I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall in respect of the relevant years of assessment referred to hereunder be paid as from 1 March 1965 on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or to have accrued to or in favour of all companies and other persons from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic, a tax (to be called the normal tax), the rates of which shall be as follows:

   1. (a) in respect of the taxable income of any person other than a company for the year of assessment ending on 28 February 1966 or 30 June 1966 whichever is applicable, as prescribed in the tables below: Provided that there shall be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the said tables a sum equal to 5 per cent of the net amount arrived at after deducting the rebates provided for in Section 6 of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) from the amount of the tax so calculated;

1. (b) on each rand of the taxable income of any company (excluding so much as is derived from mining operations carried on by it in the Republic and, in the case of any company referred to in sub-paragraph (d), so much as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962) for each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 24 months ending on 31 December 1966, 30 cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph a sum equal to 5 per cent of such amount;

2. (c) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of any year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 12 months ending on 31 December 1965 from mining in the Republie for gold (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (i) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962), a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

   img

   in which formula (and in the formulae set out in the proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and x the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

   img

   and if such taxable income exceeds R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula y = 20 (1 - 6/x) by one for each completed amount of R2,500 by which the said taxable income exceeds R40,000;

3. (d) on each rand of the taxable income of any company, the sole or principal business of which in the Republic is or has been mining for gold and the determination of the taxable income of which for the period assessed does not result in an assessed loss, which the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962, a rate for any year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 12 months ending 31 December 1965 equal to the average rate of normal tax or 25 cents, whichever is higher: Provided that for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the average rate of normal tax shall be determined by dividing the total normal tax (excluding the tax determined in accordance with this sub-paragraph for the period assessed) paid by the company in respect of its aggregate taxable income from gold mining for the period from 1 July 1916 to the end of the period assessed, by the number of rand contained in the said aggregate taxable income;
4. (e) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 24 months ending 31 December 1966 from mining in the Republic for diamonds, 45 cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph a sum equal to 5 per cent of such amount;
5. (f) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company in respect of each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 24 months ending 31 December 1966 from mining operations (other than mining for gold or diamonds) carried on by such company in the Republic, 30 cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph a sum equal to 5 per cent of such amount;
6. (g) in respect of the taxable income of any person other than a company for the year of assessment ending 28 February 1966 or 30 June 1966 whichever is applicable, a sum equal to 5 per cent of the amount of tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) before the deduction of the sum referred to in the proviso to that sub-paragraph;

7. (h) in respect of the taxable income of any company (excluding so much as is derived from gold mining operations carried on by it in the Republic and, in the case of any company referred into in sub-paragraph (d), so much as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962) for each year of assessment of such company ending during the period of 12 months ending 31 December 1966, a sum equal to 5 per cent of the aggregate of the amounts of tax determined in respect of such year of assessment under sub-paragraphs (b), (e) and (f) before the addition of the sums referred to in the provisos to those sub-paragraphs:

   Provided that the tax determined in accordance with any one of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (h), inclusive, shall be payable in addition to the tax determined in accordance with any other of the said sub-paragraphs;

8. (2) That the rates fixed by paragraph (1) shall be the rates required to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended):

   Provided that, subject to the provisions of any law providing for the payment of moneys into the Transkeian Revenue Fund, one-sixth of any amount of tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) (before the addition of the sum referred to in the proviso to that sub-paragraph) shall accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces in such proportions as may be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette and shall in the said proportions be paid into the said provincial revenue funds in accordance with the laws relating to the collection, banking and custody of provincial revenues as though it were a tax imposed by the provincial councils of the said provinces on the incomes of companies:

   Provided further that in the calculation of the taxes payable in accordance with sub-paragraphs (g) and (h) of paragraph (1) any fraction of a rand shall be disregarded:

   Provided further that the tax calculated in terms of sub-paragraph (g) or (h) of paragraph (1) shall not be payable by any taxpayer whose liability under such sub-paragraph would, but for this proviso, be less than R5:

   Provided further that the taxes calculated under sub-paragraphs (g) and (h) of paragraph (1), read with the preceding provisos, shall be repayable to the taxpayer concerned at such times and subject to such conditions as may be provided for in the Acts referred to in paragraph (1);

9. (3) That there shall from time to time be paid to the credit of the loan account referred to in the General Loans Act, 1961 (Act No. 16 of 1961), sums determined by the Secretary for Inland Revenue to be equal to the amounts of taxes collected in accordance with sub-paragraphs (g) and (h) of paragraph (1) which are in terms of the fourth proviso to paragraph (2) repayable to the taxpayers concerned;
10. (4) That any person who is separated from his or her spouse in circumstances which in the opinion of the Secretary for Inland Revenue indicate that the separation is likely to be permanent, shall in respect of the period during which he or she is so separated be separately liable to pay the normal tax referred to in paragraph (1).

I want to move the following amendment—

The effect of the amendment will be to delete the proposals for the two proposed new taxes, i.e. the savings levy of R13,300,000 and the companies’ tax surcharge of R 16,000,000. These taxes were proposed by the Minister in order to enable him to balance his Loan Account. At the time when he introduced his Estimates be declared a surplus of revenue over expenditure of R110,000.000. Since then that surplus has been increased to R 140,000,000. so that the Minister is R30.000,000 better off than he was when he introduced the original proposals. I do not know what the final figure of the surplus is. Perhaps the Minister will give it to us, but the last figure we had was R140,000,000. So he is at least R30,000,000 better off than he was when he required this extra amount to balance his Loan Account.

The question therefore arises as to what need there is for this extra taxation, especially as we know from past experience that the Minister invariably under-estimates his revenue. From past experience we have no reason to suppose that he will not have a considerable surplus of revenue over expenditure during the coming year, judging from his deplorable practice in the past. The Minister has asked the House to sanction a loan programme to the enormous figure of R665,000,000 for the current year, and he is asking the House to approve of no less than R 195,000,000 of that amount being found out of revenue. He is taking R20,000,000 out of the taxation reserve account, which was last year’s revenue. He is taking R 140,000,000 of the surplus and now he is taking another R30,000,000 in taxation. We have expressed our views at some length on these questions and I am not going to repeat them now, even if you would allow me to do so, Sir, but I want to say that we consider that when a Government has over-taxed the country to the tune of R260,000,000 in two years and it still has a buoyant revenue, and then it comes along and finds it necessary to increase taxation by another R30,000,Q00 in order to balance its accounts, then there is something radically wrong in its handling of the country’s affairs. We do not consider these taxes to be necessary. If you take the savings levy, we have had savings levies in the past, but this is a much harsher one than we have ever had before, because there is no hint of a date for repayment and it is not negotiable. In the past savings levy certificates have been negotiable in time of need and the taxpayer has known when he could expect to be repaid. Now neither of those things obtains, and if and when he is repaid, of course he will be repaid by the Minister taxing someone else to repay him. So as far as the general body of taxpayers is concerned, they will be taxed for it. The Minister has explained that two-thirds of the income-tax payers will be exempted from this levy, so it means that if you take the proportion of companies’ tax and personal tax for last year it would appear that this savings levy will be paid somewhere in the proportion of R7,000,000 by the companies and R6,000,000 by taxpayers. That means that one-third of the taxpayers are being called upon to find R6,000,000 in extra taxation. Citizens to-day are being exhorted to save money. The cost of living is steadily increasing. Rents, building and essential foodstuffs are going up. As far as hundreds of thousands of Government employees are concerned, there is a virtual wage freeze, not officially but in effect the Government is refusing to consider any improvement in wages, which comes to the same thing, and there is a credit squeeze on as well, which means that bank credit is restricted and also the building societies. We are told that the building societies to-day are levying only about a third of what they did six months ago. There are also ominous threats or forebodings or rumours of still more restrictions to come in the not distant future if the Government thinks fit to impose them. All this is taking place during a time of prosperity. The Minister and his colleagues are never tired of telling this House how prosperous we are, and that everything in the garden is rosy as the result of careful planning by the Government. The Minister told us the other day that this prosperity has all been planned. All I can say is that if this is the result of careful planning, those plans were badly miscalculated, neary as badly as the Minister’s annual Estimates. If we had a little less theoretical, fancy planning . . .

Order! The hon. member is discussing financial policy now. He should come back to the proposals.

I was only saying that if the Minister had done a little less planning and had applied a little more practical commonsense to the affairs of the country, we would not have had these continual demands for more money and increased taxation.

The other tax is the companies’ tax. The companies are being exhorted to expand their production and to increase their efficiency and to build up an export trade, all of which requires capital. I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of how much capital is required to build up a sound export trade in any particular direction. Has he ever tried to do it? But on top of that the companies are being attacked in three ways, by the savings levy to the tune of R7,000,000, by the surtax of R 16,000,000, so that they are being called upon to find R23,000,000 in extra taxation, and they are suffering from a credit squeeze as well. [Time limit.]

I do not think the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son) fully understood the Minister’s Budget speech. The Minister stated perfectly clearly that if there was a larger surplus than the amount mentioned in his Budget speech, the difference would not be used to strengthen the Loan Account but would be deposited into the Taxation Reserve Fund established last year. In other words, it makes no difference to the Loan Account whether or not the revenue is in excess of the amount estimated. That is where the hon. member’s argument is basically wrong and that fact practically wipes out the rest of his argument.

Let us look at a few of the points made by the hon. member. He talks about the extra burden which is being placed on income-taxpayers as a result of the imposition of the savings levy. Sir, I want to point out that only individuals who pay R100 or more in income-tax will have to pay the savings levy. I have just been looking at the scale of taxation according to which income-tax is payable. In the case of married persons it amounts to this that after allowing for normal deductions no married person will have to pay the savings levy unless he has a taxable income of at least R3,000, which is a fairly large income, so it cannot be said that the poor taxpayer is being hit very hard by the savings levy. Surely a person who normally has an income of R3,000 a year can afford to save R5 as proposed here by the Minister. Sir, in this connection I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I hope he will make arrangements for this savings levy to be payable in round figures, If, for example, the levy works out at a certain number of cents, not a full rand, I hope that the cents will be ignored, because the addition of a few cents will simply make the whole thing unnecessarily complicated for everybody. The system would have worked even more smoothly, of course, if he had simply said that the savings levy will be payable in round sums of R5, but I do not know whether that will be possible under the formula. However, I want to emphasize that the levy will only become payable where a taxpayer, after making allowance for all his deductions, has to pay R100 in income-tax. This is a very important fact which has been overlooked by the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. member then goes on to say that no date has been fixed for the refund of the loan levy and, moreover, that it will not be negotiable. Sir, if it were negotiable it would no longer be a savings levy because the taxpayer would immediately convert it into cash, and we would then be defeating our whole object and that is to check the inflationary trend in the country by ensuring that people do not spend money recklessly on things which are not essential. I think that is the tendency in our economy at the present time, but I am pleased to be able to say that the measures which have been taken up to the present look as though they are going to have the desired effect. But we cannot take the risk of unnecessarily promoting inflation.

As far as the date of repayment is concerned, I think it is of the utmost importance that no fixed date should be laid down; that there should be no provision that the levy must be refunded after five or seven years. The maximum period is simply being fixed here at seven years. But if conditions in the country are such that people have to be encouraged to spend more money in order to keep the economic machine going then surely, if the money is available, the Minister should be able to refund the levy even after a period of two years, whereas if a fixed period is laid down he will have to wait until that period has expired. I think it is in the interests of the taxpayer that no fixed period should be laid down because if we have a set-back in the economic sphere and it again becomes necessary to spend for the sake of prosperity, as has happened in the past, then the Minister will be able to encourage spending by refunding the levy to the public.

The hon. member referred to the inflationary trend (which undoubtedly exists) as though it was being exaggerated, but the hon. member himself and other hon. members on his side of the House have been warning us continually that the inflationary trend has proved a very great danger to South Africa. Sir, we hear this warning every day. We are continually being warned by the Chamber of Mines that unless inflation can be checked, their position as gold producers will become impossible. In those circumstances we cannot, just for the sake of trying to be popular with the taxpayers, allow this reckless spending to continue. We need a measure of this kind to check reckless spending to a certain extent. I was shocked when I was in Pretoria recently to see young officials, not only in the Public Service but also young men in the employ of other bodies and undertakings, people with one to three years’ service, riding about in new motor cars, people who cannot afford a motorcar unless they are financed practically 100 per cent by institutions which do not mind what risks they take as long as they get a good return on their money. If this measure has the effect of giving the public a greater sense of responsibility, it will be worth 100 times the amount that this levy is going to cost the public and in the long run they will save their money.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) tried to draw a few red herrings across my argument, but I do not think he has effected it at all. He has referred to the fact that the hon. the Minister made a pious resolution that if his surplus increased he would place it in the Taxation Reserve Account. We know what value to attach to that, because he has already pinched the whole of last year’s Taxation Reserve Account without the slightest compunction, and if he is going to put this into the Taxation Reserve Account it simply means that he should never have touched the old one. If he had left the old one as he should have done, my argument would have been just the same.

As far as the savings levy was concerned, the gist of the hon. member’s argument was that the two-thirds of the taxpayers who are not going to pay this levy should be very thankful for it. I am sure they are, but I was not concerned with them; I was concerned with the one-third who are going to pay it. They apparently do not worry the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) at all. It is that one-third of taxpayers who will be called upon to find this R6,000,000.

The hon. member raised the question of inflation. Well, Sir, after your gentle admonition just now, I do not suppose you will allow me to go very far in regard to the question of inflation. If it were not for that, I would be quite prepared to take the hon. member on. But I should just like to conclude my argument as to why this companies’ tax is unsound and unnecessary. I say the companies are now being attacked in three ways, by the savings levy, by the surtax of 5 per cent, and they are being called upon to find R23,000,000 and probably much more than that, judging by the public company accounts we see in the papers. I think the taxation will probably be higher than the Minister estimated. And then there is also this credit squeeze which curtails their credit and prevents them from using the normal means of finding the capital they require to expand their production and to develop their export trade. Does the Minister really think that this surcharge of R23,000,000 on the companies will increase productivity? Will it encourage the companies to increase their production? Because that is the root of the Minister’s trouble; it is not restrictions we want but increased productivity. I say that this companies’ tax, apart from being unnecessary, is inflationary, because it will tend to restrict production instead of increasing it. The companies which are going to have this extra tax put on to them will be very shy about expanding, whereas they should be going full steam ahead, according to the Minister of Economic Affairs. That is why I think this is an inflationary tax. On the whole, we think that these taxes are unnecessary. We think they are part of the price the companies will have to pay for the incompetence of the Government. With its bad planning the Government has placed the country in the dilemma in which it is at the moment, which is giving the Minister a headache. We will not agree to it.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is getting no support at all from his side.

The Chairman did not see that hon. member rising.

It is quite clear to us that the Minister, when he presented his Budget and his taxation proposals, based them on certain known facts. He indicated that he would require a certain amount in taxation in order to balance his Budget. The facts he gave us are incorrect. The figures he gave were wrong. They were Estimates which have been shown to be grossly inaccurate. He now finds himself in a stronger position and therefore these taxes are unnecessary. That is the main reason for our asking that these taxes be withdrawn. Sir, you will not allow me to discuss inflation, so I hope you will not allow the Minister to mention it in his reply, because we can advance arguments to show that the Minister caused the inflation. But we know you will not allow the Minister to deal with it, and therefore we will not advance these arguments. But the Minister should not tempt us because he may find himself in a very difficult position.

Even the Minister’s tax proposals to-day are not quite clear. I suggest that the Minister should clarify the position in regard to the 5 per cent loan levy. Is that levy calculated on the amount after deduction of the rebates? The wording of the tax proposals is not clear and doubt has already been expressed as to whether the 5 per cent is calculated on the amount after the deduction of the rebates. I think the Minister should put that beyond doubt, but of course there will be no necessity for putting it beyond all doubt if he accepts our amendment. If, on the other hand, he is obstinate enough to go forward with these tax proposals, the language in which this clause is now drafted will require amendment in the Bill because it is not clear and will lead to trouble. I suggest to the Minister that in dealing with the savings levy, if in spite of our arguments he still intends to go ahead with it, he should indicate in his Bill the date when the levy will be repaid. The date should be certain. There is no good reason for the Minister telling us that the computers can only work up to a certain stage. If properly programmed, the computers can go up to any date in the future, and if the Department knows its job it is only a matter of programming the computers. I hope that the Minister, in dealing with this levy, will indicate when it is due.

The question of negotiability of the levy certificates has already been raised by the hon. member for Constantia. I hope that the Minister will at least consider the question of negotiability in regard to estates. Small loan accounts which have to be carried forward for years in estates can be very inconvenient and can hold up the winding up of the estate. In the case of deceased estates, I think provision should be made in the Bill for these levies to be negotiable or repaid before the anticipated date. If the Minister will not go so far as to agree to their being repaid, he should at least provide for their negotiability because it will assist in the winding up of estates.

As I said before, I think these taxes are unnecessary. The facts laid before us in the Budget speech showed quite clearly that the Minister required these taxes, but subsequent events have shown that his Estimates were inaccurate and therefore the taxes are no longer justified, and in any case by this time the Minister should be in a position to give us the final figures with regard to the Revenue Account as at the end of the present financial year, so that even at this late stage we can assess the position, because the surplus may be more than this additional R30,000,000, and if it is, these taxes are all the more unjustifiable.

Hon. members opposite must not think that I am standing up to speak just because the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said that hon. members on this side were not participating in the debate. The fact is that I rose with a certain amount of trepidation, not because I was hesitant to support the hon. the Minister but because from the nature of the case this is a subject which any person would be hesitant to discuss, and I rose so hesitantly, Sir, that you did not see me, although I do not blame you for not having done so.

Hon. members opposite have advanced an argument which they did not use during the Budget debate. Hon. members said then that it was quite wrong to transfer the previous year’s surplus to Loan Account. That was their whole argument. They have now given us the best as far as that argument is concerned. They can see now that the hon. the Minister has this great loan programme which he has to finance.

Where is the money to come from? They are satisfied now that we should transfer the surplus on Revenue Account to Loan Account, but I want to ask now how we are to meet the shortage which still exists on Loan Account?

This measure which the hon. the Minister is submitting to the House to-day is in my opinion the correct one because, in the first place, it is fair. I want to refer to the White Paper. On page 29 it is stated emphatically that the total profit before taxation of commercial and industrial companies testify to the prosperity in the country; a random survey showed that industrial profits rose by 74 per cent and those of commerce by 70 per cent. This 5 per cent loan levy which is being imposed on them will not prevent these companies planning for further expansion. It will not be necessary for them not to replace machinery and to continue with new projects. In the case of 143 companies the profits were an average of Rl,000,000 per company. Over a period of four years this figure rose by almost 80 per cent. I say that these companies are quite able to pay this loan levy and also to pay this additional surcharge on their tax of R16,000,000. This will not result in their being unable to expand and produce and further assist the economy of the country in this way. That is why I say that the tax is fair.

I should like to say this in connection with income-taxpayers. This 5 per cent levy only becomes operative in the case of a married couple with four children where their income is R3,933 per annum, and then it is an amount of precisely R5. I do not think that this is unfair. My conclusion is therefore that this tax and this loan levy are in the first place, fair, and in the second place, they have been imposed on people and on companies who can pay them. What is more, this levy is necessary, on the one hand because it has to assist in financing the hon. the Minister’s Loan Account and, on the other hand, because we in South Africa are this year trying to bring our economy which, as one hon. member put it, has become overheated, has progressed too swiftly and in which there have been price increases, back to a normal level. This is part of the breather-process of our economy and one has to-day to see these measures against the background of all the taxation proposals. Income-tax is not being increased. I think that this is a tremendous achievement. I think that the situation in which the economy of our country was when the hon. the Minister introduced these proposals did perhaps justify an increase in taxation in view of the practical economic facts, but the hon. the Minister did not change these taxes. On the contrary, he did not even do away with the 5 per cent rebate which we will have again this year. All he is asking of the taxpayers—and only of one-third of them, only the topmost one-third, the people having an income of R4,000 and more —is: Lend me a loan amount and I shall pay you 5 per cent interest on that money. Surely this is very fair? These people can afford to lend the State this money. It is not taking the bread out of their mouths; they have it, and the hon. the Minister is borrowing it and is paying them 5 per cent per annum. The hon. member asked when this levy would be repaid. The hon. the Minister has already said that when his Income Tax Bill is before the House he will tell us precisely before which date this money will be repaid. This levy can be repaid at any time before a certain date. The difficulty in regard to the levy which was repaid last year, an amount of R18,000,000, was precisely that it had to be repaid in the second half of the year when we could least afford to put an amount of R18,000,000 back into circulation. The hon. the Minister does not want to make that same mistake again. He has said that he will repay it when he deems fit but before a specific date which he will announce when he introduces the Income Tax Bill. We expect the ordinary people in this country to make sacrifices this year and to practice self-control, and if we do not ask this of the large companies as well, there will be dissatisfaction. I contend that the large companies have had the lion’s share of the profits in this economic upsurge. If we ask the ordinary people to pay this levy but we are not prepared to ask these companies which have made these large profits to do so—we do not begrudge them these profits because they have assisted in the development of the country—if they are not prepared to make this small contribution towards financing our country under these circumstances, then we shall be doing the rest of the population an injustice. That is why we on this side of the House do not have the slightest objection to these proposals of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member who has just sat down has tried to paint as glowing a picture as he can of what is in effect a compulsory loan. He asks quite innocently how else the deficit under Loan Account is to be met unless it is met by this extra taxation on companies and by the imposition of this loan levy. Sir, the answer is perfectly clear. It seems to me that the normal method of meeting a deficit in Loan Account is to follow the conventional process of borrowing. The objection which we on this side of the House have to the taxation proposals is that already the hon. the Minister of Finance has so large a surplus over and above the figure that he gave as his estimate that there is adequate money already in the Exchequer to meet a situation of that nature. Sir, a wise English Judge once said that political expediency is like a restive horse, for once you get onto its back there is no knowing where it will land you. We on this side of the House, of course, have had practical demonstrations of the truth of that wise saying over 17 years. Although we are not concerned in this debate with political expediency as such, we are certainly concerned with the economic results which have flowed from the political expediency which we have seen followed by this Government over the past 17 years. Here we have evidence of expediency of a similar kind: it is financial expediency which has become the keynote of this hon. Minister’s process of fiscal management over the past years. Remembering the hon. the Minister’s hit and miss estimates as to what the surplus was going to be for two years in succession, one can appreciate his reluctance to disclose the enormity of that surplus for the past year. I think it is necessary to indicate why we are opposed to further excess taxation on the items which have been mentioned, because on such official information as is available it is quite evident that the hon. the Minister over the last year got more than R 122,000,000 in excess of his Revenue Estimates and that his under-spending on his Estimate is well in the region of R60,000,000. Sir, when we on this side of the House have to deal with the fiscal proposition as it is presented to us we find it extremely difficult to do so because of the unreliability of the figures which are presented annually to this House. They are in fact nothing more than window dressing.

