Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate so far there have been certain diversionary exercises by hon. members opposite away from the financial aspects of this debate and into the field of party politics. That is all to the good because one welcomes such diversions when they are appropriate. However, I want to deal with one or two of them which would have been more effective and more understandable in the present situation in South Africa had they been founded on a factual basis.

The hon. member for Eshowe who spoke last night before the House adjourned, had a great deal to say in regard to the decentralization of industries. Somehow or other he sucked out of his thumb the fact that the United Party was entirely opposed to the decentralization of industries in this country. That is absolute nonsense. I want to suggest to him that over the weekend he may perhaps do a little enlightening reading. If he will read the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill in 1973 during which our policy was fully discussed—it was discussed on 3rd April 1973—he will find there that our policy is quite clearly enunciated and there has been no deviation from it to left, right or in any other direction. That is our policy still today. [Interjections.] The position therefore is quite clear or should be, to those who wish to be objective in discussing the present political situation. The Nationalists use the concept of decentralization purely to further political aims towards their policy of multi-national development. We have made it quite clear on this side of the House that we favour the decentralization of industry in order to stop the polarization which could develop between he urban industrial areas and the agricultural sectors of the community. We agree to it because we believe that this shift of population which would otherwise follow is quite undesirable in South Africa. There is no difference of opinion on our part that the concept of decentralization can be used to the benefit of this country. However, we differ greatly in regard to the reasons which motivate the sitting of such decentralization. The Nationalist Party have said over and over again by means of expressions such as “We will bend the economy” that decentralization as far as they are concerned is decentralization to further political dogma. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned decentralization must be planned, executed and developed so as to further sound economic development in this country. We must therefore be expected to differ, as we do, with the Government on the sitting of growth points and on the sitting of new industrial development areas. This is because of our different basic philosophy in regard to the use of the accepted economic procedure of decentralization.

I hope that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will give us a little more of his time during this debate because I want to say to him that I was bitterly disappointed with the speech he made on Tuesday evening. [Interjections.] He and I have had a long political association—in opposition to one another—but over the years I have expected the hon. the Minister when we have had political differences—and we have had them before—to discuss them objectively and on their merits. However, what was the attitude of the hon. the Minister on Tuesday? The hon. the Minister sought to misinterpret what had been said by the hon. member for Constantia. He made an unwarranted attack on the hon. member for Constantia in regard to the Defence allocation in this Budget. One asks oneself, with what objective? His objective was to attempt to sow in South Africa the belief that we on this side of the House were not patriotic South Africans. That was the sole purpose of what he said. He should have known that such an accusation was completely unfounded. However, he was prepared to use his position in this House as a member of the Cabinet and to use his standing in the Government of South Africa to further miserable party politics instead of discharging his duty as he should. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and hon. members in this House all know that there is not a single person in South Africa who will not welcome the day when we can divert expenditure from Defence, these vast sums of money, to education, to economic development and to the aid of neighbouring States in Southern Africa. None of us would regret the arrival of that day. The point is simply whether it would be wise, and it must be wise, and whether it would be safe, and it must be safe, to so divert this expenditure. We must be able to do it without risk to our own security. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs knows that that is the attitude of this side of the House.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. the Minister can ask it later. Mr. Speaker, what has this hon. Minister, this patriot who has stood up in this House and accused us of a lack of patriotism, done by his speech on Tuesday evening? What he has done is to tell the people of the world including those who are hostile to South Africa that we South Africans are divided in so far as our determination to defend our country is concerned. [Interjections.] That is what he has done. He has suggested that we are divided in this House in regard to the extent to which we should appropriate funds to defend the security and the integrity of South Africa. He is the one who has told the world that there are people in this Parliament … [Interjections.] That is what the hon. the Minister said. He must not run away from what he said. What he has said is that we of the official Opposition representing an appreciable percentage of the voters in South Africa are soft when it comes to defending ourselves against aggression whether conventional or terrorist. I regret to say that on Tuesday the hon. the Minister, with whom, as I say, I have had a long political association, jettisoned his patriotism for what he thought was a temporary political advantage to his party.

Sir, may I turn to the hon. member for Waterberg. I understand his approach to life, his views on political issues, and I try to understand the philosophy behind his thinking. But, Sir, I am disturbed when the hon. member for Waterberg expresses fears of a growth of South Africanism, when he says that there is a danger to the cultural heritage of any section—English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking, Black, Coloured, Zulu or Xhosa—if they should be absorbed in the broad stream of South Africanism.

He is sectional.

Sir, does he not accept that we in this country, the citizens of South Africa—Black, Brown and White —have a common citizenship, that de jure and in fact we are obliged to exercise and to show a common partriotism, a common loyalty, to the whole of South Africa, and that if any section of our population were to act contrary to that concept it would be treasonable action on the part of that section? Sir, how do we do it? Obviously we are a plural society; nobody doubts that. There are different cultures, there are different traditions and customs amongst the different sections of our population. Of course these cultures must be preserved and maintained; they must not be denigrated by playing off the culture of one section against the culture of another section. But, Sir, even here I have difficulty at times in determining what is the culture of what section of our population. I listened the other evening in the Nico Malan opera house to a magnificent performance by Mimi Coertse singing in Lucia di Lammermoor, and when I hear about these different cultures I ask myself what culture I was enjoying listening to an opera in Italian, composed by an Italian musician, based on a story of my ancestors in the days gone by in Scotland and performed to and enjoyed by a multiracial audience in the Nico Malan opera house in Cape Town. What culture is that? Mr. Speaker, just as there is a culture which is universal, there is a culture which is South African, and it is growing day after day.

You do not know what culture is.

Sir, I want to revert to the question of defence and the Votes in the Appropriation Bill before us. I want to know what is the national identity, other than South African, which is rejected by the hon. member for Waterberg, of the Defence Force of South Africa for which we are voting R1 000 million and which consists of White. Black, Indian and Coloured, all with one objective, and that is to fight for and to defend South Africa— not the Whites, not the Blacks, not the Indians, not the Coloureds. Is that not a South Africanism? Is that not the South Africanism that we need in this country?

At its best.

As the hon. member for Maitland says, that is South Africanism at its best. When it suits us for political purposes, then we talk about a separate Afrikaner nationalism and tell people that they must stay in the Nationalist Party. That is what is happening. That is what the Minister of Economic Affairs did when he talked in this debate, and so did the hon. member for Waterberg. Sir, I am certain that those attitudes are merely using deep sentiments of the people of South Africa, which should be exclusive to the cultural life of our country, to prop up the disintegrating policy of this Government. Sir, I believe we have grave responsibilities in Southern Africa and we must be seen to adopt attitudes and policies which are based on justice and humanity, and to do this effectively everyone of us, in this House and in this country, must endeavour to face our problems objectively and not emotionally. We must not fabricate divisive attitudes where they do not exist, attitudes which are inappropriate to our responsibilities. Sir, I visited Mocambique during the recess. I went there in order that I might see for myself what was happening. One comes back with a picture of an economy in disarray. One comes back with a realization of the enormous task which will face the Government to be appointed on 25 June. One comes back with a realization of the necessity to develop a new economy in a new independent State in Africa, of the necessity to provide adequate education, to provide housing and to feed a population of some nine million people. We have a responsibility to render practical and realistic aid in so far as that neighbour country of ours is concerned, but we cannot render that aid when hon. members opposite stand up and tell the world at large that we in South Africa are divided on basic issues and on basic responsibilities, such as the defence of the integrity of our country and our determination to work for the benefit of all.

Sir, yesterday the hon. member for Pinelands made a very eloquent speech in this House. The hon. member claimed that more money should be spent on education. He thought our defence expenditure could possibly be reduced and that we could do more for Bantu education, a sentiment which we would all support within the limits of our financial resources. But I must ask him how he equates this attitude of humanity, this attitude of concern for the development of the non-Whites, with a letter which he wrote to the Pinelands Municipality. I want to read it. It is a letter which appeared in the official records of a meeting of the Pinelands town council. I had the privilege of being the MPC for Pinelands for eight years and I know that on the one side of Pinelands is the Langa residential area and on the other side the N’dabeni industrial area where many Langa black residents work. The shortest route for them to walk home at night is through Pinelands. They can of course go by a circuitous route around either side of Pinelands. But what does the hon. member for Pinelands write to the town council where these people have of necessity to walk home at night and to get home as quickly as possible from work? He wrote to the Pinelands town council on 6 December 1974 as follows—

[Interjections.] Sir, when the hon. member for Maitland found it necessary to raise a matter of social problems in so far as the situation of the Hartleyvale sportsfield is concerned, which was established many years ago and does not have the facilities for large crowds, he was called verkramp and all sorts of things, but while the hon. member for Pinelands stands up here and gives us his views with great eloquence, with priestly importance, in his constituency he finds that the walking through a residential area by Black people going home from their job of work is a cause of rowdiness and inconvenience to his voters. [Interjections.] I do not know whether … [Interjections.] I raised this matter because, if we are to take the suggestions and proposals of the Progressive Party serious …

The hon. member is distorting the letter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove accused me of having distorted the letter. The fact is, I have read a letter.

Did the hon. member use the word “distorting”?

I did, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw it.

I think I have dealt enough with the political issues which have arisen as far as this debate is concerned. What I am attempting to say is that we should attempt to solve the problems which face us in this country. In our private communications we should at least endeavour to adopt the same attitude which we adopt in our public protestations about what should or should not be done in this country.

In the time I have left I would like to return to the Budget. There are certain aspects of housing which are not really the concern of the Minister of Community Development, but rather the concern of the Minister of Finance. I read the other day that somebody said to another person: “You must remember that, when you are a candidate for an election, the voters are your friends. When you are elected to Parliament, they become your constituents and when you are appointed to office, they are merely taxpayers.” As my colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, has pointed out, it is so that, as far as the hon. the Minister of Finance is concerned, his situation is rather different. The hon. the Minister has unfortunately not had the experience of having to look to friends to elect him or to constituents to support him. So he comes here with a Budget in which he is only concerned with taxpayers.

It is an indisputable fact that house-owners have been forgotten in the Budget which has been presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Not only have those who already own their own property been forgotten, but also those who desire to own their own homes. There are no concessions designed to ease the growing financial burden which many now have to shoulder and no steps are being taken to meet the increasingly serious housing shortage. The president of the Association of the Building Societies read the report on the Budget and said that he was a disappointed man. One can understand that position. The latest report of the Bureau of Economic Research at Stellenbosch contains this very interesting finding on page 13 on the question of funds—

This is Report No. 25 which has just been published. It is not that the Government has not been warned of this problem, but steps which could have been taken to assist in this direction have not been included in this Budget. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister could have included a readjustment of the tax-free investments permitted to building societies in this Budget so that they could at least compete with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, when looking for investment money. Building societies are at a disadvantage. The tax-free investment has not been increased despite the fact that it has not been possible for building societies to get their fair share of investment money.

There are other matters which also are the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance. These are not new but have been called for before, year after year, and refer to procedures which have been adopted in other countries with good effect in dealing with housing problems, but which this Government has failed to adopt. I want to deal briefly with just one or two of them. There is, for instance, the question of tax relief in respect of interest paid on mortgages over owner-occupied dwellings. It is a normal and acceptable concession in most parts of the Western world, but not in South Africa. The second point is the action regarding undeveloped residential land. Action must be taken, and it can only be taken through the fiscus, through taxation to stop what is happening and what has happened in the Cape Province. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is aware of this due to his previous position on the Executive of the provincial council. Eighty per cent of the plots of land at seaside townships in the Cape Province are undeveloped. In the main they are being held for speculative purposes. What is that doing to the cost of property? Yet no steps are being done. My hon. leader suggested years ago that there should be some form of taxation which will stop this holding of undeveloped ground in our various residential areas or townships. The prices of building materials are soaring. Yet, what steps have been taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, because these articles arc subject to price control, to see that these prices are kept within bounds and that there are no cartels? I do not want to mention any commodities in particular, but glass, for example, is becoming extremely expensive in South Africa. Has there been an investigation as to why this should be so? There are other items of building materials in respect of which prices could also well be investigated. Then there is the question of relief for employers in the provision of housing for their employees. There has been a slight increase, but it is totally inadequate. If the hon. the Minister really wants to have some action in order to enable employers to provide the same facilities that are available to Government and Railway employees, let the employer have the benefit of taxation relief so that he also can give 100% loans and secure money through pension funds, and give security for loans. If it can be done in the public sector—I do not say it is wrong; I say it is right and I appreciate what is being done, also in the Railways to increase the availability of housing— surely it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance to make it possible for the same facilities to be given by employers also in the private sector for their employees. The pension funds are there which can be used as security. But there is no inducement whatsoever given by this Minister. The hands of the hon. the Minister of Community Development—the man we have hammered so often about this matter—are completely tied unless these concessions are provided for by the Treasury.

These are the problems we have. We have to deal with a problem, which is rapidly becoming urgent, the provision of a more sophisticated type of housing for our non-White population and for our growing number of Black, Coloured and Indian industrialists and businessmen who want opportunities to acquire more sophisticated housing. These are matters which are in the lap of the hon. the Minister of Finance but which are totally ignored in the Budget which is before us today. There is no concession whatsoever and no inducement, when we look at the 160 000 old-age pensioners in South Africa for whom there is accommodation for only 16 000, or for anybody else to establish the accommodation for the 150 000 who have no access, through lack of accommodation, to old-age homes. These are the matters which the hon. the Minister has failed to deal with. They are practical problems of the ordinary people of South Africa. One hopes, although one has reached the stage of losing perhaps even hope, that the Government will realize its responsibility towards these people. One hopes it will realize its responsibility towards the young married people in South Africa to see that they have the opportunity to establishing for themselves—I am not only talking about the Whites, but also of the Coloureds and the Blacks—the family life which is the basis of the development of any country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great attention and interest to speeches by the hon. member for Green Point. Today he fulfilled a very interesting role. He devoted two-thirds of his speech quite obviously, to a diversion and I compliment him on his effort to divert attention from the poor performances of his party so far in the Budget debate. In the process, and for this I express my appreciation, he caused us all great amusement with his sorrowful strictures of the hon. member for Pinelands. That was a pleasant moment for all of us. In the dying minutes of his speech he also referred to a very difficult question where, I think, he has the sympathy of all members of this House, namely the question of people in need of housing in South Africa. I am quite sure that the experts on this side of the House will in due course give him the answer.

