When business was suspended yesterday I was making a point which was linked with a statement I had made earlier in my speech, namely, that we had had an exceptional economic growth rate and that it was part of Government policy to plan that economic growth rate. I had made a second point and drawn attention to the fact that there was a new development, namely, the creation of a new Department, the Department of Planning, in which the private and the public sectors were linked together with the object of exercising greater control over this wave of prosperity in future. I also said that attempts were being made to frighten the public with stories of possible bottle-necks. As an example I mentioned the bottle-neck of the balance of payments position. I just want to add that according to the economic planning, if I may be permitted to take this example of mine, we shall have a credit balance of payment of R147,000,000 in five years’ time.

The possibility of a second bottle-neck also exists and that is the bottle-neck in connection with labour. We hear a great deal to-day about a possible manpower shortage. In this connection I want to associate myself with a remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour in the no-confidence debate. He stated that as far as the number of students was concerned the Republic of South Africa was really only second to America—proportionately, of course. As far as the figures given by the hon. the Deputy Minister are concerned I just want to say that the position is actually more favourable because in determining the figures in America the students, whom we normally exclude, namely, those at colleges, are included. When we look at the increase in the number of students from 1948-54 we find that there has been an increase of 91 per cent. If we take it further and try to express it in the relation of university qualified students to 21 year olds, we get a very interesting figure; we find that there were 1.521 per cent at university in 1919 and that the figure for this year will be 10.75 per cent but that in the year 1970 there will be 13.05 per cent persons under 21 at university, expressed in a percentage of 21-year-olds.

I want to say this that if we were to take this even further we are on the point of passing America. I have given these figures because they actually affect the bottle-neck of industrial leaders for the future. You cannot take a better figure than the figure of your most highly qualified people. Unfortunately I cannot expand on this point; I have to conclude. However, I just want to say this: When we project this development into the future we can make the further statement that, in the planning as envisaged, we shall be able to maintain this prosperity by noticing smaller bottle-necks timeously rather than bigger bottle-necks later. There are three elements that have to be taken into account in dealing with this matter and those three elements cannot be measured. They are not elements which cannot be expressed in any economic plan for the future. But they are three very important elements in the economic development of any nation. We now have a plan in which the State and the private sector work together. These three elements are, firstly, rationalization, rationalization in which the co-operation of the entire private sector is necessary. The second is mechanization. That is an element which plays an exceptionally important role particularly in developing countries and which in our country is also associated with bigger capital formation. Thirdly we have the element of efficiency. I want to say to hon. members that if we plan to detect bottle-necks timeously and remove them rather than to allow bottle-necks to develop, and we also take these three elements, which play such an important role in every developing country into account, elements which are on the point of playing an important role in the Republic, the future need not hold any danger for us: that if the future development of the Republic of South Africa is in the safe hands of the nation under the guidance of the Government, the future need not hold any danger for us.

Where South Africa has become a modern wonder as far as her economy is concerned I believe we have moved out of the framework of comparable countries and are moving into a higher order, we are reaching a position where we can be compared with countries in a higher order because the Republic of South Africa has developed an economic strength which takes her out of the order in which she is classified at the moment and South Africa can continue with this prosperity. I have no doubt that that can happen. I only hope that in this development which awaits us hon. members opposite will not once again miss the bus but will try to play a part in that prosperity.

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not follow the vein in which he has spoken. I want to speak on defence as it affects the whole industrial and economic situation of the country. Very much on the lines other hon. members on this side have already spoken, namely on the lines of, what one might almost call, the manpower crisis we are experiencing.

At the outset I want to say that whilst the official Opposition have over the past ten years criticized certain aspects of Government policy and the results of that policy, we have not opposed the steadily rising defence expenditure asked for by the Government, rising expenditure which is again asked in the present Part Appropriation Bill. We have not opposed it because the Government’s action was necessary in view of general world conditions coupled with steadily mounting tensions here in Africa itself. Such increased defence expenditure was necessary in the early days for the preservation of internal security. Once that was assured, as we were time and again assured by both the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice, that it was, it became necessary to tighten our defences against external aggression in whatever form it might come. I also want to say that it has been accepted, for the sake of the security of the State, that necessary financial, industrial and manpower resources of the Republic should be diverted to meet defence demands, resources that will consequently not be available to meet the urgent needs of national expansion. As far as the official Opposition is concerned we are in no way changing that viewpoint. Our attitude is still that the security of the Republic and that of all the people of the Republic, irrespective of creed, colour or race, must be given the assurance which only a strong defence can give. But the time comes when, because of the responsibility which rests on the Opposition as it does on the Government, in the best interests of that responsibility itself it is necessary to take stock to see just what security value the country is getting in return for the financial and human expenditure which is being poured into the needs of defence.

One accepts that for reasons of national security it is not always advisable to publish all the information affecting defence. That would be folly on the part of any Government and we accept that as an accepted international rule. But we have also for a long time criticized this Government and the Minister and said that they were overdoing the veil of secrecy with which they were covering up defence matters with the result that they were creating a position in which suspicion and the activities of the scandalmonger and trouble maker could flourish. You cannot avoid that. You encourage it by laying too much emphasis on the secrecy aspect. You also encourage it by the many semi-official statements which are issued and then contradicted. The very abbreviated statements made by the hon. the Minister himself who, with a lot of words says very little, probably as a good Minister should do at times, certainly do not re-assure the taxpayer and the public that we are getting value for our money or that everything is well within the orbit of defence. Those things hamper the Opposition in a justifiable criticism of a weakness which could endanger national security.

Can you give me an example of any unofficial statement?

I shall give the hon. Minister one in a moment. For this reason the Opposition has on several occasions asked for the appointment of a parliamentary Select Committee on Defence, a Select Committee in which defence matters can be discussed in their broader aspect, and matters clarified both as far as the House and the country are concerned. But the Government and the Minister have refused this request. There is therefore no alternative but to offer our criticism across the floor of this House. The hon. the Minister has just asked for an example. I can give him one now. I want to give him an example of this dangerous over-secrecy, if I can call it that, which leaves a feeling of even greater uneasiness than the insinuations it sets out to deal with. We recently had a one-man commission to inquire into certain alleged irregularities in the Department of Defence. The Government and the Minister decided that the report of that one-man commission was not even to be made available to Parliament. That is an example. Even if it were necessary to omit from any report submitted to Parliament certain information relating to the types, or the source of origin of certain types of weapons we were getting …

I asked for an example of an official statement which was withdrawn.

No, I never said “withdrawn” I referred to misleading semi-official statements, or rather statements that do not go far enough and only create further suspicion. Even if it were necessary to omit this vital information regarding weapons, a report could still have been placed before the House and the country, a report which could have stifled the suspicion which existed. That would have been to the best advantage of all those who were in any way at all concerned with that inquiry. I am not going to enlarge upon this because this aspect will be dealt with by another speaker in greater detail. I just want to say this that the Opposition feel that the manner in which this commission’s report has been mishandled has done very little to restore public confidence. It has left uncertainty and suspicion which could have been avoided. It has not in any way been helpful to the people concerned, people who have been found completely innocent of any allegation of malpractices in the Department of Defence.

I now want to deal with the question of the substantial expenditure for defence purposes in regard to the military training scheme. Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves whether we are satisfied that the country is getting the security for which Parliament is voting these large sums and for which the taxpayer is being called upon to dip very deeply into his pocket. It is not only a question of the visible expenditure, the hard cash, provided by the Minister of Finance—I would say that is of lesser importance—but it is a question of the very heavy invisible cost incurred by the manpower lost to national development because of its diversion to meet the needs of defence. Take, for example, the building, the engineering, the textile, transport and other industries. You can go right through the whole gamut of industries and undertakings essential for the development and expansion of the country and you will find that they are being hampered because a number of the people, and a portion of the resources they require, have to be utilized for defence purposes.

You have just said you accepted that position.

I said we accepted it as necessary, but I am now asking whether we are getting value for the sacrifice we have agreed to accept.

In his opening remarks the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) dealt with its economic affects on certain types of industries. I do not propose to go into that. But I think we can trace the present shortage of steel back to defence requirements. Defence requirements of steel put a tremendous drain on our supplies. Defence is in all probability responsible for a portion of that shortage, a shortage which is holding up the development of the country and forcing us to import steel.

I find it rather difficult to understand what your attitude is.

You are probably having that difficulty owing to the conversation which is being carried on right in front of you. That makes it difficult for you to hear what I am saying.

We want to be sure that the Republic, in view of the sacrifices it is accepting in the form of letting these young men be used by defence, is getting security value for that sacrifice, particularly when we take into account the value of that security to our nation in present-day conditions, and for the direct and indirect cost it places on the country both financially and physically, as well as the impact it has on the lives of these young men who are affected. I want to say here that the evidence is growing—and we are accepting it—that we are not getting a full security return for the expenditure the country is incurring, both physical and financial. We are not satisfied that the country is deriving the full benefit it should from this system. We are not satisfied that the system is functioning as it should. After making allowance for all the criticism, complaints and the usual type of moans and groans you get from certain types of people when you set up a compulsory training scheme, and after also making allowance for the fact that we are now in the fourth year of the training scheme, and that the teething troubles should long since have been over, it is becoming clear, Sir, that full defence value is not being obtained on that basis on which the training scheme was originally prepared.

It must be remembered that the original training scheme of nine months continuous service was based on three periods, namely, the first basic stage in which they were more or less turned into soldiers, the second stage in which they were trained in the use of modern type of arms, and the third period, the last three months, in which they received, what one might call, unit training, i.e. combined training in connection with the regiments to which they are to be drafted, so that, at the end of the nine months, they pass out, if not complete, at least as well-trained soldiers, good material for the remainder of their four years in the Defence Force and ready to be built into something very useful to the Defence Force. But it is becoming more and more clear, Sir, that they are not getting that training as originally intended. There is a serious break-down particularly over the last three months of the training period. Makeshift methods are being adopted to utilize the time of the trainees during that period. They are not getting the unit training they are intended to get. We find that trainees, in order to fill up their time, are being used in a good number of parts in this country to mount guard over Government buildings. That is part of a soldier’s training, I admit. But it does not fit into the pattern of the training of young men who have been taken away from their own vocational training and for whom the country is crying in its need for men. It does not fit into the training pattern to use them for that purpose which could quite easily be performed by the old ex-servicemen who are knocking around this country.

Ex-servicemen of an age group who are beyond the needs of the labour market but who could do a jolly good job of work in safeguarding Government and public buildings or installations. It is becoming clear that the lack of expansion of the Permanent Force, for which we have advocated so long, is partly responsible. The Permanent Force must serve as the hard core for military training purposes, and must furnish the qualified instructors and it is due to the lack of those qualified instructors, and modern equipment that it is not possible to satisfactorily give the trainees the full dose they should be receiving in military training in all aspects. That charge has been laid time and time again. There is too much smoke for there to be no fire. There must be trouble somewhere with all the smoke that is emanating from so many various sources. I only noticed in the paper this morning that in certain parts of the country—I think it is in Klerksdorp—the suggestion is put forward that the training time should be cut because of the wastage that is going on. That comes from all sides, and even if we discount a certain amount of it, it is getting too prevalent and regular. Evidence certainly shows that there is room for improvement. The room for improvement seems to lie in one of two directions. Firstly, that we either shorten the period of training thereby cutting out the waste of their time and allowing the trainees to get back into circulation, where they are needed, sooner, or that we reduce the number of trainees and turn out better trained, fully-trained , shall I say, military men at the end of the nine month period by using your instructors to train a smaller number of trainees. Those are two solutions which present themselves off-hand. But it is not a matter that can be decided off the cuff. The whole scheme of training was very carefully examined at the time it was drawn up. I would say this: From the time that scheme was initiated four years ago to to-day there has been such a diametric change in matters of defence and its dependence on the civilian side of industry, in the scientific nature of the weapons that are being used, in the scientific and technical requirements of the trainees, that the time has arrived to review the whole position. Some of the complaints that we are getting are probably due to the fact that this consideration has not been given. I know we have an exemption board. But they are not functioning in this regard. Far too little discrimination is still being shown in the drafting of trainees to their various regiments. You get trainees drafted to a regiment which has no connection in any shape or form with their future careers, whereas there are regiments to which they could be drafted. That will enable the trainee to give of his best as he will also give later on to his professional career. It would be to the benefit of the army but it is not being done. You get men called up to-day and trained as soldiers who, in the event of war. it would be folly of the highest degree to draft into the army because they will be of far greater value in the civilian army, the civilian army which will be necessary to keep your uniformed army in the field. Those men will be required for supplying weapons and equipment. a field which is suffering so badly today because of the shortage of the type of manpower it requires. There is not enough careful discrimination, there is not enough choice, there is not enough selection.

We want to make a proposal from the Opposition side and that is that we should follow the traditional parliamentary practice which has been followed, as far as defence matters are concerned, since our Defence Force was first established, namely, to set up a parliamentary Select Committee to go into the whole question of the training of the trainees for defence purposes—to review all aspects of their training and their selection. If we can get the system adjusted to fit in with present-day requirements and needs and to have the least possible impact on the rest of the life of the country which meanwhile has to go on, it would be better for all concerned. In a country, isolated as we are, where we are forced to rely more and more on our own resources, one cannot stress too much the importance of both the purely defence side and the industrial side which has to continue and both drain on the same group of young people.

On behalf of the Opposition I want to make the proposal to the hon. the Minister that he considers our proposals for such a Select Committee being set up. A committee, Sir, on which all sides of the House will be represented, a committee which will have power to call for and take evidence and to go into the whole issue, a committee, which in accordance with the custom of ordinary parliamentary select committees, will have power to call for documents and a committee, which, in view of the magnitude and importance of its task, will have the power, subject to later decisions, of, if necessary, transforming itself into a commission. I cannot think of any matter more important to the country to-day, either from the security or from an industrial point of view, than the setting up of such a Select Committee. There is certainly no matter more important from the point of view of the many thousands of young men who are being called upon to do this military service and are not getting the best advantage, either from the military angle or from the angle of their future professional careers.

These are some points in this particular portion of the Part Appropriation Bill I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. There are other matters, but they will be dealt with at a later stage. But I think as far as this matter is concerned we can no longer burke the issue. There is something wrong, something amiss, in our training system and that something has to be remedied as soon as possible so that the army and the country as a whole can get the benefit of the improvement which we are satisfied can be brought about.

In the first place I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Mr. Cloete, for the work he did for his country and nation during the short time granted to him.

I want to talk about the Namib this afternoon. Most of you may perhaps find it a little dull and uninteresting. This is an area which stretches for about 50 miles all along the West Coast. The name “Namib” is, of course, associated with a desert. But the Namib with its adjoining areas, the Atlantic Ocean with its cold streams along the west, and semi and arid areas along the east, really offers a great deal to talk about. Firstly, not only is it a tourist attraction but this area is also important in our whole economy in South West Africa. It is important in this respect that this area makes the greatest contribution to our State coffers. This contribution is made in the form of taxation on diamonds, karakul pelts, fish, crayfish and seals.

