Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I had the opportunity to express thanks and appreciation to the State President and Mrs. Fouché on behalf of our parliamentarians. This was done by way of what I thought was a very impressive and dignified function, and I do not think it is inappropriate to express in passing, on behalf of us all, our thanks and appreciation to the Government departments that were responsible for it.

Hear, hear!

I do not want to reiterate now what I said on that occasion, but I do want to place on record once again, in a few words, that there is great appreciation not only on the part of members of Parliament, but also on the part of members of the public for the manner in which the State President, assisted in an unsurpassable manner by Mrs. Fouché, carried out his duties over the years. He served with great distinction in the various capacities indicated in this motion. One is grateful that the traditions of the Republic have been so well established by our first two State Presidents, and that it is possible to build on these traditions for the future. I believe that history will also accord a special place to President and Mrs. Fouché in that regard. Since they are now to retire owing to the expiry of their term of office it is most certainly with our sincerest and very best wishes that we take leave of them. I think all of us pray that they will receive the grace of Almighty God in the years which lie ahead.

In this regard one is also grateful that there is a manner in which permanent honour may be paid to a State President. We established that tradition in respect of President Swart, and it is also the intention to allow it to continue in respect of President Fouché. Therefore it gives me very great pleasure to announce that whenever a person relinquishes the office of State President, consideration will be given to paying lasting homage to him. There is probably no more appropriate and lasting a manner of doing this than to utilize the coins of this country for this purpose.

It is traditional in the history of nations, and also in that of our own, that one of the greatest honours a nation is able to confer upon an individual, is to reproduce his likeness on a national coin. Consequently it has been decided that all coins from ½ cent to 50 cents, issued during 1976, will bear the effigy of State President J. J. Fouché. Mr. Speaker, I think that all hon. members will agree with me that this is a worthy manner of paying tribute to a worthy State President.

Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to associate ourselves with the words which have just fallen from the lips of the hon. the Prime Minister, and pay tribute to the work done by the Honourable the State President during the past seven years. I think it is fitting that tribute should be paid to him in the manner announced by the hon. the Prime Minister relating to the coins of South Africa.

†Mr. Speaker, the State Presidency is a comparatively new office in South Africa, which must necessarily include some of the traditions and some of the customs which are common to that high office of head of State in other countries of the world. It is also an office that is, I believe, especially assuming a South African character, and I believe that that character is rooted in our own aspirations, our own way of life in South Africa. I believe that these special characteristics are not ones that can be prescribed by protocol or by suggestions from the Government. I believe they depend on the personality of the individual who occupies that office. I believe that each of our Presidents will make his own imprint, will leave his own legacy to his followers, as to what the office of President should mean. I believe that our present President has left a particular legacy, a legacy connected with his own personality, his own family life, his own beliefs, his own background. I believe that he has given us something which is a special adornment to the office of President. I think there has been his simplicity and his modesty. This is the style of a truly noble spirit. I believe, Sir, there has been something else; there has been his conscientiousness and his determination at all times to do his duty in the way in which he thought it should be done. I believe it has been his blessed sense of humour which has brought something to this office which one can only hope and pray will continue in the future. Then, Sir, I believe there has been something else; there has been his example of family life and the example that he and his wife have set the people of South Africa as a couple doing a job together and doing it in the interests of South Africa. Then, lastly, Sir, there is something which I do not suppose is known to those who do not know the President well: I believe he is a very godly man. I believe he has a sincere belief, and as such he has been an example to all of us here in South Africa. I second.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have great pleasure in associating ourselves with the motion which, has been introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister. We and others around South Africa have come to know that Mr. Jim Fouché brought to the office of State President an integrity, a dignity and a competence which you would expect from a South African holding that high office. He and his good lady have brought to that office certain other qualities, qualities which were peculiar to them—a special brand of personality. Mrs. Fouché was gracious and charming. Mr. Fouché brought to this office a warmth, a friendliness and a humility and, I believe, above all a very human touch. In a sense he was an ordinary South African holding the highest office in our country. It was these qualities of warmth and human personality that I believe endeared the State President to the wider South African community. It is for this reason that many South Africans will remember him not only as the State President of the Republic of South Africa but also as Oom Jim. We have pleasure in associating ourselves with the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate those who sit on these benches with the sentiments expressed in the motion and should merely like to add that I believe that the service which President Fouché has rendered to all sections of the community has not gone unappreciated.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was making certain general statements. I am under an obligation to hon. members on the opposite side and to this House as a whole to substantiate the allegations I made in respect of the criticism expressed by hon. members. This means that I cannot reply to the speeches in any detail.

I want to turn immediately to the hon. member for Von Brandis, for when I made the statement that there was a blatant and reckless disregard of the national interest, I had the hon. member for Von Brandis’s speech specifically in mind. Sir, I shall— and I give the undertaking—react in full under my vote to the general tenor of his speech, but I would be neglecting my duty if I did not react immediately to the spirit of his speech. Not only does he make statements which virtually have no substance whatsoever. He also associates himself with one of those things, with which, I believe, political leaders should not associate themselves, and that is, specifically, to become a mouthpiece of people who do not readily accept discipline. Obviously it is true that the measures which were introduced to save petrol are irritating. Obviously it is true that there is often unfavourable reaction to them. Obviously it is true that these are not popular steps. But in the last resort the test is not whether they are popular; in the last resort it is not whether they are iritating. In the last resort the test is whether they are in the national interest.

The test is effectiveness.

I want to ask the hon. member for Von Brandis whether, when in his opinion there was a real shortage, he associated himself in public with the measures which were taken to bring about conservation. I want to ask him whether he can refer me to any public statement by any authoritative speaker on his side of the House who associated himself with the Government’s action in the national interest on this specific facet.

I shall answer you.

Sir, I want to go further. All I can remember is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because—so he alleged—he had been wrongly informed, said that we should use our reserves. But I have a few questions which I want to put to the hon. member for Von Brandis. Does he expect us to disclose the extent of our supply? Does he expect us to disclose the source of the supply? Does he expect me to speculate about the long-term sources of fuel supply?

Did you not read my speech?

Sir, the hon. member has had a chance to speak. He can react again to what I have to say now during the discussion of my Vote.

You cannot understand the hon. member’s argument.

No, Sir, it is not I who could not understand it; it is the hon. members on the opposite side who are not motivated in the national interest. That is what is at issue, [interjections.] That is not the only irresponsible standpoint which the hon. member for Von Brandis has adopted. The hon. member did not even do the elementary exercise of checking the facts. We do not publish the figures in respect of petroleum imports. These are not published, but he mentioned a percentage in respect of these imports. Sir, it goes much further than that. There are certain sensitive areas where one has to have a feeling for their sensitivity, in the national interest. It is a fact that the Government takes the general public into its confidence on these and various other matters, when this does not militate against the general interests of the Country. To make that judgment is the responsibility of the Government, I think, because it is best able to judge, and because it has the best information at its disposal to be able to judge. However, there are certain matters on which the public cannot be informed, not because the public is not worthy of this confidence, but because the information does not remain confined to our public, and may therefore come to the ears of those who are able to use that information against South Africa. I ask this question now: In discussing this subject, are we not dealing with one of the sensitive and strategic commodities of which information of this nature and its publication could be to our detriment? What is the hon. member for Von Brandis doing now? In such a situation he does not ask for information privately, or in public to which. I can react. He makes the most irresponsible speech which I have yet heard in this House. [Interjections.] He does not do this to obtain information. He does it to launch an attack that has only one object. The object is not to discuss our energy situation in a meaningful way, but to use the irritations which he sees on the part of the consumers of fuel, for a party which in any case has no energy to attain any heights at all. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member can be sensitive, but I want to tell him that I resent what he did. But, Sir, let us go further. It is said that there is a tiger in their tank, but I should say that there is a tiger somewhere else, and I am not certain whether it is in the tank.

You are being ridiculous now.

It is as a result of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s interpretation of what is ridiculous and what is not ridiculous. That he sits there with dwindling numbers before him and diminishing talent behind him. But, Sir, hon. members go further. Their standpoint, in respect of which I accuse them of disregarding the national interest, does not stop here. It goes further, in the first place through the questioning by the hon. member for Constantia of whether there is any necessity at all for commencing a second Sasol, whether, if we do commence it, we should finance it in this specific way. I hope that I shall have time to discuss the financing aspect. I remind myself of other occasions when the hon. members on the opposite side adopted similar standpoints when this side of the House took steps to safeguard South Africa in the long term in various spheres.

That applies to Sasol 1.

Yes, that applies to Sasol 1, but I did not want to draw up a list. I want to say that the record of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House in this specific connection is not one which I should want to display, if I were them. It is a fact that although South Africa is in general not so dependent on these products for its energy purposes as other countries are, its transport system is to a very great extent dependent on these products. Is it not true that this element in the infrastructure is of cardinal importance for the continued economic growth of our country? Is it not in our general interest that we should reduce our dependence on this commodity—which is often used against countries, including our own country, as a political weapon, especially because we have no control over the sources? I should think …

Who is denying it?

The hon. member for Constantia said that we should not start a second Sasol.

Nonsense!

Of course he said that. Let us go further. The hon. member for Constantia accuses the hon. the Minister of Finance of allowing the emphasis in his proposals to fall on defence and on the creation of infrastructure, while he ignores other needs. Surely no economist, no businessman can agree with such an argument. Surely the fact that preference is given to certain priorities at certain times does not mean that the others are being neglected. Surely it only means that certain of those priorities are being singled out for special treatment.

I want to go further. Is it not a fact hat the expenditure of funds for basic services is also a way in which economic growth can be built up in the long term? Does the fact that there is creation of infrastructure to a great extent not mean that it is a component which eventually has to bring about increased production? Is it not a fact that hon. members on the opposite side of the House have already, as a result of our higher growth rate during the past two years and as a result of the bottlenecks which have arisen in the infrastructure and in the basic services, complained about the fact that those shortages have arisen? Let us take it further. Is it not also true that when we spend funds on the creation of infrastructure and allow the emphasis to fall on this instead of on the creation of capacity, we are still ensuring economic growth in that way? Surely the specific sectors in the economy which are now being singled out for special treatment, are also sectors which make a contribution, and a large one at that, to the economic growth of our country. Why do the hon. members then level the accusation that no provision is being made for economic growth in the Budget? On the contrary. A Government which does not preserve a proper balance between the creation of infrastructure and the creation of capacity, is surely not carrying out its responsibilities in a meaningful way. This is surely something which is essential for balanced economic growth.

The second argument which the hon. member for Constantia used, relates to the quantum, the extent of State expenditure. I have already argued this point with him. But he also spoke about inflationary financing of expenditure. What did he say? He said that we should not finance in an inflationary way. No one can argue with him about the correctness of that general statement which he made. But what is his standpoint when it comes to the financing of the second Sasol? He said we should not finance it by means of a duty on fuel and therefore burden the consumer with it, but should finance it by means of loan funds. Now I ask him this: If he argues on the one hand that we should not finance State expenditure with money which has not yet been earned—i.e. loan funds—why does he want to finance the second Sasol from that specific source? In the second place: How does he arrive at the conclusion that the financing of the second Sasol will come from this specific source only? In the third place, he knows that there cannot be talk of economic growth in real terms in South Africa if we do not maintain a sound balance of payments on current account. Has the hon. member calculated in general terms what the saving in foreign payments for South Africa will be in the long term when the second Sasol is completed? He never asked for that. The problem which I have—and I find it really serious—is that hon. members on the opposite side express criticism here, which they have every right to do, but do not even want to undertake the kindergarten operation of learning the A B C of the matters they discuss. What is more, they make statements in this House which I find difficult to understand, how they succeed in arriving at that sort of truth. [Interjections.] I am glad that there is a concurring chorus for the remark I have just made. I want to repeat: They make statements which make it difficult for me to understand how they succeed in associating with that sort of truth.

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

No, Sir. The hon. member can raise the question during the discussion of my Vote if he wants to. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to react to some of the points the hon. the Minister has made and, with your permission, Sir, also to some of the points which, perhaps, he ought to have made. We are of course very interested in this particular Minister because he is in charge of the supporting ministry of Economic Affairs. There is therefore a very close link with the Ministry of Finance. According to newspaper reports he is also a very prominent candidate for the position of Minister of Finance. Certainly, if precedent is followed, he is the next in line for that post. If we have to judge his performance by the semi-hysterical outburst we got from him today, all I can say is that it does not augur well for the future.

I do not want to say too much on this, but I want to refer just briefly to the question of oil and petrol. The hon. the Minister makes the point that we must not release any information regarding oil supplies because if we do, we shall be passing it on to our enemies overseas.

I did not say that.

Well, what is the hon. the Minister trying to say then? He said we should not release this information because other people would use it against us. I want to ask him why Holland which is in the same position, releases information of all their oil supplies and requirements to the nearest thousand barrels? Can the hon. the Minister tell us why the United States of America, which is certainly in a much more difficult strategic situation than South Africa is, release information about their supplies? I shall tell him why. Any intelligence service in the world that knows at all how to go about its job, knows all about the oil situation in any event. When I was in America recently, I asked the South African agricultural technical attaché there whether he could give us any information on the mealie crop in South Africa for the coming year. What was his answer? He said:“When I want that sort of information, I get it from the Americans because America’s satellites circle the earth every two hours and they know exactly what South Africa’s agricultural produce will be.” Does this hon. Minister not think that the intelligence services of the world monitor every single tanker and know where it is? It just shows how very little this hon. Minister knows of what is happening in the world. I can tell him that they know precisely how much oil we are getting in. The argument we advanced was that our people are likely to take greater interest in the exhortations which come from the Government to save fuel if we give them the facts. But to say that my leader had said that we must use all our reserves and use the petrol for joy-riding is absolute rubbish.

You said it.

Does the hon. the Minister not accept my explanation which has already been made in this House by my hon. leader? He said the Government must consider using the strategic reserves for economic purposes. What do you want to do with all that oil being stored in the mines when our economy may come to a standstill? We cannot deal with an hon. Minister if that is the kind of information he has of what is happening.

There are two ways of looking at a Budget. I was very interested to see how this hon. Minister approached it. The first way, is to look at the accounting side, because here you have a balancing exercise. After all, in a sense the Minister of Finance acts as the State accountant. Here we have the state of solvency of our nation. Obviously, if one deals purely with the financial and economic implications one looks at the accounting side of it. This is something which most of us normally shy away from, because we are not familiar with all the different concepts and terminology. We leave it to the economists, although I find in many cases that these economists are entirely self-styled, but be that as it may.

Are you one?

I do not talk about myself, but I am going to talk about the hon. the Minister of Finance just now and I shall have great pleasure in doing so. The hon. the Minister did not refer to that side of the Budget at all. I assume it was because he did not see himself in the role of an economist.

The second way of looking at a Budget, which I think one could have expected from a Minister of Economic Affairs, is to try to determine the effects of this Budget upon his own department, upon economic growth and upon the whole economic situation in the country. Do we for example have any idea of the impact of some of these budgetary decisions upon our economy? Right at the moment in South Africa where you site your factory and whom you employ are no longer pure business decisions. They are decisions which are regulated by the Government. If the Government were to decide that we must aim at a growth rate of 5% instead of 6% it makes a difference of millions upon millions of rand in our national income. Those are the issues we would have expected that hon. Minister to look at in this Budget. But what did he do? He made an announcement about the second Sasol then gave a long eulogy of the Minister of Finance and told us how well qualified the latter was. For years we were accustomed to new members in the House thanking the Minister. That was part of their brief. In fact, even frontbenchers very often did it when they were in line for promotion. But now we have an amazing situation where we even have one Minister thanking another Minister. [Interjections.] That shows the state we have reached in South Africa.

We expected much from this Budget, because we are at a critical stage in the economic development of South Africa. We have a new Minister. In days gone by, when he was in the academic field and had less reason to be biased and people took notice of him he was very outspoken in his criticisms of the existing economic structure. Here was an opportunity for him to change it all and so we looked forward to great things from him. Then came the Budget, a complete anti-climax and the biggest non-event of the year. One can describe this Budget in three words: Unimaginative, undistinguished and uninspiring. It is a major admission of defeat and the most charitable thing I can say about this Budget is that this hon. Minister could not have been responsible for it and could not have drawn it up. After all, he was put into the position only a month or two before the Budget speech had to be delivered. I think the most charitable thing we can say is that somebody did it for him and that he merely had to take it over. Therefore, he is not the father but at best the godfather of this budget.

We made two important points in our whole approach to it so far. We asked firstly: What about inflation? For years, whenever inflation touched the 4% mark in this country, our Minister of Finance had sleepless nights. We used to joke about the fact that inflation ran into double figures in South America. But in South Africa too inflation has consistently now for several years already been running into double figures. What did we get from the hon. the Minister as far as inflation is concerned? This is what he said—

That is the kind of way in which one might refer to one’s mother-in-law. As a Minister of Finance one should certainly not deal with inflation as if it is of no consequence to you. But we not only said that inflation was high, but also that it was even going to get worse and everything in this Budget points to the fact that it is going to become worse. We also say that this is largely due to Government spending.

We must look some of these facts in the face. The increase in Government spending over the past five years has—except for 1972 which was lower—either touched the 20% mark or exceeded it every year. Over the last five years the increase in Government spending on the average has been 18%. This means that Government expenditure will double itself every five and a half years. Is that not something to become worried about? The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should be concerned about this. He, however, makes no reference to it whatsoever. The EDP planners have indicated quite clearly that South Africa’s resources are not of the kind that we can sustain a higher rate of growth in both the public and the private sectors. What is happening with this higher rate of Government expenditure? It means that the secondary industries, the secondary sector, was being pushed into the background as the pacesetter in the economic field in this country.

One of the main reasons for the increase in Government expenditure is defence. I would also like to say a few words on this score.

Are you oppose to it?

Every time we mention defence spending there is a cacophony of voices from the other side inferring that we on this side of the House are unpatriotic. I want to say right away that I do not concede to any gentleman on that side a monopoly as far as patriotism is concerned. In fact, when that hon. member and others were drilling with wooden rifles on the slopes of Pappegaaiberg behind Stellenbosch during the war, some of us on this side of the House knew how to do our duty. Let me say immediately that when I mention this, I am not suggesting that we should not have defence expenditure. We are, however, getting sick and tired of the reaction from that side of the House, I do not know where the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is now —he has disappeared—but I would like to refer to what he said yesterday. I quote from his Hansard what he said when he referred to the hon. member for Constantia—

Mr. Speaker, here we have an amazing situation. One cannot even mention the fact that defence expenditure has gone up without it being said that one is criticizing the Government. What sort of attitude is this? From this hon. the Minister, who is not with us now, we also had this wonderful little bit of fiscal wisdom—

What are we concerned with here? The R1 000 million earmarked for defence must now be taken out—20% of the total Budget should not be put in; it must be hidden under the carpet somewhere. Is that really the kind of suggestion that comes from that side of the House? I want to say that we must not try to bluff the public. The public will not be bluffed on this score. Let us be honest with them. When you spend R1 000 million on defence, it is a massive amount, because this is the total amount which we collect in excise duties, in customs duties and from sales tax duties every year from all the people in South Africa. Sir, do you know how much the Government collects? For every packet of cigarettes that you buy, more than half goes to the Government, for every beer that you buy, more than half goes to the Government, and for every litre of petrol that you buy, more than half of the money finds its way into the Government coffers, but this is the amount that we are concerned with here. What I find so tragic also is that in this particular year of détente, when the hon. the Prime Minister is moving out into Africa with this great gesture, instead of getting an understrutting and supporting operation from the hon. the Minister of Finance in so far as the African States are concerned, what do we get? The biggest hike in defence expenditure in the whole history of South Africa. [Interjections.] It had its impact immediately at the OAU, where they got up, made speech after speech and said, “You talk about dialogue with …” [Interjections.)

Order!

At the OAU speaker after speaker got up and said, “You are talking about dialogue with Vorster, but look how he is arming himself to the teeth.” That was their reaction. [Interjections.] Defence expenditure is necessary, but let us not bluff ourselves. It is unproductive in the sense that today what you have to spend in buying one tank could buy nearly 100 tractors. Think of the impact on our economy if we had that kind of money to devote to that kind of productive entity. I am not saying that we must not spend money on defence; on the contrary, with the position that exists at the moment and is being created by this Government, we must spend money on defence, but let us not bluff the people. Another way of bluffing them, that has so frequently come from that side of the House, is to use statistics which minimize the effects of this expenditure. So, for example, we are told that we only spend R40 per head on defence yearly in South Africa. We are told that in comparison with America and other countries, this is infinitesimal. This might be so, but there is a much more meaningful way of looking at it, and that is to say that South Africa spends R230 per head of taxpayer yearly on defence, and that is exactly the same figure that the Americans have with their immense international commitments. What we are sick and tired of is that every time that we mention anything about defence finance, we must be subjected to this kind of tirade from people who do not know what is at stake. It is easy to talk about being patriotic when you are stupid and do not know what is involved.

What we are equally concerned about in this whole issue of spending is that this Government—as has been indicated by the hon. member for Johannesburg North— has created the completely wrong psychological atmosphere. You get exhortations from the hon. the Prime Minister, telling our people not to ask for salary increases, but a Government must lead by example and not precept. The reaction at the moment is that if the Government can spend so much, why do we have to tighten our belts?

There is the important second feature of economic growth and I would have expected this hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, who is still not with us and who is apparently not interested, to have taken a keen interest in that, because the record is deplorable. Over the last five years our average growth rate has been 4½%. Is the hon. the Minister happy about that? Is that the situation that he wants as Minister of Economic Affairs? But everything is being eulogized and overshadowed by the high growth rate that we had last year. The hon. the Minister of Finance talks about a boom. Sir, this must have been a very rapid boom. It came so quickly that it passed by before anybody could really see it. We had a high growth rate last year because of two important facts. We had a high growth rate firstly because of our high agricultural output but, Sir, this is not going to remain so. Already there are indications that the wool cheque this year is going to be some 30% less. But, we also had a high growth rate because of gold sales, and here we are going to pick up winds from in front too. There is every indication that the gold price is not going to remain as stable as we thought it would. I think that the Government ought to consider a stricter form of regulation of supply of our gold to the outside world so that in this way we can stabilize the international market. De Beers did it years ago as far as the diamond mining industry was concerned. If they had not done this, the whole bottom would have dropped from the diamond market. I see no reason why we cannot do it in the field of gold.

Sir, we are not going to get growth in this country at the moment, for good reasons: Growth comes from two important factors; it comes from business confidence and investment and both of these are lacking. As an indication of business confidence, look at the Stock Exchange, as keen a barometer as you can get of business confidence. Our shares are standing at historically high yields and nobody is buying them. And do not be bluffed for one moment by profit patterns, because companies are declaring profits that are highly inflated, and in most cases companies are running down their inventories, which is just another sign of lack of confidence; so confidence is on the wane, but there is an absolute dearth of investment funds, and that is why more and more companies all over South Africa have to turn to short-term financing and put themselves at the mercy of the money-lenders, of the banks, at a time when their credit-worthiness it is at its lowest ebb. But the Minister shows no concern about this. The Minister of Economic Affairs does not even make mention of it. Instead of helping industry, the Minister of Finance comes and syphons off another R48 million. If I were Minister of Economic Affairs, I would have had sleepless nights. [Interjections.] If any of those hon. gentlemen had been Minister of Economic Affairs, I believe that they should have had sleepless nights and I will tell them why. In a nutshell, you have a pattern of declining growth. Total productivity, total output, in South Africa at the moment is declining. Factory output is only going up by 6%, and when you have that kind of pattern, you are not going to get anything like the growth rate you are talking about.