*I should like to devote a little attention to the general criticism of the Budget and the general standpoint of my hon. friends on the opposite side during this debate. Throughout, with the exception of the hon. member for Pinelands, they harped on one string, and on that particular string they frequently produced false notes. That one string was that the Budget should be condemned because inflation continues in South Africa, that the Government is doing nothing about it and that the Government is in fact aggravating the situation with the large expenditure it is incurring. This expenditure is being incurred on Defence and on the creation of an infrastructure for South Africa’s economy. They kick up a great fuss because expenditure on Revenue Account has risen 16% and expenditure on the Loan Account by 25%. When people level criticism of this kind, one is entitled to expect them to be concrete and to point out specific cases where the expenditure is unnecessary, where it should be cut down, and where the Government is being exorbitant or extravagant. However, we did not get that, at least not from the United Party. We did get it from the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He mentioned a series of items on which he thought we are spending too much money. Then he also went on to indicate, by means of six or seven proposals, what we should rather spend the money on. The hon. member for Johannesburg North and the United Party had a lot to say about defence. I am glad that the hon. member for Green Point tried to rectify the matter and emphasized that all of us in South Africa wanted South Africa to be able to defend itself against a treacherous attack in all circumstances. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow feels the same way and that this is also his sentiment, but for the sake of a minor political debating point he adopted the attitude that my friend, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, had erred when he pointed out that if one complains about increased expenditure, one has to accept that some of that increased expenditure is unavoidable or inevitable, and it should be said, especially in the present circumstances of additional expenditure on defence. But for the sake of a political argument, the hon. member for Hillbrow wants them to have the right to make it the chief point of criticism against the Government, although they should support the increased expenditure. Of course that is illogical. One expects better from the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was, of course more specific, said that it should not be necessary to incur this expenditure. What did he say? He said that we have to spend the tremendous amount of R1 000 million on defence today because our internal policy is wrong. I must say that one cannot understand this. Let us accept for the sake of the argument that our internal policy is wrong. Must South Africa end up in a situation where its internal policy is determined from outside by its enemies? Must South Africa, if it wants peace and if it wants to spend less on weapons, allow a fifth column in its own ranks to prescribe the policy of the State? That is what this argument amounts to, and I am absolutely amazed. I just want to express the hope that my hon. friend, who has great potential and many talents, will in time become more South African orientated and gain a realization of how other South Africans feel about this matter. For us it is not a source of happiness that we have to spend so much on defence. But we in South Africa have experience of the fact that no matter how peaceful our intentions, or how assiduously we strive to co-exist peacefully with all other states, it could nevertheless happen that we are attacked undeservedly. Recently I heard people asking whether we could not be making the same mistake today, with the present events in Africa, that Piet Retief made. I want to say immediately that perhaps this question will help us to understand the defence policy of the Government. Piet Retief was right. If he had not gone to Dingaan and if he had not laid down his weapons as a mighty token of his good faith and his will to seek peace, but had gone with military force to oppress people and to deprive them of their land, we, his descendants, would not be able to look Africa and the world in the eyes today and say that we seek peace, and that our history proves this. It was only after Piet Retief fell victim to a treacherous act of murder that a struggle followed which ended in the Battle of Blood River and in a mighty victory for the Boers. This is still the standpoint of this side of the House and also of every South African. We seek peace but we are not going to be caught unprepared should there be a treacherous attack on South Africa for any reason. Our hon. Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he seeks peace, but if other people strike first, he will strike back, strike back so hard that they will know what hit them. That remains our standpoint. I believe that all responsible members of this House feel the same way about the matter. However, it is a pity that as a result of political thoughtlessness, I almost wanted to say political stupidity, there are hon. members who are trying to exploit this matter. Although they agree that it is necessary, they still want to exploit the necessity of defence expenditure to try to make political capital from it. I hope this will come to an end, because it is unworthy of this House.

This inflation about which my hon. friends were so dismayed, is of course, and this is already a hackneyed statement, a world-wide phenomenon. Throughout the entire world attempts are being made; honest, sincere and purposeful attempts by the various governments of many countries, with divergent ideologies, to combat this problem. Not one of those attempts have yet met with complete success. Many means are being employed, but to me as a layman it appears that the most promising and most important means that can still be employed is an increase of production and especially the productivity of people at managerial, workers, and every conceivable level.

Training?

Yes, at every level. Supply must more or less keep pace with the demand and an attempt must be made to bring about a situation where the citizens’ contribution to consumption is not greater than their contribution to production. After all, that is what the Government is doing, and this is the policy which it is applying from day to day, not only in the Budget, although the Budget is one important aspect …

As in the case of job reservation.

Let me reply to my hon. friend immediately. If job reservation had developed as we on that side of the House thought, in our ignorance, in 1955 that it would develop, then I would have agreed with the hon. member. But we want people to make progress. We want people to become more productive and to make a larger contribution to the production of South Africa. However, we do not want people to make progress at the expense of those who have already made progress. We want to lift up and not pull down.

But how is that possible?

If my friends do not agree with that, I shall spend more time on their education on another occasion.

These things which I have pointed out are Government policy. I want to elucidate it now, not with wild allegations, but with facts. I want to allege that, apart from the normal current State expenditure, the Government is creating an infrastructure for development, that infrastructure which my hon. friend on the opposite side criticized so much. The aim is to encourage new undertakings which will create new work opportunities for South Africans of all races. Those work opportunities will once again make it possible to train more people to give them instruction, to make the human development of all sections of our population possible. I found it interesting when my hon. friend, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, gave examples of where we can save, that in almost every case he mentioned things which make a considerable and exceptionally meaningful contribution to increased production and the creation of more opportunities for everyone in South Africa. He mentioned the R1 000 million for Sasol 2. That is also the only case in connection with which he tried to motivate his statement that we should spend less on it. He said that the establishment of the second Sasol will still be unnecessary for many years. I can only say that this is something about which there can be differences of opinion, but I cannot imagine that any other member of this House will agree with him about that. As matters stand at present in the world and especially in the Middle East, it is critically necessary that we ensure that Sasol 2 starts producing as soon as possible, even if we have to make great sacrifices to make this possible in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member also said that the amounts of R3 400 million for the S.A. Railways and Harbours, R3 200 million for Escom and Iscor, R2 000 million for the Sishen-Saldanha project, R2 400 million as additional expenditure on Sasol and R800 million for uranium enrichment were too high. Mr. Speaker, can you believe it? What is the hon. member thinking of and what is he thinking with? He says that R1 000 million is too much for a new telephone service in South Africa. Each of these items which he mentioned are part of the Government’s policy of creating more opportunities, a higher standard of living and increased capacity in order to do justice to everyone in South Africa. The hon. member said that there is unnecessary expenditure, but was not specific as to how this should be curtailed. He did not give us examples of how this progress can be made possible if we cut down on expenditure.

I want him to look at a few of these things and what they mean to South Africa with me. No one has mentioned water here, but I just want to refer to it quickly with reference to information which the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs gave me. Water is one of the possible limiting factors in the economy of South Africa. We have seen again recently that occasionally a water shortage occurs, for example in an important area such as the Vaal triangle. The Government tackled that problem with great imagination and brought the waters of the Tugela River over the Drakensberg to strengthen the Vaal River and to rectify the water shortage. What would happen if the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Vereeniging, Sasolburg, Vanderbijlpark, the Free State goldfields and North Western Cape with all its new development were to experience a water shortage? The consequences would be unthinkable. Therefore the necessary steps must be taken in advance, and these are large projects which are being tackled. My hon. colleague has already announced an expenditure of R205 million on the Tugela scheme. If that scheme is developed to the full to create better opportunities for Natal, as well, with its hundreds of thousands of non-Whites, the amount which will have to be spent on that scheme before the end of this century will total R1 000 million. I have been informed that Department of Water Affairs has plans for the utilization of water in South Africa up to the end of the century, plans which will cost R8 500 million at current prices and R12 000 million at estimated prices. The Department of Water Affairs has a scheme to alleviate a serious water shortage in South West Africa by bringing water from the northern rivers, a scheme which will cost R600 million. Now I challenge my hon. friends on the opposite side, and specifically the hon. member for Johannesburg North, to say that that should be stopped or to say that it is not necessary. I shall tell you what will happen, Sir. At the end of this century, and after that, but the date everyone refers to is the end of this century, a National Party Government, and I hope for a long time still, a Vorster Government, will continue with this work. The hon. members on the opposite side will whine, complain, be petty and continue to criticizing where criticism cannot be justified. [Interjections.] That will be the course of history in South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to a number of our public utility corporations and said that they should economize. I want us to look a little at a few of these companies, about which the Minister concerned was so kind as to give me some information, and the first one which I want to mention is Sasol itself because it enjoys preference and it was this that he tried to motivate. What is the position with Sasol? Sasol is making expansions which are not only of vital importance, in terms of strategy, for South Africa but it is also occupied with things which will make secondary industries possible in the private sector on a scale which we as hon. members do not appreciate, otherwise we would not talk such rubbish as we have heard in this debate. Let me mention a few examples for you. Sasol is busy with a gas expansion scheme to increase its gas manufacturing capacity by more than 40% in order to supply industrial gas, chiefly to private industries in the Vaal triangle and on the Witwatersrand. That will cost R71 million. But surely it is necessary if we want to raise the standard of living of our people. Sasol is developing a tar acid refinery, in which the private sector has an interest, to supply refined tar acid for the local and export market. Sasol is also expanding paraffin wax production and …

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees or not that the level of Government expenditure is in any way connected with the rate of inflation?

It may very well be. I cannot deny it, but if your objectives are high enough and if they are the objectives to which my hon. friend and his party persist in paying lip service, i.e. an increase in the standard of living of all our peoples, then. I say that it is a calculated risk that we should take in the interest of all the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] We dare not curtail the growth of South Africa, because unless we continue to grow, we cannot do justice to the peoples of South, Africa and if the price that we have to pay for that is a measure of inflation, then I believe that we should be willing to pay it in a controlled way and always taking steps to keep it within reasonable bounds.

*I can also mention that the ethylene production of Sasol is now being expanded to supply the local plastic industry—of which my hon. friend knows something— with raw materials. I think we should realize that the capital investment in the present Sasol is R200 million plus R11 million in the urban area and in Natref, a further R50 million out of a total of R90 million. We must remember that the capital investment of private industries in Sasolburg who buy feeds from Sasol, is estimated at at least R300 million. One and a half times as much as the public investment has already been invested in private industries in undertakings supplementary to Sasol. Surely, Sir, that is worthwhile; surely it is necessary if we want to raise the standard of living of our people. Sir, the municipal valuation of private sector investment in buildings and light industries in Sasolburg alone amounts to a further R30 million. For example Sasolburg provides feeds today to three fertilizer factories, two plastic factories, a synthetic rubber factory, a synthetic detergent factory, etc. Important raw materials such as ethylene and ammonia and other products are being pumped into our economy by Sasol, and it is calculated that at Sasol 2 production of these important materials will be ten times higher. Sir, these are things which create prosperity. These are generators of prosperity and of growth. But we are told that we are spending too much; that we should cut down, and that we should simply, if necessary, await a disaster. Sir, I could tell you a lot more about Sasol. I could mention for example that by 1978 Sasol will give a total of 3 750 Whites and 11 870 non-Whites employment in South Africa, in construction work alone, together with opportunities to acquire new skills and to bring about increased production. Is that not worthwhile, Sir? Is that not essential? I could mention to you, Sir, that by 1980 Sasol will give permanent employment to approximately 7 500 Whites and 25 000 non-Whites. Sir, surely one cannot deny such things.

No one is fighting about that.

Iscor has been mentioned here. The tremendous proliferative effect which Iscor’s activities have on the economy of South Africa and on employment for the people of South Africa and the opportunities it creates for our people are breathtaking. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this in detail, Sir, but I just want to mention to you that Iscor at Vanderbijlpark, Iscor at Newcastle and Iscor in the North-Western Cape is not doing private business; all that private business and the new cities which are being created, are being carried on and built by the citizens of South Africa in the private sector. I can mention to you that at Newcastle alone, as a result of Iscor’s activities, the following other industries established new branches and undertakings there: Venco; Dorman Long; Rand Mix; Vianini Pipes, Natal; Hume Pipe; Grinakers Construction; Babcock and Wilcox; C.M.G.M. Natal; Rodney Banks; Afrox; Midlands Reinforcing Construction; Ranch-Colley; Plate Glass; Privetts Electrical; Nado Electrical; Siemens; G.E.C.; Northern Natal Armature Winders; Boshbik Engineering; Pikkie Structural Engineers. Sir, these are all new undertakings which give people employment, which create opportunities for people to learn to improve their production ability and which came about as the result of Iscor’s actions in one area, Newcastle. And think of its actions elsewhere. Sir, think what Iscor is doing for the North-Western Cape, apart from what it is doing there itself with its new mines and undertakings, by making the Sasol/Sishen railway line available, and other private undertakings which are essential for the spectacular development which is coming in the North-Western Cape, about which I want to say a few words in a moment. [Interjections.] I am talking to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because he is young and intelligent and one can hope to educate him a little. Sir, then the hon. member also mentioned Escom.

Escom is different from the others. I cannot understand that my hon. friend wants to cut down on Escom, because Escom simply meets the needs of the industries and of the economy of South Africa in general. Escom’s task is not to establish new industries, but to ensure that there will always be the necessary power to meet the needs of the industries and the economy of South Africa. Therefore, because South Africa is prospering and growing, Escom’s capital investment and its generation of power is increasing in a spectacular way. It has to be the case. Escom can only curtail its expenditure if it is prepared to be a factor, not of the growth, but of the curtailment of South Africa’s future. How can the hon. member propose something like this? And Escom is doing a good job. Escom’s power supply in units has increased from 21 milliard to 47 milliard between 1964 and 1973. Its capital investment has grown from R697 million to R1 943 million. But while the amount of power it supplies has more than doubled and its capital investment has trebled, the cost in rands per 1 000 units has only risen from 32 to 41, approximately 50%. That is a tremendous achievement, but it is this achievement which my hon. friend over there wants terminated so that they can make political speeches in a Budget debate. For South Africa this means nothing except a manifestation of a certain school of thought.

