I started last night by saying that it was my considered opinion that in spite of the fact that there is a tendency on the part of the Coloured voters in our country to veer towards the Progressive Party, I am convinced that the Government will not shirk its responsibilities towards the Coloured people. But it is a great pity that the Coloured Representatives in this House—and I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg)—are so absolutely negative in their actions in connection with the Coloured people. During the few years that we have been in this House, I have heard little else from the hon. member for Peninsula than accusations against the Government in connection with what he has regarded to be mistakes made by the Government in its dealings with the Coloured people. I have seldom heard him make a positive suggestion in connection with the real interests of the Coloured people or make a positive suggestion in regard to what can be done in this regard. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to say something about the mobilization of Coloured labour in the Western Province and in the Western Cape in general.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has since last year gone out of his way to say that our policy in regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape has been a complete failure. Sir, the fact that he represents a constituency like Sea Point is sufficient reason to maintain that he is not informed in regard to this whole matter. I want to say here this morning that we have made very good progress in regard to the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape and I want to mention a few facts. In the first instance, we have progressed to such an extent that we now have proper control over the influx of Bantu into the Western Cape. If the policy of the Government had not been implemented, I think that I can safely say that we would not have had 250,000 Bantu in the Western Cape today but probably 1,000,000, and then the position of the Coloured people would also have been greatly affected. We have proper control over the influx of Bantu into the Western Cape. In certain areas, particularly in the constituency which I represent, very good progress has been made in regard to the removal of Bantu. In 1959 in the Divisional Council area which includes the two districts of Vanrhynsdorp and Vredendal, there were about 3,000 Bantu; at the moment, there are about 1,400 there. In the fifties there were 5,000 Bantu in the Ceres district and that number has been brought down to about 700. During the season, that number is supplemented by contract labourers and the figure is then about 1,400. I want to mention another place in the district of Clanwilliam where there is the largest concentration of Bantu. At one stage there were 2,000 Bantu there and the Bantu population lived in an uncontrolled squatter community. Since that time action has been taken by the Town Council of Lamberts Bay and that Bantu population of 2,000 has been brought down to about 500 registered single Bantu workers who live there in a properly controlled small compound. Our problem in regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape lies more in our urban and industrial areas. The problem is greater there particularly as a result of the industrial expansion which we have experienced over the past years. But notwithstanding this fact, we have reached a position where the number of registered Bantu workers in the Western Cape is approximately 140,000. I want therefore to say this morning that we have made very good progress.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that to my way of thinking the question of the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape depends upon the mobilization and the co-ordination of Coloured labour in the same area. We have to deal with a Coloured population explosion in the Western Cape. I do not know whether hon. members are fully aware of the position but in the area of the Western Cape we have no fewer than 1,100,000 Coloureds, and here, in the Peninsula, there are no fewer than 500,000. We must further bear in mind the fact that towards the end of this century we shall have at least 1,000,000 Coloureds in the Peninsula, at the rate of the present increase. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our total White population is at present slightly more than 3,000,000 and the Coloured population is about 1,500,000, but the increase in the Coloured population is at present more or less the same as the increase in the White population.

Slightly more.

This gives us an idea of the position when the birthrate of 1,500,000 Coloureds is the same as the birthrate of 3,250,000 Whites. That is why I am not very concerned about the question of whether we will be able to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. I foresee that we shall be compelled to remove the Bantu in order to make space for our Coloured people and in order to make proper provision for them on the labour market.

At slave wages.

That hon. member’s remark is typical of the Coloured Representatives. Any form of manual labour is “slave labour” to him.

I said “slave wages”.

I want to say that the mobilization of Coloured labour is an integral part of the whole process of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape, and where we have this Coloured population with its very swift rate of increase, this is a matter which requires our very serious attention. I have always felt that we have a very good system of control over Bantu labour in the Western Cape but we do not as yet have this system in regard to Coloured labour. If someone dismisses a Bantu to-day, that Bantu can through the medium of the existing registration bureaux, the control offices, be employed by someone else to-morrow. But when someone dismisses a Coloured, that Coloured does not know where to go to look for work. He has to find someone to employ him and in times of a scarcity of work and of unemployment it happens that these people spend weeks at home because they do not know where to go and work. So I want to make the point this morning that there is a serious need for the proper co-ordination and control of Coloured labour. In this connection I also want to say that we have fortunately made good progress in that the Department of Labour has gone over to the establishment of a Directorate of Coloured Labour. I want heartily to congratulate the Government and the Departments concerned and thank them for this positive step. But where we are at the start of a new undertaking, which I am convinced will produce good fruit in due course. I should like to raise a few points which will at the same time be requests to the Government. I want to say that we must seriously consider the establishment of Coloured Labour Bureaux, whether under the Department of Coloured Affairs or under the Department of Labour. It appears to me that they should be established under the Department of Labour. These labour bureaux must eventually also take over the control of Bantu labour and Bantu administration in the Western Cape so that we will have one co-ordinated service. In my opinion this is very necessary. It does not help to say that the local magistrate is the representative concerned of the Department of Labour. My experience is that the local magistrates are overloaded with a tremendous amount of work and that they will simply be unable to perform these other tasks; nor do they have the staff available to develop the labour bureaux properly. That is why I hope that we will eventually have one central labour bureau in every magisterial district, or in a few magisterial districts together, which will not only exercise control over Bantu labour in the Western Cape but also over Coloured labour, and that we will concentrate particularly upon the mobilization of Coloured labour in the Western Cape.

The next point that I want to make, which is contingent upon what I have said, is that we should have a review and readjustment of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs. I have no accusations to make against the Department of Coloured Affairs which took over Coloured education recently, but, as we know, Coloured education has over the passage of our history always been an appendage of White education. The whole system of education in the Cape was adjusted to the potential, the intelligence and the ability of the White population, and the Coloured population had simply to go along with it. But if we want to employ the Coloured people properly and mobilize them properly as a labour force, it is my considered opinion that Coloured education must be reviewed and readjusted. I accept the fact that we will in due course have more high schools for our Coloured people but the ordinary high school with its academic flavour can at most serve 30 or 35 per cent of our Coloured youth. I see according to last night’s Argus that the Coloured Council is complaining about the results of the Junior Certificate examinations. They are disappointed in the results. Too many candidates failed and too few obtained first class passes. But there is an important reason for this and that is that the whole pattern of education is not adapted to the actual ability and potential of the Coloured people. We are inclined to accept the fact that they can all pass the Senior Certificate examination, but they cannot. Only a relatively small percentage can. That is why I should like to see the Department of Coloured Affairs reviewing the whole system of Coloured education and giving serious consideration to the establishment of intermediate trade schools where Coloured girls and boys can be taught simple work, taught to drive a car well, or a tractor, or to prune a tree, or whatever the case may be. There is such a wide variety of employment. We are living in a period of specialization. A man can make a good living to-day even though he is only a tractor driver or a lorry driver, and we need people like this. But even if a Coloured child has been at school for five or six years and has made hardly any progress, I think that he will still be too educated to do farm work or any manual labour. We must release our Coloured people from that pattern of thought.

We have further to deal with the problem of the skolly element amongst the Coloureds, ne’er-do-wells, drunkards, youthful unemployed persons who do not know where to go and work and who do not want to work either. That is why I want to make a third point and it is that the State should give serious consideration—the Department of Labour or Coloured Affairs—to the establishment of service depots for Coloureds. In the ’thirties we had our Special Service Battalions for Whites which produced excellent results. I think that we must give serious consideration to making depots of this nature available to magistrates so that before people reach the stage where they become criminals—because of vagrancy or drunkenness or similar offences which do not actually place them in the category of criminals—they can be sent to these institutions where they can be disciplined and formed and assisted to discover themselves. If one has not learnt to work one develops no self-respect; one does not discover oneself and one drifts through life aimlessly.

I want to make a fourth suggestion and that is that the State should give serious attention to the introduction of compulsory service for Coloureds. At the moment we accept our compulsory service for our White lads of 17 and 18 years of age but this is not the only form of compulsory service which we can have. We do not need our Coloured lads for military service; I am not advocating that. I am advocating the consideration of the introduction of compulsory service for every Coloured lad who reaches the age of 17 or 18 years so that he will at least do a year’s compulsory service. This can eventually be extended to the Coloured girls. It will give us an opportunity to prepare them for a task if they can be placed in an establishment at which there is proper discipline and where they can formulate a way of life. In this way we will make available a labour market for necessary service in various parts of the country, whether in agriculture or whatever the case may be. I personally think that up to the present the State has gone out of its way to convince the Coloured people that it means well with them and that it is prepared to spend millions on their welfare and progress. But I think that we have now reached the stage where we should tell the Coloureds that the time has come for them to accept co-responsibility for the welfare of the Republic and that they should also make a contribution in this regard. If we can get the Coloured people to accept co-responsibility for peace and prosperity in the country, for housing and for everything that they enjoy, they will also be more proud of their country and we will also find a greater allegiance to South Africa among them. South Africa is at their service but they also have a responsibility to develop the country as their inheritance.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who has just sat down would try to assist his Government to improve the general relationship with the Coloured people and not submit them to the experiences of which hon. members have complained for the last two or three days, then one might see some possible content in his concern for their future. How successful his advice is going to be in the light of what is taking place is very doubtful indeed. But I do agree with him about one thing, and that is that he is certainly becoming very conscious of the fact that with the possible improvement in the industrialization of the Cape the problem of labour is very important, and he is probably well aware of the failure of his Government’s policy of apartheid in this country, particularly in the industrial, commercial, mining and engineering complexes, and so he is trying to find a remedy to avoid the presence of the Bantu in this expanding economy. I should like to deal with this particular subject, but before doing so I should like to say that if hon. members opposite who have been lauding their efforts in the Provincial elections are taking comfort from the fact that their policies of independent sovereign Bantustans and the uprooting of the urban Bantu population as provided for in the Urban Areas Act. as amended over the last year or two, and the final stripping of their concern and their tolerance for the Coloured people has been accepted by the public, and that that brought about the result of the elections and thereby is an acceptance of those policies, then I am afraid they are in for a very rude shock. Far from accepting the Government’s policies, their propaganda, exploited not only in their own Press but over the only radio service we have in South Africa, a monopoly service, has created a psychological fear of the multi-racial complex of South Africa. They have endeavoured to instil into the public of South Africa a fear of competition and a fear of population majority and a fear of the economic importance of this multi-racial complex; so much so that their boasting that they are herding the White people into a laager to support the Nationalist Party, and that they are welcome there, is not an indication of South African patriotism but rather an indication of fear and defensive attitude into which they are virtually herding the White people of South Africa. I say this unhealthy and artificial means of securing votes and thereby, as they well know themselves, heading for a one-party State, which is virtually what they are hoping to achieve. …

That is entirely your own fault.

… which they are heading for deliberately and hoping to achieve within the framework of the constitution, this dividing of the country into a White and a non-White camp by this insidious propaganda and other persuasive means which they are using, will as they know themselves head this country towards plenty of trouble and strife.

So you also believe that the United Party is going to pieces?

They are also sowing a lot of suspicion and distrust and restiveness and, above all, frustration and enmity, because in bringing about the division of the country on this basis they are not only trying to achieve permanency for themselves but they are leaving the rest of the country in this very difficult position where instead of having friends they will find themselves faced with enemies. We believe that the people of South Africa should be made aware of this potential danger which Nationalism is trying to make South Africa accept, a Nationalism which they say is patriotism; but I say that patriotism implies a love for one’s country and devoted service to ensure its future and not love of oneself or of one’s own party and the securing of that party’s future for what is nothing else but merely a blatant form of nationalism. If you read the leader in Die Burger, where they are paying very high praise to what is happening in Rhodesia—they are in fact saying that what is taking place in Rhodesia is that we are getting a clear picture of a one-party State, of Whites versus Blacks, and the country is now adopting a form of nationalism to which we South Africans can look with a great deal of interest and watch its possible success. That is the story which their own newspaper is now spreading. I say that what the people of South Africa should know is that this fear which they are engendering and which they think has helped them to gain seats in the last election, perhaps contains the spark of the greatest form of danger for South Africa, and that what the people are virtually being asked to adopt is a form of nationalism which will spell a very dark future for South Africa. This is a multi-racial country. There is no question at all about that, and I say that they have to take adequate and intelligent steps to deal with its future on that basis. We have stated, and we believe, that the policy of independent Bantustans and this principle of sovereignty has sufficient inherent dangers apparent to South Africa not to demand discussion to-day. I think they themselves realize full well that there are very serious dangers contained in this boast of granting to eight separate portions of this country independence and sovereignty, and in that way to continue to fragment South Africa as we know it.

But there is another important problem to which their attention should again be directed, in spite of what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has said, and that is the urban Bantu problem. It is all very well to say that the foundation of their urban policy is migrant labour and the fact that the Bantu has no place in this country at all. I say that the urban Bantu has a definite place in the urban life of this country, of which he is a permanent feature, and he is vital to South Africa from the economic point of view, and from the point of view of his physical presence in this country.

What place are you willing to give him?

I just want to explain what is taking place and then I will deal with that. To-day, of 4,475,000 workers in South Africa, there are 3,386,000 who are Bantu. In the first ten years of Nationalist Party rule, the urban Bantu increased from 2,900,000 to 4,400,000, an increase of 1,500,000, and in the last five or six years their numbers in the urban areas have increased to 5,500,000. In fact, separate development has been dynamically outpaced by economic integration. The whole question of this denuding of the towns of Black population is regarded as a myth, not only by the towns but is even regarded by these very politicians themselves as a myth, and it is placed in the legislation in order to have a party plank for the unenlightened people who do not know what is taking place in the towns. Do the hon. members opposite realize that the Bantu in the urban areas have created a productivity revolution over the last few years equal to any industrial revolution that we have known of in history? They do not have to take my word for it; let them take the word of people like members of the Economic Advisory Council, which the Prime Minister set up. There is a member of that Council who is the chairman of an association known as the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association, and he makes one important fact perfectly clear, and that is that in practice the tremendous spending capacity of the Bantu, which has gone up to R 1,200,000,000 per annum, and its continued growth, is having just the reverse effect of what the Minister of Finance is afraid of in providing more money for circulation to the average wage-earner. The effect of his increased spending power is creating an anti-inflationary process because, as he says—

If you look at the figures of what is taking place in the country to-day—and I quote from the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for October 1964, we find that in the Railways there are 112,000 odd Whites and 109,000 non-Whites, of which 96,000 are Bantu. In Communications, Posts and Telegraphs, there are 13,000 White males, and approximately 5,000 non-White males, of which the Bantu number 3,300. In the engineering division of Posts and Telegraphs the White males number 8,488, the non-Whites 6,578, of which number the Bantu are 5,170. In the Public Service of our country the total number of White employees of both sexes is 112,781. There are 143,933 non-Whites, of which the Bantu are 129,936. In the Provincial Administration there are 72,000-odd Whites and the non-Whites total 92,000, of which the Bantu are 68,500. In local administration there are 39,900 Whites, and 118,400 non-Whites, of which the Bantu are 98,100. I say that a complete change of attitude must take place because the Bantu is playing an increasingly greater part in our economy. One is very grateful for that. It is one of the latent sources of wealth that we have in this country. Where other countries have to look for labour and get immigrants to provide their basic labour, particularly unskilled labour, we have them on our doorstep. This bears out what a man said to me in another country. He said that South Africa was one of the luckiest countries in the world from the labour point of view. He said we did not need immigration when it came to labour. The Minister of Labour has admitted that by immigration we could never catch up with the labour shortage in this country. So it is quite clear that we must rely on the labour resources we have. The policy of the United Party is the policy they must adopt, to give home ownership to the Black man in the urban areas because he is a stable and permanent feature of the urban community. He has to have better conditions under which to live. In other words, even assuming that we were to take the treatment of that community at its worst, we must treat them as we would treat any other labour force in any other country. In other words, there has to be a complete change of thinking, particularly in view of the fears of the Minister with regard to inflation and there has to be a complete change of view in regard to the maintenance of our production and the continued development which is called for in this economic development programme, if we are to maintain our development at the rate of 61 per cent or 7 per cent per annum. We cannot do it if we are continuously going to be struggling to train people for the skilled jobs without realizing that you must have masses of unskilled workers to carry out these programmes.

The idea that was suggested this morning to be applied to the Coloureds, namely that of labour bureaux has virtually become impracticable. They may be mechanical channels for bringing people into the country and to organize and to mobilize the labour force, but in fact this whole policy which has been boasted of by the hon. member for Heilbron, this policy of saying that you must regard the urban Bantu as a migrant worker and leave it at that, is the most fallacious, foolish and mythical principle that you could find anywhere. I say that if we are to look to the future of South Africa—and I want the Government members to realize that this momentary victory which they think they have achieved will only be a momentary one and the situation will change completely—there is no question about it because we are satisfied that the causes which brought this about are not the causes which they believe brought it about, and I think there is naught for their comfort in what has taken place last week. If anything at all, I think the electorate has been deeply shocked by realizing what the implications can be if there were unfortunately to be any greater measure of support for the Government, because they realize that this danger will lead back to the days when one will live like the ostrich with one’s head in the sand, and completely blind to the difficulties which this country is going to face. I would like to know whether anyone on the Government side will continue with this famous theory they propounded some time ago that the Bantu in the urban areas will continue to grow in numbers until 1978. If it has grown by nearly 2,000,000 in the last 17 years of Nationalist Government, God knows what it will grow to by 1978. Probably 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the total Bantu population of South Africa will then be in the urban areas. Then they say that in 1978, when it has reached that tremendous peak, it will begin to decline. Let me say one thing further. Any student of economic history knows, particularly from the industrial point of view, that the stronger your proletariat becomes economically, the more the Government has to pay attention to their normal needs. You cannot continue as the Government is doing by sowing every possible seed they can to prepare virtually the beds of Communism right throughout the urban areas of South Africa by frustrating people, by injuring their dignity and by destroying every vestige of human self-respect merely because, as the hon. member said, “Hulle is net daar vir hul trekarbeid en niks anders nie.” I ask the hon. member for Vereeniging, who used to be the great exponent and wanted to destroy what he called the fallacy of migrant labour, to prove to us what he will do in 1978 with these 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 Africans who will be helping the economy to expand as the Minister of Finance wants it to. He is only concerned with finance and not with the other ideological things, although he has to cut his cloth according to ideology, and not according to the extent of the material. He must say: Well, boys, give me the ideological body and into that I am going to fit it. This calls for a very serious explanation and I say: Do not come along and throw over what you have achieved. Tell us rather how you will face these practical issues of the future which the United Party has expounded and by which we stand because we believe that that is the future of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who found it difficult to resume his seat merely confirmed the true United Party policy as we know it and as we have been trying to impress upon the electorate over the years. He spoke about the results of the provincial elections which have just gone by and he said that these results did not simply signify the approval of the voters of our policy of separate development; he said that these results were in effect simply a sign of fear on the part of the voters, fear of what we hold up to them. He also said that we want to group people together in a laager. I want to ask the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) who has stated that we are trying to impose this laager complex upon the public, what he thinks of the cry of White leadership for ever. Does he believe in it? Is he in favour of that cry? No, he is one of the hon. members opposite who has had to keep quiet. When the provincial election was being fought, he had to remain silent. He was not permitted to address meetings because of his liberalistic interpretation of the United Party policy. That interpretation was not given to the voters. The hon. member simply confirmed what we have always said is true United Party policy. They want to form one joint nation, irrespective of colour or civilization, one joint nation of all the inhabitants of this country. All have to be grouped into one nation. This is the typically liberalistic attitude as we know it throughout the world. All barriers between person and person must be removed and one man, one vote, is the eventual result of that movement. But within the framework of that policy of one joint nation, that removal of barriers between person and person …

We did not speak of Black and White as one mixed nation.

That hon. member can say what he likes but that is their policy and that is how that policy has been declared in this House by no less a person than his leader. A short while before the election the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated quite clearly that that was their policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly just prior to the election that they did not believe in the unification or welding together of the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people only; they believed in the unification of the whole population. It is within the framework of that policy that they have announced what their actual policy is, and they are now trying to get away from what they said; within the framework of that policy they are now trying to lead the public up the garden path by means of slogans but the public and the electorate have found them out. The electorate have discovered that the things they actually stand for and the things they say before elections cannot be reconciled. We had a speech here yesterday by the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) in regard to which there has been no reaction from the United Party. The hon. member for Innesdal made a definite accusation against them and produced proof to show that they were moving in that direction. It so happened that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) had to speak immediately after the hon. member for Innesdal and, as often happens when it suits them, in this case the United Party once again hid behind the Progressive Party. Their speakers could have replied very easily to the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal. They could have said that the statements which he had made were not true, but there was no reaction from that side.

It was all untrue.

If it was untrue then the United Party should have proved that that was the case. Mr. Speaker, what was the reason for the poor showing of the United Party during the past provincial elections? I do not resent the fact that they are standing up in a gesture of bravado; they could not take it lying down; they simply had to stand up in a gesture of bravado because if they did not what impression would it give to their supporters? They know and the Press which supports them has admitted that they were given a severe drubbing (kafferpak).

A “Bantu-pak”!

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is the man who is continually peddling his “kaffir” tales on the platteland. What was the reaction of the English-medium Press? They admitted that large numbers of English-speaking people had rallied to the Nationalist Party during the past election. What was the cry raised by the English-medium Press? Sir, these newspapers are the advocates for and the mouthpieces of the liberalists. What was their reaction immediately after the election? Their reaction was that heads should roll; that the people who had had to pull the United Party irons out of the fire, the people who had to work hardest during the provincial elections were those whose heads should roll. The heads of the hon. members for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), Germiston District (Mr. Tucker) and Gardens (Mr. Connan), men whom we know to be conservative frontbenchers of the United Party, had to roll! That cry was immediately raised by the English-medium newspapers—that the heads of those people should roll. This was also said by members of the United Party; they did not say it in so many words but that was how they felt. That is how the liberalists in the ranks of the United Party feel because they want to make room for liberalists in the front benches of the United Party, in the positions of leadership. The cry was raised that the heads of the conservatives should roll; the heads of these people who had virtually to do the dirty work for the United Party during the election had to roll. That is the difficulty which the United Party is experiencing. They have to try to reconcile the two extremes—the conservatives and the extreme leftists, the Mitchells and the Rosses. Of course, it is quite impossible for any party to reconcile these two extremes. That is the reason why the United Party cannot do anything; that is the reason why the United Party cannot hold out anything positive to the voters. It has no ideals which its leaders can hold out to its followers. It has constantly to pass destructive criticism. It has to operate in such a way that it can keep these two extremes, the conservatives and the liberalists in its ranks, together. But, Sir, that will not work either; this has been very clear to us in regard to the cry of White leadership over the whole of South Africa which they raised during the election campaign. The voters realized that these two things could not be reconciled. The voters realized that what the leaders of the United Party had said in the past could not at all be reconciled with their new slogan, and for that reason newspapers which would otherwise have voiced their disapproval, took practically no notice of this cry. That is also the reason why there was no reaction on the part of the United Party left wing to this cry which they actually detest and do not approve of. I want to mention a few examples to indicate how conflicting their policy statements are. Let us take the question of consultation with the Bantu. In an election pamphlet issued in 1961, entitled “Election News”, the United Party said: “We ask the Bantu to tell us what he wants as far as his political rights are concerned.” But who are the people whom the United Party wish to consult? We have evidence that they allowed former A.N.C. leaders into their caucus and that those former A.N.C. leaders addressed their caucus.