Did you say that total output was on the decline?

Yes, I said so, and I said that factory output was going up by 6%. Firstly then you have a declining output; secondly, you have erosion in money values and, thirdly, you have tight liquidity, but instead of helping industry, what does the hon. the Minister of Finance do? He comes and syphons more money away. And do not rely on previous standards, because the whole situation in Southern Africa has changed dramatically. With the developments in Angola and in Moçambique, our output and our efforts in the economic field in general will in future have to be infinitely greater than they are at the present time.

Sir, I have dealt only with those two aspects. What is of great concern to us also are the other limitations in this Budget, because the Budget is supposed to under-strut and support your national policies. As I have said, here we have the great year of détente. This would have been a wonderful opportunity for the Minister of Finance to have supported that outward movement, to have given it impetus. There are so many things that he could have done. He could have announced new technical and financial aid to African States, or if he did not have the money now, at least he should have made mention of it. He could have provided the framework for a massive export—import drive. That is how you establish goodwill. He could even have taken a simple step such as inviting African States to send their students to some of our South African universities. That is what Australia did years ago. It cost Australia practically nothing. You can go anywhere in the Far East today, and you will see the tremendous amount of goodwill that there is towards Australia. But what happens? There is not a word in his Budget about this. Instead, he read out to us here a sort of academic treatise that is suitable for presentation at an institution for higher learning. What he gave us was completely divorced from the realities of South Africa and from the needs of our country. Here our whole economic programme is based on labour and labour requirements. Go and look at your ED programme and you will see the massive requirements that there are. But what do we find in the Budget? Not a single reference to labour. There is nothing about training. He does not even pat them on the back, he does not even encourage industrialists and say that next year he will try to help them. He has completely ignored that whole situation. Sir, the trouble with this Government is that it does not have a strategy for developing a stable economic and political system in this country. It changes when it has to because change is forced upon it, but they do not know how to handle it! Look at the Nico Malan theatre, this simple little matter which should have been resolved years ago. The Government held one meeting after the other, there was great soul-searching, and then after years they opened the Nico Malan theatre to everyone. But ever since they did so they have spent all their time trying to persuade the people that they have not really changed their policy. I read on Saturuday in Die Burger a top headline saying: “Nico Malan geen stap tot integrasie—P. W. Botha.” Just to make quite sure that the message went home, the subsequent headline was: “Afrikaner sal nie verswelg in breë nasionalisme—Treurnicht.” Who else can it be? There is no sign whatsoever in this Budget that the Government has any understanding of one of the most profound developments in our country—the new Black urban middle classes which are developing.

Sir, let us project ourselves for one moment and put ourselves in the place of a Black man who lives in Soweto in Johannesburg. He has no political rights of any consequence. He cannot buy his own home. Sir, if you and I earn a little money, what do we do? We want to acquire a home, something we can leave to our children. The Black man cannot do that. All he is told is that we will consider the possibility of leasehold title for him. How do you pass leasehold title on to your children? Sir, if he has any money, where does he go for a holiday? Have we ever considered a simple thing like this? Where does the Black man take his family if he wants to go on a holiday? There is nothing for him. But what do we get from that side? They say there is no discrimination in this country, there is only differentiation. Mr. Speaker, to take that line is not only rubbish; it is self-delusion of the most dangerous kind.

It is here particularly that I want to return to the hon. member of Finance, who is so interested in what I am saying, because here we have a gentleman, who over the years has been most outspoken in his criticism of this Government. Does he still remember how he told us that we could not have a divided economy in this country and that hence the idea of independent Bantu homelands was a myth? Does he want me to remind him, Sir, of what he said about job reservation, that mediaeval form of guildism? Does he want me to indicate to him once again how he lashed out against border areas? You see, Sir, here he had an excellent opportunity as a new Minister. He is not committed to the principle of the draft Republican Constitution of 1942.

Will you quote me on border areas?

Oh, yes, lots of quotes. I shall give them to you with pleasure. You see, Sir, here you have a Minister who is in an immensely strong position. He was, after all, appointed by the Prime Minister and from what I can see he is going to be there for all time. There is certainly nobody on that side to take his place, and quite apart from that, even his constituents cannot kick him out. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, he is a nominated Senator. He was nominated because of his specific knowledge of Coloured affairs, and the Coloureds had no choice in this matter. [Interjections.] So this hon. Minister is fixed here. He has a wide open field of immense opportunity— of things that he can do. And, Sir, he must not come with the defence that he is the only one in the Cabinet with such views and that he cannot persuade his colleagues to support his point of view, because he sits there supported by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. We remember how eloquently he waxed, when he sat here on the stupidity of the Government’s labour and economic policies. Why, he got so excited he used to foam at the mouth. So, Mr. Speaker, we can see that there is an enlightened beach-head consisting of these two prominent Ministers. If they were prepared to rectify only half of the things which, throughout the years, they told us were wrong with the present system, we would be making immense progress indeed. If they did so, we would be in a position to support this Budget, but at the moment we can do nothing else than to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat represents an urban constituency. I am one of the small group of people in this House representing exclusively rural constituencies. This afternoon I need to say something about the problems of our rural constituencies. I should very much have liked to react to the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but for the reason I have just mentioned, and for another reason, I shall not do so. To be specific, a very popular columnist of The Cape Times once said that I was always fighting with the United Party, but apparently not with the Progressive Party, because I sat so close to them. Sir, when I have stated my difficulties in regard to the rural constituencies in the South-Eastern Free State and in the entire central region this afternoon, I want to say something about the Progressive Party.

Sir, I am convinced that now is the time to rethink fundamentally the traditional approach towards the government and the administration of our smaller towns and to bring about a new situation in the platteland. A renewal of this kind must form an integral part of a programme of rúral development. In addition, the communities will have to be put in the picture in a skilful way in order to adapt them to this renewal. The regional development associations as they are now constituted will form a very useful channel of communication in this regard. If we take the future of the platteland seriously, then we must also take seriously the adoption of certain measures, even measures which may appear to be very unpopular among certain people. A new framework of ideas must be created from the highest level, within which the provincial and the local authorities may act with circumspection but also with great energy to convert into realities the ideals we cherish for the future of the platteland. In my humble opinion, the central Government, and the Minister of Finance in particular, have a duty and also a responsibility in this regard, and I wish to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance today. For a host of reasons the effective government and administration of country towns is of cardinal importance for the platteland, where one must not only make a living, but where one can really live, too, in the fullest sense of the word. However, the degree to which the country towns will be capable of complying with the aforementioned condition will depend on a host of factors, of which I only want to mention the most important this afternoon. In the first instance it concerns the nature and extent of the statutory powers we may give these local authorities. In the second instance it concerns the available resources, and in the third instance, the quantitative characteristics of the town councillors and the staff, with special reference to the town clerk. In the fourth instance it concerns the guidance and the advice with which provincial administrations can furnish local authorities, together with, financial and other forms of support. In the final instance it concerns the interest taken by the municipal voters. In so far as this concerns rural development, I could of course say a great deal about this. However, I only want to submit a few ideas to the hon. House, some of which may perhaps appear, at first glance, to be daring. If I had the time—and we shall have the time for it on a later occasion—1 could have dealt with them at length.

In the first place I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government give serious attention to adjusting the subsidy formula in such, a way as to afford the provinces more extensive financial support in order that we may provide the smaller country towns with the necessary support via the provinces. What we are at present experiencing in the Free State—where such aid is already being provided by the provincial authorities—teaches us that it takes a large contribution to make the town in question more livable and maintain it better. According to all reports, the influence this has on the local communities is positively stimulating. People are now more willing to make a contribution themselves and to devote themselves once more with renewed enthusiasm to the tasks that has to be performed in those smaller towns.

In the second instance I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister of Finance that the salaries of the town clerks of towns with a population below a certain size be substantially subsidized by the provinces. As I have said, this can be done with, the aid of the subsidy formula according to which provincial administrations may provide this service. In this way the local authorities concerned will be able to offer better salaries to town clerks who would like to make a contribution as community leaders in country communities. I am convinced that a great task awaits wide-awake town clerks to render a greater service as community leaders if it is made more financially attractive to them to do so.

There is another idea I should like to add which would apply if assistance were to be offered. If the salaries of town clerks could be subsidized, I should also like to recommend that provincial administrations take the lead in the appointment of town clerks in such towns. The provincial administrations could assist such, local authorities in the selection of their town clerks.

Finally I should like to ask the question whether it would not be in the interests of the better maintenance of the small country towns if the Administrators were to consider —the central Government could give them guidance in that sphere—appointing a small precentage of town councillors.

I raise this matter here because I consider it to be of national importance that the country towns should be governed as effectively as possible. We know from experience that there are inhabitants who, owing to the nature of their work and for other reasons, too, which I do not want to go into now, are unable to take part in elections. To me it is an open question whether it should continue to be permitted that this unexploited potential continue to be unexploited merely for the sake of the perpetuation of the democratic principles which we ourselves also wish to hold high. One cannot but be grateful for the hundreds of men and women, who, as town councillors, have devoted their energies to the small communities through the years, but I believe that they, too, will appreciate the assistance, guidance and advice that could be given by these colleagues who could be appointed. I want to say that we plattelanders believe that our smaller towns must be maintained. I am not pleading here that every small town should be made a growth point. We just want to plead that ways and means be effected to maintain these little towns and make them livable. Mere maintenance of those towns could also be seen as development as far as the platteland is concerned.

I have before me The Economist of 22 March. This is a very respected and leading economic journal published in London.

Do you agree with everything in The Economist?

No, I admit I do not agree with everything in here, but there are many things I do agree with.

*Because I do not have the time to react to the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I just want to say that this poor United Party has really been in deep water, but there is another disaster that could strike them, and that after what we have witnessed here this afternoon. That disaster would be the appointment of the hon. member for Hillbrow as the leader of the Official Opposition. If that were to happen, I do not know what would become of that party. In any event, in this edition of The Economist there is a wonderful article under the heading “A survey of gold and South Africa”.

†This is all very interesting, especially survey No. 26 which deals with “Where gold and the aspirations of South Africa clash”. Then they go on to give us some background on the political situation in South Africa. For instance, they say—

*This extract I believe, and so, I suppose, do the hon. members on the other side, because it is the truth. I could continue with this, but I do not have the time. Now I come to the United Party.

†We just want to find out whether there is any truth in this exercise and whether we can depend on it. As far as the Government is concerned I think we can. Now we come to the United Party—

I think that that is right—

*I cannot quite agree with this apartheid story, but it is a fact that those people do not want to come into power, but do however want to reap the fruits that this policy gives them, and if something is not right, they want to be able to say that they at least are not to blame.

†The survey goes on to say—

I think that that is quite correct too—

But then they go on to say that he will only remain there until a new man comes along. If that is the hon. member for Hillbrow, I do not know.

I now want to address the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville left that party and, according to Press reports, is considering coming over to the Progressive Party. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he has to be very careful especially in the light of the quotation I am going to read out now. The hon. member for Houghton and the other six hon. members sitting in these benches think that they have the blessing of every single person outside South Africa, whether it be on the European continent, in America …

No.

Yes, that is true.

*They think they have everyone’s blessing because all the people believe that they are the little angels in South Africa and that everybody is eager to applaud and praise them. Now the hon. member for Yeoville wants to join them.

†I want to read the following quotation from The Economist of 22 March 1975—

This is quite true and explains why the hon. member for Houghton has been here for so long and why the others are here now. I read further—

And golf.

Now I know all about the matrons I have seen so often with the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member also includes golf to do a little electioneering for the Progressive Party …

Like the Prime Minister.

I quote further—

*This is now the position of the Progressive Party. These people are receiving the votes of United Party people who are fed up with, the fighting in the party and who are going to keep voting for them until it seems as if they are going to come to power. Then they will move away from them like lice from a dead dog.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make myself heard after the entertainment we have just been listening to. It is such a pity that the hon. member for Smithfield did not sit down when he finished talking about the platteland. At least he knows something about that, or I assume he does. But when he starts talking about the Progressive Party, he obviously has to rely on overseas resources, sources which he normally does not like. I must admit it was really quite funny when he talked about “tourist attraction”. At least, something is attractive. I noticed that the hon. the Minister of Tourism enjoyed that joke a great deal and one can only hope that he will acquaint himself a little bit more with the policies and the people of the Progressive Party, because this can do South Africa a great deal of good and will certainly help that Minister.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, the comments are ludicrous in the extreme, so there is really nothing to answer. All I want to do is ask that hon. member who obviously has read a portion of the article to go on two pages further where he will find a heading “The Dilemmas of Prosperity”. Under that heading he should read in particular—

[Interjections.] This is the problem. If you begin to quote from an article you lay yourself open to all sorts of trouble. It is so unfortunate that this matter has been introduced this stage. I must say that being closer to the Progressive Party has certainly had some influence on the hon. member for Smithfield because he is now much more flexible and amenable and is a much nicer person. When he finally got round to attacking the Progressive Party we were all waiting for something new, some vital new criticism, but what a damp squib we have had! It was almost as damp as the Budget.

I want to return now to the Budget which the hon. member for Smithfield imagined was no longer in existence. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria East is making too many interjections.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I agree with that. It has been argued that the two major reasons underlying the Opposition’s criticism of the Budget are in the first instance that so great is our opposition to the Government itself that we have become confused and that we are now in danger of attacking South Africa. We have been told that we are no longer concerned about the interests of South Africa itself. This statement is, of course, absurd and must be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. We must also remind the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and others, who have ventured upon this field, that national interests must not be confused with the Nationalist Party. I want to make it very clear that these are two very different things entirely.

That is where you make a mistake.

That is where you have made your mistake. The second reason is that we are supposed to be very upset that the hon. the Minister of Finance is English-speaking. We are supposed to find this very difficult to take. It was the hon. member for Algoa who made that remark. This too is, of course, nonsense, and can be described as sheer projection. It is highly probable that there are many hon. members on those benches who are very upset at the recent Cabinet appointments that have been made. Why blame us for this? After all, we did not appoint the man. He is the last man we would appoint. Nevertheless he is there. Our approach is to judge this Budget on its merits. As has already been pointed out, in the final analysis, it is not the hon. the Minister of Finance who must accept total responsibility for a Budget. A Budget is so vital and so important as far as the interests of a country are concerned, that when a Government presents a Budget it is the whole Government that must accept praise or blame, as the case may be, when there is a critical analysis of such a Budget. One assumes that a Budget is so important that the Cabinet would have made the vital decisions and given the green light. One assumes that the caucus itself has debated and discussed the Budget before it is actually presented. Any budget is a fascinating document. Whether it be the budget of an individual or a family, the budgeting of a community or in particular the budget of a Government, it is always a fascinating document because when one analyses a budget one can see where a person’s values lie and what his priorities are. I therefore disagree slightly with the hon. member for Constantia who expressed disappointment in that there was no list of priorities in the Budget as we have it before us at the moment. I say this because by its very nature a budget declares and expresses the priorities of those who framed that budget. It is quite clear that, in unequivocal terms, this Government in its Budget has expressed where it sees its true priorities. In the first instance we see that the Government’s number one priority is defence.

Every time one mentions defence, and in particular looks at the amount of money which is being spent in the defence of the country, if one dares to breathe a word of criticism, one is immediately accused of being un-South African, against the interests of the country or, of course, unpatriotic. This word “patriotism” is a great word. I would like to remind hon. members who are so quick to point a finger at those of us in these benches of something that was once said by a man who lived in another time but whose words need to be heard again and again. These words are:“The last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism”. Very often we have to be very clear as to what we mean by that word. The patriot is surely the man who does his best for his country, who looks at the realistic situation, the right and the wrong of it, and who seeks to bring about the best for all concerned.

The defence budget has been increased remarkably. I want to compare what has been given to defence with what has been given to other vital services. The addition of R256 million to the defence budget is larger than the whole of the voted component of the Bantu Administration budget which totals only R221,6 million. I am not forgetting that the Bantu Administration Department budget also has a statutory component of R163,6 million. If this is taken into account, the addition to the defence budget is 66% of the whole of the Bantu Administration Department budget, voted and statutory. The addition to the defence budget, not the budget itself, is nearly four times as large as the Bantu Education budget of R68,9 million. I want to stress that we are emphasizing only the additional expenditure, and that is nearly four times the total that is spent on Bantu Education. The total defence vote of R948 million is almost twice the size of the combined allocations to four major departments, viz. Bantu Administration, Bantu Education, Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs. In other words, the defence budget is only about R92 million short of being double the combination of all the amounts allocated for these key areas. If the statutory part of the Bantu Administration Department’s budget is included, the combination totals R683,3 million against the defence vote of R948 million.

What are you trying to prove?

That is a very good question. What I am trying to prove is what is indicated in the priorities as they emerge from the Budget. This is that, in the rhetoric of Government spokesmen, we have been told in recent days, quite rightly, that in order to defend and maintain South Africa and its sovereignty, we have to win the hearts and minds of all its people. This has been said from that side of the House and from this side of the House, and it has been said repeatedly in the last few months. But in the Budget it is quite clear that our primary dependence is upon military strength. One would have imagined that in the pursuit of détente and with the hard lessons which we have had to learn in recent months and years in Southern Africa, different priorities would have emerged. For example, the Government is now spending 3,1 times as much on White education as on African education—the figures are R213,7 million against R86,9 million—compared with 2,8 times as much last year. This makes it explicit that the gap between the amounts that are being spent on White education and on African education are in fact widening. That is the point I am trying to make; it is a point that I do not have to make because; it is made for us in the Budget. When you analyse the Budget, you have to look not only at the figures, but you must also see what the figures represent and how we are spending the amount of money that is available and how v/e are distributing the cake. Sir, this is the position in spite of the fact that at the last count there were 14 times as many Africans as Whites in South Africa and that half the African population is under 15 years of age. The increase of R44,7 million in the White Education Vote, is approximately 64% of the total Bantu Education Vote of R68,9 million.

Whilst one welcomes, in another field, the extra allowances given to pensioners— this is always welcomed, particularly in this day and age; we do not have to stress the hardships that these older people are suffering as a result of inflation—one is disappointed, and indeed more than disappointed. It seems to me it is a tragedy and a matter for extreme regret that the additional amount provided for in the Budget for African pensioners is only R4,6 million, which is less than half the additional amount of R9,7 million which is to be paid to White pensioners. This again is a denial of the declared explicit aims of the Government, which says that its task, its aim and its goal is to reduce the gap. What this Budget is doing to to show very clearly that the rhetoric on the one hand and the facts on the other are in contradiction. It must be noted also, Mr. Speaker, that a total of R27 million is to be voted for White child welfare under Social Welfare and Pensions against R6 million for Indian child welfare and R832 000 for African children under the Indian Affairs and Bantu Administration and Development Votes respectively. State assistance for the deaf, the blind, the crippled and the cerebral palsied, according to my calculations, amounts to R11,6 million for Whites and only R1,2 million for Africans. One thing is very clear, Sir, and that is that the Government’s priorities lie very clearly in the area of White privilege, and a major criticism of this Budget is that it does very little to come to grips with and offer some measure of relief for the basic causes of so much of the frustration and the discontent in our land. Nowhere in this Budget, I submit, is there any indication that the Government is aware of the urgent need to redress the wrongs which are at the very heart of our system. Nowhere is there any indication that deeds, in terms of the allocation of hard cash, will do more than all the travelling and all the speeches in relation to détente. This Budget, like any other Budget, shows the priorities of the Government of the day, and those priorities remain exactly the same. It is not only unjust, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that it is highly dangerous as well.

Sir, the other major area that I want to look at this afternoon is the whole area of inflation and how this is affected in part by our use, or our bad use, of labour. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, in the Part Appropriation debate, outlined a six-point plan and inter alia said (Hansard, No. 3, col. 1047)—

And I emphasize the word “now”—

In his reply the hon. the Minister of Finance, on 24 February, in Hansard, No. 4, col. 1305, said this—

Now, there are two points at issue, as I understand it. In the first place we have heard a great deal from the hon. the Minister and from all speakers, and rightly so, on the problem of inflation and how we must attempt to combat it. We have been told—and those who say this are right— that there is no single answer, but the hon. member for Johannesburg North has suggested that one of the answers in reducing the level of inflation is to make the maximum use of our labour resources. Some may argue that this is debatable, whether in fact the removal of discrimination in labour practices will actually bring about greater productivity. Certainly the hon. the Minister of Transport does not think that this is so. In his reply, also on 24 February, he said this (Hansard, No. 4, col. 1270)—

These are the words of the hon. the Minister of Transport. I am not sure how many of his colleagues on that side of the House support him on this, but they are certainly very strong words indeed. But one thing is clear, and that is that the hon. the Minister of Finance does not support the hon. the Minister of Transport in this instance, for on the same day he said—

There can only be one interpretation of that comment, namely that in the struggle against inflation we have been forced to relax certain labour restrictions and that this in fact has had the beneficial effect of restraining inflation. Here I find myself in very strong agreement with the hon. the Minister of Finance rather than with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport. I think his response to the hon. member for Tohannesburg North in asking for specific illustrations of where discrimination exists in our labour practices and where it should be removed is reasonable and right, and it is our responsibility to try to respond to that as best we can.

Discrimination, Sir, is so part and parcel of our labour legislation that it is not possible in the short time at my disposal to refer to each and every one of them, but I certainly can list some of them and I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance to them, although I am quite sure he knows them better than I do. For example, the Mines and Works Act, No. 27 of 1956, section 12(1) and (2), shows very clearly that certificates of competence required for employment in any particular occupation in, at or about mines, works or machinery are restricted to Europeans, persons of Malay descent or Mauritius Creoles or St. Helena persons or their descendants born in the Republic. Sir, there is no question that here is an actual physical bar to the progress of the majority of people working on our mines. There is no question about it. This is sheer, blatant discrimination against Africans or Bantu, or whatever term you care to use, and if my thesis is right…

I should like you to look at the Gold Laws as well.

Yes, I am quite prepared to look at any laws, and if we can change them in order to help get rid of discrimination, you will have my every support, I assure you. If the thesis is accepted, as I believe it ought to be accepted, that by making the best possible use of our labour resources we will hedge inflation at least to a certain extent, then here is a chance for the Government to act. This is a concrete way in which they can act and they know full well that they will get the support of those of us who sit in these benches.

One could also refer to the Apprenticeship Act, No. 37 of 1944. In terms of this Act special provision is made for employing bodies and for people belonging to registered trade unions. Once again we have the exclusion of Africans because we know that they cannot belong to registered trade unions. Whilst there is some qualification to this, nevertheless at heart this legislation discriminates against people who could work and who could work so much better and therefore increase the productivity which is so desperately needed.