Sir, they discussed the Industrial Development Corporation. Unfortunately I do not have much time to spend on that, because there is something else I still want to say. But if one thinks of what the IDC is doing in partnership with the private sector, it is amazing. The IDC, since the day it was established, has made money available and in recent times, skill as well, to private undertakings to make South Africa greater and to create greater opportunities for the people of South Africa. Does the hon. member want to say that the R700 million which has been invested by the IDC is undesirable and that it should be curtailed? Sir, who should grow in South Africa? Should the people not grow? Is it only a few private undertakings which should grow? Is that the standpoint which the hon. member for Johannesburg North, adopts? Sir, he even said that the Railways should curtail its expenditure, that its capital growth is excessive. But if goods have to be conveyed in South Africa and the locomotives and the trucks are not there, then you should hear the whining which comes from the other side, and then you should hear the accusations of lack of purpose, and inefficiency and of neglect of the interests of South Africa. Sir, just to bring these points home, just so that hon. members will realize what is happening in South, Africa, I ask them just to think for a minute of what is happening in the North-Western Cape, the one large, new metallogenie area in South Africa, where tremendous expansion can and will take place within a few years, thanks to Iscor, thanks to Escom, thanks to the Railways, thanks to Water Affairs, that are all involved in building the infrastructure today which will make tremendous development in that area possible. The Minister of Mines informs me that there has been great interest in that area in recent years at Haïb, at Aggeneys, at Broken Hill, at Black Mountain, at Prieska and elsewhere. There are many companies involved in the development of that area, one of the richest metal-bearing and metal-yielding areas in the world. The hon. member knows that. I just think of the companies which are active there. I think for example of Dodds Phelps, the powerful company from America, of Rio Tinto, at O’kiep, of Johannesburg Consolidated Investments, Anglo American, Rand Selection, Newmont of America, Consolidated Diamond. Mines, African Selection Trust—all these companies are making this area one of the most important in the world as far as the supply of copper, zinc, lead, silver and a number of other minerals is concerned, the production value of which in year 1980 is estimated at R1 000 million per annum. There is almost nothing there at the moment, but in four or five years, R1 000 million will be coming from the North-Western Cape in new production alone. But the hon. member for Johannesburg North says that the Government should not create the infrastructure for this so quickly. He wants the Government to curtail its expenditure and make it more difficult for South Africa to grow and to do justice to its people. Sir, those areas are poor in infrastructure. Money will have to be spent there very quickly and this is being done at the request of companies in which the hon. member is interested. That infrastructure has to be created, and when it is created, the hon. member will have to stand up and say: “Thank you for the Orange River scheme; thank you for the water supply in that area by my hon. friend, the Minister of Water Affairs; thank you very much for Escom; thank you very much for the Railways; thank you very much for Iscor.”

Sir, let us understand each other very well. This side of the House is more serious and just as sincere as hon. members on the opposite side of the House when it comes to the development and growth of South Africa, not only for selfish reasons, but also because we have duties to the people to carry out, the people who have been placed, together with us as government, in this country by Providence. In our opinion there is only one way in which we can do this, and that is by making use of the tremendous creative abilities of the private initiative of our citizens. That creative initiative of our citizens should rest on an infrastructure which, can only be provided by the Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time at my disposal, so the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will understand if I do not devote more than a moment or so to his speech. I just want to say that I have been a long-time admirer of his ability as a professional debater. I know perfectly well that if tomorrow the hon. the Minister were on this side of the House, he would make an equally eloquent speech which would tear down everything he has said today.

But with much more difficulty.

But with much more conviction.

No, I am not sure about that. He speaks with equal conviction, no matter which side of the House he is on. I would say this too about the hon. the Minister, Sir—his own side clearly appreciates his mental ability, because we find that they have used him to reply to the purely economic arguments used by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I can only assume that this is because they appreciate his mental ability …

Agility.

Yes, that is the word I was looking for. It is either because they appreciate his mental agility, or maybe it is because they appreciate the inadequacy of their other speakers on economic affairs. The hon. member for Johannesburg North certainly at no time talked against the provision of infrastructure for South Africa, and he talked long and loud about the need for the private sector in South Africa to have its adequate share of economic opportunities in this country. That is how I understood his speech, anyway. What he was mainly talking about was the question of priorities in South Africa at this moment in time, considering the investment which we already have in this country.

I want to say something about priorities too. I should like first of all to tell the hon. member for Algoa, who said that every good South African would agree that the amount spent on defence was too little, that here is one good South African who thinks nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I can think of far better ways of ensuring South Africa’s security, with which we are all concerned, than the purchase of military hardware. There are many other ways in which to achieve this. I think, for example, of the provision of houses, schools, technical colleges and recreational facilities, in fact everything or anything which will improve the life-style of the majority of the population of South Africa, anything which will do something to off-set the glaring differences in the standard of living between the White section of the population and the Black section of the South African population.

The priority which concerns me more particularly is that we do something about the steadily deteriorating conditions in the Black urban townships in South Africa. Today something like five million Black people are urbanized, despite the fact that the year 1978, which we know was meant to be the year which would herald the big turn-about in population, when Black Africans would be streaming back to the homelands, is but three years away. Our urban Black population is bigger than it has ever been before. I am best acquainted with conditions in Soweto and therefore I propose to give a few details to the House about that huge Black city, which is the largest African city south of the Sahara. No doubt, everything that I say about Soweto can be applied equally to the other urban townships, to the Langas and the Guguletus and the other townships in every industrial area which has a large Black township adjacent to it. I say without fear of contradiction that I believe we are reaching a crisis situation in Soweto, which has a huge, seething, sullen population living under hopelessly overcrowded conditions. The Nationalists used to boast, when they came into power, that they did a great deal to remove the terrible conditions under which Africans were living outside Johannesburg, the squatter townships and the shanty towns which they had inherited from the previous Government as a result of war conditions. I want to say now that the failure to keep up with the demand for houses, more particularly over the last five years, has led to the reappearance of overcrowding and slum conditions which, if they are not checked soon, will soon mean that conditions closely approximating to those bad days will again obtain in the townships. An estimated 2 500 houses per annum are required in Soweto to keep up with the demand by newly married couples. Nothing like this number has been built over the last few years. Over the last 18 months 1 138 houses were built. In 1972 954 were built, in 1971 1 089 were built and in 1970 we find the best figure, namely 3 703. The latest shortfall in respect of accommodation for families is as follows: 5 889 families are on the primary list. These are the section 10(1)(a) Africans. 8 536 families are on the secondary list. These are the section 10(1)(b) and (c) Africans. 2 800 are on the women’s list. Those are the divorcees with dependants. This adds up to 17 235 families. Taking an average of five per family, we find that there are something like 86 000 people waiting for houses in Soweto alone.

Where do you get your figures from?

These are official figures, Sir, and they are the tip of the iceberg because, as we all know, thousands of people do not even bother to put their names on either the primary or the secondary housing list, knowing how hopeless the situation is. All the people referred to are legally in the area. They are entitled to be in the area and to be employed in the area, or they are the dependants of such people. I am not referring now to the thousands upon thousands of illegals, many of whom are of course working in the area despite influx control. The point that I am making is that these people, whether they are there legally or illegally, are physically in the area, living there and sleeping there, and they have to find some shelter in Soweto. The result is that almost every house in Soweto is grossly overcrowded. Almost every house in Soweto—and they are small enough in all conscience—has more than one family living in it and has sub-tenants living in it. The consequences of this are self-evident. One does not have to be a trained social worker to know the consequences of gross overcrowding in housing. They manifest themselves firstly in the appalling crime rate in Soweto. Only the other day I asked a question of the hon. the Minister of Police and I was given the most disturbing figures, which showed a remarkable escalation in violent crime, even over the last year, in Soweto. Murder, rape, culpable homicide and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm all have gone up alarmingly—and here I am referring only to the cases sent for trial, let alone the ones actually reported. These are only the ones sent for trial, so one can imagine the number of cases which are undetected. Indeed, the Police Commissioner in Soweto stated only in November last year that there were 1 000 murders per annum committed in Soweto. Of course, by no means all these people are brought to trial. The incredible increase in the consumption of alcohol in Soweto—I believe the figure was something like R5 million worth of hard liquor last year—is further evidence of the deterioration in social conditions. It is the tragic story of a population which has just about given up the unequal struggle to try to live a decent life.

To the hopeless housing situation, the lack of that basic requirement, shelter, can be added the lack of recreational facilities, the inadequate number of schools that are provided there, and the daily dose of discomfort that all these people have to put up with every time they travel in and out of Soweto, because of inadequate transport. To all this, add to the effects of the migrant labour system. I would like to repeat that one does not have to be a trained social worker to appreciate the mood of the people that live under such conditions. I believe that the last straw concerning the whole situation has been the drastic increase in rents which has just been imposed on the people of Soweto, as from 1 April 1975. House rents have gone up by 25%, site rents are up by 40% and trading site rents are up by several hundred per cent. Last year I begged the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Janson, to freeze the rentals in Soweto and in the other urban townships. It is common knowledge that the majority of families living in these townships are well below the minimum subsistence level and, indeed, in many cases, below the poverty datum line.

Are you taking a guess or are you certain of your facts?

I know that from surveys which have been conducted …

Who conducted the surveys?

The Johannesburg municipality, Unisa and various other organizations made the surveys. It is common knowledge. The hon. the Deputy Minister is surely not denying that. The hon. the Deputy Minister will not deny that the wage increases, which have been considerable over the last year or so, have largely been swallowed up by inflation. We know that food prices have escalated by about 20% over the last year alone. Clothing prices increased by about 15%. This means that the wage increases have virtually disappeared, they have been swallowed up by inflation. Transport costs have gone up, and now the West Rand and other Administration Boards come along and put up the rents as well. I have suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should freeze those rentals. If he cannot freeze them, he must subsidize them. He can do this by taking back some of the money which is snitched from the urban areas, the 80% which is taken from the consumption of European liquor and which is sent to the homelands. That money should be used to subsidize housing in the urban areas. We should also be subsidizing from general revenue—there is no doubt about that. The Johannesburg City Council used to subsidize to the tune of R3½ million per annum when it was in charge of the townships. As far as I can see, however, there is no logic behind the decision which has been reached, viz. that the West Rand Bantu Administration Board as well as all the other administration boards have to have self-balancing revenue accounts. Where is the rationale behind this? These are the poorest members of the community. If we subsidize the housing rentals instead of putting them up, it would amount to one day’s expenditure on defence. To my mind, that is a much more important priority. If he were here, I would like to ask that good South African, the hon. member for Algoa, whether he does not think that the subsidizing of houses for over one million people would be a better way of ensuring peace in South Africa than buying a few more ground-to-air missiles. I believe that it would be a far better guarantee to the future peace and security of South Africa if we got our priorities right. I would like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior that, if we do not get our priorities right, we will face disastrous consequences inside South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton, in an emotional way, devoted her entire speech to a single subject, namely the social conditions within the urban Bantu area of Soweto, and she furnished a number of statistics. She knows full well that these are matters that enjoy the Government’s maximum attention at the highest level. I can assure her that she will be furnished with the necessary replies to her statements and questions, if not in this debate, then under the appropriate Vote.

If we are to listen to the criticism and the charges levelled by the Opposition parties, we should have to consider their substance—if they have any substance. Allow me, Sir, to say that the general impression we have gained over the past few days is that the charges levelled have been haphazard, diffuse, divergent, octopus-like, lacking in point and without any real significance or direction. That one can expect of those opposition parties, particularly since we are dealing here with a Budget in which stability, consistency, soundness and consolidation are evident, a Budget that is generally acceptable to everyone in this country. If one considers the haphazard collection of charges levelled by the other side, it is equally important to consider and to analyse who the people are who levelled these charges. We must consider who are the critics and who are the opposition. This is so much the more important in the light of the fact that South Africa is experiencing two events at this particular stage. In the first place there is the gradual coming into being of a new South Africa with a new domestic and political dispensation for its peoples. In the second place there is the gradual coming into being of a new Southern Africa with a new political and national approach to foreign affairs. These circumstances fundamentally affect South Africa and all its people, its national interrelations at home and abroad. This requires new ideas to cope with the changed situations, new considerations, new re-evaluations and new solutions that must be found, for the new situations that are developing. If we take a look at the critics we have had to contend with in this debate, we find that we are experiencing a third major event in South Africa as well. This is a new dispensation and regrouping of opposition parties in South Africa. This regrouping is characterized by an approach or lack of approach which is prejudicial to South Africa. I do not want to use the word “unpatriotic”, because that side of the House is very sensitive about that particular description. It is the endeavour of this country, as it is, surely, of every other country, to have an opposition that acts in a vigorous, effective, and positive way and which can even grip the imagination of the people through meaningful initiative. What have we had in recent years? What did we find today in this House? We find that what we have here is an Opposition that does not have to be reckoned with; an Opposition that is really not worthy of the name. If anyone were to want to express an opinion about what I am saying, he might tell me that I am prejudiced, but how else does one test such people? Surely by what they have said. Who are the best people to test them? The electorate, who have been judging the Opposition for a period of 27 years. Let us consider them for a moment. Let us begin with the so-called official Opposition, the United Party. We see that over a period of 27 years they have dwindled in numbers and become smaller and smaller. Is there any person on that side of the House who can furnish me with any reason for this dwindling within the United Party, other than the very inherent weakness and impotence of that party over this period of 27 years? It is a party which has lost almost more members after an election than at the polling booths themselves. It is a party which is today representative of an electorate that is almost exclusively urban and dwells in certain urban areas which are largely English-speaking. This support, too, is rapidly crumbling because those voters, in their wisdom, are crossing to this side of the House. It is a party in whose ranks the traditional hardcore United Party supporters are rapidly dwindling, and the few who remain have become a millstone around the neck of the party that cannot be shaken off. It is a party that is fast losing additional members to the splinter groups that are breaking away from it while the remaining members are inwardly so divided on certain important issues and aspects such as the consolidation plans for the Bantu homelands, for example, that they themselves do not know whether they are coming or going. It is a party whose members display little or no positive or original thinking, but become imitators when this Government takes the initiative and provides vigorous guidance.

On the other hand, there are the splinter groups, inter alia the Progressive Party, to which the hon. member for Houghton belongs. The Progressive Party has seven representatives here, of whom at least six are here on sufferance, viz. as a result of the real inner division in the ranks of the Official Opposition at the last election. It is a party with a policy of power sharing which is unacceptable to this country. In addition, there is another so-called party, the Reform Party, a party that has no proven power base and which will certainly be unable to put a single representative in this House on its own steam. It is a party which now, in desperation, wants to wed with the Progressive Party, and is a party with no clearly definable policy or identity, but one which wavers helplessly between the race federation policy of the United Party on the one hand, and the policy of power sharing and the problematical qualified franchise of the Progressive Party on the other.

To sum up, I could say that we in South Africa have as opposition parties the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Reform Party, which have become opportunistic political finches which hang upside down on a drooping willow branch and sit there in readiness, not to act positively, because that they are in fact incapable of doing but waiting for an event, a “happening”, which they can seize on and inflate in order by so doing to try and achieve a little political opportunism in this country. I do not say this mockingly, because at this delicate juncture in our history it is really a tragic situation. The fact remains that all the Opposition parties merely share the federation plan. Sharing of power, whether or not it is stated in so many words, is now being seized on as the only solution to the complex problems of South Africa, as a guarantee of a permanent peace with the outside world. Peace with the outside world, perhaps, but permanent unrest internally. These are the consequences of that party’s policy. It is a policy which is unacceptable as a policy and a party which is meaningless as a party and which, owing to its lack of meaning, places a greater responsibility on the shoulders of the National Party Government which has nevertheless gone from strength to strength in the 27 years it has been in power.