That is untrue.

We know what Luthuli’s attitude is. We have heard repeatedly that he totally rejects the point of view which they put to the voters. Let us take another example, that of Bantu representatives in this House in terms of their race federation policy. The hon. member for Innesdal made a quotation from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar in May 1962. I also want to make a quotation from that speech in order to prove how their declared policy is in conflict with this cry of White leadership over the whole of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at De Aar that representation by their own people would not be withheld from them—the Bantu—forever. There is a further example I want to mention. In 1963 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote articles to the Argus group of newspapers on the race federation policy of the United Party. I should like to make the following quotation from those articles—

That is what he said. I also want to tell the House what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say on another occasion. On another occasion he said that leadership depends upon the measure of civilization of a particular group. Leadership is completely dependent upon civilization and numbers.

He said that here in 1959.

Yes, he said that here in this House in 1959. I quote (translation)——

These are only a few of the many quotations one can make to prove that in the declaration of his policy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is completely at variance with this election cry which they raised during the past election. Let us see what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said. The hon. member for Yeoville made a very well-known statement at Green Point on 15 February 1962 on the occasion of a by-election which they fought against the progressive Party. He said (translation)—

But now we have this other farce; they say that these things are possible but that they cannot happen without a definite instruction from the people; that they cannot happen without a referendum or an election. This is the basis on which their race federation policy is founded. This is an invitation to those people, once they have eight representatives here, to agitate for more because it is their foster-father’s policy to give them more representatives. But the Peninsula secretary of the United Party put the matter very clearly in a letter which he wrote to the Burger in 1963 in reply to certain allegations. He, inter alia, had this to say (translation)—

Here we have a clear admission therefore that the increase in the Bantu representation will not take place only once; each time there is a request for an increase in the number of Bantu representatives the voters will decide. He admits that it is quite impossible to prevent the number of representatives being increased time and again. This, Sir, is White leadership! Is this step promotive of White leadership? It is very clear that this cry has failed completely and that the voters have fortunately regarded it as being a bluff.

Until the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) spoke I had intended to take a certain line in this debate. The hon. member for Piketberg who is now leaving the Chamber thought that he would make a valuable contribution to this debate by talking about the Coloured people. I want to say that he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of what he said here. Sir, the hon. member, before he became a politician was a preacher whose duty it was to promote the welfare of all people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. He has now forgotten his duty towards the Coloured people and he has made a speech here to-day which I say will further widen the gulf which already exists between the Coloured and the White man, because, if I may use the word, of the scurrilous suggestions made by the hon. member with regard to the Coloured people.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word scurrilous.

May I use the word “insulting”? Sir, the hon. member was very proud of the fact that the Government had succeeded in removing the Bantu from the Western Province. He suggested that we must now get the Coloured people to do the work formerly done by Bantu in the Western Province. He indicated that there would be an increase in the population of the Coloured people over a certain time and that they must form themselves into what the late Mr. Pirow had years ago, that is to say, a special service battalion. He then went on to say that the Coloured student was not capable of passing the same examinations as White students. That, of course, is completely untrue. The Coloured student to-day is not only anxious to learn and to improve his educational qualifications, but he finds, as I have said before, that however good education may be for him personally it only brings him to a stage where he cannot use that education in the interests of South Africa, and yet the hon. member says that the time has arrived for the Coloured people to play their part in the affairs of South Africa; I take it he meant that they must play their part in the economy of South Africa. Sir, one of the life-lines of South Africa, one of the main arteries to the heart of South Africa, is the Coloured people and if that artery ceases to function the Republic will die. I want to say to the hon. member that he should be thankful for the fact that the Coloured people are able and willing to do the work which they are doing despite all the adversities which they have to suffer. Sir, when the hon. member spoke about the labour force in South Africa I interjected to say, “Yes, at slave labour wages.” I want to point out to him that in one of the most important industries in the country unskilled labourers receive an average of R7.60 per week. Does the hon. member realize what R7.60 means to a person working in an important industry? Sir, it is no wage at all. These are people working in one of the most important industries in South Africa. What did the Government do when there were strikes by the workers in this industry? The Government declared it an essential service and stopped them from striking. The hon. the Minister told me that in reply to a question which I put to him about a year ago. That reply indicated how many strikes there had been because the workers were dissatisfied with their wages. In many cases the employees concerned were discharged; in other cases the employers felt that the employees had a case, but in order to stop all demands for wage improvements the Government passed a Bill declaring that industry an essential service, with the result that to-day these people cannot strike. Wages have now been laid down for these people which I can only describe as slave labour wages. No decent person can exist and no decent man can advance economically on wages such as those paid in this particular industry. This also applies to workers in other sectors of the economy. Let me take the postal workers, for example. After 14 years of service they receive the magnificent sum of R40 a month. I want to ask the hon. member which White man would be prepared to work for 14 years and be content with a wage of R40 per month. The White man would be the first to object, and rightly so. Why must the Coloured man be paid R40 a month after 14 years’ service in the employ of a Government Department? What right has the hon. member to come along and say that the Coloured man is not capable of receiving the same education as the White man in this country? Why does he not plead, as I have pleaded and as members on this side representing the Coloureds have pleaded, for compulsory education for Coloureds? Does the hon. member realize what the economic position is of a Coloured family anxious to give the children a decent education? The children go to school and when they come back from school they have to help their parents to earn a few rand to supplement the family’s meagre income. I referred here last year to Coloured boys who have matriculated, who have acquired degrees of B.Sc. and M.A. I refer to the case of a Coloured boy who became one of the most brilliant students in nuclear physics. Where do these people go from there? I asked that question here last year and I am still waiting for a reply. But the hon. member over there says that he does not want these people to be educated. I throw that back in his teeth. I say to him that he does not want the Coloured man to be educated; he wants the Coloured man forever to be the drawer of water and the hewer of wood. He does not want the Coloured man to be educated because he wants the Coloured man to do the work now done by the Bantu whom he wants to remove from the Western Cape. He knows that if the Coloured man is educated he will refuse to become a labourer …

May I ask you a question? What do you propose should be paid to unskilled labourers?

I propose a living wage for these people.

What do you regard as a living wage?

A minimum of R2 a day.

And that is not a great deal, is it?

I want the hon. member to come with me and I will show him places where Coloured men are receiving 50 cents a day.

And what else?

Water to drink.

And wood.

And wood to make a fire.

And houses.

I am glad the hon. member has mentioned housing. In this particular place, Sir, all the housing has been condemned and these people do not have the money to repair them. They are getting 50 cents a day.

And rations.

Even if they do receive rations, what would that amount to? Sir, if the farmers in this country will stop giving tots to their Coloured workers under the present tot system, if they will only try to prevent their Coloured workers from drinking then we may get somewhere with the Coloured man. The Coloured man wants to play his part in this country but he is forever being suppressed in his desire to become somebody; he wants to be somebody.

You cannot expect that from the farmers only. It is for the Government to do something about it.

I do not care how you do it as long as it is done.

You are attacking the farmers.

I am not. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) asked me a question and I said that I wanted a wage of at least R2 a day for these people, and I pointed out that in an area not far from here, Coloured workers are only receiving 50 cents a day. Sir, here I have the wage determination in the industry to which I referred a moment ago. Here we have a case where the Government laid down a maximum wage of R7.60 a week.

That is the minimum, not the maximum.

Is that a living wage for any decent Coloured man? Can the Coloured man survive on that wage and still support his wife and children. This wage was reduced in 1963; they used to get a little bit more but instead of being increased it was reduced. Sir, I only have two more minutes at my disposal and all I want to say is that if you want the Coloured man to play his part effectively in the country, as he wants to do, as he is willing to do and has always tried to do, you must treat him as a decent, respectable citizen of this country and until you realize that you cannot expect the Coloured man to play his full role. We cannot allow speeches of the kind made here by the hon. member for Piketberg, because if those are the lines along which hon. members on the Government Benches are thinking as to what they want the Coloured people to be, I say to them that they are doing a disservice to South Africa. I say to them that they must uplift the Coloured people, that they must educate them, that they must introduce compulsory education. Sir, we have a shortage of labour at the present time. Why does the Government not make use of the services of the Coloured people? Why do they import labour from overseas? Why do they not make use of the Coloured man who is educated and skilled? No, hon. members opposite want the Coloured man to be in a rut; they want him to go so far and no further.

Where do you want Coloureds to be employed?

Their services can be used on the Railways, in the Post Office and in other Government Departments. The Government does not mind importing Portuguese, Spaniards, Greeks and Brazilians, but they refuse to use the services of our Coloured people. Sir, I say shame on the Government. If they want to help South Africa, let them encourage employment of Coloured people in occupations for which they are qualified; let them give the Coloured people an opportunity to render the services which they are capable of rendering to South Africa.

I just want to refer briefly to the Budget in particular. I want to refer particularly to the concessions granted by the Government in regard to the rate of taxation applicable to married couples where the husband and wife are both working. We know that as a result of certain conditions in South Africa there is a large number of cases where both husband and wife have to work, simply because they are forced to do so by economic circumstances. The hon. the Minister of Finance has now come along and has represented this new system of taxation in respect of married couples where both husband and wife are working as a very great concession. Sir, I have certain figures here which were obtained from the Department. The question I want to ask is this: How much does such a married couple really gain as a result of this concession, a concession which is being lauded so much by hon. members on that side that one would think that these people were being given a big Christmas box by the Government?

Take the case of a married couple whose joint earnings amount to R2,000 per annum and there are large numbers of married couples who fall in this income group. The total concession granted to them by the State amounts to the colossal sum of R3 per annum. But listening to hon. members on the other side one would think they were being given a very big present indeed. Let us examine the position where the joint earnings of a married couple amount to R2,500 per annum. There are literally hundreds of married couples whose joint earnings amount to R2,500 per annum or less. The rebate they get for the year amounts to the colossal sum of R4. What a wonderful present to these people! Take the case of a married couple whose joint earnings amount to R3,000 per annum. They get a rebate of R3—a wonderful present that is being given to them! I hope that hon. members on the other side who spoke so highly of this Budget are very proud of this present of R3 per annum which is being given to such a married couple.

And if their joint earnings amount to R2,900?

Let us take the case where the joint earnings of a married couple amount to R4,000. I am now dealing with the large mass of the population of South Africa where both husband and wife are working. These people are doing very well indeed as a result of this new system! The husband and wife together will now save R8 per annum! The next category is the R5,000 one.

Why are you taking round figures only? Take the figures in between.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) need not be so concerned. I am only reading out the figures which have been made available by the Government. I am not playing all sorts of tricks. I am merely giving the statistics as furnished to me. I come now to the R5,000 category. This category embraces the largest number of cases where both husband and wife are working. Here we have the case where the maximum concession is being granted to husband and wife, It amounts to the colossal sum of R16! After having been told of this fine Budget and of everything that is being done in it for the people, I say that this is really a poor attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister of Finance to rectify the position. This matter is one which affects thousands of families in South Africa. I honestly thought that if the hon. the Minister wanted to do something about it he would come forward with a better effort.

Mr. Speaker, let us understand one another clearly in regard to this matter. There are few married couples where both husband and wife work because they want to do so. Lean think of few wives who take up employment because they have nothing to do at home. They work because they are forced to do so by economic conditions. That being the case, and since we need extra labour in South Africa, I really expected a better effort from the hon. the Minister When hon. members on the other side rise …

They cannot rise; they are dumbfounded.

One can understand why they do not rise, because I take it that they have no adjectives left to describe this Budget.

May I put a question to you?

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has really had enough to say. He has already taken part in this debate and it seems to me his conscience is beginning to trouble him a little. I do not think he is feeling so happy now. I hope the hon. member is feeling so unhappy that he will still beg a colleague of his this morning to get up and to plead with the hon. the Minister to rectify the position as far as married couples in South Africa are concerned where circumstances force both parties to take up employment.

I want to come back to another matter which is of particular importance to me and to which the House as a whole ought to pay attention. I refer to the recent elections. I want to analyse these elections and I hope to do so objectively. I want to analyse the facts as I see them. What conclusions must one draw from these facts? The first fact is clear and I concede it: The Government has won the election and I do not blame them if they feel proud of it. My party has lost the election. I am not squealing, but it is only human for me to feel sorry that this has happened. Sir, it behoves any Opposition which loses an election to examine the facts and to try to learn what lessons it can from those facts. But if it behoves us to examine the facts, then it also behoves Government members to do so. The first question I ask myself is this: Why did the Government win the election; on what did they win it? [Interjections.] Hon. members must not ask me. Or why did we lose the election? It is the same question. I do not want hon. members to ask me; I want to accept the word of the Nationalist Party Government and say that the main reason why they won the election was that they succeeded in satisfying the people that they are the only political party in the country which really wants to safeguard and is really capable of safeguarding the White man and his way of life. The election was won on the strength of that idea, in spite of the fact that we have less racial separation and less apartheid in the South African set-up to-day than ever before despite the large volume of legislation on the Statute Book. We have less apartheid than ever before, but nevertheless the Government won this election because, according to themselves, they satisfied the people that they are the only party that wants to save and is capable of saving the Whites.

The next question I ask myself is this: By what methods did the Government win the election? By what means did they win it? [Interjections.] If the means had not been effective, the Government would net have won the election. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has put his case in this House in a convincing way. He has told us how, in his constituency, where the policy of separate freedom should be applied more than anywhere else, the Nationalist Party ran away from that policy. He put his case in a convincing way; he left no doubt about the matter, and I do not think hon. members on the other side-—not the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) either—can get up and suggest that the hon. member for Zululand was wrong.

I say that he was wrong.

Let us come nearer home. What methods were employed in the Gardens, where the performance put up by the Nationalist Party has been described on all sides as a brilliant one. The Gardens constituency was won against the background of a poster which read: “Keep White South Africa White.” [Interjections.] It is obvious to me that I did not misinterpret the poster. Now I ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. van Staden)—he is one of the thinking people —if he wants to keep White South Africa White, where is White South Africa?

Do you still not know?

No, I do not know, and I do not think the hon. member knows. Where is the White South Africa that you want to keep White? Have we reached a stage now where our Nationalist friends are also prepared to classify the Coloureds as Whites, as they did with the Japanese? [Interjections.] If I am wrong, I shall withdraw my statement, but are the Japanese not regarded as Whites for the purposes of the population register?

All that is being done is that no group areas are being established for them, because there are only 50 Japanese in this country.

A principle is not destroyed by numbers, Mr. Speaker. Numbers have nothing to do with the principle. I do not mind sitting next to a Japanese.

Let me come back to my basic question, Sir, and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) may be able to help me: Where is the White South Africa by means of which you win elections? Two or three years ago—I can quote from Hansard—the hon. member told the people in the Transvaal how the Nationalist Party was removing the Bantu from the Western Cape. He called it “the bastion of the White people in South Africa”. Why does he use these methods? I have the figures here. Listening to the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) this morning, I would have thought that there was no longer a single Bantu in agriculture in the Western Cape. The hon. member told us how the Bantu were disappearing from agriculture in places such as Clanwilliam and Ceres. Sir, let us examine the figures for a moment. Sometimes I am more inclined to believe the statistics rather than the Nationalist Party’s propaganda. In 1963 there were 22,500 Bantu in agriculture in the Western Cape, and in 1964 there were 24,890. But if I am to believe the hon. member for Piketberg …

Then there is none.

Where are the boundaries of the Western Cape?

My friend, if you want to know where the boundaries of the Western Cape are, ask the Minister who made these fieures available to me. I want to deal further with the Western Cape, this “White bastion of South Africa” of the hon. member for Kempton Park, this touchstone of their policy, a policy which cannot succeed unless the Western Cape is cleaned up. In 1963 there were 5,000 Bantu in local authorities and in 1964 there were 5,800. In 1963 there were 3,390 in the service of the Provincial Administration and in 1964 there were 3,536. This is a decreasing figure, of course, if I have to believe my hon. friend, the member for Piketberg! In 1963 there were 25,700 in industry and to-day there are 29,000! We are cleaning up the Western Cape! That is the type of method that the Nationalist Party employs to win elections in South Africa; that is the type of distorted representation of the truth by means of which they win elections.

Let us examine another method. Not so long ago the following words were used in this House: “This House takes cognizance of the blatant opportunism of the Opposition in now suddenly proclaiming itself the champion of the Whites.” “Now suddenly” we are proclaiming ourselves the champion of the Whites in South Africa; we have never done so before! In other words, all the thousands of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking supporters of the United Party have all along supported a party which refuses to safeguard the White man in South Africa! That is what this statement implies. But this statement also implies something else; it implies that this is only opportunism, that it is only a stunt, because as soon as the elections are over, the United Party will revert to the old “Kafferboetie” (negrophilist) idea again! I can think of no greater insult to 99 per cent of the South African people than to say to them that they belong to a party which has a policy which means in effect that the Whites in South Africa will be destroyed. No greater insult than that can be hurled at a South African.

That is your policy.

Who hurled that insult at the people of South Africa? No less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister. These are his words. Surely this is a misrepresentation. This is one of the methods employed by the Nationalist Party to win elections. In the course of this Session hon. members will still hear of other methods which are even more reprehensible. I concede that they have won the election. I do not blame them for feeling triumphant and glad. But when it comes to the means they employed, it is a different matter. And this aspect is the dangerous one.

In the first place there is the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Let us not argue about this matter any longer. The fact of the matter is that the S.A.B.C. to-day has directly and indirectly become a tremendous national champion of the Government’s colour policy. That is beyond all doubt.

Do you want the S.A.B.C. to sabotage it?

I expect objectivity from the S.A.B.C. It is difficult for the hon. the Minister to understand when one is being objective and when one is not, and that is why he asks that question.

The S.A.B.C. is one method of reaching the minds of the people. There is a second method and that is the Press. What is the Press doing in South Africa? On the one hand there is the Afrikaans-language Press, which displays no independence of thought and which slavishly supports the Nationalist Party. For the first time in the history of the people of South Africa we find to-day that no Afrikaans-language newspaper in South Africa ever expresses a single word of criticism in regard to any action taken by the Government.

What about the Landstem? Even Graaff’s own newspaper is not criticizing us any more.

The Nationalist Press— that is all one can call these newspapers—has degenerated—there are good newspapers among them; I read them every day—into a slavish instrument of the Nationalist Party. They are incapable of independent thinking. On the other hand we have the English-language Press in South Africa. I am the first to say that often I do not agree with the English-language Press, but do let us give them credit for the fact that they are an independent Press with independent ideas. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members opposite are beginning to share a little of my concern. As independent newspapers—and I should not like to see them being deprived of this right—the English-language newspapers are expressing independent views to-day. Virtually all these newspapers are opposed to the Government, but as a result of the fact that they put forward independent views, they are not mobilizing the Opposition against the Government, they are watering down the idea of Opposition. That is true. The Opposition idea has been watered down in South Africa to-day as a result of the normal right exercised by the English-language Press to influence thought. I repeat that I do not blame them for doing so; it is their right. But what do we find, Sir? We find that in the S.A.B.C. and the slavish Afrikaans-language Press we have a more powerful thought-conditioning instrument in South Africa to-day than we have ever had before. Here we have the beginning of large-scale indoctrination of minds and regimentation of thought, and as a result we find that people ignore facts in supporting the Nationalist Party. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Government wins an election with the cry of racial separation, and we have never had as little separation in South Africa as we have at the present time. The fact that they win elections I can explain in one way only, and that is that the Nationalist Party deliberately makes use of these instruments to impress one idea upon the minds of the people, to indoctrinate the people to the extent that they become a slavish bunch of yes-men. There is no doubt about it.

What are the consequences? Where is this leading South Africa? If the Nationalist Party continues with this tendency, if they continue using an instrument of the State such as the S.A.B.C. to influence public opinion in their favour, if they continue receiving the support of this slavish Press of theirs, where will it lead the people?

Away from you.

If that were all, Mr. Speaker, I would not be concerned. But where is it leading us? As far as the colour issue is concerned, it is leading us on to a road along which South Africa will be converted into a State with White nationalism on the one hand, and ardent, fiery Black nationalism on the other. Black nationalism has never been favourably disposed towards the White man in South Africa—or in Africa. I can see only one thing in this creation of racial nationalism in the country, and that is …

May I ask a question?

Let the hon. member listen to my words and then perhaps he too will become wiser. In the creation of Black nationalist groups within the framework of the present Republic—I am using the word “present” purposely—I can only see the end of the White man and his way of life in South Africa.

There is another point which I consider to be of equal importance and which is another consequence of this election, a consequence of the trend of thought which is revealed in the interjection “away from you” that was made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). Mr. Speaker, if the Nationalist Party continue with their methods of indoctrination in South Africa, if they continue to enslave the minds of the people, there is only one thing that will happen in South Africa—and it will happen in spite of hon. members on the other side—and that is the coming into being of a one-party state in South Africa.

What an admission of weakness!

I expected that. But if the Nationalist Party willfully, intentionally, premeditatedly, continues to use an instrument of the State—it is not being done accidentally —and if the Nationalist Press continues with the same thought-conditioning, then I foresee the day when, in spite of the will of the people … [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members laugh. Can they tell me that it is the will of the people to have a one-party state? It is no use laughing; this laughter of theirs may turn into a grimace. Do you want to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the people of South Africa will be content to stand quietly by when they realize that that Party is dragging them into a one-party state? I have enough faith in the Afrikaner and in the South African people to believe that when they are aware of the facts, they will put a stop to this Government and its methods and its instruments as certainly as I am standing here this morning.