One could refer to the Bantu Building Workers Act, No. 27 of 1951, and the Unemployment Insurance Act, No. 30 of 1966, but most hon. members will be much more familiar with the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 28 of 1956, the central piece of industrial legislation in our land which regulates relationships between employer and employee. Africans are specifically excluded from the definition of “employee”. One could refer to section 77 of the Act which deals with job reservation. We know full well what the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance to job reservation has been in the past at least. Further, in section 8(3)(a), which refers to mixed unions, the Act specifically lays down that there must be separate committees and that at the end the executive must consist only of White members. These things cannot be defended, but they can be changed. They can be changed for the betterment of the total situation in South Africa.

These are only a few of the specific references for which the hon. the Minister of finance has asked us. We accept his request in good faith and we give him the answers. The ball is now very firmly in his court together with those of his colleagues.

Finally an overall comment on the Budget. Professor Carlo Cipolla from Italy, in a work which was published, I think, in 1970, but certainly only in the last three or four years, under the title “Comparative Survey of the Economic Decline of Empires”, refers to the steps which lead up to the decline of a nation or of a society. Whilst I have no desire to take unto myself the mantle of the prophet, and certainly never, I hope, the prophet of doom, it is nevertheless a sobering exercise to consider some of the factors which he refers to and which he considers historically to be the reasons for the decline of major states. Amongst them there are six to which I want to refer because I have not any more time: 1. An increase in spending on defence in the army and the navy; 2. growth of bureaucracy; 3. increase in taxation; 4. increase in State intervention; 5. inflation; and 6. worsening of class and group conflicts owing to economic stagnation or depression and increasing inequality of income and property aggravated by rapid inflation and the consequent lack of public spirit.

We would do well to consider these warning signals. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is the situation as it exists in South Africa now, but what I am suggesting is …

You are anti-South African.

There you have it again—the baying of the wolves about being anti-South African. When a doctor has a look at a patient and says that there is trouble which must be arrested and the patient must have some antidote, then of course that doctor is doing a work of great compassion. When we suggest, however, that there are things to be looked at very seriously, that there are problems that can be circumvented if only we would take action now, we are regarded as anti-South African or as unpatriotic. In 1975 South Africa very much stands at the crossroads. I think that all of us in this House are aware of it and are very much aware also of what is happening right now at the OAU and in other parts of the sub-continent of Africa. We know that this country can either go forward and become a significant force in the modern world and a very significant force in Southern Africa or we can become more isolated and become a State with its back to the wall at the tip of the great African continent with nowhere else to go. Our concern should be to make South Africa great in skills and great in compassion, but this cannot be achieved by mere wishful thinking and by political rhetoric, but only by a significant rethinking and restructuring of our society. This budget does not do this, nor does it point the way. To that extent it fails to meet the needs of the moment.

Mr. Speaker, just as it is the right of the hon. member for Pinelands to criticize this Government and this Budget, so it is the task of this Government to govern this country with great responsibility. The hon. member presented us with a series of figures and numbers. These are correct, but we want to ask him whether he has included in the amount voted for the Bantu in the Budget, the contributions by the Bantu themselves. If he does that, he will find that his figures will be different. I also want to know from him whether he is bearing in mind the other assistance afforded to these population groups. As far as medical services and hospitalization are concerned, we should bear in mind what a small financial contribution is made by these people and what outstanding service they get in return. We also want to know from him whether the countries that do not apply any form of job reservation do not also have to contend with inflation.

It is the task of this Government to maintain industrial peace and order in this country. A sound economy, an economy based on stability and a sustained rate of growth, is very intimately bound up with industrial peace and order. Without that, no economy can grow. Other hon. members of the Opposition parties, inter alia the hon. member for Yeoville, criticized the Government because in their opinion, this Budget does not combat inflation and because it does not really stimulate growth in the economy. The hon. member for Yeoville maintained that the Budget was not exciting. The hon. member is confusing the concepts “exciting” and “flashy”. I want to tell him, as one backbencher to another, that the term he should apply to himself is “flashy” and not “exciting”. Last year we heard the same ideas from the Opposition, namely that the Budget at the time would result in sluggishness in the economy. I should just like to quote briefly three short extracts from newspapers that appeared yesterday. As far as mining is concerned, I just want to quote one short line concerning what the chairman of Union Corporation said and I want to quote him specifically because the platinum producing mines—with which difficulties are being experienced at present— are included in that mining group. He reports as follows [translation]—

What is the position in the banking world? At the time of the take-over of WesBank, the economist of Barclays Bank made a statement of rights issues in a prospectus which, according to law, must afford a true picture of financial affairs. From it I quote the following sentence—

In the construction industry, which has had to contend with labour problems, Murray & Roberts report that in the six months ended December 1974, a 26% higher profit was recorded. I just quote this to indicate that despite the predictions made by the Opposition, record profits have been made.

We have been criticized by the hon. member for Yeoville on the grounds that this Budget does not initiate sufficient growth. From other speakers, again, we have had the criticism that the Budget is too socialistic. Those are two different theories in fact two conflicting theories. The hon. member for Mooi River asks that the State wean the key industries in relation as development takes place. It is at this very stage of our economic development that we are poised on the threshold of a period of major economic growth and development. In the economic sphere the time is not yet ripe to wean key industries. Let me just mention a few of them: Sasol II, with an initial capital of R1 000 million; Iscor with its programme of expansion of R3 000 million; Escom with its string of developments on the Eastern Highveld of the Transvaal at a cost of R2 000 million; and the Railways and Harbours with its programme of expansion to establish modern facilities. We call to mind, too, the telecommunication service that is going to require an enormous amount to overhaul and modernize our domestic and external communications. These are major developments and they are the responsibility of the State. The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the fine field for investment which Mozambique now represents, and the conditions that have developed there. We want to ask them whether the conditions and the chaos that have developed there are not ascribable to the very political instability of the Government there because it did not act firmly enough in laying down certain patterns for the development of that country.

The Government in this particular country of ours has a unique task in the world, namely the responsibility of placing a constellation of peoples on the path to progress. We have eight Bantu peoples within the borders of the Republic and two other national groups, too, namely the Asians and the Coloureds. In South West we have seven peoples besides the White people. This constellation in its course of development is the responsibility of the Government and vigilance must therefore be one characteristic of this Budget, rather than the characteristics of riskiness or changeability. There simply is not time or opportunity to speculate with these great matters. The growth of these peoples is still in its infancy and demands an enormous amount of capital. My humble opinion is that the financial obligations of the State comprise three different components. I do not want to call it spending, but rather the investment of money in three zones.

The first is the people of the State, which remain its greatest asset and richest possession. To the extent that we enable our people to reach their highest level of efficiency, to that extent can we establish economic growth. I want to ask that in the future we should vote larger amounts for the development of the people of all our nations in the sphere of education and labour training. In its economy, in its industries and in its trade, South Africa badly needs a group of top-structure people to modernize our industries and trade.

The second important component is providing our people with food, something which the exposition omits to mention. The maintenance of our people are very important, and we must therefore be able to provide good and sufficient food. In this regard the farmer is the primary producer who supplies this need and the farmer still has to contend with the highest risk factor in any industry. The risk is spread over a number of aspects that are beyond his control. Recently the price of a whole series of implements was increased by about 30%. The price of fertilizer was also increased recently. However we want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that the price of power paraffin was not increased at the same time as the recent increase in the price of fuel. I want to make a friendly request that the payments to farmers for land in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, this abnormal accrual of income, should not be added to the normal tax, but should be calculated separately at a lower rate, and that an arrangement of this kind should also apply in regard to the purchase of land for Sasol II.

The third component with which the State is involved is the security of its people. These three components therefore, comprise the development, the feeding and the security of the people of a State. We cannot thank the Minister enough for the allocations in the sphere of security in the present Budget.

I now want to dwell briefly on the final aspect, namely the combating of inflation. We have had many theoretic points of view in this regard from hon. members opposite. However I only want to deal briefly with one aspect, namely that of individual saving. In the midst of rising inflation, personal savings dropped by about 12% of the available personal income in the middle ‘sixties, to less than 9% in 1973. The prospect is that it will be about 7% in 1974. Saving is not a matter for the State or the private sector only. It is a matter which also affects every individual. Now we have to contend with the problem of who has to encourage the individual to save. Here I want to refer to the task of the life insurance agents. They are a class of people who are, in fact, disappearing from the modern insurance world. In any event, they take the trouble to call on their clients in their homes. Sometimes they are wrongly regarded as a nuisance, but nevertheless they are people who go to the individual and ascertain his needs, advise him, provide him with guidance and persuade him to take out a policy. Each small policy that is taken out establishes an estate for the assured. The funds collected in this way from individuals are then mobilized in a large fund in the hands of our insurers. According to law our assurance companies are obliged to make 30% of their assets available to the State in the form of loans, which is a major contribution to the State. Today I want to make a plea on behalf of the persons who take that trouble, that we should consult them in that regard, too, and appreciate their contribution to the idea of saving. On one occasion a certain economist said that the development of the economy in any state could be tested by the insurance consciousness of its people. These mobilized funds are of great importance to us because they constitute the security that is established for trade and for the private individual as well. In this regard I can bear witness to the recent events in my constituency, Standerton, when a large number of private dwellings and a large number of trading premises were inundated. Whereas an estimate of R5 million is very conservative for a small community and a small town, insurance—and here I am referring to comprehensive insurance—saved many of those people and businessmen serious financial problems. I want to plead that in future we should consider allowing a larger amount as a primary rebate for assurance premiums on the tax paid by the individual. It is the assurance people who make a very important contribution to the idea of saving and who get through to the private person, to the man on the street, and persuade him to save his small amount in the interests of this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a very great privilege for me today to address this House from these back benches. It is even more of a privilege for me because today is really a very historic day, historic because—as we have heard— our State President retires today. Therefore I shall always remember that I addressed this House for the first time on this historic day.

I represent the constituency of Winburg and the hon. members will forgive me if I refer briefly to that constituency. The Winburg constituency is an exceptional constituency and in this connection, I just want to refer to a few of the former representatives of this constituency in this House. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the late Mr. C. T. M. Wilcocks who was subsequently appointed as administrator of the Free State. He was succeeded by the late Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, at that time the leader of the National Party in the Free State. I believe that if he had not died an early death, he would probably have become a Minister. The late Dr. Van der Merwe was succeeded by Mr. C. R. Swart, and as hon. members will remember, he was the last Governor-General of the Union of South Africa and also the first State President of the Republic of South Africa. President Swart was succeeded by Mr. Sadie, who was promoted to Commissioner-General of South Sotho. Mr. Sadie was succeeded by Mr. A. C. van Wyk, who was appointed Administrator of the Free State. It is an exceptional constituency, because it has been represented here by exceptional representatives and I think that the voters of Winburg have now been wise in sending just an ordinary man to this House for a change.

I want to refer briefly to Mr. Van Wyk’s term of office. When President Fouché succeeded President Swart, the former said that it would be very difficult for him to follow in the footsteps of the latter, since President Swart took such long strides while he was only a short man. It will be difficult for me to follow in the footsteps of Mr. A. C. van Wyk, since he left such a lasting imprint on that constituency. On the other hand, however, it will be easy for me, since Mr. Van Wyk not only left a lasting imprint, but also followed a straight course in that constituency. To follow in the footsteps of someone who followed a straight course, is very easy.

The constituency of Winburg is chiefly a rural constituency, and I should go so far as to say that 80% of those voters are producing food in one form or another. I can predict—it demands no particular gift of prophecy—that food will play just as important an international role within the foreseeable future as oil plays today. For this reason, hon. members will realize that this constituency must enjoy special attention. I trust that hon. members in this House will always help me when I plead for that constituency. I want to mention here today that there are various bottlenecks, chiefly in agriculture on which the constituency is dependent. I do not want to bore hon. members now; perhaps I shall get an opportunity later to speak about those bottlenecks. However, I want to mention briefly two bottlenecks which have a stranglehold on agriculture in that constituency at the moment. The first bottleneck which I want to mention is the labour question. Agriculture was struck overnight by a labour shortage. The second bottleneck which I want to mention, is the rise in costs. I want to say at once that the agriculturalist, the man who produces food, is hit in double measure by this rise in costs. On the one hand he comes up against higher production costs, and on the other hand he comes up against a higher cost of living. I hope to say more about this on a later occasion.

I want to speak briefly today about a subject which affects each one of us in this House, a subject which affects every person in our country, regardless of his colour or ethnic group, a subject which affects everyone from the oldest to the youngest person in our country. I should like to say a few words about road safety. It is true that the subject of road safety has been considered in detail, but nevertheless, new data, which provide food for thought, emerge from time to time. There are always new problems which we have to take into consideration. I also know that road safety covers a tremendously wide field and that one cannot discuss this subject fully within a few minutes. Therefore I want to confine myself briefly to just one aspect of road safety, viz. loss of life as a result of road accidents, or, as we farmers call it, the slaughter on our roads. Sir, I do not want to bore the House with statistics and figures, but I just want to point out in brief how the death rate on our roads has increased. In 1955, 1 876 people died on the South African roads; in 1963, the number increased to 4 294, and in 1973, it increased to 8 579. That is the number of person who died on the South African roads in one year. We all realize that the number of vehicles on our roads will increase tremendously within the next ten years, with the good growth rate which our country maintains, and the more vehicles one has on the roads, the more rapidly the number of accidents and deaths on the roads increases. Sir, to be able to combat any evil, it is essential that one identifies the cause of the evil, but it is not so easy to identify the cause of road accidents, because I understand that there are over 800 different causes which are responsible for road accidents, but I think the greatest single cause has identified itself in the application of the petrol conservation measures. According to the figures, 368 people died on our roads in January 1974, i.e. the month after the petrol conservation measures became operative. In January 1973, when there were no conservation measures, road deaths numbered 651. In other words, there were 293 fewer deaths in January 1974. Sir, I ask myself whether South Africa can afford to have 9 000 people dying on our roads annually. The greater percentage of people who die in road accidents are in the age group of 20 to 35 years. These are people who have completed their training, and it costs a great deal to train a man today. These are people who are ready for the labour market and of whose services our country is deprived as a result of road accidents. I do not believe, Sir, that anyone can determine the financial aspect of these deaths resulting from road accidents. It cannot be spelt out in terms of money, because who can determine the value of a life in terms of money? Sir, I know that there are hon. members who will tell me that there is no point in discussing this subject if one cannot offer a solution. I do not believe that any of us has an instant solution to this problem, but when one has regard to the enormous dimensions assumed by road accidents, then one asks oneself whether the time has not arrived for road safety to be given its own portfolio of full status, headed by its own Minister. I think that if something of this sort does happen one day, we shall be able to curb the accidents and the loss of human life on our roads.

Mr. Speaker, I thank this House for the privilege of being able to address it, and I thank hon. members for having listened to me.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to welcome the hon. member for Winburg to this House after his maiden speech. I wish to congratulate him on his speech. The ideas he exchanged with us today, are very interesting and I am sure that his participation in our business here will be very valuable in the future.

†Mr. Speaker, the quotations which the hon. member for Smithfield read to the House from The Economist certainly interested quite a few people here. It is always a pity that when someone who wishes to raise a particular subject, particularly through quotations, does not examine the whole spectrum of the various reports from economic publications on the Budget. The Financial Mail on 27 March 1975 published a very interesting frontispiece to its publication which would have given the hon. member for Smithfield a very interesting little exercise, a puzzle which he could have made use of. By folding the frontispiece he would have found himself eventually faced with exactly what the Budget means to the public of South Africa—a sour lemon! That, Sir, is perhaps the best lesson one can learn when one quotes from publications in regard to this Budget.

I should like to say that the hon. the Minister of Finance had a very wonderful opportunity in view of his boasting of the three years of buoyancy which the country had enjoyed as far as growth was concerned. He had the opportunity to deal with the tremendous challenge which was placed before him by attempting in some way or another to arrest and, if possible, to curb the inflationary scourge with which we are afflicted at the moment, and particularly in a country like South Africa which is so well placed to deal with this particular problem, well placed because of the enormous bounty with which we are blessed, and more particularly with the tremendous latent labour potential that we have. He had an opportunity of perhaps doing something imaginative and creative. He could possibly even have laid down guide-lines for the future economic welfare of South Africa instead of coming to us with what is obviously a completely negative Budget in respect of this particular problem. Sir, I am not exaggerating the situation, because the more one reads the Budget Speech, the more one is convinced of the correctness of that point of view. The hon. the Minister talks of inflation almost as being something in a vacuum. He says he regards it as unsatisfactory, yet he goes further in another paragraph and says there is a danger that exists, the danger—dealing with oil and other problems —that the most important industrial powers could unleash a new wave of inflation. In other words, whilst he seems to deal with inflation almost in a vacuum, as an objective subject far removed from the realities of the day, he nevertheless in his ramblings, if he will forgive me for saying so, talks about what is undoubtedly the danger of inflation. I think therefore we are entitled in a Budget of this nature to focus the attention of the country on the fact that this Budget constitutes an inflationary Budget. The hon. the Minister has relied only on a few suggestions for remedies, one of which he took from the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and on which he seemed to rely almost entirely in dealing with inflation, namely that the national interest demanded that every group in our economy should do its share in the fight against inflation. In other words, he calls upon the country to play its part—upon the employer and the employee, upon the housewife, upon the pensioner, upon the consumer, upon every strata of society. He places the onus purely on that particular sector, which is entirely removed from governmental circles, to deal with this problem. Those people he feels must do their share in the fight against inflation, whereas the Government, in presenting a Budget, does just the contrary. Perhaps it bears repetition that the Government has increased spending power by 19% in so far as revenue is concerned, it has increased capital expenditure by 25% and it has used every possible avenue which some countries have used in difficult times in order to draw more and more money out of the public. This the hon. the Minister has done without giving any guideline as to what he will do in the course of time to ensure relief from this problem. He has given concessions amounting to R21 million, but on the other hand he has taken, in respect of what one could call the necessities of life in modern-day living, R66 million. He gives R21 million with the one hand and with the other hand he takes R66 million back from those very people he says he is trying to help and to whom he is giving some concessions. He goes for taxes on tobacco, wine, beer, spirits and cigarettes. We know that in hard-driven countries when the economy is in a difficult state and they have problems of unemployment and so on, taxes are levied on those items, and the hon. the Minister now looks to the same form of taxation.

We know definitely that unless something is going to be done in our economy to halt inflation, it can destroy our entire standard of values, not only financially, but spritually and morally and even physically, because inflation is the greatest scourge of all. Attention has already been drawn to the dangers to which inflation can eventually carry the modern, Western form of economy which depends on free enterprise, the capitalist system in which, everyone has an opportunity, as was so well explained by the hon. member for Mooi River, to generate wealth in the life of a country. Inflation can destroy all those standards of values and destroy them so completely that chaos can result in a country. We, in this country, are very much more conscious of that danger than perhaps those in other countries of the world. It is no excuse to talk only of the fact that other countries are suffering from inflation and that we should therefore not think that we are exceptional or that there is any weakness in the presentation of the Budget. We cannot afford to ignore the danger of inflation because of the set-up in South Africa, and because of the problems which face us in more fields than purely the economic and financial fields.

I should like to talk about what the public is doing in this process of inflation, the public to whom an appeal has been made and of whom some speakers have spoken as persons who should be thrifty, who should play their part. The hon. member for Standerton spoke about thrift and so on, but I should like the hon. the Minister to know what has happened in connection with fixed deposits in building societies. I want to deal with the years 1971 to 1973. These deposits grew from R955,5 million to R1 013 million; in other words, in the space of two years they grew by over R150 million. There are also the ordinary open savings accounts, which reflected an even greater growth over that same period because they grew from R504,5 million to R835 million—a growth, of almost R330 million. I mention these figures as an indication of what the public is doing from the point of view of saving and what the public do from a point of view of thrift. One must also go further. One merely has to look at the figures of life assurance and of other forms of insurance which affect the human being, his life and his affairs. There is, for example, accident insurance, annuity insurance and other pensionable forms of insurance apart from pension schemes. If one examines these various forms of insurance, one will find that the increase runs to hundreds of millions of rand per annum. I think that the average amount which is paid in life insurance premiums amounts to about R300 million to R350 million per annum. All that can be regarded as savings and indicates thrift on the part of the public. It indicates a responsible attitude on the part of the public, who are trying to meet this particular problem which is eating into the very vitals of the whole of our society. I say that the hon. the Minister has missed his opportunity to do anything constructive to meet this problem.

This Budget provides no relief at all for the man in the street. As opposed to numbers of other Budgets we have had in the past, the man in the street is the forgotten man in our whole economic set-up in terms of this Budget. He comprises 90% of the population …

Is the pensioner the man in the street?

I shall deal with him. The man in the street comprises 90% of the working population and there has been hardly any respite from the burden which has been placed on his shoulders. There is no opportunity for him to find relief at all.

Now I come to the pensioners. The social pensioner will benefit to the extent of 10%, which his increase amounts to, whilst the cost of living has risen by nearly 15% and will rise even further. Does the hon. the Minister deny that the cost of living has risen by almost 15 % ?

I do.

Well, he had better explain it then. There has been no relief in respect of sales tax and this affects the less privileged sections of the community very much indeed. As I explained earlier, the working man has to pay more as a result of tax for all the commodities which are part of his present-day way of life. I refer to commodities such as beer, cigarettes, tobacco, etc., which have been taxed so that the fiscal coffers can be enriched. What advantage has been given in the one field where we could have attracted sophisticated and skilled labour in a market which needs it very badly? I refer to the position of the working wives. The increase in the abatement is from R600 to R750.I know that the hon. the Minister has promised that he is going into the matter, but I think that something could have been done in order to ensure that more women are attacted to enter the employment field.

Then there is a point which the hon. member for Mooi River made so very ably in what was perhaps one of the high-level approaches in the Budget debate. I hope that he impressed those who said that they did not receive the message, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister, who himself was an academic, has received the message. That is that unless there is going to be an encouragement to those who generate capital in the country and unless an incentive is given to the individual so that he will not say that there is no purpose in working harder because there is so little to gain— this after all is just a natural human reaction—we will be curtailing the growth possibilities of the country and the Government will have to continue to take money from the pockets of the public, industry and commerce in order to meet the obligations of the day.