It is unnecessary for me to dwell on the honesty of the National Party’s recipe of separate political sovereignty and development which today forms the cornerstone of successful domestic and foreign peace negotiations and political détente discussions taking place today. What is of importance is that we have here a governing party that deserves the maximum support and, in fact, must get it from all the people in this country, because of the delicate nature of the situation we find ourselves in. What is also important is that this party is not sectional, as that side of the House is so fond of maintaining. It is not a party that is merely an Afrikaner Nationalist movement, but a party which has become a South African national movement. It has become a national party representing both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. It is a party which, without a meaningful Opposition, has been obliged continually to develop new lines of thought, to make demands of itself and to seek new opportunity for its people, and to do all this with a sense of responsibility. The statement, which was formerly generally accepted, that a government may not be too strong, is an idea that has disappeared in this country. In fact, it has become essential for the Government to be as strong as possible in South Africa today owing to the growing need for dynamic action, both domestically and abroad, as far as relations politics are concerned. It has also become essential for the sake of the maintenance and continuation of political stability in this country and for the achievement of maximum co-operation between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. Together we are building up a new South Africa in the field of domestic political relations. Who can dispute the fact that people, both here and abroad, are slowly beginning to realize that White, Brown and Black each have their own culture, identity, national feeling, way of life and origins and that they are entitled to a peaceful future without racial friction, without domination by a majority group and without this multi-racialism which the United Party policy and the other policies are heading for; that each is entitled to govern itself and to maintain its own sovereignty? Who can dispute the fact that the cornerstone of this is inter-nation goodwill, peaceful co-operation in the sphere of social and economic progress on the road to equal but separate development of each colour group in this country? In the process we must not be obsessed by the concepts “verkramp” and “verlig”. In the process we may not fight about interpretations or terminology. In this process it is of cardinal importance to South Africa that what can be taken from the conservatism of the so-called “verkramptes” and what can be drawn from the new ideas of the so-called “verligtes”, be weighed against each other in the interests of a sound balance in South Africa. The only criterion here is what is best for South Africa. If we are unable to succeed in that, we have no chance of being a united people; then we shall be divided and we shall experience unavoidable friction which will be solely destructive. In this process we dare not be obsessed by the concept of change and adjustment. Where there has to be adjustment, it must be because the time, the circumstances or the national context require it, or with a view to the creation of a meaningful new dispensation in this country, or because it is in the interests of a peaceful continued existence for South Africa. Such change in no way constitutes a concession, nor an abandoning of principles; nor is it, as the mayor of Cape Town said recently: “A restoration of Cape Town’s liberal civic traditions”; it is not the establishment of a precedent which he would like extended to other provinces. Our problem in this regard is that there are those who want to change merely for the sake of change. Our problem in this country is that we have people who do not want to change. Our problem in this country is that time and again we have to seek a middle way provided it is balanced and acceptable and as long as the identity of every people may be upheld, as long as it can eliminate friction, as long as it can guarantee the sovereignty and as long as the right of human dignity is recognized. We know that separation only succeeds when it eliminates friction, that it fails if it does not eliminate friction and that it fails if it causes friction or if it causes a separate identity to be lost.

Domestically, it is of cardinal importance at all times, in order that national relations may be strengthened, that the best possible relations between the various colour groups be maintained and that we should move ahead in this regard and not advocate opportunistic exploitation of any group in this country, but instead prevent it. It is essential to solve the many problems or disputes that must necessarily arise, in a reasonable and fair and honest way, by means of continual internal dialogue in a spirit of co-operation and in a spirit of the retention of what is one’s own, but never in a spirit of unadaptability and inflexibility. As long as South Africa exists, White and Brown and Black in this country will have to think and negotiate together, will have to conduct dialogue together and will have to consult together, and not confront each other on the subject of their future. Sir, there is no other way in which the answer can be found, and it is the task of every citizen to make this policy his own. Sir, at this stage it is unnecessary for me to dwell at length on the remarkable progress South Africa has made with regard to détente, particularly as a result of the role played by the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. Sir, it is of the greatest importance to realize that we in South Africa are engaged in a great task, a self-imposed task which we, as a leading African power, have set ourselves in order to acquaint the African countries with our policy of détente and peace. In this process one could point to a number of achievements, but it is of particular importance that we should consider the degree of success achieved with this same unique South African policy which has been so successfully implemented by this party, namely the policy of separate sovereign development. Sir, we are already aware of the progress that has been made in Zambia; we are already aware of the progress that has been made with President Kaunda in the combating of terrorism in their country; but what we are most proud of is that the Prime Minister of our country conducted those negotiations in an impartial way and did so at all times openly on the basis of the policy of separate development, with all his cards on the table. Sir, we know that in tackling this task South Africa is engaged in building up a network of relations between African states, in recognizing African states and in recognizing equal rights to human dignity for all in South Africa, irrespective of colour, as well as their right to concern themselves with their own domestic affairs only. We know, too, Sir, that as a result of this a contribution has been made towards the systematic disappearance of prejudice towards the apartheid policy abroad and that in its place has come the conviction that South Africa’s intentions are good and honest and that its good faith is evident from its actions and its policy. What is important in this regard is that the erstwhile generally hostile political climate prevailing in Africa as a result of misconceptions of our policy, trumpeted forth by the hostile propagandists in certain parts of Africa has begun to disappear As this Government implements its policy further, the bona fides and the merit of our policies are becoming progressively clearer and are replacing the distorted image that existed formerly. Sir, there is an important inference to be drawn for South Africa from these things and that is that the challenge to bring about peace requires goodwill and honest and sincere co-operation among everyone in the country. It requires that everyone be carried along by this movement in the flesh and in the spirit. Already the terrorist violence on the Rhodesian border has lessened and almost ceased, and already the atmosphere of sterile confrontation is giving way to a steadfast desire to find solutions domestically and abroad, and an improved understanding domestically has already come into being owing to the open discussions between White and Black and Brown, and already every South African is realizing that he will have to make sacrifices to promote race and national co-operation in South Africa. Never have the circumstances in regard to détente politics in Africa been more favourable for South Africa than at this very time, and what is remarkable is that this success is modelled on this concept of peaceful co-existence and within the framework of separate development, when group talks to group and leader to leader and person to person and nation to nation with the steadfast intention to live and let live in peace and to do what is best for South. Africa. In conclusion, Sir, I want to say that in this way this National Party Government has become a national movement to which every English-speaking person and every Afrikaans-speaking person in this country may take part, and that the exceptional privilege of being able to share in this undertaking, in this adventure, by South Africa for South Africa to bring peace to South Africa and to bring peace to Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise here today to address the Chair in this the highest Council in our country in which the history and the future of our country are mapped out. I say I do this with some trepidation, in the first place, because one feels small here in the presence of the leaders of our people and, in the second place, because one realizes that one is to follow in the footsteps of eminent Pietersburgers like the late “oom” Tom Naudé, Mr. Piet Niemand and Mr. Doepel Erasmus. Allow me therefore, the opportunity of paying a brief tribute to a man who dedicated a lifetime to his constituency, Pietersburg. In 1920, as a 19 year old young man, Tom Naudé became the first member of Parliament of that constituency. Thereafter he served his constituency, his people and his fatherland with great competence in this House as a member of Parliament for an uninterrupted period of 41 years. I think it is still regarded in this House as a record term of office. After becoming a member of Parliament in 1920, he made progress and was included in the Cabinets of Dr. Malan, Adv. Strijdom and Dr. Verwoerd. In 1961 he became a Senator and also President of the Senate. Subsequently he served as acting State President of the Republic of South Africa, and up to his death in 1969 he was a faithful worker on the South African scene and a shining light in the northern areas of our country. His monuments will stand in Pietersburg for all time to come. “Oom” Tom was succeeded by Mr. Piet Niemand, who represented this constituency with distinction for a number of years, and everybody in this House in fact has first-hand knowledge of the excellent service rendered by Mr. Doepel Erasmus for his constituency up to his appointment as Railway Commissioner in December 1974. I should like to convey the deep gratitude of the constituency of Pietersburg, also to these predecessors of mine.

I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to everybody who has made me feel at home in this House and who has given me such a kind reception. I think of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for Meyerton, who introduced me into this House. My sincere thanks to them. Being a born Pietersburger it is a privilege to me to represent this constituency, which, to me, is the most beautiful constituency as well as one of the most important constituencies in the Republic. As you probably know, my constituency extends from Ysterberg in the west to the Wolk Mountains in the east and from Zebediela and the Strydpoort Mountains and the Olifants River in the south to Blouberg in the north in the heart-land of the Bushveld, there where the kudu and the impala and the duiker still grace the grasslands of our northern regions. The scenic beauty which varies from virtually highveld, where the beautiful town, Pietersburg, is situated, to the most beautiful bushveld and the breathtaking mountain scenery and indigenous forests in the Wolk Mountains, is characteristic of my constituency. As varying as the scenic beauty, so divergent are the farming activities—from cattle farming in the north to citrus in the south, from the potato fields of Dendron to the towering plantations and waving grasslands in the Haenertsburg area. The town, Pietersburg, is rightfully described as “the capital of the north” and the authorities have accepted Pietersburg as such an important decentralized administrative centre, that certain Government departments with regional offices in Pietersburg administer two-thirds of the surface area of the Transvaal from Pietersburg. These governmental interests have contributed to a large extent to Pietersburg’s development into an important polarization point. Quite recently the National Physical Development Plan was released by the Department of Planning, in terms of which Pietersburg is shown as the sole growth point to the north of the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex and as one of the four most important growth points in the Transvaal. Activities of a different nature stimulated by the private sector, have followed the example of the Government which, in turn, have resulted in Pietersburg stimulating development activities in many fields in the whole of the Northern Transvaal today.

I should like to give you a few examples. The Chief Bantu Commissioner of the northern areas has his seat in Pietersburg from where two-thirds of the surface area of the Transvaal, that is the White area, excluding the homelands, are being administered. This area extends southwards from the Limpopo in the west and the north to a few kilometres to the north of Pietersburg and then to the south-eastern border of the Transvaal and Natal. That constitutes virtually two-thirds of the Transvaal. The mining district of Pietersburg extends over virtually one-third of the Transvaal, as does the area of the Assistant Director of Veterinary Services of the Eastern Transvaal, who has his seat in Pietersburg. Pietersburg is also the seat of the technical division of the Department of Post and Telecommunications, the Department of Labour and even a division of Internal Revenue and the Receiver of Revenue dealing with the affairs of the State in a considerable area of the Northern Transvaal. Virtually all known forms of base metals and minerals are mined in this mining district. Recently the only silicone metal factory in the country was established at Pietersburg at a cost of approximately R20 million. This foundry, which will be in full production still this year, will supply no less than 10% of the world market with this particular metal. That will save South Africa millions of rands in foreign exchange and will also supply the total needs of the South African market, while silicone metal to the value of more than R10 million will be available for export annually.

The Railways controls a considerable portion of the northern half of the Transvaal from Pietersburg. While I am speaking of the northern half of the Transvaal, it is interesting to note that the well-known and famous Naboomspruit, which is situated in the constituency of the hon. member for Waterberg, forms the central point of the Transvaal. It is halfway between the northern border of the Transvaal at Beit Bridge and the southern border of the Transvaal at the Vaal River. I should like to assure the hon. members who represent Pretoria and its surroundings in this House in anticipation that Pietersburg has no intention of incorporating them. Nonetheless, it is strange that in the field of sport Pretoria has taken for itself the title of Northern Transvaal, in spite of the fact that Pretoria is situated in the lower third of the Transvaal. Pietersburg is in fact situated in the northern half of the Transvaal and can, therefore, rightfully lay claim to the title of “the seat of the Northern Transvaal.”

To come back to the railway network, I must express our sincere appreciation for the impressive infrastructure and services rendered by the Railway Administration in the north; in particular for the role played by the department in linking the railway networks of South Africa and Rhodesia. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this connection at Beit Bridge has been one of the biggest steps forward taken by the Railways in the past decade. Our network was indeed linked to that of Rhodesia by means of the line via Mafeking years ago, but this new, far bigger, more economic and more strategic route is not only in the special interest of South Africa and of the Northern Transvaal, but will play an ever growing role in the close liaison between South Africa and our northern neighbouring states with which the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet have lately had such remarkable success.

During the Second World War the Government of the time established a training school for pilots at Pietersburg. As a result of the exceptional success of this undertaking, it was decided years later by a previous Minister of Defence, who has just retired as State President, to establish a permanent air force base at Pietersburg. In the course of the years, that base grew in size and in importance, and plays a special role in safeguarding our northern, eastern and western borders. That base is situated, in fact, less than 200 km from our three international borders: Rhodesia to the north, Botswana to the west and Mozambique to the east. It is time that the establishment of that base has had the result that Pietersburg must be regarded as target area No. 1, but we wish to assure the Minister of Defence that Pietersburg has no fear in this regard because of the state of preparedness of his air force at that base and the knowledge that no intruder will ever lightly take the risk of crossing our borders.

In this way one can continue elaborating on literally dozens of cases where the Government has taken the initiative to stimulate the development and growth of the Northern Transvaal. We are sincerely grateful for that. Of course, this does not mean that we shall continue to remain satisfied and we shall probably continue asking for other things, for it is so that Pietersburg, as one of the more important decentralized industrial centres in South Africa, is handicapped by various settlement disadvantages, which have a retarding effect on development in the area in spite of the aid offered by the Government. One of the serious problems encountered by manufacturers in Pietersburg, for example, is the matter of obtaining exemption from the Road Transportation Board to transport their products from Pietersburg to the markets of the Witwatersrand. The majority of the applications for such permission is evidently rejected. The law allows a radius of 30 miles or 48 km within which the industrialist may transport his product without processing. In the case of Johannesburg 48 km means the whole of the Witwatersrand, but in the case of Pietersburg 48 km brings one to the middle of nowhere. One cannot even reach the nearest neighbouring town. This constitutes a serious problem to the manufacturers in Pietersburg.