Before I come to this important aspect of this specific area I cannot refrain from referring in passing to the attractions which are of interest to the tourist. In the first place you find the Fish River chasms not far from Keetmanshoop which is the capital of the south. These chasms are similar to the Grand Canyon in America which suddenly drops between 2.0 to 3,000 feet from a straight level. Secondly it is a paradise for those who collect succulents. Amongst others you find succulents there which are indigenous to that area and found nowhere else. Thirdly, the scenery is peculiar to the desert, the Namib and surrounding area. In the fourth instance I want to mention Luderitz. It is interesting to know that in 1484 a person by the name of Deigo Cam landed at Luderitz. In 1486 Bartholomew Diaz erected a cross there and a section of that cross is in the Cape Town museum. Luderitz is interesting. It is probably the only place which has a castle for a gaol. It is also interesting because it is the place where fresh water is not available from natural sources but where sea water has to be distilled for domestic use. When you think of Luderitz, Sir, you unwittingly think of diamonds. In addition to the wealth of the diamonds we have the wealth of fish along the West Coast but I do not want to enlarge on that this afternoon.

I want to say a few words about the diamonds of South West for which it is famous. As far back as 1884 a German by the name of Adolph Luderitz bought Luderitz and the immediately surrounding area and it became a German colony. That person also acquired the mineral rights and the right to prospect for diamonds but he apparently had no success in that regard. A few years later, after South West had already become German territory and after a railway line had been constructed, there was a railwayman called August Stauch who lived between Keetmanshoop and Luderitz. Strangely enough his job was to clear the railway line of the sand which blew over it. Amongst those who worked for him were a few Coloureds who had come from Kimberley and had a fair knowledge of diamonds. Stauch himself also had some knowledge of mineralogy. One day a Coloured brought him a stone after he had already made numerous inquiries whether there were such shiny stones. He tested the stone the Coloured had brought him on the glass of his watch and immediately discovered that it was a diamond. That was the beginning of the diamond boom of those days; it was the year 1908. More were found and diamonds were taken out everywhere, naturally on a very small scale, because they did not have modern machinery. They used the old method of sifting the gravel in order to obtain the diamonds. But legend has it that in the days of the diamond boom trade was carried on in Luderitz by exchanging diamonds instead of money. Then war broke out and that interfered with diamond prospecting to a great extent. After the war it was no longer a German colony and in 1921 the Consolidated Diamond Mining Company obtained the concession in what was known as the Sperrgebiet. That is a 50 mile wide stretch along the West Coast. But because they could not penetrate sufficiently deeply into the layers of gravel they did not produce too many diamonds. In 1940 however the production started to increase and from 1949 the value of diamonds rose considerably and there was a tremendous increase in the diamond production, so much so, that with the modern equipment of today diamonds are produced on a very large scale. Luderitz has lost its value as the central point and C.D.M. has moved to a little town Oranjemund. A tremendous number of diamonds are taken out there to-day, up to 4,000 carats per day. At an average value of R40 per carat it means that approximately R160,000 worth of diamonds are taken out daily. In order to compare the diamond production of South West Africa with that of the Republic I want to quote a few figures. The statistics available in respect of the Republic cover a period of eight months of 1964. During that period a total of 3,386,000 carats were produced of which 2,855,000 carats were sold for R27,900,000. As against that a total of 748,000 carats were produced in South West of which 736,000 carats were sold for R27,252,000. You will notice, Sir, that in both instances, apart from the fact that more diamonds were produced in the Republic during that period, the value was practically the same. This is due to the fact that in South West the percentage of precious stones is very much higher than the percentage of industrial diamonds. That accounts for this big difference as compared with the Union. A smaller total production fetched more or less the same price and in addition the figures for South West only cover a period of six months and not eight months as in the case of the Republic.

There is a further development to-day as far as diamond mining is concerned and that is the recovery of diamonds from the sea, something which I believe has not been tackled anywhere else in the world, except along the West Coast of the Namib. Before I deal with the next diamond of South West I just want to say something else about Oranjemund as a matter of interest. As its name indicates Oranjemund is near the mouth of the Orange River, on the south western side. There you find a lonely little town which has no contact with the outside world. If you want to go there you have to go as far as Alexander Bay and from there detectives take you to this little place. There is no hotel at Oranjemund; you have to stay at the guest house which is run by C.D.M.; everything is free and you can even entertain a few guests at their expense. But an hotel is not allowed there. When you leave you are X-rayed to ensure that you are not carrying diamonds illegally. Because of its isolated and lonely position C.D.M. faces one problem and that is to get people to come and work there. That is compensated for in the form of every possible modern convenience you can think about, there are even cinemas and theatres. The men are provided with furnished houses free of charge: you are not allowed to take furniture there. There is a great deal to occupy yourself with in the way of sport and anything you can think of. In this respect I think even Cape Town does not offer all the amenities Oranjemund offers to its inhabitants. In parenthesis the people who live in Oranjemund are not allowed to take their motor-cars inside. Their cars are stored in garages outside the specific area.

That brings me to the third aspect and that is the other diamond of South West, the karakul, the black diamond. This black diamond has played an important part in the development of South West Africa in the agricultural field. Even when South West was still a German colony it was realized that because large sections of South West had a low rainfall cattle farming could not be carried on on a large scale and that agriculture could not be carried on on a large scale either. Large portions of this area are semi-arid and were regarded as unproductive and totally unsuitable for anybody to make a living on. But in Germany a man by the name of Paul Thorer visited Afghanistan and saw a sheep in Bukhara in the desert which was admirably suited to those conditions. He immediately thought about this new colony of South West which was then known as German South West Africa and did everything in his power to import some of those sheep to South West Africa. With the assistance of another person, Dr. Kuhn of the University of Halle a consignment of karakul sheep landed in South West in 1909. It is noteworthy to know that diamonds were discovered in 1908 and that the karakul sheep landed in 1909. At that stage 23 rams and 255 ewes arrived. But as in the case of the diamond industry the war also hampered the karakul industry. After the war, when the Union of South Africa took South West over, they took over 80 rams and 360 ewes from the then German Government. That was the beginning in South West Africa of the karakul industry which was later also extended to South Africa. This particular breed of sheep has been responsible for turning large areas, which were regarded as unproductive, into productive areas, areas which offer a decent living to numbers of farmers. It has become an over-all ideal of those farmers and has also had a strong and beneficial effect on the economy of the country. To-day the karakul breeding industry occupies the highest position in the agricultural industry of South West Africa and had a record sale of pelts in 1963 to the value of R16,000,000. I may just say, in passing, that diamonds and karakul pelts are both exported and that makes them all the more important because they earn foreign exchange.

Generally speaking the karakul sheep is very interesting but it also poses many problems. The karakul is subject to the whims of fashion and the pelt is the skin of the recently born lamb. You find various types. The type imported at that time was the curly type, or rather the type which produced the curly pelt. But there was a particular demand on the market for the broad-tail Persian. That is the pelt of the karakul lamb born prematurely, in other words, before the curl has developed. It has a smooth pattern with a peculiar shine. At one of the experimental farms of the South West Administration a person by the name of Thompson tried to cultivate that type of pelt. By means of selection and odd lambs born and used for breeding purposes he succeeded in breeding the desired type of pelt, namely, the shallow to water-silk pelt which varies in curl and in the length of the fur. I do not want to go into too great technical detail. But what is interesting is the fact that nowhere else in karaul producing countries do you find the type of pelt which is to-day being bred in South West and in South Africa. It is something unique and only found in our country and it has been obtained through breeding. Over the years the quality has been considerably improved. Nor do you only find the black pelt but various natural colours, such as, black, grey, brown and white which, however, has not yet been bred fast. You also find different shades of brown and grey. Great progress has been made as far as breeding is concerned within a very short space of time when we consider the fact that this type of sheep was only imported in South West Africa about 50 years ago and many problems had to be overcome. Only a number of pure-bred animals were imported and the herds had to be built up by means of cross-breeding between the ordinary black-headed Persian and smooth haired Afrikaner sheep. It is remarkable, therefore, that such progress has been made with this breeding in view of the wars, fashion whims and so forth. It is interesting to know that climatic conditions also play a part, particularly where climatic conditions influence the grazing, so that it is actually the grazing which also affects the pelt. It is alleged—numbers of experiments are still being conducted to prove this scientifically—that a certain quality can only be obtained when grazing is favourable. In other words, you must have a certain type of veld in a dry area. It is alleged that the more favourable the climatic conditions the poorer the quality of the pelt. That makes it even more difficult to breed.

Production has increased tremendously in recent years. Last year South West produced 2,800,000 pelts and it is interesting to know that the Republic is catching up because the Republic produced 1,200,000 pelts, an increase of 44 per cent on the production during the previous year. The karakul sheep which offered a livelihood to many farmers in South West Africa is also playing its part in promoting the development of certain parts of the Republic and providing numbers of farmers with a means of livelihood. It is interesting to know, however, that the export of karakul sheep to the Republic was illegal originally. South West felt it wanted to keep this sheep for itself and it also wanted to ensure that the pelt that was exported was of a certain quality; that pelts of a poor quality were not placed on the market thus bringing down the price. But where two countries like South West and the Republic have the long border they do have it was difficult to limit this desirable article to that area merely by means of a border line. There was a great deal of filtration with the result that the ban was lifted and to-day the pelts from the Republic and South West are marketed on the overseas market under the same name, of South West Persian . The ban no longer exists but it is forbidden to export karakul sheep from South West and South Africa. Other countries have acquired a few by means of smuggling but we are very set to-day on preserving this sheep for South Africa and South West only in order to ensure that only a product of quality is exported and to avoid the market being overstocked. The Republic and South West together have exported nearly 4,000,000 pelts. Russia and Afghanistan which also produce pelts has each produced approximately 4,500,000 but our pelts compare very favourably with any pelt produced anywhere in the world. In addition we have the shallow curl and the water silk which they do not have. The karakul producers are well organized. They have a karakul breeding association at which they can register animals and they have an industrial advisory board. There are similar organizations in the Republic. They are beginning to move closer together and the latest request is that a karakul industrial board be established. The Republic and South West Africa will come under this board and the karakul breeders will then affiliate with the South African Stud Book.

In order to make it an article of fashion and to promote its sale it has to be advertised. Large sums of money, I think approximately R250,000, are spent overseas annually on advertisements. Germany, France, England, Italy, America and Canada are the main buyers of karakul pelts.

The question arises how stable is this type of farming because the pelt is an article of fashion, also a luxury article. To what extent would it cause disaster if the karakul market collapsed? They may indeed be right but I just want to advance a few reasons why the karakul farmers have confidence in this type of farming. Pelts have been marketed since 1924 and the price has gradually increased. In 1924 the average price per pelt was R1.20; in 1944, 20 years later, the price was R2.75, an increase of 27 per cent and in 1963 a record price of R7.04 was obtained for an average consignment of pelts. That created a great deal of confidence in the karakul industry, so much so that a record price of R10,000 was paid for a ram last year. Another factor is this that the karakul pelt is not only of value as a pelt but it is also useful. Firstly, the article made of karakul pelts is warm and, secondly, the articles ordinarily worn by women are light in weight in comparison with other furs. Thirdly, and this is very important as far as the husband’s pocket is concerned. the pelt is durable. Furthermore the fur conforms to the international demands of the fashion world. Articles of clothing are made out of it. I think in particular of cloaks, coats and stoles, articles which are not only decorative and elegant but also offer a variety of patterns so that the person who wears one of them can be sure that there is not another person with the same pattern karakul coat as the one she has. That, of course, is an important requisite. It is also important that you have karakul pelts of the same natural shades of colour. And, thirdly, the pelts lend themselves very well to our natural bleaching and dyeing processes. You find karakul articles of clothing in any shade of colour and desire.

I want to conclude by saying this. These cloaks and articles of clothing made of karakul pelts are not only manufactured overseas. There is a firm in South Africa which processes these pelts and it is interesting to know that the descendants of Mr. Paul Thorer, the person who was originally responsible for it, have been in the pelt processing business for over 350 years. They also opened a processing factory here in Cape Town at Epping, the Thorer Fur Processing Co., as far back as 1951. This firm processes the pelts and produces different varieties of articles of clothing. With winter approaching and the ladies becoming interested in winter clothing it is probably fitting to express the wish that every member of this House will present his wife with such an article of clothing.

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. de Wet) will no doubt in due course be congratulated on his maiden speech in this House by some more senior member of the House, but I hope that I will be permitted to say to him as one new boy to another that I enjoyed his interesting and informative speech, and I can tell the House from previous knowledge of the hon. member that he will be an asset in this House just as the diamonds and the karakuls are an asset to the Namib area which he represents.

I would like to bring to the notice of hon. members a problem which is becoming of increasing importance, but which has not hitherto received the attention it merits, namely the problem of the efficiency of the Bantu labour on our farms. Now I am not thinking of areas like the Western Cape where the traditional Coloured labour is supplemented at present by migrant Bantu labour. I have more in mind areas such as for example the Eastern Cape, where, ever since they were settled by our European forefathers, such tasks as could not be undertaken by the farmer and his family themselves were performed by Bantu labour, simply because no, or very few, Coloureds were available.

It is no exaggeration to say that the efficiency of Bantu farm labour has not kept pace with the revolution in farming methods and farming techniques which has taken place since the end of World War II. There are exceptions on every farm, and with those exceptions I would like to deal a little bit later, but I do not think it is unfair to say that the average Bantu farm-worker is, sometimes, through no fault of his own, ignorant and untrained and not fitted to play his part in a streamlined, efficient, modern agricultural economy. Moreover there are cases where he has in the rather polite words of the agricultural economist a “high leisure preference”. The problem, Sir, is not one of quantity but of quality. There is an excess of labour in certain areas, but it is of little use having large numbers of labourers if not one of them is capable of handling costly machinery without constant supervision. In pre-war days this problem was not nearly so acute as farming was a much simpler business and the farmer and his son were able to cope with what little machinery there was on the farm. But since then the whole tempo of farming has been speeded up by mechanization. Even on stock-farms where there is perhaps only a little machinery, the stock-farmer now has at his command a wide range of highly efficacious remedies and feed supplements which, however, demand personal skill in administration. The White foremen and White managers upon whom the farmer could formerly rely are a dying breed and are migrating to the cities, in search of higher wages and shorter hours. Thus the farmer is being forced to rely more and more on his Bantu labour.

This is costing the farming community and the country very large sums of money, and I want to illustrate the point by quoting from an article in “The Farmers’ Weekly” of 21 October 1964, which appeared under the heading “Unbeaten at giving machines a beating”. It reads as follows—

A South African agricultural engineer, Mr. C. S. L. Frances, interviewed a leading agricultural machinery manufacturer, who said—

These figures speak for themselves, Sir.

Here in South Africa we have a good system, although there are shortcomings, of agricultural education for Europeans. We have our agricultural high schools, our agricultural colleges and our faculties of agriculture. Also in the Bantu reserves there are some institutions, for instance the Agricultural College at Fort Cox in the Ciskei and the Agricultural High School at Tsolo in the Transkei, doing sterling work in fitting the Bantu for agricultural tasks in the reserves. But as far as I know, apart from a little gardening instruction at a very elementary level in Bantu schools in rural areas, hardly anything is being done to train Bantu for skilled or semiskilled tasks on farms. The task of training them is being left almost entirely to the individual farmer, who lacks the time to do the job properly. Here and there farmers’ associations have tried to tackle the fringe of the problem. For example, in co-operation with the Cape Provincial Traffic Department, farmers’ associations have run short courses in traffic rules and regulations for tractor-drivers. I understand also that in the Free State an oil company has run a course for tractor-drivers. Co-operatives can also play a part, for instance as the co-operative “Skeerdiens” recruits and trains shearing gangs.