I should like to deal with one other factor. While talking to a financier and businessman of standing in our country, I asked him what his reaction was to the Budget. This was on the very day on which the Second Reading speech was delivered by the hon. the Minister. His reply was a very simple one. He said that despite the suggestion that a satisfactory infrastructure should be created for South Africa, no provision had been made for the training of people, for the provision of skilled workers or for the provision of sophisticated workers on the scale that this country needs urgently. He correctly made the point that, by having failed to examine that aspect, the Budget had failed entirely in its purpose. It is all very well erecting enormous structures and industries and opening new mines but, unless we get the sophisticated and skilled labour force which is required in this country, we are going to fail dismally. Two years ago the then Minister of Finance introduced the first suggestion of in-service training and allocated a small sum of money towards that purpose. The sum of money which has been allocated and which is being spent for this purpose from year to year is dismally small in terms of what can be achieved with it. We have only to listen to what the hon. the Minister of Planning tells us from time to time to get an idea of what the position is. That hon. Minister made a statement to the Press the other day on his planning programme. The Press report stated inter alia—

He says we can relieve the shortage in three ways, there being—

Here we have the hon. the Minister of Planning visualizing what is taking place. The tragedy of the Budget is that unless the hon. the Minister of Finance is prepared to give some assurance to the House in his reply that he will take into account the viewpoints that have been expressed on this side of the House and that he will knuckle down to this particular problem of inflation and realize that productivity, which is the most vital factor in combating inflation in the country, can only be increased through the better use of our labour potential in South Africa, we will have lost a complete year because there will be no other opportunity to introduce a Budget and review the policy of the Government until next year. That is why he must indicate to us that he realizes that the greatest security we can achieve in this country is to have an economic growth rate that will maintain itself at the highest possible level in order to meet the problems that face us and to enable everyone to participate fully in the bounty of the wealth of South Africa. He must give that assurance so that, if the country has to be crushed by the burden of taxation—I think unnecessarily and in many cases unfairly—it can at least feel satisfied that he realizes the problems in this connection. I believe it is important that this aspect should be tackled and that some assurance should be given to the public because, although they can do nothing to prevent the Budget going through, they are the sufferers. All the appeals in the world will not help us and people will throw in the sponge. Far from having a thrifty country, people will rather spend what they have because of their belief that nothing can be achieved by saving. This is quite a common line of thought in this country.

The other matter to which I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention is the protest that has been made in regard to what seems to quite an important person with whom I discussed it to be a useless tax, save for the fact that it brings in money. It serves no purpose as far as strategy and security are concerned. I refer to the tax on liquid petroleum gas. It is a by-product of the refinement of crude oil and is a product in respect of which a market has been built. By virtue of this tax we could possibly lose this market now. Does the hon. the Minister realize that because of this tax, gas which has been sold in 45-kg containers for R11-17, will now cost just under R20? It is an increase of almost 100%. This gas is used extensively where there is no electricity available. It is used by the farming community throughout the country and by Black people throughout the country and the homelands. It is used by many housewives who have gas stoves. This is a tax which eats right into the very basis of the cost of living. For what purpose? Save to draw out money from the public, no other purpose has been served. The hon. the Minister might possibly have some point with regard to oil, refined oil and petrol— something about which the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs got so heated up this afternoon—but the tax on this gas serves no purpose at all. I would hate to tell the hon. the Minister what this particular gentleman felt about a Minister of Finance who did a thing like this, but I am by nature such a courteous fellow …

Say it.

Yes, tell him.

Well, he said he needed his head read. But I would not say that, because it is not in my make-up to say a thing like that to the hon. the Minister. But this is exactly what this man told me. The production and sale of liquid petroleum gas does not reduce the flow of oil to this country. The effect of the taxation can make no difference at all to the entire Budget. One cannot understand why the hon. the Minister sought to do this. It seems almost like a desperate Budget where you look for every possible avenue where you can extract some sort of taxation from the public. This is going to hit the cost of living very sorely indeed.

I want to reply to the hon. member who talked about the temptation when a housewife goes into a supermarket. He said she is tempted by the goods on the shelves and buys unnecessarily. I want the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that the whole question of calling upon the public to share with the Government the responsibility of curbing inflation is directed, as it has been for some months now—it could be much longer than that—through the S.A. Consumer Council at the housewife, asking her to be discriminative, to buy less, to compare prices, etc. Pamphlet after pamphlet is issued, housewives’ leagues are established, etc. But what does the hon. the Minister do? He keeps on taxing all the time. It is all very well to appeal to people to help, and it is all very well to appeal to the public, but after all, that is your last resort. It is the last resort when a Government appeals to housewives to help it with the difficulties of inflation. I have appealed more than once on behalf of the housewives to the Government, and yet the Government continues to increase the burden of taxation and gives no relief. The Government does not even give relief to the housewife who wants to work and earn money and who finds that she cannot do so because her husband’s income tax will then be even higher. The Government takes advantage of ever increasing taxation which flows willy-nilly into its coffers because of the erosion of money. The Government only seeks to give a pittance of R21 million as against the taking back of R66 million. This is one of the problems that we are facing and this is what has made this Budget such a lamentable presentation for the country. I do not think that it needed any mental, fiscal, arithmetical or financial agility or wizardry to present a Budget such as the one we have had presented to the House this year. We have had an accounting and we have been told that we have a shortage of R1 012 million which must now be found. The Minister says, in effect: “I know the way to find it; here are the methods with which we can find it.” Everybody gets taxed to the hilt; every advantage is taken where it can be sought, and an appeal is made: Will you help us to curb inflation by playing your part.” Sir, that is not good enough. There are many ways in which we could have, in an imaginative manner, encouraged the businessman to earn more money, to seek more diversity for his earnings, to seek further investments for his earnings, to seek further enterprise with his earnings, and to build up so that in paying greater taxation on an all-round basis in respect of various industries, he would be encouraged to play his part in the growth of the State. The growth of the State cannot depend entirely on Government growth or on Government-sponsored projects.

I want to say one more word before I sit down in regard to this question of defence over which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs got more than heated up. I think he made a very unfair attack. I wish I could express my remarks with the same vehemence with which he expressed himself just after lunch. Whether it was a demonstration or whether it was motivated by certain factors, I do not know, but to my horror I found him giving almost a stage performance with regard to our lack of interest in the welfare of our country. He attacked us for our criticism on defence and he got very worked up about it when in fact the hon. member for Constantia had never criticized defence at all. [Interjections.] He can look at the Hansard. The hon. member passed it over and concentrated on the other weak leg of the Budget, which was infrastructure. That is the aspect of the Budget which he criticized. He did not say that the hon. the Minister had no right to increase the defence budget. [Interjections.] I will tell the hon. the Minister something else, and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not here. It is about time that we became a little more sophisticated in our country. I will just read you a little interesting story which is worth hearing. On 28 March 1940 a gentleman called Mr. Werth, who was a Nationalist member of Parliament, while speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Development Bill, said (Hansard, Vol. 38, col. 3945)—

This was in 1940 when there was a war on—

That was the Industrial Development Corporation—

There were no shouts of horror from the other side, nobody got heated up and the gentleman was not accused of being a traitor.

Double standards.

Yes, there was none of this nonsense. What should happen in South Africa is that, as in other sophisticated countries, when we get to the stage where we are going to spend nearly R3 million per day on defence, we should have a select committee, for which we have pleaded dozens of times, which will examine this expenditure and the manner in which the Defence Vote is being dealt with.

Would you like to govern?

I have no objections. Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that I at one time had the privilege of taking part in the government of a city which has the third largest budget in South Africa. I was even chairman of its finance committee for six months. We made a lot of money that year. In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is time we grew up in South Africa instead of being oversensitive, like children. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs made what he thought was a patriotic speech. He defended defence. We need a committee to deal with that … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely, of course, with the hon. member for Jeppe that it is time for us to grow up and come to our senses. In the nature of the matter this does not only apply to us on this side of the House. In this debate in particular, it also applies to the hon. members of the Opposition. Sir, it is not for me to try to indicate to the hon. member why this amount is to be spent on defence. I accept that those people, in their support for that expenditure, will at least also have the faith that that money is being spent in the interests of the country. But, Sir, the hon. member for Jeppe said that this Budget bears the stamp of “no relief for the man in the street”. He also referred to the housewife who was having such a hard time of it and to the pensioner. This, to me, is the irony of the attacks on the Government by the hon. Opposition when it comes to State expenditure. Time and again, when they have the opportunity of judging a balanced Budget, and when they have the opportunity of expressing their thanks for what is being spent on the non-Whites, they try to create the impression among the White voters that too little is being done for them. Often, when they hold meetings on the platteland, they also try to create the impression among the White voters that too much is being done for the Black man. The hon. members of the Opposition, and the hon. members of the Progressive Party in particular—I refer now to the hon. members for Pinelands and Johannesburg North—launched what, in my humble opinion, was a very reprehensible attack on the expenditure on defence and made insinuations in that regard. I should like to quote what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had to say—

Sir, I am quite unable to associate myself with what the hon. member for Johannes burg North said. In fact, I think it was very reprehensible. Those hon. members must realize that this large amount of R948 million being spent on defence is also, implicitly, being spent on the defence of all the Black nations here in South Africa. I think it is reprehensible to insinuate that the policy of the National Party is the reason for this money having to be spent. Sir, throughout the world enormous amounts are being spent in this regard. Billions of dollars have been spent by America in Vietnam. I want to concede to the hon. member that it is one of the tragedies of mankind that so much money has to be spent throughout the world in an effort to resist the Communist onslaught on the world. We here in Southern Africa would be foolish if we, too, were not to attempt to protect the rights of the Black peoples and of every Black individual by means of a large Defence budget like this one. It is true that in the past fives years we have spent more than R2 billion on defence. It is also true that if it were not so essential to spend that money on defence, we should have been able to make excellent use of it in a general socio-economic upliftment programme for all the people here in Southern Africa. However, I think the hon. member should just display the realism to concede to the Government that it is impossible for it to be this policy of the Government which has given rise to this expenditure. Sir, apart from many factors such as the Communist onslaught on and interest in Southern Africa and apart from all manner of undermining elements here in our sub-continent, there is a factor which I should like to mention which plays a tremendous role in this onslaught on South Africa, an onslaught we shall have to check. Sir, in the name of freedom and justice for the non-Whites, an onslaught is being launched against us here, an onslaught which we must check, and about which the people in Defence know a great deal more than does the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Surely we would be crazy not to recognize that this onslaught being launched against us, supposedly because we are so-called racists, is in itself totally racist in nature. It is an attack and an onslaught on a so-called “White racist régime” People throughout the world are being told that we have a White Government here which must be toppled. The hon. member will agree with me that that is correct. In this continent we are living in where, owing to historical circumstances, a White Government is governing its own country, it is begrudged that right. Surely, we have the right to govern ourselves in our own country, to protect ourselves and to do so by means of major expenditure in regard to defence. Sir, when I say that this is a racist attack that is being directed exclusively at the Whites, then I can substantiate that, because if one is to adopt the standpoint of hon. members on that side, that we here in South Africa have a multi-racial community viz. that the Whites do not have a right to govern, then one could say that the White Government here is a minority Government in Southern Africa; then Africa would have had to say that this Government is a minority Government—and that in a continent in which we have 17 one-party states and 19 military dictatorships—in a country which they regard as a country with a multi-racial community, but that is not how they describe us; they describe us as a White racist régime. Sir, surely this is aimed at us as Whites and we cannot be so foolish as to try to get away from that.

Sir, the Opposition—and this goes for the United Party as well—tell us in and out of season that we are spending money for ideological purposes; that we must regard South Africa as a multi-racial country, and that were we to regard South Africa as a multi-racial country we should be in a better position to contribute towards the economic welfare of all. But while they are saying that, they are slowly but surely recognizing that the Bantu homelands are not just an ideology, but a reality. I just want to quote to them from a speech made by Miss Stella Sigcau, the Transkeian Minister of the Interior, during the session of their legislative assembly this year. She referred to the Government’s involvement with economic matters such as Iscor and the S.A. Railways and then she said—

Sir, these homelands, which hon. members opposite regard as an ideology, derive benefits from economic developments generated by this National Party Government. The Black and the Brown populations in general are also making economic progress, and no one can deny it. Last year the hon. member for Houghton conceded that point to me. In the last few years there has been more upliftment in the socio-economic sphere than anyone of those hon. members would be prepared to concede. Last year I quoted to her from a survey made in Soweto which indicated that the average income of a family in Soweto was substantially higher than the so-called “poverty datum line” to which hon. members opposite are so fond of referring. I think it was the hon. member for Von Brandis who referred to the so-called “poverty datum line” in this debate and said that most of the Black people live close to or below the “poverty datum line”, Hon. members opposite will know that the purchasing power of the Black people in South Africa amounted to R2 800 million in 1973. Sir, if we now look at the total picture and at the absurd rubbish uttered by the hon. member for Pinelands to the effect that in this Budget only small amounts are being spent on the Blacks …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “rubbish”.

I withdraw it. Sir. Hon. members must surely agree with me when we consider the expenditure provided for in the Budget, that money is voted for the Blacks in all kinds of indirect ways. The hon. member for Pinelands conveniently omitted to mention the enormous amounts, also spent in the interests of the Bantu, which are received by Bantu Affairs Administration Boards from other sources. He did not mention that the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board has a budget of over R60 million and that the Bantu Affairs Administration Board of the East Rand has a budget of over R34 million. No, Sir, nor will they say how the Black man in South Africa fits into the overall picture of economic prosperity being generated by meaningful Budgets such as this one. Sir, I think the time has come for the Progressive Party and the United Party to come fully to their senses in regard to these matters, because one thing is as plain as a pikestaff and no one in South Africa and no one in this House can argue about it. Let us just be honest now. There is no chance of either of those two parties ever coming into power in South Africa during the next ten years. [Interjections.] Even though I were to give them all possible credit, they would have to admit that. The first phase of 25 years in which they have been sitting in the Opposition benches is now past, and from that point of view alone, I think, with great respect, that they should really start displaying far greater responsibility when discussing race matters in South Africa. Politically we have established a constellation here, a constellation of Bantu homelands, Bantu peoples who are developing, and not one of those parties will ever be able to reverse the process. But I find it so ironic that whereas on the one hand they acknowledge this, on the other hand they consult with the Black people, with the homeland leaders, concerning the very matters that affect the Black people in the cities, as the United Party has done repeatedly. Now I ask you. Sir, how can one recognize separate political entities in embryo next to one in Southern Africa, and then consult with these people in regard to Black people in one’s own area? Sir, I want to grant these people recognition and I really say this with great responsibility. There is a Black awareness developing among the Black people in South Africa, and we as Nationalists and they as the Opposition cannot get away from that. This awareness among the Black people relates to self-realization, it relates to realizing their deepest desires, it relates to the achievement of what they would like to demand for themselves, materially and otherwise. If these people continue to create the political impression among the Black people that they can be partners sharing power whereas they know that they cannot govern, then surely they are not doing South Africa a service. If they continue along that road, they will be bringing about an ever-growing degree of inner aggression, from one year to another, in the minds of the Black people, whom, in a certain sense, they are inciting here covertly. Not only in regard to politics, but also in regard to their policy of social justice for the non-Whites, they are inciting the feelings of the Black people. We in the National Party have a policy, a policy of identity, and I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton that if any people wants to retain its identity—and that is the key issue around which the National Party policy revolves—then there are also two other pillars on which it stands, and they are the pillar of the power of government which we claim for ourselves in our own country, and the pillar of law and order. But if we now take the centrifugal power of our entire political concept, of our entire concept of the future, the retention of identity, then the hon. member for Houghton must agree with me that there is no people in the world which can retain its identity—and the hon. member for Rondebosch will also be able to tell her this— if it does not retain it to the exclusion of certain people and with the inclusion of other people. Sir, if they want to regard this as discrimination, then there is a world of difference between their point of view and mine. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton—and I want to say to her, in all honesty, that I do not mean this in a racist way—that she belongs to a national group that has retained its identity in the world. I think she can be proud of that. I have always regarded that as a praiseworthy achievement of that group, that they have retained their identity, with the exclusion of certain other people and the inclusion of certain other people. However, when we want to do this in South Africa in respect of the Whites for the sake of law and order, by including certain people in our concept and excluding others, they call it discrimination. They say that our policy is a policy of discrimination because the things from which certain people are excluded, are laid down by law. Today the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the laws we have to repeal, but throughout the world, and in every community in Africa, peoples maintain their identity, and groups maintain their identity, by means of laws and by means of traditions and customs which are often defined but which are often not defined as well. Here in Africa they can find excellent examples of peoples which have retained their identity through the exclusion of certain people and the inclusion of what is theirs. Does that constitute discrimination?

I must make haste, because time is marching on. I must point out that our ambassador at UN made a speech about the removal of discrimination. All of a sudden the liberalists and the leftists in South Africa started rejoicing because to them, that speech had opened the door to integration. The prophets of doom saw how quickly the end was approaching. It is as well that we had a debate on that, because a few hard facts emerged from that debate. One of those facts is that when one distinguishes between people, one is not discriminating. The hon. member for Houghton does not like me to say so, but I must point out that there are certain minor customs in South Africa which will fall away in time. I want to concede to her that in the course of the evolutionary development which we are seting the peoples here follow—their development is a fact and their presence is also a fact, just as their numerical superiority is a fact—there are measures we have to adopt in order to ensure of a basic element of our policy, namely law and order. Surely, when we realize that something in a measure is in the interests of law and order, we cannot be so crazy as to do away with it. However, I want to concede fully—this, too, is entirely in accordance with our policy— that certain customs in South Africa will fall away in the course of time. I refer to customs they regard as offensive. However, they have never yet asked the Black people whether they regard specific aspects as offensive, because when they ask the Black people that, the Black people will tell them: “We want the political power.” What is more, the Black people have already told them this. The Black people want everything; petty symbols mean nothing to them.

We accept that there are certain customs that will fall away in the course of time. That I want to concede. I want to mention an example and I employ it at the risk of being misunderstood. This is the issue of lift apartheid. All of us living in cities in South Africa can see, because we experience it, that that custom of separation which once served a purpose will simply disappear in time. I accept that when we look back in years ahead, we shall see that certain customs which exist in South Africa today and which they regard as discrimination and which they in turn use all world opinion and the Black people, too, against us, will no longer exist. This is the evolutionary development that is incorporated in our policy, but whereas those customs still exist in order to maintain law and order, they do not signify discrimination. If we wanted to retain other customs and other legislative measures on the Statute Book for ever in order to include what we regard as ours and to exclude what we do not regard as ours, then that does not mean that because we differentiate, we are discriminating and injuring the human dignity of people. The hon. the Opposition, the Progressive Party and the United Party have simply become obsessed with the humanistic and liberalistic concepts of freedom and equality. Now I want to tell them today that those two concepts, freedom and equality—the hon. member for Rondebosch will concede this—are in many respects entirely irreconcilable. If, in this Southern African context, we were to say that all people are equal—according to the point of view of those hon. members—then we should have to throw overboard all legal measures effecting separation; then everyone would have to be equal, everyone would have to be able to go wherever and mix whenever they wanted to. That is the point of view of those hon. members, because they say that people are equal. Now we come to the principle of freedom. I want to ask them whether, by their concept of equality, which implies that we should do away with all legislative measures, and that we should put everyone, at all levels, on an equal basis and have them mix, they want to see the freedom of the White group in South Africa or other non-White national groups—who would like to have their identity protected—forfeited? Surely that is true. I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. Opposition that if they say that all people are equal—which is, in any event, a piece of folly because people are not equal in any society, and that includes Black societies in Africa, although they are of equal value—then they must also say that they will not interfere with the freedom of people to protect themselves. They do not want to do so because that does not accord with the sickly state of mind of the Opposition that is steeped in liberalistic ideas. The hon. member for Houghton talks about…

Order! Did the hon. member say that the State of mind of the Opposition was sickly?

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean it in that way. If that is how you interpreted it, I shall withdraw it. I know that as far as this is concerned, their state of mind is not very healthy. [Interjections.] We must look at this. When the hon. member for Pinelands stands up and attacks us about our expenditure on defence and states that we could have spent the money on schools and pensions and that in these ways we are disregarding the affairs and the rights of the Black and Brown people, he is doing an extreme disservice to all of us sitting here. Surely that is what we pride ourselves on; surely we as Whites also have selfrespect and pride in ourselves. The hon. member sitting in the Opposition must surely share with us that selfrespect and pride in ourselves. Have we as Whites lost every vestige of nationalism, that in the face of the onslaught of the whole world we want to create the impression that the White man does not have even a vestige of sympathy or a vestige of fellow-feeling for the rights and the opportunities of the non-White? That is not true and I believe that it is in our interests in this fine country, South Africa, that in going to meet the future we should be at one as regards our good intentions and that the Opposition on its part should under no circumstances continue doing this disservice to our country, South Africa, and to the image of the Whites by trying to tell the world that the Whites continually want to oppress and trample upon the Black man. This will never be true of the policy of the National Party. Our policy is a fine vision of evolutionary development possibilities. The hon. member for Parktown can laugh about that if he wants to, but our policy is a fine vision of evolutionary development possibilities for people. We want to create opportunities for those people within a specific context and I shall concede to the hon. member for Parktown that before we reach that point, before the opportunities are fully realized, there is still a long way to go in many respects. I, and many other members on this side of the House, have mentioned in speeches this year that the greatest challenge to the National Party is the socio-economic upliftment of the Black, the Brown and the Asiatic peoples in Southern Africa, I still say this and I believe that each of us on this side of the House who professes this and puts it forward as a vision, are honest and sincere. But we really cannot do this if an hon. member like the hon. member for Jeppe wants to come and put it to us today that we are doing too little for the Whites, whereas there are certain things which we must do for the non-Whites.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Innesdal made the same fatal mistake which every member on that side of the House has made in this debate. And let me say that it becomes obvious when one reads through Budget debates of the past that they have made the same mistakes for the last 27 years in that they have failed to realize that they have a certain duty when dealing with a Budget. We on this side of the House know that we have a duty when dealing with the Budget. We know that the House is the custodian of public funds and trust funds. We are dealing with R6 500 million in this particular Budget. I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal that I did not hear him make a single solitary proposal in relation to this Budget. I want to tell him further that he could have kept the speech he made for the next by-election. I want to appeal to the hon. Whips on that side of the House to bear in mind that, when they bring a speaker into the Budget debate and he makes only one single proposal relating to the Budget proposals before us, it is still acceptable. However, the whole speech of the hon. member for Innesdal was directed at attacking the Opposition. I want to say that I believe that an Oppotion has certain duties when dealing with a Budget. We have a duty to examine the Budget in depth and to deal with it in detail. I believe further that we have a duty to commend the Government when they are right or are going along the right path. I believe further that it is our duty to come with constructive criticism and concrete proposals and that we must assist in drafting a financial charter for South Africa. Having said that, I must add that I believe that a corresponding duty rests on members of the National Party. They have failed to discharge that duty today. I had hoped that members of the National Party would deal with how we can combat inflation and with reducing the cost of living. I had also hoped that they would deal with growth and productivity, but not a single member on that side of the House dealt with those particular issues. Both the Minister and all the other members on that side failed dismally in that regard.

I want to deal very briefly with the hon. member for Paarl if he will pay some attention. I see he is sitting in the House but I do not know whether he is with us at the moment. The hon. member for Paarl is the chief spokesman of the National Party on financial affairs although, listening to him one would not say so. I want to say that he takes the cake with the nonsensical pearls of wisdom we have heard from him.