During his Budget speech the hon. the Minister was heard to complain that he did not have enough fiscal weapons at his disposal to curb inflation and to keep the country on an even economic keel. But the fault lies with him, not with the weapons at his disposal. It is quite evident that in one case at least he has been misusing the weapons at his disposal. The hon. the Minister has been extracting so much for so long from the pockets of the taxpaying public, in excess of his annual fiscal needs, that taxation as an anti-inflationary measure has lost most of its potency, and therefore to go on, as is proposed in these taxation measures, increasing taxation still further in this way, is much like trying to extract blood from a stone. He can only crush the stone in the process and get no better results than if he had left it uncrushed. Therefore it is evident that looked at from the fiscal point of view or as a remedy against inflation, excess taxation of this nature has lost its potency as an anti-inflationary measure and is not justified under present circumstances.

Sir, there is another factor which may not be pertinent to this debate but it is quite obvious that the other fiscal factor which the hon. the Minister has misused is the matter of State spending. I am not going to deal with State spending as such but I am going to say that the moment has arrived when State spending should be curbed in order to encourage the expansion of productivity by private enterprise. The time has certainly come when productivity must be fostered in South Africa if the country is to escape another period of economic stagnation such as developed in 1960-61. That, Sir, is the very potent reason for the amendment moved on this side of the House to delete these items of additional imposts on the taxpaying public, because there is a great need to end this process of financial expediency which has been the practice over recent years. There are signs already that the growth of South Africa’s economy has been slowed down by the Minister’s excessively large surpluses and over-taxation. The plea therefore from this side of the House is to get away from financial expediency of this kind and to look at the matter far more realistically and to have regard to what is the essential need at the moment, namely to encourage productivity by private enterprise and so ensure continued stability in the country’s economy. This time it is very pertinent that it should be done by not over-taxing to an even greater degree, because that is what the proposal really is; it is really a proposal to over-tax to an even greater degree. For these reasons I support the amendment moved on this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that what we are concerned with here is a question of financial expediency; it is a question of political expediency on the part of hon. members on the other side of the House. Sir, I think the analysis of hon. members on the other side was an entirely superficial economic analysis. The hon. member who has just sat down talked about “overtaxing.” Sir, South Africa is the last country where one should talk about “overtaxing.” South Africa is one of the countries where we have the lowest tax on individuals and the lowest tax companies. Where does the hon. member get the idea that the Government is following a policy of “overtaxing?” That statement is utterly ridiculous. Hon. members opposite are trying to make a little political capital out of the small change which is being brought about in the scale of taxation, but I do not think they are going to have much success in this connection. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) comes here with this ridiculous argument: He says that the Minister of Finance claims that the economic prosperity that we have been enjoying was planned by the Government. He says that if in fact the Government planned this economic prosperity . . .

Order! I stopped the hon. member for Constantia when he sought to discuss the question of economic planning.

Yes, but you only stopped him after he had already done so for three minutes! I will observe your ruling, Sir, but may I just say that it is impossible to foresee everything that is going to happen in the future. The hon. member knows as well as I do that a private company, for example, may plan certain things and then find that it achieves much more success than it anticipated. That unexpected success then gives rise to manpower problems and production problems, and that is precisely what happened in this case. The Government was very successful in its planning, so much so that its planning produced better results than anyone could possibly have foreseen. I do not regard that as a problem and I do not regard it as any reason for criticism. Take the savings levy, which was also discussed here by the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and Queenstown (Mr. Loots.) Mr. Chairman, is there really any cause for complaint about this savings levy? It is not being levied on people who may have to deprive themselves of essential commodities in order to be able to pay the levy; it is being levied, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has pointed out, on the man who, together with his wife, has a taxable income of more than R3,000. Sir, a husband and wife with a taxable income of more than R3,000 are people who are able to live in comfort. They cannot live in luxury but they can live very comfortably. The hon. member for Queenstown has pointed out that a husband and wife with four children would only pay the levy when they have a taxable income of just below R4,000. Sir, these are people who are able to save the small amount that they are being called upon to pay and who can afford to lend it to the Treasury with a view to combating inflationary trends. There is no necessity for them to suffer deprivation; they may have to miss a few cinema shows perhaps; they may have to cut down on their beer by a few glasses but nothing is being taken away from them in the way of necessities of life.

Mr. Chairman, in view of your ruling I do not want to talk about the question of combating inflationary trends. I want to deal with the position of companies. The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member who has just sat down sought to create the impression that the savings levy and the surcharge were going to place a tremendous burden on companies. The hon. member for Constantia says that companies are hit not only by the savings levy, not only by the surcharge but also by the credit squeeze and that they will have no opportunity of expanding. But, Sir, surely that is not the position in South Africa at the present time; it is not the credit squeeze that is preventing industrial expansion in South Africa. These companies are all making such fantastic profits that they do not know what to do with their money. They are earning two, three, four or five times as much as they are paying out in dividends. This savings levy and the surcharge will not have the effect of discouraging industrial expansion: they will not have the effect of discouraging industries from producing for the export markets; there are other factors that come into the picture.

It certainly does not help them.

In actual fact the companies have more money than they know what to do with. Those are the hard facts. Just look at the annual reports and the stock exchange tables which indicate what dividends are paid by companies. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) now wants to suggest that this small savings levy will prevent companies from expanding. He knows that that is not the case. No, this is a burden that the individual can bear quite easily; it is a burden that the companies can bear quite easily. I think the hon. member for Queenstown summed up the position brilliantly when he said that these taxation proposals were merely intended to counteract the overheating in our economy. I feel that the taxation proposals before us will be highly successful in achieving this object. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) shakes his head. Sir, when the next Vote comes under discussion here the hon. member will be the first to stand up and say that our great difficulty lies in the manpower shortage; he is not going to complain that there is a shortage of money. He is going to complain that there is a shortage of manpower. Sir, these taxation proposals do not place a burden on the individual that he cannot bear; as a matter of fact, the burden is a very light one, and as far as the companies are concerned, these taxation proposals will do absolutely nothing to prevent normal and sound expansion. These proposals will succeed in keeping our economy on an even keel and to counteract the overheating in our economy. Sir, we realize of course that hon. members on the other side had to put forward criticism. Well, they have done so now and I think we should leave it at that. I do not think their criticism was sound, and I think the hon. the Minister’s proposals will receive the support of everybody who would like to see a sound development of our economy in South Africa.

We are concerned here with three taxation proposals, one for individuals and two for companies. I think the arguments which hon. members on the other side have educed are fallacious and I shall deal with them as I go along. The effect of this tax is to transfer money from the private producer and consumer into the hands of the State. I think that is the great weakness of it. These three taxes can be classified very simply. The first is the tax on individuals under (G) where the individual is asked to contribute 5 per cent of his income-tax as a loan to the Government for an indefinite period. This matter has been dealt with by my colleagues and I am not going to repeat what they said. They have put forward very strong arguments and I hope the hon. the Minister will heed their criticism. What my hon. friends on the other side have said is this: If a man has an income of R4,000 and has three or four children he will not be touched. If he has an income of R3,000, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has said it will not affect him because only the richer people will be called upon to pay. Sir. I wish to say that if his income is R3,000 or R2,000 or R 1,000 he will still be called upon to pay depending upon whence his income is derived.

I now come to the other two. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) says that the companies have got away with the bacon —the rich companies. Sir, what is a company?

It is an association of individuals, and when you tax a company to the tune of 30 per cent as we do, you tax every individual shareholder 30 per cent. That is what we are doing in South Africa. Now we come to these two proposals in respect of companies. The first is under (B); the second comes under (H). On the one hand we say to the company: “You are paying 30 per cent in taxation at present; we are going to increase it by another 1| per cent, making a total of 31 per cent.” Then we say to the company in addition to that: “We are going to call upon you for a loan.” Sir, that may be fair if you are dealing with the rich shareholder. But we have living on the Witwatersrand and in my constituency people who derive their income from shares in companies; and when a man gets a dividend of R100 from a company he must bear in mind that he has already paid the State 30 per cent. We know that there are a number of people in South Africa to-day who are living in their retirement on money that they receive by way of dividends. The hon. member for Queenstown says that this will not affect the man with an income of R4,000 a year. He has already paid Rl,700 to the State if his money is invested in companies.

Who pays Rl,700 to the State?

The man who has an income of R4,000 and whose income is derived from dividends from companies.

You mean the company pays it.

Sir, whose money is it? The money in the company belongs to the shareholders.

What right have you to think that the company would declare dividends for that amount?

That is an entirely different argument. I am speaking of dividends that have been declared. The company first pays 30 per cent to the State and thereafter distributes dividends. Every shareholder in that company is taxed 30 per cent. Sir, this does not happen in every country; this is not the system in modern, civilized, highly developed countries. Their system is entirely different.

Would you plead for the other system where individual income-tax is higher?

Of course, I do. Our system is obsolete. We are taxing the poor man and we are aggravating the position through the two taxes that we have before us. I refer to the taxation proposals as far as companies are concerned. Sir, what is the correct manner in which you should tax the shareholder? You should tax him through apportionment. The company should say to him: “Here is your dividend; we have already paid so much to the State on your dividend; present that with your income-tax return.” The rich shareholder will get no credit; he will have to pay something more. The shareholder who pays 30 per cent income-tax will get nothing back but the man who is not liable for income-tax at all will get that money back again. That is what is wrong with our South African system; it is inequitable; it is not fair to the poor man. The hon. the Minister comes along from year to year, as his predecessors did, and says: “We will tax the companies.” Hon. members on the other side wax eloquent about the rich companies. I say again that a company is an association of individuals.

Do you concede that the companies in commerce, according to this White Paper, only paid out 32 per cent of their profits in dividends?

There I agree with the hon. member for Queenstown. This is beside the point but he is assisting me, because what we should do in this country is to say that they should pay out and then the poor man would get a chance, instead of having the rich man who controls the company ploughing back as much as he likes. It is the rich man who controls the company and this Government is backing the rich man against the poor shareholder.

“Boerehater.”

I will not go so far as to say that! Sir, I want to say that until we reform our system of taxation, the obvious thing for the Minister of Finance to do is to say: “I will not aggravate the position . . .”

Order! The system of taxation is not under discussion.

Very well, I will not discuss the system of taxation. But until we have that system, this is inequitable taxation and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me.

I think this little game of “political expediency” has gone far enough now; I think hon. members on the other side have now done their duty. For the greater part of the debate they have been putting forward pleas here with their tongue in their cheek, but at any rate they have done their duty. Sir, when one plays this little game there are quite a few traps that one can fall into. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) talked about a much bigger surplus than the surplus for which I had budgeted. He apparently forgot what I had said in my reply to the Budget debate.

I said in the course of that reply that I had transferred R20,000,000 to the Defence Special Equipment Account by way of virement because the Fund had run short of money in view of the fact that large payments had to be made earlier on this year but that we had discovered right at the end that although we had done this during the previous two years, it was not strictly in accordance with the law with the result that that amount could not be taken out of the ordinary Revenue Account as we had intended to do. I then said that in the circumstances this money would remain in the Revenue Account and that the Loan Account would be correspondingly reduced. But I went on to say that this matter would be rectified in the Finance Act. In other words, the additional R20,000,000 over and above the amount which I mentioned, does not in fact represent an extra R20,000,000. The position is simply that although I was under the impression that this amount could be deposited in the Defence Special Equipment Account, it now appears that it cannot be so deposited. But any surplus over and above the R110,000,000 for which I budgeted must be reduced by this particular amount. But I also went further; I said that if the surplus, after making this adjustment, was still more than R 100,000.000, any amount in excess of R110,000,000 would be paid into the Taxation Reserve Account and that if the surplus was less, then so much less would be paid into the Loan Account because the whole of this sum of R110,000.000 was transferred to the Loan Account.

That is the one point which has been raised here, but let us analyse a few of the other points. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has made a stirring plea for the poor man who holds shares in large companies. But, Sir, that is not an argument which the hon. member should advance in this debate; he should really have advanced it in his caucus against the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), because earlier this year the hon. member for Yeoville strongly attacked us and said that although we were taking money out of the pocket of the poor man we were not touching these powerful corporations, these large companies, which were making huge profits. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said, and I think the hon. member for Kensington should first convert his deputy leader before he tries to convert me and other members on this side.

The two things are not contradictory; I am thinking particularly of the big tycoons.

Sir, the object of this loan levy and the extra tax on companies is really twofold. In the first place this money is needed to finance our Loan Account. It is absolutely essential, particularly in a developing country such as ours, as hon. members are aware, to strengthen our infrastructure. This requires a great deal of capital, and it is because of the fact that we need this capital that we have no alternative but to levy these taxes. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) says that we should have obtained this money in the usual way, that is to say, by borrowing it locally. We are already making provision for a sum of R70,000,000 to be raised by way of local loans. In actual fact that amount is almost more than we can hope to raise, because judging by our experience in connection with the loan that we floated in February, there is already a certain amount of tightness in our local capital market. We were unable to raise the full amount that we offered for conversion and this, of course, represents a further charge on our Loan Account.

I told the hon. member yesterday that the shortfall on Loan Account, according to the latest figures, was between R 18,000,000 and R 19,000,000; that is the amount that we have to find for the new year. Sir, this money is needed in the first place to strengthen our Loan Account so that we can meet our expenditure. And we were not reckless in drawing up our estimates of expenditure. On the contrary, as I said on a previous occasion, we pruned the items of expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Account by no less then R93,000,000. But there are certain items of expenditure which are absolutely essential unless our present economic development is to come to a standstill. Take the question of transport facilities and communications, for example; these services form an essential part of the infra-structure of any country’s economy. It has to be strengthened continually; that is why we need this money. But there is also a second reason for levying these taxes and that is to make sure that less money is available for spending on consumer goods. We have already taken certain monetary steps with a view to curtailing credit facilities and those steps now have to be supplemented by fiscal steps. Mr. Chairman, the criticism that has been levied at my Budget and the fiscal measures that I have taken together with certain monetary measures, is not that I have applied the brake too sharply but doubt has been expressed as to whether I have not applied the brake too lightly and whether I should not have withdrawn even more money from circulation, leaving less to be spent on consumer goods. There is no doubt at all therefore as to the necessity of these taxation proposals. This money is needed to strengthen our capital account and to strengthen our Loan Account. These taxation proposals are necessary in order to supplement the monetary steps that we have already taken.

When we come to the merits of the taxation proposals, it seems to me that what hon. members on the other side object to in the first place is the loan levy on individuals. Sir, I have already pointed out that we are not imposing a very heavy burden on the individual. The effect of the provision that no person whose tax is less than R5 will be subject to this levy will be that 570,000 taxpayers out of the total of 850,000 will not be required to pay this levy. In other words, only 270,000 taxpayers will pay this 5 per cent loan levy. An unmarried person will only pay the levy if he has a taxable income of more than Rl,722. A married person with no children has to earn R2,225 before he will be required to pay the levy. If he has one child the figure is R2,650; with two children R3,066; with three children R3,500 and with four children R3,933. As far as individuals are concerned, therefore, the burden is a very light one. The levy will only be applicable to 270,000 of our more privileged taxpayers.

I just want to add that the provisions with regard to the repayment of the levy will, of course, be incorporated in the Income Tax Act. They have already been published in the Government Gazette and the period, as I have said already, will be a maximum of seven years. The levy can be refunded at any time within seven years. There is actually a very important reason for this provision. Last year, at a time when we were trying to curb consumer spending to a certain extent, we had to refund an amount of R 19.000,000 which was payable under a previous loan levy. We were obliged to pay it out; we had no authority to withhold it. But in terms of this new provision we will have a choice. As far as the loan levy is concerned, I just want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) that the amount of the levy will be rounded off; in other words, cents will be ignored. Where a person has a certain income and the levy on his income amounts to R10.15, the levy will be R10. We are not going to take cents into account.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) raised the question of the negotiability of these loan levy certificates. No certificates will be issued. As far as negotiability is concerned, the position will be precisely the same as in the case of the previous loan levy certificates. The Act provides that where a person dies, to take the case that the hon. members mentioned—-the money will be paid out to his estate in the same way as hitherto.

May I ask a question? The Minister says that the position will be the same as hitherto. Will certificates be issued in respect of the amount that is paid?

Not in the same way as we did previously. Formerly a certificate was issued, and the amount indicated on the certificate included the interest up to the day on which the amount had to be refunded. In this case the taxpayer will be given a receipt, not a certificate, because we are no longer working on the same basis. We will have the address of the taxpayer and when the period expires we will not be faced with the difficulty that we have had in the past and that is that the money is not reclaimed; the amount will stand to the credit of the taxpayer in our books.

Hon. members also raised the question of the double tax on companies, namely the loan levy of 5 per cent and the surcharge on their Ordinary tax. Here again I want to show hon. members what the effect of this will be. For the year 1965, companies will pay an additional 1 cents; in other words, 31| cents instead of 30 cents. I am referring now to the surcharge on the ordinary companies’ tax. In respect of 1966 they will pay 33 cents, that is to say, the ordinary basic 30 cents, plus the surcharge of H cents, plus a loan levy of 1| cents, making a total of 33 cents. I think the increase is a very reasonable one. I was so impressed in this connection by the plea made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that I almost felt obliged to impose a tax on the rich companies so that the hon. member would not be able to reproach me again. This is a case where I complied with the request of the United Party! That is the sort of gratitude one gets, Mr. Chairman! I did what the hon. member pleaded for, and instead of getting credit for it I am reproached for having complied with their request! My conscience is not troubling me at all. When I think of the enormous profits made by companies, my conscience is perfectly clear as far as this matter is concerned. As a matter of fact, as the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries pointed out recently, the companies are enjoying a greater share in the expansion of our economy than other sections of the population. I feel therefore that this step is fully justified.

I do not want to deal with the question of apportionment which was raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). This is a matter which has often been investigated and it has been found that for practical reasons it cannot be implemented here. I might just say that where a man receives R4.000 in dividends, he does not pay the ordinary scale of taxation on the full amount. On income derived from dividends he pays income-tax on a maximum of two-thirds of that income; he pays according to a scale. He may pay nothing at all. The scale rises until his income exceeds a certain figure and then he pays income-tax on only two-thirds of income derived from dividends.

There is one matter with which the hon. the Minister has not dealt with yet. Has the hon. the Minister anything to say about the wording of the provision concerning the levy? We have indicated that the wording is not very clear.

I am very glad that the hon. member has reminded me of it. The loan levy is calculated on the normal tax payable after deduction of the ordinary deductions but before deducting the 5 per cent rebate; sub-paragraph (g) of Clause 1 does not provide specifically that the levy is payable on the normal tax after deducting the rebate, but the position will be set out perfectly clearly in the Income Tax Act. I think the hon. member has a copy of it. There is no doubt about this matter. As hon. members are aware, the tax proposals are subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act of 1962 and the provisions of the Income Tax Act of 1965. The position will be as set out in the Act and there is no necessity therefore to bring about any amendment here.

All the Minister’s explanations are not satisfactory and all of them are not acceptable. We are told, when we say they are not satisfactory, that we are talking with our tongues in our cheeks but I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of what he said in his Budget speech on this subject. He said: “Where so much additional money is required on loan account I feel that a loan levy is an obvious method to apply; in fact I can hardly disappoint the expectations of the whole financial Press by not imposing such a levy”. If anybody ever spoke with his tongue in his cheek it was the hon. Minister on that day: Do not worry about the taxpayer; worry about the expectations of the financial Press! That is not the way to deal with the taxpayers.

Where is your sense of humour; if you ever had one?

Who has to find the money for the levy, Sir? The taxpayer. The Minister did not even use the usual excuse, for bringing in such a levy, the old story about inflation. He did not mention it at all in connection with this levy.

The hon. the Minister has made great play of the fact that only those people who paid over R5 in levy would be subject to this levy. He said that because of this two-thirds of the number of taxpayers would not pay this levy. That is correct. Quite rightly, he said, that a married man earning R2,225, with no children, would not have to pay this levy. I accept that. But is R2,225 such a tremendous income when you consider the other factors in this country. The Minister has agreed that he will give a definite date for repayment of this levy so I won’t dwell on that. I repeat that the Minister did not mention inflation and I shall not do so either but had he mentioned it he would have been told that over the last year public spending had increased by 13 per cent which would have been a very easy way in which to deal with this particular matter. Sir, the taxpayer gets it in the neck everywhere even if it is only an additional R5 above R100. The White Paper which was distributed with the Budget speech shows that the price index of retail food during the last year rose from 119.3 to 124.8, i.e. 5| per cent while over the previous ten years it rose only 18.5 per cent— an average of 1.85 per cent per annum. Look at that extra impost on the cost of living, Sir! Now add this levy and all the other things and see where the taxpayer stands!

I want to turn to the additional tax and the levy on companies. The Minister said in his Budget speech: “In my view it would not be proper to seek the remaining R16,000,000 from individual income-taxpayers . . The hon. the the Minister makes light of this additional 3 per cent payable by companies. His whole attitude is that companies should be taxed as a separate entity and that the fact that there are shareholders should be disregarded entirely. The directors, when they decide what dividends to pay, have to consider their profits, their tax and their reserves. Booms do not last for ever, reserves must be built up and reasonable liquidity must be maintained. It looks as if this loan levy is not going to be repaid before a period of seven years has elapsed. Nobody taking into account the liquid position of a company will, in my view, be able to consider this as a liquid asset. It is fixed for many years and it will certainly have to exercise directors’ minds. I think that we will find that there will be smaller dividends; smaller dividends mean smaller prices for the shares so the shareholder’s capital is affected in addition to his income. Where does the fairness of all these additional burdens come in?