On various occasions, South African farmers have been admonished to be more efficient in order to cut production costs. I think the tremendous production increase achieved by South African farmers since the war is proof of their general efficiency. Nor is greater efficiency by itself a substitute for a sound marketing and pricing policy. In fact there are cases where an increase in efficiency can, if the demand for a particular product is inelastic, lead to over-production, and in the absence of a sound marketing policy can lead to a collapse of prices. But there is no doubt that greater efficiency in general does lower costs and therefore tends to increase profitability. There is no doubt also that in South African agriculture, as in every other industry in any other country in the world, there is room for greater efficiency. Here is a field—the field of Bantu farm labour—in which there is ample room for more efficiency. It is also a field in which the State should lend a hand, since in the modern world education is becoming increasingly more a function of the State. Sir, I am not asking for the building of agricultural high schools or colleges for the Bantu, nor am I asking that the Bantu should be given school education with a technical-agricultural bias. But I am pleading for the institution, on a trial basis if necessary, of short courses for Bantu on the lines of those already run with some considerable degree of success by the Department of Coloured Affairs for Coloureds at Kromme Rhee. The experience gained there would serve as a very valuable guide, and there are a large number of potential subjects which could be included in the curriculum, for example in farm machinery, the maintenance of tractors, fencing methods, dairy and milking hygiene and shearing techniques. Such courses would be intended for the more intelligent and more reliable employees on the farm, and could last for a few days or a week or longer. They could contribute considerably towards increasing productivity and the reduction of costs. I make this plea not only in the interests of farmers, but also in the interests of the Bantu farm labourers themselves, because the possession of a certificate that he has successfully attended such a course would serve as a recommendation for the Bantu and farmers would be able and, I am certain, willing, to pay him higher wages. I understand that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has already accepted the principle of this idea, and I know that officials of his Department have already had discussions along these lines with at least one farmers’ association, with a view to holding a trial course. Those discussions unfortunately broke down over practical difficulties, but the interest shown was encouraging. Because of the shortage of skilled labour in our country, we cannot afford to neglect any steps which may lead to the better utilization of our labour resources. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to treat this as a matter of some urgency, and to speed up the institution of such courses.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) on his maiden speech. I do so on behalf of the farming community in particular. I think the hon. member has hit the nail on the head right from the beginning. Some of us are not so au fait with the labour position in agriculture but I am convinced that the hon. member has succeeded in conveying to the House what he tried to convey. I am convinced that in the years that lie ahead the hon. member will make a great contribution to the farming industry generally in our country and we wish him everything of the best in this House.

A day or two ago I had the opportunity, together with everybody in this House, of listening attentively and with interest to the discussion on the motion moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). Those of us who were here listened attentively to everything that was said on both sides of the House and I personally felt there was reason for concern as far as the farming industry in our country was concerned. The Opposition launched an attack and Government members, who joined forces with the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, had to defend. Well, in our opinion we have every right to defend because the accusations that were made were in many respects childish and uninformed, and we exposed them as such. But at the same time all of us in this House are convinced that there is sufficient reason to be perturbed and that there is room for improvement in the farming industry in general. But when I say this the United Party must not think I am supporting their case. Not at all. [Interjections.] I am convinced that we produce testimonials annually to show that the Government is doing everything in its power to assist and to help to promote farming in South Africa. That cannot be denied. It gives one pleasure to mention all the schemes which are brought into being from time to time, nearly annually, in this House to assist the farmer. As far as I am concerned a farmer should farm without Government support. It is not the function of the Government to farm on behalf of the farmer and to look after and administer his interests, except when conditions arise over which the farmer has no control. Then of course, it is the duty of the State to assist as it is in the case of all other sectors of our national economy. As far as that is concerned, when we look at this long list of schemes the Government has established to assist the farmers … [Interjections.] That will be a sad day.

Oh!

Yes, of course. I think it will be a sad day for our country and for any country in the world when the Government has to do all the thinking for the farmer. The dignity which attaches to it to-day will then no longer be there. Our independence gets undermined by this type of assistance. But I say clearly and emphatically that, where circumstances demand it, the State must assist.

We have experienced severe drought conditions in the last few years in our country. It started in the Northern Transvaal and extended further south. But the Government or the party who promises our farmers that it will produce rain talks nonsense. It is due to droughts that we get these conditions in our country from time to time and that has been the position under all previous Governments. To-day we are again faced with such conditions. We think of the severe drought conditions which obtain in the Northern Transvaal and in the maize triangle, even here in the Karoo. Those are the set-backs which hit the farmers. We work hard and do our best but we then suffer a disaster caused by nature against which we are helpless. The Government cannot be accused of being unsympathetic.

We have heard, inter alia, that Land Bank loans have increased instead of decreased. I fail to understand how hon. members opposite can argue like that. Surely the price of land has increased and the mortgage bond burdens have increased in proportion. That is obvious. But that does not mean that the farmers are going bankrupt because their assets have also increased in proportion. Those are the matters we should discuss and not all these other childish matters. [Interjections.] Reference has been made to the decline in the price of wool but we must remember that even the Defence Force had to cart water and fodder to the animals. How can you expect a good wool clip under those conditions. The same applies to the mealie farmer and the meat farmer. That is the reason why the income of the farmers in general shows a declining tendency, if it does.

I want to conclude by saying there are two Governments for the farmers of South Africa; the one is the Government which sits here, the party to which you and I, Sir, have the honour to belong; but we have another one above and as far as He is concerned He is sovereign and there is nothing we can say. He makes the farmers and He breaks them and we must simply accept that. The United Party cannot prove that it is because of the Government’s neglect or lack of sympathy that there are farmers in our country who are going down hill financially. But like any other Government this Government is helpless and cannot fight climatic conditions.

But I think other things can also be done to effect improvements and to stabilize the position of the farmer more. I think I can safely say that the present taxation system is very unpopular with the farmers. I am speaking on behalf of my constituency and I am speaking responsibly. Firstly, you have the question of estimating your income. You are continually uncertain; you do not know whether you have under- or over-estimated. We of this party are not afraid to criticize and to say this is not right and there is room for improvement. If the farmer over-estimates his income for taxation purposes that money remains in the hands of the Receiver of Revenue and is not refunded. It remains there till the next estimate is made. The fact that he has to make an estimate in itself causes unrest and uncertainty on the part of the farmer. I want to suggest that this system be revised. It is a new system. The hon. the Minister of Finance said we were going to test it out and that he would always be prepared in future, if things did not turn out 100 per cent right, to bring about improvements.

I want to read out a formula which I think deserves the earnest attention of the Minister of Finance and I ask in all friendliness that the necessary attention be given to it. I have been motivated to say what I am about to say by the urgent necessity which exists that it should be possible for bona fide farmers to make tax free capital investments.

One of the fundamental objects of the Government, vis-à-vis the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, is to create a strong and independent farming community, culturally and financially, on the platteland, the reason being to enable the platteland to make its conservative and character-forming influence felt strongly in the development of our nation. The way in which the Department wants to achieve this object is to change the economic behaviour of our farmers; in other words, the Department wants to influence the farmers to aim at optimum economic production over a long period. That can be achieved by the application of improved farming methods. In spite of the fact that the last decade has been characterized by the acceptance and application of much improved farming methods and the accompanying increased production per unit, that has not led to the establishment of a financially independent farming community on the platteland. One crop failure and the farmer’s feet are knocked from under him and the Government must step in. What is the reason why even the most efficient farmers, farmers who have spent their money judiciously, have been unable in prosperous years to build up a working capital reserve. One of the important reasons why that has not been possible is our taxation system.

A self-supporting and financially strong farming community cannot be established, therefore, in spite of increased production per unit. The taxation system makes it impossible even for the judicious and progressive farmer to build up a working capital reserve, a reserve into which he can delve in years of setbacks.

In farming periodic droughts must be regarded as something normal in South Africa. There are so many factors in our agriculture over which the farmer has no control, for example, droughts, hail, insects, pests, etc. The existing taxation formula does not take these extremely changeable conditions in the farming industry into account.

The aim at higher production per unit by means of improved farming methods, better fertilizing, seed and implements and better methods of tilling the soil and combating noxious weeds has resulted in a need for much more working capital. Working capital is the axis round which all farming operations turn; it is the lubricant; without it the production machine cannot operate. Sufficient working capital is therefore an absolute prerequisite for optimum production. In order to produce every year, to withstand periodic set-backs independently, it is extremely essential that the bona fide efficient farmer be given an opportunity to build up a sufficiently large working capital reserve.

What are you reading from?

I am reading from something I have compiled myself. Even the farmer who goes out of his way to build up a working capital reserve finds it is simply impossible to do so under the existing taxation formula. The result is that we have this ironic position that the farmer pays a few thousand rand income tax one year, and next year, because he has suffered a crop failure, has to appear hat in hand before the Farmers’ Assistance Board to obtain the necessary working capital. A culturally and financially independant farming community cannot be established in that way. The stigma which inevitably attaches to this type of assistance does not only undermine the morale of the farmer but also lowers his status in the community. The result is a feeling of inferiority and surely such a person cannot exercise the desired conservative and character-forming influence over our nation. The question is how can the honest, efficient and progressive farmer be given the opportunity of building up his own working capital reserve in order to do his duty towards the State and the community? It is felt that the answer lies in the direction of tax free capital investments with the Government. This principle is already recognized to some extent in the income tax formula under which capital improvements on a farm are deductable for income tax purposes. The wisdom of this system is already noticeable all over the platteland in the shape of well-developed farms, soil conservation works, etc. They constitute capital investments made during years of prosperity, but unfortunately this form of capital investment is not available in the form of working capital. The danger exists that unless other avenues of investment are found these deductable capital improvements may lead to unproductive investment which in turn may lead to over-capitalization. The time has therefore arrived for a policy to be formulated whereby it will be possible for the farmer to invest money in such a way that it is easily available when necessary to off-set a crop failure.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to read his entire speech.

The object is, therefore, that in prosperous years it should be possible for the farmer, on a voluntary basis, to invest a portion of the net income derived from his farming operation tax free with the State. The amount of capital invested in this way by every individual can depend on the production costs of the particular type of farming he engages in. In other words, the bona fide, farmer must be able to build up as much working capital reserves in the form of investments with the Government as he will require to cover his costs of production over a period of three years.

Order! But the hon. member cannot read his speech. The hon. member must listen to me.

It is not necessary for me, Sir, to read this formula further. What it amounts to is this: I think one of the reasons why our farmers in general are not financially in a position to withstand the droughts and set-backs is a lack of capital and that there should be a taxation system which will enable the farmer to withstand such set-backs by means of tax free investments with the Government. That will encourage investment in the first instance and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is general practice amongst farmers to invest their surplus capital in improvements on their farms. Over-capitalization of farms has practically become an evil in the country. If we were to open the door by way of a taxation system under which the farmer can invest his money with the Government, the State in turn to use that capital for the services it has to render the country, I believe we would be assisting the farmers greatly. We should try to curtail the schemes we evolve every year to assist the farmers. I do not think that is right for the future welfare of the farmers. Any other contribution we can make, as, for example, this formula for a different taxation system for the farmer, would be of value.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance is heartily sick of the word “insurance”, because a good deal has been said from this side of the House on the subject of the Parity crash. I want to raise another subject, however, in regard to insurance, on a wider issue altogether. I would have done so under the Bill under discussion, but what I want to say goes well beyond the scope of that Bill.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not think that any amendments to the Insurance Act are going to make it impossible for us to have a repetition of the financial crashes we have had during the past few years. I think the Minister himself in introducing the Bill was the first to acknowledge that he could not cover all possibilities of future insolvencies. No Government can legislate against dishonesty or fraudulent practices. There are always loopholes, and dishonest people will find these loopholes. Therefore what I want to suggest goes a good deal further than simply attempting to see that insurance companies in future provide greater cover and that the Government exercises greater vigilance. But whatever additional protection, either through the Minister’s Bill or through the suggestions I am about to make, can be provided to the public in future, I think it is incumbent on the hon. the Minister to give the House his assurance that he intends to provide a special fund under which persons who suffered from past insolvencies of third-party insurance companies will be compensated. The hon. the Minister has said that he wishes to await the report of the judicial commission of inquiry into the Parity case. There are, however, other insolvencies also which have taken place over the past two years, and there are many thousands of victims who are at present unable to claim one cent compensation in respect of third-party accidents. I think the hon. the Minister must commit himself in this regard. I do not think he should wait for any judicial commission to report, particularly, as I understand it, since the commission is sitting on one specific company only.

I am sure I am not the only member of this House who has received many letters from the victims of these insolvencies, and I am quite certain that the public will welcome an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will dip into his not inconsiderable surplus this year to create a special fund to cover the victims of such past crashes. I want to say that I think the State has a very special responsibility in this regard. Third-party insurance has been made compulsory by the Government. The Motor Vehicle Insurance Act was passed more than 20 years ago and it laid a responsibility on the drivers of vehicles to see that they are insured against third-party risks, and therefore it is very different from normal insurance risks which the public have to take. The Government itself therefore has this special responsibility because of the compulsory nature of third-party insurance. I understand from articles which have appeared in newspapers recently—in the Star the other night and I understand in the Vaderland last night—there have been considerable rumblings in the Nationalist Party caucus about the possibility of the State taking over compulsory insurance. [Interjections.]

The hon. member over there says that he does not know anything about it; perhaps he was not at the particular caucus meeting at which this was discussed. [Interjection.] Sir, I have attended no caucus meeting at all, either Government of official Opposition, and therefore my information is based purely on newspaper reports. This report in the Vaderland comes from a newspaper which is Nationalist-biased or controlled and it is possible that it might have received some inspired leak in order to convey this information to the public. I am not asking for the taking over of third-party insurance by the Government. What I am asking is a proper inquiry into the whole basis of third-party insurance. I know that there have been two commissions of inquiry; there was the Corder Commission and there was the du Plessis commission of inquiry; I know that there have been Select Committees of this House investigating this subject of third-party insurance. I still think in the circumstances that there are certain very specific aspects, some of which were not gone into in any great detail at all by these commissions and in fact were glossed over in their reports, which require careful investigation to see whether the time has not come for a complete reform of the system of third-party insurance, the financing thereof and the responsibility for its administration. Sir, I say this not only because of the compulsory nature of third-party insurance but because of the startling increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents in South Africa over the past ten years.

In 1953 the number of motor vehicle accidents was 59,320 and the number of deaths that resulted was 1,195. By 1963 according to the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, the number had risen to the startling total of 121,202 motor vehicle accidents resulting in the death of 4,294 people. We are living in a modern and very mobile age. Motoring is one of the normal hazards of modern life, and therefore it seems to me that it is time we considered the question of reform of the whole basis of our third-party insurance in South Africa. There was an article recently in the Financial Mail of 22 January of this year which was entitled “Third-Party Insurance: A Plan for Reform.” I may say that it is based largely on evidence which was given before the Du Plessis Commission by Advocate Suzman, and in this article, certain aspects of reform were highlighted. I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister to these particular suggestions because I think they are worthy of some form of investigation. The first subject for investigation, I think, is the whole present basis of third-party insurance, and that is whether or not negligence should still be the deciding factor. As the Du Plessis Commission pointed out there is a great deal of ignorance in the country about third-party insurance. In Paragraph 64 the commission states—

That means that in all cases it is necessary to prove negligence. It is true that we had some amending legislation, the Apportionment of Damages Act, which does make it possible for the degree of negligence to be weighed up and apportioned between the drivers of the vehicles, but it still means that in every case there has to be some degree of negligence; furthermore, people are not covered if another vehicle is not involved in the accident. In other words, if a driver of a motor-car overturns his car and a passenger is injured, that passenger is not covered since another vehicle was not involved in the smash. These are all factors, I think, which should be considered if we are going to take the modern view that this is an important social measure designed to cover people who are running a normal hazard in modern life and that is driving or being driven in a motorcar or facing, as a pedestrian, the hazards of motor traffic. Therefore I think this is one of the aspects which should be reconsidered by the commission in order to ascertain whether it is not possible to broaden the whole scope of third-party risk in South Africa. I want to point out in this regard that the vast majority of accidents in fact are not caused by gross negligence. They are very often caused simply by bad judgment, which is a different thing from gross negligence. But the present system which requires proof of negligence means that this social measure which was intended to compensate victims of motor accidents, has in fact tended to become a vast series of legal actions in an attempt to apportion liability. Half the cases in the Supreme Court to-day are motor accident cases.