But on an occasion such as this I prefer to stress positive aspects of development trends in my constituency. I should like to say something with regard to health services in the north. The Department of Health, through its regional director at Pietersburg, controls an area which covers approximately two-thirds of the whole of the Transvaal from Pietersburg. Its western, northern and eastern boundaries more or less correspond to those of the territory of the Chief Bantu Commissioner and also includes Thabazimbi and Warm Baths. Even the Caprivi falls within the area. In addition to that, that department is responsible at present for the health services of Lebowa, Gazankulu, Vendaland and the Swazi area at White River. In the field of personal health services, the private sector, as elsewhere in the Republic, still plays a role of vital importance. Therefore I should like to sound a warning against the trend in many Western countries to socialize their health services. It undoubtedly brings an end to the traditional personal and intimate character of the doctor/patient relationship, which, fortunately for us, still exists in this country. Over the years the medical profession has nursed and safeguarded that particular relationship as one of the corner stones of basically sound practice in South Africa. But changing circumstances of life have not left untouched that facet of society either. Although the phenomenon of disease is as old as the hills, scientific and technological development and the so-called knowledge explosion of the past two decades have become a threat to the traditional practice of the family doctor, also in our country. Specialization and super-specialization has been of the order of the day; it has become necessary, but has thinned out our manpower in the front line of medicine to a large extent. Remote places in which no general practices exist today, still had as many as two or three practitioners to render that essential and basic service a few years ago. At that stage it was realized, as is being realized more and more today, that modern man still is a human being who needs a person who knows his patient’s problems in life, who knows his background, who knows his domestic circumstances, who knows his frustrated ideals and who knows his secret fears and all the other inner struggles that form the basis of one’s weal and woe. We still need people able to deal with man in his totality. We must, therefore, guard against too much of our manpower being attracted to the various specialist disciplines. We must even guard against this trend towards specialization of representatives in this House not demanding too many heads from our profession. E. G. Phifferling expressed this sentiment very strikingly—

Flowing from this realization there has, in fact, been a favourable change in the prospects of the practice of the family doctor. It has even given rise to an academic revolution. In Britain, at least 13 of the 27 medical schools had full-fledged departments or sub-departments of general practice in 1973, while 13 years ago, only one medical school had a development of this kind. In the USA the development has been even more rapid. In March 1973, 50 of the 150 medical schools there had departments of general practice. A full-fledged department of general practice has been established in this country, too, at the University of Pretoria under the leadership of Prof. H. P. Botha. This department not only offers a post-graduate course in general practice, but also contributes on pre-graduate level to equipping our students more effectively for their life-work. I believe that this development will make a positive contribution to raising the present high standard of medical practice which is maintained in our country at the moment, even higher to the benefit of our whole country and its inhabitants.

The medical science is a dynamic and rapidly developing science. Consequently I want to plead that our physicians, and especially our general practitioners, who after all, still form the backbone of medical care in South Africa, avail themselves of the available facilities so as to improve their qualifications and equip themselves more effectively for their life-work.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members of this House I should like to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Pietersburg on a very good maiden speech. The House listened with marked attention to a well-considered speech in which the hon. member proved that he was thoroughly acquainted with both his constituency and the interests of that area as well as the interests of the constituents of that area. I am convinced that he has proved that he will look after the interests of Pietersburg and his constituents in this House with success and dedication. He will be an asset to this House.

Hear, hear!

Now that I have been so nice to the hon. member for Pietersburg, I just want to say that it was my intention to be nice to the hon. the Prime Minister, but unfortunately he left the Chamber a short while ago.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Finance knows what a climax is. If he does not know what a climax is I shall tell him that his Budget was in many respects an anti-climax. The respects in which his Budget was an anti-climax were to my mind when we compare it with the tremendous expectations which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party have created in South Africa and in the rest of the world in the past few months. I believe that history is the most effective early warning system which exists, and history has been spelling out in the past few months a particular lesson to South Africa. The lesson is a warning to change; a lesson that if we do not change we perish and a warning that South Africa should change and has to change in order to create for itself a future of prosperity, safety and happiness. I am quite sure that the Nationalist Government and the Prime Minister have heard this lesson and warning very clearly. I say this because our ambassador at the United Nations last year made three statements which I think were tremendously significant for South Africa and the world. I just want to refer very briefly to those statements because I want to base some of the nice things I want to say about the Prime Minister—I hope he thinks that they are nice —on these statements and their significance. Last year when the short session started the Nationalists were as cocksure of themselves as they have ever been.

We always are.

As soon as our new representative arrived at the United Nations and as soon as his feedback reached the Cabinet in South Africa, I think there was a changed attitude on the part of the Government. I think that the speech made by our representative at UN was a clear indication of the changed thinking and changed attitude on the part of the Government. He said three things. Firstly, he admitted that discrimination based on colour took place in South Africa. It was the first time that such an admission was made. I am not talking about the purist apartheid theorists such as the hon. member for Waterberg who has always admitted that there is discrimination and who has said that it is inevitable and that it is in fact an absolutely integral part of the policy of separate development. The pragmatic Nationalists, however, prefer to pretend that discrimination does not exist and prefer the terminology “differentiation”. At the United Nations Mr. Pik Botha admitted the existence of discrimination. Secondly, he admitted that discrimination was wrong. It was also the first time that a pragmatic Nationalist or a representative of the Government had gone so far as to admit not only that discrimination existed but that it was wrong. Thirdly, he gave a clear and unequivocal undertaking to the world, to South Africa and to all its peoples, that the Government would move away from discrimination. That was dramatic and it was significant because it indicated to us that the Government was attempting to face the facts of the South African situation. It introduced new hope for a new era. We all hoped that, possibly, the Government was going to move towards a non-discriminatory society, a society in which there would be shared power between all the peoples of South Africa. There were many other speeches in this vein. I may just refer to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in which he said: “Give me six months. Then you will see how far we have progressed along this new path we have set for ourselves.” [Interjections.] Well, that is how the whole world and we in South Africa understood it. The hon. the Prime Minister said: “Give us six months and we will give you a different South Africa.” What I am trying to say is that the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Government created an atmosphere of expectation that the Government was going to bring about real, meaningful changes in order to improve relations between the races of South Africa, in order to improve South Africa’s position in the outside world. The hon. the Prime Minister made definite efforts in terms of détente to improve South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa and we laud him for the efforts he made and hope he is going to be successful. However, very little has happened in the arena in which real change is absolutely essential if détente is to work outside South Africa and if South Africa’s real future and real security are to receive any real boost.

Horace, you made that speech just the other day.

No, I did not. The point I want to make is that, when the Government introduced this Budget in this House at this point in time, I honestly and truly believed it would be a Budget which would give a clear indication that the Government intended taking definite and positive steps to meet in practice the expectations which they had created by the statements they had made both in South Africa and outside Africa with regard to their intentions. We waited for a Budget, as I think everyone did, which would list a detailed programme of steps the Government would be prepared to take in South Africa—I shall refer to this again later on —to improve relations between the races in this country and also to improve South Africa’s image in the outside world.

You name a few.

I will name a few; I am coming to them. I am pleased that the hon. member is interested and that he is listening with bated breath to the suggestions coming from our side. We waited for the Government not only to provide details of such a programme of steps, but also to take an essential step at the same time, namely to provide a timetable and to say to South Africa and to the world:“These are the things we are going to do, this is where we are going to take steps, this is how we are going to take steps and this is when we are going to take steps.” If the Government did that, South Africa would in fact have given positive proof of the sincerity of its intentions to improve the situation in the country.

When must these steps be taken? They must be taken now! It is no use thinking in terms of the next 10, 15 or 20 years. As I say, these steps are essential steps and they must be taken now. There is one truth we have to face and that is that, since the political power of the Whites in the country rests in the hands of the Nationalist Party which has more than 75% of the seats in this House and is therefore the de facto power structure in the country, only the Nationalist Party can take the necessary steps in order to save this country and all its people, and it must do so now and timeously. We cannot wait for many years. We cannot wait for the next decade. Steps have to be taken here and now and it is the Nationalist Party that has to take those steps. This places a very big burden and responsibility upon the shoulders of the Nationalist Party and in particular upon the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to make this point. The hon. the Prime Minister knows what has to be done. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister knows that South Africa is in a desparately dangerous situation and that there has to be radical and urgent change within South Africa in regard to race relations. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister knows that discrimination has to be removed and quickly. He also knows that the destiny of this country is no longer exclusively in the hands of the Whites but that there are many other factors exerting their influence to an increasing extent each day. Knowing this and knowing that he is the man who exercises White political power in South Africa the hon. the Prime Minister should have the courage—we appeal to him to have the courage—to take the steps that are necessary. The hon. the Prime Minister has certain difficulties. He may fear that he will lose support among his own party. He may fear that certain right-wing members of his own party may walk out on him. However, that is a chance he has to take in the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister should say: I have four years until the next election and I am going to make those four years count. I am going to come to this House with a programme of changes and announce them to the House and to the world. I am going to say that these are the changes that are going to take place and I am going to say when they are going to take place. That is what he must say. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has sufficient support in his own party and in South Africa to do that. He is sufficiently powerful and influential to do it. He has four years in which to carry it out. The hon. member for Rissik may disagree with me but I do not think that either he or the rest of the right-wing of the Nationalist Party need give the hon. the Prime Minister any cause for concern.

There are a few simple things that the hon. the Prime Minister can announce. He can say that they accept the urban Bantu as permanent citizens in the urban areas in which they live. He can say that it is an absolute fact and they are not going to be dishonest about it any longer. He can say: We accept them as permanent citizens and we accept that they have the right to permanent citizenship there. We will give them the right to own property there. That will remove one of the biggest problems as far as the race situation in the country is concerned. Secondly, he can say: We accept the fact that there is a tremendous gap between African education …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

I am not replying to any questions at this stage.

On a point of order, the hon. member implied that the Government was dishonest in connection with the urban Bantu. Is the hon. member entitled to accuse the Government of dishonesty?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the Government must say to South Africa and the world: We accept that there is a tremendous gap as far as educational opportunities and expenditure are concerned between the Blacks and the Whites in South Africa. However, we undertake within five, 10 or 15 years, or some other feasible period, to close that gap and to close it by a certain fixed percentage every year. The Government must indicate to the world that by means of a crash programme they will establish colleges and centres of training throughout the country so as to train Blacks, Coloureds and Indians for commercial and industrial employment in order to integrate them into our employment structures in the country. One cannot protect private enterprise in a multiracial country unless one ensures that each race participates equally, effectively and freely within that private enterprise society. The commercial and industrial areas of South Africa must be freed immediately so that all races have an equal opportunity, unencumbered in any way, to participate in those commercial and industrial areas. The hon. the Prime Minister must also say that they are going to do away with every statutory measure which prevents a man from making the best possible contribution to the economy of the country. Every measure applied by law which excludes Blacks, Coloureds and Indians from competing freely in the economy of South Africa must be done away with.

Then, Mr. Speaker, last but not least, the Government must announce a number of political reforms. Those political reforms must simply be this, that the Government is no longer going to dominate or rule over people, but that it will create mechanisms whereby it will rule with people. I believe that a number of political reforms of that nature are absolutely essential in order to develop a new constitution for South Africa.

Sir, I want to reply just very quickly to one point raised by the hon. member for Innesdal. I accept that every group, every race, in South Africa has a right to its identity, to its cultural activities and its language. But, Sir, no group in South Africa has the right to exclude other people from the benefits of its society. You cannot have privilege at the cost of opportunities for other people. White identity is very often White privilege at the cost of opportunities for the other race groups in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to climaxes and anti-climaxes, to the question of discrimination and to détente and in the end offered certain suggestions in terms of which the Government should accept certain policy aspects of the Reform Party. Sir, I can furnish the hon. member for Bryanston with an excellent example of what the difference is between a climax and an anticlimax. To me those four people sitting over there are an excellent example of an anti-climax.

The hon. member said the first time the National Party Government or any of its leaders mentioned the fact that we should move away from discrimination was at the U.N., when it was mentioned by our ambassador. I should like to refer the hon. member to a speech Dr. Verwoerd made as long ago as on 14 April 1961. Of course, the hon. member will not listen now, because he is in the habit of listening only to himself. Dr. Verwoerd said at that stage—

That was as long ago as in April 1961.

Sir, I should like to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Unfortunately the hon. member is not here at the moment. I could be as discourteous to him as he was to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjection.] He did not mention in advance in his speech that he was going to attack the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I could also be impolite now and say that he is not here in the Chamber, because he is not interested in the most important debate conducted during a session of the House of Assembly. Sir, we have read many reports and heard many rumours to the effect that the hon. member for Hillbrow also aspires now to the leadership of the United Party, as does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Hillbrow when he staked his claim, as it were, in this struggle for the leadership. But, Sir, may even the moribund United Party be spared his leadership, because it would be a sorrowful leadership.

Why are you concerned about our leadership?

Sir, I notice in this morning’s newspaper that an African leader has offered to act as leader of the Commonwealth. I wonder whether the hon. member would not also offer himself for the post as leader of the Commonwealth. Sir, he is the last person to talk about détente in Africa and the correctness of our actions in this respect. He is the person who referred in derogatory terms and in his characteristic, ill-considered and rash manner to a certain African state with which we had established sound relations. He referred, inter alia, to the American satellite which can even determine precisely how many maize-cobs there are on every maize plant in the Republic of South Africa, and the amount of oil which is being discharged in South African harbours every minute of the day. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what he alleges the satellite is able to tell us. Now one can understand it if this meets with a ready response, because he is the kind of person who is inclined to look into a crystal ball to see what the future holds for us. Apart from the fact that it is most irresponsible of a technical attaché of the United States to have made a statement of this nature, it is even more irresponsible of a senior frontbencher of the Opposition Party to continue to fulminate on this matter in an irresponsible manner. But as I say, only a person with his mentality can be carried away by a matter of this kind.

Idi Jacobs.

As far as our oil position is concerned, the hon. member went so far as to compare our circumstances with those of the USA. Has the hon. member never heard of a boycott list? Has he never heard that the USA produces approximately 76% of her oil requirements herself? In this way his speech is teeming with untrue statements and exaggerations and irresponsible utterances. I shall mention only a few examples. Even at this stage he cannot understand why substantial funds are being allocated for the defence of our country. Where has he been all this time, Sir? Does he not know what it is all about? He spoke about home-ownership and had this to say about it: “How do you pass leasehold title to your children?’’ Sir, has he never heard of the law of inheritance? Has he never heard that the testator is entitled to transfer this right to his children? In the same irresponsible manner he says that the Bantu who can afford to do so do not know where to go for their holidays. Sir, does he not know of the holiday resorts which have been established for non-Whites? Does he not know of the bus services which have been introduced to accommodate non-Whites? Has he never been to the Kruger Game Park?

To which beach are they allowed to go?

This is the kind of remark we have from a person who aspires to the leadership of the United Party.

That is what you say, not I.

But he also referred to inflation and said that the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to inflation as one would to one’s mother-in-law. Even for his mother-in-law the hon. member for Hillbrow has no respect. However, I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that the spectre of inflation existed even under the United Party Government in 1947. I want to tell him that greater brain power than the United Party is able to offer and, definitely, people with a greater intellectual capacity than the hon. member for Hillbrow have wrestled with this problem. The Minister of Finance at that time was Mr. Jannie Hofmeyr, the Minister of Transport was Mr. Sturrock and the Minister of Economic Development was Mr. Waterson.

It was not 15% at that time.