I read in the newspaper this morning that the Chairman of Bonuskor reported that there were 35,000 shareholders in Bonuskor. The figure was bigger previously. Why should companies simply be regarded as entities to be taxed in a different way? The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is partly completely right on this matter. There are 35,000 shareholders in Bonuskor and if you take the rest of the public companies throughout the country you get an idea how many shareholders there are. Talking about the fall in the price of the shares recently the chairman of this company said one of the reasons for the fall was the number of small shareholders disposing of their shares at odd moments.

Because they are hard up.

Of course they are hard up. This is definitely going to hit them in more than one way. It is no use the Minister saying it is not going to hit them. He has not given the matter proper consideration. Scores of thousands of small shareholders throughout the country are going to be affected because of the imposition of these two taxes on companies, although these taxes look very small. I cannot see any reason whatsoever for the imposition of these taxes and I shall certainly vote for the amendment.

I would like to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister. The one is this: In the event of the provisional taxpayer or the P.A.Y.E.-taxpayer over-paying his levy, will the levy be returned to him immediately plus interest from the date on which the money was paid? Because I understand that the tax and the levy are to be collected together. The second is this: Has the hon. the Minister given any consideration to the problem which might arise in regard to lump sum payments under pension schemes, for example, which are taxable in the hands of the recipient, over a certain amount? They will now attract the levy in the same way as any other income. Has the Minister given any consideration to the fact that you may have the position where a person draws part of his pension in a lump sum he will have to pay the levy in addition to his tax?

In regard to companies I think the hon. the Minister was right when he told us in his Budget speech that he required another R16,000,000 and when he said, as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has already mentioned, that it would be improper to ask the individual taxpayer for this amount. We subscribe to that view entirely, Sir. It would have been highly improper to ask the individual taxpayer to pay an additional R 16,000,000 in addition to the taxation burden he is already carrying. But I think it is equally improper to ask the companies to pay this additional amount. It has already been said here this afternoon that when you tax a company you are in fact taxing the shareholders. You do so in one of two ways: You either reduce shareholders’ dividends by virtue of taxation on the company or, alternatively, you curtail the expansion of the company in which they are interested. In both cases it is the end person, the taxpayer, who is suffering. I do not want to cover the whole field of company taxation, Sir, because I do not think this is the appropriate occasion, but one has to look at it in relation to the additional burden which is being placed on one section of the community only. It is not only the shareholder in these large private companies who is going to be affected by this taxation. The private company, particularly, is not established, for tax purposes, but to limit liability. That is why it is called a limited liability company. One of the effects of the registration of a company or trading through a company is that it attracts a different basis of taxation. There are hundreds and hundreds of small business people who do their trading through the medium of a company and they are already bearing a larger burden of taxation than a person who trades as an individual. It is true that it can work in reverse: that you can utilize a company to save tax and not to pay tax but the small businessman. with a limited income, pays a larger amount of tax as a company than he would individually. We are now imposing an additional burden on him. If we accept the loan levy in regard to an individual I suppose there may be some case to be made out for accepting a loan levy in regard to a company although, in effect, you have the position that the same person is paying twice, i.e. a loan levy in regard to his personal income and a loan levy in regard to the company which he may own. But here is a direct imposition of an additional tax on a specified section of the community. Apart from whether it is right or wrong whether or not additional taxes should be imposed, I think it is a dangerous precedent that one section of the community, the shareholders of a public company or the shareholders of small companies, as individual traders, should be singled out for this additional taxation.

Listening to the speeches this afternoon one would imagine that all companies are earning enormous amounts of money. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that they do not. There is the top strata of large public companies which earn a great proportion of the total earned by companies, I admit, but the mass of companies are small companies earning small income and the imposition is going to be placed on them. If the hon. the Minister is worried about the inflationary effect of dividends to be distributed then, in so far as private companies are concerned, I have a very simple solution for him. I simply suggest that he removes the non-distributable profits tax. Nobody will then distribute dividends; they will be kept in the companies and his problem regarding additional funds in the hands of the public will be solved immediately. That would be much more satisfactory to all of us if he would adopt that suggestion instead of this additional taxation.

Question put: That the proviso and the sub-paragraphs stand part of the motion,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes —74: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C; Bootha, L. J. C; Botha, H. J.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Jager, P. R.; de Villiers, J. D.: de Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.: Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.: Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.: Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.: Rall, M. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.: Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.: Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.: van Eeden, F. J.: van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes —41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendments negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Proposal on estate duty:

I move—

Agreed to.

Proposals on stamp duties:

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 59 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall in respect of every receipt given on or after the first day of July 1965, for or upon the payment of a sum of money amounting to RIO or more be paid a stamp duty in accordance with the following scale—

1. (2) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 59 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, the stamp duty payable in terms of Item 15 of the First Schedule to Act No. 59 of 1962 in respect of “customs documents” shall be payable in respect of “customs and excise documents”.

Agreed to.

Proposals on customs and excise duties:

I move—

1. (1) the ordinary customs duties in Part 1 of Schedule No. 1 to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, on the goods described hereunder and classified in the tariff headings or sub-headings set forth hereunder, be amended to the extent shown:

1. (2) the excise duties in Part 2 of Schedule No. 1 to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, on the goods described hereunder and classified under the tariff items or sub-items set forth hereunder, be amended to the extent shown:

1. (3) the amendments of the customs and excise duties set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above be applicable to the goods concerned which have not been entered for home consumption at the time when this proposal is tabled.

Once again I would like to say a word on these proposals in the interest of the tobacco farmers, in the absence of any other member, such as for example for the hon. members for Marico (Mr. Grobler) and Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) making a little protest against these taxes here. I want to deal first of all with the changes proposed in paragraph two of the proposals, namely that as far as pipe-tobacco is concerned, the excise be fixed at 55 per cent, with a minimum of 18 cent per lb. As I understand these proposals, it is purely a book-keeping arrangement as far as the manufacturers are concerned because the trend at present is for the sale of tobacco to the lower income groups in package form rather than in the bulk form as has been the practice in the past. With the change in our lower income groups’ taste as far as tobacco-blending is concerned, there has been an increase in the types of packaged tobacco available to the lower income groups. If you realize, Mr. Chairman, that the total volume of pipe-tobacco, sold in South Africa to-day, is in the region of some 22,000,000 lbs in weight, you will realize the importance of this tax to the administration. The change now proposed, I think, will render to the Government something like R6,000,000 alone.

An increase of R6,000,000?

No, no. I am not saying that there is an increase of R6,000,000. I say that the Taxation Proposals will maintain the position more or less on the present basis and this is really a clarification, as I understand it, a bookkeeping arrangement for taxation purposes, but I want to point out that one would have imagined that this taxation coming primarily from the small man, the man in the lower income group who buys this type of tobacco for his pleasure, the Minister would at least have taken this opportunity, both in the interests of the smoker and the producer, of coming with some proposal to alleviate the taxation burden. The fact that the hon. Minister when we are faced with proposals of this nature takes no steps in that direction, is, I think, a clear indication of the lack of sympathy displayed by the Government in regard to this class of consumer. In regard to paragraph (1), I want to omit that paragraph. It is clear that the proposals made here will in fact mean a reduction of taxation in that the price of the imported commodity, the imported tobacco will be less to the consumer. Admittedly, it does not make a great difference, but it will be less because the Minister realizes that the taxation as fixed now cn the net weight and not on the gross weight of the imported commodity, means that these proposals will bring about a small decrease in taxation. The taxation formerly was fixed on the price of the package and the volume of tobacco as a whole, but now it is only being fixed on the net weight of tobacco contained in the imported package. The effect will be that the producer in South Africa of pipe-tobacco is again seeing an advantage given to the imported product. Admittedly the consumption of imported pipe-tobacco is not great in volume. I think roughly it is in the region of 90.000 lbs in weight, the high-class types of tobacco, but the principle involved here is that the Government are giving taxation relief in respect of the imported article to the prejudice of the home producer and one would have rather thought that the Government would have taken steps for an increase in order to ensure that there was a higher consumption of the pipe-tobaccos produced in South Africa itself. Mr. Chairman, where we import 90,000 lbs of package pipe-tobacco, as far as our own manufacturers are concerned, we only export 7,000 lbs., and I would say to the hon. the Minister that at the moment we have no difficulty in selling our lighter tobaccos, no difficulty of selling them in the export market at all, but we do sit in South Africa with something like 20,000,000 lbs of unsold tobacco, and one would have expected that even in regard to an item of this nature, small as it may be, and of what little effect it may be on the whole market, that in principle, the Minister would have said “I am not going to give any relaxation, I am going to at least maintain the position as it is at the present time, because I am not prepared to concede the principle that preference must be given to an imported commodity when there are adequate qualities and quantities on the home market that can be used by the South African consumer.” Therefore as a matter of principle I move—

I have actually been drawn into this debate by the hon. member, as is usually the case. He cannot do otherwise. If he cannot speak evil of somebody, he will not speak at all. That is why I am compelled to reply as one of the leaders of the tobacco group and one of the representatives of the tobacco-growers who are in close co-operation with their executives. My reply to the hon. member is that the tobacco co-operatives throughout the Transvaal are not grateful to him for his remarks here. He knows too little about their affairs, that is why he says what he does. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that he was raising the question of tobacco because the hon. members for Marico (Mr. Grobler) and Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) had nothing to say in this regard.

That is true.

We have nothing to say and we know why we have nothing to say. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) should confine his remarks to defence matters. What does he know about tobacco? The tobacco co-operative is managed by extremely capable and trained people.

Order! That is not relevant. The hon. member must confine himself to the proposal.

Yes, Sir, I want to come to my point, but I must tell the hon. member why I did not rise to speak, and I hope that you will give me the opportunity to do so. There is a reason why I must do so. It is in the interests of the tobacco farmers that I should defend myself. May I continue?

The hon. member must discuss the taxation proposals.

Then I shall have to put it another way, and if I cannot get past you, then I cannot reply to him and then the idea which he has planted here will go unchallenged. The tobacco farmers of the Transvaal are connected with an organization which is particularly well organized, which consists of trained people, and the attacks made here are in conflict with the interests of the tobacco farmers. A week or so ago we met the executive here. The tobacco farmers are organized excellently and will instruct their executive in regard to what they want from the Government and from their representatives. Because we receive our instructions from them, from the tobacco farmers, from the executives of those tobacco organizations, we are satisfied and we say nothing. If they get hold of the hon. member they will hang him from the nearest available tree.

It was not my intention at all to rise again but in view of what the hon. member for Rustenburg has now said I am compelled to do so. Surely the hon. member representing the constituency of Rustenburg, in which the headquarters of the biggest cooperative of tobacco producers in South Africa is located, must know what was said in a recent pamphlet. I have the pamphlet here and it states clearly what the over-all position is. They give a summary of the stocks of tobacco held in South Africa to-day, and as far as pipe tobacco is concerned, they state that there are sufficient supplies of the two qualities in this country for 32 months and for 14 months respectively. In other words there is not an adequate sale of pipe tobacco because of these large stocks that are held, and the effect of the tax proposals, the Minister is presenting here means a further decrease in the consumption of South African tobacco. It is creating a preference for the imported tobacco, and that must be detrimental to the South African producer. I am going to ask the hon. member for Rustenburg whether he will return to Rustenburg and at the next general meeting to be held in a few days’ time . . .

Order! The hon. member must discuss the proposals.

Will the hon. member be prepared to support this proposal which gives a preference in regard to the importation of tobacco to the detriment of the South African farmer?

I never said anything of the kind.

His opposition to what I have stated here indicates clearly that that is his attitude. The hon. member as a representative of tobacco farmers should at least support proposals which will allow for a greater sale of South African produced tobacco as against the imported tobacco. You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman probably was not even aware that these taxation proposals were coming along. But let me take the other proposal. Is the hon. gentleman in the interest of the tobacco farmers prepared to support proposals that come from the hon. the Minister which mean that the excise duty on tobacco should be increased?

Order! That is not under discussion.

I do not want to take it any further, but at least I thought the hon. member would have joined with me in the interests of the small man who is affected by paragraph (2) of the proposals and that he would have pleaded with the hon. the Minister that when he considers these excise duties in future he will take into consideration the interests of the little man.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I would like to know from the hon. member what tobacco group he is representing here, or what tobacco interests, or what producers of tobacco he represents?

Order!

The point is just that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) and I myself have no objection whatsoever to any attempt at tax reduction which will promote the production of tobacco. We have no objection to that. The point which we are making, and which the hon. member for Rustenburg is making here, is that all proposals which are made in that connection by specific tobacco organizations are first submitted to us before we put them to the Minister or in this House.

Order! That is not under discussion.

Sir, it was for that very reason that we did not get up in the House to-day to make further representations to the Minister, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted us to do. I should just like to say that in explanation.

Order!

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) puts up a plea, but unfortunately the basis on which it rests is all false. His plea is that local production is endangered because there is not sufficient protection. He says that we ought to impose a higher duty on imported tobacco, but instead we are reducing it. Sir, what we are doing here is merely to revert to the 1964 basis of taxation. Last year, we introduced the principle of assessing duty on the legal weight of the imported tobacco and not the net weight. We did that at the time in order to eliminate certain anomalies and also to save on foreign exchange. But in practice it was found that especially in the case of the cheaper types of pipe tobacco packed in 2-oz. tins, the duty based on the legal weight had the effect of approximately doubling the existing duty on this tobacco, because it was now not only the duty on the tobacco, but the duty was also imposed on the weight of the container. What we are doing now is that we are going back to the 1964 basis. In 1964 an excise duty of 55 per cent was imposed, and the customs duty of 91| cent was amended to read “91! cent per lb., or 60 per cent, whichever is the greater”. For all practical purposes the protective margin was approximately 66 cent per lb., calculated according to the average excise duty on the full local production. When the Customs and Excise Act of 1964, came into operation on 1 January of this year, the basis of assessment of customs duty changed from net weight to legal weight. The result was that the customs duty on tobacco packed in small tins was more or less doubled, as I have just said. In view of the very high protective margin up to the end of 1964, namely, 66 cent per lb., it was decided to revert to the net basis for assessment of customs duty.

That is an increase?

We are now going back to the protective duty of 66 cent, which is a very big protection, a very substantial protection. The protective margin of approximately 66 cent per lb. remains the same. The hon. member will see that the position is not that there is not sufficient protection. That is not the point at all. There is a very substantial protection, but by adopting this particular form of taxing the legal weight and not the net weight, we increased it out of all bounds and it was not a proper protective duty any more. I understand that the imports of pipe tobacco in 1963, amounted to 86,674 lbs. and in 1962, it was more or less the same. The total local production in 1964, was 24,000,000 lbs. So hon. members will see that this small amount of imported tobacco cannot affect to any considerable extent the producer in South Africa, and the protective duty is still sufficient to make it worth while for the producer to compete in a few particular lines. The whole basis of the argument of the hon. member is that we are now depriving the producer of a fair protective measure, but that is not correct. We are giving him very ample protection, but we have realized that the way in which we did it last year, by changing from net weight to legal weight, was not fair at all. It was not a question of doing it for protection, we did it for entirely different reasons. Protection is sufficient on the 1964 basis. I am a pipe smoker myself and I can probably speak with more authority than the hon. member for Turffontein. I, at any rate, try to help the producer by consuming some of his products in South Africa.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Durrant, put and negatived.

May I ask the privilege of the second half-hour?

Before coming to the main issue which I wish to debate in regard to defence, there are one or two unconnected matters which I would like to raise. The first of these is to direct some questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to the issue raised by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) in regard to the relationship between the South African Forces and the forces of friendly nations. What I believe South Africa has the right to know is whether it is the policy and the intention that South African Forces will fight as allies with the forces of any other country which is friendly and associated with us in a war, irrespective of whether those forces contain non-European troops or not? It is important that we should know where we stand in South Africa. I want to pose the question whether we in the event of a world conflict or a localized conflict in which South Africa may be involved, will be associated with the forces of other nations in which there are non-European troops. It is important in the light of the attitude of the Government towards the landing on South African military airfields of planes of the proposed visiting United States carrier, should those planes be flown by non-European pilots. But it is important that we should know more than merely whether we are going to ban the visits of friendly ships. We must know where we stand in times of danger, not only in times of peace.

In times of peace, one may even be able to talk in the luxurious terms of political ideology, one may even be able to indulge in the luxury of playing politics of internal consumption, but in time of war, the future of the country is at stake, and we are entitled to know from the Minister whether this is an indication that South Africa is not prepared to be associated on our own soil with troops if those troops contain people of a different colour from our forces. And our forces, of course, are actually forces of all colours. We have White soldiers, we have Coloured soldiers. They are armed soldiers, trained as soldiers. But apparently we are not to entertain or to extend hospitality to the forces of other countries if those forces should comprise non-Whites. We are entitled to know what the situation will be—what the policy of the Minister will be—what the policy of the Government will be-—should we face difficulties in South Africa and should help be offered to us by forces of other countries. I will leave it at that until the Minister has answered, but I do stress that this is a matter of the deepest importance for the future of the defence planning of South Africa. The whole of our strategy, the whole of our future defence planning and designing must depend on the answer to that question, because on the answer to that question depends whether the Minister envisages a purely domestic defence force or whether he envisages South Africa as part of a greater entity of freedom-loving nations which can and will work together in times of danger.

The second point which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of whether, in view of the extension of our naval forces planned and contemplated, as announced by the hon. the Minister, the Minister intends to establish a second naval base in South Africa? There is talk of the naval base at Saldanha being closed to the forces in view of fishing developments there. I would like to ask what the situation is in regard to that position at Saldanha, and whether it is the Minister’s intention to replace the facilities there at any other port. I raise this because the former naval base of Salisbury Island is in my constituency. While there has been talk of a naval base on the east coast of Natal, at Richards Bay, that would be a matter for the future whereas Salisbury Island is a question of the past at this stage, but an immediate possibility should it be the intention of the Minister to open a second naval base. I do not want to argue the point. It will be raised by other members on this side who will deal with it in more detail. I raise it solely in so far as it affects my constituency.

Then there are two matters in which I believe the Minister has done a disservice to the reputation of our forces. He recently made a speech in which he stated that South Africa could put a force of 250,000 men into the field. Now nobody has a greater respect for the South African Forces, than we on this side of the House. Whether we put into the field 80,000 or 100,000 men or 250,000, we have the utmost confidence that those forces will acquit themselves as well as and better than a similar number of men from any other country. But we do not want to make our Defence Force a laughing stock. I am sure the Minister was not serious in making a statesment like that, because only yesterday he admitted in this House that the total trained reserves and the total number of A.C.F. in training together make up less than 100,000; that is the total number of men on the reserves and the total number of men undergoing training at the moment. I think the one figure was 44,000 and the other was 59,000. It only casts ridicule on the seriousness of the Minister’s other statements when he makes that sort of statement. Then people cease to take what he says seriously. The Minister holds a responsible position, and if he is going to make statements which are not taken seriously, then when he makes other statements which are serious they, too, will not be taken seriously. There was another statement made recently when the Minister said that South Africa was now making all the arms and munitions she needed and was even in a position to export such arms.

I never said anything of the kind.

That is what the Minister was reported to have said, but I accept his word. I am going by a Press report.

I was speaking about small arms; I made the statement in regard to small arms.

But this week the Minister was asked a question in this House as to whether any conditions are attached to the manufacture of arms in South Africa under licence to foreign licensees, patents or other rights, and if so, under what conditions, and whether any arms are manufactured without restrictions or licences, and if so, what arms. The answer was that there was a prohibition against the export of those made under licence to foreign countries, and on the second question, whether we made any arms without restrictions the answer was: Not at present. Therefore the Minister himself stated that all arms manufactured by South Africa were made under licence with a restrictive provision which prohibits their export.

I did not even say that. That is not the full answer I gave to the question.

The reply says that the conditions vary from contract to contract, but in general they prohibit the sale of such manufactured arms outside the Republic.

Read my full reply.

It refers to the sale of arms manufactured in the country, which is prohibited, except under certain circumstances.

That is better.

In other words, the position is that we may not export without permission.

Except under certain conditions.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he will disclose the circumstances under which we may export arms. We believe that these are important matters and that if a Minister makes statements of that nature he should not in any way give an impression which is not absolutely accurate. Therefore if the Minister’s statement is in line with the conditions, we accept it and are pleased about it. What we want is that South Africa shall recognize that statements made by the Minister are made with a full sense of responsibility of the serious burden he carries on his shoulders, and that statements which may be wild or irresponsible will not reflect upon the reputation of the force which falls under the control of the Minister.

I now want to follow the direction taken by the hon. members for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), the first of whom dealt with the shortage and the problems of the Permanent Force, and the second of whom dealt with the problems of training itself. I wish to take the third leg of the problem, that of the trainee himself, and the difficulties we are experiencing in that regard. The figures which the Minister has given of trainees are impressive. There has been an impressive improvement in the number of trainees undergoing training, but we have warned the Minister that as the result of that impressive increase he was placing an almost impossible load on the shoulders of the men available to give the training. Other figures which the Minister has given more than counteract the favourable figures he gave in respect of trainees. The figures of vacancies in the Permanent Force and in the manpower to train the trainees whom we are calling up is a matter of deep concern. It has been emphasized by other members, and I have mentioned it only in so far as that shortage of manpower is, I believe, one of the major causes for the problems we are facing in regard to the trainees themselves, and the training they are undergoing.