In the last term of the Witwatersrand Local Division in 1961—the latest figure I have—out of 285 cases on the roll no fewer than 150 were accident cases. Of course, there is always a tremendously long period of delay between the date on which the claim is made and the date on which the case is finally settled, and nobody knows how the accident victim manages in the meantime. I believe that this delay could be avoided if the element of culpability were eliminated and that any person who is injured and the dependants of a person killed as a result of a motor vehicle accident were to be entitled as of right to compensation. As far as I know, this system at the moment applies only in British Columbia, I think it is in Saskatchewan that the system is in fact in operation, that anybody can claim compensation.

However, I see no reason why South Africa should not lead the field in reform in a social measure which is of such great importance as the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I admit that there would have to be many limitations—wilful misconduct, the case of the drunken driver, and so on. These are all aspects which I suggest a commission of inquiry could possibly investigate. The whole question of the amount of compensation, whether statutory rates of compensation should be laid down, as in workmen’s compensation, should be considered. Personally, I do not think that that is necessarily a good idea because the degree of disability may alter with the passing of time; the person who is injured is not necessarily a worker or an earner as in the case of workmen’s compensation. But I believe this is also a matter which the commission could go into in some considerable detail.

I believe that if great manoeuvrability were adopted, the chances are that far fewer cases would reach the courts; that far smaller amounts would be involved as far as legal expenses are concerned; in fact, I believe that there would be considerable saving in cost and in time, and. most important of all far greater coverage, because I maintain that this social measure should be extended as far as possible to cover all victims of motor accidents.

The second important subject which I think such a commission should investigate is whether or not the whole basis of financing third-party insurance should not be reviewed. At present third-party insurance is in the hands of insurance companies and the fund that provides for the payment of victims, is, of course the premium insurance which is paid. There are many suggestions as to ways and means whereby the basis of such a fund could be broadened. Some were made in this article and others were made in evidence given before the commission. There is the suggestion of a tax on fuel and the removal of the premium on motor-cars in toto. This would first of all eliminate one of the difficulties in financing such a fund, which is, of course, the number of uninsured vehicles on the road. Even though it is compulsory to insure, a large number of cars in fact are uninsured. I believe the estimated total is 10 per cent of the total number of cars on the road. If we change the basis to a fuel tax, for instance, of a small amount, which could be raised or lowered, depending on the claims against the fund, this of course would fall away. The second possibility would be to get licensed drivers to pay an initial fee rather than for the fee to be paid on the licensing of the motor-car itself. This is the second way in which such a fund could be financed. The third way, of course, is by way of general revenue. If the fund is not sufficient to cover the complete compensation that I ask for, then I think it should be financed out of general revenue. This is the second suggestion which I believe should be put to the commission, namely the question of the financing of the fund.

Thirdly, there is the whole question of the administration of third-party insurance. The fact that we have had these recent crashes means that the Government has not been able to fulfil its primary responsibility of seeing to it that people who have insured are covered by companies which are on the register. It might be necessary to consider whether the administration of the fund should not be taken over by some other body, either a public utility company, a state corporation or possibly a combination of private enterprise and the State. I am not advocating any one of those particular mechanisms; I think again that this is a matter which should be investigated. I believe in New Zealand a system of the combined responsibility of the State and private insurers to administer such a third-party fund, is in operation. Incidentally, this suggestion was favourably received by the Du Plessis Commission which stated that in view of the shortcomings of the existing system, it would be a good idea if the New Zealand system was further considered by a commission which had such a suggestion included in its terms of reference. The Du Plessis Commission’s terms of reference did not include this. I know that there will be cogent arguments advanced against any system of State control. I am quite sure that the insurance companies will be against it because they will say that this is the thin end of the wedge; that this means that the State is stepping into the field of private enterprise. I do not think that that argument about the thin end of the wedge should influence the hon. the Minister. What he should really be concerned about is this: What do we want, and what is the best way to provide for what we want. That is really the consideration that he should be concerned about. I do not think he should worry about the other argument. Modern life in any case always carries with it some form of mixed economy, in other words, partly State responsibility and partly the elements of free enterprise. Basically I believe in free enterprise, but I also think that in the modern age there has been a tendency—and it is not always to be deplored—for the State to step in and take over some of the responsibility of controlling functions which private individuals or private entrepreneurs are unable to do efficiently or, shall I say, at lower cost than the State could do it. I think the element of profit should be excluded in a matter as important as compulsory third-party insurance.

Sir, I wanted to take this first opportunity on a financial measure of putting this suggestion to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think it is necessary at this stage for the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that past victims of crashes are going to be compensated by a special fund which he should set aside, and, secondly, that the whole basis of this very important social measure will now be reconsidered to see whether South Africa cannot set the lead in a new system of insurance against accidents in what I consider to be one of the normal hazards of modern life.

Allow me in the first place to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) on having succeeded in creating a very pleasant and soothing atmosphere in this House to-day.

That is what I always do when I am not provoked.

She developed such a good argument here that I think the hon. the Minister would do well to give attention to that argument. I think hon. members will agree with me that this has been the most important contribution which the hon. member has ever made in this House and I want to congratulate her in this regard. I want to continue in the same spirit although I do not want to discuss the same subject. But because the atmosphere in the House is such a good one it will enable me to raise a matter here which is of vital importance. Because hon. members of the Opposition have decided to remain quiet, we will leave them in peace and try to make a constructive contribution to this debate. I want to begin immediately by proceeding further with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), a subject which in my opinion merits the serious attention of this House and the attention of the authorities. Sir, we all admit that wages play an important part in the question of the cost of living; we all agree with the hon. member in this regard but there are other factors which are also responsible for the high and steadily increasing cost of living—which is, fortunately for us, less noticeable in South Africa than in any other country in the world. The question to which I think we ought to give attention is the question of profits. I think that the time has come for us to try to determine the factors which contribute towards the increase in the cost of living to a greater or lesser extent. I think that we must determine once and for all the factors in our economy which are responsible for the fact that the increase in living costs has not been curbed, because it must be stopped somewhere. We read and we are told every day that when we produce or manufacture on a large scale, when the machine takes the place of the human hand, it should result in manufactured articles being marketed more cheaply. But in spite of the fact that the machine has taken the place of the human hand—and there was a time when we feared that this would cause unemployment—we find to-day that the machine has not yet succeeded in bringing us to the stage where the increase in living costs is curbed and we can look forward to lower living costs. We find that living costs continue to rise. I think that we must try to determine as scientifically as possible but also in as practical a manner as possible what the causes of these increases in living costs are. It seems to me that we in South Africa are more or less on a par with America. This is actually a problem with which the United States of America is faced and I fear that it may also eventually become a great problem here in South Africa. I am referring to the establishment and growth of monopolies. It is my humble opinion that just as is the case in America and in Britain and in various other countries, the steadily increasing living costs and the increase in prices in South Africa are due to the establishment and growth of large and steadily growing combinations. I do not think that there is any hon. member in this House who will not agree with me when I say that we note—and we are concerned about it—that there is also a tendency in South Africa for these combinations to become stronger and stronger and for the small business man to be forced out of business more and more. We have every reason to feel concerned in this regard. We do not find that the formation and growth of large combinations leads to greater efficiency and lower prices; the position is just the opposite. The public still have to deal with the problem of steadily increasing living costs. But, Sir, can it be otherwise? The answer is a very brief one. It cannot be otherwise because the larger the combination, the larger are their profits and the higher their margin of profits. Instead of the formation of combinations and the monopolies in this country bringing about a position in which the public are better and more efficiently served, we find that the profits of these combinations are increasing. I find that it is easy for me to associate myself with what has been said here by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). I think that we must regard these increasing profits as the most important reason for the steadily increasing living costs. Let us review a few of these matters. Take a very important article like a motor-car One can purchase a motor-car anywhere in South Africa but it has a fixed price. One can purchase fuel anywhere in South Africa but at a fixed price. There is no such thing as competition. My strongest complaint against this much vaunted private enterprise is that in this growth of combinations we do not find free competition. One hears the same complaint in America. Free competition under the system of private enterprise is disappearing by the day and as soon as we no longer have free competition, we find to our detriment that living costs begin to rise, because the aim of these combinations is not to render efficient service to the public. One of the important reasons for the establishment of a monopoly is to be able to make larger profits but the most important aim is to be able to exercise economic pressure when needed.

Let us take another commodity like petrol. Hon. members know just as I do that most garages and filling stations to-day no longer belong to individuals to whom the plots on which they stand belong. They stand on private land but the owner of the land is nothing less than a hireling of the large oil and motor companies. He is nothing but a slave on his own piece of land and in his own business, a slave of those large oil monopolies of South Africa which come here from other parts of the world and apply their business methods here.

Let us go further and look at another branch of our economy. Take building material. Unless I am mistaken, the hon. the Minister the other day had to take action in one case, action which we all felt very strongly should be taken and we are all very grateful that that action was taken. But it is not nearly enough. Building material, particularly imported building material, is in the hands of a few large monopolies and the various building contractors and suppliers of building material are dependent exclusively upon a few large importers who have the monopoly. They always say that one can have what one wants, but one has to buy from them and one has to pay the prices that they ask. There is no such thing as free competition. I wish that I could convince this House of one thing to-day and that is that under this system of growing monopolies there is no longer such a thing as private enterprise. It is a misconception to believe that there is such a thing as free competition in commodities such as petrol, building material and so forth in this country today. If there is one thing which will eventually make the public, and particularly the intellectual, annoyed, it is the fact that competent small entrepreneurs who are managing their affairs in a capable way to-day are being forced out of business, are being bought out or swallowed up by large monopolies. By the way, Mr. Speaker, as we are discussing monopolies, there is a saying that if one wishes to become a big dragon one has to swallow a large number of small snakes. That is the position which we have in the country to-day. One sees one small business after the other disappearing; they are being swallowed up by large number of small snakes. That is the posi of those entrepreneurs, those capable managers of small businesses, people who are perhaps more competent than many of these powerful magnates? These magnates are these people who are at the head of monopolies which they build up from generation to generation, people who are in positions which they ought not to occupy and which they would not be able to occupy were it not for the power of their money. We often find trained and competent persons amongst these small business men, men who are far more competent than these big financiers who are in permanent positions of power. We would not have this position were it not for this diabolical development of monopolistic powers in our country and in other countries. Mr. Speaker, I raise this matter with all the earnestness at my disposal because it is going to become a real problem for this Government or future government. It has become a great problem in the United States of America. What do we find in a country like the United States of America, a country which is considered to be the country with what is probably the highest standard of living in the world? There is one monopoly there which made 6,000,000,000 dollars net profit in one year! I should like to quote what the President of the United States said in a speech which he made just after he had been sworn in. He said—

If these things are considered to be America’s greatest enemies to-day, if these tremendous profits are made, one realizes why it is that even a country like America has continually to be on her guard against Communism. Mr. Speaker, monopolies will not prevent Communism. Monopolies as they have developed in America and as they have developed here are the breeding grounds of Communism because the best talents of the people are smothered. This is so because the businesses which are in the hands of monopolists are able to obtain a stranglehold upon every entrepreneur, every person who will not dance to their tune, and to force him out of business. Mr. Speaker, have you ever noticed that communist agitation in South Africa is not found amongst the people in the lower income groups but is found to a very large extent among the intellectuals in this country? Is this not a matter which should be investigated? Should we not try to discover the reason for this? Why is there communist agitation among people who on the face of it ought to have no grievances? Are they perhaps embittered people? Are they perhaps people who realize that even with their talents and virtues they are unable to live out their lives to the full to the benefit of the nation to which they belong, and are forced out of things, murdered, almost, by the monopolistic powers which are in control, by people who occupy that position not because of their integrity but because of their financial power?

Mr. Speaker, if there is one matter which should be investigated it is this question of increasing living costs. Our machines work for us but people have to pay more and more for what they buy. The worker is compelled to demand higher wages to-day. I should not be surprised to find, once the matter is investigated, that the monopolistic powers are behind these so-called wage demands. You will ask why l say this, Sir. It is because, as we all know, whenever a demand for higher wages is agreed to, the monopolistic middleman is ready to grab for himself the lion’s share of that wage increase once it has found its way into the pocket of the poor worker. That is why it will pay them even to initiate a demand for higher wages because they know that in the long run it is not the poor worker who will derive any benefit from it but themselves because they have the monopoly over certain business institutions which will enable them to obtain for themselves the lion’s share of the money of the wage earner. That is how the graph runs. Knowing all the factors which are responsible for these increases in living costs we will be making a grave mistake if we merely confine ourselves to the question of wage demands without going into the matter to determine its causes.

I accuse these monopolists of preying on the public. I know it is very difficult to prove this statement by means of figures until the matter has been thoroughly investigated. But every farmer knows that every man who buys a tractor to-day is nothing but the future milk cow of these monopolistic powers. I do not want to weary you with figures, Sir, but I am sure you will be able to draw your own conclusions. If a tractor costs R2,500 and that tractor has been used for ten years—one will be lucky if it has not burnt out by that time—and one has replaced all its original parts, that tractor with its spare parts would have cost R20,000. Things are organized in this way because it is at the distribution point of every article that is produced that the monopolistic powers have their strongest stranglehold. It is not the manufacturer; more often than not it is the manufacturer; it takes place between the manufacturer and the consumer. It is at that stage that the monopolisic powers are able to exploit the public and force them to pay a fixed price, a price which is not being fixed by a State body but by themselves. This is something which South Africa and the world can no longer leave uninvestigated. It will not help us to say that we want to combat Communism and yet allow monopolistic powers to develop in this country.

Why do you allow it then?

That hon. member must be very careful. If I had the time to deal with him I think he would feel very sorry for himself by the time I had finished. He should remain silent. I am warning him in all earnestness. It is very easy to ask why it is allowed. It is a situation which has developed here. Do you know, Sir, how a goat farmer discovers who the mother is of a small kid when there are hundreds of goats in the vicinity? He pinches the kid’s tail and the kid bleats. Once we start pinching the tail of the monopolistic powers in this country we will see who bleats in this House! [Interjections.] Monopolists are not so inexperienced and stupid as to use a person with the brains of the hon. member for their purposes. He may just be someone who bleats along with everyone else.

