residential plots. Because no buildings must we erected on land which contains coal, because the siting of satellite and principal industries must be integrated, and because scientific account must be taken of ecological considerations, it is absolutely essential for the whole complex to be planned as a self-supporting unit from one central control point. The implication is quite clear that people could prejudice their own interests if they were to be misled by potential development under these circumstances.

Now I should very much like to come to the Budget itself. I know I should be neglecting my duty if I were not to congratulate my hon. colleageue, Senator Horwood, on his first Budget. I think it is common knowledge that he has the academic background, the general knowledge and the expertise to make a great success of bis new office; I want to wish him all the best in this.

For many reasons I had been looking forward to the speech of the hon. member for Constantia because I believed, amongst other things, that he could make a meaningful contribution and that he could do so without any effort if he were to apply himself to this task, because he has knowledge of the subject. The hon. member will forgive me if I say that I was disappointed in his contribution With the exception of the hon. member for Mooi River, the approach of the hon. official Opposition has been quite transparent. The Opposition had to support the hon. member for Constantia with a cheer commando when he made his speech. In this process the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was really the echo which had to supply the sound every now and again. I must say that the hon. member for Constantia does not need this.

There are three main characteristics which are very clearly reflected in the approach of hon. members in their criticism of the Budget proposals made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The first characteristic —and although this is understandable, it is hard to forgive—is the reckless disregard of the national interests in their approach. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Von Brandis is the last one who should react, because I am thinking of him specifically in this particular regard. But I shall come to him. Sir, the second characteristic of the approach of these hon. members is their superficial analysis of the economic circumstances under which these Budget proposals have been formulated and submitted, and the third one is the blatant exploitation on the other side of what they consider to be consumer reaction to rising prices. Sir, I want to tell hon. members on the other side that it is very easy to come along and to say in this House that inflation consumes wealth and that it affects the lower-paid people more than others. Surely, Sir, that is a platitude, and we are not here to exchange platitudes, after all. We are here to find answers.

Sir, let us take the hon. member for Constantia. What was his main criticism against the proposals made by the hon. the Minister? He says that this Budget really has two main objectives, namely the increased expenditure on defence on the one hand and the creation of infrastructure on the other. He says that having identified these objectives, he draws certain negative inferences, and what are the negative inferences which he tries to draw and then tries to prove? He says that the Minister is ignoring certain other important objectives. He says the Minister is ignoring the stimulation of the country’s growth rate. In the second place he says that the Minister is ignoring the responsibility of the State to combat inflation, and thirdly he says that the hon. the Minister is ignoring the fact that he is responsible for relieving the burden of the people who are affected most by inflation. I take it that the hon. member agrees with me that I am giving a correct summary of his criticism. He then goes on to accuse the State in the first place in regard to the increased expenditure on defence. The hon. member shakes his head, but he did so merely by stating that this Budget represents an increase of 19% in Government expenditure. If he had not agreed that defence required special treatment, he would have removed that particular component from the Budget, and if he had done so, he would have found, in the first place, that the increase in Government expenditure is not 19%. In fact, it was not even necessary for him to take any trouble in this regard, because the hon. the Minister has already taken it for him. Sir, hon. members on the other side are entitled to criticism—there is no doubt about that—and they are entitled to criticize the National Government, but I want to warn them repeatedly that they must not allow their disapproval of the National Government to outweigh the national interests of South Africa. I address this warning to them in all seriousness, because inferences are to be drawn not only from what I say, but also from what I omit to say. The fact remains that Government expenditure minus defence is not being increased by the percentage mentioned by the hon. member this year.

Sir, let us go further. The hon. member alleged, in the first place, that we were ignoring the objectives of growth. But surely the hon. member is an economist and a practical person. He has been in business himself and he should know that the Budget cannot be seen from the viewpoint of short-term objectives only.

Sir, I think that this is a convenient time to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.