The hon. member told us that the payment of increased petrol duties was a matter of patriotism. With that statement the hon. member showed that he has a monopoly on talking nonsense. If one analyses that statement, one finds that it means that anyone who is against the increase in the price of petrol, is not a good South African. I want to point out to the hon. member that there are very many South Africans, in fact the great majority, who are against the increase in the price of petrol and who are nevertheless good South Africans.

They are good Nats.

Yes, there are thousands of good Nats as well. I want to say that most sensible South Africans are against the increase in the price of petrol for the very simple reason that this increase is going to ricochet throughout the economy and cause prices to go up in every facet of our daily lives. I believe that this increase is going to have the effect of a knock-out blow to the man in the street. These price increases are going to reduce the position of the have-nots to a far more miserable level than they are on at present. I want to know from the hon. member for Paarl whether he considers Rapport a good South African newspaper. Does he consider that the editor of Rapport is a good South African? Because I would like to read to the hon. member for Paarl what Rapport said in an editorial on 6 April 1975. I think the hon. the Minister must also listen very carefully, because even at this very late stage, they make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. This is what they said:

I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance whether they consider this urgent appeal of Rapport to be a serious one. Are they going to take cognizance of it or are they going to listen to the ranting of the hon. member for Paarl instead? I believe that they should listen to the editorial in Rapport, because it is a sensible editorial. I believe these two Ministers should take their direction from that editorial, as they have taken their direction from the editorials of Rapport over many years now. The hon. member for Paarl must stop equating common sense with patriotism, because that is what he did in regard to the price of petrol. I want to say further in regard to Sasol 2, which is to be financed partly from the increase in the cost of petroleum products, that it is part of the big bluff to justify the increase in the price of petrol. We believe that Sasol 2 is a necessity, but the way the Government is raising the funds to pay for Sasol 2 is totally incorrect. I will deal with this point later on.

I also want to join issue with the hon. member for Algoa where he made a plea on behalf of the Port Elizabeth municipality and on behalf of every municipality throughout the Republic of South Africa for financial assistance. The Government should attempt to alleviate the position of municipalities throughout South Africa, because they are forced to increase their rates constantly.

Especially Grahamstown.

In respect of Port Elizabeth the effect of the increases on the home-owner is such that he just cannot pay anymore. He has been soaked right to the end. If the Government would consider paying rates on buildings they own in Port Elizabeth we would get at lest R1 million extra per annum in the form of rates. If this R1 million in rates was paid to the Port Elizabeth municipality it will ensure that the rates levied on home-owners will not have to be increased every year. When it comes to people with fixed-income bracket it is a fact that they do not know where to turn anymore. We have heard from the hon. member for Algoa that they are absolutely desperate and I think it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to do something about it urgently.

I would like the hon. the Minister to look at the White Book containing the Estimate of the Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Account and ask him to consider, in future Budgets—I realize he cannot do it in this Budget—making an amendment which would make it far more intelligible for members to understand.

It is you who are so stupid.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has not even heard my suggestion. He does not even understand this particular Budget and has not even read it. The suggestion I want to make is that the year in which every project has been approved should be given in every case. Unless he does that one cannot read the Budget in relation to capital works intelligently. If he would indicate the year in which particular projects or all the projects are approved one can then try to assess the backlog in relation to capital works. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he refuses to do this there will be only one course of action open to the Opposition. We shall have to table questions in order to ask him in which year each project was approved. If he does not agree to this suggestion then that is the attitude that we will have to adopt. We shall have to table a question in relation to each item on the capital works programme. When one asks questions in relation to the backlog in capital works one finds that these questions are unable to be answered. We are told that the statistics are not readily available. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he is in agreement with me when I say that departures from tender regulations must only be resorted to in very exceptional circumstances. In other words, the rule must be that one must go to tender under all circumstances, the only exception being when exceptional circumstances prevail. If the hon. the Minister of Finance agrees with me in this regard I want to ask him why in the 1974-75 financial year something like R32 million was spent on capital works without going to tender. This is an astronomical figure when one takes into account the fact that the 1973-74 figure was approximately R2.9 million and that the 1972-73 figure was R4,1 million. Let me answer that question partially for the hon. the Minister. When one spends R32 million without going to tender it presupposes a lack of pre-planning. This shows an absolute lack of planning and a shocking state of affairs in the Government. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he approves the state of affairs where one does not have the proper safeguards which are present under the tender regulations and where capital works amounting to R32 million are given out without going to tender. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has a priority list in relation to the capital works programme. I want to ask him whether he would consider furnishing us with this priority list. In other words, we would like to see the date on which he anticipates that a particular project will be commenced and the anticipated date of the completion of that particular project. The hon. the Minister cannot possibly plan his capital works programme unless he has a priority list. I want to ask him to take us into his confidence and tell us whether or not he has a priority list.

I believe that in order to ensure political stability in Southern African there must be economic stability. There are certain essential steps to be taken to achieve stability, viz. effective control, the reduction of inflation and relief from high prices. In addition to these we must have the added impetus of a growing economy which will ensure higher living standards for all our people. If we study the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia we find the fulfilment of all these ideals. We find that the amendment is well worth supporting. I commend this amendment to many hon. members of the Nationalist Party who must feel the way we do in regard to this situation.

We realize that the economics of the abundance of relatively cheap food and oil have reached the watershed stage. The problem is that we in South Africa must develop to our maximum potential because if we do not do so, the differential between the haves and have-nots will become absolutely insurmountable in South Africa. The have-nots have to be assisted to become economically viable. When I speak of the have-nots I believe that we have to assist each and every one of our neighbours to become economically viable because this is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of our own welfare and society. I believe that the effect of the oil crisis on the developed countries is such that those developed countries which in the past assisted the underdeveloped countries, will no longer be able to do so as well as they did in the past because they are fighting for their own self-preservation. I believe that South Africa is in a singularly fortunate position in that we are able to assist the underdeveloped countries where other developed countries are unable to do so. I believe that it is incumbent upon South Africa to assist the rest of Southern Africa and to negotiate peace in this region. If peace moves succeed, South Africa will not only establish, itself as one of the strongest economic units in the world, but also as a strong political power. Success with our neighbours will mean that the whole of Southern Africa will assume new economic and political importance. We will be respected for this throughout the whole of the Western world.

I believe that this Budget is not in accordance with any of the guidelines that I have just outlined. Seen in the light of our capital requirements, the need to develop our infrastructure and to develop the vast Bantu homelands, the hon. the Minister has missed the boat completely. Over the next couple of years our capital requirements will run into billions of rand. The hon. the Minister of Finance should expand his financial vision and horizon by revaluing the price of gold to at least 160 dollar an ounce. The effect would be that we, like France, would show confidence in gold. After all, we are the major producer of gold in the world. Why should France reflect a confidence in gold which we are not confident to reflect? I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should seriously and urgently consider the revaluation of gold to 160 dollar an ounce. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should do as Italy did, namely to pledge gold reserves to borrow money, but if we revalue gold we will find that it will enhance our borrowing capacity of capital funds throughout the world. The true value of gold has not been recognized. We are selling our heritage and lifeblood far too cheaply.

The hon. member is “liggelowig” (credulous).

The hon. Whip says that I am “lig in die broek” (a light-weight). Does he disagree with what I am saying?

I did not say you were a light-weight, but that you were “credulous”. You “believe” too much.

I would like to tell the hon. member that I believe that the price of gold should be double what it is today. I would like to know whether he disagrees with me. We should start a top-class gold campaign throughout the world. Every man, woman and child in the world who wants capital growth, should realize that investment in gold is one way, in fact the only way of knowing for certain that you will get capital growth. I am not referring to a man, woman, or child who wants interest-bearing investments; I am referring to those who want capital growth, It must be indoctrinated throughout the whole of the world that every man, woman and child could get capital growth by investing in gold. We must run a publicity campaign although it costs us millions of rand. I have no doubt that it will yield thousands of millions of rand in return. It will be worthwhile. I would like to see a dynamic gold industry established in South Africa to ensure that we get the highest possible price for our gold by manufacturing the gold instead of exporting only the raw article. The price of gold has been suppressed artificially by certain major powers because they disapprove of the policies of the Nationalist Party and the Nationalist Government.

The Government must undertake and be prepared to use the additional funds they received from gold over and above the funds which we are receiving at the moment, to assist in the development of the Bantu homelands and to assist in diminishing the disproportion in South Africa between the haves and the have-nots. The funding of the homelands can only be done effectively if we make use of external loans to a larger extent. I believe that we cannot do it only by making use of internal loans. I believe that we must find partners overseas who have capital that they are prepared to lend to South Africa. I believe that we must find partners who are prepared to take equity in ventures in South Africa to a far greater extent than is the case today. I believe that if we solve the race problems of Southern Africa, the partners will be found and the finance will be found for investment in South Africa. I believe that economically and technically South Africa could assist, with overseas capital, to develop the whole of Southern Africa. Sir, if we look to Africa, we will find that there is an export market worth thousands of millions of rands to South Africa, but in return Africa will find, if they look to South Africa, that they will have a partner second to none to which they in turn can export their goods. Sir, I am surprised that the hon. the Minister wants to fund Sasol, which will cost approximately R1 000 million, from revenue. I believe that this is a classical example—and the hon. the Minister knows that I am right—of a project which should be funded with loan capital, which should be borrowed either overseas or internally.

If I thought that, why did I not do it?

Because we had heard previously that this Budget had been drawn up for the Minister and that he merely put his pen to it. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe he should not borrow all these funds internally because he would then be taking up all the internal liquidity of the country at a time when there are many private companies which are also looking for liquidity. With regard to the R70 million that Iscor wants for share capital—I see that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is already starting to glare at me—I want to say that I am very happy that Iscor has established itself so well. I believe that in some respects they are performing a wonderful function, but I want to say this with regard to the R70 million that Iscor is getting in the form of share capital: The reason for this given to us by the Minister is that it would assist Iscor to borrow capital funds from overseas. Sir, with the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister, that is nonsense, because every person who lends money to Iscor knows that in the final analysis the South African Government is responsible for the debts of Iscor, so who is going to swallow the story that Iscor is being given extra share capital in order to enable it to borrow money overseas. That is sheer bluff. The reason why Iscor is being given additional share capital is obvious. It is obvious that it bolsters their balance sheet and it is obvious that they are not compelled to pay dividends on the share capital, if they do not want to do so, and it is also obvious that if they do pay dividends, the dividends that they will pay will be far less than the interest that they would have to pay if they borrowed the money overseas or elsewhere. Sir, Iscor, as we have heard, requires substantial capital investment and a lot of assistance from the Government. I believe that the time has come for Iscor to be accountable to Parliament, and I believe that there should be a Select Committee of Parliament to deal with the affairs of Iscor. The loss of Iscor in the last financial year was something like R37 million, and I believe the time has come for us to stop giving Iscor carte blanche. I want an assurance from the hon. the Minister that be will appoint a Select Committee of Parliament to deal with the affairs of Iscor. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we must do our utmost to increase and to promote foreign earnings. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can disagree with me in this regard. We in South Africa have lost hundreds of millions of rands through the delay in implementing the St. Croix iron ore project. I do not want to go into details again, but I want an assurance from the hon. the Minister of Finance today that he will throw his whole weight behind this project. I believe that the delay in implementing this project is an absolute disgrace and that the hon. the Minister has a duty in this Budget debate to give us the assurance that the negotiations which have been going on since September of last year will reach finality within the next week or two. I want a further assurance—I believe we are entitled to it—that if the negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, the South African Government will provide the finance for this project to commence immediately.

Sir, in view of the shortage of skilled and technical persons in South Africa, should we not take advantage of the fact that there are millions of highly trained people in Europe and America who are unemployed at present? Should we not encourage as many of these people as we can absorb in our economy to immigrate to South Africa? Should we not offer inducements to these people who are unemployed and who are highly trained to come to South Africa as immigrants? Sir, I believe that we should do just that. I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that as far as that is concerned, it is merely a short-term solution; it is merely a stop-gap measure. If we want a long-term solution we must educate and train South Africans of all races to be far more productive.

This Budget is a failure because it does not provide sufficient finance to ensure that every South African citizen, irrespective of skin or colour, produces to the maximum of his or her ability. Where is the finance for compulsory free Black schooling? Where is a financial charter to ensure technical training and education and to provide for the best talents of all South Africans to be developed? Where is the finance for the manpower programme? In that regard, as in all other regards, this Budget is a total flop. Our greatest asset in South Africa is our labour, but under this Government our greatest asset is fast becoming our greatest liability. The hon. the Minister knows that it is not correct that only 10% of the population should be paying tax. Can the hon. the Minister imagine that if a large proportion of the other 90% in South Africa were also paying tax, what it would mean for our productivity, for the spending power of our people and for our economy?

In relation to married women, the increase from R600 to R750 in the form of a concession, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is a mere bagatelle and an insult to the intelligence of the affected parties. If one wants to encourage competent married women to come back to fulltime or part-time employment, we will have to give them far greater incentives than the Minister has given them. Married women will come to the irresistible conclusion that it is just not worth, their while within a certain income tax bracket to come back into the productive sector of our economy. Thousands of women who are not fully productive would be prepared to work if additional concessions were given to them. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that these thousands of women have cost the country hundreds of millions of rands in training them, training that will be wasted if the hon. the Minister does not make meaningful concessions. I was hoping that the hon. the Minister of Finance would have his hand on the pulse of the women of South Africa, but it is obvious that he is no better than the good doctor, his predecessor in this portfolio.

The hon. the Minister of Finance gives the impression that he is a man who would like to redress any wrongs. But how can he possibly justify only giving a R7 increase in social pensions, and no increase at all as regards civil pensioners? Sir, it is tragic in these days of high cost of living, that the hon. the Minister can expect them to come out on R64 a month. These elderly people played their part in laying the foundation stones of modern South Africa. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider the position. I believe that no pensioner in South Africa should receive less than R150 per month. In so far as Coloured pensioners are concerned, who now receive R29-50, and Africans, who now receive R11-29 a month, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think these pensions are nothing short of barbaric. I want to say that I do not believe that any man in his right mind would continue paying these rates. I think it is a patent injustice, and I believe that the hon. the Minister must rectify it immediately. Sir, I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that when he announces pension increases in future, he should announce the increases for all races at the same time. They are all anxiously looking to the Budget to see what the increases will be, and I cannot see why he should announce the increases only for the White race group and not for the other race groups. I want to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I want to say to him that in relation to the concessions he is giving to the aged and to the old age homes, he is asking them to wait until October 1975 before putting these increases into effect. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the ravages of inflation have already overtaken these increases years ago, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to let them wait until October. I believe he should implement these increases immediately.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister, please to assist the building society movement to a far greater extent. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that some building societies have a bond backlog of eight months at present. The building society movement has put certain proposals to the hon. the Minister to alleviate their position and I hope that he is going to do something about it. Mr. Speaker, you are looking at me; has my time expired?

Order! Yes, the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer is the most believing person I have ever come across in my life. I think he is someone a bad minister of religion would dream about, because all he says throughout is, “I believe, I believe.” [Interjections.]

He said that members on that side are not happy because speakers on this side allegedly, did not give sufficient attention to quite a number of matters relating to the Budget. He said they were disappointed. Now I can say what has disappointed us on this side and more than disappointed us. We are despondent because the hon. Opposition has not said a word about the item which shows the greatest increase in our State expenditure, viz. defence. They refuse to go into defence and the expenditure on defence in depth. They are scratching around. The hon. member for Innesdal pointed out that there is no uncertainty on this side of the House that our expenditure on defence had to be increased, but on that side of the House they are scratching around. The hon. member for Constantia is not even sure what he should say about it and then the hon. member for Jeppe had to try and defend him by pretending that he was not, in fact opposed to the increase in defence expenditure.

Have you read his Hansard?

The hon. member for Jeppe said with reference to the hon. member for Constantia, “He glossed over defence and went on to another weak leg of the Budget.” In other words, it is one of the weaknesses of the Budget.

I did not say “he glossed over”.

The hon. member should consult his own Hansard. We on this side do not believe that it is a weakness of the Budget. On the contrary. It is one of the strong points of the Budget. However, it is very clear why the hon. members of the United Party are silent on this matter. If they were to come forward and applaud the increase of expenditure on defence, nothing remains for them to criticize in the Budget. As was shown yesterday, the increase in State expenditure is reduced from 19% to 14% if the increase in defence expenditure is left out of consideration, and an increase of 14% is only slightly higher than the rate of inflation.

As the hon. the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, South Africa is at the crossroads. Southern Africa must choose between peace and détente on the one hand and the escalation of violence on the other hand. The alternatives are still open and as long as alternatives exist, the Government would be foolish if it did not safeguard its population to the maximum extent.

On that side, much was made of State expenditure which had increased by 19%. The hon. members on that side want to be certain that there is growth in the country, but at the same time they argue that the 19% increase in the State expenditure is inflationary. It is a difficult balance the hon. the Minister had to try to maintain by combating inflation on the one hand and promoting growth on the other. It is almost like someone who drives a motor car while stepping on the brake and the accelerator pedals at the same time. The objection to the increase of State expenditure actually stems from the basic philosophy that the economy should be left to itself and that the State’s involvement should be confined to a minimum. The spectre of Socialism is very quickly conjured up in this connection, for the hon. member for Constantia said in the course of his speech:

Usually it is the spokesmen of the large companies and their lackeys on the other side, the hon. members of the Progressive Party, who try to conjure up this spectre and speak without qualification of creeping Socialism, without defining the term “Socialism”. In this connection, I should like to make a few remarks. The first is that it should be emphasized that in fact there is no purely capitalist system in the world. A free capitalist economy, which means that the State’s involvement and activities are to be confined to a minimum, is purely a Utopia and a dream. Since the thirties, the years of the great depression, it has become very clear that the free market mechanism alone is not able to maintain a sound equilibrium in the economy. The free market mechanism had to be protected, supported and regulated by the State. Well-known economists throughout the whole world are agreed on that, and a well-known economist such as Robert Heilbrönner says:

Instead of a purely capitalist system, there is an increasing search in the Western world for a sound combination of free capitalism on the one hand and tempered Socialism on the other. Let us rather say that a neo-capitalism is being sought, or a form of capitalism in which the interests of the State will increase, particularly in an organizational context. For various reasons it is obvious and essential that the State must support, regulate and protect the economic system. To mention only one example, we can think of such dangerous side-effects of the free market mechanism, as the pollution of the environment, the marketing of dangerous health preparations, the safety of motor cars and buildings, and so on. Therefore, not a single purely capitalist system remains in the world. In the second place, the people who are opposed to the State’s involvement in the economy usually point out that the activities of the State in South Africa have increased more rapidly, relative to the private sector, over the past few years, even decades. The hon. member for Constantia was advancing an argument approximately the same as this when he said that the 19% increase of this year should also be seen against the background of the 20% increase in 1973 and the 23% increase in 1974. This argument is usually expanded to point out that the expenditure on goods and services by the public sector during 1938 in South Africa represented only 16% of the gross national product, as opposed to 18% in 1960 and 27% in 1972. Let us consider other Western countries for a while. Let us consider a country such as the United States of America, which is the bastion of capitalism. In the USA, State expenditure has risen from 7,7% of the gross national product in 1902 to 20,3% in 1940 and 31,1% in 1970. That is what happened in a developed country which is held up as an example of a free market mechanism and free capitalism. In contrast to this, we must bear in mind that South Africa is an underdeveloped or a developing country. It is with regard to developing countries that the economist Adolf Wagner formulated a law in respect of the increase of State activities. The regularity which Wagner tried to indicate, simply amounts to State activities and State involvement in developing countries increasing relatively more rapidly than the economic production. It is in this connection as well, that Prof. Dye wrote very clearly in Understanding Public Policy:

Thus the “law of increasing State activity” portrayed growth in Government activity as an inevitable accompaniment of a developing society.

In the third place I should like to point out that the largest part of State expenditure in South Africa is being utilized to establish an infrastructure. The establishment of an infrastructure is an expensive business in South Africa both as a result of the vast geographical extent of South Africa and also as a result of the low population density in many areas. In South Africa there was no private initiative from the outset to establish these services and therefore the State had to do so. State expenditure on the State corporations, which are the subject of so much discussion, should therefore be seen in this framework in developing countries such as South Africa. In other countries the State’s responsibility, in respect of the establishment of the infrastructure as well, is considerably less. In forming an opinion on State expenditure, one must therefore consider how much of this expenditure, such as the expenditure on railways and harbours and on the State corporations, is in fact incurred to establish the necessary infrastructure for growth, i want to add that it is certainly necessary to look critically from time to time at the State corporations to see whether they are still serving their function and purpose. State corporations, to my mind, are necessary in the first place to provide the means and services for a sound infrastructure and furthermore, to allocate scarce and strategic resources. In the light of these and other criteria as well, the different State corporations can be, and are in fact being considered. I wonder whether the hon. member for Constantia and other members on that side of the House, would be able to imagine South Africa today without the contribution of an Iscor, an Escom and the other State corporations. That hon. member would like to see growth in South Africa—it was one of the points of his speech—but at the same time he also asks in his speech “Whether we are not overdoing capital expenditure in respect of public corporations”. That hon. member and the other hon. members of the Opposition would be the first people to register a protest if bottlenecks were to arise as a result of an inadequate infrastructure in South Africa. Even if it is not always popular, it is nevertheless the responsibility of the State to incur the necessary expenditure to establish the framework for growth, a framework within which private initiative may develop freely and in which the often conflicting demands which are made on the economy, may be reconciled with one another as far as this is possible.