It may perhaps be asked, if my conviction is shown to be true by way of investigation, what means we are to use to combat this state of affairs. Perhaps the Government will have to reformulate its whole tax system. I have nothing against the man who starts a business which grows and becomes strong. But we can no longer tolerate this process whereby one business swallows another, as we have the position in this country to-day. Will the solution not perhaps lie in taxing those monopolisitc powers not according to the present system but in another way? As soon as they have absorbed a business, they must be taxed, taxed until they bleat, to use a rather banal term. This is the only way in which we will be able to combat these monopolistic powers in this country as other countries are also trying to do. Legislation has not helped. This Government already has the Prevention of Monopolies Act on the Statute Book, but it has no effect. We are virtually powerless. One of the largest ever amalgamations took place after we had placed that Act on the Statute Book. It took place in spite of that Act. That is why I say that legislation in the form in which we have it at present is inadequate to combat monopolies. The only way is to tax them and to tax them again. We must tax them in such a way that it will not pay them to absorb smaller businesses. The process which is in operation at the moment is a hateful one. I think that we will be appalled when we discover how many small businesses have disappeared over the last few years as a result of the coming into being of monopolies in the commercial sphere.

I hope that for this reason the Government will give very special attention to this matter. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is here. If there is one man who can appreciate the gravamen of the matter and will appreciate it and deal with it in the correct way and in the spirit of our South African outlook, it is he. We trust him to do this. I think that the few words I have uttered in this House to-day have imposed an important duty upon him. This is one of the steps we can take to enable us to keep the economy of this country on a firm footing in the future so that South Africa will not develop along the same lines as America has developed where its own President complains about the conditions prevailing in his country. Because of the way in which the National Party is governing, we shall, if we give our attention to this matter, be able to enable South Africa with her blooming economy. always to keep what is best for her people and not to become a paradise for monopolists and communists. Let us maintain our free enterprise in this country but let us close the doors so that the small man will also have the opportunity which is his due to render a service to the public.

It was interesting to listen to the new socialism of the Nationalist Party. The tirade of the hon. member to which we have just listened indicates that he, like ourselves, is concerned with the continually rising cost of living. It indicates that he realizes the failure of his Government to cope with this problem. It also indicates that he realizes the difficulties which these rising costs of living are creating for the people of fixed income in South Africa. But instead of the hon. member blaming his own Government he tries to blame the system of private enterprise. I want to ask him a question. I want to ask him whether he, as a Nationalist, objected when his Prime Minister’s organization, Dagbreek, bought out the Vaderland—the monopolistic system of the big man swallowing the small man. Did he object.

That was a case of the small man swallowing the big man.

It is all right when it happens in the Nationalist Party! The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) puts it the other way round. He regards the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as the big man and the Prime Minister as the little man. He said it was a case of the small man swallowing the big man. Is that why we cannot have television in South Africa? It is all very well for the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) to rave about the monopolies. There is an anti-monopolies Act in South Africa. We have a Minister to administer it. There is a Government with price control powers. There is a Government with taxation powers. And the member’s only solution is: Tax the man who is making a profit—the new socialism of the Nationalist Party!

Not all.

No, as the hon. member says, it does not apply to all. I am sure some of the members of the Nationalist Party would not like to see excess profits taxed. I am sure they would not. They believe in free enterprise. They believe in their right to make as much money as they can under the system of private enterprise. Many of them have succeeded—and succeeded very well, Mr. Speaker. And I am sure they will disagree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp who may perhaps not have been as successful in the field of private enterprise and profit-making as perhaps others in this country may have been.

Before going further, Sir, I want to refer to one point from the address of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She supported our plea made through the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) for protection for the victims of insurance crashes in recent years. I want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton—who is not here at the moment—that the Minister answered that. It is unfortunate that she did not rather deal with that answer, which was that this issue must await the findings of the commission of inquiry. I think it is necessary that we should say at this stage that we do not believe it is fair to make those victims wait. We do not believe that a person who has been an unfortunate and innocent victim of a collapse in which he or she could not have played any part in preventing it should not be helped immediately. I hope the Minister of Finance will reconsider his decision and that those who to-day suffer the uncertainty of not knowing where they stand can soon be assured that the Government will heed our plea for assistance to them.

I wish to come back to a subject which we on this side of the House were debating earlier this afternoon and that is the question of defence, considered particularly in the light of responsibility for the security of the nation, the utilization of our youth and manpower and the spending of the money of the taxpayer. Those are the three important aspects of defence namely the security of the nation and the country, the utilization of the nation’s youth and the manpower which is absorbed and the expenditure of the taxpayer’s money. As the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) correctly said this is an appropriate time to review the situation which has arisen after another year of the increased training programme on which South Africa embarked two years ago. I am afraid that in that review we must come to the conclusion that there is a question mark, and a large question mark, behind the answer to the question of whether we are making the best use of our manpower and the best use of the money which this Parliament has granted to the Minister to spend; and also, Sir, whether the trust which this Parliament of South Africa has reposed in our Defence Force is being fully reciprocated in the way in which that trust is being administered by the Minister of Defence. Inevitably—I want to deal with this immediately—when there are large amounts to be expended, much of it on secret equipment, much of it on items which cannot be publicly disclosed, rumour rears its ugly head. In this case it is equally inevitable that rumour should have reared its head in regard to the expenditure of Defence moneys. The Minister—I believe quite correctly—appointed a judicial commission to investigate those rumours and to deal with them. Here I want to congratulate the Minister on that appointment. It was the correct thing to do. It was the correct thing to do because rumour and resignations and trials had placed a stigma on a force which did not deserve it. Quite correctly the Minister reacted to that by the appointment of a commission. But unfortunately, very unfortunately, the Minister has not given the House or the country the full details of the inquiry and the findings for which we have asked. I therefore want to ask the hon. Minister some questions.

Firstly, I should like to ask him on whose request was a commission of inquiry appointed? Because I would believe that the senior officers themselves would be the first people to ask for an inquiry. They would be the first people to want their names cleared. I am sure that the Minister, when he answers that question, will confirm that the request came from people who themselves wanted their names to be cleared of the stigma which rumour was attaching to them. It is understandable that the inquiry should be held in secret and that Darts of it should not be disclosed. But I think it is equally important that, in the interests of those persons whose names and reputations were under a cloud, this report and its findings should have been made available to the country so that the irregularities could have been known for what they were, and, above all, so that those who were innocent, should have been clearly shown to be so and cleared of any possibility or suspicion of guilt. I had no doubt—none of us had any doubt—that the senior members and perhaps 99.9 per cent of the Defence Force, carried out and continue to carry out their duties honestly, in a devoted manner, completely and utterly loyal to their country and to their service. It is for those 99.9 per cent that we in this House carry the responsibility of clearing any suspicion from their names. The Minister himself in his statement on the findings admits, as we expected the position to be, that that is the position, and that the vast mass of the forces are in the clear. But what in fact does he say in this statement? He says everybody is innocent except those who are guilty.

The usual mis-statement I can expect from the hon. member.

Let me read it to the Ministerߞ

What is the difference?

Read on.

—

Read on.

I shall—

In other words, exactly what I said—except for those who were guilty, those to whom the Minister refers in vague terms in this report, everyone is innocent. We know that, Mr. Speaker, but why does the Minister withhold from the senior members as well as from all the other members of the force, the vindication of this commission’s findings? Findings which I know and which I am satisfied will remove for all time any suspicion from them. Does the Minister believe it is fair to leave this vague vindication hanging in the air without clarifying the position completely and specifically in the interest of the men themselves. If these are such minor irregularities why cannot we be told v/hat they are? Because as long as we are not told we would be entitled to believe that there is something which the Minister does not want us to know. That is inevitable. If the Minister is not prepared to give us the full facts then the assumption, the suspicion, must be there that there is something to hide. And we do not think that that is fair. We do not think it is fair to the force and we do not think it is fair to the country to hide that sort of information. This was a judicial commission, an inquiry by a Judge, a Judge of standing who was appointed for the sole reason of investigating rumours, and of finding out what was the truth—rumours and allegations of corruption. His task was to seek the truth. Why can we not be told the truth? Because otherwise it means that the innocent are protecting the guilty. I do not believe that is fair and I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not fair.

We have often offered our co-operation whereby, through a Defence Committee, this sort of matter could be dealt with in private. The Minister has rejected that offer. Therefore we have no option but to raise in this House in debate the things which concern us. It is not only the men themselves; it is not only the members of the force who have been vindicated and whose vindication we want made public but there is also the name of a member of the Government which, by the law of contamination by association, has also become involved in the findings of this inquiry; the Deputy Minister of Agriculture whose name has been bandied about in the Press as having been associated, in one way or another, one way or another which we do not know about, which the commission knows about, which the Minister knows about, with the activities of an agent who deals in arms.

We believe, in the interests of the Deputy Minister, in order to clear his good name of any suspicion, that the Minister should lay before this House and lay before us the details which will vindicate, as I say, not only the force, but the Deputy Minister. Because as long as it remains secret there will remain the question in people’s minds: “what was the association?” The Deputy Minister has himself said that he had no financial connection with this arms agent. I accept that. I believe that that is so but that being so we are entitled to ask certain questions of the Minister. I cannot believe that a member of this House, such a senior member that he was very shortly to become a Deputy Minister, would become involved in an arms deal without first referring to the Minister of Defence. It is unbelievable. Any responsible member of the Government—and I accept that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), the Deputy Minister is such a responsible member—would, before he accompanied an arms agent on a trip overseas, have come to the Minister of Defence and discussed the matter with him. We are therefore entitled to ask the Minister of Defence: Did the member for Wakkerstroom go overseas with a certain Mr. Schwartz in a private or in an official capacity? Was he acting on behalf of the Government either officially or unofficially? Did he have any instructions from the Government? I want to ask further whether, whilst the hon. member was overseas, in Paris, the Department of Foreign Affairs sent any message over in connection with any business which might have been transacted, what that message was and what those instructions were?

I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether the Deputy Minister was acting with governmental authority in any discussions which he may have had overseas? I emphasize that I accept without question the Deputy Minister’s statement that he himself was not involved in business or associated as a business associate with this certain Mr. Schwartz. But in the light of the information which this hon. Minister has chosen himself to make available, it is clear that the hon. Deputy Minister accompanied a man who was an unscrupulous businessman, a man who spread false, unfounded and libellous accusations through which he caused the country, the Defence Force and certain individuals immeasurable damage, a man who made humiliating allegations against men who had given years of devoted service to this country. This was the type of man who was accompanied by a member of the Government overseas as an observer. This was the type of man, who, according to the Minister’s description, not my description …

I quoted from the report.

Yes, according to the Minister’s statement he was this type of person. That is all we have got. We have not seen the report. The Minister has chosen to take this item out of the report and to make it public. The Commissioner did not, the Judge did not. All we know about this person is what the Minister chose to say, extracted from the report, and he said this was an unscrupulous person, a liar and a man who damaged this country. I want to know: Did the Minister have any suspicion of this before the findings of this report? Did the Deputy Minister when he discussed this trip with the hon. Minister as he must have done, have any suspicion? Or were they both taken in by a man who was apparently a rogue according to this statement? Were they taken in by him? And having found out, why did the hon. Minister keep quiet about it? So I say, Mr. Speaker, the Minister kept quiet by suppressing the findings of the commission, a commission which according to the statement in the Press by the Deputy Minister has all the information in regard to this trip and in regard to any negotiations or otherwise which took place during the trip. According to a statement in the Press on the Sunday before last, the Deputy Minister stated that the Commission of Inquiry had all the information. We say that the hon. Minister in the interests of the good name of the Deputy Minister who has been contaminated by his association with this man who has been so condemned, owes this House and owes the Deputy Minister an explanation which will be a complete and total vindication and repudiation of any suggestion that a Deputy Minister could be bluffed by a person of that calibre.

Because that is apparently not the only person who bluffed the Government. We had another case where this Minister’s Department was Huffed, where they brought a man all the way from France to South Africa, flying at the Government’s expense, where they sent him from Jan Smuts to Cape Town at Government expense, where they paid his expenses in Cape Town out of the taxpayers’ money and where, according to the hon. Minister, this man was nothing but a clown. It must be some sort of clown, Mr. Speaker, who can take in a complete Government Department, who can take in the Military Intelligence of South Africa to the extent of a free trip to this country and free board and lodging after arrival here. And then having brought him here to Cape Town, the Department just washes its hands of him and does not know what happened to him. What sort of Intelligence is that? What sort of service is that which can waste the money of the taxpayers in such a way, if the Minister’s statement that this person was a sort of a clown is correct? Surely there must have been something more than a clown to justify this expenditure! There must have been some facts, there must have been some information which could cause the Government to bring a man all this way. If that information was important enough to bring a man from Europe and to maintain him here, then why was that information not important enough to hand over to the Security Police instead of being sat on for nearly two months? According to the Minister’s own statement Military Intelligence had information about this man and sat on it for some two months, having brought the man out here. The hon. Minister can refer to his own speech as reported in Hansard, his speech in the No-Confidence debate. Having brought him out here, they suppressed information considered important enough to spend some thousands of rand on the man and they did not tell their colleagues in the Security Police. The dates are in Hansard and I do not want to quote them all, but there was a delay of some two months, and I think the hon. Minister owes us an explanation.

There are numerous other aspects, Mr. Speaker, on which we believe we should get more information, and when the time comes for the Defence Vote, we will show why the country is not getting its due reward for the expenditure which it is making in connection with the Defence Force.

The people of South Africa have given freely of their men, of their sons and of their money, and not one of us in this House or in South Africa begrudges it. It is our duty and it is our patriotism to South Africa which makes us want to do that. Therefore the Government in turn owes the people something. Parents are prepared to give their children to the country for nine months but they expect that the money will be properly utilized. When we come to the Defence Vote we will go into detail. On the Defence Vote I will deal with the details of what I say now as a broad general statement. I say that the Minister and the Government have unfairly and unjustly over-loaded the Permanent Force of South Africa with a training programme, with duties and responsibilities, which it is absolutely humanly impossible for that small group of people to carry out. I say that as a result the Administration and the training programme have been hamstrung, hamstrung because the Minister has taken in more trainees than he has permanent staff available to train. The result is that in many fields the training is unsatisfactory. The first three months, the square-bashing, there is reasonably good training. I have heard nothing but praise for it. The second three months, reasonable. But from almost every ballotee and parents of ballotees you hear that the last three months are virtually wasted; they are wasted because this Minister took in more men than he was able to handle with the Permanent Force at his command. And why did the Minister not cake steps? What did he do to ensure that sufficient permanent staff is available to handle the 16,000-odd trainees who are being called up this year? He has said that one had to expect a little disruption and difficulties. Of course, we all know. But a “little disruption” I am not going to give figures here which may embarrass the country, but the Minister knows what the ratio is of Permanent Force officers to trainees in the various camps. He knows the shortage. He knows that in places lieutenants are in command of companies which should be commanded by majors, and they act in that capacity for long periods. He knows that he has not got the men trained and on his staff to handle this vital task of training our youth. But instead of doing anything about it, the hon. Minister says that there have been a few difficulties. I will tell him about some of the little difficulties when we come to his Vote, the little difficulties which he brushes aside as if of no importance. It is of importance to South Africa that 16,000 of our youth are being withdrawn from the manpower availability of this country in the interest of our safety, and those 16,000 youths deserve better than the planning which this Minister has put into their reception. The country deserves more than the Minister has been able to give to this task because of the shortage of personnel in the Permanent Force. And not only that, but there is a question of supplies. The hon. Minister knows that last winter, one of the coldest winters for 18 years, a complete batch of trainees never received their winter uniforms. From April to June, in the middle of winter last year, they were never issued with warm winter uniforms. That there were telexes and signals and requests for them but there just were no uniforms for them. Those youngsters from the hot areas, the subtropical areas of South Africa, transplanted into the bitter cold of Bloemfontein, were not issued with winter kit and left their camp still not having their winter kit. The new intake of July got their kit—eight days after they moved into camp—but the April intake were never issued with winter uniforms. The Minister knows that these things are going on. He knows of the shortages of equipment, of material, of training equipment, and I say that this House demands an explanation and deserves an explanation of these few things which time has permitted me to raise in this debate.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) raised the question of manpower and the utilization of our manpower, as did also the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Now I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome this discussion this afternoon. There should be criticism and notice should be taken of criticism. Of course we all know that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is always out to make a little bit of political propaganda whenever he discusses anything, and he did so this afternoon.