The last question I ask myself is this: Where does the United Party stand; what must we do? I said at the outset that we must be objective. Against the background that I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, the United Party has only one duty—and it is a sacred one—and that is to continue putting its policy to the people, to continue fighting in the firm conviction that the vast majority of the people of South Africa will never accept as their fate what the Nationalist Party apparently wants to be their fate. We shall continue to have faith in the White man; we shall continue to have enough faith in the White population of South Africa to believe that he will be able to govern the country in such a way that he will safeguard his own position while at the same time doing justice to the other racial groups. We shall continue to put our policy of White political control over South Africa from platform to platform. We shall not lose hope. I believe that as long as there is hope that South Africa will return to Western ways, nothing will defeat the Opposition in South Africa.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) concluded his speech by saying that the present political tendencies might result in a one-party state. That libellous implication in regard to a one-party state will never become reality in South Africa. I can, however, promise the hon. member that as long as the international crisis continues we will reach the highest degree of unanimity which has ever been attained in a democratic state. We are going to reach that unanimity and retain it and expand it, in spite of the efforts of hon. members opposite. The hon. member in his analysis pointed to two basic reasons why the United Party cannot develop any further. He tried to make the cheap little debating point that the position of the Japanese, who are one of our most important trading partners in the world, constitutes a delicate inland situation, and in order to gain a momentary advantage in a political debate in this House he is prepared—and that reveals the spirit of that party—to harm the vital interests of South Africa. As long as they can derive even the slightest temporary advantage, they are recklessly prepared to grasp at it, irrespective of whether it is in the interest of the country or not.

The second argument the hon. member advanced was to say that this party is misleading the people by saying that our policy is separation, whereas in the Western Province during the past two years no numerical progress has been made in regard to the removal of the Bantu. He does not take into consideration that there is a greatly increased demand for labour; he does not take into consideration that a greater percentage of the Bantu are controlled migrant labour; nor does he take into consideration that the industrial figure, which has increased by about 4,000, includes the fishing industry, where the Bantu are housed in compounds. We have always said that the compound Bantu constitutes no evil as a migratory labour phenomenon. I and my party stand by that attempt to clean up the Western Province. The difference is this, Sir, and that is why the people have voted for us: In so far as we fail, we regret it, and it serves as an impetus to us really to try to achieve these objects, but the United Party has as the object of its party that the Bantu should not be prevented from coming to the Western Province. According to the policy of the United Party, they want the Bantu here to increase in numbers. It is the object in terms of their policy that the industrial production of this area should increase by means of the employment of an increased number of Bantu. That is why the people choose us, in our weakness, rather than the United Party with its evil intentions. That is the difference.

The hon. member as again assured us, as his Chief Whip has already done before and also various other speakers in this debate, that the United Party has decided not to go into voluntary liquidation. That does not surprise me, because for a party to go into voluntary liquidation is something original, something which requires insight and imagination, and the United Party does not have those characteristics. They are going to follow the difficult road, Sir, until the people put them under compulsory liquidation in the coming general election. The reason why they are going to be liquidated is because they dig themselves in so senselessly. Listen to the brave words of their leader on 26 March—

A beautiful sentiment, Sir, very soldierly! I have just one criticism of this statement: What do those gentlemen believe in? Do they believe in the Senate Plan with which they fought the election in 1958? Do they believe in the race federation scheme as enunciated in December 1961 and adapted early in 1962, or do they believe in the race federation plan as it was interpreted before the recent election and is now being interpreted further? If those hon. members knew what they believed in, they would undoubtedly be able to fight. No, I am doing them an injustice. There is one thing in which that party does not believe; there is one thing to which that party is devoted with absolute faith and dedication: They believe that they, that coterie of men, must again govern this country instead of the National Party. They grasp devotedly and enthusiastically at everything which they think will bring that about, anything which will serve that belief of theirs.

You believed in the High Court of Parliament. Do not talk about beliefs.

The hon. member is now dealing with the pre-republican period. Let us come to the more recent past, seeing that the hon. member is now taking me back to the past. That brave United Party which is now going to fight for what they believe in must now be evaluated, and we must remind them of what their best Press friends, as the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) had to concede, have said. The Sunday Express described their exhibition in the past election as follows—

The Sunday Chronicle perhaps gave the neatest summing up in regard to this courageous fighting party—

Just see how they are trying to get on to their feet again to-day. And then there were such expressions as, “the election results rocked the United Party”, and “the results badly battered the United Party”, “they only held on to Gardens by a pair of raised eyebrows”. The hon. member over there would rather not hear this. This is what their friends like Stanley Uys and the Argus, etc., said about them. The significant breakthrough of the National Party is generally recognized, but now the hon. member for Maitland has tried to tell us why it took place. Now I want to try to tell them, quite objectively and without party bitterness, and also the country, why we believe that the United Party lost the election. It is because of the egalitarian and superficial and perilous answer that the United Party gives to the predominant political question in South Africa, viz. the relations between White and Bantu. I say it is an egalitarian, superficial and perilous reply they give to this question. The United Party rejects the idea of the independence of the Bantu homelands. They stand for eight representatives for the Bantu in this Parliament, and they say they will even use—their leader used this expression, I think, at Caledon—the force of the State, the Police Force, to limit the representation to eight. And that is really the whole Bantu policy with which they went to the public and asked them: “Vote for us. We reject the idea of independent homelands. We are going to give the Bantu eight representatives here, and come what may, we will confine it to eight.” That is their whole policy. Sir, this policy which the hon. members used in the election and which they believe in is a single-dimensional, flat-dimensional reply to a three-dimensional question, because there are three aspects of the coexistence of Whites and Bantu. In the first place it is a question of co-existence in southern Africa. It is not merely a republican problem, but a problem of co-existence in southern Africa. That is what we may call the depth facet of this problem: How will we co-exist in southern Africa? The height facet of this three-dimensional question is: How will the governmental power in the Republic and the right to freedom within the Republic be divided between the Whites and the Bantu? The width or breadth facet of this problem is: What will be the labour relations between White and Bantu?

Instead of the single-facet reply which those hon. gentlemen gave, the National Party gives its three-dimensional reply. In the first place the National Party policy, in respect of the depth facet, clearly says that southern Africa differs from the rest of the Continent of Africa in so far as we believe that in southern Africa the number of the Whites and the contribution made by the Whites to southern Africa justify the recognition of their permanent and separate continued existence, whereas we concede that the northern territories of Africa are exclusively Black areas which must be developed in that nationhood alone. In the second place, we say that we in southern Africa must seek the road to co-existence along the way of separate freedoms, that the Protectorates and the other homelands should be separate and free here and in South West Africa; and as far as that is concerned, in the whole of southern Africa we see the solution in the fact that White and Black freedom must be realized in separate states. But we do not see southern Africa as a splintering, because where we constitutionally recognize and preach separate freedoms, we have always stood by the concept of a common market. That concept has been developed and stated, not in respect of the Republic and the Protectorates only, but in respect of southern Africa, and in that respect the first step has already been taken in this Budget with the loan granted to Rhodesia.

Territorial freedom?

Territorial separate freedoms for Whites and non-Whites in southern Africa. Then we have stated the proposition that the Republic should lead this economic unit by financing and assisting it. I refer to the Prime Minister’s offer to the British Protectorates and other steps. Then we have always held the standpoint that there should be political co-operation in southern Africa, in the first place, of course, among the constitutional units which may be established in the Republic, and there the Prime Minister used the term, “The Commonwealth concept”, that there should be consultation. But here we come to an important point of difference between the National Party and the United Party. We seek co-operation between Black and White in southern Africa and in the Republic through consultation; we seek correlation through consultation, and by bringing together the various units in conferences for periodic discussions of specific matters. You seek the co-operation and the correlation through a constitution, and we cannot establish a common constitution for White and Black in southern Africa without the Blacks encroaching upon the independent governmental powers of the Whites, and therefore we must reject the concept of correlation through a constitution, and adhere to correlation through consultation only.

What about the Coloureds?

But then those hon. members so often talk about the tremendous dangers resulting from it, and that is the only respect in which their Bantu policy touches on this important facet of our colour problem. Now they just come along with the objection to the idea of separate freedom for the Bantu areas in the Republic and they say that as the result serious military dangers may be created. Sir, just as we have always adopted the standpoint that financially and in the monetary sphere we will lead southern Africa, in the same way it will be very easy when the time arrives also to lay down the policy that we will lead southern Africa in the military sphere, and that if we guarantee independence and integrity to the whole of southern Africa, it is not necessary to establish any other military force except a police force in southern Africa.

What if other powers get a hold there?

That is the sort of independence which the whole of South America enjoys in terms of the Monroe doctrine, but I do not expect the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) to beat out his brains about that.

The United Party policy is totally lacking in this depth concept. They have a shallow image, a single dimensional picture of limited representation which will evoke the enmity of Africa. The whole process of achieving independence in Africa was a revolt against the limited representation of the Black people in legislative bodies, and that is what they offer Africa. They say that is their solution for southern Africa, that single-dimensional shallow solution which will only evoke the enmity of Africa.

Then we come to the important height facet, and that is the division of governmental power and the right of freedom inside the Republic, and there we stand diametrically opposed to each other. The United Party says that they will not share the governmental power and the right to freedom in the Republic. They will have a single governmental power and a single right to freedom in the Republic, and they will give the Bantu a small share in that right to govern. We say that separate freedom is the only way of solving this dilemma, and that where the Bantu areas make it possible, there we will give those Bantu areas the opportunity to develop even to full independence.

And the Coloureds?

In regard to this facet, the hon. members opposite at least have a policy. On this one level they have an alternative, and there it is for the public to choose what is safest for the Whites, what gives the greatest security and what is most moral and what is safest in the light of the world situation and the pressure brought to bear by Africa: That we grant separate freedom or that we give the Bantu here a small share, a small share which can be fortified by their vitally dangerous intention to place the Coloureds back on the Common Voters’ Roll of the Cape Province, and to hand over approximately 30 constituencies in the Cape Province to the Coloureds.

Then the breadth facet: They said nothing about that in this election, and they run away from it. That is the labour relations. In the first place we come into conflict in regard to the right of the Bantu to be in our White areas. Our standpoint is quite clearly that the Bantu are here temporarily, and in that regard they want to ridicule us. They say: Just see how these people have been living here for years already. We say it is a privilege the Bantu enjoy and therefore we granted the power last year in the Urban Areas Act to remove any Bantu from the White areas. The United Party opposed that. They ridiculed it. Their standpoint is that the Bantu has the right to offer his labour in the White areas in the best market he can find, and they accept the perpetual occupation by the Bantu of the areas outside the reserves (which we call White South Africa). They accept the perpetual occupation of those areas by the Bantu.

The next point of conflict in regard to the labour relations is not only the standpoint we adopt in regard to the temporary presence of the Bantu and the fact that he has no right to come and go as he pleases and to remain here for ever. It is a question of property rights. The policy of the United Party is that the Bantu has the right to sell his labour wherever he wishes, and then they fortify it by wanting to grant him the right to own property in the Bantu urban areas which have been established. We deny the Bantu the right to own any property in the White area.

Then we come to the question of influx control. Last year still we discussed this matter in this House. The United Party is opposed to influx control, but eventually the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was compelled to admit that the United Party in fact stands for influx control if it is necessary to prevent serious unemployment among the existing urban Bantu. The United Party stands for influx control only in so far as it is a means of preventing unemployment among the urban Bantu.

Who said that?

If I am wrong, I am prepared to sit down and the hon. member can tell me what it is. I say that is your policy.

We are in favour of influx control as a principal mechanism to limit Bantu labour in the urban areas of our country to the absolute economic minimum. If we do not succeed in it, that still does not derogate from our attempt, because Rome was not built in a day, and to turn around this stream is no light task. But the difference is: We want what is good and you want what is bad.

Let us deal further with influx control. There is the burning question of the influx of women. Last year the United Party irrevocably took the standpoint that the Bantu living in the city should be entitled to fetch his wife and to allow her to live with him. It is the United Party policy to multiply the number of Bantu women in the White peri-urban areas. The increase of 2,000,000 in the number of Bantu in the White area during the last 17 years to which the hon. member referred is not an increase in the working population, but it is the natural increase in population, born of women whom the United Party allowed to be here from 1935 to 1938.

Aikona!

Does the hon. member wish to deny it? The increase in the labour force since 1948 is not even 50,000, but those hon. members do not know what the facts are. If they are faced with unsavoury facts, they deny those facts.

Are you not building houses for families?

These are the important differences. There are still problems of intermingling to which we must have regard. We try to control the numbers by means of the servant system, the sleeping-out system, and, inter alia, also with the assistance of border industries. We are trying to do something to reduce the intermingling of White and Black. The United Party capitulates before this intermingling and accepts it as a permanent position and as the image of South Africa. The choice which was made in favour of the National Party is explained by the fact that the people are prepared to choose the party which strives to attain what is good, and oppose the party which just stares blindly at the material aspect and capitulates to the unfortunate realities of our time.

The trouble with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is that he gives a completely superficial picture of the attitude of this side and then proceeds to deal with it entirely out of its context and without having regard to the background. Take the question of influx control. People are not flocking to the cities just for the fun of it. They are flocking to the cities because they cannot make a living in the Bantu areas. Sir, the United Party is the only party whose policy it is to develop the Bantu areas on a large scale by making use of White capital and, if necessary, foreign capital; to develop them on a large scale, not on the small scale on which the Government is doing so at the present time. With the large-scale development of these areas influx control will assume an entirely different meaning. The approach of the Nationalist Party is entirely negative, and that is to remove the Bantu, to throw them out, without making it possible for them to make a living elsewhere. The difference between the two sides is that while our approach is a positive one, the Government has a completely negative approach. Sir, I shall deal in a few moments with some of the points raised by the hon. member but I should like to say first that the day before yesterday I received a formal note from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) which read as follows—

I sat here the whole of yesterday afternoon from half-past-two until seven o’clock; I sat here waiting for so many hours that my body still aches. I sat here licking my lips; I was anxious to reply to him because there is nothing that would have given me greater pleasure. I have also sat here waiting the whole of this morning, but it now seems to me that the hon. member for Vereeniging is the sort of person who likes to put forward criticism but does not want a reply to it. He wants me to speak first before he puts forward his criticism. I want to say to him that in the normal course of events it would have made no difference to me when he spoke, but in view of his formal note and the fact that I sat here waiting the whole of yesterday and that he did not rise to speak, I want to say that if he now puts forward criticism after I have spoken, it will be no sign of political manliness. If he puts forward criticism at a time when I have the opportunity to reply to him I will regard him as a man, politically speaking, but if he now puts forward criticism after I have been waiting here for a whole day for him to speak, I will regard him as a political coward.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we had clarity about one thing with reference to the speeches that we have heard here, and that is the question as to where exactly the Government stands in respect of the question of negative discrimination in this country. Our attitude is that in the interests of the safety of the White man, not only in the interests of the non-White but also in the interests of our future as Whites, in the interests of the future of the White man himself, it will be necessary sooner or later to remove from the Statute Book the coercive laws that we have to-day which unfairly discriminate against people, which discriminate against them purely on the ground of colour, which are purely negative and which humiliate people on the ground of their colour. The mistake that hon. members on the other side make is that they see only two things; and when one opposes these things one is told that one is in favour of integration. Sir, the contrast, the choice, does not lie between apartheid and integration. The policy of this Government is compulsory apartheid; the opposite is compulsory integration. We reject the principle of coercion, compulsory apartheid and compulsory integration. We believe in the traditional policy of South Africa. Our traditional policy was that relationships were determined by public opinion, by the natural process of birds of a feather flocking together. Because surely one of two things must be true: Either the White population wants to retain its identity and maintain some form of separation or it does not wish to do so. I believe that if that is what the White population wants, then coercive measures are not necessary, and if the time should come when the White population no longer wants it, no laws on earth will be of the slightest use. That is the attitude that we adopt. I pointed out earlier on this Session in the course of the no-confidence debate that there had been a change of emphasis in high Government circles as far as political idiom is concerned. The emphasis nowadays, particularly when they address the outside world, is placed on “equality” and “the removal of discrimination”. “Apartheid” has now become just a means; the principle is “removal of discrimination”. This attitude was solemnly announced not so long ago by the Government through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it was also solemnly announced in The Hague that the Government’s aim was—I quote—to eliminate all forms of political inequality. I am quoting the words used by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs before UNO in December of last year. But having listened to the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Kempton Park and others and looking at all the ugly things which are being done in this country to-day in terms of the policy of compulsory apartheid one begins to wonder whether this is not just a trick. Sir, is this an honest statement of policy or is it not? I am prepared to accept that the hon. the Minister of Defence is being honest when he says that we will have to accept the principle that all human beings are equal; I am prepared to accept that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is being honest when he tells the world that we want to get away from discrimination. I believe that the Burger is being honest when, in conducting a debate with Trouw, it puts the position as follows—

There we have the same sort of thing that we have been propagating from this side of the House and that we have said on more than one occasion in this House. We are realistic enough to know that these things cannot be done overnight. One cannot change the entire pattern within the space of a day. But it is sheer nonsense for any person in South Africa to think that in this world in which we are living we can build up in this country a structure in which, from top to bottom, there is only one thing that counts and that is the colour of a man’s skin. Sir, we cannot go on building Berlin walls between people in South Africa. We see what is happening in Berlin. The longer those walls stand the higher they have to be built; the more one has to resort to arms. We cannot carry on as we are doing to-day. Anybody who thinks that we can follow the road that the Government is following at the present time is a fool. We have reached the stage to-day where it has to be decided at Government level which concert a man may attend, which rugby match he may attend. Just imagine! It is decided at Cabinet level who may or may not be present wihen a pop singer gives a performance and who may marry in which hall; the Minister has to decide who may marry in a certain hall. Do you think this sort of thing would have happened under great leaders such as General Hertzog and General Smuts? Do you think we would have had this sort of nonsense that a member of the Cabinet has to decide these things? In the days of General Hertzog or in the days of General Smuts, would Coloured children have been dragged out of a cinema in a Coloured residential area, when we know that Japanese are admitted to the Colosseum; that South African Chinese children may attend the Alhambra, while on the other hand Coloured children are thrown out of a theatre in a Coloured residential area by the police? Where is it all going to end? We have reached a position in South Africa which is such that it calls for serious discussion. I challenge any lawyer to mention the name of any country in the whole world where the Government interferes so much in the daily lives of the citizens of the country as happens under this Government—and I include the Castro régime and every Communist Government. Nowhere else—and I include the Communist Governments—does one find any nation living under a system of permits and restrictions and authoritarian and arbitrary decisions at Cabinet level as is the case here in South Africa. I say with all the earnestness at my command that apartheid has gone mad. Unless this state of affairs is brought to an end, unless this sytem of compulsory apartheid, which has been carried to such foolish lengths, is destroyed, the White man in South Africa will be destroyed. The ugliest aspect of this whole situation is that this policy is creating in the mind of the average White an attitude of selfishness and conceitedness and of contempt towards the non-Whites. The non-Whites are being pushed aside and pushed down everywhere, so much so that it has affected the character of our people; it has become a canker in our national character. It has made us repulsive and hateful in the eyes of others. It is a sad thing that our young people, as a result of this policy, have to grow up to-day regarding their fellow-men, who happen to be non-White, as lepers, as people who cannot cross one’s threshold, as people who have to be pushed aside. Look at the incident which was again reported in the newspapers this morning. Sir, we have the University College of the Western Cape. Here we are dealing with educated Coloureds. The University College has no hall of its own as yet where they can hold their graduation ceremonies so they asked the Municipality of Bellville whether they could use the Bellville civic hall for their graduation ceremony. What was the reply? “No, you are Coloured.” They are not even prepared in time of emergency such as this to extend a helping hand to the Coloureds. What the University College has to do now is to empty the library of the University so that they can hold the graduation ceremony in the library. Sir, I do not blame the mayor of Bellville or the town council because what has happened here is the outcome of the ugly, petty spirit of racism that has been cultivated by this Government. This attitude of mind has been created by the Government and people are becoming petty and mean. I say that we and our children will still be called upon to pay the price for this; our children will have to pay a terrible price for these things which are taking place to-day under this Government. Sir, let me say this: The Nationalist Party was established as a party representing South African Nationalism. Let me give credit where credit is due. The Nationalist Party has done some fine things for South Africa. It has given South Africa its sovereign independence, its political personality. It led South Africa on the road towards a Republic, a process which has now been completed. As a constitutional party …

You fought against it.

No, my friend, you are talking to the wrong person; you are a mere child in Parliament. The Nationalist Party was established as a constitutional party. It brought sovereign independence to South Africa and it has done fine things for South Africa and for the Afrikaner. The main task for which it was established has now been completed. To-day it is on a road leading nowhere, a dead-end road. History will honour the Nationalist Party for what it achieved in the constitutional sphere, but it has now become a racist party; and as a racist party it is sowing the seeds of hatred and alienation and the curse of history will rest on it for what it is doing at the present time. I believe that we have been placed at the southern extremity of Africa to show greatness. The Afrikaner’s destiny in coming here was to be great, but this Government has taught him to be small. Under this Government we have become small. All that we nurture is selfishness and arrogance. We have seen the same thing happening in other countries where nations submitted themselves to extreme forms of ideology. Unfortunately we have not learnt the lesson, but the Government is continuing to turn us into something that is ugly. Fortunately revolt is springing up in the right quarters. There is a growing revolt amongst the young Afrikaans writers, amongst the Afrikaans industrial leaders, the academic leaders, and thank the Lord, among the Church leaders too, and it is growing more strongly than ever before. This revolt is growing amongst the intellectual leaders, and it is only a matter of time. That is why it does not matter to us on this side if we lose an election for the time being. We know that sooner or later free Afrikanerdom—and I regard myself as a free Afrikaner—will deal with this Government and with the harm it is doing to the soul and the character of the Afrikaner. That is why it is our conviction that this Government is a danger to the security and the future of the White man in this country. The White man has only one thing to fear, and that is the follies and the injustices of this Government.

I do not suggest that we can solve our problems overnight, but we must begin to move in the right direction; I have sufficient faith in the brain-power of the White man to believe that in due course we shall find means of ensuring our survival and of retaining our leadership without resorting to this multitude of laws which are only negative and which humiliate people on the ground of their colour.

I know that the average White voter—and that is our difficulty to-day—has no conception of these things, because they are beyond his field of experience. What does the average voter know of the disruption of families, of the misery of the thousands of people who are evicted from their homes under group areas?