It was at that time that someone wrote to the letter column of an English-language newspaper stating that he was unable to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of living and added—

It was in those days, too, that a Cabinet Committee of the United Party made a special investigation of the problem of the increasing cost of living and issued a statement in regard to this matter at that time. Then the old friend of the United Party, the Sunday Express, wrote an editorial on this matter on 15 June 1947 under the heading “But it still goes on going up”. According to the article the statement sought to defend the position which existed at that time but that it had one weak point, i.e. that it failed to announce a constructive policy for the curtailment of price increases prevalent at that time, increases which were apparently taking place at an increased rate. Sir, that was in 1947, after the war, when the United Party Government found itself in such an unenviable position that they could have used the funds they applied to the war effort to combat inflation.

We have come to the fourth day of this debate and we have listened to two speakers of the Reform Party and to quite a number of speakers of the United Party, but we and the general public have heard nothing at all about the basic differences in policy between the United Party, the official Opposition, and the Reform Party. We heard about credibility gaps and we heard about the new lease of life which was going to be infused by these Young Turks. Two speakers participated in this debate, but up to now we have not heard in which respect they differ from the policy of the official Opposition. Let us consider the question of White leadership or sharing of power. Except for the hon. member for Albany, who furnished us with a learned explanation of this matter last night, the matter remains as clear as mud. The hon. member denied that any member of the United Party had said that the policy of his party meant a sharing of power on a multi-racial basis. I should like to refer him to the speech his hon. leader of Natal made during this very session.

I never said that. [Interjections.]

I am referring to what the leader of Natal said in col. 1120—

Where is the partnership?

The hon. member fox Albany says there is no such thing as a sharing of power.

Quote him!

Last night the hon. member for Albany said— and I listened to what he was saying— that the United Party did not believe in it. [Interjections.]

You should quote it from my Hansard.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! Does the hon. member want to answer a question?

I do not have time to answer questions now, because I want to proceed with my argument. [Interjections.] We now come to col. 328 of Hansard of this session of Parliament. In the course of his speech the hon. member for Bloemfontein East referred to the question of White leadership, as follows—

Of course.

A little later the hon. member for Bloemfontein East wanted to know what the opinion of the hon. member for Edenvale was, to which the hon. member for Edenvale answered—

The hon. member for Durban Point said I should quote what the hon. member for Albany had said. Here is his unrevised Hansard—

This is exactly the opposite of what the hon. leader of Natal said.

This is what you said.

A little later on he said the following—

What did you say?

That is exactly what the hon. member for … [Interjections.] I used exactly the same words and expressed the same thought. [Interjections.] We now come to a further aspect. It is quite clear that that party is becoming very nervous now. [Interjections.] Just see how they carry on when we refer to these matters.

Just keep to the truth.

There is an old adage to the effect that one can sing in unison but not talk in unison. One shouts when one gets hurt and this is what is happening at present. I am trying to unravel certain aspects of their policy, aspects which hurt them. It seems to me as if I have touched on a very sore point …

Just speak the truth and we shall not make so many interjections.

I quoted certain statements and if they were not true you should tell me where I was wrong. The next speaker on the United Party side should then tell me where I was wrong.

I want to deal with another aspect of the federal policy of the United Party. This is a matter in respect of which they have been saying for a long time that they have found a magic formula to render the rights of minorities and individuals in the Constitution Act unassailable. In fact, the only way in which they are able to do this, is to have it written into the Constitution Act. They are also going to restore to the courts their power to test legislation. We know that, in terms of the policy of the National Party, sovereignty is vested in this Parliament. A protracted struggle was waged on this matter, a struggle which began with the Ndlawana case in 1937, in respect of which the Supreme Court ruled that “Sovereignty, like anything else, is at the mercy of Parliament.” However, they want to restore this power to the courts now. Their great leader, General Smuts, said in 1907 and in 1909 at the time of the National Convention that this right should not be given to the courts. He was opposed to this right being given to the courts, but the United Party wants to take away this sovereignty from the people and give it to the courts which may be packed by a central Parliament anxious to acquire power. After all, it is a well-known tendency at present in a federal form of Government that more and more powers are being given to the central federal Parliament, and such, a Parliament is not going to tolerate its policy being thwarted by the courts.

I also want to refer briefly to the sharing of wealth and taxation. Recently we read in To the Point about the way in which Nigeria was wrestling with, this problem. Nigeria derives a very high income from its oil sales. In this magazine we read the following—

All these are aspects of the Federal policy of the United Party to which, we have not had any answers yet. I want to refer briefly to the formula in terms of which 120 members of the federal parliament would be elected in accordance with their contribution towards the welfare of the State. Up to now the United Party has not told us in which way these people are going to be elected. They are going to constitute by far the majority of the members of the federal parliament. The United Party has accepted many forms, policy aspects and actions of the National Party. In this respect I have in mind, for example, the establishment of the Republic, the idea of homelands and the establishment and development of an independent and self-sufficient industrial State. However, we are still detrimentally opposed to one another as far as the federal idea is concerned. However, the United Party is still refusing to discuss this matter with us in depth. As far as we are concerned, we do not believe in the concept of the sharing of power. We have repeatedly stated our motivation for this standpoint. In short, it means that we shall not surrender the sovereignty over our own people.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 34th Budget debate since 1948. If we look at the Hansard of all those debates, we find that these debates have been consistently used by the United Party to try to tell the world that the Government is wasting money on ideological matters.

You are still doing it.

This brings us to the surprising experience we have had in this debate. We find that the United Party is trying to get around this aspect of the debate in an easy way. During the 27 years in which the National Party has been in power, there have been 34 occasions on which motions of no confidence or censure have been introduced in this House, and each time the United Party has repeated the statement that with its ideological policy of apartheid or separate development, the National Party has been wasting the money of the State. On eight occasions we have had the opportunity of going to the country and the United Party were able to tell the voting public the same thing. However, they have been rejected eight times by the voting public. What I find even more pleasing about this observation is the phenomenon we have been experiencing all along, namely that the youth are accepting the policy of the National Party. The best proof of this is the fact that many of the supporters of the National Party have died since 1948. Nevertheless the number of our seats continues to grow. Surely these votes for us do not fall from the sky, but are the votes of people who have been added to the voting public through birth, through population increase. We see this phenomenon even in this House. We saw it again this afternoon. The latest by-elections brought young men into this House, men who, in 1948, were barely eligible to vote. I am not denying that there are young men sitting over there too, but our numbers on this side are growing. That is what the argument is about.

However, last night we had a different phenomenon again. The hon. member for Albany was unable to state the essence of the policy of the United Party. For example, we could take the argument at which the hon. member for Brakpan had to drop the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Information and the Interior asked a number of questions, one of which I want to mention. He asked whether the federal government which the United Party was holding out as a prospect would be anything other than multi-racial. The hon. member for Albany replied: “That is the goal we are aiming for.” This is what was important about the debate we had last night, not the matter which the hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for Albany debated here last night. For the moment it was in fact important, but what was most important to us was what they kept wanting to deny, namely that there would be sharing of power. If one wants various races in the same government, there must surely be a sharing of power. Each of these hon. members put it the same way, too. The hon. member for Albany spoke on their behalf when he said that that was the goal they were aiming for. However, the hon. member for Albany also said: “When this will come about I do not know.” We do not know either, because it can only come about when the United Party comes into power, and we do not foresee such a possibility in the near future.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. That hon. member’s side has had its chance to put its case.

When are you going to have independent Bantustans?

Oh, really, Mr. Speaker, what is more, the hon. member is stupid, too!

Just answer that question.

We have seen in this debate that the hon. members opposite are avoiding discussion of ideological matters at this stage. Now it is our turn to discuss these matters. I heard something else in this House, too. It was the remark made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It would seem to me that this is the essence of the United Party’s difficulty. The hon. member has said on occasion in this House that “identity” is a new word used by the National Party to justify discrimination. I want to come back to the argument concerning a race federation or the sharing of power. Who is going to sit with the United Party in that federal government? Surely there will be four different identities, because there will be Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, not so? There are going to be four identities, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that this is a new word. As a student of politics, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout ought to know that the whole concept of identity was being debated here as far back as 1947. It is very interesting to note who first used the word “apartheid” in this House, according to the Hansard index. I want to say at once that the person who used it said that that was not the first time it had been used, but after he had used it, Hansard recorded it for the first time. The person was the late Gen. Smuts and I refer hon. members to column 208 of Hansard of 16 August 1948. Prior to that date a great deal had been said about this matter, but the interesting point is that the significance, the impact of that word was realized in Hansard for the first time that day. Even before 1948 the National Party had realized that the post-war demands that would be made of this multinational country would be high. That is why it appointed the Sauer Commission of the time. That commission published what we could call a blueprint. Concerning apartheid, the Sauer Commission said (translation)—

The idea that we are moving away from discriminatory things existed as far back as 1947. But the United Party never wanted to accept it, they never wanted to listen to it. If one studies that report one sees that the explanation provided—true enough, this is rather old history, but I think it necessary that we should record it again in Hansard —states three goals of apartheid. The first is the upholding of the White population, concerning which there has never been any doubt. Secondly there is the upholding of indigenous non-White race groups as separate national communities by combating all influences which undermine their respective identities. Even then we foresaw what the situation would be in 1975 and we had already stated the standpoint that peoples’ identities should not be undermine. Related to that is the standpoint which the people had already set down in writing at that time, namely that the cultivation of national pride and self respect in every group was a necessity. That was why the hon. member for Albany could speak last night about races which would come together in this federation. At the moment we have the White person with his White identity. Surely hon. members do not deny that. Then there is the Indian, who is proud of his Indian identity. Then there is the Coloured with his particular identity and the Bantu with his particular ethnic identity. It is because those identities have become fact over the past 27 years of Nationalist rule that we have the situation today that the United Party is struggling to incorporate those four groups in its federation.

I should like to direct a challenge at the three Opposition parties and particularly, perhaps, to the United Party. Here on my right four members are sitting who were elected here at by-elections after the election of 1974. Where was the United Party on those occasions, when we could have fought out this matter at once in public? Another four by-elections are coming up and our challenge to the United Party this evening is to crawl out from behind the shoulders of the Hertzog Party and come and fight against us in these four by-elections. Let us then fight on the issue of race federation in the coming four by-elections if they want to. If I were to state my choice, I would say that we should fight the by-elections on the issue of identity. The Caledon by-election is at hand and it is an old traditional Boland United Party seat. Are they afraid to nominate a candidate? We also have Middelburg, the old traditional Central Transvaal United Party seat. Then we have a typical working seat in Overvaal. Let us discuss job reservation with the workers of Overvaal, if the Opposition does not want to discuss identity. I challenge them to put up a candidate there. Then there is Gezina in Pretoria, a typical urban seat whose voters comprise clerical workers, railway workers and others. I am convinced that if we could get the chance to fight against the United Party, we would, in fact, be doing them a favour, by showing how strong they are in comparison with the people sitting on this side. Sir, we, too, had our problems. In 1969-’70 we had very serious problems. During the election we even suffered from those problems which they are experiencing, but what is the benefit we derived from that? The result is that there is not a single representative of those people sitting in this House who made it difficult for us at that time. But what do we find in the case of the United Party, who did not have difficulties at the time? Here are sitting the results—eleven people, big ones, small ones and I do not know what else. [Interjections.] I therefore think, Sir, that we can expect the hon. member for Albany, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party, who is not present at the moment, as well. Not one of them is here. We could also assist the leader of the Reformists. We ask them: “Please come along and let us settle this matter in the boxing ring”. For our part we put forward the acceptance of identity and then, too, the four important race groups or national groups, which hon. members opposite eventually want to incorporate in their federation, are also put forward, and I challenge them to say at that stage whether, in that federal government they are advocating, they are going to have a group of people who will share political power. My prediction is that they will have to do it but I also want to predict that they will not take part in the election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Westdene and Brakpan both delved into the past. The hon. member for Westdene endeavoured to justify the use of the word “apartheid”, when all of us, whatever our party affiliation, know that it has virtually become a swearword in the Western world. I thought that the hon. member for Westdene with his knowledge of social welfare and pensions would have tried to justify the increases announced in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. After all, this is a Budget debate. We are endeavouring to investigate and analyse the proposals put forward by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the hon. member for Westdene did not feel that this was an occasion on which to try to justify those concessions and increases. He tried instead to indicate that the members of the Progressive Party and the Reform Party are the fruit of the United Party. Perhaps he should reflect on the fact that the Herstigte Nasionale Party is led by a former Cabinet Minister of the Nationalist Party of some ten years’ standing. He should look at the fruit of the Nationalist Party in this regard because the Herstigte Nasionale Party came into being through the Nationalist Party. The hon. member should reflect on the policy of that party and the harm that it is doing to South Africa in our present situation.

I want to deal with the position of those people who are affected by these increases. I also want to deal with the question of inflation mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia in one of the legs of his amendment. We know that inflation is the enemy of any country that has a free enterprise economy. We have always endeavoured to ensure that free enterprise is maintained in this Republic of ours. We on this side of the House have never endeavoured to imply that our policy is one of socialism or of interfering in any way with free enterprise. In actual fact, we have endeavoured to ensure that free enterprise shall continue in the Republic of South Africa and, where we have believed that it has been threatened in any way, we have brought this to the attention of the Government. As the hon. the Minister of Finance is aware, we know that inflation has undermined the incentive of people to save. After all, savings are the basis of any country’s economy and without the encouragement of proper saving the economy will flounder. The hon. the Minister is also aware of the rapid rate of inflation that South Africa has experienced particularly over the past few years. This means that the incentive to save has disappeared in some respects because people have realized that their money will continue to be eroded by that silent thief, inflation. We know too that inflation results in the fact that there are a large number of people who are just unable to save. When people reach that stage they are virtually experiencing a recession in South Africa. I was interested to see that a survey was undertaken a short while ago to endeavour to determine the percentage of persons who were able to save. When one looks at this survey which was only undertaken in November of last year, one finds that 32% of people over 50 years of age were unable to save any money in the 12 months ended November 1974. This survey also indicated that 29% of the people with household incomes of less than R300 per month were unable to save anything at all. Indeed, 30% of those interviewed with household incomes of between R300 and R499 per month were unable to save anything at all. This means that because of the rapid increase in the rate of inflation, the difficulties that are being faced by a large section of the community will continue to be aggravated unless the Government can take timeous steps in an endeavour to curb inflation. We also know that those persons who suffer most in times of rapid inflation are the poor and in many cases the elderly.