I was talking about the welfare of the Defence Force.

I will deal with the hon. member. The hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Durban (Point) put this question to me: Does the country get value for the money that is being spent on defence? And the second question was: Does the country get value out of the young men who are being trained?

From the point of security?

Mr. Speaker, the first requirement of any Defence Force is manpower. The hon. member for Durban (Point) had a good deal to say about training. I want to point out that in 1960 we trained approximately 3,000 men in our country as members of the Citizens Force for two months. In 1965 we will be training more than 18,000 for nine months or ten months. On these figures everybody will admit that we have made tremendous progress. The hon. member for Durban (Point) now tries to suggest that we are drafting too many trainees and that we cannot give them proper training, but he does not put forward a single concrete case so that I can go into it and find out in what respect our training is defective. He does not tell us where there are shortcomings but he says that he will go into it when my Vote comes under discussion. I am unable to reply to him therefore. He makes the point that numbers of ballotees who have been drafted have never received their warm clothing. I should like the hon. member to give me the details so that I can go into the matter.

You have the details.

I do know about the men who had to wait for their warm clothing for a week in Bloemfontein and who did not get it. I went into it and dealt with the matter. The hon. member knows that the officer who was responsible for this lost his post. I dealt with him very severely; he lost his post because of this incident. Stricter than that I cannot be.

We have made tremendous progress in South Africa in connection with our Defence Force. It has been alleged here that the training received by these 18,000 people is not worthwhile. Sir, I wish I could read out the testimonials here to-day which I receive every week from people who thank me for the training given to their sons. I do know that there are difficulties. I was told by a man from the Western Cape the other day that when his son went in for his second period of training for three weeks, his services were not used productively enough. I took up the matter immediately with my Commandant-general and caused the case to be investigated. This man gave me certain definite information. But as far as the rest of the training is concerned, I leave it to the judgment of the public of South Africa as to whether they feel happier to-day than they did previously now that we are training so many thousands of young men for periods of nine months. I think the verdict of the public of South Africa will prove that South Africa is grateful for the fact that we are training these men.

You are not going to be an Erasmus?

The hon. member is still living in the dim and distant past. Sir, let me just say this with reference to the hon. member’s remark: Before 1960 we believed and this country believed that we should train our Defence Force and that we should prepare ourselves so as to be able to defend ourselves in the event of internal disturbances. Later on it became clear that the cold war threatened to become a hot war, and it became clear that we should not only prepare ourselves to be able to cope with internal disturbances but also with threats from outside. Mr. Speaker, if we have to prepare ourselves to cope with internal disorders, to be able to maintain order internally when the police require our assistance, it will be sufficient to give our men two months’ training; it will probably be sufficient to train a few thousand per annum and we will then need a minimum of arms. After all, we do not need men with long training and we do not need expensive weapons to be able to maintain internal order. The build-up of our Defence Force has nothing to do with the maintenance of order internally, we are training our men so as to be able to defend ourselves against external aggression and once we came to that decision, then this huge build-up followed. It therefore it was decided before my time that we should only build up a Defence Force so as to be able to cope with internal disturbances and so as to be able to maintain order within the country, then that decision was based on a situation which is entirely different from the one with which I have to deal to day as Minister of Defence.

But it is not only our ballotees who are receiving better training to-day. Our Citizen Force officers are being trained much more intensively to-day, and the same applies to officers on the reserve list. We have established various new units. Tremendous progress has been made. We have a paratroop unit; in that respect too we have made tremendous progress. We have our engineering unit, which is doing excellent work in South Africa today and which is building aerodromes for us of which any Defence Force can be proud. We have made great headway.

The hon. member for Simonstown has raised a very important matter in connection with our manpower. He wants to know whether it is not possible to draft our young ballotees to units in which their services will be used in the occupation in which they want to carve out their future careers. This is a very important matter. It is a matter which the hon. the Prime Minister has discussed with me on various occasions and to which we have given serious attention, but it is not an easy thing to do under our system of territorial balloting. For example, we have our university regiments. Those people can only be brought in for their three weeks’ training during vacation periods. Hon. members will realize what a difficult problem it is to draft those people to units in which their services can be used in the occupation which they want to make their career in the future. People are trained at our universities for all sorts of occupations. How can I fit them all into regiments where their training will stand them in good stead in their future careers? It would be an impossible task. It is an excellent idea in theory but it is completely impracticable. We do apply it as far as we possibly can. I received such a request in the course of this year from a young ballotee who had been drafted to a certain unit; we were told that there was a certain line in which he was extremely capable. We went into the matter and we were able to transfer this young man to another unit. In other words, we do follow this practice wherever we can.

With regard to the value that the public get for the taxes they pay as far as Defence is concerned, I do not think the public of South Africa realize what we have spent on transport vehicles, etc., during the past few years; it runs into millions. We have spent millions for this purpose during the year which is now drawing to a close, with the result that our transport position has improved tremendously. We have made tremendous progress. Then there is also the stockpiling of ammunition. I think the hon. member for Simonstown knows something about that. There is simply no comparison between our present stocks of ammunition in this country and what we had before. We have practically reached the stage in the stockpiling of ammunition where we have everything that we need for mobilization. All this entailed hard work. Our manufacturing industry made their contribution in this regard and I take off my hat in admiration to our South African factories for what they have been able to do within the space of just a few years. We have made tremendous progress in this connection.

I received a progress report this morning in connection with the manufacture of ammunition. I want to invite the hon. member for Simonstown to come to my office tomorrow and I will then show him the report. It will do his heart good to see it. The report, however, contains information and figures which I cannot make known to this House. Nobody can expect me as a responsible Minister to say to the world: “I have so much of this and so much of that.” It simply cannot be done. I want to point out to the House that a few years ago we had nothing in the field of propellants—in the old days we called it gun-powder—and hon. members will be surprised to see how much progress we have made in this field. It has cost us scores of millions but we have made such progress that to-day we are practically no longer dependent upon imported propellants.

Sir, I think that more or less disposes of all the odd points. Let me just add this: If it so happens that we are attacked to-morrow from outside by some unwise aggressor, South Africa’s Defence Force will prove to the public that they have received value for the millions that we have spent.

The we come to the Plotz case, with which I want to deal first. We are alleged to have acted childishly in bringing to South Africa at our expense a man like Plotz whom I described in a debate here as an actor or something of that kind, and we are supposed to have behaved badly in that we allegedly kept this whole thing secret from the Security Branch of the Police. It has also been alleged that in my statement in this House recently I withheld very important information because I said that we had got in touch with this man for the first time in some foreign country. Sir, I did not mention the name of a single embassy when I spoke here that day. and this House will realize why I did not do so. Embassies have nothing to do with this sort of thing.

But before there was any espionage or anything of that kind, the name of this man was mentioned to our embassy in England. Foreign Affairs wrote a letter to us and at the same time wrote a letter to the police in connection with this man. On 6 February 1963 we sent a note to the police in which we acknowledged receipt of this matter. We withheld nothing from the police. The Defence Force then decided to take up this matter. But we sent nobody specifically to go and negotiate with Plotz. One of our officials had to go on a course to a certain country in Europe and he was due to leave two or three weeks later. He then got in touch with this man some weeks after we had heard of him for the first time; nobody was sent specifically to get in touch with him, but it so happened that an official was going to Europe on a course. This official then got in touch with him but he received no satisfaction. Eventually we got in touch with him again and I think also a third time, and it was then decided that we would try this out and he then came to South Africa.

But the accusation which was made against us, and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made here, is that there is no co-operation between Military Intelligence and the Security Branch. Hon. members may perhaps say that it was an error of judgment on our part that he was left alone here in the Cape for ten days—not a month. He left Pretoria on 26 April and on 6 May we received a letter from France asking us to get in touch with him here. In other words, it was for ten days, from 26 to 6, that no eye was kept on him here. If hon. members contend that we should have had somebody following him here during that time, then they can say that it was an error of judgment on our part. But it certainly has not been proved that there was any lack of co-operation between the police and ourselves. The statement that we know all about this man and that the police did, is also incorrect. The police did say that if they know in 1962 what Plotz says he know, they could have arrested certain persons, and with that I agree; I think they could have done so and I said so when I spoke here last, but nobody was aware of this, not even the Sunday Times. Plotz now says that he know it. Somebody wants to know why I called him a comedian the other day. I did so because this fine detective alleges that he was unable to make contact in Pretoria either with the police or with our Intelligence Division and that that is why he simply disappeared. Surely that is farcical, and that is why I said what I did. [Interjections.] Is there anything else which is not clear yet?

Now I come to the other matter, which is a serious one, and that is the question of the Cillie Report. Let me say this very clearly: The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) wants to know who asked for that inquiry. Let me say here candidly that the request came from two very senior officers and one of our public servants. Those three people really asked for the inquiry because Schwartz had accused them.

That is precisely what I said.

The terms of reference of the inquiry committee were to inquire into and report upon alleged irregularities and charges of corruption in the South Africa Defence Force and the Department of Defence with reference to the purchase of military equipment. This inquiry was held in camera because the names of very many oversea firms were mentioned in the evidence. For days on end I considered the possibility—and I instructed my officials to consider the possibility—of laying this report on the Table of the House but with all those names expunged from it, without mutilating the report to such an extent that nobody would then be able to make head or tail out of it. I am not prepared to make public the names of the firms which are mentioned in the report. The inquiry was not held to ascertain whether firm X in country Y had done the wrong thing; the terms of reference were to inquire whether there had been corruption in our Defence Force, and I can give the House the assurance that as far as the Defence Force is concerned those people emerged from the inquiry with flying colours. This was how the Judge summed it up (and what more do hon. members want?)—

Hear, hear!

This statement to which I have referred previously then goes on to say that the few individuals referred to in the last paragraph—this concerns one or two cases where, according to the finding of the commission, people had been guilty of irregularities—had not been motivated by corruption. That was the commission’s finding. Here I am referring to the report. There is one example where a member of the Defence Force had allegedly stated that another member of the Defence Force had acted stupidly. This matter was discussed by the commission but it had absolutely nothing to do with purchases or with corruption and the Judge remarked that this particular member of the Defence Force had acted irregularly because he had said this about high-ranking officers and because he had meddled in the affairs of a branch of the Defence Force which had nothing to do with him. Then we go further. The statement goes on to say—

This is not a quotation. This is what I say, but it also comes out in the statement—

However, let us say no more about those three people; they appeared before the court and everybody knows what happened. Sir, it is my duty in very difficult times to acquire for the defence of South Africa the arms that we need. Complaints are constantly lodged with the United Nations about countries which sell arms to us. I do not propose to reveal the names of those countries; I cannot and dare not allow the names of the agents of those countries to be mentioned here. [Interjections.] My whole contention is that if I had to Table that report, those names would have to be expunged, but there are whole chapters dealing with this matter, in which reference is made to the people to whom I have referred here. The names of certain people, certain countries and certain business men are mentioned. I am not going to reveal those names here, and I assume the responsibility towards South Africa in this House for refusing to do so.

The hon. member for Point has tried to drag me into a scandal.

No, I want to kill a scandal.

The hon. member asked me whether the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and I had had a chat with this Mr. Schwartz.

No, I asked whether the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had not discussed it with the Minister before he went overseas with an arms agent

He discussed it with me and he also brought Schwartz to see me. [Interjections.] Wait a moment; let me say this: Day in and day out I am approached by people who allege that they can acquire arms for South Africa—and they believe that they can because they are honourable people. The position is no longer quite so bad to-day but a few months ago it was unbearable. Every day people of high standing in this country used to approach me and say, “Jim, I see you are having difficulty in obtaining arms, but I know that Tom, Dick or Harry will be able to get everything you want for you.” I no longer believe these stories, but as a responsible person I had to find out to start with whether there might not be something in this story—and I do no think anybody will hold that against me. When this man Schwartz alleged that he could get arms for South Africa, I said, “very well, let him come and see me.” He then came to my office in Pretoria; I listened to his story, and when he left I said, “If in your travels you find out that there is something that you can sell to South Africa, submit an offer to us in black and white, but there is one thing that you must understand perfectly clearly and that is that you are not going to Europe or anywhere else in the world as a representative of the South African Government; we have nothing whatsoever to do with you.”

Where does Herman come into it then?

He was present; he brought him to me. I cannot see what is wrong with it. This commission of inquiry did not investigate all these people who had said to me that they were able to get arms for me. If the commission had to investigate all those people, it would have sat another 20 years because this thing is going on continually; only to-day again I discussed three cases of that kind, and as a responsible person I simply cannot reject any such proposition. Of course, I have come so accustomed to it of late that when they start talking to me I fill my pipe and listen with one ear only; we have become accustomed to these stories. Sir, that is the whole truth. This commission investigated whether there had been corruption in our Defence Force and specifically whether there had been corruption on the part of three of our most brilliant officials. They asked for this inquiry and they got it, and not only they but the whole of the Defence Force, except for these few fellows I have mentioned, emerged from the inquiry with flying colours.

We still do not know what the role of the Deputy Minister was.

As far as I am concerned, his role was that of any decent member of this House or of the public who comes to me and says: “I hear you are struggling to get arms; here I have a man who says that he can get arms for you.” [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Defence is a very pleasant person and a man to whom South Africa owes a debt of gratitude because I think that our armed forces have greatly improved since he became Minister. But if I had a case against me, I should not like to have the hon. the Minister defending me. I must say that we have this afternoon heard a completely different story about Plotz to the one which we heard the other day, a completely new story. When the hon. the Minister had finished speaking, the matter was even less clear to this side of the House than before. The hon. the Minister evaded all the pertinent questions which were put to him. He said somebody was not sent overseas specially to interview Plotz, but he has not yet told us what happened there, which was, apparently, so important that Plotz flew from there to South Africa. That is what we want to know.

I will tell you. Plotz said he know that this fellow Bob had something to do with Communism.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us the man’s surname and not only his Christian name. In connection with the report of the Commission of Inquiry the hon. the Minister said that he would not mention the names of the countries or firm involved. But no responsible Opposition would ask him to divulge that information. We have never asked him for information of that nature. What we did ask was that he should publish that portion of the report clearing the names of members of our armed forces so that we and South Africa would know that they were honourable people. The hon. the Minister also spoke about the hon. the Deputy Minister and tried to explain what happened. He said that the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) was trying to involve him in gossip, but it appears to me that the hon. member for Point was speaking the truth because the hon. the Minister said that he was continually being approached by every Tom, Dick and Harry who said that they could obtain weapons for South Africa. I think that he should have said Tom, Dick, Harry and Herman! [Laughter.] The hon. the Minister told us that there was a discussion where Schwartz and Herman were present, and then Schwartz and Herman travelled together. There is something else which surprises me. The hon. the Minister told us that the Commission of Inquiry had nothing to do with the matter but I understood that the hon. the Deputy Minister had said, according to a Press report, that the Commission know everything about it. [Interjections.] The longer the hon. the Minister spoke, the more confused he became. The hon. the Minister is a friendly man but if ever I find myself in trouble he will be the last person whom I shall get to defend me.