We raised problems with the Minister last year. He shrugged his shoulders and said it was inevitable that there would be a few minor problems. But another year has passed since then. The number of trainees has increased and we are now entitled to ask the Minister what he has done—not what he has said or hoped for, but what he has done—to solve the problem of the shortage of instructors, both officers and other ranks, necessary for the training of the ballotees; what he has done in regard to salary scales and retaining specialists and in regard to freeing the Permanent Force from the throttlehold and the red tape of control by the Public Service Commission, which we believe is not in the best interests of the force. A combination of these factors creates the difficulties with which we are faced in the adequate training of our youth. We are proud of our forces. They have a wonderful record, second to none in the world. Parliament itself recognizes that and we do not stint the Army when it comes to money. We are now voting R229,000,000 in this Vote. We do not at any time begrudge the money we are prepared to spend on our defence, and we spend it in the confident knowledge that we have the men with the experience and the ability to provide a secure defence for South Africa if we give them what they need. But are we not perhaps giving the tools without regard to the men who must handle them? Our question is whether the men themselves are getting a fair share of the R229,000,000 we are now voting. It is no use building up a machine and overloading it. If the machine be mechanical and you overload it, it will break down. If the machine is a human one and you overload it, it must also break down. We must be careful that we do not so overload the manpower we have that the organization as such finds the strain too much for it. I want to pay a tribute to the magnificent efforts of those who are to-day carrying the burden. I give as an example the magnificent training in the gymnasia, which generally speaking is something to be envied by any force, but I regret that that same high standard of training cannot be given to all trainees simply because we do not have the manpower available.

While I mention the gymnasia, may I ask the Minister whether he will deal with the question of the selection of trainees for these gymnasia. Originally they were selected on merit. It appears now that that system is giving way to mere chance selection. I notice that on the latest application form for the gymnasia, no request is made for recommendations or for academic distinctions or sporting achievements, except for merely asking what sports are played. In other words, the issues upon which people were selected for leadership are no longer reflected on the application form. I hope the Minister will assure us that in fact they are still picking the leadership type of application for the gymnasia.

I was saying that the load, if too heavy, is liable to cause a breakdown. There is an example I want to quote of a camp where 26 officers had to handle the whole control, administration and training of over 1,000 men. That includes the administration and the red tape office work which must be carried out day after day. It includes quartermasters and adjutants. It includes an officer specially put aside to deal with the problems of Citizen Force training. Who is left over to do the actual training of the men when you are so understaffed, and even the officers you have are tied up in paper work and administration? It is inevitable that what happens is that those officers cannot apply to the task of training these young men their full time and attention. You get the position where you have a lieutenant, a field-cornet, acting as a company commander, because there is no major filling the post, the captain is on a course, and somebody else is on leave. There have been many cases where junior and comparatively inexperienced officers have had to carry positions far above that justified by their rank. When that sort of burden is placed on a man. when he is expected to carry responsibility far beyond his experience, you cannot blame that man if something goes wrong and mistakes are made. If you find the situation where the senior non-commissioned officer on duty for a whole company of bailotees is a lance-corporal, what responsibility can you expect to place on him? When that sort of thing happens, it is inevitable that things go wrong, and in order to protect those who are carrying the responsibility of training we believe that a very serious look has to be taken at this whole question. I want to propose that the Minister appoint a Select Committee of both parties, to be converted into a commission and to be charged with the task of seeing to what extent this Parliament can assist in solving the problems which face the Defence Department in regard to the training of our bailotees; to what extent we as a Parliament can contribute by seeing what the problems and the needs are and how can we help to solve those problems through the money we vote. I think we can accept that there are certain basic matters in training.

I want to put it from the point of view of the trainee first. The trainee must expect tough discipline. He must expect to give of his best. He must expect rigorous training; he must expect discomfort in the physical training he undergoes; he must expect abnormal hours, and he must expect to learn to stand on his own feet. But in exchange he has the right to demand that he be properly housed and clothed and fed and that his training be carried out under inimpeachable moral conditions, that there is proper control over him and over the juniors who control him, the N.C.O.s. I suggest to the Minister that 95 per cent to 99 per cent of the complaints of bailotees are directed against junior N.C.O.s. They are not complaints against the officers or the sergeant-majors or the sergeants, but against the junior N.C.O.s, and those complaints would not be made if there were proper control, and proper control cannot be exercised unless there is sufficient senior manpower. Finally, the bailotee is entitled to expect proper recreational facilities. The Government, must determine how many people should be called up. The Minister has the power to determine that figure. Other hon. members have pointed out that it is generally accepted now that the first three months of training are regarded as being admirable, the second three months as rather a waste of time, and the third three months as an utter waste of time. That is the general opinion of the vast majority of bailotees, those in camp and those who .have completed their nine months. I have not yet heard a single trainee saying that his last three months were usefully occupied, or that his first three months’ training was not good. It shows that something is wrong, and what is wrong is the shortage of instructors adequately to fill the time of those lads who are called up. One of the matters which I believe this Select Committee should investigate is whether in view of this there should either be a restriction of the number called up or a shortening of the period of training as a temporary measure, until such time as the whole nine months can be fully occupied. That Commission could investigate all aspects of the training. It is no use merely loading the Forces with more and more men unless those men can be absorbed. Let me give the Minister a typical example of an evening spent by trainees doing their non-continuous training. They fall in at 20.15. I am referring to naval training now. They are inspected until 20.40, i.e. 25 minutes of inspection. They then go to a lecture for 20 minutes, a lecture which in one case of which I have information was repeated seven times to the same boys. Then they stand easy for ten minutes. Then they have a second lecture, and the lecturer says: What shall we discuss now? Rugby? These boys have all done nine months’ basic training and are long past the syllabus they are now expected to carry out. It is not the fault of the Department. They simply do not have the men to train them, but then why waste the time of these boys? These are university lads, chaps training to be doctors and engineers. If you can use their time once a month for the non-continuous parades, then let them sacrifice that time, but do not waste their time, unless you can use it properly. These appear to be minor matters, but when taken together they create an attitude towards military training amongst the trainees themselves which is unfortunate. When a trainee leaves the Army, he should have nothing but the highest respect and liking for the service. He should be a willing soldier, and not an unwilling one. He should not come out at the end of nine months saying that that was an absolute waste of a year of his life. They are willing to make the sacrifice. Next year there will be 20,000 men who will spend a year of their lives in order to learn how to protect South Africa, and millions of rand have been willingly spent, but let us then in fairness to the people who are making the sacrifices make sure that whatever the difficulties may be, the Department will have sufficient men who can give these boys proper training. Because men who are untrained are useless. It is no use saying 44,000 people have finished their training if that training was not adequate. We can only ensure that those 44,000 young men are of real value to the country if the training they have undergone is sound and if their time has been utilized to the best advantage, and that can only be done if the instructors are there to do it. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) referred, inter alia to the rumours which are rife that the Naval Gymnasium must be moved from Saldanha, and he immediately invited the Government to remove it to his part of the world. I hope, Sir, that you will be on my side while I raise a few points in regard to the removal of the Naval Gymnasium. It is true that there are rumours in this connection, and two factors particularly may be responsible for this. The first is that this project will probably have to be rebuilt. There are large parts of it which are completely dilapidated and I do not think that we should delay any longer in reaching finality in regard to this rebuilding project. Secondly, I admit that the site on which the Gymnasium now stands, particularly when one looks at the plans which have been drawn up for the expansion of the harbour at Saldanha, may perhaps become involved in the developments there. I now understand that investigations have been made from time to time in order to determine precisely what the future of this Gymnasium will be. There is one argument which is used, among others, and that is the future expansion of the harbour and the provision which will have to be made for Coloured labour in that area. These are factors which will have to be considered in the rebuilding of the Gymnasium somewhere in the vicinity. Let me say immediately that I think that this is a mistake. The position is that the hon. the Minister of Planning had a planning committee visiting the west coast area towards the end of last year and this committee also visited Saldanha. Discussions were held with the local town council of Saldanha and some of the departmental officials were in that area last week. I can give the house the assurance that this argument that future expansion of Coloured housing will come into conflict with the expansion of the Gymnasium is devoid of all truth. The fact is that finality will soon be reached in regard to the project envisaged for Coloured housing. The idea is for this expansion to take place in a westerly direction, west of White City. This expansion will take place in co-operation with the local municipality and the Department of Planning. I do not think that the hon. the Minister should pay any attention to such an argument.

There is a second argument and that is that the activities of Fishcor in the harbour at Saldanha will clash with the Gymnasium if it remains there. This is not true either. Because this project is situated in my constituency, I have discussed the matter with these people from time to time and recently the senior officials of Fishcor who were in the vicinity together with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, were approached again there and these people agree with us that the Gymnasium would not necessarily be in their way from the point of view of Fishcor’s planning, not even as far as the second phase is concerned. I agree that the present site of the Gymnasium is in the way of further development in the harbour, but I contend that there is sufficient space to retain the Gymnasium in that defence complex. I am aware of the fact that the possibility of removing the Gymnasium to North Bay has been investigated and as far as I know, the difficulty in this regard is that the harbour facilities which will have to be provided there will be very expensive. I do not want to comment in this regard except to say that Fishcor does not think that the expansion will be in conflict with its activities in the harbour. The second argument I want to advance is that there is sufficient room in Saldanha to accommodate this Gymnasium, even if this is not done at North Bay.

I want to conclude on this note. In the first place, there is sufficient space. It is an extensive area and I cannot imagine, if there is any measure of indulgence on the part of the hon. the Minister and the Department of Defence, that we shall not be able to replan this project somewhere in that area. There is every possibility in this regard. Secondly, I want to point out that it is a wonderful rural area. It is one of the prettiest parts of our country and I cannot see why that project should be situated somewhere in the urban complex. When one considers projects of this nature in America, one sees that the general tendency is to establish such projects in the rural areas. I should like to say that one could find no better area than Saldanha Bay.

The last point I want to make is the wonderful enthusiasm for this project which one finds along the west coast. The people are proud of this project. I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power, before a final decision is arrived at, to ensure that every detail is investigated, and, if at all possible, to view this project in the most sympathetic light possible.

First of all I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) for the appreciation he expressed for the good services of our officers. I fully agree with him. I appreciate the good services of every soldier. Sir, it has been said that when a man enters the Army he con tracts for a violent end, and that is so, and for that reason every serious-minded South African takes off his hat to our military men, for the services rendered by them.

The hon. member said that our Defence spending was unbalanced, for the reason, I take it, that we spend so much on armaments and too little to get the necessary personnel or to keep the men we have trained. I agree that we have a big shortage of men; I agree that there are too many vacant posts. But in former debates in this House it was stressed that to maintain our economy we should boost our exports. Now, Sir, we can only develop our defence while we continue to have a sound economy. If the Government tried to outbid private enterprise in the field of salaries, it must have a bad effect on our economy, firstly because it will release more money for internal expenditure; it will increase the price of manufactured goods, and for that reason it must have a detrimental effect on our economy. We can only develop the defences of the country while we maintain a sound economy. Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) mentioned the question of fringe benefits. I agree that something must be done for our men. Their salary scales have been moved upwards on several occasions in the past, but I want to mention the fact that that did not stop the resignations.

They were not moved up fast enough and high enough.

That is a different matter. As I said a moment ago, the question is whether we can compete with private enterprise. However, after consultation with the Government I agree that some change should again be made in the salary scales and that we should go into this question of fringe benefits.

*I want to give the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) the assurance that we will go into this question of fringe benefits as well as the salary scales payable in certain sections of our Defence Force.

I come now to what I regard as a very unfriendly remark made by the hon. member for Simonstown when he said that we were using some of our bailotees to fill gaps in the Permanent Force, a practice which he regards as making use of cheap labour. Sir, I cannot agree with that statement at all. We have always recognized the principle in South Africa that the real striking power of the Army lies in our Citizen Force, and that is still the position at the present time. When we established this full-time force a few years ago, we established it with the specific object that it would form part of the striking power of our Army. That is why these men are stationed at strategic points in the country after the first three months during which they receive their basic training. Let me also deal at once with the question as to whether we are making effective use of the services of these men during the whole of their training period of nine months. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) comes along with the accusation year after year that these men are not kept fully occupied for the whole of the nine months and that the quality of the training is not what it ought to be. Sir, it is very easy to make such an accusation; it is the sort of accusation that one can make at any time under any circumstances in any country.

It is a question of manpower shortage.

These bailotees, as the hon. member for Point has also admitted, receive excellent training during the first three months and they are kept fully occupied, but the hon. member has made the point here this afternoon that their training is less effectual during the next three months and even less effectual during the last three months. But, Sir, during those six months the trainees are given specialized training in their particular regiments. They serve as a security force in South Africa and they form part of our striking power. The hon. member wants to shorten the training period. He knows that the training course was designed on the basis of nine months’ training, and he knows that the bailotees are brought in quarterly because we want them at our disposal throughout the year as a full-time force. No, Sir, this accusation that the quality of the training is not what it ought to be is one which can always be made with the greatest of ease by anybody who wants to make mischief.

Are you satisfied with the quality of the training?

Sir, I continually receive the finest testimonials from both the bailotees, their employers and their parents, as to what this nine months’ training has meant to them, their employees and their sons. I also receive complaints occasionally. Last week I received a serious complaint from a father as to what had happened to his son at Bloemfontein and about the treatment meted out to him there. But two days later, before I could take any steps, this same father wrote to say that he had discovered that it was a lot of nonsense and that there was nothing wrong with the treatment meted out to his son there. I do not want to suggest that everything in the garden is always lovely. At this very moment I am conducting an inquiry into certain things which are allegedly happening at a certain camp. But in a huge training scheme such as this nobody can expect perfection; one must expect an occasional mistake. To expect nothing to go wrong is the illusion of an idealist, a rank idealist. We are strict and we are training our bailotees as well as we possibly can. A few months ago it was reported to me that certain people who were undergoing the three weeks’ refresher training course were not always being kept occupied and the hon. member for Point made the same point in this debate.

That makes two points.

Yes, and neither of the two “points” is worth much! I take it that lectures are given over and over again because, after all, these people are undergoing a refresher course, and it is self-evident that when they go into camp for their three weeks’ refresher course, lectures which were given to them while they underwent their nine months’ training will be repeated. We must not forget that even amongst the bailotees there will be certain people like the hon. member for Point who find it rather difficult to grasp the point, with the result that the lectures have to be given over and over again. I will again appoint a committee to investigate the training and the treatment of our bailotees in our camps. I want those bailotees to receive the best possible training. Moreover, I want the trainees to be turned into men, not “softies”, but I do not want them to be ill-treated. There are two investigations taking place at the moment and if I do discover that these young men are being ill-treated, I shall not hesitate to take the most stringent steps.

Both the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), and I think the hon. member for Point also mentioned it this afternoon, raised the question of the cancellation of the visit of the Independence. The hon. member for Point wants to know whether our policy in the future will be not to fight alongside countries which employ non-White soldiers. Of course that is not our policy and it never has been our policy. We have always fought in the past together with countries employing non-White soldiers, but we have always been decent enough to respect the way of life of the nations who have been our allies. The hon. member for North-East Rand has pointed out that during the war Whites and non-Whites lived and slept in the same barracks. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member whether anybody in South Africa ever raised any objection to it? When our soldiers fought in Korea under the rule of this Government and when non-White soldiers were probably also employed there, did anybody in South Africa object to it? The whole criticism directed at the Government is based on the fact that the visit of the Independence has been cancelled. The hon. member for North-East Rand went so far as to say that the Government’s attitude was stupid and impudent.

No, I said that it was an impudent attitude.

Sir, that attitude is so typical of the United Party Opposition. Whenever South Africa stands on her own rights, whenever South Africa insists on the observance of her customs, our attitude is described as stupid. This is not the first time that this has happened; this attitude by United Party front-benchers dates back many years. Years ago when General Hertzog said that the people of this country must place South Africa’s interests first, he was strenuously opposed by the United Party’s predecessors and their political supporters. This sort of thing has happened throughout our history. Whenever this country fights for its own interests, its attitude is described by the Opposition as stupid and impudent.

How would it affect the interests of South Africa if Negro pilots of the Independence landed at Ysterplaat?

I am coming to that; I really will reply to the hon. member’s question; this is not just an empty promise. Mr. Chairman, we have become accustomed to the fact that the United Party adopts this sort of attitude.

Do not make a political issue out of it.

Sir, the hon. member said that the Government was being stupid and impudent and if that is not introducing politics then I have never heard politics in my life. I do not take very much notice of that charge, but when the accusation is made against us that we are deliberately giving a slap in the face to a friendly power, then the time has come for us to fling this accusation of stupidity back in the teeth of hon. members opposite. Sir, it has never been alleged by the United States that our action is tantamount to a slap in the face, but here our own Opposition come along and tell the world that we have given a friendly power a slap in the face. Sir, we co-operate with America in the most intimate, the most friendly way. Take the facilities, for example, that we give America in this country in connection with tracking stations. Would one give facilities of that kind to a nation with whom one does not want to be on friendly terms? It is not as though these tracking stations cost us nothing; in the case of one of these tracking stations we are giving these facilities to America at the greatest inconvenience to our own Defence Force, but we do so with the greatest pleasure. We give America the free use of our military airfields. Is that a slap in the face of a hostile power?

As long as their pilots are White.

Two years ago we gave America the right to stage landing exercises along our coasts. Does that not reveal as strong a bond of friendship as one could possibly desire? Would we give the right to any nation that we do not regard as a friendly power to hold landing exercises on our own territory? No, we are co-operating; we allow landing rights in this country every day to the non-White soldiers of friendly and other nations; they land here continually and nobody raises any objection. Their non-White soldiers are even entertained here by their equals. Nobody has ever objected to it. I now come to the case of the Independence. In this case, just as in the past, we put forward the request that if our airfields are used, they should be used only by Whites, and we did so for various reasons. With the installations that we have at our airfields we do not allow the races to mix socially; we do not have the necessary facilities for it. Secondly, if we were to allow non-White pilots to land there at this stage and to associate socially with Whites, it would be against our country’s policy and, thirdly, it may give rise to circumstances which might very well disturb harmonious relationships. It was for those reasons that we asked in this case that the pilots should be limited to White officers.

This is the first time that that condition has been laid down.

There has always been such a gentleman’s agreement in this country. Sir, I just want to remind the hon. members for North-East Rand and Point of the fact that in time of war reciprocal assistance will only be granted on the basis of common interests. No nation will come and help South Africa because it is particularly fond of us, and for our part we would help no nation in the world because we are particularly fond of that nation. As I say in time of war, reciprocal assistance is granted on the basis of common interests. If a world war breaks out between the West and the forces of Communism, I say here and now that we are not going to take any notice of little differences between our philosophy in this country and that of the large, friendly powers. We will assist each other on the basis of our common interests.

Why not now, then?

We are not involved in a war at the present time. We are on the soil of our own fatherland, and the Nationalist Party has always believed that in our own country we have the right to determine our own way of life. That is the basic difference between ourselves and the United Party; the United Party continually crawl because of the fact that we are a small nation. Sir, we will get nowhere in the world by crawling. It is only by maintaining our rights in an honourable way that we will gain the respect of the world, not by crawling.

May I ask the hon. the Minister, firstly whether he was consulted with regard to the proposed visit of the Independence before instructions were given and, if so, what his decision was? Secondly, does he not think arising out of what he has just said that since we are fighting a cold war, as we have so often been told by the Government, that the conditions which apply in war-time should also apply at the present time to situations of this kind.

I hope the hon. member will not mind if I reply to his question in Afrikaans. The hon. member wants to know whether we should not act in just the same way in a cold war as we would have to act in a hot war. Of course not. The circumstances with which we are dealing at the present time ar£ cold war circumstances. The cold war may still last 20 to 30 years; I hope it will last for ever and that there will never be a hot war. Different values apply under the present cold war circumstances. To a certain extent this cold war is being conducted against us for the very reason that this happens to be our way of life. Are we going to abandon our way of life at this stage already? If we do abandon it it means that we will be losing part of the cold war. In the second place the hon. member wants to know whether I was consulted before the decision was taken. Yes. In the third place he wants to know what my own decision was. My decision, as in the past, was that we would allow Whites only to make use of our airfields. I have already given my reasons for that decision.

I want to reply now to a few other matters raised here by hon. members. The hon. member for North-East Rand says that we should give training to our men by way of practical manoeuvres. Sir, that is being done. We had large-scale practical manoeuvres as recently as last year, but we do not publicize these things. These manoeuvres, as hon. members will appreciate, have to be held in rough country. We have people in this country who are easily frightened and that is why we make no great fuss about it when we hold large-scale manoeuvres. Manoeuvres on a smaller scale are continually being held, but we cannot have large-scale manoeuvres every year. These manoeuvres cost a great deal of money; they ruin our material, and it is for that reason that large-scale manoeuvres are held only every second year. The hon. member is perfectly corrrect in saying that this should be done; it is being done even though it is not always publicized.

The hon. member also made the point that there was a shortage of junior officers and the hon. member for Point has just made the point that there is also a shortage of senior officers. I admit that there is a shortage of trained junior as well as senior officers. But these young men who are being trained are learning fast, and I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that if South Africa becomes involved in a war we, like any other country, will in any case have to make use of young officers, and this is the time to train them and to make use of their services. If they do occasionally make a mistake, they are corrected, but this is the time to make use of our young men.

The hon. member for North-East Rand also stated that we were unable to man our radar screens. The hon. member must remember that these people can only be trained under practical conditions. These radar screens will only be handed over to us on 25 May and we are at present engaged in training people to take over this task. But we have also entered into a contract with the suppliers of these sets in terms of which they will maintain them and help us with the training of men. I just want to point out that there has been an enormous expansion in South Africa in the military sphere and we are obliged therefore to make use of the services of outside bodies.

The hon. member for Simonstown has said that we are giving out a lot of work on contract, work which should be done by our own men. I admit that that is so, but in the meantime our implements are being cared for. We will be able to man our ships when the call comes. I concede that there will be a delay of a few weeks in some cases and a longer delay in other cases before we can bring them into commission, but they are being kept as nearly hot as possible. That is all we can do at the present moment. I agree that more work is being given out than should be given out on contract, but we do not have the men and that is why we are forced to do that.