In the short time I still have at my disposal, I want to touch on a matter on which I believe there is great unanimity in this House. It is also a matter which enjoys a high priority in the Budget. I believe that everyone in this House is agreed that it is extremely important in the times in which we are living to give attention to education and research. The appropriation for education expenditure has increased by 23,1% in this Budget. It is something which fills us with extreme gratitude towards the Minister and the Government. Education and research in particular, on which I wish to make a few remarks, has become a priority in the world which even when expressed in economic terms, has become of incalculable importance. In the economic theories of today, knowledge and research are being regarded to an increasing extent as a form of capital, a form of capital which should constitute an important part of all investment. It is generally accepted by economists today that the improvement of the labour market through training and research has dramatic consequences for productivity and for a higher economic growth rate. The “economics of education”, as it is known, has grown since the ’sixties to a discipline of full status within economics. Indeed, we are living in a period of the history of mankind in which the knowledge revolution is going to have greater and more far-reaching economic, social and political consequences than those of the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Knowledge through education, and especially through research, has become the heartbeat of modern economics. The present period in history is typified and characterized in many ways. I think one can gain much by looking at the typification of a man such as Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages. He speaks of our time as the “technotronic” era, i.e. the era in history which will be decided to an increasing extent by technology and electronics. Knowledge and especially research, has for that reason become an important factor for economic growth. It forms the basis for progress and growth and in modern society, even the defence and the security of a country and a nation rests on its economic and scientific growth and development. The economic gap, which is often referred to, between developed countries and developing countries or backward countries, could perhaps be typified better by calling it a “technological gap”, or even a knowledge gap. A real danger exists that the underdeveloped countries and the developing countries— that includes South Africa as well—could fall into the grip of a new form of colonialism, a new form of colonialism through which underdeveloped countries could be made dependent on the developed country. It is a colonialism which could be called a “technological colonialism”. Dr. Meiring Naudé, the scientific adviser of the Prime Minister, has calculated that South Africa, i.e. the public sector and the private sector together, spends only 0,4% in aggregate of its gross national product on research, as opposed to 2,3% in Holland, approximately the same in Britain and 3,6% in America. The question is whether South Africa in the new world, and especially in Africa where it has a special task and calling, is giving sufficient attention to its research strategy. The achievements of our nuclear physicists which the Prime Minister announced here a few days ago, were gratifying to all of us. As well as congratulating those scientists, we are also grateful to a Government which had confidence in its own scientists and had the far-sightedness to provide them with the necessary means to be able to accomplish this brilliant achievement. Personally, I should also like to see this confidence in the scientists of South Africa and the far-sightedness of the Government in respect of research being expanded to other scientific disciplines as well. It should also be expanded to the human sciences, to research institutes and universities which fulfil an exceptional radar-like function in modern society. The wealth and power of a country and a nation in the world and in the times in which we are living, will be determined to an increasing extent by its spiritual power and by its intellectual efficiency. The challenge which faces South Africa, the public and the private sector, could perhaps be best summarized and expressed with reference to a writer such as Jean-Jacques Servant Schreiber. He writes the following in his little book The American Challenge—

He continues, and with this I conclude—

Mr. Speaker, in examining the Budget, I was very grateful to see the allocation made from revenue funds to education. I was very grateful to see, too, that the hon. the Minister of Finance obviously regards education as a very important factor. This also accounts for the fact that from revenue funds alone there is an increase of 22% in the amount allocated to education as such. I have observed that there is also an increase in the allocation to the provinces from these funds. I am convinced that we are all satisfied with this and that we do not want to argue with each other about the importance of education. The fact is—and I believe that most people consider this to be true—that education may rightly be called “the mother of all the professions”. I want to point out that as a result of the system of differentiation which was introduced two or three years ago, exceptional requirements have arisen in respect of the financing of education. This sytem of differentiation, which is intended to reveal and develop the maximum potential of every child, has also introduced the so-called advanced and standard grades. On the other hand, the requirements of the Joint Matriculation Board, and of the universities as well, have made it essential for the pupil to be educated on the advanced level in some of the subjects and on the standard level in others. What is more, it has also created a need for special attention to be given to the necessary guidance in respect of the pupils as well as the parents.

Bearing this in mind, it is quite clear that the supply of staff has to be investigated as well, for when we want to achieve all these things in education, it is essential that we have the necessary staff to perform this task. This staff increase can be motivated by the fact that education has almost doubled as a result of the differentiation. The necessary guidance for the pupils and the parents which I have mentioned must take place, because we can certainly not afford the child’s taking the wrong subjects, or following the wrong study courses and eventually experiencing problems in regard to his studies. On the other hand it is essential that the parent also be informed in respect of these different study courses and the requirements which are laid down by the universities and by the Joint Matriculation Board. Under the present set-up, this information cannot be supplied only by the principal, the deputy principal, the vice-principals and the heads of departments. A country certainly cannot afford to let its limited manpower go to waste because persons are practising a profession half-heartedly because they have not been equipped for that particular profession, nor can it allow the student to experience problems with his studies even while he is still at university. It is important for us to look at the provision of staff, because it is a recognized fact that the smaller the group which is taught and the more individual attention can be given to these children, the better the quality of that instruction. Educating children is a comprehensive task. It is not only aimed at imparting knowledge; it is also aimed at building character. In other words, it is aimed at the education of the whole person. This is becoming a difficult task in the times in which we live. We know that the spirit of permissiveness has invaded our country as well. Because this is so and because children are exposed to this, it is essential that more personal attention be given to these children. I want to refer hon. members to an interesting but shocking report which I read in Die Burger of 4 March 1975. This report appeared under the heading “Teachers also play truant”, and it reads as follows (translation)—

I am grateful to be able to say that as far as I know, we do not have that situation in the Republic of South Africa. However, we must take cognizance of that onslaught and we must prepare our pupils to resist it. As it is, youth is the period of searching and questioning, and for that reason it is a time in which the pupils must be given clarity so that they may cultivate a fundamental value in life.

This more generous provision of staff which I am pleading for will also have its advantages as far as prospects of promotion are concerned. It goes without saying that if there is a more generous provision of staff, there will also be more incentives for better service to be rendered if there are prospects of promotion. Efficient planning in respect of education would be a further advantage of a more generous provision of staff. In the differentiated education with which we are dealing in the times in which we live, the deputy principals and the vice-principals have to be appointed in specific directions of study. With them they must have the necessary teachers in charge of various subjects and senior assistants to plan within the direction in which they are moving. Only when there is proper planning, in respect of this study field as well, the child will eventually benefit. Consequently I believe that there should be the necessary departments headed by a deputy principal or a vice-principal to ensure the necessary co-ordination between the teachers who teach those subjects.

I realize that a more generous provision of staff will certainly require more classroom space and consequently more funds as well. A smaller number of pupils per class will require more class-rooms. To my mind this is perhaps one of the most inhibiting factors at the present moment, i.e. the fact that even now there is not enough school space—I am referring now to buildings—to ensure effective teaching. Even in the present situation in regard to staff, where there are large numbers of children in the same class, we find that there is not sufficient class-room space. It is obvious, therefore, that with more staff and fewer children to a class, we shall develop a need for more class-room space. It is terrible to realize that in some areas, specifically in the rural areas, school buildings are sometimes not fully utilized, owing to a drop in the number of pupils. This is an aspect which I do not want to take any further at the moment.

The problem of better staffing is being experienced abroad as well. I have read in a report that the teachers’ associations in Germany are demanding smaller classes in the secondary as well as primary schools. In Germany the teachers are asking for a maximum of 22 pupils per class in primary schools. And this is a figure which is accepted by the authorities as being reasonable. It is interesting to see what the motivation of the Germans is, namely that this will offer equal opportunities to the pupils in that class who have been entrusted to the care of the teacher. This is because these pupils do not all have the same domestic circumstances. If the pupil is labouring under a disadvantage as far as his domestic circumstances are concerned, therefore, he can become the equal of his school-fellows in a class with a small number of pupils, because more personal attention can then be given to him. We know that the provinces unfortunately do not possess sufficient funds to make more generous provision for education in respect of the salaries to be paid and the provision of buildings. Although the training will cost a great deal of money and we might hesitate because we do not have the money for the education of our children, I am afraid that in neglecting the education of our children, we should be gambling with the future of a people. Consequently I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance, in planning future Budgets, to consider allocating more money on account of the demands made by differentiated education and on account of the fact that schools are urgently in need of more staff.

For all the population groups?

At the moment I am dealing with the White group. I had expected this question to be asked by the Opposition sooner or later. At the moment, however, I am dealing with the White group.

I believe that I am being realistic in saying that bigger staffs would make the existing shortage of teachers more acute. This shortage of teachers is something which surprises me and which causes me to ask myself a question. I believe that the conditions of service applicable to teachers today are reasonable. Here and there in the teaching profession there may be sufficient reason for teachers to request better conditions of service, but generally speaking they are fair and competitive. The question I ask myself is this: Why then do we have a shortage of teachers and why do our English-speaking people not come forward to take up the teaching profession? It is generally recognized that there is an acute shortage of English-speaking teachers for the English-speaking pupils in our English schools. Furthermore I ask myself whether the reason for this is that the Opposition and the English Press with their destructive and negative criticism often fail to engender the necessary enthusiasm in the English-speaking community of our country. Perhaps it is for economic reasons that our English-speaking men and women do not want to take up the teaching profession, because they can make more money in another field. Does the reason perhaps lie in the fact that the Opposition and the English Press often regard the teaching profession as an instrument of indoctrination in the hands of the Government?

I want to say at once that the teaching profession is above such petty political considerations. The teaching profession needs the English-speaking South African as well. In the times in which we live we cannot afford the luxury of perpetuating petty disputes and suspicion-sowing between language groups. The English schools need English-speaking teachers, English-speaking teachers who, as South Africans, can proudly forge indissoluble bonds which will tie the English-speaking pupils for ever to a common fatherland, to its traditions and its history as well as to its culture. Teaching is not concerned with promoting one language group at the cost of another. It is not concerned with suspicion-sowing by one language group against another. However, it is concerned with the education of future happy and mature South African citizens. This is the intention of every nation, after all. The French are doing it, the Germans are doing it and the English are doing it. The teaching profession cannot and dare not be neutral and luke-warm towards religion or nationalism. I am referring to nationalism in its wider sense of loyalty to one’s people and not in its narrow political sense. Intellect and knowledge alone are worth nothing. They only find significance and meaning when they go together with an ideal, a nation, a country and its people. Only then the knowledge which has been acquired is meaningfully applied. A person who has a neutral attitude towards religion does not belong in the teaching profession.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.20 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I had pointed out that the shortage of teachers could become more acute as the result of a more generous provision of staff. I had also asked why our English-speaking citizens were not joining the teaching profession in greater numbers. Just before business was suspended I made the statement that the teaching profession cannot and dare not adopt a neutral or a luke-warm attitude towards religion and towards nationalism in the wider sense of the word. A person who has a neutral attitude to religion should not be a teacher because he would be depriving his pupils of the corner-stone of true character building if this was not founded on unshakeable faith. The child must be educated in a religion with absolute standards, for it is this very religion which will give the young people of our nation the strength not to yield to the strange ideologies by which they are confronted today. But, Sir, teaching must also show the child that he has a right to his national identity and that this national identity to which he has a right gives him a right to his fatherland as well. The teaching profession must attach the child to that which is his own. Schools are not only concerned with imparting knowledge; they are concerned with educating the whole person and with making their pupils happy citizens of a community and of a nation. My request tonight, Sir, is that the Opposition and the dissenters should get away from the idea that political indoctrination has anything to do with the cultivation of national pride and love of one’s fatherland, for true, pure and elevated national feeling is surely worth much more than political views, although the political views are certainly important as well. It may be this very lack of identity which is creating the confusion experienced by our modern young people, as well as their uncertainty when confronted with complex matters. Sir, if the whole nation, if the Government and if the Opposition were to take this view of and to have this appreciation for the teaching profession, I believe that more people of both language groups would come forward to devote their energies to the teaching profession, not only in order to contribute knowledge to the educational process, but also to serve their nation.

The hon. member for Virginia has asked certain question here. I too want to ask a question. My question to the hon. member is why he did not think fit to defend this “marvellous” Budget of the Nationalist Party any further. For what reason did he leave the Budget and occupy himself with trivialities in education? Surely this is a Budget debate. It is not a trivialities debate. I think that if the hon. member for Virginia is unable to say anything about the Budget, he should rather wait for the appointed time when the Education Vote comes up for discussion and then debate it. I think it is unnecessary to make a lot of absurd remarks here about education and to speak with great praise about an increase of 22% in the Education budget and keep silent about the fact that this 22% is only concerned with White education. It is really the education of the other race groups which should be discussed under this Budget, and not the increase in the expenditure on education for Whites, for we know that as far as the economy is concerned, White education already is where it should be. It can still improve from time to time, but for the expansion of the economy of the country it is absolutely necessary at the moment that there should be proper education for the non-Whites, and this is a matter about which the hon. member for Virginia should really have told us something.

Before the hon. member for Virginia spoke, the hon. member for Johannesburg West treated us here to a philosophical approach to government. I do not see the hon. member here now. I do not know whether the hon. member really had something to say about the Budget. He spoke, inter alia, about the economy which should allegedly be left to itself. He said there were people who said that the economy should be left to itself, that there should not be interference by the State. Yet he was of the opinion that the State should interfere, and then he compared the USA with the Republic of South Africa and said that the two are comparable. Sir, we know that these two countries are not comparable. No matter how fond we are of our country, the Republic of South Africa does not yet have the status of the USA, and surely we cannot compare the two countries when it comes to economic affairs either. The hon. member also said that this Budget intended to spend money on the creation of an infrastructure and he said that an infrastructure in South Africa was an expensive affair. We know it is an expensive affair, but what we should like to know is whether the money that is spent on infrastructure is being spent judiciously, whether it is being spent according to a norm and whether we are not merely being told that we spent R1 000 million on infrastructure last year and have to spend R160 million this year, without any explanation being given of why it is necessary. I do not intend to go much further with the hon. member for Johannesburg West—he is not yet in the House—except for saying that he also spoke about State corporations. He is of the opinion that State corporations serve their purpose and as long as they serve their purpose, we should not criticize them. He then spoke about Iscor and Escom. I wholeheartedly agree with him that Iscor and Escom are two necessary State corporations which are concerned with infrastructure, but what we are concerned about is the fact that money is being spent on State corporations which is not really necessary, such as this amount of R70 million which is being granted to Iscor as capital. We say it is unnecessary, because there are other ways of financing Iscor. The only thing that has been proved, is that spending is not being done perspicaciously.

†It has been suggested to us that it is unfair to blame the hon. the Minister of Finance for the uninspiring Budget speech which he has delivered. Perhaps that is correct. However, I believe that it is probably the best he could do under the circumstances. I believe that the Budget was decided upon before the hon. the Minister took office. I believe what we should really get home to him in this debate is that we expect him to do a lot better on the next occasion. I think we are prepared to forgive him for what happened on this occasion.

Oh, no!

Well, we may be prepared to forgive him, because he did not have the whole say in the matter; he had only part of the say in the matter. Probably the only say he had in the matter was in the drafting of the speech.

No, the reading of the speech.

All right, the reading of the speech. I should like him to know that we have sympathy with him. He took office only a very short time before he had to deliver the speech and as long as he realizes that we do not think much of the Budget speech and that we expect more of him next year, we can leave it at that.

As far as the other aspects of the Budget speech are concerned, I am not going to blame the hon. the Minister, I am going to blame the Government, because I believe that what is wrong with the Budget speech is that it deals with the economy of South Africa on an ad hoc basis. I do not think that one can deal with any country’s economy on an ad hoc basis, no matter how rich or how poor that country is. I believe and we on this side believe that a budget, like anything else in modern society, must be properly planned and the Budget must have a properly planned basis.

There is no word in the speech of the hon. the Minister as to why he has budgeted in the way he has done. He tells us that the present inflation is as a result inter alia of the rise in import prices, of higher food prices and a rise in the wages of lower paid unskilled workers without a rise in productivity. That is what he tells us he thinks is the reason for the present inflation. However, his speech does not say in any way how he is going to tackle inflation apart from taking measures in regard to monopolistic conditions and a plea to the private sector. We have had such a plea to the private sector on many occasions and it is now apparently being reinforced to some extent by the standing committee on inflation. We have not seen the report of the standing committee which we believe the hon. the Minister has at his disposal. The hon. the Minister has not taken us into his confidence and told us what, in fact, is in the report. However, if we must glean, from what he said, what is in the report then we must believe that the standing committee on inflation has now also taken up this cry of appealing to the private sector in regard to inflation. Appealing to the private sector in regard to inflation is quite all right, but surely one has to set an example, surely one has to do these things properly. If the Government is spending and overspending without any regard to inflation, then surely it is not setting an example which the country would like to see?

The hon. the Minister does not get down to the hard facts of life in regard to the economy; nowhere in his speech does he do so. One would have expected that the hon. the Minister would in the first place have had a planned Budget. I have already said that there is no indication from his speech that the Budget was planned. I think the time has now arrived where we cannot have Budgets presented to us in this House that have no basis in planning whatsoever. We would also have expected a Budget which is not a Budget in isolation as this Budget is. This Budget is being dealt with entirely in isolation. It is not related to last year’s Budget or the Budget of the year before and it is not related to what is going to happen in the financial year which follows the one we are dealing with. We would also have expected that this Budget speech would have dealt with the planned infrastructure. Surely we are entitled to know what sort of infrastructure the Government has in mind? It is no use telling us that so much money is going to be devoted for infrastructure unless the hon. the Minister can tell us how much is going to be spent on every particular aspect of the infrastructure. He should also tell us why it is necessary. I believe that if the hon. the Minister had a case and he put that case fairly to us, we would be prepared to accept it, but we are certainly not prepared to accept his statement that his Budget is mainly made up of two items, viz. defence expenditure and expenditure on the infrastructure. I do not think that anybody would be prepared to accept that. We on this side of the House are definitely not prepared to accept that. If the hon. the Minister thinks that we on this side of the House are prepared to give him a complete blank cheque to do exactly as he pleases with the infrastructure, he is certainly very wrong. I think that we are entitled to know what he has in mind for the infrastructure. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has by now acquainted himself with the infrastructure he has in mind and whether he will be able to tell us in his reply to the Second Reading debate which he has in mind.

One would also have expected the hon. the Minister to have told us whether he had planned a growth rate for the country for this year and, if not for this year, for this year as well as next year and the year thereafter. Nowhere in his speech has he told us that he has any particular plan or any particular idea of what our growth rate should be for this year, next year and the following year. Surely we are entitled to know this? One would also have expected the hon. the Minister to have told us what the projected targets were for the year. If he has any targets, we expect him to tell us how he relates those targets to those of next year and those of the year thereafter. After all, that is the basis of planning. We hear a lot about planning and we are always referred to the hon. the Minister of Planning. I do not think that he is the only person in this Cabinet who should be responsible for planning, I think that every Minister who is worth his salt should plan anything that he puts before this House. It is quite clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Finance has not planned his Budget.

What did the hon. the Minister tell us he is going to do about the creation of an economic climate which is going to be beneficial to various aspects of economic life in South Africa? Nothing at all. I do not think that we can allow this Budget speech to go unchallenged and deny ourselves the opportunity of saying that we should like to know from the hon. the Minister what sort of climate he is actually creating and what sort of climate he has in mind. What does he have in mind in regard to the labour shortages which we know exist?

Order! Hon. members must not converse aloud.

How is he going to ease those labour shortages? It is just impossible to think that the hon. the Minister has no plan available. I cannot imagine that the hon. the Minister could have come to this Budget debate this year without having some sort of plan on which he could have based his Budget and his Budget speech for this year. If the hon. the Minister has no plan, I ask him why he does not plan according to the Economic Development Programme for 1974 to 1979. Surely he has a copy of that programme? Surely he has read it and knows what is in it? It is a very good plan. If he has no plan himself, why cannot he adopt this one? I just do not see the point of this at all. This EDP is a perfectly good plan. It is a plan that covers a period of five years. I think it covers that period for a very good reason. The programme is probably arranged for the usual lifespan of this Parliament, which is normally five years, although on the past few occasions it has been rather less than five years. Although this programme started in 1974 and finishes in 1979, I am prepared to concede that we should leave 1974 out of it and take the basic plan from 1975 onwards. That at least gives us four years, and by the end of that period this Parliament might well have come to an end. Perhaps there may even be a better Government after that.

There may be another Government but not a better one.

In any case, it would not take as much to find a better Government than this one sitting opposite us at the moment.

This Economic Development Programme deals with all the matters with which the hon. the Minister should have been busying himself when he prepared his Budget and his Budget speech. It tells him how the infrastructure should be structured and how it should be planned. It goes into great detail. It sets out the projected targets for the economy over a period of five years. It describes how a beneficial economic climate must be created and does so in the greatest detail. It suggests a planned growth rate; it predicts that we are going to experience labour shortages and recommends how these labour shortages should be eased. Clearly, it deals with a great variety of subjects and they are all subjects which, we believe, the hon. the Minister should have had firsthand knowledge of before he planned his Budget.

Let me merely give the main heads of what it deals with. It deals, for instance, with income and expenditure for the programming period from 1974 to 1979. It deals with foreign trade and the balance of payments. It deals with labour, supply and demand. It also deals with development according to the main branches of production and with the development of individual industries. In short, it covers the whole field of the economy in this country and it does it remarkably well.

One of the most important factors which should be taken into account when budgeting is to determine the maximum growth rate which can be attained by the economy. This matter has been dealt with to a very large extent by the economic adviser to the Prime Minister, and in this very document. In the preface to this document prepared by the economic adviser to the Prime Minister, he says—

There it is in a nutshell! That is the purpose of the programmes and having read them, I can confirm that that is in fact what the programmes do. They do say just what can be done without causing excessive pressure on the available factors of production and/or the balance of payments. Then, in the same preface the economic adviser to the Prime Minister goes on to say—

I may say that two rates were considered, viz. 6,1% and 6,4%. The economic adviser decided with his advisers that from the point of view of labour the 6,4% growth rate was the most suitable growth rate for the new programming period. The preface goes on to say:

I now come back to the hon. member for Virginia. If the hon. member for Virginia, instead of talking about the trivialities I accused him of earlier, had taken this extract form the EDP and had developed that as an argument he would have made a very worthwhile contribution to this debate. I refer to the argument that specific attention should be given to the training of our non-White labour force. The conclusions arrived at in this EDP are, amongst others, as follows:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing about easing this situation. He has not mentioned one word about this most important aspect of the Budget in his Budget speech. Further conclusions are:

This is a most remarkable document. If one studies this document one realizes, amongst other things, that the hon. the Minister should have busied himself with telling us how he is going to train at least 30 000 non-White workers in skilled occupations to take the place of White skilled workers of whom there will not be enough in 1979. But the hon. the Minister has not said a word about this. It is really quite extraordinary to think that this whole report could have been ignored entirely. One finds it difficult to understand why it should have been ignored, because this document has a most important preface. It reads as follows:

It ends off as follows:

This is signed “J. J. Loots, Minister of Planning”. We now have the extraordinary situation that the Economic Development Programme for the Republic of South Africa for the years 1974 to 1979 and the recommendations contained in it are accepted by the Government and yet not one word is said about this in the Budget speech. The hon. the Minister of Finance has ignored the whole programme and its recommendations in the presentation of his Budget. I believe that is a very serious allegation. That is why I said when I started my speech that I did not blame the hon. the Minister of Finance entirely for the very mediocre Budget speech that he made. I believe that the hon. the Minister found himself in a dilemma. He found that everything had been cut and dried by the time he took office and that all he had to do was toe the line. I am one of those people—and I think there are many of them on this side of the House—who do not just toe the line for that sort of reason. We would have expected the hon. the Minister of Finance to say: I am dashed if I will do it; I will not toe this line and I am not prepared to accept this Budget that has been dished up to me. I am going to undish it and I am going to draw it up all over again. Instead of that, what did he do? He toed the line.

He swallowed the line hook, line and sinker.

Yes, that is probably right; he swallowed the line hook, line and sinker.

He wanted everybody to say “dankie”.