There is just one point that I want to rectify. The hon. the Minister said that the people in South Africa are grateful to him for the good which he has done for the country, for what he has done in the way of training ballotees and for having strengthened our armed forces. This side of the House appreciates those things just as much. We want to tell the hon. the Minister that we think that these are two of the best things that have happened in this country—the strengthening of our armed forces and the fact that South Africa is in a position to defend herself.

Does Ross also say so?

Everyone on this side of the House says so. In a previous world war, when it was necessary to defend South Africa, we were all there to defend South Africa. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) was also there, but where was the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman? [Interjections.]

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the hon. member an opportunity to make her speech.

Order! I hope the hon. member is directing his appeal to both sides of the House.

The hon. the Minister has said that parents throughout South Africa have thanked him. We agree, but the hon. the Minister must not summarily brush aside the criticism which is levelled against him here. I should appreciate it if he would take a little more notice of that criticism.

I want to deal now with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) to the effect that the Government has not been able to foresee the difficulties which would spring from swift economic expansion and that it has neglected, inter alia, to take into proper consideration the daily increasing problems and grievances of all sections of the population. Two things have been linked up by hon. members opposite during this debate. Ministers, backbenchers and others spoke about the coming provincial elections and of the opportunism of the United Party. The hon. the Minister of Finance was the main speaker in this regard. He made me think of a small boy who has found a new toy and when the word “opportunism” rolled from his lips it appeared to me to be the first time that he had heard the word. And that side of the House, that strong party, that rocklike Government, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Nationalist Party which has always been right and has never deviated from its course, which has always gone straight ahead and which has never made a mistake … (Hear, hear!). I think that their “hear, hear!” is a trifle premature. How right was the Nationalist Party during the last war? How right was the hon. the Prime Minister then? How right was the whole Nationalist Party when they believed that Hitler would win?

Nonsense.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK: How right was the hon. the Prime Minister when he wrote one article after the other in Die Transvaler to the effect that we should withdraw from the war. … [Interjections.]

Order!

If the Nationalist Party has been right, what would the result have been for South Africa? The world would have been in chains and we would have been a slave and freedom would have been a thing of the past. Have hon. members opposite ever considered how wrong they actually were? [Interjection.] It is a good thing that they were wrong. The Nationalist Party were opposed to immigration. Do hon. members remember what the hon. the Prime Minister said? He said that immigrants would take our homes and our employment and eat our food. [Interjection.] I think that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would be better advised to give his attention to the difficulties in his own Department. The Nationalist Party stopped immigration. The hon. the Minister of Immigration is not here at the moment. [Interjection.] They said then that immigrants would take our houses and our employment and eat our food but now we have a Minister of Immigration who travels throughout the world seeking immigrants! The Government is spending thousands of rands in this regard but there is this difference. When the United Party wanted immigrants, Europe was in ruins and its people were starving and living in cellars and they were without work and food. They were ready to come to South Africa. South Africa must have seemed like a paradise to them. This was the position in Holland, in France, in England, in Scotland, in Italy, in Germany and in every country. We could have had the best of them, but who will come to South Africa today? [Interjection.]

Order!

Which years is the hon. member referring to now?

I am speaking about the period from 1947 to 1950 inclusive. Those were the years in which we obtained the best people and in which we could have obtained the best immigrants. The lives of those people were disrupted owing to the war. They were prepared to come to a new haven because 90 per cent of them had to start life anew and South Africa must have seemed like a paradise to them. We could have had thousands of the best of them to strengthen the White population here. The Government is seeking immigrants to-day and we have been particularly lucky because we have obtained immigrants from other African countries where it has become impossible for these people to stay. When that fountain dries up, where are we going to obtain immigrants from? People overseas are assured of a living today. Will they leave what they have to come here? This is something for which I and South Africa and future generations will never forget the Nationalist Party—that they dammed up the stream of immigrants to this country, people who could have ensured the safety of the Whites here. That is a crime for which the South African people will never forgive that Party. The Nationalist Party has always been wrong in this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of the gold standard debacle. The Nationalist Party said that we should remain on the gold standard—that party which is never wrong! Do you recall that thousands of farmers and others were ruined economically as a result of that policy and that in the end the Government had to leave the gold standard?

[Inaudible.]

I think that the hon. member for Karas (Mr. Von Moltke) should rather go back to the synagogue and break in there.

Order!

At the time of the gold standard a depression struck this country, particularly the farming population, a depression such as we have never experienced since that time. Thousands of farmers had to dispose of their land; they were robbed of their land as a result of the policy of the Nationalist Party. But not only was that Party wrong in that regard. They were wrong in the case of the Asiatics. You will remember that they said: “The coolies must leave the country.” Do you still remember their promise—that when the Nationalist Party came into power, during the week following their election Durban Bay would be crammed with ships so that the Asiatics could be repatriated? Do you remember who had most to say? It was the hon. the Minister who administers the portfolio of Indian Affairs to-day. He was the person who had most to say in connection with that matter. He was the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. What has happened to-day? He is Minister of Indian Affairs to-day and the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. He is also the leader of the Indians now. That is the party which said the Indians should be removed from the country. The other day the hon. the Minister of Information invited members of Parliament to a film show organized by his Department, and there, on the screen, I saw, inter alia, “Asian South Africans”; in other words, instead of their having been removed from the country they have now been given citizenship rights! You see, Sir, the Nationalist Party is always wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Karas is never silent.

Order!

You know what I asked him to do just now; I shall not repeat it! The Nationalist Party does all these things and then tries to cover up what it has done. But this is not all that it has done. The Nationalists said: “The coolies must be removed from the country and the kaffirs must be put in their place”, and that was to be the basis of their policy. The basis of their policy was apartheid. Just as they were wrong about the Indian question and the gold standard and immigration and the war and all these other matters, so they were also wrong as far as their apartheid policy was concerned. The result of the Nationalist Party’s policy is that friction must of necessity arise between Black and White, between the Whites and any race of a different colour. The Nationalist Party simply cannot have a policy which does not cause friction. That is why they believe in apartheid. According to them, apartheid was segregation of the races in the economic and physical spheres. There had to be complete and positive segregation, The Black man had to be in his area and the White man in his. Then they took that ill-considered and irresponsible shot in the dark of establishing the Bantustans or, I should say, of establishing one Bantustan with a promise of other Bantustans to come. The Transkei was given the promise of full independence and it was said then that the other Bantustans would follow later. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that the next Bantustan would come within a year. But before the hon. the Prime Minister’s first baby could walk, when it was still learning to crawl, he realized that he had been wrong; he realized that it would be impossible to carry this process of segregation through to the end; he realized then that the White man could never win in this segregation process. I think this became clear to the Nationalist Party and so that policy came to a halt. But at the same time as that policy was coming to a standstill, more non-Whites and still more Bantu were entering the White man’s area Then this Government made provisions whereby even more would be able to enter the White areas in the future. The hon. the Minister of Planning told us yesterday about the economic planning programme. He told us that that plan makes provision whereby 120,000 Bantu will enter the White man’s area annually and will be absorbed in the White man’s economy. Then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development came along with the story that the Bantu would not start leaving the White areas immediately as was originally the intention; they would start leaving the White areas in 1978. Even later we learnt that the turning point might only be reached in the year 2000. Sir, which of the hon. members sitting here will still be alive by the year 2000?

Gerhard Bekker.

In other words, the Government is planning for unborn generations. The Bantustan idea, the cornerstone of their policy, the idea of complete segregation, has gradually come to a dead end. When will the next Bantustans be established? What has become of Zululand?

Why do you have so few seats?

That hon. member is dreaming again; he asks why we have so few seats. We are not talking about seats; we are talking about the Bantustan policy of the Government. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told us that Zululand would be the next Bantustan; why are they so quiet about Zululand now? The positive segregation of which they spoke has now come to a dead end. Why? Because Gatsha Butelezi was one too many for the hon. the Minister; the Zulus were one too many for him. They support one another too much. It was not as easy to convince them as it was to convince Kaiser Matanzima. The hon. the Minister has come up against a brick wall and now the policy is again gradually beginning to change; the wind of change is blowing on the other side again just as it always blows through the Nationalist Party; that party is no longer the boat which is in the middle of the stream, as the hon. the Prime Minister told us was the case; it is now becoming the wind of change. It is no longer positive and physical segregation which counts; it is political segregation which counts. In other words, they are beginning to give up hope. Even before this first baby, the Transkei, has started walking, they have realized what it is going to do; that small baby is going to get out of hand and they are afraid of a few other babies which might get out of hand. Accordingly they remain quiet about this matter. We hear the story to-day that the Bantustans must develop in their own way. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told us, almost with tears in his eyes: “The United Party is forgetting the soul of the Bantu; we must take the soul of the Bantu into account.” He told us how the other churches and nations had lost their cause in Central Africa because they had not taken the soul of the Bantu into consideration. He told us that they must be permitted to develop in their own way in their own area; he does not want to withhold from them anything which he wants for himself; he will never be so unjust as to prevent their claiming what he claims for himself. Sir, what is this own way in which they are going to develop? We know that the development which they have undergone up to the present has been as a result of their association with the White man under our South African traditions. We know that in the past the White man divided everything that he had with the Bantu; when our forefathers built a church for themselves they built a church for the Coloureds and later for the Bantu. We know that when they built a school for White children a school was built for Coloureds also and later for the Bantu. We know that when a post office was built the non-Whites were permitted to make use of its amenities. When a hospital was built, wings were also built for non-Whites. Provision was made on the railways for carriages in which the non-Whites could travel. But the story which the Nationalist Party is telling in South Africa to-day is that the non-Whites must develop in their own way. I want to come back to the film show to which the hon. the Minister was kind enough to invite us. What did we see there. A long film. What was the name of the film? It was called “From Spear to Javelin”. What did we see in that film? We saw school children dressed in Western clothing doing exercises in the Western way; we saw children playing tennis, riding bicycles, playing and participating in various competitions; we saw Bantu competing in a cycling match and throwing the javelin. What is their own way of development? That is not their own way of development. What has become of the soul of the Bantu? What becomes of the soul of the Bantu when he has to ride a bicycle? What becomes of the soul of the Bantu when he plays tennis or rugby? Sir, if the Bantu are asked to develop in their own way, they must have some direction in which to develop and if they do not choose our way of development, the way of development which we White people have taught them since we came to South Africa, then they must choose another way of development. May they not choose the way of development of Africa? Hon. members opposite find it so easy to say: “Look at Ghana; look at the Congo.” It is true that there is murder, confusion and cruelty there. That is quite true, but why is it true? It is true because the Whites have left those countries and that is what hon. members on that side want. They want us to withdraw from the non-Whites in South Africa. What is going to save our own Bantu, our Coloureds and Asiatics in South Africa? I can tell you that it is going to be their association with the White man in South Africa. What will save them is the fact that they will stand together with us and have our leadership not only in saving ourselves but also in saving them. The White man can give them peace and stability and economic progress and Christendom and Western traditions. We are their inspiration. We are the only civilization throughout Africa which has any hope of stability. We are the people who can offer them a rich and promising future. Sir, the Nationalist Party talks of “one man, one vote” and they also talk of equal rights. That is what they promise. When it comes to words, they build a tabernacle of words. They make so many promises to the public. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that I do not have the time to go into the election speech made here by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I want to deal in the first place with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I also want to avail myself of the opportunity, an opportunity which is not often granted to me, to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) for the friendly compliment which he paid to me personally yesterday and therefore also to my Government. The hon. member referred yesterday to an interview given by me to a Durban newspaper in which I encouraged the public of South Africa to increase their investments and to spend more on consumer goods. I admit that I gave that interview, an interview which, according to the hon. member for Constantia, is supposed to have given rise to the tremendous growth which has subsequently followed, with all the consequences which have flowed from it. And look where we stand to-day! I admit that I gave that interview and that I said, as any economist would probably have done, that if we wished to accelerate the tempo of development of the economy of South Africa, then there must be increased investments and increased expenditure by the public on consumer goods. Let me say to the hon. member that I will give the same sort of advice to the people of South Africa whenever we are faced with similar circumstances; and whenever I think the time has come when we should place a damper on the growth potential or the stimulus of the economy by means of a reduction of investments by restricting our purchasing power, then I will not hesitate either to recommend one or the other or both. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Constantia that the public heeded my advice at that time and that they paid no attention to the prophecies of hon. members on the other side.

In the second place I want to congratulate the hon. member for Constantia most heartily on his candidness in admitting here that we are living in a period of great prosperity.

For whom?

Our prosperity, according to him, has become unmanageable, but the hon. member for Constantia nevertheless stated clearly that we were living in a period of great prosperity. It was courageous of him to make that admission, because hitherto the prosperity of South Africa has been a source of great embarrassment to the United Party; it is something which they have refused to admit. In spite of clear evidence of prosperity they refused to talk about it; they ran away from it; they tried to close their eyes to the evidence of prosperity, but that evidence cropped up again and again like a bad conscience. When they did start to talk about the prosperity of South Africa, when they could no longer deny that it existed, they always talked about it critically, derisively, disparagingly and in a belittling way; they did not talk about “prosperity” in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others talked about “a measure of prosperity” and “signs of prosperity” they did not talk about a “boom” but about a “so-called boom in South Africa”.

I want to go back now to a few observations made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He and others have tried to belittle the prosperity of South Africa by saying that it is true that we have prosperity here but that there are other countries which are enjoying much greater prosperity, countries such as West Germany and Japan, for example. The figures that I have studied, however, prove, when we look at the gross national product of the various nations, that the only country whose gross national product increased more over that period than ours is Japan. The comparative figures that I have been able to get are in respect of the years 1961 to 1963. But when I convert those figures, which were taken at ruling prices, to constant prices, if I take into account the price increases in those various countries, then I find an entirely different picture. In other words, when I take the real gross product, the real national income of those countries, then I find the following position: The real annual increase in the gross national product in the United States was 4.7, in the United Kingdom 1.7, in Australia 3.5, in Japan 4.35, in Western Germany 4.6, and in South Africa 9.15 per cent. In other words, when we take the real national income of these countries and other comparable countries over that period, then we find that South Africa stands head and shoulders above any other country.

Will you give us the figures for the period 1951 to 1961?

The hon. member knows that I cannot give him those figures immediately but I am prepared to give them to him later on. Sir, when we talked about the boom that we were experiencing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “That is nothing; other countries are much better off.” On another occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I da not hold it against him because he was addressing a women’s club in Johannesburg, the Witwatersrand Women’s Council of the United Party …

They were not your type, Sannie.

Were they inferior?

They were ladies.

No, I have nothing against these ladies; my quarrel is with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Order! What did the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) mean?

I mean that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was addressing ladies. I was not insinuating anything.

On that occasion, according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 18 November the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

“So-called boom”! Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refer to our prosperity as a “so-called boom”?—

The reason for the short life of the so-called boom …

Read the rest of the sentence.