That is a downright lie.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to say that that is a downright lie?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I say that in Johannesburg thousands of Indians are being given notice to leave places which have been their traditional homes and to move 18 miles out of the city. They are being pushed out far beyond the municipal boundaries. That is a disgrace. I say that here in the Cape Province thousands of families are being broken up by the Government. Thousands of people are being evicted from their houses. Go to Stellenbosch or Johannesburg. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, even Members of Parliament are not aware of these things. They are so out of touch with events that they are not even aware of these things. How must the poor voter know these things? We have no objection to new areas being set apart for people. People automatically move to where there are more facilities. They move to areas where they will be nearer to the schools and the churches if one provides these at places which are convenient to them. But I say that it is unforgivable to evict a man from his house on the ground of colour where he was the first to live in and to own a house in the area concerned; and it is as great a misdeed to break up a family. But a change will come at some time or another. After there has been a change of government we shall have to restore the good name of the White man. We shall have to consider ways and means of restoring it. [Interjections.] The other day an Indian told me that he could not understand that Christian people should do these things to them. Is it a Christian policy to break up families? Day after day one can open the newspapers and read this sort of thing—

Just imagine, Sir, one is living in a place illegally if one is staying with one’s husband! This Government is the first to talk of double standards, but if there is any government which applies double standards, then it is this one. In every part of the civilized world a wife’s place is with her husband.

The Bantu’s place is in the reserve.

[Interjections.] Prosecutors are at their wits’ end in the courts. I can quote here from court cases in which the prosecutor admitted that he did not know where the wife’s “home” was; he only knew that it could not be where her husband was. I am asking the Government, what is it doing about the findings of the Snyman Commission? Must we have another Paarl before we learn our lesson? The Snyman Commission came to this finding—

What is the Government doing? Is it continuing to break up families? Why is Communism growing under this Government, while it did not erow under the United Party Government? [Interjections.] It is the disruption of families and the creation of instability which are responsible for that. The Minister of Coloured Affairs himself has said that a man who owns his own home does not become a communist. Communism is an unnatural thing.

It is not natural for people to turn to Communism, because it goes against human nature. A man only turns to the devil when there is no alternative. [Interjection.]

Order!

The hon. members opposite will be very quick to tell one that everything is very fine and peaceful in South Africa, but just knock down a Bantu to-day while driving one’s motor-car, as happened at Luipaardsvlei near Krugersdorp, and within a few minutes they come streaming out in their thousands and they do not ask who was in the right or who was in the wrong, but a White man has knocked down a Bantu and all White people’s motor-cars are stoned. When my chairman in Bezuidenhout knocked down a Bantu while driving along Jeppe Street the other day, he was surrounded by Bantu within a moment, and they did not want to know who was right or wrong. They only think: This is a White man; cut his throat. That is the attitude. [Interjections.] That is the result of the actions of this Government. Must we sit and wait for another Paarl before the Government acts and tries to put matters right? The White man in this country will not be saved by laws or by an army or by the police. There is only one thing that will save the White man and that is that he must be just. Nothing else counts. With his justice he must command the respect of the non-White. If he does not do that, we have no future. That is why I say that it is of no use that those hon. members are so glad about the election. We on this side have little to be glad about as far as the election is concerned; I concede that readily, but it is no crime to be in the minority temporarily. The followers of the Christian faith are in the minority in the world. Will anyone say that they must give up the Christian faith for that reason? This Government has been in the minority at UNO for many years. Will Government members say that they must be wrong because they are in the minority there? It does not matter to us that we are in the minority temporarily. The facts about South Africa remain the same. Sooner or later the voters will realize that they cannot evade the facts. It is a matter of time. The Government has been in power for 17 years. Let Government members name one single problem that they have solved in that period. Hundreds of racial laws have been put through Parliament. The only result that has had is that we are armed to the teeth, and are totally bereft of allies in the world. We have no friends. Every year the Government becomes more authoritarian and wants to arrogate more powers to itself.

In one respect, however, it is marvellously successful, and that is in devising formulae. It is excellent at devising formulae. One can sum up its policy as being, firstly, “A White State”; but this state is not White and will never be. Then for the Coloureds there is to be “A

state within the White State”. There is no student of constitutional science anywhere in the world who will not burst out laughing over this concept of a state within a state. One cannot have two Parliaments in the same state. The year before last the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. J. D. de Villiers) introduced a motion asking that we should apply the “Keep Right” traffic rule in South Africa. Suppose Parliament agreed to that, but the Coloured Parliament said no, the Coloureds would keep to the left-hand side of the road? This is an extreme example, but I am trying to prove that this whole concept is a political abortion. When a White man and Coloured man collided in their cars, in which court would they appear? In a court of the Coloureds’ state within a state, or in a court of the White state? The whole idea is crazy. But for the Indians, too, there is to be such a state within the state. No one on that side can give a proper explanation in this regard. It is purely a formula. But now one comes to the formula for the rural Bantu. In their case one will have a series of states outside the state, nine in the Republic, 11 in South West Africa. That makes a total of 20—a balkanization and disintegration such as the world has never seen. There will be one so-called White state and 20 non-White states and three Protectorates, which are also becoming independent, and South Africa will disintegrate into 24 independent states, each of which, moreover, will consist of a large number of disconnected pieces situated all over the country. As yet no one has explained how one would regulate traffic, or air traffic if one or more of these states should become hostile and close its air space. How would one get from one part of the country to the other? How would one’s military forces carry out their movements? How would the police carry out their movements in times of emergency? How would the railways function? [Interjections.]

They are speaking of a commonwealth of states now, but a commonwealth of states is a voluntary organization. If some of these states refused to join the commonwealth, what would one have then? I want to make this further statement. If this policy can solve our problems, we ought to give serious consideration to it—but it does not affect the heart of our problem; it does not affect the Coloured or the Indian. Nor does it affect the major problem of those Bantu who are settled in the towns and have been born there and have never lived anywhere else. Partition is a well-known idea, but do these hon. members think that partition will succeed if it is applied unilaterally, if one political party cuts up the whole lot and distributes the pieces as it likes? Who will be satisfied with that? Sir, let us take the formula for the urban Bantu. The urban Bantu is declared to be a “visitor”. Just imagine! In Johannesburg alone, 58,000 houses have been built for the Bantu at a cost of R27,000,000. R19,000,000 has been spent on services. All these things have been done for “visitors”! One must be silly to believe that. It is a formula, but no solution, and it is not accepted. The urban Bantu are laughing at the Government. You are not solving anything. In 17 years not a single problem of importance has been solved by this Government, and therefore there will have to be a change of Government. We are young; we have patience. It is just a matter of time. [Time limit.]

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) threatened to accuse me of political cowardice. Well, I do not take much notice of that. He was annoyed because I had referred in critical terms to a speech made by him in this House. I do not know why he should find that so surprising. I have been sitting in this House for 12 years and I have never set out deliberately to criticize a speech made by an hon. member without paying him the courtesy of letting him know that I am going to attack him. and that was all I did in the case of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is certainly not my fault that I have not had a chance to speak earlier; I do not arrange this debate. I take it that he does not arrange the debate on the other side either, and he certainly does not arrange the debate on this side. He says he sat here until his body was sore. I am not surprised. He sat here the whole day yesterday after having received my letter. Why is his body sore? Because he never sits here! Was the exertion too much for him? The only time he comes to sit here is when he wants to make a speech; that is why his body is sore now. Sir, I do not want to make an attack upon the hon. member; I just want to put a few questions to him with reference to a speech which he made earlier on this Session, a few friendly questions. I just wanted him to answer those questions, but there is still a great deal of time left. I am in no hurry to get replies to these questions; the whole of the Session is still ahead of us. But I predict that he will not answer these questions. He is the most fortunate man in the world that he spoke before me, because if he had to speak after me he would have been in great trouble. I want to ask him a few questions with regard to his party’s policy, a policy which he now supposedly supports.

Why do you not talk about your own policy?

I will talk about it. The hon. member cannot, of course, reply to my questions in the course of this debate, and the fact that he cannot do so is a much greater relief to him than it is to me, but I want to challenge him to answer my questions at some time or other during the rest of the Session. I predict that he will bluntly refuse to answer any questions here this afternoon.

Of course, I cannot.

But I go further; I say that he will bluntly refuse to reply to my questions during the remainder of the Session.

The trouble with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that he is called upon to-day to support a policy in which he does not believe. Just to show his lack of political courage, I want to start by putting a few questions to him. Sir, the hon. member has always had a great deal to say here about families which are being broken up in South Africa, about husbands and wives who are not allowed to live together. He says that the fact that they are not allowed to do so is terribly un-Christianlike.

Sir, there are thousands of mineworkers working in the mines. Let me put this to him: Is he prepared to allow the families of those mineworkers to live with them? [Interjections.] Of course not. His party’s policy is not to allow the families of Bantu mineworkers to live with them. [Interjections.] Very well, I will give him time to answer. After all, it is very unfriendly on my part to expect him to answer immediately, because one cannot expect to get an immediate answer from a man with so little courage. We have thousands of mineworkers here without their families and the policy of the United Party is not to allow those families to live here. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) whether it is not true that in terms of the policy of his party that the families of those mineworkers are not allowed to live here. I am talking about Bantu mineworkers. But the hon. member comes here and tells the world that the National Party is following an un-Christian policy when he knows that his party advocates precisely the same policy and when he knows that because of our circumstances it would give rise to an impossible position if we allowed the wives and children of those Bantu mineworkers to come and live here. He knows that that is not what his party wants but he accuses this Government of being un-Christian.

But the hon. member made the further statement that we were kicking thousands of people in this country, Indians, Coloureds and Bantu, out of their homes. He made that bald statement without enlarging upon it. He said that we were kicking thousands of Coloured, Bantu, and Chinese out of their homes. Surely he knows that that is not true. He knows that that is not the full truth.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that, the hon. member knows that what he says is not the truth.

Very well, then he knows it is the truth. However, I withdraw what I said. It is common knowledge that it is not the full truth to say that thousands of people are being kicked out of their homes. People are being put out of their homes, as was done at Sophiatown, but the full truth is that those people are then given better housing, as they were given in Meadowlands. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not prepared to admit that truth. Sir, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) said here, “We are just as much in favour of residential separation as you are”. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point how one can bring about residential separation without putting certain people out of their homes and building houses for them elsewhere? They say that their policy is one of residential separation, but the hon. member says that we are kicking people out of their homes. He does not add, however, that those people are willing to move into other houses that we provide for them.

The trouble with hon. members on the other side is that they find themselves in a terrible dilemma, and that dilemma is this: After the provincial election the hon. the Chief Whip of the United Party issued a statement in which he said, “There is no indication of any difference on party policy and no signs of the emergence of any weakness”. Sir, I say that that is absolutely untrue. There is a deep-seated difference of opinion in the ranks of the United Party as far as policy is concerned. On the one hand we have the hon. members for Maitland and Drakensberg who believe that the policy announced here to-day is the real policy of the United Party. On the other hand we have the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Port Elizabeth who do not believe that that is the real policy of the United Party. They believe in an entirely different policy and I propose to prove that statement by referring to what I would describe as the conspiracy of utter silence in South Africa in regard to certain important events which have taken place in recent months.

The one event was the refusal by St. George’s Grammar School to admit the child of a highly developed Anglican for the simple reason that he was a Coloured. Here we have a party and a Church which accuse the Government of committing the greatest crime against the country by discriminating on the grounds of colour and colour alone, and that accusation was repeated here this morning by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member knows that this child is being excluded from that school for one reason only and that is because he is Coloured; he is being excluded purely on the ground of the colour of his skin. Sir, I do not want to try to make political propaganda out of the dilemma in which those people find themselves; I understand their dilemma but I want to point out that if that same child had been refused admittance to the Luxurama, it would have caused the greatest sensation and consternation in South Africa. Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout utter a single word of criticism of the fact that the school authorities refused to admit the child? Did he utter a single word of criticism of this blatant discrimination which is taking place purely on the ground of colour? No, he did not utter a single word of criticism. But, Sir, we had another political event in South Africa recently and that was the announcement earlier on this Session of an entirely new United Party policy, a so-called new United Party policy. The impression that they want to create in the minds of the public is that they are in favour of a policy of White leadership over the whole of South Africa for all time to come. They want to create the impression that that is the policy that they advocate in contrast with the National Party’s policy of permanent White leadership over portions of South Africa. I say that if the impression which the United Party seeks to create in the minds of the public, the impression which the hon. member for Durban (Point) seeks to create in the minds of the public, that they are in favour of White political control, which amounts to nothing but White political baasskap (mastery) over the whole of South Africa for all time to come, in fact reflects their new policy, then it should have caused the greatest political sensation in the history of South Africa. Because here we are dealing with a party which has condemned our policy of White baasskap over portions of South Africa as something evil, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did again this morning and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done in the past. They said that this was a policy which would lead to South Africa’s ruin; that it was a policy which would cause the world to take steps against us, which would cause the United Nations to take stpes against us, but to-day these same persons come along and say that their policy is not only baasskap over a portion of South Africa, as we say our policy is, but that their policy is one of everlasting baasskap over the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

Was that the policy of the Nationalist Party?

Sir, I do not want to do an injustice to hon. members opposite, but let me put this to the hon. member for Durban (Point). Their policy is one of White political domination over the whole of South Africa. Is that correct, or is it not? No, they refuse to reply. If that had really been their new policy it would have created the greatest political sensation in South Africa, but in point of fact it has evoked no comment whatsoever in the English language newspapers; it has evoked no comment from the English priests; it has evoked no comment from the English language universities; they are all as silent as the grave. The Sunday Express is the one newspaper which had most to say about this so-called change of policy and the Sunday Times described it as “one of these curiosities in our political life”. Sir, there must be a reason why the English language Press and all these bodies to which I have referred have refused to comment on this so-called new policy of the United Party. The reason is perfectly clear. It can be one of two things; the reason may either be that those newspapers and bodies no longer regard the United Party as a political factor in South Africa—and I think that is very close to the truth—but another reason—and I think this is the most important reason—is that those English language newspapers do not believe a single word uttered by the United Party. The English language newspapers do not believe it because hon. members on the other side themselves do not believe it. They do not believe that their policy in the future is going to be one of everlasting political control over the whole of South Africa. I concede that the hon. member for Durban (Point) does believe it; the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) also believes it, but not a single liberal member on that side believes it. and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not believe it. Sir, I want to put a question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I know that he has been forbidden to reply to me but that will still not deprive me of the pleasure of putting the question to him: Does the hon. member believe the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that their policy is “political control over the whole of South Africa for all time”? Of course, they will not answer.

I come now to the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made here when the motion moved by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) was under discussion. That motion dealt with the position of South Africa in Africa and with the position of South Africa in the international world, and on that occasion the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said: “Unless you remove from our Statute Book this negative and humiliating discrimination on the ground of colour, the world will have a casus belli against South Africa.” The hon. member must correct me if I am quoting him wrongly; he said that the world no longer regarded the question of colour discrimination as a domestic matter.

The Transvaler says the same thing.

Why then does the hon. member adhere to a policy which is tantamount to the most terrible colour discrimination that one can imagine in South Africa? The hon. member went on to say that the outside world would be entitled to say that it was justified in declaring war against us unless we removed this humiliating, discriminating legislation from our Statute Book. If that is the hon. member’s attitude, why then is he in favour of a policy which amounts to the greatest and the most humiliating discrimination that one can imagine in South Africa? Because that is the policy that they have announced. Sir, I hope that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will now have the courage to reply to a few questions: What does their policy of White political control over the whole of South Africa for all time amount to other than saying to the Bantu, “However good you may be, however educated you may be, however civilized you may De, you will forever remain a political minority in this country?” Is that what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is saying to the Bantu? No, now he sits there re-arranging his books instead of replying. He is the man of courage but he is afraid to reply to this question. In effect they are saying to the Bantu that they will forever be treated as inferior human beings without at the same time saying to them, “We are willing to give you your own land”. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout goes further. He tried to place himself on a high moral pedestal here this morning. He says to the Bantu, to Luthuli, “You are a Nobel prize winner; no matter how educated, how civilized, how developed you may be, I, Japie Basson, say that you will never sit in this Parliament”. Is that the hon. member’s policy? Of course it is not his policy. He is only pretending that that is his policy. He refuses to reply to my question. Sir, what the United Party is doing is to say to the Bantu, “You can go and buy land in Langa and live there as part of a labour pool in South Africa; we refuse to give you your own territory but at the same time we also refuse to give you any further rights in the Republic of South Africa”. Sir, am I to believe that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who says that the outside world will have cause to declare war against us, is in favour of a policy such as this, a policy which is as abhorrent negative and humiliating as one can possibly imagine? And then, Sir, he is the man who has so much courage! He may say perhaps that he does not agree with that policy and that he has never agreed with it; that there are just a few members who agree with it. That is absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter is that when the United Party tell us that they are in favour of a policy in terms of which eight Whites will represent the Bantu in this House; that they are in favour of a policy in terms of which the Coloured voters in the Cape Province and in Natal are to be placed on the Common Voters’ Roll, and in terms of which a certain number of White representatives are to be given to the Indians, what they are really saying is this, “That is our policy as long as we sit on the Opposition benches, but once we come into power we are not willing to give any guarantee that that will remain our policy”. Sir, I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) is going to speak when I sit down. I want to challenge him here to give me a reply to the following question: In terms of their policy, must the Bantu always be represented by Whites? That is what they say on public platforms. Of course it is not their policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has opened the door for the number of White representatives to be increased to more than eight. Not only will the number be increased but the time will come when the Bantu will be represented by Blacks. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote in an article published in The Friend that it was inevitable that Black representatives would eventually represent the Blacks in this House and yet they tell the public that their policy is one of White domination over the whole of South Africa for all time. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows—and that is why he pretended to defend this policy—what policy he advocates, and the policy advocated by him is not that the Bantu are to be represented in this House by eight Whites but eventually by eight Blacks and later on by a greater number; he knows that that is the policy that will eventually be applied. He knows that that is his policy and that that is the policy of the United Party; he knows that the public has discovered that that is their policy and that is why they now come along with this story that they guarantee that the number of Black representatives will not be increased until such time as a referendum has been held. Sir. they think that this is their trump card but in actual fact it is their greatest weakness, because the mere fact that they say that they will hold a referendum to find out whether the Whites are prepared to allow more Black representatives in Parliament, whether the Blacks should be represented here by Blacks, proves that they are not sincere. They say that they will only do this after holding a referendum with regard to this matter. Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If he becomes Prime Minister and he holds such a referendum, does he want the voters to vote for eight Black representatives in this Parliament? If that is not what he wants, why then does he want to hold a referendum? Surely then he should simply maintain the status quo: all he has to do then is to carry out what he says is in fact his policy. The hard fact of the matter is that implicit in the holding of a referendum is the intention of the United Party to allow more and more and more non-White representatives in this Central Parliament. That is why the United Party is such a complete failure. They are a failure because they think they can make people believe that their policy is one of White leadership over the whole of South Africa for all time to come, whereas in fact it is part and parcel not only of their policy but of their whole “establishment” that South Africa will inevitably have to follow the road followed by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). Sir, that is inevitable; that is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is willing to accept this policy because he knows that if they come into power, which they will never do, this will already be part and parcel of their policy. Sir, no political party can exist in vacuo. Every political party in this country belongs to what I would describe as an “establishment”; I cannot think of a good Afrikaans word for it. The establishment of the National Party is the Afrikaans newspapers, the Afrikaans universities. the Afrikaans schools, the Afrikaanse Sakekamers, etc. The establishment of the United Party is the English language universities, the English language newspapers and all those things. One cannot decide upon one’s policy outside of the complex of that establishment—and that is what they have tried to do. That is why they have earned the hostility of the public and the contempt of their own people; that is why not a single English language newspaper has so far recommended this policy of theirs. That is why not a single English clergyman has recommended it; that is why no single English language university has so far recommended it, and at the same time they are losing support in their own ranks and they are losing their self-respect. Sir, I sympathize with the hon. member for Durban (Point) because he does believe in this policy of White baasskap over the whole of South Africa for all time. He believes in that policy and that is why I sympathize with him, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not believe in it; the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) does not believe in it; the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cron je) does not believe in it. They are putting up a false facade here and that is why they are a failure. I say to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Maitland therefore—I do not know whether there are many more of them—that there is no political home for them in the United Party and in that establishment. I am not so sure about the hon. member for Germiston (District). The policy of the United Party is against their outlook on life: it is against the philosophy of 90 per cent of the supporters of the United Party. Sir, I want to extend this invitation to the hon. member for Durban (Point): The sooner they find their home in the “establishment” of the National Party the happier they will be and the greater the service that they will render to South Africa.

Hon. members opposite seem anxious to have an answer. I can assure them that they are going to get it. I want to deal firstly with the last point made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) because I think it is important in considering the political issues which face South Africa, and that is his reference to the so-called “Establishment”. I want to make it quite clear that this is one of the points of fundamental difference between the United Party, to which I belong, and the Nationalist Party, to which he belongs. We in the United Party do not believe in misusing and abusing cultural and religious organizations. The hon. member for Vereeniging sees the Nationalist Party as a political front with its religious, economic and cultural wings. The universities, as he put it, are the indoctrination wings, with the churches as the religious wings. We in the United Party believe that a political party deals with politics and the churches deal with religion and with Christianity. We will make no move to become, as the Nationalist Party has become, the slaves of an “establishment” in which the freedom of the individual is destroyed. That is fundamental. We believe that every man has his own conscience and that in church he worships as he wishes. It would be a sad day for South Africa when the churches had to align themselves behind political parties.

What about Joost de Blank?

It will be an equally sad day when the Press of South Africa becomes, as the Nationalist Party has done with its Press, the slaves of political parties. We will continue to fight as a political party, standing for principles and a way of life in South Africa.

Which way of life?

I am going to deal with the way of life of South Africa but before doing so I want to deal with another question posed by the hon. member for Vereeniging. He dealt with the question of housing for the wives of Bantu working in the White areas.

On the mines.

He also asked what the attitude of the United Party was towards the question of housing the wives of mineworkers. Let me ask the hon. member for Vereeniging a question: Has he forgotten that it was his Government which, when the newly developing mines in the Free State, wished to build married quarters for their mineworkers, forbade it: that it was his Government which said that it would not allow them to build married quarters. But, secondly, is he aware that every mineworker comes to work under a contract which is usually limited to 12 months? At the end of that period the mineworker must return. His contract may be renewed, but after a fixed period his contract terminates and a new contract is entered into. Is he aware or is he not aware that the vast majority of these Bantu mineworkers are young men who come to the mines to do their spell of work before they get married and then return to the native areas. Sir. on an issue which has nothing whatsoever to do with the basic question of an established and undisturbed family life for the permanent urban Bantu the hon. member for Vereeniging tried to draw a red herring across the floor of the House by trying to avoid the fundamental issue of the permanently established Bantu who are permanently established and will forever continue to be permanently established in the so-called White areas. In order to avoid facing up to that issue he tried to draw the red herring of migrant mineworkers into the debate. Sir, let me say to him that until he and his party face up to the issue of the permanently urbanized Bantu they cannot hope to have a policy for race affairs in South Africa. They have no policy whatsoever because they have tried to ignore the existence and the reality of a permanently settled urban Bantu population. Neither that member nor any other member has tried to face up to the demands and the needs of that population group. Instead of that. Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging challenged us on the question of White leadership and political control in South Africa. He called it the United Party’s new policy.