*The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo), in replying to this debate, made the point that he was grateful for the progress that was being made and for the new assistance that was now being given to our commandos. He made the point that the ammunition required by members of the commandos, over and above the 100 rounds which they receive free of charge for training purposes, was too expensive. I just want to point out that more ammunition is being given free of charge to commando members for training purposes than to members of the Citizen Force. The reports that I have received indicate that the quantity of ammunition which is provided free of charge for training purposes is quite adequate. If commando members use more ammunition than the quantity which is supplied to them free of charge, they have to buy it. I caused inquiries to be made in pursuance of the hon. member’s objection and I received the reply from Pretoria this morning. Last year, at the request of the Mint, the price of ammunition supplied to commando members, over and above the quantity that they receive free for training purposes, was increased. The increase seems to me to be rather steep and I will look into the matter.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) and the hon. member for Point put certain questions to me in connection with our Navy. The hon. member for Point wants to know whether it is our intention to establish a second naval base in South Africa. My reply is “yes”, this matter is at present receiving our attention; a second naval base is being established on Salisbury Island in Durban. We have already negotiated with the Railways and we are already making use of certain landing facilities. We are just waiting until the University there has been moved and we will then go ahead with our plans on a much larger scale. We have made a start already and I find it strange that the hon. member for Point is not aware of it.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the removal of the naval gymnasium from Saldanha Bay. This idea of shifting the naval gymnasium does not come from the Department of Defence. A committee was appointed in 1962, as a result of representations made by the Department of Economic Affairs, to investigate the possibility of expanding the fishing industry along the West Coast. Lieutenant-General Hiemstra was the chairman of that committee. The committee’s terms of reference were to investigate the expansion needs of the Navy, with due regard to the expansion of the fishing industry. The finding of the committee was that the requirements of the Navy were such that they should not be allowed to stand in the way of the expansion of the fishing industry. The Brand Committee, to which the hon. member referred, was then appointed in 1964 to make a survey of the West Coast up to the Olifants River. Diagrams were subsequently handed over to me showing the proposed expansion of the fishing industry at Saldanha Bay in two phases. The first phase will not affect the gymnasium area, as it exists today, but the second phase, according to the diagrams given to me, will affect the whole of the gymnasium area as it exists at present. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has said himself that the buildings in which the gymnasium is housed at the present time are extremely poor. We can no longer carry on as we are doing at present improvements will have to be made and building work will have to be undertaken. It is perfectly clear that as the responsible Minister I cannot allow new buildings to be erected for the naval gymnasium, buildings which will cost a great deal, if they have to be vacated during the second phase of the expansion of the fishing industry. We cannot allow that.

A secord idea was then put forward and that is that the gymnasium should be shifted to Noordbaai. It is alleged by our engineers that a protective wall will have to be constructed at Noordbaai. because the harbour is exposed to winds, and that the harbour as it stands is not suitable for training purposes. A protective wall, which would cost at least R2,000,000, would therefore have to be constructed. It will be realized, therefore, that it would be an expensive proposition to shift the gymnasium to Noordbaai. In view of the fact that the hon. member now says that new ideas are being put forward—he also said this on a previous occasion—I want to give him the assurance this afternoon that as soon as I return from Europe I will personally visit Saldanha Bay together with a group consisting of the representatives of all interested parties to examine this area so that we can get finality once and for all in connection with the requirements of the fishing industry there, not only at the present time but also in the distant future. I do not know who my successor is going to be, but I just want to say that if I am still Minister of Defence in the distant future and if we do erect new buildings there, the gymnasium will remain there permanently. We cannot expect the State to incur heavy expenditure there just to satisfy people temporarily if we are going to be required to shift again in the near future. I will go and examine the position there personally.

Right at the outset I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when we on this side of the House raise matters concerning Defence, matters which we consider as being detrimental to the basic interests of our country, we do not expect to be told by the Minister that we, as representing a large portion of the people of South Africa, are prepared to creep to any other country in doing our duty in this House. Apart from the views of this side of the House which I now express I personally take the most strongest exception to the inference of the Minister’s statements in that regard. I resent that inference because we merely raise an issue which, quite clearly in the international field, can have very serious repercussions on the defence needs of our country. It is no good trying to get away from that.

I think the point the hon. the Minister misses is that, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a condition has been specifically attached that no flyers, other than members of the White race, should land at our airports. The Minister knows that that is so. This is the first time that such a condition has been attached to the request of any foreign country to visit our shores. What we on these benches cannot for the life of us understand that the Government, which is concerned with arming our country and building up our navy, should not even recognize the fundamental principle which is recognized internationally that every navy observes the conventions of the country it visits. I am prepared to accept that the United States Navy would not, merely for the sake of provoking feeling in South Africa, on purpose have allowed pilots who were not White to land at our airports. They have never done it in the past and why should this Government assume that they should have done so this time. It is clear from the diplomatic statements which have been issued by the Government that they expected the United States Navy to adopt such a provocative attitude. We on this side of the House are prepared to accept that that would not of necessity have been the attitude of the United States’ Navy when visiting the shores of our country.

There is another aspect to this matter which is far more serious and which I think has escaped the attention of the hon. the Minister altogether. The United States is the bulwark of western civilization in the world. It is a country which has denied to South Africa, in spite of all our protestations that we will stand with the West in a war against Communism, the acquisition of any arms as it did in 1963. It then took a further step in December of that year in denying to South Africa the instruments and machinery to manufacture its own armaments. It went as far as that.

What are you trying to establish?

I am trying to indicate that we should show to the peoples and the Government of the United States and of the other countries in the Western World that we are not arming to oppress people in South Africa but for the purpose of defending South Africa in the case of a possible war against the East and Communism. This action on the part of the Government has, however, confirmed the opinion those countries have had of us in so far as the non-White races here are concerned. That is the crux of the damage that has been done. That is why I cannot understand that the Minister cannot even recognize it. We on these benches would be failing in our duty if we did not raise such a matter as this across the floor of the House and focussed public attention on it because the Government must accept responsibility finally. It is no good attempting to off-load it on the shoulders of the Opposition merely because we raise it across the floor of the House. I don’t want to take this matter any further; there is a great deal more I feel I can say but I think I should end, what I have to say on this matter, by saying this: If we want the non-Whites to fight next to us in a hot war why should we deny them those rights in a cold war? Where is the justification for that? The Minister simply basis his statements on the race prejudices and policies of this Government, policies which we and many thousands of South Africans reject outright.

Having said that I want to come to one or two other matters.

What has now happened to your White supremacy?

Why don’t you try to take an intelligent interest in the debate instead of making stupid interjections?

In view of the difficulties the Minister and the Government are experiencing in the acquisition of certain types of arms, arms which are very necessary if our forces are to play their part alongside the Western nations in any future possible war against Communism, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what steps have been taken in regard to the training of our officers and specialists in countries beyond the Republic? Many new techniques and weapons have been developed, important new weapons which will play an important part in equipping future armies. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the arms boycotts which have been applied to us by many countries, we are experiencing the same difficulty in getting South Africa military personnel accepted for training courses in other countries? Have arrangements been made in regard to training courses for our officers and non-commissioned officers in specialized fields in the United Kingdom, America or any other country?

Why do you put that question to me?

I ask the Minister this because it is very necessary for us to know. Surely the Minister appreciates that if we are arming, not for the purposes for which propaganda in the outside world says we are, namely, to defend ourselves against internal trouble because of the race prejudices of this Government, but for the purpose of playing our part in any future world conflict with the Western nations there must be a direction to those countries that that is our object in arming.

I shall answer that question; you need not labour it.

The hon. Minister asked me why I asked him that question and I am trying to explain to him why. Surely it is important, if our army is to play its part alongside the Western nations, that our permanent force should be fully acquainted with the new types of weapons, new strategies and other new methods taught in any modern army in this atomic age. Surely our men should be brought up to date on these issues. I am asking the Minister whether any difficulty is being experienced in that regard or whether there is full co-operation on the part of other countries.

I want to raise with the Minister the question of the commandos. I have already raised this matter with him on former occasions. According to the Estimates we are spending just over R 1,250,000 out of the total Defence expenditure of R229,000,000 on the commandos. The commandos are part and parcel of our over-all defence training strategy. If our armies are to play their part in the defence of the West then surely the strategy is, as I have understood it to be from statements made in the past, that our commandos as such should be trained to ensure our internal security. That is the part the commandos will play. What about all these men who are escaping the ballot, the so-called escapees from the ballot? About 30,000 names come forward every year and the Minister only draws approximately 14,000 to 15,000 of those names out of the ballot box. What steps are the Minister taking to see that these men who are escapees from the ballot box at least get the rudiments of military training so that in time of war they can be easily absorbed into military units for training purposes in a full-time capacity or so that they can form a trained unit for internal security purposes. I say this, Sir, because I think our commandos are to-day largely becoming paper commandos. In terms of the Act the men whose names are not drawn from the ballot for A.C.F. training have to be posted to some commando but do they in fact get any training at all? My information is that the majority of our commando strength consists largely of volunteers. Nobody decries the voluntary aspect but most of these volunteers belong to the older age-groups and the young men who escape the ballot are getting no adequate training or the basic minimum training so that they can be used for security purposes in times of internal disorder or in times of any other disaster. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) again raised the matter of the Independence. We know that he is a person who, when he gets up, puts his foot into it; usually he puts both, or all four, his feet into it. I do not really want to follow him as far as that matter is concerned, because the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) yesterday gave a thorough and conclusive reply to that matter when he said that if we wanted to make reproaches we could do so from our side. That, however, is not something that we want to do in a debate such as this one. I believe that a debate on our Defence Force must be kept free of politics as far as possible. The matter of the Independence is not being raised because it is in the interests of South Africa to do so, but because the Opposition wants to make a petty political issue of it. Accordingly I do not wish to discuss the matter of the Independence any further. I do not think it is appropriate for us to do that in this debate. We are not opposed to the matter being raised in the national interest, but we take exception to the way in which it is being raised. Hon. members should raise the matter under Foreign Affairs, and there they will hear the full story. Then they will see what the merits of the case are.

The Minister of Defence has made certain announcements about the equipment of our Defence Force from time to time. For example, he told us recently that he was going to increase the striking-power of the Navy considerably, and we have built up a fairly formidable navy over the years. We are aware of that. The hon. the Minister also announced recently that we have a small but very effective air force. Those of us who have seen the Air Force in action are certainly impressed by its effectiveness. Likewise the Minister has indicated to us from time to time that our Army is as well equipped as the two other arms of our Defence Force. Just recently the Minister also spoke about a radar network in the Transvaal. I mention these things to show that as far as our equipment is concerned the people of South Africa may feel secure and confident and that our Defence Force will be able to give a good account of itself.

There are, however, two factors which have already been mentioned in this debate, but which I want to raise again, and the one is the manpower position. It is of no use for us to have excellent equipment without having the men to man and maintain that equipment. The second factor is the maintenance of that equipment itself. The manpower position has already been discussed fully in this debate and I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with it any further, apart from mentioning two little matters only. In the first place I want to pay tribute to the officers’ corps of the Permanent Force for remaining loyal to the Defence Force and continuing to render it their services in spite of the fact that many of them can make a better living in the private sector. They are doing so not only because they are professional soldiers, but also because they have a love for South Africa and a love for the Defence Force of South Africa.

In the second place I also want to say in this connection that I think it is time that—as has also been indicated by other speakers—the Defence Force was divorced from the Public Service Commission, as it does not really form part of the Public Service; it stands outside the Public Service.

Now I come to the technicians. We are aware of the fact that many technicians leave our Defence Force when they have completed their technical training in the Defence Force. They leave the Defence Force because they do not get good pay there. I now want to put the following to the hon. the Minister: These same technicians who leave our Defence Force because they do not get sufficient pay go to the private sector. As has been announced, the Defence Force has now concluded an agreement with the Atlas Factory for the maintenance and also the manufacture of fighter aircraft. These same technicians whom we do not want to pay higher remuneration go to the private sector, join, for example, the staff of the Atlas Factory, where they get increased pay, and where they still do the work of maintaining our aircraft, work which we are not doing ourselves but are entrusting to the private sector. That is a matter to which I hope the hon. the Minister will reply. If the private sector is going to do a great deal of our maintenance work, etc., and is going to build much of our equipment in future and is drawing many of our technicians because we do not pay them enough, the State is in fact paying indirectly for their services. I should like to get an adequate reply on this matter.

Then there is the other matter in connection with the bailotees. I again want to plead, as I have pleaded in this House before, that the system of bailotees be abolished. I want every able-bodied man to go to the Army when he reaches the prescribed age. It is being said now that we do not have sufficient instructors to train the men who are there to-day. If the system is abolished I want to plead for the system of deferment of service and exemption of service to be extended. Let me put it this way: To-day, for example, we refuse to grant deferment to the young man who wants to become a medical student or an engineering student at university. After matriculating he first has to go and do his service if he has been drawn in the ballot. Mr. Chairman, of what use is that nine months’ training to such a man in four or five years’ time after he has completed his university training? After all, if he is a medical practitioner or an engineer we are not going to use him in the capacity in which he has received nine months’ training. That applies to technicians as well. There are certain strategical kinds of occupations in the case of which the persons concerned can also get exemption or deferment of service, complete their apprenticeships and then go to the Defence Force, where the knowledge they have gained, whether at university or in the private sector, can be applied. Then we would be doing things the other way around. Where at present we are training the bailotees in the Defence Force and are preparing them better for the private sector, we would, under the system which I am proposing, be able to use the private sector to train people for the Defence Force. In other words, I am pleading that everybody should be called up to the Army, but that those persons who can prove that they want to do an apprenticeship or that they want to go and take certain subjects at university should be exempted from service in the Defence Force. If the Minister adopts this system he will see that he will reduce the number to almost the present number of bailotees. It will then be possible to train those bailotees as ordinary privates in the Army, because the fundamental idea of this nine months’ training is after all that we should have a large skeleton body of men under arms in time of war. [Time limit.]

I do not want to deal at great length with the points raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) except to refer to his opening remarks when he said this that the Opposition raised the question of the Independence not because it was in the interests of South Africa to do so but because the Opposition wanted to make political capital out of it. I want to say this that the question of the Independence was raised because we have the interests of South Africa at heart. I repudiate completely the suggestion by the hon. member that this was done for political purposes and because we have not got the interests of South Africa at heart.

I want to say that I was very upset about the incident. I want to say this to the hon. member for Heilbron that not only this country but our friends abroad will be thankful that there are still people in South Africa, such as we are in the Opposition, who feel aggrieved at this incident. It is the attitude of the Opposition which still gives hope to the people of the world. That is a point the hon. member overlooks. He should travel abroad. He must not only move in his own narrow circle. He should get to know what people overseas say.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I had the pleasure and the honour of being conducted through Cape Kennedy. I know all about the tracking stations. I was right there. I was there when they spoke to Pretoria on the telephone. I realize the point the hon. Minister has made but the Minister must not think for one moment that the Americans are not concerned about the treatment of their citizens. You see, Sir, in America there is no such thing as a White citizen or a Black citizen; they are all Americans. They cannot appreciate that when an American citizen goes anywhere in the service of his country he should be discriminated against on the basis of colour.

Does that count for little Rock and Mississippi as well?

That is the south. Does the hon. member not realize that the trouble in Little Rock and Mississippi rose from the fact that the people there have the same political views as he has? That was why they had that trouble but in the north, where the people realize that an American, whether he is White or Black, is an American, they have no trouble.

Is the south not part of America?

I say that is the trouble.

Then they should know something about the problem.

Well, the Minister knows what happened to Goldwater who thinks like the Minister and the Nationalists; he was hopelessly defeated.

If Goldwater were to fight another election to-day he would come in. [Laughter.]

Never mind Mr. Gold-water; he will be in cold water.

I do not intend to spend my ten minutes on the issue of the Independence but I was particularly pleased to read the news in the Cape Argus of 21 May, and in the Banier of the same date, to the effect that the hon. Minister’s Department is breaking through the barrier I have tried to break through in this House. I am referring to the taking in of Coloured men in the Navy.

I could bridge the gap better than you could?

Yes, if only because you have got the ball in your hands. I think the hon. Minister does not quite realize what a good turn he has done to South Africa and also to the Coloured people. It is an acknowledgment at least that they can play their part in the Navy of South Africa. I know this is only the beginning. I battled for this beginning, and I know it will spread. I am not going to say that I would like to see that if they go to America, they cannot go into restaurants because they are Coloureds. No, I do not want to spoil it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he will find no more loyal people than the Coloureds, who have always been loyal to defend South Africa. They will make good sailors. They will take their work seriously and will be a most useful addition to the naval force. The report in the Argus does not give all the details but in the Banier it goes on to say—

That is an advance. It shows to what extent the Coloured people of South African can be used in the Navy. Now there has been a start made in regard to the Army as well, but I regret to say, Sir, that it has not had the effect, that there has not been the response from the Coloured people in regard to the Cape Corps that I had hoped, and I am sure the hon. Minister had hoped.

I am also very disappointed.

Is there a reason? Because these men can be good soldiers. I do not want to make a great point of the shortage of manpower, but it has been brought to our notice right through the debates on all the votes that there is a shortage of manpower, and I think the hon. the Minister should try and find out why the response to the Cape Corps has not come up to the expectations of the hon. the Minister and people like myself and others. There is, of course, a possible reason. I do not want to discuss those reasons. I would like to ask the hon. Minister to find out from leaders of the community. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) will pardon me if I do not do him the customary honour of following up the observations he made. I have other matters which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister.

The Vote we are discussing at the moment represents insurance which we are taking out for the safety of South Africa. As when we take out fire insurance, we hope that we shall never have to claim against the insurance policy which we are paying for now. But one of the great soldiers of the past, Clausewitz, I think, said: “If you want peace, prepare for war,” and in accordance with the world pattern for the maintenance of peace we in South Africa are obliged, in order to maintain peace at the southern extremity of Africa, to arm ourselves and to strengthen ourselves vigorously to the largest possible extent in the light of our economy and our manpower potential.

We agree with that.

Yes, but I am just emphasizing that, and hon. members on the other side are also saying that, but at the same time they always want to add some little barb to what they are saying. In spite of the Minister’s reply and the pleas made by hon. members on the other side, I once again want to make a plea and to say that our defence in South Africa rests on two pillars, which are manpower on the one hand and military equipment on the other. Our first consideration in connection with defence is our manpower requirements, and by way of repetition I once again want to suggest a possible solution in this regard to the Minister, and that is that our Defence Force should have a service commission of its own. Sir, the soldier’s circumstances are unique, the part played by the soldier cannot be compared with the part played by the Public Service. Although the soldier is sometimes called a technician, the nature of his functions in the Defence Force differs totally from that of the functions of a technician in other services. Even in peacetime the service conditions and other circumstances of a soldier are totally different. The hon. the Minister is aware of the times of crisis we have experienced in the history of our Defence Force when certain equipment was serviced by men who worked three shifts of eight hours each, 24 hours a day, to maintain and build up certain of our military equipment. Mr. Chairman, I am not pleading for any disruption of the salary structure in South Africa. The attitude adopted by the Cabinet and the Government in regard to salaries is well known to me, but I nevertheless want to plead for adjustments to be made in some categories of our Defence Force, and only a service commission, on which, if need be, the Public Service Commission can be represented, can make adjustments to and eliminate any irregularities at present existing in the salary structure.

I just want to mention a simple example. Any of our senior officers carries an infinitely greater responsibility, calculated in terms of value in money and of equipment under his care, than some of the managing directors of large business concerns in South Africa, men who earn thousands of rands per annum. Only the loyalty of these people to South Africa makes them remain in these responsible posts, administrative posts which carry tremendous responsibility, at salaries which are by no means comparable to what they can earn outside.

In the short time at my disposal I want to deal with another matter, one which I already mentioned to the Minister on another occasion. I just want to repeat it here for the sake of the record. It is the confusion which apparently exists, or may exist, between ranks and designations of posts in our Defence Force structure. The first I mention is the rank of Commandant-General, which we have given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force—in other words, he occupies the post of Commandant-General, South African Defence Force, and then he also holds the rank of Commandant-General.

I want to mention an example to you which illustrates how wrong this concept is. I believe it was General Smuts who, at the time of the appointment of General Beyers, made him Commandant-General of the South African Defence Force, while he held the rank of brigadier-general in the South African Defence Force. In my view the designation “Commandant-General of the Defence Force’’ therefore denotes a post, and that post may be occupied by a person holding the rank of lieutenant-general or the rank of general or even the rank of major-general, and accordingly it should not be a designation of rank at all, but merely a designation attaching to the post. The same applies to the rank of “combat-general”. I should like to see the designation of “major-general” reinstated, if the hon. the Minister sees fit to do so. To me the designation of “combat-general” denotes, say, the commanding officer of a division or of a comparable military unit, and the post of “combat-general” can be occupied by a brigadier-general or a major-general or perhaps in some cases even by a colonel. In addition there is the question of the designation of “commandant”. In my view a commandant is still the commanding officer of a specific institution, such as our Military College. The commanding officer of the Military College is the commandant of the Military College, and similarly we have the commandant of the Military Academy at Saldanha, and the post can be occupied by a lieutenant-colonel, or by a colonel, or even by a brigadier in the case of those of our institutions which justify it. Finally there is the question of the designation of “field-cornet”, which to my mind is an administrative post which existed in the old days. It was more an administrative and frequently a civil post. I should like to see it abolished as a designation of rank in the Defence Force and to see a post of field-cornet created, and I have in mind the Commandos, where it may perhaps fit in very well with the pattern, but that the two ranks of second lieutenant and lieutenant be reinstated in our Army.

As there is still some time left, I want to come to the second leg, the second of the two pillars on which our defence rests, which is military equipment. As far as military equipment is concerned we have two lessons to learn from the struggle which took place in Korea in the first instance and the struggle which is taking place in Vietnam at the moment. Since we need additional military equipment, particularly naval equipment, as well as certain advanced equipment and certain heavy equipment which I do not want to discuss in detail now, we must see to it that we maintain a good balance as far as the two legs are concerned. One lesson is clear from Vietnam, and that is that in spite of the overwhelming firing-power which the Americans have at their command they are not achieving any success against the Vietcong rebels. I want to mention an example—the attack on 1 November 1964 on the Bien Hoa Airfield by a small group of rebels. There were 50 of them and they attacked the airfield with 81 mm. mortars, exploded 82 grenades on the airfield, destroyed eight aircraft and damaged 15 at a cost of R600, they caused damage to the value of $50,000,000 to the American equipment there, and then they disappeared into the forest and escaped. The lesson that we in South Africa must learn from that is that firing-power and heavy equipment offer us no guarantee of security whatsoever if used incorrectly. More and more emphasis should be placed on the type of training given to our men, so that they can be used against the possible guerrilla action which we may expect in South Africa. We in South Africa can expect guerrilla action against us if circumstances continue as they are at present, and if some of the threats materialize. We must prepare ourselves to wage guerrilla warfare in South Africa and therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that our training should be concentrated more and more on providing security against that type of warfare, that we must be co-ordinated more and more with emergency planning and that all these things should be based on the concept that we have to prepare ourselves for that type of warfare.