In his speech the hon. the Minister of Finance did announce certain concessions to people over 60 years of age, to social pensioners and to varous other groups. I feel, however, that we must indicate to the hon. the Minister that the increase that he has granted to certain of these groups such as the social pensioners of R7 per month in actual fact is less than the increase granted during the previous financial year. You may recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on 1 May 1974 an extra R5 per month was granted to White social pensioners while other amounts were granted to non-White social pensioners, and that a further increase of R5 per month was granted to White social pensioners with effect from 1 December 1974. This resulted in an increase of R10 for those persons during that financial year. The increase that has been announced under this Budget is therefore not an improvement on the situation but is less than what was given to these people last year in spite of the fact that the rapid rise in the cost of living has overtaken the income of many of these people who have had to exhaust their savings in order to try to meet the shortfall between income and expenditure. I believe that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for these funds should in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions reconsider this question of the increase, firstly, in regard to the amount involved and secondly, in regard to the date from which it becomes payable. The hon. the Minister announced that these increases would be granted with effect from 1 October this year. This means that many of these people will see the advantages of that increase completely wiped out because of the increase in the cost of living between now and 1 October of this year. I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister reconsider this position and do all he can to bring about an alleviation of their financial hardship. I feel that the hon. the Minister could have been more generous and that he could certainly have made this increase applicable from 1 April or, if he so wished, from 1 May of this year. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider this position and at least make the increase payable from 1 May of this year.

One of the reasons given by the hon. the Minister for not granting these increases earlier was so that the adjustments could be made by the various departments. I want in this regard to point out to the hon. the Minister that adjustments are usually made where there is a relaxation of the means test. One can understand that the files then have to be reviewed and there is a considerable amount of administrative work involved. In this case, however, there is no relaxation of the means test. It is merely a question of the granting of an increase. Surely, with the computerization of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and other departments dealing with the other race groups, it should be quite a simple matter to programme the increases with effect from 1 April or, at worst, 1 May without causing any undue administrative difficulties?

The position of the other race groups has caused a great deal of concern because of the great hardship that is being experienced by these people. In his speech the hon. the Minister told us that the Government was endeavouring to narrow the pension gap between the White group and the other race groups. I feel that the hon. the Minister should indicate exactly what increases are to be granted to the other race groups so that we in this House can judge the degree of the narrowing of the pension gap. No information has been given in regard to the increases to be granted and in the past where this was done on a ratio basis, the gap was in actual fact, according to the figures, widened instead of narrowed. It is of great importance that the non-White groups should know exactly what increases are to be granted to them. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister must know what these figures are because in his speech he indicated what the costs involved would be in regard to the steps to be taken to narrow this pension gap. Surely the ultimate aim of the Government must be to ensure that this gap is in fact closed and not merely narrowed?

As far as the amount involved in these increases is concerned, the hon. the Minister indicated that for the period involved it would amount to R29 million and to R58 million for an entire year. What we are asking for in actual fact is that the full increase be granted for the full financial year, namely R58 million. After all, the Government will be receiving considerably more revenue from the gold mining industry, as a result of the higher price of gold. It will also be receiving considerably more revenue from commercial and industrial undertakings, some of which are showing more profitable returns, and it will also be receiving considerably more revenue from individual taxpayers as a result of the increases in salaries and wages given to them to meet the higher cost of living. It would appear, therefore, that the hon. the Minister is being over-cautious in only granting these increases from 1 October 1974 instead of from 1 April 1974.

Mr. Speaker, another matter that I want to raise is one which we on this side of the House have often brought to the notice of the Government. Indeed, it has sometimes also been brought to the Government’s notice by members sitting on the other side. I refer to the position of civil pensioners who served the State and who have not benefited by the improved conditions resulting from the consolidation of the six separate funds into the Government Service Pension Fund in terms of legislation passed by this House with effect from 1 July 1973. Sir, it is a pleasing to see that even the hon. member for Paarl found it necessary to draw the Government’s attention to the hardships being experienced by these civil pensioners. Indeed, when the hon. member for Paarl was speaking in the Third Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill on 26 February of this year, he said that the civil pensioners were having a hard time and that certain amounts were being added to civil pension funds so as to keep the funds solvent and so as to be able to increase the amounts paid out by them. He must indeed be disappointed to find that the hon. the Minister of Finance has not seen fit to increase the pensions of civil pensioners, particularly those pensioners who retired before 1 July 1973. The hon. member for Paarl went even further to say—

The position of these people is that they will have to remain on the same pension that they were receiving last year; they are not to receive any increase at all. We believe that a full investigation is required into the position of these older pensioners who built up the six separate funds which, I have said, were consolidated into the Government Service Pension Fund as from 1 July 1973. These funds had built up considerable reserves, thanks to the efforts and the contributions of the older civil pensioners, with the result that the consolidated fund today should be able to pay considerably improved benefits to those members who retired before 1 July 1973. I believe that the Government is not doing justice to this group of persons. After all, they built up this fund into an extremely strong fund, and yet they find that they are at a considerable disadvantage compared to members who retire on the new basis applicable in terms of the Act of 1973. As you know, Sir, a minimum pension is being paid to certain civil pensioners. From 1 July 1973, when the then existing funds were consolidated, a 10% increase was granted to civil pensioners, and on I October 1974 a 10% increase was granted in terms of the Budget, to those persons who had retired before that date, and those who were receiving a pension of less than R250 a month received a minimum increase of R25 a month, thus bringing up the minimum pension to R154-86. But, Sir, is this good enough? Of course, we on this side of the House welcome the overall improvements which have in fact been brought about. It is obvious that the Government must modernize its pension scheme so as to keep pace with pension schemes in the private sector. The improvements which have been brought about are quite considerable. For instance, the gratuities payable by the funds were increased to 6,72% of the member’s emoluments over the last three years of service, multiplied by the number of years of pensionable service. As far as annuities are concerned, the period taken into account was also reduced to three years, and 1/55th of the member’s average annual emoluments over the last three years of his service was taken into account as compared to the previous factor which was 1/80th. This results in a considerable disparity between the pensions paid to the older group of civil pensioners and the pensions paid to those who qualify for pensions from the new fund. When this legislation came before the House, we on this side indicated that there would be great discontent over this disparity. It is clear that that discontent is growing when one finds that even Nationalist Party members on that side of the House are prepared to come forward and say that enough is not being done for the older civil pensioners. I believe that the position of the fund requires investigation in so far as the older pensioners are concerned. Let us see how this consolidated fund is faring. The hon. member for Griqualand East put a question to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions earlier this session in regard to the position of this fund and the hon. the Minister indicated that that information was available in the latest report of the Controller and Auditor-General. When we look at the balance sheet of the fund, as reflected in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, as at 31 March 1974, we find that the amount standing to the credit of the fund at that date was R1 458 million. When one looks at the income and expenditure account for that financial year, one finds that the surplus of income over expenditure amounted to no less than R155 million. Sir, this is due to many factors. We know that the contributions of the members have been increased. As a result of the growth of the fund, the interest on the funds alone amounts to R96,7 million, whereas the annuities which are being paid from this fund amount to R48,8 million, the annuities to widows R9 million, gratuities on retirement to R32.6 million, and gratuities to dependants R9 million. It is clear, therefore, that this fund is in a very strong financial position. There is no doubt therefore, that the consolidated fund is in a position to grant increases to the older civil pensioners who built up the fund. These older civil pensioners should receive far greater sympathy and benefits than they are receiving on the present basis on which the Government is supposed to be looking after them.

Sir, there are also other aspects of this Budget that I want to mention in so far as it affects the older section of the community. The hon. the Minister announced a small concession to taxpayers over 60 years of age, but we on this side of the House feel that the Government should seriously consider the question of allowing a certain amount of the pension to be tax-free so as to encourage those pensioners who are able to take up employment to remain productive. After all, in times of inflation it is necessary to keep as many members of the community as possible actively productive. There are many pensioners who would like to take up employment, but the knowledge that they will have to pay additional income tax on their earnings discourages them from taking up employment. We believe that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the question of allowing up to R1 500 per annum of a person’s pension to be deductible from his taxable income. I think this would encourange pensioners to take up employment again.

Then Sir, there is the position of the welfare organizations which are having to carry an increasing burden as a result of the ravages of inflation. Because of the high cost of living, many of these organizations are now finding it extremely difficult to extend their work and, indeed, in some instances, to maintain their present field of operations. In this connection I would like to quote from the latest report of the Durban Benevolent Society to illustrate the difficulties that some of these organizations are experiencing. The report says—

Then an appeal is of course made for more funds to be forthcoming. We on this side of the House have always believed that our welfare services should be shared by the State and by the community. We certainly do not advocate that the State should provide everything, but at the same time it has to ensure that these welfare organizations are able to extend their activities, especially in times of difficulty such as they are experiencing at present. I believe the hon. the Minister should give very serious consideration to allowing donations to registered welfare organizations to be exempt from tax, particularly when one considers that many companies and some individuals would be able to play a far greater part, as the community should play, in the field of welfare work if they were encouraged to do so. After all, various incentives are provided by means of taxation, and I believe this would be an incentive to encourage individuals and companies to make a greater contribution to our registered welfare organizations so that this work can be further extended. As I mentioned earlier, it is of course not the sole responsibility of the Government to see that the poor and the elderly and those who require assistance are looked after, but at the same time I think the State should pay far greater attention to this aspect and bear a far greater responsibility in respect of it.

Then as far as some of the older people are concerned, the question of loan levies is another important aspect which requires attention. I know that in terms of the legislation passed in 1972, certain persons who are not liable to income tax may claim loan levies standing to their credit, and indeed there are a few people, I believe, who have received refunds of their loan levies. The Minister did announce that the 1969 loan levy would be repaid during this current financial year, and I hope that the hon. the Minister can give an indication, when he replies, as to when that loan levy for 1969 will in fact be repaid. But further than that, I believe it is necessary that attention should be given to the older individual taxpayer and that an earlier refund of these loan levies should be considered for those over 60 years old, which seems to be the age limit up to which the Minister and his predecessor have granted various concessions, to ensure that they can also enjoy some of the refunds of their own money which should be forthcoming in regard to these loan levies. Perhaps the over 60-year-old taxpayers should be granted an earlier repayment of their loan levies, apart from the special provisions made in the 1972 legislation.

Then I should like to deal with the position of private pension funds. The hon. the Minister has given notice of a Bill which will give us an opportunity to discuss various aspects of private pension funds, but there is one particular aspect which I know is not incorporated in that legislation, and that is the position of the private pension fund which is endeavouring to introduce escalation clauses and benefits, but which finds it extremely difficult to do so due to the restrictions placed on the medium of investment that these funds are permitted to hold. As a result of the provision whereby 50% has to be held in certain Government stocks and similar investments, many of them low-yielding investments, it makes it almost impossible for many of these pension funds to meet the challenge and to bring about a situation where they can have an escalating clause in their rules in terms of which this escalation can take place. A recent survey undertaken by a financial organization showed that if inflation continues at the rate of 10% a year, something costing R100 now will cost R235 in 1984. In fact, the survey shows that the percentage of decline in living standards over a 10-year period would be something like 58%. The Association of Pension Funds finds it extremely difficult to bring about a situation in which pensioners who are receiving pensions from those funds can be assisted to maintain any sort of reasonable standard of living.

Then there are other aspects which are of great importance. Although these can be discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, at which time certain relaxations can be asked for, these are all subject to the sanction of the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is why I ask that the Minister of Finance should, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, give further consideration to a relaxation of the means test. This is another omission as far as this Budget is concerned. Persons who are disqualified in terms of the means test, who have made some provision for their old age, are discriminated against. Indeed, there are cases where some people are in fact losing their pensions due to the fact that they are receiving a pension from a private source. Where a pension fund has endeavoured to increase that pension, the increase in the pension has resulted in a considerable loss as far as the pensioner is concerned, because both husband and wife in many cases then lose their social pensions. Surely this is an anomaly which should not exist and one which should be looked into. On the one hand we are encouraging private pension funds and on the other hand we are discriminating against those persons who in fact do receive a small increase from those private pension funds. There are many anomalies today that exist in regard to the means test and it is indeed most disappointing that the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech has not been able to grant any relaxations in this regard. Indeed, the increase which has been granted will even widen the gap between the person who just qualifies and the one who just does not qualify. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not conduct a mini-debate amongst themselves.

I hope that some of the hon. members who are so vociferous will perhaps stand up in this House and support some of the proposals which have come from this side of the House to try to bring about a happier situation for many of these people who are suffering today as a result of the high cost of living and as a result of the Government’s failure to combat that high cost of living and to assist these people to live at a better standard. Indeed, if one looks at the whole situation today, one can see that the older people, those living on fixed incomes, and many of those who require assistance, are going to get minimal assistance in terms of these Budget proposals, and there will be many of them who will receive no benefits at all.

I should like to say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe that greater efforts should have been made by the hon. the Minister to bring about alleviation. We believe that there are many people today whose standard of living has been reduced to one of abject poverty after having given a lifetime of productive work to the country and to the benefit of the country as a whole. These people are finding it extremely difficult today to maintain any sort of decent standard of living. An opportunity has been lost by the hon. the Minister of Finance to improve considerably the lot of these people, so that it will be to the credit of our country that these people are adequately cared for in the twilight of their lives, and not to the shame of our country that they are not.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, as a Natalian in the first place to congratulate my leader, who introduced this Budget. We Natalians are very proud of him, and I think the whole of South Africa is also proud of him. Proof of this is the fact that the United Party deviated from their tradition of confining themselves to political aspects, having discussed financial matters on the first day, and chose this year to discuss trivialities and matters which could actually be discussed under the Votes, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has just done. This question of pensions could have been discussed equally successfully on the Vote Social Welfare and Pensions, but it seems to me …

Who pays the money?

The money is given by the State.

By the Minister of Finance.

I repeat the statement and say they evaded politics on purpose in this debate, and I do not blame them, because a depression has actually come in their ranks since the last election. In other words, it was so long ago that they were last in contact with what a Government is, how a Government is constituted, how it is to act and how it is to introduce its Budget, that they have already forgotten this. Now they are acting as hungry mice do when they have come across a a loaf of farm bread; they nibble at it from all sides without coming to its real core. Accusations of a diverse nature have been made here, but essentially the aspect of the Budget itself has been trampled to dust by the different speakers on Opposition side. Those accusations have been replied to systematically and effectively by members on this side of the House. However, a few matters are as clear as daylight. In the first place, the Opposition is worried about the large expenditure of almost R1 000 million on defence. It amazers one that they do worry themselves about it, because year after year they have joined us in the discussion of the Defence Vote in this House. They participated in the discussion of the Vote and therefore they could see to what ends the money was being spent. What actually worries me in this connection, is what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had to say. When one reads his speech, one notices that he is worried that so much is being spent on defence, for certain reasons. I do not want to list the reasons now, but in the few minutes at my disposal, I want to make a few statements in this connection. I do not know whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North, with his limited experience of a few years in South Africa, is aware of it, but it is not the nature of our people in South Africa to shoot and kill other people because we enjoy doing so. This is a Defence budget and not a war budget. The hon. member is a young man, but he will remember that, in the country from which he comes, budgets were introduced and enormous sums of money were spent to kill people. Here in this country it is different. We spend enormous sums of money to save people’s lives and to deter others who want to kill. I should like to quote what the hon. member had to say, inter alia, in his speech—

That is the crux of the whole problem. The problem is that the Opposition’s whole attack on the Budget is the result of the fact that they see in it a powerful weapon which the Government uses to show foreign countries that we have a strong economy which can afford to allocate this amount to defence in the interests of the security of our people. Sir, the first few speakers on the opposite side of the House mentioned in their attacks that this was a “dull” Budget, and that there were no rays of light. The truth of the matter is that it is unassailable, because it reflects the calmness in the minds of the people in South Africa in their deliberations and in the work which they do.