I suppose that the hon. the Minister of Finance did that knowing that if he did it he would receive the praise that he did receive from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who is unfortunately not here this evening. I am very sorry about this fact because I want to devote the next portion of my speech to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjections.] I hope that somebody will call him because I think he is just as much to blame for this terrible state of affairs.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs made a speech today. I thought that he would make a speech, condemning what had been said by the hon. member for Paarl. The hon. member for Paarl said that petrol was cheap, far too cheap, and that its price should be increased. What did the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs do? He did nothing at all. We have all heard that the Motor Industries Federation has requested that the price of petrol be increased over and above the increase announced in the Budget by between a ½ cent and 1 cent. One would have thought that the first thing the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs would have done this morning when he got up to speak was to have said: That is absolute nonsense and I am not going to agree to it. He could have put everybody’s mind at ease in this way. However, what did he do? He did nothing. He did not tell us, for instance, what Mr. Eric Turk, the Director-General of the Automobile Association of South Africa said. Mr. Turk said—

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs did not tell us anything about overheads. He did not tell us about trying to channel the sale of petrol in such a way that overheads would be reduced very considerably and that petrol could be sold at a cheaper rate than it is being sold at present. No, Mr. Speaker. There is collusion between the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. member for Paarl. I cannot understand this because the hon. member for Paarl is, as you know …

In a state of economic paralysis.

… the chairman of a very important Select Committee, viz. Public Accounts. That committee has to vet all Government accounts. I think it is a disgraceful state of affairs for him to say that we in South Africa are not paying enough for petrol and that the price should be raised a bit more. I think it is a terrible thing. I wish the hon. member for Paarl would wake up. [Interjections.]

I said he was in a state of economic paralysis.

Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in welcoming the hon. member for Paarl back to this debate. I am so pleased to see that he is with us again. I hope that the hon. member for Paarl will take this matter up with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and that the hon. the Minister will make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity telling us that this suggested further rise in the price of petrol is the most arrant nonsense that anybody has ever heard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, here on my desk I have quite a stack of evidence which indicates to us how well off South Africa is in comparison with other countries in the world. I am going to mention a few by quoting a few newspaper headlines to you:“London food prices have doubled”; “Almost 6 million unemployed in the United States of America”; “Millions in the United States of America likely to lose their jobs”; “Standards of living in South Africa among the highest”; South Africa’s food of the cheapest in the world”. In view of this one can understand why it is a bitter pill for our hon. friends on the opposite side of the House to swallow when they have to swallow a Budget such as this one introduced by this hon. young Minister of Finance.

I have read through this Budget speech, and examined it from all angles, and having done that I arrived at one conclusion, which was that one could compare this Budget of the hon. the Minister, which is a stable, splendid and strong Budget, with a splendid, stable, strong and proficient woman. The fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance was able to succeed in submitting such a Budget as this to us, considering the conditions in other parts of the world, speaks volumes for him and for the Government, as well as for the National Party of South Africa. Therefore I say again that I compare this Budget with a proficient and a splendid housewife. We as men know that one may look at a splendid and proficient woman from the front— she is splendid. One can look at her from the back—she remains splendid. One can look at her from the left side—she is splendid. She remains splendid if one looks at her from the right side. One can look at her from the head downwards, she is splendid. One can look at her from the feet upwards, and she remains splendid. She is splendid, as big as she is. But however splendid and proficient such a housewife or mother may be, it is sometimes necessary for her to use a sharp instrument to apply the pinch where it is necessary to do so. This we find in this Budget as well. However exemplary, splendid or maternal that housewife may be, she will have to use her tongue occasionally to utter a strict reprimand to one of her children or a member of her household. This is necessary. What we find in this splendid woman, we also find in this splendid Budget.

This Budget shows us that the real gross domestic product has increased by 7,2% and the real gross national product by 10%. Gross as well as national real fixed investment has increased by 8,5%. I made the astonishing observation that saving comprises 26% of our gross domestic product. What an achievement this is for South Africa!

Sir, we as farmers and we as M.P.s who represent farming constituencies, know what hardships our farmers have frequently suffered in recent years and how they have been hard hit by droughts, and their lands washed away by floods, and we find it pleasant to note in this Budget that the income of the farming community in South Africa increased by as much as 29% during the past year.

The private gold price increased by 66%. After provision for price increases, the average real increase in salaries and wages among Whites was 4%, and among non-Whites—please note—was 9,2%. There was a net inflow of foreign capital of R741 million, of which R570 million flowed to the private sector, and R143 million to the Government sector. This demonstrates to us the confidence which foreign investors have in South Africa. We think in passing of what our hon. the Minister of the Interior encountered a few days ago in France, i.e. an understanding for South Africa. We as South Africans can with complete candour say to investors throughout the world that nowhere in the world will they find a better and safer field of investment for their money than the Republic of South Africa.

As the provident woman will care for her parents while they are still alive, so our hon. the Minister has in this Budget taken generous care of the pensioners, and has made them happy too.

The volume in the retail sector rose by 6,8%, and in the wholesale sector by 9,9%. The manufacturing sector showed a production increase of 6%. We are pleased that the hon. the Minister expects a possible turning point in the inflation rate, and we want to tell the hon. the Minister—I trust that the hon. Opposition will support us in this—that we hope this expectation will come true. On our part we want to tell the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the public of South Africa, that we as the pub lic, by performing only two little actions, could contribute greatly to reversing inflation in South Africa, or causing it to abate. Our public could contribute more generously by making these two minor contributions—firstly, by buying fewer luxuries and secondly by producing more for the same wage. By doing these two things, we could help to combat inflation. The Budget brings relief to the aged and the pensioners, as I have already said.

Then I want to address a few special words of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the very great concession he made to a group of farmers who made great sacrifices in the interests of White South Africa and in the interests of the establishment of Black states in South Africa by giving up their land for the purposes of consolidation, in that he was prepared to consider and is still prepared to consider making generous concessions to those farmers as far as their income tax is concerned. You will be able to understand this, and as a farmer I want to emphasize, that when a farmer’s land is consolidated and for example he sells his herd of cattle of, let us say for argument’s sake, a thousand head at R100 apiece, he has to pay income tax at once on that R100 000. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that he pays R20 000 in tax. He is therefore left with an amount of R80 000, with which to replace the 1 000 head of cattle over a period of six to 12 months, during which time the cattle prices may perhaps have risen again. He no longer has R100 000, since he had to part with some of it in the form of income tax. He has to replace the 1 000 head of cattle with only R80 000, and this is an impossible task. We therefore trust that the hon. the Minister will examine this matter down to the finest detail.

I could continue to discuss this Budget for a long time, but I was looking for a short and concise description of this Budget after I had found that the Budget was, as it were, a reflection of South Africa as it is at present. I was looking for a description of South Africa and its people as they are at the moment, and once again I turned to the woman. I found a striking comparison between the Budget and South Africa, and the woman, in Proverbs 31, where we are told—

Like the National Party does to South Africa—

Sir, and how well is our man, John Vorster, not known throughout the world?—

South Africa’s children—

Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou …

South Africa—

I listened with attention to the speech of the hon. member for Algoa yesterday. I found a certain subject which he mentioned, very interesting. I am referring to municipal taxation of fixed property. Mr. Speaker, these complaints against the high taxation on fixed property is nothing new to us on this side of the House. I agree with the hon. member for Algoa, but I wish to add that I still feel that the divisional council tax is something which we shall have to consider—not reconsider—because up to now we have never given it any consideration in the Cape Province. We feel it is very unfair to continue with this tax in the Cape Province. This is the only province in the Republic which pays this tax. We feel that there is another method which can be employed to finance our divisional councils and our local authorities, and that it is high time that this matter be considered by the Government.

†Mr. Speaker, we listened to a broadcast of a very interesting boxing match the other night, where our champion, Pierre Fourie, put up an excellent show. He did himself justice—in fact, more than justice—in fighting for this world championship, but at the crucial stage in the 15th round he in fact abdicated. He gave in completely, and it reminds me of this Government Ever since we have heard of inflation and the spiralling cost of living we have seen them battling and trying to do themselves justice, but we are now going into the fifteenth round and the new Minister of Finance has in fact abdicated against inflation and the spiralling cost of living. He has just given in completely. After all, what did we fight the election for last year?

*It was then said that we were going to fight an election on security and inflation and the high cost of living. That was the reason for the election. [Interjections.] Where are we now? We have been conducting a debate on the Budget for three days and we have not yet heard a single word on the matter of the solution to the problem of inflation and the cost of living in South Africa.

†Sir, I am not surprised because they do not have a solution.

Have you got a solution?

Of course we have. I am convinced that the voters of South Africa voted for the wrong party because they believed that this Government had the solution and they have not got it. [Interjections.] Where in this Budget does the hon. the Minister suggest that he will curb inflation? Nowhere. Where in this Budget does he suggest that he is going to attempt to bring down the cost of living? Nowhere, and yet hon. members opposite repeatedly stand up and congratulate the Minister and thank the Minister. Sir, the public of South Africa and the taxpayers demand more than that. They demand a solution now and we have to find a solution for South Africa. It is no use quoting figures of the high cost of living and the high rate of inflation in the other countries of the world. That is not going to please anybody in South Africa, much less the taxpayer. [Interjections.] Do you know, Sir, driving back to Parliament this evening after dinner I was puffiing at my very expensive cigarette and I was driving an automobile which is going to cost more now, and this automobile was driven by petrol which is costing more. Can anyone blame me for feeling very depressed? I thought very gloomily of the prices that will rise in the case of all the commodities which we use in everyday life, namely bread, milk, cheese, butter, vegetables, meat, beer and spirits and many other commodities. All these commodities are going to go up in price. The prices will increase. No wonder I was depressed when I thought not only of myself, but of the poor working man going to work every morning under these conditions, puffing at a more expensive cigarette, driving a more expensive automobile and using more expensive petrol, and, when he gets back in the evening, finding that all these commodities have also gone up in price. How depressed the working man in South Africa must be, and of course his wife too has to work to keep the wolf from the door. Soon, no doubt, there will be appeals from Cabinet Ministers to all the workers in South Africa not to rock the economic boat by asking for pay increases. That is going to come, Sir. Within a few months there is going to be a request from Cabinet Ministers not to ask for pay increases to keep pace with the rocketing cost of living. They will be asked not to demand pay increases which will enable them to keep pace with the cost of living which is piralling all the time. They will be assured that sacrifices are necessary. Such assurances will be given by Cabinet Ministers as well. And, Sir, sacrifices will be necessary as long as the Government wants to perpetuate its crazy policies and the manifestations of its race policy of apartheid. Yes, we shall have to pay more and more for this stupid policy of apartheid or separate development, call it what you like. We remember that in 1948 there was only one word and it was a catchword at that time—apartheid. The taxpayer of today will have to be prepared to pay. I wonder what would happen if a scheme were introduced whereby those taxpayers who are prepared to pay for separate amenities, separate signs on benches in parks and separate entrances to Post Offices must pay an extra 10% in tax, while those who are not prepared to pay for it because they feel that it is a waste of time and money in this era need not pay that extra 10%. I am convinced that there will not be enough people paying 10% extra even to pay the Receiver of Revenue his salary. People would not be prepared to pay. Although I do not really believe it is a luxury, it is a luxury in which the Government believes but which the taxpayer can no longer afford.

This Budget does not even warrant a champagne toast to the hon. the Minister. I believe it is a shocking Budget and public opinion tells us that this is the case. We had a long enough Easter recess to talk to the voters and I certainly did not find anyone who saw comfort in this Budget. This is not a Budget to fight inflation. No one here can show us where the Budget is attempting to fight inflation, because it will not stimulate growth, nor will it stimulate consumer spending. In fact, it is only adding fuel to the fire. It has been mentioned that the hon. the Minister of Finance should get his priorities right before the next Budget. Unless he gets his priorities right, we shall be sinking down the drain.

Nowhere do I see anything being done to train particularly the non-Whites to take their place in skilled jobs which we can no longer fill with White people. There is a grave shortage of skilled labour; we know it. We have many thousands of unemployed non-White people in East London. We have argued about the figures, but no matter whether the figure is 40 000 or 20 000 or 60 000, the fact is that the figure is still great and that we have a tremendous number of unemployed. These are the people whom we should be training to do skilled labour for which we cannot find White people. These are the people who should be a credit to our industries, particularly the industries in the border areas and yet today they are a liability because we do not vote enough money in the Budget for the education and the training of our non-White people. What else can the result be than low productivity and a low growth rate? I cannot understand why hon. members on that side of the House are so afraid of a healthy growth rate I remember how the hon. the Minister of Planning ridiculed the idea that we should increase the growth rate in South Africa when he was still an ordinary member of this House. Hon. members opposite told us that it was dangerous and suicidal and yet we have always maintained that unless we can increase our growth rate considerably we can forget about reducing the cost of living or even trying to curb inflation in South Africa.

I was getting quotations for certain machinery over the Easter weekend. I needed a seed drill, which is an implement with which to plant seeds. In December 1972 I was quoted R820 for a 5 ft. seed drill. Now I have been quoted R1 400 for the same drill. Also in December 1972 they quoted me R1 008 for a 7 ft. Sunshine seed drill and over the weekend they quoted me R1 990 for the same drill. People are wondering why this should be. I believe the reason is that we have to export far too much of our raw materials because we do not have the necessary skilled labour in South Africa. Take iron ore, manganese and wool as examples. We should not have to be exporting all these raw materials. We need to train our non-White people to build machinery in our own country, and we can do so. Surely, if we can build aircraft and automobiles in this country, we can also build seed drills. We must employ our own people and we must view this problem in a very serious light indeed. We must use our own raw materials and the labour force which we have in this country.

On the other hand, there is no relief for the worker and no encouragement or incentive for the worker to produce more and nothing to encourage the growth rate in South Africa. The professional man does not have the incentive to work harder or to produce more simply because we have now levied an even higher company tax. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget Speech when he in turn quoted Abraham Lincoln—

This Budget is doing precisely that. It is taking away a man’s initiative and his independence. We see it with the company tax, and although we welcome the increased abatement for married women, we should like to see it go much further than that. I believe that married women should be taxed independently of married men. Unless we do that, there will be no incentive for the married woman to work harder than she is working at the moment. In fact, many of our women are working harder than the men are today. We shall not rest until married women are taxed independently from the men. We welcome, too, the R7 million increase in social pensions but, as I said in the Budget debate last year, such a small increase, welcome as it is, will within a month or two be phased out completely by what we term the fiscal drag, and we all know what that is. We shall find that the social pensioner will before long be back to square one again. The fiscal drag is even more evident than it was in last year’s Budget. I want to quote not what other people have said, but what I myself said in the same Budget debate in August last year. This was my warning to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor (Hansard, 23 August 1974, col. 1390)—

Section 77 refers of course to job reservation.

Whom are you quoting?

Myself. I told you that. The hon. member is asleep. I do not know why he did not go home after dinner. No suggestion is forthcoming from that side of the House that the Government is prepared to review that section of the Industrial Conciliation Act. After pleading that we should have a serious look at section 77, I went on to say—

He proposed it as far back as 1969.

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited.

Hear, hear!

I know the truth hurts, but unfortunately my time is limited. We heard this afternoon of the second Sasol and the coalfields of the Eastern Transvaal. Let me remind the hon. the Minister—I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not here—that in the Border area of the Eastern Cape we too have coalfields. The quality of the coal for burning purposes may not be as good as that of the coal found in the Eastern Transvaal, but I can assure hon. members that, without even having to do research on it, we know for a fact that the oil content of the coal from the Eastern Cape is far higher than that of the Eastern Transvaal. I have been pleading for a long time for the consideration of a second Sasol in the Eastern Cape and I am pleased to see that a second Sasol is at least being established albeit in the Eastern Transvaal. However, I cannot understand why it is expected that the increase in petrol prices should have to pay for the second Sasol. This argument has been raised before and I do not want to repeat it, but I believe that it should be financed from Loan Account. To increase petrol prices at this stage is to me the worst step that could have been taken, in view of inflation; it is absolutely killing commercial life in South Africa and pushing up the rate of inflation.

I only regret that our young people today cannot enjoy the beer we used to enjoy when we were young. By virtue of the fact that it is almost impossible for a young person to buy beer in quantity today, he has had to revert to “hard tack” which is extremely detrimental to all young South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for East London North came to grips with the problem of inflation and what is more, found the answer. As the reason for inflation he advanced “This stupid policy of separate development”. Quod est demonstrandum! Some time ago I read of a great economist who said that the person who found a solution to the problem of inflation should receive the Nobel Prize. We have just been listening to a candidate for the Nobel Prize. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I could say that the world would do well to take cognizance of this solution. Japan would do well to take cognizance of this solution, and do away with its apartheid legislation, for its inflation rate is twice as high as ours, namely 25%. Brazil will have to abolish its apartheid, for its inflation rate is four times greater than ours, i.e. approximately 47%. The hon. member for East London North was also very concerned about the increased petrol price and said that this was going to cause further inflation. It is indeed. It is in fact, as one would say in English, a “glimpse of the obvious”. However, he has a solution in this regard as well. He says that the second Sasol should not be financed by means of an increase in the petrol price, but should be financed by means of foreign loans. As if that foreign money would not cause inflation if it were fed into the money stream.

In this debate the Opposition has told us two things. Firstly it said that Government expenditure was too high, and secondly that we should spend far more on food subsidies, pensions, education and a long list of other items. In other words, we should reduce the sum total of our expenditure by increasing the expenditure on individual Votes. That is a logic which is beyond all comprehension. No wonder the hon. member for Bryanston said of his former party in an article in The Sunday Tribune the other day: “They have become a comedy of contradictions.” The hon. member for Johannesburg North also has a solution to inflation. He made a scathing attack on this Government on the “flames of inflation”, but he fanned those flames even higher when he advocated that the price of a basic commodity such as steel should be increased. The hon. member advocated this in a very indirect way. The hon. member for Constantia spoke of an ad hoc Budget. His complaint was that: “The Minister does not look ahead.” My goodness me, Sir, that is if anything the outstanding merit of this Budget, namely that it is geared to the future, that it wants to make the South Africa of the future strong, viable and prosperous. This is a Budget which is not only “up to date”, but one which is also “up to tomorrow”. The hon. member for Von Brandis complained that this Budget was not based on any philosophy, and that it was merely an arithmetical exercise. But is the second Sasol merely an ad hoc Sasol? Is there not a powerful philosophy underlying it? That share which we are appropriating for Iscor, which was criticized so severely by hon. members, the amounts which have been appropriated for the creation of an infrastructure, for the further stimulation of our industrial development, the refinement of minerals and concessions in respect of decentralization, are surely not ad hoc matters but things which form an integral part of the entire cadre of the philosophy and policy of this Government. If there has ever been an ad hoc approach to a budget, it is the attitude displayed by the Opposition. What do they tell us? They say this: “Spend your surplus on this, that and the other, and when you have a deficit on your Loan Account, borrow from abroad.” This is an attitude of eat drink and be merry today, and let the people of tomorrow take care of themselves. The ad hoc matters, the here and the now, are important to them. It is said that the politician is the person who thinks of the next election while the statesman is the person who thinks of the next generation. The Opposition is now advocating that the hon. the Minister should don a long red cloak, grow a white beard and with his red cap on his head, distribute presents to everyone. Then the Opposition can claim for themselves the credit that it was they who advocated this. If the Ministers cloak should become entangled, they can say: “Yes, but he did not look ahead.” For 27 years this Opposition has been advocating that we apply our surpluses for ad hoc matters. We should distribute the surpluses. Do not pay your accounts today; let the generation of the future pay them; do not transfer your surpluses to Loan Account! I wonder what would have become of this Government if it had, for all these years, followed that advice of the Opposition. What a burden a debt and an unbearable burden of interest, and what is worse, intensified inflation problems would we not have been saddled with today! In 1948 all the people who sat on these benches thought of us who would sit here in 1975. At the time they adopted measures which were unpopular and which were criticized by the Opposition. They thought at the time of this generation which would sit here in 1975, and tried to make life refined and pleasant for them. Today we are plucking the fruits of that policy which was pursued in those years.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred at length to the economic development plan of the hon. the Prime Minister. He referred to the growth rate of 6,4% which is envisaged with that plan, and devoted almost half his speech to it. He wanted to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance what growth rate he envisaged. It is not clear to me why he put that question to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. member himself quoted what the hon. the Minister of Planning had said, namely that “the Government accepts the economic development programme” of a growth rate of 6,4%. The hon. member now expects the hon. the Minister of Finance to make himself guilty of tautology by repeating what his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, said. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg pointed out that if we do not maintain a growth rate of 6,4% over the next five years until 1979, we will not be able to make provision and create work opportunities for the number of Bantu who will be entering the labour market. On the other hand, with a growth rate of 6,4%, we will not have enough. White labour either, particularly not in the managerial classes. It is therefore very clear that the shortage of Whites, as indicated in this plan, will have to be met by means of improved training, as well as by means of the improved training and utilization of our non-White manpower, so that our non-White workers are able to do more skilled work. The hon. member asked what provision had been made for this. Surely he knows that in the previous Budget a considerable amount was appropriated for training centres in the White areas, eight of them, in addition to the training centres which already exist in the homelands. [Interjections.] It would be an infinitely naïve person, a person completely out of touch with the labour situation in the country, who would not realize that it would give rise to tremendous labour unrest and to enormous tension if we were to allow non-Whites to infiltrate into senior posts in an unorganized manner. We simply cannot allow the White labourer to feel threatened in his position. For that reason there is only one way, and this is mentioned in that plan, of dealing with this problem, only one way of effecting a reconciliation between a growth rate of 6,4% by means of which one is able to provide work opportunities for the maximum number of Bantu, and the industrial peace which we envisage, and this is a continuing, dynamic programme of decentralization. By means of a programme of decentralization we are to an increasing extent able to create work opportunities for non-Whites in their own areas. The hon. member for Von Brandis also pointed to this problem. He said that by the turn of the century there would be 50 million people in our country, and that 5 million managerial posts would be required. He said that the Whites would be in a position to fill at the most 2 million of these posts, but I think he was underestimating a little. It could probably be more. However, the fact remains that at least 2½ million of these posts will have to be filled by non-Whites. This is a further plea which the hon. member made for decentralization, namely that we should create opportunities for those people in their own areas.

I do not, like the hon. member for Walmer, want to repeat the words “I believe” too frequently. The hon. member said “I believe” about 90 times in his speech. I believe that the cry of “decentralization” is going to be raised to an increasing extent in our country during the next two years. We are making progress with a co-ordinated and concentrated programme in this sphere. All our departments are involved in this. In this way the Department of Finance, with the fiscal measures which it adopts to encourage decentralization, is involved; the Department of Economic Affairs is working on this; so is the Department of Planning. There are serious bottlenecks in this decentralization programme as far as transportation is concerned. Our people are looking into this. The Department of Coloured Relations is also involved in this programme of decentralization; so, too, are the departments of Indian Affairs and Bantu Administration. This Government is taking dynamic action. We have already created ample opportunity for industrial development on the part of the Indians along the north coast of Natal. There entrepreneurs—a rare commodity— who were able to obtain the necessary capital, came forward from among their own number. We believe that in the ensuing year the entire project to the north of Durban will gain tremendous momentum.