There is another lesson we can learn, this time from Korea, where firing-power was again unable to withstand vast numerical superiority. I am convinced that at almost every stage of the Korean War American firing-power was stronger than that which the Chinese communists could muster on their side, and yet, by sheer force of numbers, America was driven back from the 38th parallel of latitude to the south of South Korea. In spite of their superior firing-power they simply could not resist the advancing thousands of Chinese Communist troops. Another lesson that we have to learn is that if our country should ever wage war, it would have to do so against a numerically superior force, and that we must prepare ourselves for that, and that the utilization of our firing-power must at this stage already be organized on a basis which would be the most effective under such circumstances.

Is that not the very reverse of what is happening there now?

Yes, those are the two strange lessons that we have to learn—in Vietnam there is the small number of highly trained guerrillas with concentrated firing-power, mortars and light machine-guns, which is eclipsing mass firing-power, yet the opposite applied in Korea, where massive but poorly equipped forces with little firing-power simply rolled up the American forces and they could do nothing about it. Although these two principles seem to be conflicting, there is nevertheless a lesson to be learnt from each. [Time limit.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) was very constructive and I take it that the hon. Minister has taken note of his remarks.

The Vote we are dealing with to-day is to give the Minister and the Government permission to spend R299,400,000 in money. We over the years have listened to the hon. the Minister declining various requests from this side of the House for more information. It is one of the Votes that we have to deal with where we have little or no information to go on other than the printed Votes, and they convey no real information other than a description of the items that are going to be purchased. Over the last three years we have suggested to the hon. the Minister how he can overcome this position by keeping this House informed, and this side of the House in particular, by setting up a Select Committee and by that way convey to the Opposition more details in regard to Defence spending. The hon. Minister by not taking the Opposition in his full confidence, I think, is laying himself and his Government open to very, very severe criticism if he is found wanting should we be attacked one day. I feel that the situation in the world is far too serious for us to deal with defence matters on a party political basis, and I was disappointed to hear the hon. Minister talking about a hot and a cold war. The next war will arrive and the first we will know about it is when it is here. I think it is wrong to talk about a hot and a cold war. We must talk about a war that will come and will come sooner than we perhaps expect, and the time will come when the hon. Minister and his Government will be asked: Is the Navy ready? Is the Air Force ready? Is the Army ready? And the country will not forgive them if they are found wanting in these respects. We on this side of the House, as I have already said, have very little information to go on. We have only had statements by the hon. the Minister in the Press, such as his statements at George and at Malmesbury. That is the bare information, semi-official, that we get as to what is happening within our Defence Force.

I don’t think there is a Minister who has answered questions more openly in this House than I have done.

The hon. Minister when he feels that a question is not in the public interest, he says so, and the vital questions are not answered, and that is why we suggested this particular committee where these questions to which we should have a reply, could be answered.

I am going to pass on to personnel. We have heard in this House to-day, how severe the shortage in personnel in the army is. The figure was given at 5,000 and of these 2,900 are technical personnel. This is a matter that the Minister must give highest priority to— the replacement and training of technical personnel. Furthermore he must go into the question as to why they are leaving. He has said that he has to compete with commercial firms. That might be so, but the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has suggested ways by which he may be able to overcome this position, namely by offering them more in the way of fringe benefits. Furthermore, from my personal experience, artisans are artisans, and there is a tremendous wastage of manpower in the army by putting these trained artisans on guard duties and using them on all sorts of other uses in the army other than artisan duties. You work up a certain amount of resistance and then invariably that is the man who leaves. If he is happy in the army, he will stay there with the fringe benefits that he has, and he will prefer to have something permanent, with a pension ahead of him.

During the last war, Mr. Chairman, the Government was up against a similar position and as a result they had to train a lot of men in a short time. I would like to give the hon. the Minister my feelings on the matter, and that is that he should revive the COTT training scheme in conjunction with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education, where our volunteers and the bailotees could go through the COTT training scheme and then either be drafted into the army or take up trades in the outside world. I want to tell the hon. Minister that a number of his artisans and technical personnel, some of his most senior personnel in the Permanent Force to-day, were COTT trainees under me, and without the COTT trainees during the last war we would never have had the technical personnel to meet the requirements of the army.

Finally, I would like to get on to vehicle purchases. In this list here we have a figure of R17,451,000 which is to be spent on the purchase of new vehicles, motor-cycles and pedal-cycles. I think we can take it for granted that motor-cycles and pedal-cycles will form a very small part of these purchases. But what does worry me, again from my own experience during the last war, is the numerous types of vehicles we are buying, the variety of types. I was in one camp a little while ago, and I counted three types of vehicles doing the same job. The hon. the Minister can realize that in time of hostilities it will be almost impossible to maintain the three types of vehicles in the field. It just does not work out. You have got to standardize to a high degree. Recently, overseas, I saw the autumn manoeuvres over there, and I was struck by the high degree of standardization of the armies moving on the roads—the American army, the German army and the Italian army. They keep a standard type of vehicle and that makes for cheaper and more practical maintenance. The Minister’s costs in the way of replacements and spares, with all these various vehicles must be terribly high.

Then I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the report that we have had from Canada, where the Ford Motor Company has apparently refused to supply this country with four-wheel drive vehicles, and we read in the Rand Daily Mail that an English company has decided to step in and replace this order with English vehicles. The hon. Minister has done so much in the way of manufacturing munitions in this country, and also in other directions. Why does not the Minister give consideration to assembling these standard vehicles in this country? It can be done. You will find that your National Roads Board to-day produces a specification for a standard off-the-road vehicle; the heavy transport vehicle that you get in this country is largely an assembled vehicle. Your army can do exactly the same. The American army, the British army, set out a standard specification of carriers, and I am pretty certain that if the hon. Minister looks through his files, he will find specifications there; these vehicles could be built in this country. I think his officers will have told the hon. Minister that the A.F.V.’s (Armoured Fighting Vehicles) that we built in this country during the war, were built from components that were imported.

They were only assembled.

No, they were built up according to these specifications, and we will have these components manufactured in this country, very, very shortly, in the way of gearboxes and differentials, etc. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the hon. members in their arguments and their representations to which we have listened. The Minister has already replied to those arguments and representations, and I think in the course of the debate the Minister will get a further opportunity to go into those points. I want to turn to the sea to-day. As time passes and as new developments are made in the manufacture of weapons, particularly in the scientific field, our views also change, and our views on the military strategy to be adopted by us inevitably change too. In the short time at my disposal I therefore want to say a few words in connection with the importance which the sea is beginning to assume for us in the whole of our military strategy. It is becoming clearer to us every day that a nuclear war on a world scale is becoming more and more impossible. As the large nuclear powers are beginning to reach a stalemate it is becoming increasingly apparent that the old more advanced type of conventional warfare will become the reality in future, and in proportion as this reality looms up before us the sea is becoming more and more important.

I think it was on 31 May 1916 that the great naval battle of Skaggerak, in which the battleship was still used, took place, and I remember well that it was on 24 October 1944 that the Americans inflicted a heavy defeat on the Japanese in the Gulf of Leyte in the last great naval battle in which a battleship was used. The battleship has since disappeared from the scene. It has been replaced by the aircraft carrier, and as new developments have been made the aircraft carrier has also become obsolete. Virtually no power is building aircraft carriers any more. Each of the major powers only has a few of them. Since the aircraft carrier disappeared from the scene, the operational radius of the aeroplane has become larger and larger, so that it can operate from land bases, and now it seems as though the aeroplane is also becoming obsolete.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I know that you are a very strict Chairman, Sir, but I want to ask you with all respect to permit me to make one observation. To-day is 26 May, and it is now 17 years since hon. members opposite disappeared from the scene. It seems to me that they are celebrating this fact this evening because there are only seven of them sitting here. It must be a painful thing for an Opposition to celebrate but I think that they are celebrating it out of gratitude that our Defence is in such good hands. I want to leave no doubt on that score. Our Defence is on such a solid foundation that I do not blame them for celebrating this fact together with us. This fact is an excuse for the small number of them here this evening.

When my time expired just now I was saying that because of the changing times we must also change our views in regard to strategy. I said that I wanted to discuss the question of maritime defence. The day of the battleship is past and the day of the aircraft-carrier has come and gone. The day of the aircraft has come but it appears as though this is also passing and now the day of the submarine has come. The oceans still cover most of the earth’s surface. We must remember that the Republic of South Africa has a 2,000 mile coastline to defend. As far as our strategy is concerned, because of the way times have changed, I believe in the age-old idiom that he who controls the sea, controls the world. I should just like to quote from the 1963 edition of “Jane’s Fighting Ships”. This publication contends (translation)—

But this is the important part (translation)—

We must take notice of these things. In determining our defence policy we must take note of what other countries are doing, and particularly of what our possible enemies are doing. I want to say this evening that those whom we consider to be our potential enemies are building up formidable nuclear missile-carrying fleets and I want to emphasize once again that the Republic of South Africa has a 2,000 mile long coastline which we shall have to defend under all conditions. We need an air force and the necessary naval units for this defence. We know that all countries are enlarging their submarine fleets. As far as we know the Republic of South Africa depends chiefly upon her own forces as far as her defence is concerned; but, more than this, the Republic of South Africa has become a power factor in Africa. We must not forget that just as the old South Africa was a power factor to Britain in Africa, so the Republic of South Africa is a desirable power factor to any other hostile alliance, whether we call it a Sino-Russian alliance or an Afro-Asian alliance. But the Republic of South Africa, because of many factors which I do not have the time to mention, is a desirable power factor in Africa to our enemies. We must also consider our strategy in the light of what our enemies seek to do. The other day I read a book by Miseke. entitled “Unconditional Surrender”. I also read a book by Wolfgang Höpner, and both of these great military strategists—the one is a Czech and the other is a German—emphasize the importance of Africa in any future conflict. I contend that the oceans have become of vital importance to us for the future and that the defence of our coastline has become of primary importance to us. I say that in the strategic appreciation of our position we must concentrate upon our navy and we must also concentrate our policy and make our strategic appreciation in such a way that we emphasize the defence of our long coastline. Africa and the Republic of South Africa will play a decisive role in any future conflict. I have not the slightest doubt in this regard. This view is strengthened by the fact that conventional warfare is coming more and more into its own because the nuclear powers have become so strong that they do not dare to start a nuclear war. I want this evening to ask whether we cannot consider establishing an institute or a board—call it what you will—for strategical study, a body which can assist us to obtain the services of people to advise us in regard to our Defence Force, people who are competent enough to make reliable evaluations of the strategy of our potential enemies so that our Defence Force can be assisted by that knowledge in its evaluation of our military requirements from time to time. This has an influence upon the question of the purchase of weapons and even upon our training methods and upon our whole defence policy.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has discovered the importance of sea power, but he has discovered it too late. We should have known of that a generation ago.

Then you are also responsible for it.

This is not the age of sea power. He should remember that in the last war sea power became of minor importance. Dunkirk was a withdrawal and the attack on Germany was made by air. Those days are gone. To-day is the day of the Polaris submarine, and not the ordinary submarine. The hon. member must remember the story of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales, those two magnificent ships of their day, which went to the East during the war, and what happened at Singapore. Those days are gone.

It is important that we should have a Navy and I think the Minister is trying to build up the Navy. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has stressed the importance of training our Coloured men. All nations that have developed navies have used their fishermen to man their little ships. The man from the city who joins the Navy during a time of war, or from the Naval Reserves, is used on the cruisers and the battleships, but the small ships are manned by fishermen. Twelve or 14 years ago in this House we asked the Minister of Defence of those days to recruit Coloured men for our Navy, but my friends opposite were horror-struck that we should suggest Coloured men. But look at the position to-day. We realize now that to man these little ships we need the Coloured men. I would suggest that we build up a Naval Reserve of Coloured men. There are slack periods in fishing. Give them a month’s training and a refresher course every year and we can build up a strong force for those little ships. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has mentioned our strategic position. I am very sorry that we have such an important strategic position, because it makes us all the more vulnerable. If we were not in such a strategic position, perhaps we would not have had so many people looking at us with wishful eyes. I should like to make one or two suggestions to assist the hon. the Minister. The first is on this subject which has been discussed a great deal, the training of our young men for 12 months, these young men who are called bailotees. I prefer the Afrikaans word “lotelinge”, because they are not bailotees in the ordinary sense of the word. They are men who are drawn in the Government’s national lottery; it is a lottery. The man who is drawn has lost in that lottery, and the young man who is not drawn has won. That is the unfortunate part of it. I made a plea to the Minister of Education that he should do something to assist the young man who is drawn in the lottery. I suggested that he should discuss the matter with the Minister of Defence, but unfortunately the Minister of Education did not understand my case. The case I had was of three young men who had been among the first ten in the matriculation examination. Two of them were going to the university at once. They were boys who had done very well in mathematics and science; they were the best brains we had in the Cape Province. The third one was also going to the university, but not this year. This year he is going to serve his nine months’ military training first, and then he will go to Stellenbosch University. My plea was this: that if the young man serves in the Minister’s Forces for 12 months, then the following year when he goes to the university he should receive his tuition and boarding fees free. He will have done something for the country; the country should do something for him. That would assist in getting rid of the difficulty he has to-day. We have many young men who are qualified to go to the university to become doctors or engineers, and they get what is called deferment of their training. A doctor who is going to study for six or seven years will never come back, no matter how much deferment you give him. We know that. It is a way of escaping military service. I want to see these young fellows all trained in the same way. The Minister has said that he wishes to see all men trained for national service. So do I. Until we have reached that stage, we must give the young man who is trained some advantage. It is not only the university man. If a boy is apprenticed, you are breaking his apprenticeship if he goes for training, and he should get some recompense. On the other hand, if a boy is a farmer’s son and his father depends on him to run the farm, he naturally wants to keep his son at home for a year if he can, and he asks for deferment. We must find a system of treating them all in the same way. Until we do that, there will be criticism and the position will be regarded as completely unsatisfactory.

Now I come to the Permanent Force. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to make a suggestion to the Minister in regard to the conditions of service in the Permanent Force. Earlier this Session I introduced a private member’s motion on the subject of non-contributory pensions. I made the point that in the fighting services, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, we should have no such thing as a contributory pensions scheme. Why should we say to a sailor: This is your pay, so much is taken off for your pension and so much is being added by the Government? We should say to a sailor, as they do in other developed countries like America and Britain: Serve so many years and you will get a pension from the State, without contributing anything. Give them a non-contributory pension as the first stage. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has seen the papers that every ordinary serving soldier or sailor in South Africa has to keep. There is no other country where they say to the fighting man that he must have a contributory pension scheme. It is out of date. Keep it for the Public Service if you wish, but for the fighting man, give him a non-contributory scheme as an inducement.

Now I come to the next point, which is not an easy one. It is this question of the American ship. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) said he was sorry the matter was raised and that we should get together on it. We tried hard to get together. This party has suggested that we should have a defence council and a Joint Select Committee. We have made one advance after another in order to get together, not only on this subject but on the whole subject of defence, to support the Minister. But what have we found? Hon. members opposite are unco-operative. We have done our best to get together. When we talk about defence and Foreign Affairs, the Minister should remember they are twin portfolios. They always go together. We sometimes hear of a powerful foreign policy. Ours is a powerful foreign policy, but then you must have a strong Defence Force to maintain that policy, to back it up. You cannot have an A.l foreign policy and a C.3 defence policy. Our foreign policy is aggressive. We tell the world that we stand alone. We have a policy that the world will not support, so we are defiant. If that is our attitude, we must be prepared to back it up with a strong defence system. The question is whether we have a strong defence system. I do not think we should annoy the greatest Western nation in the world to-day, the United States. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister is being given a great deal of advice by this Committee. He can listen to the men who have to advise him in regard to what he should do if he becomes involved in a world war and he can also listen to people like the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) and myself, people who are not at all convinced that a war will of necessity be a world war in which we shall become involved. I think that we must forget our importance to a certain extent in regard to the question of world wars. World wars are not the games of world powers or of a country like South Africa. South Africa will, of course, be drawn into it whether she likes it or not, but the strategy of world wars certainly does not lie in our hands. This brings me to the point on which I actually rose to speak. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the progress which has been made in the Defence Force over the years since he has been Minister.

There was a time when we were almost in despair, when we were afraid of the smallest fire which might break out—that we would not be able to put it out. World wars aside, it is not advisable for us to be too boastful when we speak. We must just try to do our best, as the hon. the Minister has done. He is now able to remove the uncertainty which existed in the minds of the public, and we congratulate him in this regard. I think that the whole of South Africa is behind him in everything he has done over the past few years in regard to the question of arms. We must not simply think in terms of a world war; we must also think along other lines, and it is in this direction that South Africa must concentrate. We cannot only be attacked by sea. We have a very large country. What is there to prevent our being attacked from the north? It is then that we shall have to rely upon forces such as those which the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg has in mind. I fully agree that our defence does not depend solely upon the Permanent Force. The Permanent Force is only a very small part of the forces which South Africa can mobilize. I should like to make this suggestion for the consideration of the hon. the Minister and his advisers. There are thousands of young men to-day who are only working a five-day week. I should like the military authorities to investigate ways in which we can utilize this five-day week so as to make at least one day in the week available for the training of these young men whom we would otherwise not be able to train. We are a rather sport-minded country and I am sure you will agree with me, Sir, that the average Afrikaner finds a great attraction in military matters; he has a penchant for this subject. You will also agree with me that when one thinks in terms of guerrilla warfare, trained men are a prerequisite. It does not help to have the weapons if one does not have trained men. When one goes to rugby, one sees thousands of young men there and one wonders how many of them could run half a mile without tiring.

I am afraid that the vast majority of our young men are not fit. They sit with their arms folded and criticize the men on the rugby field. But if we could provide part-time military training for these young men every Saturday, we might be able to give them a liking for it, to make it part of our national sport, to make them fit and not simply leave them to sit and watch football. We must try to utilize the services of these thousands of young men who are not physically fit and we must try to give them military training on at least one day of the week, even if it is only to make them physically fit, so that if the day comes when they have to go into action they will be fit enough for what is required of them. It does not help to have thousands of young men under arms unless they are physically fit. What good does it do if they cannot even judge whether something is 50 or 500 yards away from them? To my mind this is something which every man must practise as part of his strategy so that he can form his own judgment. I cannot think of a better task to perform than to prepare all these thousands of young men in this way. I say again that the vast majority of our people have a great liking for a military uniform. Many of them will become interested if they know that they can wear a uniform once a week. It may seem impossible at the moment, but I think we must consider sport from a different angle. Sport ought not to be something which is simply watched by a large number of people. We must make the vast majority of our nation fit so that they can handle the weapons we already have. I think that if we can do this they will be able to render far better service in the future.

Before calling upon the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), I want to ask hon. members not to converse so loudly. Their actions in this regard are certainly no credit to the Committee and make it very difficult for the hon. member addressing the House.

I had the privilege a few months ago to attend a parade of the newly-formed Coloured Corps, which was held on the Grand Parade in Cape Town. I think every member of this House who attended that parade will agree with me that it was an absolute pleasure to see what standard of training and efficiency had been reached in the short time since this corps came into existence last year. It was perfectly clear to every one of us who has had a little experience of infantry training that a great deal of intensive work had gone into the men, but on the other hand it was also clear that if the right aptitude on the part of the men was not there they would not have displayed the standard of efficiency they did. It is, of course, clear that a great deal of credit is due to the Commandant commanding the training camp and the officers on his staff, and I think the Minister and his staff are to be congratulated on having picked men of their ability.

I also wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for having relented to repeated requests—I do not know whether I was the only one who petitioned him—in regard to the age of the men who were able to enlist in the Corps when it was formed. I know of quite a few men who served in the last war with merit and who could not go on with a military career because there was no scope for them. It was perfectly clear from the way in which the Coloured soldier who lowered the flag conducted himself on the Parade that he was a trained man with previous experience, and that was proved in the march past when everybody could see the medals on his chest. On a later occasion I had an opportunity to visit the training camp at Eersterivier. I was accompanied by an officer who had his training since his early youth in the British Army and who was a professional soldier, and who for the last four years had been on active service in the Congo. Incidentally, it was the same officer who commanded the first unit, consisting mostly of South Africans, which reached Stanleyville, on the occasion when the hostages were massacred there. We had the opportunity of visiting the camp and inspecting it, accompanied by officers on the staff of the Commandant. I can only say that this officer who had been serving in the Congo, and is still serving there, could not find words enough to express his admiration of the way in which that camp had been equipped and for the way the men are being trained and also for the amenities that have been provided.

It is, of course, appreciated that a large number of the men are still under canvas, but it was commendable to see how even the canvas part of the camp was being maintained. This officer expressed his admiration when he spoke to the Commandant and his staff. My personal reaction was that I would have been glad if at the time when I was in military camps undergoing training I could have been in such a well-equipped camp. It will also be a good thing, it occurred to me at the time, if members of this House are interested enough to go and see how these Coloured soldiers are being trained, and what their potential is. One of the things mentioned to me, which was quite striking, was that the officer in command told us that there was hardly even a case of wilful damage to property, which is really commendable.

Well, this is something really commendable, because I have had the experience of being in camps where one just did not find all the showers in working order in the ablution block. It is quite manifest that a good type of man has joined the corps so far.

But, Sir, what struck me as being rather peculiar was the fact that the men were being trained under arms, they were drilling with rifles, but the rifles were all the old .303 Lee-Enfield type. We all know that this rifle is completely out-dated. I admit that it might be a good rifle with which to train men on the parade ground, if the newer type of rifle is not available, but unfortunately the drill with the .303 is completely different to the drill with the F.N. rifle. I noted during the past few days, and also in the course of this debate, that we are manufacturing the F.N. rifle under licence in South Africa. Earlier this evening the hon. the Minister stated—if I interpret him correctly—that at times we might even have exported F.N. rifles under certain circumstances, with the necessary permission. I mention this, Sir, because it is, in my view, an indication that we have reached a stage where we are manufacturing F.N. rifles with which to equip our own men. One must arrive at this conclusion if one takes into consideration that there might have been occasions when they were exported.