But, Sir, I want to turn to what is more positive. We have heard much criticism in respect of this Budget, and the blame for inflation has been laid squarely at the door of the Government by everyone on that side, with the exception of the hon. members for Yeoville and Mooi River, who do not believe that everything is the fault of the Government. Whether this is the case or not, I have heard no positive recommendations except that we should curtail expenditure in respect of the Defence Vote, the railways and all sorts of other matters, so that more money will be available for other services. These other services for which they want more money to be available, are services which they want to have rendered to the non-White sections of the population. They advanced the criticism, inter alia, that the National Government was not dividing the country’s prosperity among all the sections of the population by means of this Budget. About inflation, in the first place, I want to say that the United Party must not complain about that. Inflation would be far less if they had not joined their newspapers in a chorus that people should be paid more, regardless of whether or not they deserved higher wages. I lay this charge at the door of the United Party and its mouthpieces, which were still supporting it at the time when this thing started. They caused the non-White worker in South Africa to make wage demands. If one tells a man all day long how unjustly he is treated in respect of his salary, he will make salary demands in the end. The wage demands have become so excessive that many of the workers have priced themselves out of the labour market. Those who remained, have pushed the production costs of the articles they handle in the agricultural, industrial and other sectors, so high that this has contributed to inflation. In other words, hon. members on the opposite side must look for one of the major reasons for inflation in their own ranks as a result of the sermons which they delivered in the past about these so-called suppressed peoples. I want to be positive and I ask myself the question what the people of South Africa. White as well as non-White, have done themselves to relieve the pressure of inflation. In this connection I want to make an interesting allegation. So far in this debate, as far as I know, it has not yet been mentioned.

In the past few years, an enormous number of home industry societies have come into existence in South Africa. These people have realized that the shortest route which food can take from the producer to the consumer, is the route of the co-operative movement. They have established co-operative societies to reduce the price of food in this way. Before I go further, I just want to mention to what extent the public is in fact being exploited. I quote as follows (translation)—

The hon. member for Yeoville said in his speech that there was something wrong with the distribution of our food, and in this regard I want to acknowledge that he is right. However, he did not say what must be done in order to rectify this anomaly in the distribution of food. He could not lay his finger on it. One shudders to think what would happen if it was not for the fact that we have a semi-controlled economy in that we have a system of control boards which peg food prices for the consumer to a large extent and that we have the co-operative system, which is the source of supply of the control boards and that we have in addition to these, the ordinary commercial co-operatives, with their purchasing centres, through which goods can go directly from abroad by the shortest route to the consumer, and I make the statement that we would otherwise have been on the same road of galloping inflation which has emerged in France and in other countries. The fact that we have had a gradual growth in our rate of inflation, and that we could curb inflation in the way we have done, is sufficient proof of this. Apart from private trade in food, the 64 home industry co-operatives had a total annual turnover of R1,4 million and there are 330 agricultural co-operatives with a total annual turnover of R1 913,9 million. I am not mentioning a specific figure for one co-operative, but I speak from my own experience when I say that co-operatives make a gross profit of approximately 8% to 12% on the turnover which they handle. They take from 2% to 3% net profit on the same item which they distribute among the public. If it was left to ordinary trade, then we would have had to operate on that total of 346% instead of 10%. Let us make 346% the gross figure on the uncontrolled product, the product which is made available by the ordinary retailer to the public. If the co-operatives do not help with the combating of inflation, then I want to know what will help. This consumers’ co-operative with a turnover of R1.4 million, could have had a turnover of R40 million, R50 million or R60 million. This differs from what the man in the street thinks when he complains and he makes a fuss about the fact that he is being exploited by the shopkeeper and distributor of vegetables. They would find out that they could form their own co-operative, provided they are more than seven persons who could render service to the members. They would also be able to ascertain that the turnover of these co-operative home industry societies would have soared were it not for the fact that the Co-operative Societies Act binds these people so that they may not buy fruit, vegetables or any article which is available to the public in the shops. These articles, vegetables, fruit and confectionery which are made available to the consumers of the public are the articles which those members of the co-operative home industry societies make themselves, produce and then distribute among the public. In all fairness, to counteract any misunderstanding. I have to say that the consumers’ cooperatives must find their own funds. That is usually the charge levelled at the agricultural co-operatives, viz. that they are financed by State or semi-State institutions, and that they are able to sell the products so cheaply for that reason. That is actually not correct, because these home industry co-operatives do not get a cent from the State. They must find their own funds. They sell their products at a profit of 10% on the farmer’s price. We have now reached the situation where these 64 co-operative societies which have been able to bring the cost of living down to a very large extent is inspired by trade outside. Surely one can understand that if a person were to go into a cafe and see avocado pears being sold at 75 cents each and he is a producer of these, then he is not going to sell his products to his co-operative home industry at 5 cents as he probably would have done, if trade had not charged that high price for his product. They, the commercial sector, in other words, is directly responsible for the farmer, who normally accepts and realizes his duty to feed the people, acting differently now. Normally he would say, “All right, everything has become more expensive and we shall raise our price from 5 cents per avocado pear to 10 or 15 cents, so that the next man can get it for 20 or 17 cents.” Then we would have a position where there would be a correlation in food prices which would have a tremendous impact on the increase in costs and the inflation rate. If we could reach this stage in the supply of all products and vegetables, producers’ goods, to the public on a co-operative basis directly from the producer to the consumer, then we could operate on an average profit basis of 10 to 15%. That would mean that we would have of the cheapest food in the whole world today, including the very poor countries. I make the accusation —the farmer is only human, too—that when the farmer sees that the products are being sold at a higher price by the commercial sector, he also increases his prices. The point which I want to make, is that the middleman cannot employ unnecessary labour and cannot afford to employ labour which is not productive or for which he must Day more than the labour is worth, and then try to recover this expenditure from the consumer. The hands of the middleman are tied, because he cannot make a larger profit than he should, because then the Registrar of Co-operative Societies will prosecute him.

Therefore, the solution to the problem of inflation is, to my mind, in the hands of the consumer. It has always grieved me to see how prices of items become higher and higher while the advertisements in the daily newspapers become larger and larger. In some daily newspapers a whole page is bought to place a small advertisement —perhaps just one line, with the rest of the page blank. All this is done to attract peoples’ attention and thousands of rands are paid for this because expenditure in this regard may be deducted from income tax as expenditure which is incurred in selling the article. It is not necessary to advertise articles which are sold by the control boards or by co-operatives, whether commercial co-operatives, agricultural cooperatives, wool co-operatives or whatever sort of co-operative—because the article is sold on a basis of quality and weight. Every buyer or consumer then knows that he is buying an article of quality. That is our solution. If one makes a more detailed analysis of the data, one finds that there are 116 retail co-operatives in the country. Many of these co-operatives are in the Western Province, but unfortunately there is only one central co-operative or importing co-operative in this area. This co-operative had an income of R4,4 million last year. We can calculate that if this co-operative had taken a profit of 5% to 8% on the articles which were imported, this co-operative would supply a tremendously cheap article in comparison with the other suppliers who are entitled to a profit of 25% or 35% and then supply it to the retailer who, in turn, makes a profit of 35% or perhaps 50%. We see everyday how prices soar. To test this, I went to a chemist. Do hon. members know that the price of a certain commodity which used to be 75 cents was increased to R1,75 within one week and nobody stopped them. The public of South Africa buys it, because we have been brought up to regard money as something which is not really so very important. When someone wants something, he goes to the dealer and buys it. In this way, for example, we readily pay ten cents or 15 cents today for a newspaper which contains news which is worth only three or four cents. [Interjections.] We have been taught that when we want something, it does not matter what the man on the other side of the counter charges for it, We simply pay. Now the United Party says that it is the Government’s fault that this happens and that the Government must ensure that such things do not happen. They want the Government to ensure that the people do not mark their items up by too much, while the fault lies with the consumers themselves. We shall have to say to the men and women of South Africa sooner or later, whether it be today or later, “So far and no further. If you come to a place and you find that they are charging too much for their article, turn around and go home.”

What about bread and milk?

The question of bread and milk is a very delicate point. If I may give my honest opinion, I should say that we should not subsidize bread or milk. We should sell it at the price at which the farmer can produce it. The farmer’s producer’s price is calculated on a cost-plus basis. Then only is milk subsidized for the consumer. We as farmers are often charged with being responsible for the high prices. We are not responsible for the high prices.

We did not say you were.

We in South Africa ought to ensure that people do not have to be subsidized as regards the essential foodstuffs which they have to buy. The market should be thrown open. If, on the one hand, there are demands for increased wages, improved working conditions, and more money, the buyer must also be put in a position to buy at current market price, as, for example, a fixed price is charged for the seats in the Nico Malan and everyone who has the money for that, can go and buy a ticket, while those who cannot afford it, have to stay away. That is what I advocate as well in respect of bread, milk and every item on which the taxpayer has to pay the subsidy for a loafer who does not want to work. I want to conclude by saying that there is not a single mortal in South Africa who, if he is prepared to work and accept a day’s pay for a day’s work, needs to go hungry, be poorly clothed, have no accommodation of his own or no happiness in his heart, because the National Party governs in South Africa, not the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, after sitting here and listening to the Opposition for the last few days, I have come to the conclusion that there are three reasons in particular why they are disappointed with this Budget. In the few minutes at my disposal I am going to deal with these three reasons. The first reason is that they are dissatisfied with the person handling this Budget because he is English-speaking. It is an old tactic of the Opposition when we on this side of the House have an English-speaking person who, from inner conviction, has complied with the ideals of the late Dr. Malan when he said: “Bring together those who belong together from inner conviction.” Here we have such an English-speaking person today, and because the Opposition is not satisfied with him, they are trying to do away with him and take him to pieces. That is what they are trying to do. We find this at every election. As soon as there is an election, they begin to incite English-speaking people against Afrikaans-speaking people and the National Party and to conjure up spectres from behind every bush.

The second reason why they criticize this Budget is the fact that there is R1 000 million for defence. They want us to be caught as unprepared as they were when war broke out in 1939. Then they were only armed with bush carts and Oswald Pirow. They wanted to launch an attack on Germany with 200 bush carts. With bush carts they wanted to go through the bushveld to the north up to the Mediterranean. They do not want that money to be spent on defence, so that the birds of prey may be able to close round South Africa when they want to come and plunder us. That is why they are opposed to our defence. Surely a people cannot be strong if its defence is not strong. Throughout the world people are arming themselves. America, Russia and England spend thousands of millions on defence, but when South Africa wants to prepare itself, they say that that money should not be spent. Should we then be exposed and allow the hawks to descend on us while our hands are tied behind our backs?

The third reason is that they wanted us to produce a depression Budget. They have been talking about inflation all week, but surely inflation cannot be prevented. One can take measures to try and limit it, but one cannot prevent it, just as the world cannot prevent it It would be easier to empty the sea with a bucket than to control inflation, which is a world-wide phenomeon. However, the Opposition knew that if we were to introduce a depression Budget, which would have created unemployment among the non-Whites as well as the Whites, it would cause chaos in South Africa, because this is what they want. They are disappointed because this is not a depression Budget, because R100 million is to be spent on a second Sasol and because large capital works are to be undertaken.

Then the Progressive Party and its allies criticize this Budget. One can hardly see the difference between those two parties; the one is as bad as the other. The hon. member for Pinelands tried to prove yesterday that the Budget discriminates against the non-Whites. But what is the Progressive Party doing? They are inciting the non-Whites against the Whites in South Africa and, Sir, they are trying to do the same in the Transkei. But fortunately we Afrikaners know the role of the clergymen. We remember the days when Van der Kemp and Read came and incited the non-Whites here in South Africa. We know the part played by certain clergymen, who are not spreading the gospel of Christ today, but the gospel of the devil among the non-Whites here in South Africa. If that hon. member for Pinelands is sincere, why does he not tell the Coloureds how much we are spending on Coloured housing? Why does he not tell them how much the Whites are spending on hospitalization for them? Why does he not tell them of the industries the Whites are developing in order to provide work for those non-Whites? He should tell them that it is the White man who maintains their health and who sees to it that they are not exterminated by smallpox. Sir, if that religious leader wants to carry out his duty, he should go and look at the conditions in those areas where we built houses for the Coloureds with White capital. He should go and see how filthy those residential areas are today. If he wants to do something positive, he should go and ask those people to clean up their residential areas. He should just go and see what it looks like there as a result of the papers, the dirt and the rubbish lying around there. But instead of doing something positive and telling the Coloureds what the White taxpayer is doing For him, the Progressive Party is inciting people. With the aid of the Black man they want to suppress the White man in the Republic of South Africa and we are aware of it. The hon. leader of the Progressive Party is sitting there laughing, but it is a sardonic laugh; we know that laugh. He has not once got up in this House and pointed to the constructive work which the White man has done in the interests of the Black man here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Walmer said the other day that we have a great housing shortage. This he ascribed to the National Party’s Group Areas Act. He said that as a result of the Group Areas Act we were evicting thousands and thousands of people from sound dwellings. [Interjections.] I have your Hansard here and I can read it to you. You know it is not the case. We are clearing up slum conditions; we are doing away with shanty conditions in South Africa. We want to do away with that hotbed of communism and this grieves you. There is a second thing which grieves you. You do not belong there; you should go and sit there with Harry.

Order! The hon. member must not address other hon. members in this House by referring to them as “jy en jou”.

Sir, the hon. member does not feel at home there. That hon. member should go and sit next to Harry.

You are more at home with Harry than I am.

Sir, this National Party is spending millions and millions of rand to improve housing conditions in South Africa. Over the past five years R58 million has been spent on Coloured housing.

That is peanuts!

Order! The hon. member for Walmer must contain himself.

Why does the hon. member for Pinelands not go and tell the Coloureds what the National Government is doing for them in this connection? During the past five years R59 million has been spent in respect of the Indians. I am just mentioning round figures. But the hon. member is silent about that. He does not tell those people that that money comes from the pockets of the White taxpayers.

Sir, my time has nearly expired, but I should just like to point out that 30 000 economic Coloured houses as well as 17 000 sub-economic houses have been built in Cape Town alone during the past year. Another 35 000 economic houses for Coloureds and 15 000 sub-economic Coloured houses are being planned.