The other day the hon. the Minister of Planning announced his imaginative plan for Dassenberg, a plan by means of which provision is being made for a Coloured town, with its industries, which will involve hundreds of thousands of people. As far as the Bantu are concerned, there are already various growth points: Butterworth, Umtata, Isithebe, Babalegi and others. In this respect proud pioneering work has been done. The work which has already been done in the sphere of the decentralization of industries has in recent years already provided work for approximately 120 000 people. If the multiple is now included, if it is calculated that for each person placed in industrial work, 1½ other work opportunities are created in the services sector …

Where do you get the figure 120 000 from?

That is a question which has already been answered in this House. If the 1½ additional posts which are going to be created when one person is employed are added, that figure may be increased to 300 000. If one adds to that the families, and supposes that each employee represents a family of five or six persons, one obtains the considerable figure of more than a million people who are involved in this. These are people who will be able to live in their areas on a family basis without being drawn into the metropolitan area. Of course there is a vast amount still to be done; we have not yet done enough, but I think that this programme, in the years which lie ahead, will gain momentum, and that we will be able to increase the pace within our economic means. The foundations have already been laid, and the climate has already been created. We are now under way. Of course there were obstacles and problems in regard to the application of this programme. Sir, not the least of these problems was the attitude of the Opposition which, time and again, wanted to throw a spanner in the works. The Opposition went out of its way to ridicule this programme, to sow the greatest measure of suspicion against this programme of decentralization.

Come back to the Budget.

In this process, in their zeal to create embarrassment for this Government, this Opposition has done South Africa the greatest disservice.

Then it was probably a strong Opposition.

They hurt South Africa by casting suspicion on this decentralization programme. I have here an advertisement which the United Party published shortly prior to the last election—

And then we read here—

Well done.

I quote further—

Of course; that makes sense.

Sir, in the year in which South Africa had the highest growth rate of all oil-consuming countries in the Western world, this Opposition speaks of measures “that impair growth and stultify economic development”.

Do you know what it is all about?

Could the hon. member tell us which of those growth points which have been created are stultifying our economic development? Was the announcement on Dassenberg a blunder on the part of the Minister? Did we make a glaring error when we did not leave places like Butterworth and Babalegi slumbering but made a start with industrial development there? Was Rosslyn and Hammarsdale a glaring error? Why cast so much suspicion on this entire programme? There was a time when members of the Opposition came here with blazers and said:“These are blazers which were made at Newcastle, and I have refused to allow my child to wear a blazer manufactured by cheap labour in those border areas.”

Who said that?

The Opposition accepts decentralization for strategic and economic reasons, but there are also important social considerations as to why we should decentralize. I saw an interesting comparison the other day between the United Kingdom and Germany. Both have more or less the same population; there is a difference of2— 3% in their populations. The surface area of those two countries is more or less the same. They have almost the same natural resources at their disposal, but the gross national product of West Germany is twice that of the United Kingdom. Economists have various explanations for this, but sociologists in particular have a very interesting explanation for this. They say the problem is that in the United Kingdom the population is concentrated in certain metropolitan areas such as London, Liverpool, Birmingham, etc., while in West Germany it is evenly distributed. In the big city, the sociologists tell us, man loses his individuality, he becomes one in a crowd, a cog in a machine, a cipher, a functionary, cold and impersonal, and these things are reflected in lower productivity. Sir, what makes it so much more difficult for the Black man is that he has to come to the city of the White man and find a livelihood there far from his familiar environment and in an alien atmosphere. The hon. member for Mooi River, in what was probably the best speech I have heard this session from the Opposition benches, spoke movingly on behalf of the tribal Bantu who are removed from their familiar milieu and placed in an unknown environment in the city, and he went on to speak of the revolution in the spirit of that individual, of the disruptive effect this has on him. In the thirties we Afrikaners also had to cope with this problem of urbanization. We also suffered that cultural shock in the cities. We who are sitting on this side are the products of that generation, in the city there was no beaten path for our own Afrikaner traditions. The same applies to the Bantu to an even greater extent. We Afrikaners were not city builders. We came later and occupied cities which had been built by other people, but today we are granting the Bantu an opportunity we did not have ourselves. With this programme of decentralization we are building cities. When this party came into power in 1948 there were approximately there Bantu townships in the entire Republic. Today there are scores, and several cities with thousands of inhabitants, and on the drawing boards there are plans for major cities accommodating thousands of people, cities which are unique to the Bantu, where the Bantu can breathe in their own spirit, cities which can be their own spiritual home and pride. In the history of the world there is no parallel of one nation which has done for another nation which this Government has done for the Bantu, and we are doing this because we want in that way to assure them of a pleasant and prosperous future, and if they are prosperous, this will also contribute to our security and our prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an hon. member who is totally misinformed about the policies of the United Party, if ever there was an hon. member who is totally misinformed as to where the policy of decentralization began, it is the hon. member for Port Natal. I want to say that decentralization was begun under the old United Party Government and carried on by Dr. Hendrik van Eck, the father of the hon. member for Benoni. He educated that Government into decentralization, and they should be thankful to him for it. To say that this side of the House was a “stok in die wiel” to decentralization is absolute and utter nonsense. We always spoke against establishing border industries on the edges of the reserves. For how many years did we not endeavour to educate that Government and those Ministers and those hon. members to decentralize right into the interior of the homelands? That hon. member speaks with great joy of Hammarsdale and Rosslyn and all those places, but when did the Nationalist Party as a Government finally have the scales lifted from their eyes, through the efforts of this side of the House, and realize that they should take White capital and White initiative into the reserves to develop them? They were blind, and everything that they have done that is positive has been initiated by the arguments put forward by this side of the House and not by themselves. That hon. member had better study his Hansards and the history of what has gone on here. He should not just speak to himself as though he were in a church on a Sunday. That hon. member must face the facts of life; he must face the facts of the history of South Africa. What you are doing now is 27 years too late and you have to move very, very fast to catch up; and whatever you do that is positive, this side of the House will follow and support you. But, Sir, do not ever accuse this side of the House of being a “stok in die wiel” of decentralization, because that is utter and complete nonsense. I leave the hon. member there because if ever there was a speech that talked right past the point, it was the speech we have just received from the hon. member.

I want to raise a few other matters which I believe are of great importance to South Africa and to inflation. We have noticed in the Budget that the price of fuel has gone up immensely again. We realize that a second Sasol is important and that it must come. It has been said by many hon. members on this side of the House, and it will be found out by the Government, that this drastic increase in the price of petrol, albeit, as I notice in the hon. the Minister’s speech, that certain sectors, for instance agriculture, are exempted to a certain extent, will have an effect on every single housewife and every mother and father of a family in South Africa. It is all very well to say that the farmer can produce milk at the same price as he used to before because he gets his fuel a little cheaper, but when you come to the delivery of the milk in the cities—it has to be delivered—there is no exemption for the man who delivers it. There will be a vast increase in the cost of delivery.

I should have liked to see something in the Budget that would have lessened the burden on the farmer in respect of the cost of fertilizers which, since last September in my part of the country, has almost doubled due to railage costs and the increased cost of oil for nitrogenous fertilizers. I would have expected to see something about this because this also will have a vast and terrible effect on each family since the cost of production to the farmer obviously must go up if he is to farm his farm properly. There should be some way of assisting the farmer and seeing to it that he applies the correct quantity of fertilizer to his property because there is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns in agriculture. If you think because the price has gone up by half therefore you must apply to the amount of fertilizer and your return will diminish by 50%, you are wrong because it will diminish by 80%.

I think the hardest thing of all—other hon. members on this side of the House have also mentioned it—is the increase of 0,9 cents per container of 375 ml or 2,4 cents per litre of beer. Beer has always been known as the poor man’s drink. It has always been known as the drink of the youth of most countries, particularly the countries of our origin; the Dutch, the Germans and the British people have all been beer drinkers.

Drink wine.

No. That is a wonderful answer coming from a Bolander or a person from the Western Cape. Wine has the lowest tax of all and I love wine, but it is not the drink to give to the poor; it is not the drink to give to the youth. Beer is a healthy drink. It is something which should be supplied at the lowest possible rate to young people.

What is wrong with milk?

Milk I shall give you any time, but if a person wants an alcoholic drink, let him have beer. If one compares prices on a basis of a can of beer against a tot of whisky one finds that beer is now more expensive than whisky. Whisky is produced in Scotland, in Mr. Wilson’s Britain, but beer is produced in South Africa. Why do we not reduce the tax on beer which far exceeds 500% on the cost of production? Why do we not reduce that tax and let our young people and our working people have a decent drink to drink at a reasonable price? The hon. Chief Whip would have appreciated some cheap cans of beer while he was fishing on the South West African coast a few days ago.

I do not drink beer.

These are things which I believe affect the working man.

Drink wine, and then you still have the empty.

The hon. gentlemen on that side of the House are really enjoying themselves because they believe that wine is the only drink in the world, but it is not.

No, I suggested milk.

I want to come to the other speech in this House that went completely past the point of what this debate is about. I refer to the speech yesterday of the hon. member for Parys. The hon. member for Parys devoted every minute of his speech to what I would call a vicious attack on the members on this side of the House and particularly those belonging to my party.

It was a non-speech.

He spoke of things that he maintained still existed. He spoke of things which are things of the past but he believed they were still there. However, this hon. gentleman is also somebody who should study the facts of life a lot more because throughout his speech he repeated the following phrase and perhaps like Goebbels he believed that if it were often enough repeated people would believe it.

*He said (translation)—

That is the biggest nonsense in the world.

But hon. members on that side of the House said so earlier this year.

The hon. the Deputy Minister should rather keep quiet now; he can make a speech later.

That was said in the no-confidence debate.

No one in the United Party has ever spoken about shared power through the medium of a multi-racial Government, because such a thing just cannot happen. One may distort words and one may use words in various ways, but no one on this side of the House has ever used words which could be distorted in such a way that an interpretation such as this could be attached to them. I do not believe anyone has ever used the words “shared power”. [Interjections.] One will never be able to achieve something of this nature through the medium of a multi-racial Government, It is absured to say so.

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

No, I do not want to reply to a question now. I want to dispose of this point and the hon. member could perhaps put a question after he has listened to what I have to say. The policy of this party is a policy of shared power and responsibility, but to say that it will be brought about through the medium of a multi-racial Government, does not make sense at all.

What is your federation policy if not that?

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would keep quiet, I would tell him. I would tell him quite clearly. There are de facto things we in South Africa have to face. These are de facto things which exist here. One of them is the fact that we have a Parliament here which, as it happens, is a White Parliament.

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

No, I do not want to reply to questions now; I am explaining the matter. Here we have a Parliament, a de facto Parliament, which is a White Parliament.

Is that the one which is going to be abolished?

Therefore, it is logical that any constitutional change which may take place in South Africa, whether by way of separate development or whether along the lines of a federation, has to be initiated and implemented by this Parliament. How else could one do this, except through a revolution? [Interjections.] It has to be initiated and implemented by Parliament to its full, ultimate destination in whatever way it is brought about. Because of that nobody can argue—and I want to place this on record quite clearly tonight—that this will take place through the medium of a multi-racial Government. To say that is absolute nonsense, because the body which is going to put into effect this policy is this Parliament, the party which is in power in this House and it will be the United Party in five years’ time.

Half the number of your members are not with you now.

No, they are with me; they are 100% with me.

Ask Nic Olivier.

Nic Olivier, the hon. member for Edenvale, is also with me.

What about the Coloured people?

That hon. member should put that question to the other side of the House, because they do not know what to say. There has been much dispute and conjecture by the other side of the House on the meaning of White leadership. To that side of the House White leadership is an end in itself. To this side of the House White leadership, the control and the guidance exercised by this Parliament, are the means to a peaceful destination and community in South Africa.

That is what you believe, but it is not your policy.

It is our policy. It has been said over and over again by my hon. Leader and by other speakers on this side of the House, but sometimes it was somewhat bedevilled—if this Parliamentary—or rather confused by former members of this party and by members of the Press who have no knowledge of the matter. It was quite clearly also confused repeatedly by Nationalist candidates in their campaign against the United Party. Hon. members now want clarity as to how this policy is going to be implemented. [Interjections.] If hon. members would laugh and converse among themselves a little less they would probably hear how the policy is going to be implemented.

We can hardly wait!

The first step would be to win the election or to persuade a sufficient number of the hon. members on that side of the House to cross over to this side—this is still going to happen one of these days—to govern this country. To think that anyone of us sitting in these benches would cross over to that side … all I can say is: forget it. Nevertheless the first step would be to govern. The next step would be the establishment of standing statutory committees of this Parliament to consult regularly, at a local and territorial level, with the other de facto constitutional sections of the geographic and economic South Africa, in other words, the homeland governments, the Coloured government, the Indian government and so on. [Interjections.] I find it so tragic that so many hon. members on the Government side are sitting here laughing when we are discussing important national affairs. This is supposed to be the time of détente and we see here that prominent members of a Government are sitting here laughing when we are trying to explain a policy in terms of which we believe it will be possible to bring about peace in South Africa and in Southern Africa. This reminds me of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome was burning, because the conflagration in Africa is approaching ever closer to our borders. It is high time that greater responsibility was displayed in this House on a Wednesday night. There is a tendency among hon. members on that side of the House to play the fool when I rise to make a speech.

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

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

Yes, the hon. the Deputy Minister may put a question to me.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the hon. member whether he could explain to us how their federal government could be anything but multiracial.

That is our final aim. When it will come about we do not know, but we shall get there through the goodwill of this Parliament and the White voters.

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

No, wait a minute; I am replying to the first question of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I would have thought that a Deputy Minister would have had more sense than to ask a second question before the first question had been replied to. Surely, this is not a question to which one replies “yes” or “no”. I have to answer the question sensibly.

But could I not simply put my second question to you as well?

Put the second question then.

Mr. Speaker since the hon. member is being so serious, I want to assure him that I am being as serious with him. I just want to ask the following: While the hon. member concedes that it is the ultimate goal of their policy that there will be such a multi-racial Government, does he also concede that there will, in fact, be a sharing of authority on a multi-racial basis in such multi-racial Government?

Of course.

But this is what the man said.

No, he did not. The hon. member said exactly the opposite. He said “through the medium of a multi-racial Government”. How can we achieve the ultimate goal “through the medium of” a multi-racial Government? How is it possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister or me to know how long it is going to take before it becomes feasible?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he would allow me to put a question to him.

Very well.

May I ask the hon. member whether it is a fact that he suggested that he would use White leadership to establish a multi-racial Government ultimately in terms of their policy?

Yes, that is so. I was about to deal with that point. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to state his case.

I want to make it quite clear—I hope the hon. former hon. Whip is listening now—that the time when that Government becomes completely multi-racial, depends on this Parliament …

And whether you would ever come into power.

… and upon the White voters by means of either an election or a referendum. It would also depend on whether all of us would co-operate to develop mutual confidence among all the people of all the races in South Africa. The most important aspect is the re-education of all our people to bring about mutual confidence and compassion on the Continent of South Africa.

†It is very important that there should be mutual trust and belief in each other in Southern Africa. That is what our policy is all about and the sooner the other side of the House realizes that that is the aim of this party, the sooner they will understand and become the real patriots they claim to be. However, until they understand that, they can never claim to be patriots. It is no good making political points and little jokes and trying to talk around the point. It is about time that hon. members realize that mutual trust is the absolute essence of survival in Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany is an honest, and certainly also a responsible person. I listened with great interest to his attempted explanation of one part of his party’s policy, but every time I thought I understood what he meant, he confused me again.

You kick up such a racket that I am unable to speak.

He referred to former members of his party who were confused, to the Press that was confused and to this side of the House that was confused about their federal policy. However, I do not believe it is even necessary to say much about this, except that it is surely very clear, or ought to be clear, to the hon. member for Albany that he, at least, is definitely confused about his party’s federal policy. I was watching the other hon. members of the Opposition while that hon. member spoke and I think that now they are all confused. I should like to ask the hon. member for Albany to obtain the Hansard of his explanation of his party’s federal policy as soon as possible. We can then continue the serial on this subject tomorrow.

What the hon. member for Albany was trying to explain, was one leg of the policy of the Opposition. However, he should also have explained another leg, namely the decentralization policy. The hon. member for Port Natal probably trod on the toes of the hon. member, and the hon. member then tried to explain about decentralization and what his party’s policy was in that regard. During this same session, this House has had a full discussion of industrial decentralization. I remember well—hon. members can refer to Hansard—how at the time amazement was expressed by this side of the House that hon. members of the Opposition could have given unconditional support at that stage to the idea and principle of the decentralization of industries. That was not the impression which this side of the House has been under all these years, notwithstanding the explanation furnished by the hon. member for Albany this evening. To support this further, I want to refer to the arguments advanced in this Budget debate by hon. members of the Opposition. I now have in mind the kind of talk we hear when reference is made to this Budget in terms of “the price you pay for apartheid”, as well as the sharp attacks on the increase in Government expenditure and in regard to the establishment of the infrastructure, in particular. The hon. member for Port Natal pointed out that the decentralization of industries was going to be increasingly important to South Africa. It is unnecessary to furnish reasons for this now, but I believe that the House must take cognizance of this with the deepest gratitude and should congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on having once again made provision in this Budget, directly and indirectly, for the expediting of the programme of decentralization.

Hon. members of the Opposition asked, time and again, what the infrastructure was supposed to be. It is clear to me that they have not inspected their accounts thoroughly. Under the circumstances it is necessary, in regard to the decentralization of industries, just to refer to a few items. Under the Loan Account, for example, a total amount of R14½ million is being voted for the Department of Planning and the Environment for the present financial year. This money is intended for direct utilization for the development of border and less-developed areas. Also under the Loan Account, an amount of R10 million is being voted for the purchase of shares in the IDC, and this amount is also intended for channelling into the decentralized areas. Then, in the case of the homelands, a further amount of R60 million is being voted in this Budget as additional share capital for the BIC and the XDC. This, once again, is for industrial development in the Bantu homelands. A further amount of R60 million is being budgeted in the same vote for the establishment of infrastructure in the homelands, such as the establishment of Bantu towns and the establishment of and improvements to hospitals, universities and other development services.

The hon. member for Albany told us that the Opposition would be prepared to support decentralization development. Here it is, under this Vote, but the Opposition simply do not refer to it. If they had read through the account, they would surely have had to welcome it. Up to now we have not heard one word welcoming this. We have only heard about the enormous increases in Government expenditure. As you know, next to Defence, the infrastructure is the second priority in this Budget. I could refer to many other votes in this Budget in regard to which heartfelt gratitude must be conveyed to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the expenditure of funds in decentralized areas as well as in the homelands. Apart from direct expenditure, of course, there is also the indirect expenditure, e.g. the taxation and interest concessions enjoyed by industrialists in the decentralized areas. Then there are the cash donations and compensation in regard to removal costs, the Railways and Harbour rebates.

We have heard from the Opposition in general terms that the increased Government expenditure is disturbing. It has been criticized in general terms. I ask hon. members of the Opposition, since I am now discussing industrial development in the decentralized areas, to indicate in greater detail which aspects of the infrastructure in those areas must be dropped, which allocations must be cancelled and which service or construction must be stopped. However, if the hon. members of the Opposition are unable to reply to this, then this House cannot take at all seriously the general criticism expressed concerning the expenditure of money on infrastructure. If the Opposition agrees with that, why are they ashamed to tell this House that this is a sound step on the part of the hon. the Minister of Finance?

The Nationalist Government has now been engaged in carrying out this decentralization policy for more than ten years, and it is quite natural that problems are in fact being exprienced in carrying out the policy. It should just be borne in mind that it has been found throughout the world that a policy of decentralization is only really successful when there is a high economic growth rate. However, when the growth rate slows to a more moderate pace, decentralization programmes are adjusted accordingly. When judging the decentralization programme, we must do so with this concept in mind.

In the White areas, State funds are being channelled to industries through the IDC. In the homelands, the funds are being channelled through the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation. Although the IDC has performed a gigantic service in the White areas, I want to put it to the House that up to now, the financial institutions of the private sector have apparently been standing on the sidelines to too great an extent and are not sufficiently involved in this. I refer in particular to the banks, the insurance companies and the building societies. It is true that we in South Africa had a total gross domestic saving of almost R6 000 million in 1974. But, Sir, if we look at the capital programmes of the central and provincial authorities and at those of other bodies such as the South African Railways and Harbours, Iscor, Escom and Sasol, all essential programmes, and if we also bear in mind the substantial amounts required by local authorities for capital works, then we find that our funds are limited. As far as the private sector itself is concerned, they, too, require funds for large-scale expansion. South Africa’s capital requirements over the next five to ten years are therefore substantial.

It want to put it to the House that financial institutions such as the banks be involved to a greater extent. What contribution are they making at the moment? No official figure in respect of banking which indicates the volume of capital which banks are at present making available in decentralized areas is available, but responsible opinion in this sector is that in all probability it is limited, because it is measured against the total capacity of the banking sector to provide credit. I want to suggest that this matter be investigated with a view to finding methods to encourage the banking sector to mobilize sufficient funds, whether local or foreign, specifically for the financing of industrial development in the decentralized areas. In such a case, of course, the banks will have to compete with other bodies for capital on the local capital market. The question arises whether an incentive measure is not desirable in the circumstances, for example, that the banks’ securities in this regard should qualify for the liquid asset and prescribed investment requirements of financial institutions. I want to emphasize that these are problems of which the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance are fully aware. I mention them here so that the matter may be reconsidered. I just want to mention that consideration will once again have to be given to them. Assurance companies and building societies should also be involved in a similar way, by making use of incentive measures, so they may take a hand in these decentralized areas to a greater extent. In the larger developed areas, the assurance companies are the financiers of commercial buildings, shops, offices, etc., but their participation in the growth points is still inadequate.

I mentioned earlier that there are, in fact, bottlenecks that could be experienced in regard to a decentralization programme of this nature. It is not only in South Africa that this has been found to be the case; it is the case all over the world. I want to express a few ideas in that regard. We should guard against tackling too many growth points simultaneously. I refer to growth points in particular. If our limited capital is spread too thinly then this will delay the proper building up of the infrastructure for everyone. The following is another idea. Concessions, quite rightly, are concentrated on labour-intensive industries. Similar incentives are not allocated to capital-intensive industries, and this has disadvantages in practice. Experience has taught that this retards the process of autonomous development in growth point in question. To mention an example: If there is no workshop where the repair work may be done, if here are no shops where the parts, industrial material and supplies may be purchased, then this inhibits and discourages development at those places.

Lastly, I just want to mention that community services at the growth points are of cardinal importance. Unfortunately it is found that workers cannot be attracted to the growth points because there is a lack of dwellings, schools, recreation facilities, hospitals and other things. This factor is largely responsible for delays in the establishment and proclamation of urban areas. These facts are known to the Government, but I ask that in the case of growth points, until such time as steps are taken to expedite the establishment of urban areas, the establishment and proclamation of business premises, industrial premises or residential premises enjoy special priority and receive special treatment. I just want to say that the decentralization policy and programme of the Government is of cardinal importance, and if the hon. Opposition give it their wholehearted support, and if support is also given by the Press, the somewhat unfavourable climate prevailing among businessmen and industrialists as far as the growth points are concerned, will disappear. It is essential for us to deal with this matter in this way.