If we are training the Coloured soldier under arms, if we are training him as a soldier to be used in the service of the Republic should the occasion demand it, should the danger be present, and should we need the men, then I feel it is an anomaly to train the soldier with a superannuated .303 Lee-Enfield rifle. I do not see how a properly trained Coloured man could be a danger when handling the F.N. weapon when he is not considered a danger when handling a .303. It has been proved that the Coloured soldier, when properly trained, has done his duty and conducted himself as a soldier with the same efficiency and fortitude and bravery as the White South African soldier.

I also noted with gratitude the hon. the Minister’s announcement that he will now enlist Coloured sailors to man our warships. This is something that I have had on my mind and it is something which —and other hon. members—have spoken about in this House. What we have always to bear in mind is the magnificent service rendered by our Coloured sailors on the small ships. The South Africans have been ridiculed for losing Tobruk. Well, Sir, when the Australians were holding Tobruk. small ships, fishing trawlers converted to minesweepers, like the Southern Cross, the Southern Floe, and the others with the Southern series of names, manned mainly by Coloured crews, kept Tobruk supplied. It was proved that when trained they were as good sailors as those of any other nation. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington that as far as the small ships are concerned their aptitude is of an exceptionally high standard. That is where the hon. the Minister will draw the right type of man.

However, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I am rather apprehensive about, namely the continuous discrimination in salaries against Coloured servicemen and other. Whether it be the Coloured soldier, the Coloured policeman, the Coloured sailor, or the Coloured postman—when we do not have Whites to do the work we fall back on the Coloureds and then they are suddenly good enough. I do not say this in a sense of recrimination—I am merely emphasizing and pointing it out because this is in fact what happens. During the last war Coloured soldiers were treated in the same way. They went up North as non-combatant troops because they were Coloured but on occasions they had to be given arms because not to have done so would have been quite senseless. And when they were armed they conducted themselves with as much bravery as any other troops. But whether it be the Coloured soldier or the Coloured sailor or the Coloured policeman, there is always discrimination as far as salary is concerned.

It is scandalous.

Well, Sir, if it is scandalous to-day then it was also scandalous in the past. It has been like this all the time, but it must now be remedied. [Time limit].

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will not mind if I do not follow his line of debate. Right at the start I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done for Pietermaritzburg. [Hear, hear!] It was only last year that I approached the Minister and asked him if he would give Pietermaritzburg aerodrome a completely new runway.

You were the first to run away!

The hon. Minister realized that Pietermaritzburg is very strategically situated. Mr. Chairman, if one wishes to set the Opposition up in a blue light or have them running around like rabbits, one has to say “thank the Minister.” You see, Sir, they have got no-one to thank. They have no leadership to thank. [Hear, hear!] I am glad to be able to say that the new runway—approximately 3,000 yards long-—is now nearly completed. This means that heavy aircraft such as the Hercules will be able to land and discharge troops, etc.

Our air commandos are as keen as mustard. They are hard at night flying training. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us landing lights at the Pietermaritzburg aerodrome. These lights will enable our young men to complete their training. I feel that, rather than take two or three bites at the cherry, now is the time that the landing lights should be fitted.

You need landing lights to find your own way!

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider giving us a black top. At present the surface of the runway is hard, rolled earth. I think it would be a boon if we could have a black top. The aerodrome is going to be used . . . [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg an opportunity to finish his speech.

Hear, hear!

The aerodrome is going to be used by commercial aircraft. We now have commercial airlines flying one single and one twin engine plane. In view of the expansion at present going on in Pietermaritzburg, this aerodrome is going to be used more and more. And that is why I make this special appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something further for us, bearing in mind that we are very thankful and very grateful indeed for what he has done already.

The hon. member who has just sat down, said in the course of his speech that he was very sorry for this side because we have nobody to thank.

Of course!

But we are thankful—very thankful—that the hon. member is no longer with us! [Interjections.]

I wish to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that I, and others on this side, take the strongest exception to his allegation that we raised the Independence incident because we wanted to play politics. I have raised this matter, Sir, because it is in the interests of South Africa. I have raised this matter because the handling of this incident has certainly not improved the image of South Africa, nor has it gained us one single friend in the outside world. Does the Minister expect this side of the House to sit and say nothing when the Government commits blunders of this nature? [Hear, hear!] Are we supposed to accept it meekly? The hon. the Minister has indeed a very poor case to defend. That, Sir, is why he has turned round and accused us of playing politics. The explanation which he gave us here to-night concerning this incident might be accepted at a “Stryddag”, but it will most certainly not be accepted anywhere else in the world. And I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I stand by every word that I have said in this connection. I want to tell him that, although he has said the American Government does not consider it an insult and a slap in the face, according to the Press the matter went as far as to the President of the United States himself. That, Sir, just shows what a very serious view the American Government takes of this treatment they have received at the hands of South Africa. I throw the hon. the Minister’s accusation back at him with the contempt it deserves.

A few weeks ago we viewed a demonstration at Saldanha Bay, and I want to say that it was a most interesting and most impressive display. We were impressed to see the fire-power of modern aircraft. The whole operation was beautifully done, very well executed, and indeed a pleasure to watch. But one thing worried me, and that is for how long the hon. the Minister will be able to keep up an effort like this.

I should like to go on to another matter, a matter raised by the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg, namely the muddle we find ourselves in with regard to rank and appointments. I think the hon. member has certainly got something there, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give the matter serious consideration in an effort to sort it out.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg raised the matter of the removal of the naval installations from Saldanha Bay, and the hon. the Minister replied to him. Well, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am surprised that he could even contemplate moving from Saldanha. I say, Sir, that the hon. the Minister, as Minister of Defence, must put the interests of defence first and foremost, and if there is not sufficient room at Saldanha then the other people—and not the Navy—must go elsewhere. The defence base must stay there. We cannot afford other departments pushing us out. I, too, have heard these rumours, and I have heard that some of these installations might be moved to Simonstown. Well, I do hope the Minister will not consider such a step at all. Because, Sir, I think Simonstown is already too congested. I do not think any more naval units should be housed at Simonstown. And when the hon. the Minister says that he is now developing another naval base elsewhere, then I am in full agreement with him. But I do not agree that that base should be at Salisbury Island. Because, Mr. Chairman, Durban port is tremendously congested, even in peacetime. Heavy demands are being made by commercial mercantile shipping. And in wartime it will be even more congested. What is more, it is no secret that Durban Bay can be bottled up. I concede that the intention of establishing another naval base in that area is a move in the right direction. But I think the Minister must stake his claim to Richards Bay, and stake it now. That is where the second naval base should be established. I should imagine there is all the space in the world at Richards Bay for the development of a naval base. What is more, Sir, not only will we have a naval base at Richards Bay, but in close proximity there is an airfield that was used during the last war which can be adapted at no considerable cost. You must have your naval and air units together. They have to be in that area, so why not take the bull by the horns and go for a new place? During the last war we had naval units in Durban Bay. And it was most difficult, very difficult indeed. The port is too congested, and besides the manoeuvrability aspect leaves much to be desired.

A lot has been said about the use of manpower in the Army. I know what a difficult task the Minister has to fulfil in this regard. Nevertheless, I still feel there is a certain amount of wastage, a high percentage of people in the wrong jobs all over the place. I want to refer to a case I brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister’s Department not so long ago. In this case the Department, to my mind, wasted good material. I received a complaint from a parent regarding his son who was undergoing training in the Naval Gymnasium. The boy complained that after completion of his first three months he was sent to Simonstown and that he was now being trained as a steward on a ship. This particular lad obtained a first-class matriculation certificate with a distinction in mathematics. You can imagine the parents’ disgust when they learned that this was the only niche that could be found for their son. But, Sir, when making inquiries I found that this was not the only case of this nature. I found that there were four matriculated youngsters on the S.A.S. Good Hope serving as stewards. Now, surely Mr. Chairman, men of this type could be used to better advantage elsewhere? Here again it was left to relatively junior and inexperienced officers to allocate the trainees their respective billets. This is where this sort of thing has its origin. One cannot justify a training period of a whole year to a parent who wants his son trained in the Gymnasium—which is looked upon as superior training—when boys, particularly matriculated boys, are trained as stewards. I do not think it is good enough. What makes this particular case even worse. Sir, is the fact that the lad in question happens to be the son of an immigrant. It leaves a very nasty taste, and I do hope the hon. the Minister and his Department will try to avoid this sort of thing by paying more attention to the allocation of tasks to especially the more highly qualified boys, the matriculated boys, who possess special qualifications.

Reference was to-day made to the new aircraft factory which is being established at Jan Smuts airport. I think we are all in agreement that it is a very good thing. But, Sir, the project is bringing some very serious complications in its wake. It has caused a lot of dissatisfaction in the South African Airways as well as in the South African Air Force. This factory is paying very, very high wages, and the hon. the Minister, in order to retain his own people, has evidently decreed that no one who leaves the South African Air Force can be employed at the new factory within 12 months of leaving the force. But those who were fortunate enough to get out before the Minister issued this decree, are now as beginners earning more than some very senior N.C.O.s in the South African Air Force. This difficulty has arisen, and it is something which should be kept in mind. I say this, Sir, because I know the dissatisfaction is there, and it may result in us losing more and more of the men we cannot possibly afford to lose. [Time limit.]

In spite of repeated requests the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) again reverted to the incident in connection with the Independence which did not visit South Africa. I am saying that he again reverted to that matter, in spite of appeals that were made to him. The hon. member stated here that he treated the Minister’s explanation with the contempt it deserved.

Can’t you understand English?

“With the contempt it deserves” are the words which were used by the hon. member.

I said that in regard to the accusation and not the explanation, by the Minister.

But these words were used by the hon. member, and it is no use for him to try to put me off now by placing other interpretations upon them. Perhaps I have as good a command of English and Afrikaans as he has, and perhaps I still know a few languages more. But that is beside the point. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would give me a chance to make my speech under my own steam, I would do better than with the assistance I receive from their side.

But you are not telling the truth.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member now wants to accuse me of not telling the truth, he is probably trying to find someone who is in the same boat as he is.

Please just carry on now!

Order!

As I have said, the hon. member wants to treat the hon. the Minister’s explanation with contempt.

But that is not the truth.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Chairman!

Order! Is the hon. member for Somerset East prepared to give the hon. member an opportunity to make a personal explanation?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did, after all, make a clear statement here and I cannot help it. . . .

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to allow the hon. member for North-East Rand to give an explanation or not?

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I shall give him the opportunity to do so.

All that I said, Mr. Chairman, was that I threw back at the hon. the Minister the accusation which he made against me. I did not say that in respect of the explanation. I said that the explanation might be believed at a “stryddag” (party rally), but nowhere else.

Even after this explanation by the hon. member he is still in the same position as he was before the explanation. I want to repeat what I said yesterday afternoon, which was that the hon. member crashed in (“ingedonder”) here—and I am not using these words as a sign of contempt—like a bull in a china shop. He did the same here this evening. If there is any objection to the word I have used I shall substitute another for it by saying that he again came and intruded himself under the same circumstances here. The hon. member is obsessed with the idea that South Africa has to crawl before any country which submits a request to it. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not say now that I know that that is not true. I am not going to appeal to the Chair. When our diplomats, our ambassadors and our envoys are in other countries we would take it amiss of them if they did not observe the customs of the countries in which they were serving. I would take it amiss of any representative of South Africa if, while he was in any other country, he failed to observe the customs and practices of that country.

But cannot we in South Africa expect the same from other countries as they expect from us? We have our customs—customs which in certain respects run counter to world opinion, run counter to the wishes of the world regarding what those customs should be. If other countries expect us to observe their customs, do we not also have the right to expect the same from other states, whether they are friendly or less friendly ones? The request which was made by South Africa related specifically to our airfields, places where certain customs are observed by us. Do we not have the right to expect other countries to accede to our wishes in that respect? No, Mr. Chairman, what hon. members on the other side want is that we must grant and allow anything that is asked of us. In other words, we must dance to the tune of any other country, irrespective of the extent to which its customs differ from those of South Africa and irrespective of the fact that in the same circumstances we would satisfy the requirements imposed by other countries. The hon. member must not try to put the blame on us.

What do you do with the Japanese?

When we are in Japan we do as the Japanese do—in accordance with the old saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. That has always been the practice. So, when the Japanese come here, we receive them with courtesy, in the same way as we would receive any other visitor to South Africa.

Like the Negroes of America!

We know how to behave ourselves. I resent the fact the hon. member is trying to put all the blame on us. We know what requirements are laid down. We also know that when countries get such an opportunity they can make use of it or can abuse it to belittle us or to embarrass us. Would the right course for the Opposition not have been to have said that we came forward with this request because we had certain customs and that when we land in a position such as the one in which we have landed in connection with the Independence we in South Africa stand together and approve of the request which was made? Is it right of the United Party to come along and to say that whatever has been done, whatever explanation has been given, is regarded with contempt by the Opposition? [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me for not dealing at this stage with the matter he has raised, because there are one or two other matters with which I want to deal during the time at my disposal.

First of all, I want to deal with one or two points the hon. the Minister made in his reply earlier this evening. He said that he agreed that sufficient attention was not being paid to the emoluments of the Permanent Force but that by raising their pay to too high a level, by boosting defence pay, it would have a bad affect on the economy of the country.

Did you not say that I said sufficient attention was not being paid to these matters?

You agreed that they were not getting enough pay. The hon. the Minister says that we can only maintain our defence by maintaining our economy on a sound footing. But the point I should like to make is what will happen to the economy of this country if we do not maintain a sound defence? I am putting it the other way round, because a sound defence, to my mind, comes first. So I cannot agree that by putting the emoluments of our defence force on a sounder footing, the economy of the country could be effected. The defence and security of the people of this country must come first—at whatever price. An economy which must be guarded in the way in which the Minister wants to do it, is a false economy.

The hon. the Minister was annoyed at the fact that we raised certain issues across the floor of the House—the issue of the Independence for one. But I want to tell him that he is solely to blame for us doing so. Time and again we have asked for the appointment of a Select Committee on defence, a committee where matters such as these could be discussed without bandying them across the floor of the House. But it is the Minister and his Government which have constantly refused to appoint such a committee. We also owe a responsibility for the security of the country, in the same way as the Government carries such a responsibility in this respect. And when we let matters such as this slip through just because we may hurt feelings by raising them, or because outside people may judge wrongly on it, then we shall be shirking our duty. Well, we are not going to shirk our duty just to spare other people’s feelings.

The Minister’s explanation of this incident in connection with the Independence makes the whole thing even more inexplicable. This hon. Minister has given us evidence of his real sincerity and drive to build up the defence of this country and to set aside anything which may interfere with its success. Therefore it is all the more surprising that he should have agreed to the action taken in this case. Mr. Chairman, if this was not such a serious matter, one could have said that it had reached a Gilbertian stage where one can say that one has unearthed the secret weapon of the Government! All they have to do when they fear they are going to be attacked by non-Europeans is for the Foreign Minister to issue a proclamation and they won’t be allowed to land on our shores! It is almost as simple as that! The action taken was on such a childish plane and was so foolish that it is difficult to comprehend how a Government in a time like this could possibly take such a course. But I do not want to pursue this matter any further now.

I want to deal with something else. I want to ask the Minister a question or two on the pending retirement—so we understand—of the Commandant-General. It has been stated in the Press that the Commandant-General is due to shortly go on leave pending retirement at the expiration of his extended service. I am sure I express the view of every one of us in this House, irrespective of his political opinions, when I express regret at losing his services at this critical time, he who has done so much to steer our defence along the difficult road of modernization, mechanization and reorganization. In this he enjoyed not only the confidence of the defence organization itself, but also that of the country. Much of his success we feel comes from the fact that he has had practical experience having been on active service defending South Africa on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy, in the course of which he won outstanding honour, not only for himself personally, but for South Africa’s fighting forces and for South Africa itself, in regard to his services in the desert and in the Italian campaign. Added to his military experience the Commandant-General has also had the characteristic, a characteristic which should be enjoyed by every officer in his position, of having been first and foremost a soldier whose sole responsibility it has been to ensure the security of our country. I believe the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the value we on this side of the House, and he himself I think, place on practical experience gained in personal contact with the officers and men the Commandant-General has had to command in the test of war itself. The loss of an officer like that. Sir. is felt all the harder at a time like this and intensifies the regret that the time has come when we are dealing for the last time with that prominent officer and gentleman under the Defence Vote.

Accepting that we are going to lose the present Commandant-General, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the Opposition, what action, if any, has been taken to select the officer who is to succeed the Commandant-General on his retirement? The appointment is one of such importance that it does not allow for either a hurried decision or for undue delay in making the appointment and certainly not for any break in the continuity of the occupancy of that responsible post. Certainly not at a time like the present. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether any selection has been made and, if so, can the Minister inform the House and the country, who will be the next Commandant-General? It is a decision which not only affects and concerns the Defence Force or Parliament but every citizen in the Republic. Every citizen whose security and safety rests upon the security provided by our defences; it rests there more than ever under to-day’s conditions. We on this side of the House feel that the hon. the Minister should take the country into his confidence and let them know who is to be the next leader of the nation’s armed forces. The correct place to make that statement and from which to pass that knowledge on to the country is this Parliament as now assembled and as it is now dealing with matters of defence.

There are one or two other points to which I want to pass on. I want to follow up where I left off last night, under the pressure of time, when I dealt with certain important improvements which I termed “fringe benefits” to restore the balance between the money spent on weapons and the money spent on the men in the defences. I dealt mainly with the Permanent Force last night and during the time at my disposal to-night I want to deal with similar action, action which is long overdue, in regard to the Citizen Force. The Citizen Force plays a very important part in the total defence structure of the country. I don’t think I am saying too much when I say that had it not been for the voluntary services, and often unrewarded services, of that section of the Citizen Force who have volunteered to come back into the service after their compulsory period had expired, the present training scheme would have broken down to a large extent. The nine months’ continuous training is only one section. When that is completed the trainees are drafted to their various units. They then have a run of week-end training and other ancilliary training plus their annual periods of three weeks’ continuous training. At those times there are no trained Permanent Force instructors for them and we therefore utilize the services mainly of voluntary Citizen Force men who have come back. At that stage those people get no emoluments from their firms and they have a greater domestic responsibility than the younger men. It is true that they get a small pay allowance from the forces, pay which is eaten up by their mess and regimental funds, and I want to suggest to the Minister that that position be examined with a view to getting some basis of payment to these officers and non-commissioned officers when they undertake that particular type of training, as instructors.

I would not have taken part in the debate again but am doing so because I think some of the oldest and more senior members on that side have done considerable damage which must be undone. The hon. the Minister said in his statement regarding the Independence that America herself had not taken any offence. Why must those two hon. members now say to the Americans: “Look here, you people, we think you should have made a tremendous fuss about this incident?” If the country concerned did not take any offence but appreciates our position here . . .

Did you read the newspapers?

If the country concerned respects our policy and outlook on life is it necessary for the Opposition to abuse the debate on the Defence Vote by saying to the Americans they should have reacted differently? Is that not sowing ill-feeling between country and country?

Why do you not accept your responsibility instead of running away?

Had it been a young and inexperienced member on that side of the House one would have understood it but I used to have a much higher regard for the sense of responsibility of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) than I have now. I thought the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) had a greater sense of responsibility than that he has revealed here to-day. I hold it very much against him. When will the Opposition learn that if they want to make political capital there is a wide field open for them in which to do so, but that Defence is the Department in respect of which we have to be on a friendly footing with other countries in difficult times and in time of war. Why must this debate pre-eminently be used and abused by the Opposition to try to sow ill-will between ourselves and those countries? Lacking other criticism against the Department of Defence they abuse this important debate in the difficult times in which we are living. I think hon. gentlemen opposite are very jealous of the Minister of Defence for having achieved what he and his colleagues have already achieved, namely, in making other nations realize that we are following a certain policy here and that we are willing to co-operate with them at the highest level with this proviso that we respect one another’s policies and outlook on life. I wonder whether those hon. gentlemen ever think for themselves.

Supposing those Negro officers had landed here. Should we have put them in a cage; should we have treated them like animals or should we have, according to the pattern of hon. members opposite, said to them: “You are officers of a friendly nation, enjoy yourselves?”

Why not?

With whom? If the hon. member takes his wife there and that Negro officer also wants to take his sister or cousin who is here in Cape Town there. [Interjections.] Now for the first time the hon. member gets frightened of the consequences of the criminal attitude he and his party have adopted. Now they are waking up. The hon. member should have thought about that before rushing in like a bull in a china shop and causing ill-feeling. What would the further consequences have been to our society? Let any hon. member opposite answer this question: Would they have brought their fellow-officers to the city and introduced them to the Minister and the mayor? Would the hon. member for North East Rand have introduced that Negro officer and his cousin or sister here in Cape Town to the Minister? That is always our difficulty with those hon. members, Sir. They find something attractive and important when they can drag it across the floor of this House and make political capital out of it, but they do not appreciate what the ultimate consequences could have been had the Government and the Minister done what they wanted them to do. I hold it very much against them, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that this will be the last time that the Opposition will use the Defence Vote to make such reprehensible political capital as they have been doing since yesterday.