“So-called” new policy.

Yes. he said it was a so-called new policy. I want to take the mind of the hon. member for Vereeniging back a little. I have here a pamphlet issued by the United Party in 1949 by a body of which he was a member. It was issued in the name of a committee of the party of which he was a member. In that pamphlet Section 3 is headed, “White leadership with justice”, and in the index there are seven points:

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging subscribed to that in 1949. Now he says it is a new policy. In 1953 the policy of the United Party was re-stated and re-published in pamphlet form. Let me quote what is stated in the pamphlet under the “basic principles of policy”—

That was in 1953-4; now the hon. member says it is new policy. Sir, in the latest policy statement the United Party says—

In election after election from 1949 onwards we have stated plainly and clearly our policy of White leadership. Sir, I have here an election manifesto by the United Party which again says the following—

I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging will now give me his attention. This statement of policy was issued by the United Party. Does he agree with it or does he not? Sir, he does I not agree. Let me repeat it—

I wanted to know whether the hon. member agreed, because this pamphlet happens to have been issued by the hon. member for Vereeniging. Not only did he accept the United Party policy, he put his signature to it. He signed it, “Yours sincerely, Blaar Coetzee.”

That is why I left you —because you do not stick to your policy.

Sir, let me look at some of the other things which the hon. member for Vereeniging believed in. He believed in the maintenance of our free association with the Commonwealth of Nations; he believed in upholding the Constitution of South Africa; he believed in upholding the Constitution of South Africa, raped by the party to which he now belongs. He believed in recognition of the fact that no single political party was equal to the task of finding a satisfactory solution to the non-European problem. Now suddenly he belongs to a party which has found a solution to all the problems of South Africa. The only difference is that it has not solved one of them. He believed in the conversion of the Unemployment Insurance Fund into unemployment and pension fund.

What has he done about it?

The hon. member for Vereeniging this afternoon said that the United Party had a new policy of White leadership. In 1953 he himself, under his own signature, publicized, announced and proudly supported a policy of White leadership in South Africa. To-day he has conveniently forgotten it. Sir, it may be because in this pamphlet we have an interesting statement.

Japie, did you agree with me in those days?

This is the basis on which the hon. member for Vereeniging sought the support of his voters for a policy of White leadership all over South Africa; he said it in a pamphlet signed by the divisional chairman of the North-East Rand—

The pamphlet goes on to say—

No, he has not changed his tune; he himself says that he is an idealist and that he has never changed his tune, therefore he still believes in White leadership over the whole of South Africa. In fairness, there is one other thing in which he believed. He said that he believed in a United South African people. He now says that the Nationalist Party has created that unity. Is that right?

Yes.

This pamphlet says—

I hope I may bid him a fond soldier’s farewell. As we say good-bye to him with a soldier’s farewell I hope he will still sing the tune …

Order! What is a soldier’s farewell?

Sir, that depends on who the soldier is; it depends on whether he is saying farewell to a friend or an ally. I shall leave it to the hon. member for Vereeniging to determine for himself the sincerity and kindness of the farewell he will get from us. Because quite obviously he does not belong in his own party. That, Sir. is indicative of the extent to which the Nationalist Party is desperately trying to withhold from the people of South Africa the real choice which stands before them. We have had from the hon. member for Vereeniging and from speaker after speaker on that side of the House an attempt to belittle and ridicule the fundamental policy for which the United Party has always stood.

I want to say this: The policy of the United Party in regard to affairs of race is more than mere words. It is a way of life based on centuries of decency, tradition and background. It has grown after 300 years of contact between White and non-White in South Africa; 300 years in which the White man has learnt to live with the non-White. It has therefore become more than a policy. It has become an approach to life, a philosophy which makes it possible for people of different races to live together under White leadership. It has happened for 300 years. It is the position to-day. All the attempts on the part of members on that side of the House to play with words, to try to turn political leadership and control into “baasskap” will fail. Our policy is a policy of leadership, leadership requiring political control in the hands of the White man. But leadership involves consultation with all races and at all levels. This is not something new, Sir, I regret to say that people as senior as Cabinet Ministers have been guilty of this: They have quoted an extract from a speech made by General Smuts in 1929 out of context to show that General Smuts believed in totally separated states. But they have omitted to quote the conclusion to which he came in that same speech. I believe that that omission was deliberate and I believe it was tragic.

I want to quote it to put it on record. When General Smuts dealt with the question of territorial separation and the Bantu reserves he came to the following conclusion—

Going right back to those days, Sir, it has been the philosophy of the United Party that the White man should rule, should maintain his political control, that he should give to the non-White the greatest possible measure of self-government in his own areas, his own reserves and in his townships, but that in the supreme Parliament which governs us all there should be a mouthpiece for each race. The policy of the United Party is loud and clear: It is representation for the Bantu by eight White representatives in this House.

For how long?

Will the Bantu never sit here?

The hon. member asks for how long. I say for as long as we can see ahead. Unlike the Nationalist Party we are not prepared to remove from the White man the power to determine the future. The Nationalist Party is prepared to take the irrevocable step of creating independent separate states which removes from those areas the power of decision from the hands of the White man. We say that no responsible political party can determine the future for all time and that the responsibility of a party is to leave in the hands of those who follow it the power to decide. So we say that when the time comes to decide whether that representation should be changed in number or in kind it will be decided in the light of the circumstances at that time. The hon. member for Vereeniging asks where we would stand? My Leader has answered that when he said we stood for White leadership because we believed that was right to-day. But we cannot say what is going to happen in 20 or 50 years’ time. What we do say, Sir, is that when the times comes to change it it is our responsibility to leave the right of decision in the hands of the Whites who must make it. The Nationalist Party is prepared to remove the right of decision; it is prepared to take steps which rob future generations of the right to decide. The United Party believes that it can only govern in the circumstances of the situation which it can see ahead. The United Party believes that our prime responsibility to the future is to maintain, in the interests of all races, the guidance and the leadership which we as Whites have brought to this country.

Will the Black man accept that?

We believe that the Black man will accept that. Whether he does or not we believe it is in the interests of South Africa and therefore it is our policy. Unlike the Nationalist Party which has bowed the knee before the demands of extreme African nationalism we do not say, like they do: “we surrender; we will give you your own states; we will give you parts of South Africa.” The hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted that he did not want to do it. He said it was forced upon him by world opinion, and by extreme Black nationalism. The United Party will govern in the interests of the people of South Africa and will not bow the knee to any Black extremists wherever they may be or whoever they may be. Therefore, unlike the Nationalist Party, we will not be cowed or intimidated by the sort of thing which strikes terror into their hearts and which makes them abandon the responsibility of the White man. That is what they have done. As a result of this the Nationalist Party policy has turned full circles. The Nationalist Party came into power on the basis of “baasskap apartheid”, a policy which they now want to hang on to us, “baasskap apartheid” which denies all rights to non-Whites. That is the difference between “baasskap” and White leadership with political control. “Baasskap” denies the dignity of the individual, the rights of the individual. White leadership and political control recognizes the individualism of every person and his need of recognition within the structure of the State.

I have photostatic copies of pamphlets which the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration will remember because he issued them. Here I have the “baasskap” pamphlet, the “swartgevaar” namphlet, the “doing-loo-much for the Bantu” pamphlet, the “spending-too-much-on-immigration” pamphlet, the “spending-too-much-on-the-Bantu” pamphlet, the “too-high-pay-for-the Bantu in -the-Civil-Service” pamphlet, “Geld-vermorsing op nie-blanke soldate” and so forth. The nationalist Party said in those days: “Die party huldie die beskouing dat die Indiërs ’n vreemde en uitheemse element is wat nie assimileerbaar is nie.” From those days of “die kaffer on sy olek en die Koelie uit die land” it has turned full circles.

To-day the result is that the true conservative party in South Africa is the United Party. It is the party which has as the foundation of its policy ordered advance. “Ordered advance” is the hall-make of conservatism. It is moving forward at a controlled pace—ordered and controlled. I say that the Nationalist Party is the radical party of South Africa. Now they are quiet, Sir. They are quiet because they know I have as my witness the Burger’s leading article this morning, the leading article in which the Burger recognizes that the United Party is the conservative party and the Nationalist Party the radical party. I want to quote it. The Burger says, speaking about the United Party’s maintaining the support of “die soliede massa”—

In other words. Mr. Speaker, the Burger recognizes that the Bantustan policy of the Nationalist Party is a radical policy. It says that the United Party’s hope is to sweep up opposition against the radical policy of the Nationalist Party. Dealing with the United Party the Burger says—

In other words, the Burger has had the honesty this morning to recognize that the United Party, in its traditional conservatism had rejected radical leftism and radical rightism. Hon. members on that side of the House have now got to sort it out for themselves. It is now up to them. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) and the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) can fight it out between themselves. But not only the Nationalist Party backbenchers, Sir. the leaders have to fight this out. because its official mouthpiece recognizes the true position of politics in this country. It recognizes that the Nationalist Party more and more is being driven to become the radical party of the urban worker. The hon. member for Moorreesbure nods his head in agreement. South Africa will soon realize it. The day that the Nationalist Party fails, as it must in time, to withhold from the people—as it succeeded in doing during the last election—the real implications of its policy it will be rejected by the people, people who do not want to see South Africa destroyed by radicalism.

The weakness of the United Party in the past has always been that their policy was not based on principles. That lack of principle in the policy of the United Party has again been clearly reflected by the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He made this lack of principle very clear when he replied “I hope so” to the vitally important question as to whether the non-Whites would accept their policy and cooperate in it.

We all realize that our position in South Africa is so serious that we cannot be satisfied merely with hope for the future. We must plan the future not only for ourselves but for all the races living in South Africa. We on this side of the House believe that the policy we apply will be to the benefit of all the various race groups. Apart from the fact-that it is to the benefit of all race groups, it is par excellence in the interest of the White man and his continued existence. I think that as far as that is concerned there is surely no difference between the official Opposition and ourselves. Their speeches, as I have listened to them, amount to this, that it is also their desire that the White man should maintain his position in South Africa. The best way in which he can do so is to exercise domination over that part of South Africa which is his own.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) referred in the beginning of his speech to what was said by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) when the hon. member for Vereeniging asked why the United Party wants the Bantu to have his family with him in the urban complexes whilst they do not adhere to the same principle in respect of the Bantu working in the mines. The hon. member for Point tried to draw a very vague and arbitrary distinction between the Bantu living in the cities (who is now supposed to be a permanent inhabitant there) and the Bantu who works on the mines under contract for 12 or 18 months or for two years. I should like to know from the hon. member what the difference is between the permanent Bantu and the non-permanent Bantu? Until such time as we are able to lay down a principle in respect of that matter, we cannot hope to achieve any success in regard to it. What is good for the Bantu who stays here for two years or 18 months is also good for the Bantu who in different circumstances comes to work in the White areas.

What I have found most peculiar in recent times is that the United Party has run away from its own policy. In recent years there has not been the slightest doubt in the minds of hon. members here in respect of their prospects that the Bantu will eventually be represented by their own people in this House. I admit that they did not stamp this as their policy. It is true that the United Party said in the past that it was not their policy, but that they visualized such a prospect. If one visualizes something, one must be prepared to accept it when it does eventuate. If the United Party visualizes it, they must accent it if it does happen. Recently when I held a meeting in Natal and told the audience that the United Party visualizes the prospect of the Bantu eventually being represented by their own people in Parliament, to my surprise I noticed great consernation among the people. They said it was not true. Evidently they had never heard of this before. That is the way in which the United Party announces their policy, Sir. They do not go to the people outside and honestly tell them what their policy is. I was compelled to read out to the audience what was said by no less a person that the Leader of the Opposition himself in this House in respect of this matter. I should like to read it again and put a few questions to hon. members opposite in regard to it. In 1963 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in this House—

Hon. members need not tell me that they do not intend putting Natives here. I accept that. By implication this is what is said in this statement by the Leader of the Opposition. But I should like to put this to hon. members opposite: If they envisage—that is the least they do in terms of this statement—the Bantu being represented here by his own people, will they be prepared to accept it when it happens?

As recently as last year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it even more clearly. There are indications, I think, that hon. members opposite no longer want to adhere to these prospects in respect of Bantu representation in this House. Then they should be honest enough, if they have any honesty at all, to say: "We said so in the past, but we want to change our policy once more in respect of this matter because we see that the public outside has now rejected us to a greater extent than ever before in the past as the result of this attitude we adopted.” Last year the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the same matter, and I think hon. members opposite owe the House more clarity in respect of this matter. The Leader of the Opposition said the following—

He now tries to put the blame on the Prime Minister. Nevertheless he accepts that they will one day be represented by their own people in this House. We reject that. We have always consistently rejected it. If it is accepted and applied as a policy, that can only be done by the United Party. No other party will do so. The Leader of the Opposition went further and said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can now ask himself where the success fell in recent days. Did it fall on his side or on the side of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City)? Where did the support of the people outside go in respect of this matter in regard to which the hon. the Leader attacked the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) at the time? The history of the past few weeks has shown us what the results were.

I now want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because I think we should have clarity in regard to this matter. If the United Party visualizes this, as the Leader of the Opposition in fact does in the statement he made in this House, that Bantu should be represented by Bantu here, under what circumstances will it happen? The United Party told us in the past that if there is an extension of representation in this House it will be done by way of a referendum. Now I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition: If the test is set as to whether it should be Bantu or Whites who represent the Bantu in this House, what will that test be? Will there be a vote about it or not? I receive no reply. Sir. I receive no reply as to whether there will be a referendum or not.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell me on another occasion if I talk nonsense, but I want clarity in this regard. There sits the alternative Government. They are still the alternative Government and they owe us an explanation. They visualize something, namely that the Bantu will one day be represented by Bantu in this House. How will that take place? If the Leader of the Opposition says a referendum will be held, as he has already said, namely that all extension of representation in this House will take place only by way of a referendum, then I should like to ask in the first instance what attitude the United Party will adopt in that referendum? It is not necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to tell me what attitude they will adopt. All they need say is that if a referendum takes place and the people outside, or whoever takes part in it, decide that Bantu should be represented by Bantu, they will accept that decision. They will then have to accept that decision. I do not even want to ask them whether they will accept it because they will have to accept it. They wrote out the referendum, and having done so they cannot ignore the will of the people, but must accept it.

The most important question in regard to which they still have to give us clarity is who will take part in the referendum. They say the Whites will take part in it. Does the United Party think that the political discrimination they are applying will continue for ever?

How can they identify Whites on a Common Roll?

Precisely. Previously, when we wrote out a referendum in regard to the Republic, they were not satisfied with it. They did not want the Whites alone to vote, but also the non-Whites. Can the United Party now, in spite of their attitude of the past, in respect of a problem directly affecting the Bantu, justify it if they say: “No, you will have no voice at all in it; only we will have a voice.” Then they are the people who talk about discrimination and petty apartheid! We on this side of the House believe, at least in respect of politics, that we should eliminate discrimination as far as possible. We want to eliminate it, but in terms of the policy of that party it will never be eliminated. We know that discrimination has become a swear word in the world. In terms of the policy of that party, discrimination will go from bad to worse as against the various racial groups here in South Africa.

Will discrimination against the Coloureds be eliminated in terms of your policy?

I did not say that discrimination would be completely eliminated. I have never said so. But in the case of the Coloureds, we are dealing with quite a different problem. Because the Coloureds are quite a different group from the Bantu, we give the Coloureds other governmental powers. The hon. member knows it just as well as I do. But I give the Coloured at least better rights than he in fact has, greater rights to govern his own affairs than he will have in terms of the United Party policy. The hon. member seemed to refer to the Coloured as if the Coloured is in great danger in South Africa. I said right in the beginning that the most important thing for us in South Africa is that the various race groups should live together peacefully in the conditions we create. But above all, we realize that the Bantu constitutes the great problem for the White man. and that that is really the problem we should solve to ensure that continued existence of the White man. That is the matter I am dealing with. That is where our great danger lies for the future, and that is where we want to eliminate political discrimination.

You discriminate only against the minority groups, like the Coloureds?

If the hon. member wants to call it that, let him do so. This is a matter of hair splitting. In regard to the Bantu, we believe that we can best state our case to them and to the world if we can eliminate political discrimination as far as possible, so that we give them in their own areas everything we demand for ourselves in our areas.

What about the Coloureds?

Surely we cannot do that with the Coloureds. The Coloureds did not live in reserves in the past, as did the Bantu. We must treat them on quite a different basis.

Hon. members opposite now talk of eight representatives for the Bantu in this House who will be Whites to begin with. I do not want to analyse that matter further because it has been done often already. But I should like to put a few questions to the Leader of the Opposition, and he may reply to them on any day he likes if he does not wish to give his replies now. I want to ask him whether he, or any hon. member opposite, can give us or the people outside an assurance that there will always be just eight representatives of the Bantu in this House? They now say that if it has to be changed, it should be done by way of a referendum. In other words, they cannot give us that assurance. But if they cannot give us the assurance that it will remain eight, let us push it up to 32. Supposing there is a referendum and the number is increased to 32. Can they give the assurance that it will never be more than 32? Is there a single member opposite who can give us the assurance that in terms of their policy there will never be more than 32 representatives of the Bantu in this House? If they cannot give me that assurance, can they give it in respect of twice that number, viz. 64? And if they cannot give it to me in respect of 64, can they give it in respect of 300? Is there anybody on that side who can give us the assurance that in terms of their policy the Bantu will never have 300 representatives in this House? Or make it 161. There are now 160 representatives of the Whites in this House. And if not one of those hon. members opposite can give me that assurance, how can they expect the people outside to support them? If they cannot give that assurance they are surely following the road leading to the doom of the White man in South Africa. I sincerely hope that the hon. member who speaks after me will be able to give us an assurance in that respect. They envisage that the representation of the Bantu in this House may become more than eight. But then they must tell us where they will stop. And if they cannot tell me where it will stop, they must accept that eventually they will be here in the same proportion as the Whites are represented here to-day, and then it is not necessary for me to tell them what the result will be.

Can the National Party give the assurance that the borders of the Bantustans will not be changed?

That question is irrelevant to what I am discussing her.

It is the same principle.

Let me tell the hon. member that there will at least be borders. If I now say that I am willing that it should be changed one day if an emergency arises, at least there will always be borders. That is the big difference. There will be borders between neighbouring states, instead of an intermingling in which eventually the majority will rule.

In the few minutes still available to me, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the various budgets he has introduced since he has held that portfolio. I know that if one expresses appreciation on this side of the House to a Minister, there is always some ridicule from the opposite side. I am glad that there is nothing of the kind to-day, and I think I am right in assuming that they agree with me that the hon. the Minister deserves appreciation for his work.

Hon. members opposite have regularly during recent years been eager to say that South Africa was in a serious financial and economic position. However flourishing our economy was in the past, they always tried to belittle it. This year for the first time the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said in the beginning of his speech: “The economic upswing which started three years ago goes on unabated.”

I was quoting the Minister.

So you did not believe it?

I did not say that either.

In other words, the hon. member still does not believe that the upsurge is continuing.

I did not say that either.

If the hon. member does not agree with that statement, it surely means that he still does not believe that we have a flourishing economy in South Africa. In any case, in so far as there may be doubt in his mind as to whether it is a flourishing economy, I accept that with appreciation. I want to pose the question, however, as to why there has been such a flourishing economy in South Africa in recent years. In the first place, I want to ascribe it to the policy of the Nationalist Government in respect of race relations. There is no doubt that as the result of the policy of separate development, confidence has been instilled in the whole world to invest in South Africa, and as the result of that confidence our economy has flourished in recent years. But apart from that, the Government, through the Minister of Finance, has followed a policy which in fact always anticipated economic trends, and as the result of the actions of the Minister of Finance we made this wonderful adaptation to the economic growth. As the Minister of Finance once said: “A fiscal and monetary policy must never be inflexible, so that it may be used in any direction as circumstances demand”. I have been in this House since January 1961, and it has been characteristic to me of the Minister’s various budgets that he adopts a flexible policy and that he wants to adapt that flexible policy in respect of monetary and fiscal matters to the greatest advantage of the economy of South Africa.

If we briefly look at 1961, we find that the Minister’s watchword then was, “Prevention is better than cure”. In that year there was a sluggishness in the economy and a decrease in our foreign currency. Since that Budget of 1961, the Minister of Finance has said: “We want to try to achieve an upsurge in the economy”, and he made funds available particularly for that purpose, funds for the expansion of border industries, for the Coloured Development Corporation, for the development of the Bantu areas, etc. At the same time he also imposed import duties on motor-cars in order to improve our unfavourable balance of payments. What was the result? There was an immediate and spectacular improvement in our balance of payments. In 1962 our balance of payments improved tremendously. Our imports decreased by 10 per cent and our exports increased by 5.3 per cent. That was the planned Budget as submitted by the Minister of Finance. In 1963 the Minister’s policy was again to improve the rate of growth. We found that the gross national product increased that year by 7 per cent. There was again an upsurge in the economy and the reserves increased further by R 154,000,000. In this way the Minister of Finance continued to make adaptations, and when we saw that things were going very well indeed he came along with the idea of “spending for prosperity”, to which the hon. member for Constantia referred. But every year, when our economy flourished, the Minister of Finance also helped the less privileged. In not a single year from 1961 until now have the pensioners been forgotten. Every year there were real benefits for the pensioners in the Budget.

Now this year we find our selvs in the position that there is an appreciable shortage of labour. There is a great shortage of manpower. The Minister of Finance foresaw that last year already and then made provision for it. I want to refer to the speech he made then—

I mention this because we are so often reproached by hon. members opposite that there is no planning in the Budgets submitted by the Minister. Here we see that the Minister of Finance foresaw last year already that we would be faced with the problem with which we are in fact coping this year.