I will read out the whole sentence—

Why does the hon. member talk about a “so-called boom” when we all know that South Africa at the present time is experiencing a boom, a period of economic buoyancy, which is almost unprecedented in our history and in the history of most other countries? Let me quote to you, Sir, what appeared in a famous German newspaper: “Süd-Afrika erlebt Wirtschftswunder” (South Africa experiencing economic miracle). A writer in the Financial Times writes of the “incredible boom”; and says that “the change is fantastic in South Africa”. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes along and tells a women’s association that this boom in South Africa is only a “so-called boom”. At a time when we have reached new peaks as far as our production is concerned, as far as employment opportunities, transport facilities, consumer spending and investments are concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and ridicules our prosperity and belittles the great potential of our country. But not content with that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

“The short life of the so-called boom.”In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was already writing off this “boom”. Does he not know that this period of prosperity in South Africa is already entering its fourth year? This is one of the longest periods of prosperity that we have ever had in this country. Let me quote what the Reserve Bank says in this connection—

I can advance the excuse for my hon. friend that he was addressing a gathering of ladies and that he wanted to make an impression upon them. I believe, however, that amongst those ladies there were also very intelligent people who know what the facts were and who would not have been impressed by his exaggerated language. But, Sir, the people whom l blame are hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and others, not so much the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is pre-occupied with political issues and it was the duty of the hon. members for Constantia and Jeppes and others to keep him informed as to the economic situation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went a little further, and now we come to a few blatant allegations—

He then mentioned a few figures to show how the cost of living in South Africa was allegedly rising in comparison with previous years. He wanted to frighten the public with this story about “the soaring cost of living”. This is what he said—

Housing costs.

Very well, housing costs—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, if he was correctly reported, but I saw that figure in various other newspapers as well.

That is the figure for Johannesburg.

This is what the Press says; it does not say that the figure refers to Johannesburg. The report reads—

What are the facts as far as South Africa is concerned?

That is wrong. Meat prices have risen by 25 per cent.

Let us just check these figures for a moment and give a little clarity to the public outside who might have been misled by this newspaper report. I accept that that is not what the hon. member said. According to the official index of the Bureau of Census and Statistics, housing went up by 2.77 per cent from the third quarter in 1963 to the third quarter in 1964; house rent went up by 3.8 per cent; flat rents went up by 1.7 per cent during the same period. These are the official figures. Food prices did not rise by 25 per cent over that period, but increased by 9.7 per cent from December 1963 to December 1964.

He had the wrong notes.

I admit that costs have been rising …

Salaries have increased.

This increase has taken place in all countries of the world. As far as South Africa is concerned, there has been a smaller rise in the cost of living than in most countries of the world. During the nine years of United Party rule prices increased by an average of 5.3 per cent per annum. So far the increase during our period of office has been 1.3 per cent. Over the period 1959 to 1963 the average increase was 1.5 per cent per annum. It was only in the year 1964 that there was a big increase, an increase of 3.26 per cent. The main factor responsible for that increase was the increase in food prices, which increased by 6.47 per cent during that year. If we exclude food prices, which rose considerably because of climatic conditions, we find that the other items rose by 1.94 per cent, that is to say, less than 2 per cent.

I thought you said 9.7 per cent?

I never spoke about 9.7 per cent. [Interjections.] That was over a different period. It still remains a fact that food prices in South Africa are the lowest in the world. Everybody who has travelled overseas knows that that is so. The C.S.I.R. recently caused a scientific investigation to be instituted, and the results of that investigation, which were published widely in the newspapers of South Africa, proved that “the cost of living in South Africa was the lowest in the world”. The Financial Times of London also published an article in which a comparison was made of the cost of living in the various countries of the world. That article proved that the cost-of-living index figure for Johannesburg was one of the lowest in the world, that is to say, 41 as against 86 in the case of a city like Tokyo, 84 in the case of Stockholm and 80 in the case of Helsinki, etc.

And the wife of the postal messenger has to struggle hard to make ends meet.

I am not out to catch votes; I am giving hon. members the facts.

We come now to the most important point. While we all concede that prices have risen in recent times, that they are rising and that food prices have risen, I want to say at the same time that it is not only the prices of consumer commodities which have risen; salaries and wages have also increased, the income of the South African population is rising at a faster rate than the cost of living is. [Interjections.] Surely hon. members know that that is so. It is clear from the Bulletins of the Reserve Bank that our national income over the past year has risen by 6 per cent to 7 per cent and that the real income per head of the population has risen by 3½ per cent. In other words, as far as goods and services are concerned, the South African citizen, on a per capita basis, is 3½ per cent richer. That is the interpretation of every economist. I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with me. The official figures show that the real income of South Africa per head of the population has risen by 31 per cent.

Not for the individual.

That fact is borne out by the savings funds of South Africa. South Africa has always been able in recent years to save more than 30 per cent of her national income every year. Would that have been possible if people were poverty-stricken and living below the breadline?

I come now to the questions raised by my hon. friend with regard to wages and salaries. Here again I want to take the figures for a specific period, from September 1962 to September 1964. This is the period in respect of which I have been able to get comparable figures.

You should take the same period in respect of which you gave us figures a moment ago.

-The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: I am sorry I cannot do so because I have been unable to get the figures for the other things. I had to take the wage figures which were available to me and I therefore also had to take the corresponding cost-of-living figures. During that period, from September 1962 to September 1964, the consumers’ price index rose by 4.8 per cent. But what happened to salaries and wages in various sectors in respect of which I have been able to trace the figures? There was an increase of 4.8 per cent in the cost of living. In the Railway Service wages and salaries increased over that period by 7.6 per cent, in the Post Office by 14.9 per cent, in the manufacturing industry by 8 per cent, in mines and quarries by 11.1 per cent and in construction works by 21.6 per cent. These five sectors of our economy probably embrace the great bulk of our workers and in every one of these sectors the percentage increase in wages was considerably higher than the percentage increase in the cost of living according to the consumer price index. I hope that replies to my hon. friend’s question, “What about the worker?” I contend that the rise in the cost of living in South Africa has been more than compensated for by the increase in wages in most sectors of our economy, and in making this allegation I do not stand alone; there are others who agree with me. I refer to a speech which was made by a person in the employ of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Van der Merwe, who is the manager of the Chamber of Commerce—

He then goes on to say—

Sir, this man has no political motives. As manager of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce he was submitting a report here to his Chamber, in which he points out that the increase in wages in the main sectors of our economy has more than kept pace with the rise in the cost of living and that the real income of our people has increased by 4.8 per cent. I do not deny that there is a price problem, but I contend that there is no scarcity of goods in South Africa. There is a plentiful supply of practically everything in South Africa, and we as a Government will do everything in our power, with the powers we have at our disposal, to control any unnecessary and unwarranted increases in prices in this country. We are in a position to do so by means of price control. We can perhaps do it by means of greater relaxation of import control. We can, if it appears to be necessary, institute credit control and various other forms of control. Hon. members are aware, of course, that we are already making use of import control in order to make goods more readily available in this country. As a result of this relaxation, our imports have increased by 50 per cent over the past two years, and in this way we have made some contribution towards combating the possibility of inflation. We will also make use of import control as and when our exchange reserves permit of it, as a means of obviating a scarcity of goods. We can make use of import control. I do not know whether hon. members on the other side would like it, because last year when we introduced the Price Control Act here, hon. members opposite strenuously opposed it. We can make use of various methods and we can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that we will make use of the methods we have at our disposal. But there is another thing I want to say. We are living in a free enterprise country. We are living in a country in which we still have capitalism, as we know it. We are not living in a socialistic country and we do not want to be accused of interfering with the economy to such an extent that we make inroads upon the principle of private enterprise in our country or in such a way that we do permanent harm to the economy of our country. If that were to happen then hon. members opposite would be the first to criticize us. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth-South (Mr. Plewman) would probably be the first to get up and accuse us of making excessive use of the powers that the Government has in order to undermine the principle of private enterprise in South Africa.

My time has almost expired. Let me just add this: It is not only up to the Government to combat price increases. For our part we will make use of the powers we have, within the limits of the policy of private enterprise, but the public also has a contribution to make in this connection. The public can help much more. By using its consumer power, its purchasing power, more judiciously, more wisely and more conservatively, the public can do much to save more in the interests of the country under present-day circumstances. If we want to have continued stability and further development in our present economic situation, then we will need more capital in the future. I think we should make an appeal to the public here to-day to save for the prosperity of tomorrow.

As far as the workers are concerned, they have always been sensible in the past in putting forward wage demands. We hope that in the future they will also be as sensible as they have been in the past: that they will realize that exaggerated and unwarranted wage demands, if acceded to, would promote inflation, which would be to their detriment too, and that the only road to increased income is by way of increased productivity, the road of hard work that we are all going to follow in the future.

I think our business men can also do more in this connection. Our business men can do very much more to combat inflation by eliminating all avoidable costs, by achieving more efficiency in production and distribution through good management and organization and by making the best use of the labour at their disposal; by competing less with each other as far as the salaries of employers are concerned, and particularly by exercising selfcontrol in respect of prices and profits.

In this way and in many other ways our business men can co-operate, and we have decided , because we believe that business men play an important role in this matter of price increases, to convene a meeting of the various business organizations in South Africa; we as a Government will have discussions in the near future with the business men of South Africa to see how we can co-operate, how we can co-operate, to bring about the object that we all have in view and that is to prevent unnecessary price increases in this country.

Sir, I conclude by saying that we are living in a period of great prosperity although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refuses to admit it. This prosperity has meant a great deal to us; it has brought with it not only a higher standard of living, not only greater security, but it has also earned greater respect and greater prestige for us in the outside world. The outside world has learned to know the people of South Africa as people who know what they want, as people who are capable of implementing their ideas, as people who will be valuable as allies in war and peace; as a country with tremendous drive. This prosperity has brought prestige for us in the outside world, and it is a factor which gives us added security as far as our survival as a nation in South Africa is concerned.

I regret that I cannot follow the hon. the Minister because I want to discuss something quite different, viz. the education policy for Whites in South Africa. In this regard I could very easily have spoken about the various branches of education, where the Government is so vulnerable. I could have spoken about the general dissatisfaction in regard to educational organization and practices, or I could have spoken about the present relationship between general and vocational education, which is anything but sound. I could have spoken about the defective and antiquated methods in our education, particularly in secondary education. I could have spoken about the gap between secondary education and our universities. I could have spoken about the absence of sufficient facilities for the training of our future farmers. I could have spoken about the deficient training facilities for men and women teachers. I could have spoken about the antiquated examination system under this Government. I could have spoken about the meagre financial contributions by the State to our schools and universities and the provinces, and the great shortage of well-qualified men and women teachers. All these things can, however, soon be remedied by a decent Government such as sits on this side of the House, but if the education philosophy of a Government which is in power is wrong, it will take many years before it can be changed or remedied. Therefore I think it is necessary once again, before the provincial elections, to give the people, the voters, the opportunity to review the policies both of that side and this side of the House in regard to the education of Whites. I think that is justified, and therefore I make no excuse for referring to this matter again at this stage.

There are two main approaches in principle in so far as the two parties are concerned. We have the principle, the basis of the policy of the party opposite, where they set out their policy of Christian National Education in 1948—and one of the dignitaries at the time was the present Minister of Finance. I have the English text here. It says, inter alia—

In other words, the Nationalist Party does not wish to have any mixture of languages, of religion, of culture or of races. [Interjection.] The child must also be educated and prepared in such a way that he can comply with the requirements of the State. That is the standpoint of the Nationalist Party in regard to education.

As against that, the object of the United Party is to develop the child’s full potentialities, i.e. intellectually, morally, physically and spiritually; in other words, what is known in English in the education philosophy or language as libertarian, i.e. the freedom of the individual. That is what the United Party bases its education policy on. The policy of my hon. friends opposite is known in the English education language as authoritarian, i.e. where the child is perpetually subject to the demands of the State. It would be unscientific of me or any member of this House to ignore these differences. We must simply take them into consideration, and we must act in such a way that we try to satisfy both points of view. I want to state that the United Party policy is the most scientific and educational approach to this problem, and it is also an approach which is acceptable of those who think differently.

May I ask the hon. member: That philosophy which you now attach to us, does it come from our policy, or from a pamphlet which was issued, or what?

I have already mentioned it. You are now wasting my time. I stated what I was quoting from, and I am not going to cook my pumpkin twice, because I have not the time. The hon. member may tell me so if that is not his policy. But as far as I know, that is the Nationalist Party policy. In order to implement his philosophy, the present Government has been trying for years already to put into practice two of its main principles. Two of its main principles which it has been implementing for the past 16 years already are firstly, the establishment of single-medium schools, and secondly, central control over all education. The United Party is violently opposed to this.

To mother tongue education?

The United Party is violently opposed to this basis of the policy of the Nationalist Party, because we regard the approach of that party to the education of our young people, of our sons and daughters, as being narrow and unnational and as an attempt to misuse the philosophy or ideology of the Nationalist Party in order to promote the unnational Nationalist Party ideology of separating (afkraling) our school-going youth in separate institutions. For that reason we are opposed to it.

Secondly, the United Party opposes the policy of the Nationalist Party of placing all education under a single central control. The Nationalist Party knows that. This is not the first time that we have quarrelled about it. We believe that the provinces should continue as in the past to control primary and secondary education, and we go even further: In order to have the necessary liaison, the United Party says that we ought to place all primary and all secondary education, including vocational training and technical education, under the provincial councils. The United Party is also fully conscious of the dangers of uniformity in a country with two races or two languages, a uniformity which my hon. friends opposite seek to bring about because they want to place education under one central control. In our opinion, diversification of approach in regard to education in the provinces has hitherto worked very well and it has not thwarted the process of national unification. Or are there hon. members opposite who want to allege that the responsible bodies, our provinces, are not true South Africans, or do not have a true South African approach to our education? Will they allege that our provinces are not imbued with a true patriotic spirit, or that they do not produce a genuine South African spirit or product in their schools? Do some of them allege that? The product may perhaps not bear the stamp of dangerous uniformity, but who will say that the product in the Transvaal is inferior to the product in the Cape Province? Or who will say, e.g. that the approach in the Orange Free State is less national or South African than the approach in Natal? I fear, as I have already said, that the object of my hon. friend opposite is not to achieve true South Africanism, but is merely an attempt to compel all provinces and schools to realize the Nationalist Party’s ideology of apartheid, of a fencing off in single-medium schools, and of racial division. It is nothing else but an attempt to perpetuate the existence of two separate White racial groups in South Africa, with all its disadvantages, dangers and bitterness. [Interjection.]

National unity, as against that, forms the basis of the United Party policy; that is the basis on which we have evolved our policy. Of course we thoroughly realize the obstacles, the dangers and the difficulties on that road, but we feel convinced that time, tact, consultation, tolerance and mutual appreciation of each other’s faults and respect for each other will contribute towards achieving a common fatherland and will eventually lead to a true, genuine and sound spirit of unity. In our opinion, an important requirement is the definite acceptance, by this side and that side by all responsible bodies, of the proposition that a sound education policy should be aimed at the vigorous promotion of racial co-operation with a view to eventual national unity or, to express it in more general terms, one nation with two common languages and one common fatherland, the Republic. Need I repeat that this principle of one nation and one fatherland is something which this side is very serious about and which is the guiding principle in our education policy?

Secondly, it is necessary for me to touch on the question of the medium of instruction and bilingualism. The home language or the mother tongue, particularly in the initial stage of a child’s school career, is regarded by us as the best medium of education, and that is recognized United Party policy, provided, however, that the right of the parent to make the final decision should not be affected under any circumstances. In other words, that right of the parent to make the final decision must be maintained.

All three are in conflict with all educational principles.

I come to the so-called educational principles. Although the mother tongue is universally recognized as the medium of instruction in South Africa, no scientific basis for it exists. Will my hon. friend deny that? There are many countries in the world which have different views in that respect, leading countries in the world, and it has no deleterious effect either on the child or on the nation as such.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.