My time has almost elapsed. The problems with which we are concerned may be solved in various ways, and in his wisdom the Minister of Finance has tried to find certain solutions for them. I have no time to discuss it further, but I should like to say something with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots). Sir, I believe that South Africa’s manpower shortage will be solved to a large extent if we teach our own people to work more and if we, as South Africans, are prepared to work more. The hon. member for Constantia has unfortunately made a plea for the workers in order to gain political advantage. He has the right to do so. He said that they did not share in this prosperity of the country. I am convinced that more work can be done, and the next few years will show that in the countries where the people work harder there will be progress because the joint product of the labour of the people is what the prosperity of the country depends on. We must compete with other countries. I can speak from the experience, because I worked for years on the Railways as an artisan. For months I worked 12 hours a day, seven days of the week. It did not kill me. It did me good to work like that. That was not in the days when the National Party was in power. In those days the United Party was in power. Now that side of the House wants to plead for the workers. I well remember that years ago when I wanted to attend classes at the Technical College I was told that I could not do so because I had to work overtime. Those were the circumstances prevailing in those days. But I do not want to make excuses. All I ask is that we as patriots should prove our patriotism not only in words but in deeds. I think we can prove it in deeds if all of us—and I think this Parliament can take the lead in that respect—work harder for the greater benefit of our country.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in which he showed how the Government’s policy has come a full circle from full “baasskap” to an abhorrence of White control of South Africa, I was rather surprised that the hon. member who has just sat down should accuse this side of the House of lack of principles. The main burden of that member’s speech was an attack on the United Party’s policy of having eight White Members of Parliament representing the Bantu. Now, what is amazing is that if that hon. member had to cross over to this side of the House, he could have made a similar attack on the Government in regard to its policy relating to the Coloureds, or in respect of the Indians. Of course, when he was challenged on that point, on that aspect he turned around and said that the Coloureds are numerically less than Whites, as if numbers had anything to do with political morality and political systems! He turned round and said—if I understood him correctly—that the real danger lay in the Black majority and not in the Coloured minority. But even if one assumed that to be a valid basis, if one conceded that morality is a question of numbers, then he must admit to us —in view of their undertaking that they are going to keep South Africa White for all time—that bearing in mind the rate of population increase in South Africa it is only a matter of time when the Indian and Coloured people together will outnumber the Whites. Must we then assume that, in terms of the Government’s policy, the representatives of the Coloureds will eventually outnumber the other representatives in this House? At the present time we have four Whites representing the Coloureds. As their numbers increase, as their standard of education improves, and as they gradually become more and more westernized, it will require only two generations for the Coloureds to attain the same level of Western civilization as the Whites in this country. The Government is doing a lot to educate the Coloureds, and we are prepared to concede that immediately. Well, when that stage is reached, will their representation still be limited to four Whites in this House? [Interjections.]

My answer is yes, because it is part of this country’s history that the Coloured people should be represented in another council.

Then you agree with us!

In other words, if I understand the hon. member correctly, when the time comes that the Coloureds will probably be equal to the Whites in numbers, considering their rate of increase in this country, and certainly with the Indians they will outnumber the Whites, notwithstanding having reached the same level of civilization as the Whites in terms of the Government’s policy they will still only have four White representatives.

In this Parliament they will only have four …

For all time.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ceres should, with his intelligence, realize that the Government’s policy is only an answer as far as the Bantu living in the Reserves are concerned. It provides no answer to the permanently detribalized Bantu living in the White areas in our big cities. Surely he should realize that! He has no answer to the latter type of Bantu.

But this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde attitude on the part of the Nationalist Party runs through the whole debate of the past ten days. It was significant that on the very day they were at the hustings, fighting the election on the basis that they would keep South Africa White— “Ons sal Suid-Afrika wit hou”—through separate development, the Minister of Finance on that very same day introduced his Budget in this House in which no attempt is made to do that and, as I will show just now, it in fact allows the economic integration which we have known for the past 300 years to continue. Mr. Speaker, the Nationalist Party are political Dr. Jekylls and economic Mr. Hydes, and just like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde they are apparently unaware of the fact that they have a split personality!

I think they know it all right!

I think they do not know it, and I say this because apparently their economic hand does not know what their political hand is doing, or vice versa.

I do not think I can prove this point better than by referring to the role in which the Minister of Finance chose to cast himself this year in presenting his Budget, namely that of a tailor. He pointed out himself that a tailor is a very passive creature. As the Minister said, a tailor must follow the posture of his client. He must make a suit to fit the stomach and the sagging shoulders, etc. That is the role in which he cast himself—a completely negative role! Surely, if the Government really believed in separate development, and if separate development is going to lead to separate freedoms which will enable the races to be separated, then the most important instrument to use is this Budget. As I pointed out to the Minister earlier, he is not doing that, and indeed no Nationalist Minister of Finance has done so over the past 17 years, for the simple reason that it will cost too much if they tried to do it. That is the simple truth really, Mr. Speaker.

The policy is a bluff.

If the Minister wanted to cast himself in a role he should have cast himself in the role of a physical culturist who when he sees a weak specimen tries to change him in this or that direction. He will probably say that he will reduce the person’s stomach and make his shoulders square. That is the type of role the hon. the Minister should have cast himself in.

In any event, I said that the Government should have introduced a Budget which would go some length towards carrying out the Government’s policy of, what they call these days separate development. Secondly, it should have thought of remedies for curing the present weaknesses of the economic body. weaknesses which we see developing and of which the Minister himself is fully aware. Thirdly the Government should have taken steps to ensure the continuation of the rapid development of our country. These are the tasks the Minister should have set himself and he could not do it from the role in which he has cast himself because that role was too negative. In his introduction the Minister himself stated that a budget was a very delicate instrument to bring about desired economic changes. Well, I differ from him in this respect. A budget is not a delicate instrument. Indeed it is the most powerful instrument you have for the purpose of effecting economic changes and bringing about a separate political development, if you want to bring that about. The Minister also stated that he did not have the required range of instruments. Well. I do not know why. It is certainly not due to a lack of a majority on his side that he, the Minister, does not take all the powers he requires.

The instrument is out of tune!

Hitherto they have not shown much hesitation in taking it. If one has regard to the vast spending and taxing powers of a modern Government, the budget is a powerful instrument to effect political and economic changes. That the Minister must admit. He should not pretend that he has only a passive role to fulfill and so merely to follow the figure of the country because the figure of the country over the past 300 years has been the figure of economic integration. That has been the economic posture of the country.

If the Government really wants to see the separate development of the various races in their own areas and is spread to pay the price, the budget is the best to employ for that purpose. But this Budget, like all previous budgets of this Government, only makes token gestures to separate development. Admittedly the token becomes a bit bigger every year but it nevertheless remains a token only. Surely the Minister must realize that as long as the great bulk of the budget, about 90 per cent, is to be spent in the White areas—this is the case to-day, the Minister can split up the figures if he does not accept this—all economic development will of necessity take place in the White areas and on that must surely follow that the Bantu must come from their reserves in their hundreds of thousands to come and work in the White areas. It is as simple as that! It is nonsense to believe that a sort of self-contained Bantu economic renaissance can take place in the Bantu homelands in the foreseeable future. The Minister of Bantu Administration seems to believe in that from time to time. But, surely, the Minister of Finance is too much of a realist to believe that sort of fairy tale that big cities and big industries can merely by way of some Bantu economic renaissance arise under their own steam in the Bantu homelands in the course of the next two or three generations. The Bantu homelands will only be able to carry much larger populations with massive Government and private capital investment. That the Minister must surely also accept.

But economic apartheid in theory and economic integration in practice is such a palatable drug to the electorate that the Government is not likely to change its prescription. But like all drugs it might make the patient very sick in the long run.

I want to deal now with some of the most obvious weaknesses in our economy at the moment. The Minister himself diagnosed these weaknesses but then did too little to cure them.

I should like to stress four aspects in particular, aspects which the Minister also admitted to be weaknesses in our economy at the moment, namely the unfavourable balance of payments, the unfavourable trend of savings, the shortage of skilled manpower and the rapid increase in retail prices over the past year—a rate of increase of 4.1 per cent. I am sure the Minister will agree that all these weaknesses must be corrected if South Africa is to maintain the growth rate projected by the economic development programme over the next five years. In regard to the unfavourable balance of payments, the disinflationary monetary measures already taken in recent months will of course assist in restricting imports and go some distance towards curing this unfavourable balance. But if we have to maintain an average rate of growth of 5½ per cent per annum, then we must have a favourable balance on current account for the next five years. The Minister should therefore try to correct this unfavourable balance as quickly as possible. The Minister told the House that in 1964 the current account showed a deficit to the extent of 78,000,000 and that it was running at an annual rate of not less than R228,000,000 in the last quarter. This, surely, is a serious situation which requires fairly drastic measures.

Apart from restricting imports through credit control, surely everything in the power of the Government must be done to encourage exports, industrial exports in particular. The Minister himself admitted that there was room for improvement. The country is undoubtedly in a difficult situation at the moment. First of all, this is the result, as has already been pointed out, of the serious droughts in recent years. Secondly, there is the fear that the volume of international trade might contract in future. For all these reasons I think it is imperative for the Government to stimulate industrial exports at all costs. We are, of course, aware of all the measures the Government has taken in recent years to this end—by credit guarantees, assistance to export promoting organizations and tax concessions. Our foreign trade representation has also been strengthened. But I think the record shows that these steps have not been effective enough, that something more is required and that it is vital that the Government should use the stick and the carrot to a greater extent. I am aware of the present tax inducement to exporters but the Minister should consider making it more rewarding and simpler. He might think of allowing more than 100 per cent of expenses incurred in the development of export markets and of taxing profits on the shares of a firm exported at a lower level. There are also other ways and means whereby exports could be subsidized without contravening G.A.T.T. Everyone in this House will, I think, agree that unless you get a massive capital inflow again, it is imperative that our industrial exports should be increased rapidly in the following five years. Despite the drought conditions, I feel that there is considerable scope for increasing agricultural exports if only the Government had a constructive agricultural policy. That is however a question on which I do not want to elaborate now. Other members on this side have already pointed to the complete lack of a coherent agricultural policy on the part of this Government. If not for that, agricultural exports could have been at a much higher level.

The Minister pointed out—and it is also in accordance with the economic programme— that for sustained rapid growth, increased savings is as essential as increased exports. The Minister has pointed to the alarming drop in personal savings this year. Moreover, of the savings available the Government is going to take an increased share, leaving a smaller share to the private sector of the economy. The Minister said that the question of increasing savings must be considered, but here again I feel that his proposals are inadequate. What is needed at this stage is surely a national savings campaign tied to some or other attractive scheme to induce savings among private persons. It is true that the Minister has increased the interest rate to 5 per cent and the maximum amount to R20,000 for tax-free Treasury bonds, and this will certainly be a strong inducement to the rich man to invest in these bonds, but as the Minister is probably aware, the rich man is to a large extent an automatic saver already. The Minister has also increased Post Office Savings Bank rates and savings certificates rates to make them more realistic, but it seems to me that the obvious instrument, if unfortunately the Government had not denied themselves that instrument, in a situation like this, would have been a system of premium bonds linked with a national savings campaign. It has had great success in other parts of the world, but the Minister is probably precluded by Government policy from even considering that. May I also suggest to the Minister that in order to encourage savings one member on the Government side has suggested increased deductions for insurance premiums, but he might also consider making half the interest payments on building society bonds deductible for income-tax purposes no to a limited maximum, of course. He might also think of instituting more popular savings accounts in which a certain proportion of the savings is made deductible. The Post Office is already there, but as the Minister knows, a fairly small portion of savings seems to go to the Post Office.

I now come to the question of skilled manpower. The Minister has mentioned it. but apart from making concessions to old-age pensioners, which of course we have been advocating for many years, and also concessions to married women to go back to work, I cannot see any active steps in this Budget for improving the manpower position. This Budget does not seem to reflect the necessity and urgency for rapidly improving the education and skills of all races. The Government seems to be unaware that in modern societies the emphasis is on investment in human beings as much as in things, and that economic progress is as much dependent on education as on capital investment; that increased wealth flows from better educated and trained people as much as from new investments. The Minister must be aware of the work done in recent years by economists, particularly the professor quoted by Professor Horwood in his articles in “The Economic Journal”, in which he suggests that in America more than half the growth in wealth does not come so much from investment in things and machinery, etc., as from improving the skills of the people through better education. Of course the quickest and cheapest way of getting skills into the country is and was always immigration. That is why we have suggested it for the past 13 years, but it was turned down by the Government not for economic reasons but for purely political reasons. Fortunately they have become converted to immigration, but I still think it should be stepped up. I think it is essential to do so.

I think in a modern Budget such as the Minister showed, the percentage of the national income invested in goods and in things is shown, but it would be a good idea if in future he shows what the nation really invests in education, because as I will show from the figures it seems that the South African record in recent years has not been too good. Some years back we saw a dramatic increase of expenditure on defence. I would suggest to-day that there is need for an almost equally dramatic increase of expenditure on education for all races. The bottleneck of our economy after all is mainly skilled manpower, which apart from immigration can only be cleared up by a long, slow process of more and better education at all levels. If you want to increase your number of scientists gradually in ten or 20 years’ time, you must start educating them now. In this modern technological age one would expect expenditure on education to increase faster than national wealth or income. In a recent publication by Professor Horwood in the S.A. Journal of Economics of September 1964 he gives the figures of total expenditure on education in this country, and a most alarming situation seems to have developed since 1950. According to his figures, whereas in 1950 the country spent about 3.25 per cent of its national income on education, in 1963 this figure was down to 3 per cent.

Again, Mr. van Waasdijk in “Public Expenditure in South Africa”, on page 226, calculates that the outlay on education by the provinces has dropped in the same period from 2.4 per cent of the gross national product to 1.9 per cent. Surely that is a serious reflection on any Government in this modern technological age that as you get wealthier you actually spend less of your national income on education. The modern trend should be the other way around, particularly in a country like South Africa. If you compare our level of expenditure on education with that of other countries, we already do not compare too well. For what it is worth, Professor Horwood in this article I mentioned cited an American authority to show that, e.g., in a country like the U.S.A. they spend 4.6 per cent of their national income on education, in the Netherlands 5.2 per cent, Belgium 5.6 per cent, Japan 5.7 per cent, Finland 6.5 per cent, and in Soviet Russia 7.1 per cent. He remarks that we seem to be midway between the developed and the undeveloped countries, our rate of expenditure being about 3 per cent. I would say it is obvious that it should be Government policy from now on that an increase in percentage of the national income should go to education. The Government must provide more money for education. It should also encourage it through tax concessions. Professor Horwood shows that as compared with other countries donations to educational institutions in this country are comparatively low, but they are fairly high in countries like America, where there are extensive inducements to private people and companies to make donations to educational institutions. Surely the Minister should think along those lines, too, so that there may be a greatly increased flow of donations for education as well as the Government itself voting much bigger amounts. It should obviously start with the salaries of teachers at schools. I think everyone in this House will agree that the salaries of school teachers and teachers in technical colleges and universities should be increased far more quickly than salaries in general. Academic salaries in this country have certainly lagged behind salaries in general. Professor Horwood compares the salaries of professors in this country with those in other English-speaking countries like England and the U.S.A. and Australia to show that our salaries are lagging behind. This is the only way of improving the status of the teaching profession and to restore it to what it was a generation or two ago, and it is the only way to attract more and better teachers and to lay the foundation for an improved educational system for the country as a whole.

Again I come to the special system of financing Native education on a formula which allows for only a very slow increase. Surely that is indefensible in the modern world. I am aware that hon. members opposite might feel that if you educate the Natives too fast, integration might be speeded up, but surely separate development itself can never take place if the Native population is to rely, as it has in the fast and must under the present system of financing Native education, on the administrative and technical skills of the White population to a large extent. They can therefore justify greatly increased expenditure in terms of apartheid. In fact, I cannot see how separate development can ever be practicable unless the Government is prepared to spend sufficient money on Bantu education so that they can build up their own administrative and technical élite. With the present expenditure on education it is inevitable that the Bantu population must for the foreseeable future at any rate rely on the technical and administrative skills of the White man. In any event, if increased expenditure on Bantu education should lead to more rapid economic integration, I do not know why the Government should not welcome it because it is one of the ironies of the political situation in South Africa at the moment that our strongest shield against external interference, like sanctions, is the strength of our economy and our large import and export market which results from it, which again, ironically, has not arisen because Government policy has succeeded but because it has failed, because there has been rapid economic integration. In other words, we stand more strongly against the outside world because of the rapid economic development we have had in recent years, which has been made possible very largely by economic integration.

I now come to inflation. The Government has tried to restrain inflation by restricting demand. If this Budget was intended to assist that, the Government should surely have pruned Government expenditure even more ruthlessly than it did. as has been suggested already by some hon. members on this side. But in any event, apart from the monetary measures, the Minister should have taken other measures, too, to reduce costs and to increase production. After all, there are two ways of fighting inflation, as the Minister knows. The one is by restricting the demand, and the other is by increasing the production. Obviously a more rational and less restrictive use of our non-White labour is one of the ways of reducing costs and increasing production. I see the Minister smiles, but the fact is that as the White workers do more and more of the highly skilled work, the non-White labour must of necessity be up-graded. This, of course, is happening even in Government Departments, but the process is slowed down by Government policy. I may quote here what Professor Schumann has recently written to show the inevitability of this and that it makes very little sense to oppose this development. In the annual review of the S.A. Economy published in the Cape Times on 20 February, Professor Schumann says this—

Now why does the Government not accept the inevitable? Again I see no signs in this Budget of attempts to provide greatly extended labour training programmes, particularly for the non-Whites. The Government should accept the policy of up-grading non-White labour and try to encourage it. The Minister could probably also have done more to encourage the installation of modern plant. I know that the investment allowances are already quite a big inducement, but as far as I know they will expire in 1968. The Minister could surely give an assurance that this will be carried on with. He could also think of increasing the depreciation allowance, particularly for buildings.

Lastly, to reduce costs, the Minister could surely have examined his list of customs duties and reduced duties on those raw materials which are not produced locally. I am sure if the Minister investigates the list of customs duties he will find that there is an enormous number of raw materials which are not produced in South Africa, and there are many anomalies on the clothing industry and in the pharmaceutical industry of which I am aware, and I am sure in many other industries, too, where some of the duties on the raw materials are actually on the same level as the protected duty for the finished goods produced here. Surely that would have been quite a considerable step to reduce costs if the Minister had considered this and had seen where he could cut the duties. It would have made a reduction in taxation possible … [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. It is not entirely due to chance that it is my fate to sing the swan song in this debate. Yes, my fate, or shall I say my doubtful honour, doubtful because although I am singing the song the United Party is the swan.

I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has said. He said: “Our policy is loud and clear.” He said furthermore that the White man would determine the future of this country. I just want to refer to the fact that under their policy it is impossible to believe that they will escape from the tyranny of numbers. When we consider the fact that over the past 20 years no fewer than 700,000,000 non-Whites have been given their freedom and that Bechuanaland. Basutoland and Swaziland will get theirs before long, we must be very naive to believe that under the policy advocated by the United Party the non-Whites in this country will be satisfied, for the unforeseeable future, with perpetual White supremacy. He said their policy was “loud and clear” but what does Mr. Horak, their chief secretary, say? The election results have disillusioned him and he says: “The time has now arrived for us to bring this policy of ours clearly home to the voters.” What is “loud and clear” about politics or a policy such as that? He said they should bring it clearly home to the voters so that they would not cut such a poor figure next time. Stanley Uys thinks differently and that is that if the National Party continues in this way the day will soon arrive when the country will be in precisely the same position in which General Smuts was in 1948, when, according to Mr. Uys, we very nearly succeeded in obtaining perfect co-operation between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections in this country, as he regarded it. Sir, when this day is over 100 hours still remain for the Budget and all we can do is to shout “Be of good cheer” to one another, to the Press and to the radio, because we intend talking the full 100 hours.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said that if there were any planning in this Budget he was a full-blooded “Broederbonder”. I want to remind him ol certain youth gangs in America. One of those gangs call themselves “Hell’s Angels”, a terrible contradiction in terms, and the other call themselves “Strayed Satans”. When I look at brother Syd. and one usually sees him better in absentia than when he is present, and I associate him with the Broederbond. I cannot help but think of a strayed satan, or if you will not allow that, Sir, I cannot help but think of that gang which calls itself strayed satans and in saying that I am withdrawing my first statement which is rather strong.

I read the following in the Sunday Times of 21 March—

I read further from the same newspaper—

What happened? The voters expressed themselves against the proposed destruction of South Africa by Sir de Villiers Graaff under his policy and in favour of retaining South Africa under the National Government. He refers to the National Party and the Progressive Party and says—

All we get from him is civilized government but he does not tell whether it will be White or non-White or mixed—

It is then suggested that the National Party and the Progressive Party are in collusion with each other in their common opposition to the United Party. Reference is made to North East Rand, Pietermaritzburg and Zululand. In those constituencies the United Party is opposed by both the Nationalist Party and the Progressive Party. That was true and then he said—

In other words, it is insinuated that the Nationalist Party is in collusion with the child of Sir de Villiers Graaff, his own child whom he has made a bastard. This insinuation is unfair and untrue. Had there been a little more humour within the ranks of the United Party after their defeat, had they shown a little more humour as an appetiser—but I suppose that would not be fitting in view of the fact that having spurred the people on to save South Africa from total destruction, as the Leader of the Opposition had done, that action has practically led to their own destruction. I must admit that we ourselves are not as pessimistic as the Mail and the Star about the dangerously ill condition of the United Party nor are we as optimistic as those two newspapers about the incredible chances of the National Party in future. What does the Rand Daily Mail say? They say that if the swing to the right continues the party opposite will shortly have shrunk to 12 representatives in Parliament. They also say that during these elections the National Party has proved that a majority of 3,000 no longer guarantees a constituency, and that in the general election the National Party may take no fewer than 18 seats from the United Party. We are not as optimistic as that. The Star admits that the United Party is facing a crisis as regards its continued existence. That is probably again being over-pessimistic. They say the struggle was waged along such a narrow front that the National Party has actually been more successful that one could gather from the results. According to the Star the National Party must reconstruct its own house. It must bring about a change in its own house so that it can offer a roof and a home to the constant flow of English-speaking voters who flock to the party. I just want to issue a note of warning that we must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by these newspapers and pat ourselves on the back but that we must remember that we have to continue to fight. Mr. Horak, the general secretary of the United Party, said they must bring home to the public the essence and the importance of their policy. It is very late to do that to-day. He said they should convince the people of the dangers inherent in Government policy and, thirdly, he said they should spur their people on to action before the next election. Having received instruction to destroy the National Party, if possible, they are only to-day saying that they must bring home their policy to the voters. It is very late in the day to came forward with that advice to-day and we just want to remind them that they must start timeously if they still want to succeed in bringing home that policy of theirs to the country. We want them as an opposition which can form the alternative government but, as I have said, we are waging a struggle and we must win that struggle. If we win it now a military attack will possibly be the last desperate attempt on the part of the enemy and that will ensure the crown of victory to us. On the other hand if we lose that struggle today a possible military onslaught at a later stage would tragically seal our lot. If we give up that struggle we shall be accelerating the speed of the evil forces. Our indifference would intensify the degree of their hatred. A false sense of security in this struggle would expose our bastions to traitorous elements. If we accept this philosophy of world peace and world citizenship on their conditions we shall be letting loose something which will destroy us. Once we have become soft and allowed ourselves to be conditioned to abandon all principles, the promoters of our destruction will, in the last hour of our good faith, with renewed indifference and devilish pleasure, try to destroy us. As against that we can, with deliberate action, put a stop to the evil onslaught. Our inspired determination to survive will change their hatred into a fire which will turn and devour them. If we are on our guard we shall close the portals of our bastions to the infiltration of malicious elements and if we reject the false idea of peace founded on world citizenship we shall increase our own safety. Our refusal to take spiritual drugs will cause truth to be triumphant. Truth must be the foundation of our determination, our peace and the security of our continued existence in future. We must keep our eyes open. It makes no difference of which threat to South Africa you speak in these days and which form it takes and where and how it operates and what its objectives are. You can only call it by one name and that always remains Communism. Communism received a great boost when Roosevelt recognized the Soviet Government a little over 30 years ago, a mistake from which the entire world is still suffering to-day. When Russia was succumbing to the crippling blows of the German tanks Roosevelt provided them with weapons to the value of nearly R8,000,000,000. 11 billion dollars. When Stalin pleaded at Yalta that 80 per cent of the industrial output of Germany should be given to him he got it. When the German scientists tried to surrender to the West towards the end of the war they were refused and forced and chased into the arms of the Russians with whom they made peace, and it is from their ranks that Russia has obtained the technical assistance for her flights into space; that is the reason why the Russians are still far ahead with their programme to-day. If the West were to disappear from the scene completely history would show how the West itself had worked out that programme. At the moment Communism has enslaved no less than 35 per cent of the nations of the world, while the hammer and the sickle throws a dark shadow over 25 per cent of the surface of this earth. I repeat that if these things were allowed to continue we shall probably see the Western world disappearing as a result of its own stupidity. The danger in this country is that we have an Opposition which in actual fact, no matter how sincere they are, and no matter how good their intentions are concerning this nation, is still propagating those evil ideas, difficult as it may be to believe and to accept it. If this evil which seeks to undermine White civilization is allowed to carry on with its work unchecked it will ultimately bring about the destruction of White civilization and of the Christian Calvinistic religion. That is why we appeal to them to join us in the struggle and to help us in the fight against these evil powers so that we can show a united front and be strong to-day as well as in the future.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 90 (1).

Mr. Speaker, this must indeed be a wonderful Budget. If I am to believe what the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) said it is a Budget which does nothing to carry out the policy of separate development; if I have to take notice of what hon. members opposite say, it is a Budget in which the Minister has been circumscribed, too circumscribed, by ideological considerations. A Budget that can satisfy everybody in this way must indeed be a wonderful Budget. I now move—

Agreed to.

I move—

We on this side of the House support this Bill in its third reading, and I wish to place on record the reasons why we do so. We support it because it is a consolidating and modernizing measure. We feel that it is desirable that the Copyright Bill should be modernized and brought up to date from the original 1916 Patents Act which has already been divided into four portions. The Patents Act of 1952 was the first of these; the Tradesmark Act of 1964 was the second; the Copyright Bill which is before us now is the third step in modernizing this Act and the Designs Bill, which I understand is going to be introduced in the near future, is the fourth. May I say that the Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill last year was something different because it was a Bill drafted by a departmental committee, embodying principles of which we did not approve. The aim of the present Bill is, as expressed in the first report of the Select Committee, to preserve all existing rights of the Patents Act, 1916. Here I would like to say that this Bill, in one of its principles, departs from this aim. The second aim was to bring copyright law up to date with the Berne-Brussels Convention. In substance the Bill, except for this one principle, with which members of the Select Committee representing this side of the House were not in agreement, does not depart from the original principles of copyright law. It has been modernized to cater for present trends. It defines the respective rights of the author and the user of copyright which has been in existence in South Africa over the past 50 years, but it includes new features and exemptions from copyright which have arisen from time to time and which were incorporated in the Berne-Brussels Convention. The Rome Convention of 1961, which South Africa has not yet ratified but which I understand South Africa intends to ratify, in articles 12 and 16, gives an optional, not an excluding right, in broadcasting gramophone records and performers’ rights. This Copyright Bill has incorporated the first two provisions, that is to say, copyright in broadcasting and an incomplete right, if I may say so, for the makers of gramophone records, but it does not provide for performers’ rights which will come under a separate Bill which is at the moment in the hands of a Select Committee.

Before I come to the principle in regard to which hon. members of the Select Committee representing this side of the House were not in agreement, there are important additions to existing copyright law, and these include the provisions of Chapter 2. which creates a new copyright in broadcasting and in television. Clause 15 (1) of the Bill specifically states—

1. (a) in every television broadcast made by the Corporation …

the “corporation” being the South African Broadcasting Corporation—

1. (b) in every sound broadcast made by the Corporation.

Here I would first like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give some explanation to the House as to why it is necessary to include this television copyright protection in a Copyright Bill for South Africa? We understand that television is mentioned in ten clauses and in the fifth schedule to this Bill. Surely that is a pointer to the fact that the eventual introduction of television is envisaged by the Government, and I think we can bear that in mind, regardless of present Government policy. We know that before the Select Committee the Registrar of Patents said that these television provisions had been incorporated by virtue of their inclusion in the Berne-Brussels Convention, but one would ask why it is necessary to include them in this Bill before the House when there is no television in South Africa at the present time. There are two questions that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in this connection: Has he consulted with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, regarding these provisions? Because judging by statements made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs there seems to be no likelihood of the introduction of television in South Africa for some time to come. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the insertion of these clauses in this Bill was asked for by the South African Broadcasting Corporation? Would it not have been simpler to include these television clauses by way of amendment later on rather than to insert them in this Bill now when there is no television in South Africa? I should like to know from the Minister whether his Department was asked by the South African Broadcasting Corporation to insert these television protection clauses in the Bill and whether the South African Broadcasting Corporation is perhaps applying its mind to the advent of television in South Africa. That seems to be a possible explanation when one reads Clause 15 (1) (a) of this Bill. Will the hon. the Minister please enlighten the House in this regard?

I wish to comment now on the new Clause 50 which has been inserted to follow Clause 49. Clause 50 (3) provides that “the circulation, presentation or exhibition of any work or production in pursuance of authority granted in terms of such regulations shall not constitute an infringement of copyright in such work or production, but the author shall not thereby be deprived of his right to a reasonable remuneration, which shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration”.

I feel that this extension of copyright is broadening existing legislation, because under the Patents Act of 1952 it is recognized that when an applicant takes out a patent to a project if no use is made of such patent within a period of years or if no licence is taken out to produce or manufacture the product for which the patent has been taken out, then outside bodies or people may apply for a licence to produce the same product on payment of a fee to the owner. I feel that this same principle is now being extended to the Copyright Act. It broadens the scope of copyright and it will enable our local producers to perform the works, for example, of overseas playrwights who, for their own idealistic reasons, may ban the production of their plays in South Africa. These authors would still receive adequate compensation for their work but they will not be able to prevent the production of their plays in the Republic. There is a strong body of opinion that South Africa’s theatre, which has carefully built itself up over these last years, might wither and die if for ideological reasons it is deprived of a supply of overseas plays. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this in some detail and also with his reasons for having decided definitely against the matter going to the tribunal.

As far as these new extensions to the Copyright Bill are concerned, I want to come now to the points of difference between hon. members of the Select Committee representing this side of the House and hon. members of the Select Committee who represented the other side of the House. Sir, there are certain conflicting inclusions. On the one hand we have the claims of the South African Broadcasting Corporation and on the other the claims of certain vested interests which are internationally recognized. I refer to the association of the South African Phonographic Industry, the South African Society of Composers and Authors and Music Publishers and the South African Recording Rights Association. The evidence of all these bodies is included in the report of the Select Committee. May I say that I appreciate that the Berne-Brussels Convention excludes recordings, and any country is therefore at liberty not to protect them, or if we do decide to protect them, we can lay down certain conditions under the Rome Convention of 1961 dealing with broadcasting and gramophone records, but there appears to be no international obligation upon South Africa for the payment of royalties in connection with the playing of records in public. Nonetheless it is felt very strongly not only by hon. members on this side of the House who were members of the Select Committee but also by the South African Institute of Patent Agents that a record manufacturer is entitled to a reward for the intellectual effort which is put into a record. This provision is in conflict with the South African Broadcasting Corporation Act in Clauses 7 (5) and 13 where the words “make and” are included. This amounts to a serious abolition of the right of reproduction of records and the subjection of the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society to the “fair dealing” provision under Section 7. While the S.A.B.C. recognizes vested rights of the author or the composer, the Bill does not incorporate copyright for record makers. Sir, the crux of all the above is to determine whether the record makers’ reward totals a greater amount than the profit that he normally takes on every record he sells, and whether the record manufacturers can satisfy the authorities that there would be a material drop in their income if they had no copyright protection in this sphere. I want to mention that these vested rights of the record manufacturers were incorporated in the 1916 Act; that they have been utilized since 1934 by way of agreement with the S.A.B.C. It is a right which exists at the present time and which the Copyright Bill is now going to remove.

Then, Sir, there are what one may call “neighbouring rights” which, in this case, seem to be limited to public performance and broadcasting. The test seems to me to be this; Would the absence of neighbouring rights discourage the intellectual effort on the part of gramophone companies in making records? Possibly not, but if we insist on these “neighbouring rights” they must surely be diluted by equitable clauses on “fair dealing”.

Order! That is a point which should have been raised at the second reading or at the very latest in the Committee Stage.

Sir, may I say then at this stage that these are the reasons why we feel that there is still a conflict in regard to the contents of the Copyright Bill. May I also say that if suitable adjustments such as these had been made in the Bill as it was originally presented to the House, then the main objection of this side of the House to this Bill would have fallen away.

I would like, in conclusion, to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider amending this Bill in the Other Place in order to meet the valid criticism which has been raised here ant) which I am raising again in this third reading. with regard to the royalties paid to record manufacturers. One feels that if these adjustments can be made, the Minister will be placing on the Statute Book a new and modern Copyright Act that will not deprive certain sections of the record manufacturing industry of a copyright which they had enshrined in the 1916 Act.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister but I am under the impression that she really wants to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will at some time or other introduce a television service. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. members for Johannesburg (North) and Zululand (Mr. Cadman) to the fact that one of the objects of the South African Broadcasting Corporation …

Order! That is not relevant at the moment. I pointed out to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that she should have raised the point she did raise at an earlier stage.

In that case she really should not have put those questions to the hon. the Minister. I just want to say, Sir, that one of the objects of the S.A.B.C. is to introduce a television service and if we want to round off the Act completely provision has to be made for it. What is indeed relevant is the fact that the S.A.B.C. has drawn up television programmes in this country which are used by people overseas and it is in order to protect the copyright in that respect as well that provision is made for it in the Bill. Had we not made provision for that this measure would already have been obsolete at its very inception.

The hon. member wanted to know why provision was made for arbitration. I do not know whether that question falls within the scope of this debate and whether I should reply to it, but you must call me to order, Sir, if I am out of order. The fact of the matter is that countries reciprocally protect copyright and the reason why it is protected is not because there is reciprocity as regards the cents made by the different parties but the reason why it is protected is because the one country does not begrudge the other its intellectual product. They allow one another to use one another’s intellectual products and that is why they pay one another; but when a group of authors or composers, the owners of the intellectual goods, refuse to make their intellectual products available to South Africa they are acting contrary to the spirit of the Berne and Brussels Convention. By including this provision we are doing exactly what they are doing; there is nothing immoral in it and I am pleased that the hon. member did not object to it.

She asks why the provision governing copyright is not similar to and in conformity with the provisions governing patent rights. I shall tell her why not. In the case of patent rights we have this situation: Somebody patents his right to reproduce an article and to make it available to the world against compensation. If he does not patent it anybody else can reproduce it but even if he does reproduce the patented article anybody else can still copy that article for his own use; that is the analogy. If, for example, an author does not make his intellectual property available to us it is like a patented article that is not being reproduced; in that case every individual can use it for his own purposes; in other words, on that basis we ought to use that copyright without any compensation whatsoever, but because we are doing so at a profit we make them pay for it. As far as the question of arbitration is concerned the hon. the Minister might just as well appoint the tribunal which is being established here as the arbitrator. The reason why the Minister has made provision for arbitration is because he wants to leave a choice between arbitration and the tribunal. Had there only been a tribunal it could have been said that we were not quite fair towards overseas authors. But now they are free; they can choose the tribunal; any of the theatrical people can ask the tribunal to act as arbitrator; nothing prevents them from doing so nor are they prohibited because they are not mentioned.

The hon. member made the same allegation she made during the second-reading debate, namely, that we were depriving people of rights they have enjoyed previously. I refer to the gramophone record makers. I emphatically deny that. The facts of the situation are that the British law of 1916, which we adopted in this country, contained a certain provision which was first interpreted in 1934 to mean that the maker of a gramophone record enjoyed a copyright parallel with and comparable to that enjoyed by a composer. That was only in 1934. Prior to that nobody thought that that section lent itself to such an interpretation. That interpretation was placed upon it in England, not in South Africa. But the hon. member now suggests that that interpretation should also apply in South Africa. That interpretation is, in fact, not automatically applicable here. It may be that the gramophone record makers in South Africa thought they had a so-called vested right but there is nothing to prove that the South African courts would place the same interpretation on it. They have had the opportunity of testing it in the South African courts. Various people have refused to grant that quasi-copyright to gramophone record makers, to pay them for using their records and they never dared to take the matter to court. The only body on which they descended with determination was the South African Broadcasting Corporation. As I said during the second reading if anybody can be accused of anything in connection with this matter the management of the S.A.B.C. can be accused of having been too weak to take the matter to court. But if the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says the people have vested rights to demand a fee from the S.A.B.C. what about the hundreds of other people in this country who have refused to pay? Surely they too have a vested right to say “We refuse to pay this impost to the gramophone record makers.” How can she claim a vested right for the record manufacturers on the one hand and on the other hand, on the same basis, deny people who play records at a profit the vested right to refuse to pay. Surely that is illogical —or may I not accuse the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) of being illogical?

She is a woman.

Yes who would dare try to understand a woman—no, you must not try to understand her; you must only love her. But in this case I have to accuse the hon. member of being illogical; he has been looking for it. I repeat that the cinema owner who plays records has refused to pay; the elderly widow who runs a boarding house and plays records is not asked to pay. But all the municipalities who were asked to pay where they played records objected and many did not pay. The Chamber of Mines objected and said the gramophone record makers should make their profit in the ordinary way of business. They too have a vested right to refuse to pay.

I again want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) how she can demand such a vested right for the one group but deny another group a vested right based on the same facts? We on the Select Committee, with the approval of the advocate who appeared for the gramophone record makers said: You should get either everything or nothing. We were of the opinion that they should not receive anything for the very simple reason that they had no vested right and if we were to give them that right it would be in conflict with the Berne and Brussels Convention.

Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my remarks as far as her speech is concerned. I repeat that the whole industry, all the authors, all the publishers, all those who make use of a copyright and of the right of composers are grateful that this legislation is ultimately going on the Statute Book and grateful that machinery is being created whereby it will be possible to settle disputes between composers and the users of their music.

As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has said, we support this Bill in principle because it modernizes our legislation and it equates our legislation with international conventions, and of course it brings it into line with modern technological advances which have been made, particularly in the field of television. But I think it is a pity that a good piece of legislation of this kind should be marred in one respect. Since we are now dealing with a Bill at its third reading. I shall only deal with the principle that is involved. The principle which is involved and which I am sorry has been embodied in this legislation is that there is a discrimination against one section of industry in favour of another. That is the simple principle that is involved. I say that despite what the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has just said. One section of the industry, that is, the manufacturers of gramophone records, has been built up over a period of 30 years under an existing state of the law, whereby it has certain established rights. It has drawn its income from a number of sources, all of which, for the whole period that the industry has been established, have been protected by legislation which has existed up till now. Sir, one of these long-established sources of revenue is being summarily abolished in this legislation. I say, “summarily” not because I intend to convey that there has not been discussion in this regard but I say it because it is happening in one blow and not over a period of years and by degrees. That source is being abolished in favour of the S.A.B.C. and in favour of the cinema owners of South Africa. These two bodies, the cinema owners principally and the South African Broadcasting Corporation are being given a financial advantage which they did not previously have, and the record manufacturers industry in effect is being penalized in order to create this advantage. That is the principle of the thing. This approach to legislation is wrong in any circumstance and it is particularly wrong in a circumstance such as I have mentioned, where it is an established right which is being done away with. I believe that it can be justified only on the basis of sectional self-interest in respect of those bodies which are going to benefit. It should be emphasized that the industrial group, to which I have been referring here, do not ask for any privileges at all; they merely ask that the status quo under which they have always operated be maintained. They object to a privilege being granted to the cinema owners and to the S.A.B.C. to the disadvantage of themselves. This is not a case where a privilege can be granted to the S.A.B.C. and the other users of records in public without detrimentally affecting the interests of others. This is not one of those cases. That privilege can only be granted to the disadvantage of established rights, and I feel that that is a wrong principle. It amounts to this, that the S.A.B.C. may now use the intellectual property of another without payment. I say that because it cannot be denied that the skill used in the making of a successful record is intellectual property. It can be argued to what extent that skill plays a part but it cannot be denied that that skill is intellectual property and it should have been protected, as it always has been in the past, by a Bill of this kind.

It has been said that the record manufacturing section of the industry refused an offer by the S.A.B.C. to receive payment in respect of records used only on their commercial services. That is incorrect. That offer was never made. It is no use that offer now being made because this Bill does away with the basis upon which any such relations would be negotiated.

There is one other aspect of this measure with which I wish to deal and that is the so-called piracy clause about which I believe there is a degree of misconception. One hears that this clause enables the intellectual property of overseas playwrights, in particular, to be used in South Africa without permission from the playwright concerned and without any financial remuneration for the use of his intellectual property. That of course is quite wrong. I believe it is wrong to label this clause with the title of “piracy”. Because whilst it has been designed to overcome a form of economic sanction against South Africa for ideological or political reasons—I believe it has been rightly inserted to overcome that difficulty—it has not been so designed that use can be made of the intellectual property of overseas playwrights without payment. It is quite clear that provision for payment is embodied in the Bill. If there is any disagreement as to the amount that should be paid it is settled by an independent tribunal.

The only point on which one might have a query with the hon. the Minister in this regard is as to why he should prefer arbitration to a case before a tribunal which is established in the Bill itself. This is merely a matter of detail and for my own part I would have preferred the tribunal deciding on this issue rather than arbitration.

You prefer a tribunal but the other party may prefer arbitration.

That is true, Sir, but the point is that you can only get before that tribunal by agreement on the part of both parties in terms of the Bill as it stands. This is a point on which opinions might differ but the important thing to appreciate is that this is not piracy. It is the licensing, if you like, of the use of these plays in South Africa for proper payment. I think it is important that that should be known.

For the rest, Sir, the Bill has our support but I do say again, because I believe it to be important, that it is a very great pity indeed that a fine piece of legislation of this kind should have adopted a principle against the interests of one section of the industry in favour of another section. It is a principle which cannot be defended on any basis. It is wholly wrong to go about affairs taking away vested rights by legislation to the disadvantage of one section in favour of another for no other reason than to take it away from one and give it to the other. We believe that is wrong and I think consideration should be given perhaps to have it put right in the Other Place.

In the first place I should like to express my appreciation for the attitude adopted by the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to the amendment moved by the Minister in regard to overseas plays which are produced here without the consent of the authors. I think the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is quite correct in saying that it is wrong to talk about “piracy” in that regard. I want to thank hon. members for the attitude they adopted, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having had the courage to give this protection to our local theatres. I am grateful that we are unanimous in regard to this matter. I want to thank the hon. member for Zululand for so effectively having resolved the misunderstanding which existed amongst certain Johannesburg artistes, who described it as “piracy”.

The only other point of difference, which was thrashed out very thoroughly in the Select Committee, is the question as to whether record-makers are entitled to anything more than the profits they derive from the sale of their records; the question as to whether they are in the same position as the original composer of that music when those records are played in public places and over the radio. According to hon. members opposite, this is a vested right of which they are now being deprived. The hon. member for Zululand says that has hitherto been the position in terms of the law in South Africa. That is not the position. Sir, this matter has never been tested. That was the whole matter on which the Select Committee had to decide. It was not the law of the land, it was never tested in a court.

It was tested in court.

Yes, but in Britain. That matter has never yet been decided in South Africa. After having heard the evidence of the record-makers, under the very efficient leadership of Advocate Gert Coetzee, we came to the conclusion that there were no vested rights. What happened, in fact, was this: As the result of an agreement entered into between the record-makers and the S.A.B.C., those people received money to which in fact they were never entitled. Now the hon. member says this is the intellectual product of the record-makers. The hon. member must now explain to me what the difference is between the making of a record and the publication of a book. The making of a record is just as mechanical a process as the publication of a book.

No.

Of course. The intellectual creation is what was produced by the composer. Another intellectual creation is when the actor presents that product, and that is dealt with by an Act, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) correctly said, which is at present being considered by a Select Committee. The point I wish to make is this: The making of a record is just as mechanical a process as the printing or publication of a book. If one gives the maker of a record the right to regard it as an intellectual creation, why not give that right to the publisher of a book also? The Hon. member for Zululand will perhaps say, quite correctly, that some record-makers can record that music much better than others, and that consequently it is an intellectual creation. But in the same way one publisher of a book can make a much more artistic product of it than another publisher, but we do not recognize it as being an intellectual creation. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Zululand, and if he can give me a satisfactory reply to it I may perhaps be inclined to change my opinion in regard to the matter. The record-maker to-day derives his income from the profit he makes on the sale of his records. The S.A.B.C. or a café or a cinema buys that record and they play it in public. They cannot reproduce it; that is obvious. Just as the publisher is protected against the reproduction of his books by another publisher, so the record-maker is protected against the reproduction of his records. The hon. member for Zululand goes further and says that not only may the S.A.B.C. not reproduce that record but they may not play it unless they pay a fee for playing it. Can the hon. member now tell me where the difference is in principle? We have a number of libraries in South Africa—I am not talking about State or school libraries, or anything of that nature, although the same principle applies there, too—which buy books from publishers. They lend those books to people. Must that library pay the publisher every time they lend out the book?

That is no analogy.

Sir, if that were not analogous, my case would have had no foundations at all. One cannot find a better analogy than that. The creator of the intellectual product, the author, is protected at all times. The publisher of that book must make his money out of the sales of that book. If I buy that book, I am entitled to read it out to other people or to lend it to others. I am even entitled to make commercial use of it. Nobody has ever yet said that copyright vests in the publisher of that book.

May I put a question? Does the hon. member buy a book because of its dust cover, or because of its content?

Naturally, because of the content. Nor do I buy a record because of its dust cover; I buy it because of its content. The point the hon. member wants to make is that it is much easier to reproduce the content of a record than that of a book, but he is not correct. What about the library which buys 20 copies of the same book and then lends it out to everyone who is willing to pay a 6d. for it? That library reproduces the contents of that book just as the record-maker does. The library is not compelled to pay anything either to the author or to the publisher of that book. Why should a greater right be granted to the record-maker? If the hon. member for Zululand were to say that the author of a book is entitled to a royalty every time somebody reads his book, he would perhaps have had a case and he might perhaps have convinced me to apply the same principle to the record-maker, but that is not what he says. The principle is that a certain right vests in the creator of an intellectual product, and not in the manufacturer of that mechanical product. All that happened is that the record-makers have been receiving money all this time to which they were not entitled. They are now being placed in precisely the same position as the publishers of books. In other words, no copyright vests in the publisher of a book. It is not an intellectual product; it is a mechanical process just as the making of a record is a mechanical process.

Therefore I think the hon. the Minister should not accept the suggestions of hon. members opposite and he should place this Bill on the Statute Book as it is before us now.

I have said what I feel about this measure during the Second reading but I don’t wish what has just been said by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to go on record as the final word prior to the Minister’s reply. I therefore rise to express my disagreement with the hon. member. He says this right has never been tested in the courts.

In South Africa.

Yes, in South Africa. It has been recognized in many other countries. One thing is quite clear and that is that the right to that payment has been recognized, as the hon. member has said, by agreement. He takes the point that had this matter gone to court the results might have been otherwise. Sir, the reason why this matter has come to this Chamber is because those who held that view obviously were not certain as to what the result of a court case would be. In those circumstances they saw fit to make representations in order that Parliament might take the action which it is taking in this Bill. I deeply regret that that action has been taken. I believe that where there are recognized rights this is not the way they should be dealt with. I associate myself fully with the views expressed by the two hon. members who have already spoken from this side of the House.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says these record makers should never have got this payment. He himself said they got it in terms of an agreement which can only be a recognition of their right to get that payment.

They should never have entered into that agreement.

It is not for Parliament to judge whether or not they should have entered into any agreement. The fact is that a recognized right is being taken away by legislation. I submit that it is very regrettable that that has been done. As the hon. the Minister knows we have supported the majority of the provisions of this Bill from the start. It is a good piece of legislation. I agree entirely with what has been said from this side of the House that this particular aspect is a blot on a very fine piece of legislation. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister—it is too late for him to do anything about it here—will give this matter further consideration in view of the views expressed from this side of the House and agree to remove this provision which I regard as utterly wrong in the whole of the surrounding circumstances, in the Other Place. It is not necessary to say more than that, Sir, but I did feel that I wanted, at this final stage of the measure before us, to record my final protest and to associate myself with the remarks expressed by those who have already put this point.

Hon. members on the other side have really raised three important points, one or two of which they also raised in the second reading debate. The hon. member for Johannesburg-North (Mrs. Weiss) has put a question to me in connection with the reference made to television in Clause 15 and other clauses. I just want to tell the hon. member that that has absolutely nothing to do with the question as to whether or not the Government intends to introduce television in this country. The position is simply that we intend joining the Rome Convention, and if we want to do so then we are obliged also to make provision for television. Amongst other things, the Rome Convention makes provision for broadcasting organizations. Hon. members will admit that we must make provision for the protection of our broadcasting organization. Hon. members may want to know what constitutes a broadcasting organization: this is what the Rome Convention says—

In other words, broadcasting includes television. If therefore we become a member as far as broadcasting is concerned, then we also become a member as far as television is concerned. The Rome Convention goes on to say in Article 16—

In other words, we have to accept the Rome Convention as a whole, including television, if we want to become a member. We had no other choice therefore: we are simply obliged to make provision for television. In doing so. of course, we also protect the members of this Convention in other countries against the reception of their television by private persons in South Africa.

The second question which was put to me was in connection with the new Section 50 as with regard to the question of making use of the works of authors who forbid the use of their products in South Africa. If the writer of a drama forbids the presentation of his drama in South Africa, perhaps for ideological reasons, and somebody in South Africa wishes to present that drama, there are two methods open to him under this Bill. He can either have recourse to the Copyright Tribunal in terms of Clause 28, or he can invoke the provisions of Clause 50. The difference between the two clauses amounts to this in the main: In terms of Clause 28 he has to go to the Tribunal, a court of law, a procedure which is a lengthy, protracted one, and may prove expensive. He cannot make use of that drama until such time as the Tribunal has given judgment. In terms of Clause 50, however, the State President has the right to nominate the Minister, for example, and the Minister may then give such a person the right to present the drama; it can then be presented immediately. The regulations, of course, still have to be drawn up. The right can be given to that person immediately to use the copyright of that drama, provided, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has quite correctly said, proper compensation is paid. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Zululand has made the point here that this does not amount to theft. As a member of the Convention we are also entitled to the intellectual products of others but we have to pay proper compensation for making use of them.

Who will determine what is proper compensation?

It will be determined by way of arbitration. There is a difference therefore between Clauses 28 and 50. One can get a decision more quickly in terms of the one clause than in terms of the other.

Then we come back to the old question that we have discussed at great length already and about which I do not propose to say much at this stage. Many arguments were advanced in the second reading debate with regard to the right of record manufacturers in connection with the public playing of their records. We have now given a copyright to the author of a work of art; nobody will have the right to make use of his work in public. We have given the right to the author that his work may not be recorded on a record without his permission. The question of performers’ rights is at present before a Select Committee. We have given the right to the record manufacturer that nobody may reproduce his record but now the record manufacturer wants the additional right under this Act that nobody may play his record in public. Sir, I do not want to go again into all the arguments advanced here. It has been argued that this is a vested right; that point has been disposed of by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). Another hon. member said, “This is intellectual property; we want to protect the intellectual property of a person.” Mr. Speaker, the making of a record does not require an intellectual process, it is a purely mechanical process. The intellectual property resides in the music itself or in the performer, not in the maker of the record. It is for that reason that we feel that he is not entitled to this protection.

Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to do so I just want to read out a letter which was submitted to the Select Committee by a firm which nave evidence; this is a well-known firm of accountants, and this is what they say with reference to the 1934 case in Britain and the judgment which was given there in favour of the makers of records—

I think that is a very effective reply to the argument of my hon. friends on the other side who say that the making of a record is an intellectual process. We have considered the arguments for and against this matter carefully. I am not suggesting that all the arguments advanced in favour of the makers of records are entirely without substance; there are some arguments which do carry weight. But when one weighs up the arguments for and against, I adhere to my opinion that what we propose to do in this Bill is the right thing. I am not prepared to depart from the existing provisions.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Since a right is being taken away here, would it not have been fairer to take it away gradually instead of taking it away at once?

We do not agree that it is a right; this is a practice which has never been tested in our courts.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 304 of the Order Paper—

The effect of this amendment is merely that where the Research Fund is to be used subject to the approval of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, a provision is now being inserted to the effect that the Minister may only grant this approval after consultation with the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is mainly concerned with research.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to Clause 5 (2) I once again want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when this matter was under discussion during the second reading debate, the Minister gave his explanation in this regard, and that I then said that the definition in connection with the use of the research fund was not wide enough in that it only allowed research in so far as the products of the vine were concerned. To that the Minister apparently replied that in his opinion the words “or in respect of matters incidental thereto” extended the purposes for which the fund could be used. I want to point out to the Minister that the words “or in respect of matters incidental thereto” relate only to the after going, which is the cultivation of vines and the production of its products, and not to any other type of research. I submitted a plea to the Minister to the effect that the wine-farmers may want research to be carried out in respect of the use of the products of the vine, or that medical research may be required, or other research projects which I mentioned on a previous occasion. There has obviously been some confusion in this connection, and therefore I want to emphasize once again that in my opinion the clause now refers to and is limited to the matters relating to production as defined in the clause. I therefore move the following amendment—

If any other type of research is contemplated, research not related to production only, this amendment will mean that such research will also be covered by the research fund.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot see the necessity ’’or the proposed amendment. Let me read out the clause again—

In other words, this clause makes provision for all kinds of research as envisaged by the hon. member for East London (City). If his amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that the K.W.V. could use the fund for research which has no connection with viticulture at all. I cannot see why the hon. member has misgivings about the clause as printed. It will be possible to use the fund not only for research, but also for publicity, for example. And where such provision does exist, the hon. member will probably agree with me that publicity is related to the consumption of the product. The fund may be used for improving the product, if necessary. Consequently I cannot see why the hon. member is afraid that insufficient provision is being made here for using the fund for research purposes. Unfortunately therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as far as publicity for the product is concerned, I should like to point out that one certainly cannot carry out any research in regard to the way in which the publicity can be undertaken! I was referring to medical research. Surely the hon. the Minister realizes that the matters defined in the clause in question relate to production only, because all the various stages of production are specified therein. I am not afraid, as the Minister wants to make out. I just want to be of assistance, if possible. As one who has had a great deal to do with research funds and the expenditure thereof, I know only too well what problems are experienced when the definition of the purposes of such a fund is too limited. I wanted to frame the definition in slightly more general terms in order to widen the scope of what may be contemplated by the Vereniging. Surely the Vereniging will not contemplate anything which is not to the benefit of the industry. If research into other aspects is required—and I mentioned, for example, medical research, research into consumption, and so forth—then I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister refuses to agree to other research, research on behalf of the vine farmers too, being undertaken as well. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister wants to limit the definition so that it will exclude such other research.

Mr. Chairman, the function of the Vereniging, apart from this fund, is in any case one of marketing. That is inherent in the K.W.V.’s function of marketing overseas. The K.W.V. cannot market in this country, of course, and domestic marketing is undertaken by the trade. The development of the domestic market and the research in that connection must be undertaken by the trade which exploits this market. But, because overseas marketing is a function of the K.W.V.; the K.W.V. can pay attention to the pattern of consumption or the selling pattern on that market without this fund being used. This fund is merely a research fund. The K.W.V. has its own funds which it can use, and it is using them every day. Consequently it is not necessary for the K.W.V. to use its research fund to carry out research work in connection with the sale of wines, nor is it necessary for it to have a fund for such research. These facilities already exist.

What I have in mind is research in regard to the consumption of wine.

The K.W.V. is already undertaking that. That is its very object—to market its surplus wine overseas. And a second object is to develop and to study its markets. Therefore it need not use this fund for these functions. As far as the domestic market in South Africa is concerned, that is the province of the trade; they undertake the distribution of wine and it is their function to undertake research in that connection and to see where they have marketing possibilities. I see no reason therefore why this fund should be used for that purpose. It is a special fund intended only for the purposes of the K.W.V.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what will be the position if the K.W.V. decides to use money from that fund for a purpose that is in no way related to viticulture as such. It seems to me the Minister is being a little overcautious here. This money belongs to the K.W.V. in any case, and the K.W.V. is under absolute control of its shareholders. If the shareholders resolved at an annual general meeting to take some particular action which was in no way related to viticulture, a matter of health for example, what would the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member is going to far now.

… do in a case where the K.W.V. would want to use this fund …

Order! The hon. member is out of order.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Moolman put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments in Clause 5 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Order of the Day No. VII to stand over.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are undoubtedly aware that the appropriation of land required for declared roads is carried out by the various Provincial Administrations in terms of the provisions of existing Provincial Ordinances on behalf of the National Transport Commission at the expense of the National Road Fund.

It is perhaps advisable that I should give a brief further explanation in regard to the question of the appropriation of land required for declared roads. The National Transport Commission itself does not expropriate land, nor does it negotiate with landowners in regard to compensation. It merely considers expropriations of land proposed by the provinces, and grants authority for compensation, which they determine according to their own procedures and submit to the Commission for approval. The Commission does not take transfer of the land either. Servitudes of right of way in favour of the public are registered against the properties concerned for statutory road-widths as laid down in the Ordinances. Where expropriated land exceeds these statutory widths, the Commission only authorizes the transfer of the land concerned to the State. As a matter of fact, only the cost of expropriating and required for declared roads is met from the National Road Fund.

In regard to the appropriation of land required for national through-roads and limited access roads, however, another aspect has come to the fore.

Where a landowner previously had free access to an existing national road running over his property, he does not have that free access in the case of a new national through-road or limited access road running over his property. He is not being deprived of anything, however, because previously there was no road where a new through-road is now being built.

As a result of representations received from various quarters in regard to the payment of compensation for all land required for new national through-roads or limited access roads, the Commission, on the recommendation of the Roads Advisory Committee, decided as a matter of policy to compensate landowners from the Road Fund at market value in future for all land taken up by such roads, that is to say, also for those widths which are expropriated and for which no compensation is payable in terms of the Ordinances. The factor underlying this policy was to compensate the owner to some extent for the restriction of direct access.

In this regard, however, provincial legislation provides, inter alia, that compensation is only payable and claimable for the value of expropriated land of a width of more than 120 Cape feet in the Transvaal, 100 English feet in Natal and 100 Cape Feet in the Cape Province and the Orange Free State, respectively.

In order to deal with this problem and also to save the provincial authorities embarrassment, the Commission decided to recommend that a provision be inserted in Act 42 of 1935 in terms of which the Commission, at its discretion, may authorize an Administrator to compensate a landowner, in the case of declared roads, with retrospective effect as from 1 April 1964 and at the cost of the National Road Fund for any land taken up by such roads and in respect of which no compensation is normally payable in terms of the provisions of the relative Roads Ordinance.

In this respect Section 4bis of Act 42 of 1935 already lays down the principle that the Commission may authorize an Administrator to obtain, either by agreement or by expropriation, remaining portions of land unprofitably cut off from the rest of any property by a declared road, and then to dispose of them for the benefit of the National Road Fund, if necessary.

Where in terms of Sections 4 and 4bis of the Act a landowner is granted the right to claim damages in respect of expropriated land and is given the right to have reverse to arbitration, and, in addition, certain obligations are imposed upon an Administrator, these provisions apply, firstly, to additional land required for declared roads over and above the statutory road reserve width and, secondly, to land unprofitably cut off from the rest of the property by a declared road. In these cases it is only fair that a landowner should have the right to claim damages and that certain obligations should be imposed upon an Administrator.

In the case of damages in respect of statutory road reserve widths, however, circumstances are different. In terms of the relevant Ordinance, firstly, landowners have no right to claim damages, and, secondly, an Administrator is under no obligation to pay damages (except for improvements). To put it briefly, a landowner must cede a particular strip of land free of charge for road purposes.

Where the proposed amendment proposes to compensate landowners for land taken for declared roads and for which they would otherwise receive nothing in any case and cannot even claim damages, it has been deemed advisable not to grant them the right to claim damages or the right to have recourse to arbitration but to leave the compensation on the basis of ex gratia payments. On the other hand, the only obligation imposed upon an Administrator is to pay such damages to a landowner as may be determined by the Commission in its discretion. This has the additional advantages that it will not come into conflict with established rights and powers laid down by an Ordinance nor will it embarrass the Provincial Administrations in regard to land which is taken for provincial road purposes.

I might just inform hon. members that since a modern through-road costs between R300,000 and R400,000 per mile in the rural areas, expropriation costs never represent more than approximately 2 per cent of that cost, and the additional amount payable in terms of the proposed Section 4 ter will cause no appreciable increase in the total cost of building a through-road.

In order to compensate landowners within the framework of the Commission’s policy for all land expropriated for declared roads, it is necessary, therefore to bring the proposed Section 4ter into operation with retrospective effect as from 1 April 1964 as it provided for in sub-clause (2).

The principle of Clause 1 is supported by the Provincial Administrations, and I am convinced that this measure will be welcomed generally, because it represents a considerable concession to landowners.

As far as Clause 2 is concerned, I have to inform hon. members that owing to the ever-increasing demands being made upon the National Road Fund the Commission is simply unable to manage with the funds at its disposal. At present die Road Fund is receiving an allocation at the rate of 5.35c per gallon on the customs or excise duty on petrol, kerosene, distillate fuel or residual fuel oil.

The Cabinet is satisfied that an increased allocation of 6c with effect from 1 April 1965, is justified in order to enable the Commission to meet its many commitments. As announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Statement, the allocation will be 6c as from 1 April 1965 and Clause 2 is necessary to give effect to that.

This little Bill with its two clauses has the support in principle of the Opposition. We feel that the time is long overdue when the provincial laws concerning the use of land for declared roads should have been revised. We feel it is all the more important because of the fact that the National Roads Board is now concerned with constructing freeways through our cities, which can impose tre—

No, that is already provided for. This only applies to undeveloped land.

Then all the more we gladly support this Bill in principle, except that we are a little concerned about the ex gratia nature of the payments proposed to be made. We understand that this is a concession made to land-owners which they did not enjoy before, and therefore one takes it that the authorities can make this concession on the terms they wish. But it does seem a pity that where an offer is made to a landowner and he finds it unreasonable, there can be no reference to some impartial body to determine the dispute. We believe it would have been better if the provisions for arbitration contained in the provincial ordinances concerned could have been applied to this. We sincerely hope that the Minister will still consider whether it would not be in the public interest to have such a provision in this Bill. I believe that there will be only a small number of cases in which such references will be necessary, but where one wants the public to feel that justice is being done to them, one may as well do a thorough job of it and let the aggrieved person have the right to put his case before an impartial tribunal, before arbitration, and have it determined in that way.

I should very much like to know from the Minister when he replies whether the Commission, in deciding upon compensation, will be guided by principles which will be known to the public and to all landowners, or is the idea that each case which arises will be dealt with as sui generis, or will it be made known to the people that where land is required for this purpose, whereas they did not have compensation before they will now get compensation calculated according to certain principles which will apply to all instances, so that people can know where they stand and so that the decisions can be judged by some external criteria.

That is never done in any arbitration. No general principles are laid down except what the market value is.

Is this the principle in this case, too?

No.

Then there is another point. This gives us the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Minister that there are other instances, which are not covered by this Bill, where injustices are done to landowners in the interests of road construction. We have had representations from many people with vested interests where those vested interests are most adversely affected by the deviation of an existing road. With the construction especially of our higher quality national roads, it is very often necessary to re-lay a road so that it takes a completely different course. In that process people like hotel-owners and motel-owners and nurserymen find that their business interests are adversely affected, and they suffer considerable losses. Does the Minister not consider that people like that should be entitled to some compensation as well, because they have built up businesses over the years from which they make their living and they have acquired vested interests, and then the Commission comes along and in the public interest they deviate the road and these people suffer considerable losses? Surely where the man makes that sacrifice in the public interest, the community owes him some compensation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments upon that.

Another instance which I will only mention, because I am sure other speakers on this side of the House will deal with it in greater detail, is the practice of taking soil from farmlands for national roads.

That has nothing to do with this Bill. The National Transport Commission does not build the roads. The Provincial Administrations build them. We only finance them.

Surely if the National Transport Commission is responsible for the land on which a road is built, there must be some responsibility also where land is destroyed in order to build a road. Surely the provinces act as the agents of the Commission. We have had instances where the topsoil of farming land, acres and acres of it, was used for the metalling of the roads. I think the Minister will find that other speakers will develop that subject.

If they dig up a man’s land because they require the soil for the road, of course they must pay compensation, because we do not expropriate that land.

Then under Clause 2 we on this side of course cannot possibly object to the greater payments being made to the Road Fund and to the money collected by way of taxes on petrol because we have pleaded for that on many occasions and in our opinion this is a step in the right direction. But again, the Minister is not going far enough.

It is not a question of me not going far enough; it is the Treasury.

There are many issues which arise out of this, and perhaps we should choose other opportunities to discuss them fully because we realize that this is not a measure which deals with taxation. But we would have liked the Minister to consider whether something should not be done to relieve the people of the Cape Province of the Divisional Council’s road rates.

Order! That is not relevant.

Then I will not take the matter any further, having expressed the fact that we are wondering about it. I am very glad to say that in principle we support this Bill, but the Minister will be called upon in the course of the further discussions to answer a few questions.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains a number of very important principles which I want to support very strongly, but I want to say immediately that I differ with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in regard to his argument about compensation to be paid according to fixed standards, because under the old dispensation compensation was in fact paid according to fixed standards, according to absolute standards, such as 25 cents for a bush-trained vine and 75 cents for a trellised vine. This was in fact the weakness in the old system, and the hon. the Minister is now eliminating it by basing compensation on the market value of the property. To my mind that is a very great improvement, and I differ very strongly with the hon. member for Yeoville on this point. Then there is a further compensation for which no provision is made in this Bill and which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice for his consideration, and that is in the case where we are now getting these so-called “freeways” where the farmer cannot cross such a road at any point. We find a case, such as the one in my constituency just on this side of Paarl, where a farmer’s farm is cut up into three pieces by such a national road. It is now possible to pay the farmer due compensation for the land taken up by that road, but he receives no compensation at all for the very serious inconvenience he has to suffer as a result of the fact that his farm has been cut up into so many small pieces. I want to make a strong plea to the hon. the Minister that consideration should be given to this aspect as well. Sir, one has the position that at the moment a farmer can cross the national road at three or four points to get to a portion of his farm that is situated on the other side. When this road becomes a freeway, he has no right to cross the road; when he wants to get to a part of his farm that is situated on the other side, he has to cross the road by way of a subway or a bridge or a crossing only, and in view of this inconvenience which costs the farmer a great deal, I want to submit for the Minister’s consideration that provision should be made for the Commission, which can compensate the farmer by way of an ex gratia payment, to consider this matter as well, so that the farmer will be entitled to compensation for the very serious inconvenience he has to suffer.

As it is late I wish to move—

Agreed to.