The speech to which we have just listened can do more harm to this country than any fifth columnist you can ever imagine. No person wanting to undermine the security and safety of South Africa could have done more than that hon. member has done by the line he has taken. I want to ask the hon. member whether it is quite in order for Nationalist Party Members of Parliament to attend social functions with South African Bantu in Zulu-land? That is quite in order but if a non-White member of a friendly allied country should visit this country—that hon. member has more information than I have about the relatives of Negro servicesmen in South Africa; I have no knowledge of their relatives in this country— and bring his relative to a function it is an offence, but when a Zulu brings his relative that is no offence. And that hon. member and the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) have the nerve to accuse us on this side of the House of acting like bulls in a china shop. Let me say, Sir, that by the time the Minister of Foreign Affairs was finished in that china shop there was not bit of china left whole. We raised this issue to offer the Government an opportunity, in the highest forums of the land, to try to repair some of the damage which had been done. We opened this debate to offer the Minister of Defence, whom we recognize as a man who carries the responsibility for the defence of South Africa and whom we accept as being sincere in his desire to defend South Africa, an opportunity to repair some of the damage which has been done to our country. Instead of repairing it the Minister even broke up some of the chips and then let loose the member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) to stamp on what was left of the china in that shop with the sort of ridiculous inane comparison he has made about a Negro officer’s sister wanting to attend a social function. Is that the sort of respect the Government has for America, a country on whose friendship South Africa could count and will count, I believe, despite speeches like the one to which we have just listened; a country on whose friendship we will count despite the Government and despite its ham-handedness. We of South Africa will count on the friendship of America because there is an Opposition which does not take the sort of line the hon. member for Krugersdorp takes. I want to leave the question of the Independence there, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to his forthcoming visit overseas. Would the hon. Minister tell this House the object of his visit and to what extent it fits in with his ideas in regard to munitions, the purchase of munitions and any strategic agreements or alliances which may be in the interests of South Africa.

He is going to the Riviera for a holiday.

This is a time when it is of the utmost importance to South Africa that we should know that the Government and the Minister are taking every possible step to open new doors in place of those which are being closed in our faces and to find new friends in place of those we apparently no longer wish to have as friends. Whilst I am talking about overseas visits, Sir, that hon. member has interjected and said something about holidays. I don’t know whether he is accusing the Minister of Defence of planning a holiday. But if we are talking about holidays I want to ask the Minister of Defence to tell us about the holiday the Deputy Minister of Agriculture took to Israel and to France, apparently as the guest of an agent of an arms dealer who was condemned by the Minister and by the Minister’s commission. This hon. member now has the nerve to talk about holidays overseas! If we have to talk about holidays then let us hear about that holiday. I shall be interested to hear about that holiday, what authority the Deputy Minister had, what arms he was going to buy and the details of what he had intended and what he achieved on that visit.

I want to raise one or two other matters in the time left to me in connection with trainees. One is a matter which I tried to raise with the Minister by correspondence, namely, the question of allowances to the dependants of trainees doing full-time training in South Africa. We have the impossible position that a married man with children and who is called up for nine months’ training is expected to bring up his wife and children on 17/6d. (R1.75) per day...

That is right.

That member says “that is right”. That is probably the level at which he expects the men who serve South Africa to live! I don’t believe South Africa has the right to ask nine months of the lives of our youth and on top of that to expect that youth to maintain his home and family on £25 per month. It works out at R50 per month at the maximum if his family is totally dependent on him and has no relative or anybody else to help. If there is a mother or father-in-law that man does not even get the full maximum allowance. I say it is a shame that we should expect not only the lives and the times of our youth but that they must break up their homes, leave their wives and families uncared for, to give this service to their country. [Time limit.]

I still owe the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) a reply to one of the matters raised by him this afternoon. I advised him by letter that I would reply to it. The hon. member made the point that I had been exaggerating—I find it strange that the hon. member for Point should accuse somebody else of exaggerating—when I said that we would even be able to sell arms which we manufactured in this country to well-disposed friends. That is quite right; that was no exaggeration. In terms of the licence we hold for the manufacture of arms we are entitled, in case of emergency, to sell arms to whom we want.

In case of emergency.

That was why I explicitly said that when well-disposed friends required it we would even be in a position to assist them.

To whom are you going to sell it?

It depends on who needs it.

Whom do you think will need it?

I have no idea. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) asked me whether we still had the opportunity of sending people overseas to take specialized courses. My reply is yes. He asked where we sent them? I shall not tell him that and no member opposite can expect me to say that. I may just add that I think I have more people overseas at the moment taking specialized courses than we have ever had before. The hon. member also asked me “what about the escapees”. The hon. member wants me to give everybody whose name is not drawn in the ballot training in the commandos. The hon. member for Point, on the other hand, just shortly before that, made the point that the nine months’ training should be curtailed because we were unable to give them adequate or specialized training.

I said an investigation should be made to ascertain whether it was necessary.

The one member asks for an investigation to ascertain whether it is necessary to curtail the period and the other member asks that we should train more people! That shows you how uncoordinated the opposition is we have to contend with, Sir. I cannot at this stage train everybody who reaches the training age.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asked whether we could not take the Defence Force out from under the control of the Public Service Commission. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. J. W. Rail) also asked that. We cannot do it. The Public Service Commission has nothing to do with promotions in the Defence force, for example. They only deal with the salary scales. We cannot fragment the Public Service to such an extent as to establish a public service commission to lay down the salaries for every department. That would cause the greatest chaos imaginable. We cannot do it.

The hon. member also said we would experience great difficulty with our technical staff as a result of the fact that the Atlas Company paid higher salaries. Other hon. members made the same point. It is true that they pay higher salaries but we have an arrangement with the Atlas Company not to employ our people until they have been out of our service for a period of twelve months. However, we must also remember that the Atlas Company is bringing hundreds of new technicians into the country. The first group will consist of between 500 and 600. That will be of tremendous benefit to us.

The hon. member for Heilbron also asked that the ballot system be abolished completely. He said we should then give exemption to more people so as not to have too many to be trained. That is a suggestion worth thinking about. What I will never allow, however, is a system whereby only certain people—it will be the less privileged in particular—will be responsible for the defence of South Africa in future. I cannot and shall not agree to that. Even the person who goes to university, even the more intelligent person, must contribute his share towards the defence of this country.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) asked me what the reason was why the Coloureds had joined the South African Colour Corps in such disappointing numbers. There are reasons for it. The first reason is that we originally made the scholastic qualification for training too high. We had to do so initially because we required a certain type of person at that stage whom we could train as instructors and non-commissioned officers. We have now lowered the scholastic qualification and I trust the recruiting amongst them will be more satisfactory.

The hon. member for Bethal made an interesting speech. He also pleaded that we should take the Defence Force away from the control of the Public Service Commission. I have already replied to that. The hon. member then said he did not think we should confuse ranks and post designations. I cannot agree with him more; I agree 100 per cent with him. Ranks and post designations should not be confused. I have already received a report I asked for in which the position is clearly set out. I shall shortly consider it. I think it is wrong.

The hon. member then cited present-day wars a: s an example to illustrate that even in these wars old weapons could be used successfully. We too have already tumbled to that. We have become convinced that these new fast bombers can indeed be hit by old cannons. We are going to modernize the old cannons we have in South Africa and use them. They can successfully be used because these bombers have to reduce their speed considerably in order to drop their bombs with any degree of accuracy. It is then that they can be hit by the old type of cannon.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) indicated how once again the oceans have become important in time of war and that we should adapt ourselves to modern trends in sea defence. He pointed out what a long coast line we had and I had the feeling all along that the hon. member was working up to the main issue he is continually discussing with me, namely, submarines. Let me say to the hon. member that he need not be in suspense for much longer.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said “the Government was horrified when the suggestion was made that Coloured people might be used in our navy”.

Twelve years ago.

All I can say is this that when I took over six years ago Coloured people were being used in our navy. What I am attempting now is nothing new. Coloured people have already been used in our navy for more than six years.

As labourers not as sailors.

At the present moment I have instituted the South African Coloured Corps and I am training men there to be used in different branches of our defence. I am also going to use them at sea.

Then the hon. member pleaded for a noncontributory pension scheme. What is the hon. member trying to achieve by that? Compulsory labour? I cannot accept the suggestion that we must tell the men that if they work for the State for 25 or 30 years they will get so much pension. It won’t be fair. It would mean that those poor people would simply have to stay on with us whether they like it or not.

They have a scheme like that in Britain.

If that is their scheme then I am certainly not prepared to accept it.

*If we were to introduce a system which was a non-contributory pension scheme and a scheme under which we said to the people “You can only get a pension after you have been in our service for so many years” it would mean that they would not receive anything if they left our service before the time.

No, no.

Surely he cannot get anything if he has not contributed anything. I say that is nothing less than compulsory labour and I cannot agree to that.

You as Minister of Defence must pay both the contributions.

No, it is not as simple as that. The hon. member for Kensington specifically said they could only draw a pension after they had served the State for 25 or 30 years.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has paid a compliment to the South African Colour Corps and to those members of the Defence Force who train them. The hon. member complained about their being trained with the .303 and not with the FN. Many defence people in the country still use .303. All our commandos are still using them. The .303 is still an effective killer when necessary and I think we shall still be using it for many years. We are making great progress with the FN rifle but we cannot yet replace all the old .303’s.

The hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) as well as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said I had objected to the incident of the Independence have been raised here. I made no serious objection. All I said was that I was sorry that it had been raised under my Vote. But what I did object to—it was in this connection that I said the hon. member for North East Rand had dragged the matter into active politics—was the statement by the hon. member for North East Rand to the effect that this was a stupid Government, that the Minister was obstinate and stupidly obstinate. . . .

On a point of explanation I never used the word “stupid” (onnosel). I said “impudent and dangerous” (domastrant en gevaarlik).

There is not much difference between the two but I wrote down word for word what the hon. member said. I may have written it down incorrectly but I still found it strange that he used “dom” (stupid) and “onnosel” (dense) separately because they have the same meaning. He said “it is stupid, it is impudent and dense; it is a slap in the face of a good friend”. Those were the four expressions he used and then I said: “While the hon. member has made those definite accusations, he has drawn this matter into active politics” and if the hon. member does not think he did so then he and I differ as to what active politics are.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) made the point that we should try a crash-training programme for some of our technicians. I agree there is much in that. We have considered it, and we are considering at the present moment the possibility of such a programme for a certain type of man that we need. But, Sir, when we do give them a crash-training period, that won’t make them technicians. We will never be able to use a man who has undergone a crash-training period for instance for our aeroplanes. We will be able to use them for lesser jobs. The hon. member also made the point that we should standardize and that we should build our own vehicles in the Republic. He said that when you travel overseas, you see that America, Germany and other countries standardize to a very substantial extent. Of course they can standardize. They are big countries, and build these things themselves. We have got to buy them and we can never really standardize, because if we do standardize to that same extent, it will mean that we can be over-charged by tenderers who then feel that we have no option but to buy from them. We do try to standardize as far as possible, but we can never do so to the full extent.

*The hon. member for North-East Rand also said that I must never consider the removal of the Defence Force from Saldanha Bay. The hon. member said that Defence ought to come first, and this was also said by the hon. member for Simonstown. He said that I should not talk about the economy of the country; Defence should come first. I am sure it is clear that this Government has put Defence first. When this Government asks the Committee into approve of expenditure to an amount of R230,000,000 for Defence, hon. members will realize that this is far more than is to be spent on any other State Department. Defence is therefore put first. But although we put Defence first, we cannot act recklessly and say that there are no limits to what should be spent on Defence. The hon. member also said that it was a good thing that a second naval base was to be established on the east coast, but that it should not be established at Durban because Durban has certain disadvantages. We are aware of this. He said that we must once and for all decide upon Richard’s Bay, and the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said that I would not be making a mistake if this was what I decided. But, Mr. Chairman, we must remember that as far as Defence is concerned we must make provision for short term and long term policies. Because of all the threats that exist and particularly with a view to what is happening along our coastline to-day, once Richard’s Bay has been developed and a proper harbour has been built, once this naval base has been established on the east coast, how long do hon. members think it will be before we will be able to make naval units available at such a harbour? We must be practical. We must also make provision for a short term policy. I want to tell hon. members that once Richard’s Bay is developed, we shall have to decide where our naval units are going to be based. But as far as a short term policy is concerned I cannot wait until then to make naval units available on the east coast, and for that reason we will make use of Durban harbour for the time being.

Will you visit Richard’s Bay personally?

I think that it is a very good proposition, but there is nothing there at the moment.

But I think you should visit it from a long term point of view.

I shall see what I can do.

The hon. member for Simonstown said that Defence must come first, to which I have already replied. The hon. member made a very good speech and paid a fine tribute to our Commandant-General with which I want heartily to associate myself. This Commandant-General is a man who has served South Africa well in years gone by. This Commandant-General is a man who has served South Africa well while he has been Commandant-General. This Commandant-General is a man to whom I as Minister of Defence am greatly indebted. I have worked well with him, even though we have had our differences. It would have been very strange if we had not had our differences. We had our differences but I think that both of us have served the cause of Defence in South Africa. He has made a great contribution in this regard and I thank him for it. A few years ago I introduced legislation to extend the period of service of officers by two years. One of my main reasons for doing so was that I wanted to retain the services of the Commandant-General for a further two years. Unfortunately, he will soon have to retire in terms of our new Act. I am sorry that this has to happen. He will be retiring one of these days. His successor will be the Deputy Commandant-General, Lt.-Gen. Hiemstra.

Has he had war experience?

I do not think so but I want to tell the hon. member that there are many men in senior positions in our Defence Force who have had war experience and who have acquitted themselves well of their task on the battlefield. These men occupy all the most senior positions in the Defence Force. The present Deputy Commandant-General was given seniority years ago, and I have sufficient confidence in him to say that I am sure that he will guide South Africa’s Defence as well as has the present Commandant-General. In saying this, I expect a great deal of him. He has the assistance of men who have had the necessary experience. If no war breaks out, we will eventually reach the stage where all our senior men will not have had war experience. During the last war we had men who had had no war experience but who nevertheless made a success of Defence.

He could have had experience.

I know that, but it is a well-known fact that at the time we in South Africa differed in regard to South Africa’s participation in the war. Rightly or wrongly we differed. He did not take part in the war for various reasons, under different circumstances. I do not think he was given the opportunity when he did not want to take the red oath. Let me tell hon. members this: We must realize that in the future South Africa will be defended not only by people who took part in the war or by people who believed that it was right for us to participate in the Second World War, but South Africa will have to be defended by everyone. I want to give hon. members the assurance that it is generally felt that there was every justification for the promotions made by the Commandant-General and myself. I want to tell hon. members that for some years now Lt.-Gen. Hiemstra has been Chairman of the Promotions Committee. We have differed from him once or twice in regard to promotions, but otherwise we have agree with him. We have differed from him to an absolute minimum but this credit which we have received in regard to promotions in the Defence Force is as much due to him as to us. I expect him to lead South Africa well and I want to ask this evening that he be given the full co-operation of everyone who is interested in Defence because it is only in this way that we shall be able to make a success of Defence.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 38.—“Labour”, R6,985,000,

I am going to take this opportunity of dealing with the last report of the Unemployment Insurance Fund as presented by the Secretary for Labour on 9 September 1964. I do not think that I could condense into words as effectively as the report does what has happened to the fund as a result of the amendments which were made in 1962. I am referring now to ordinary benefits. I know the hon. Minister has replied to these issues on more occasions than one, but that is no excuse for us not raising this matter again because of the injustice done to thousands of contributors by the amendments which I have referred to. The report deals with ordinary benefits, and this is what it says—

And this is what I want to underline—

I underline again—

That is the report of the Registrar in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act and, further on, the report says—

Mr. Chairman, at the time when the amendments were passed, we indicated quite clearly that we believed that the amendment which has had the effect of prohibiting a contributor with considerable credits from annually drawing benefits in periods of 26 weeks over a number of years, that that amendment was a breach of contract in the sense that this is an unemployment insurance fund. Now the Minister, in reply to this matter, on former occasions has said that, for some unknown reasons, contributors believed that this was an insurance fund against old age, and that sort of thing. Mr. Chairman, it is an Unemployment Insurance Fund, and they were quite entitled to look upon it as an insurance fund for when they reached the stage when they were not capable of doing the work which they had normally been doing over the years. Therefore the savings that are being effected here are savings as a result of this fund not being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. That is how these savings have come about, and the hon. the Minister will know, as every Member of Parliament knows, that the hardship that this amendment has created is considerable. When I read out that some 38,000 odd fewer applications were approved of than in the preceding year, you will see the extent to which this has hit people and the number of people involved, people who in the main would have qualified for at least another 26 weeks of benefits. That number found that, as a result of the amendment of the Act, they could not get anything further unless they were able to work for a further period of 13 weeks in a period of one year.

Why do you bring that up now?

Because the injustice is still continuing. Right throughout the Republic there are thousands of workers who over the years have made the necessary contributions to this Insurance Fund, and who are not going to receive a just payout. That is the reason, the hon. member for Vereeniging represents a workers’ area and if he has not had any representations made to him in respect of these amendments, then it is an indication that the workers of Vereeniging have got no confidence in their member to redress this grievance.

I have no unemployed.

The Fund is growing in strength, mainly for two reasons: Firstly because of these amendments, and secondly, because there is so little unemployment in the country to-day. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether or not he is prepared to reconsider this whole matter. I know that when we amended the Act earlier in the year, there was considerable disappointment throughout the country that this matter was not rectified. I say “rectified” advisedly, because this was an injustice, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. You cannot have a fund established over a number of years, as this fund has been established, as an insurance fund and then see that it is suddenly changed into a different type of fund, thereby prohibiting those who have paid in over the years from receiving the benefits which they thought they were going to get at the end of their working days. [Time limit.]

I have been a member of this House for 12 years but each day I understand the United Party less. Although there is no unemployment in South Africa at all, their chief speaker on labour matters has spoken on the Unemployment Insurance Fund this evening.

What is wrong with that? Are you not interested in the unemployed?

But there are no unemployed at the moment.

What about the people who have contributed to the Fund?

For whom is the hon. member making an appeal at the moment? There is no unemployment in the country.

Is there not even one unemployed person?

The matter which is being discussed in the labour sphere in South Africa to-day is the colour bar. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) could have made for better use of his time by telling the House what the attitude of the United Party is in regard to the colour bar.

We are in favour of the colour bar. Now you know.

The hon. member says that they are in favour of the colour bar; they are opposed to the abolition of the colour bar. This, they say, is their labour pattern, but the United Party also accepts economic integration, not only as a fact but as a necessary and dynamic process which must continue in our economic life. What does the United Party mean when it speaks of economic integration? I want to return to this question of the colour bar. I want to give the hon. member for Turffontein the definition of economic integration contained in the Groot Afrikaanse Woordeboek and the meaning which is given to this expression. The Woordeboek states firstly—

That is the process which the United Party wants to see taking place in the economic sphere as far as labour in South Africa is concerned. But if this is the process which the United Party wants to set in motion in the economic sphere, it will be impossible to maintain the colour bar. The maintenance of the colour bar does after all presuppose—the hon. member for Turffontein admitted this—that there shall be differentiation and discrimination; in other words, economic equality and non-discrimination between White and non-White, both peculiar to the process of economic integration, is completely and utterly irreconcilable with differentiation and discrimination, both of which are necessary for the maintenance of the colour bar in South Africa. I should like to make a further quotation to the hon. member. He asked whether economic integration was not taking place in South Africa to-day. The Woordeboek has this to say in connection with integration—

I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Turffontein: Is there no differentiation or discrimination in our labour pattern in the economic sphere to-day? I say, I think with every right, that if the United Party accepts economic integration as a necessary dynamic process, it cannot maintain the colour bar in South Africa and by its action will destroy the colour bar in South Africa to its foundations.

The United Party also say that they are opposed to job reservation; it must be repealed and done away with. At the same time the official attitude of the United Party is that there must be industrial democracy; employers and employees must be consulted in regard to the arrangement of labour relationships. Let us imagine that the employers and employees in a certain industry want job reservation to be applied to that industry, what will the United Party say of that industry? In terms of their policy of industrial democracy they must then tell those employers and employees: You can apply job reservation in that industry. That is industrial democracy. Mr. Chairman, in terms of their policy of industrial democracy they cannot adopt any other attitude but to allow job reservation to be applied in those industries where it is the wish of the employers and employees that it be applied. The United Party is dishonest then in saying that they are opposed to job reservation and that they will summarily reject it and repeal it if they come into power. But they say that they are in favour of the colour bar! What is job reservation other than a statutory recognition of the colour bar? It is nothing but that.

The United Party say thirdly that they are opposed to the recognition of Bantu trade unions. But the policy of the United Party is that the employees’ organizations must also be consulted in connection with the arrangement of labour relationships. The South African Trade Union Council, a trade union federation representing 200,000 workers in South Africa, wants the State to recognize Bantu trade unions. If the United Party listens to them— and in terms of their policy of industrial democracy they are compelled to listen to them —it will also mean the recognition of Bantu trade unions in certain industries represented by that South African Trade Union Council. What good then does it do the United Party to say that they are opposed to the recognition of Bantu trade unions? The United Party is then being dishonest. Their policy will result in their not being able to maintain the colour bar. Their policy will also result in their not being opposed to job reservation in certain industries where this is desired by the workers. Their policy in connection with the Bantu trade unions is not clear either. They maintain that they will not recognize the Bantu trade unions but in terms of their policy they will be compelled to recognize Bantu trade unions in certain trades when the South African Trade Union Council asks them to.

The United Party’s labour policy can correctly be described as a yes-no policy, a neither fish nor flesh policy, a neither for nor against policy, a policy which, as has been said of certain women, is nice from far but far from nice! The United Party is trying to sit on two stools and to satisfy everyone. They have framed their policy in such a way that they can satisfy everyone. That is why the workers of South Africa are simply not interested in them and will continue to reject that party because of the policies which it advocates.

The United Party has tried to justify its policy of industrial democracy and has come forward with the exalted idea of having to protect the democratic rights of the workers by this means. But how can a party which does not even want to protect the democratic rights of its own members—because who appoints their candidates for the House of Assembly— speak of democracy? Who appoints their candidates for the House of Assembly? This is done by a candidate committee and this committee’s decision is subject to final approval by the Leader of their party.

Who appoints the leaders of their groups?

Precisely. Who appoints the chairmen of their groups here in the House of Assembly? They even deny their own Members of Parliament this democratic right; their leader appoints the chairmen of the various groups. I ask, what value can the workers of South Africa attach to the statements of the United Party that they stand by democratic rights for the workers when they do not even want to give democratic rights to their own Members of Parliament here in this House? The party which speaks about the democratic right of the workers of South Africa is the party which has repeatedly rejected the decision of the voters in regard to the Bantu homelands policy of the National Party. [Time limit.]

What utter nonsense have we listened to from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) about the policy of the United Party? Not one single word did the hon. member say in the interests of the workers in his constituency or the workers in South Africa, but he spent his entire ten mintues knocking skittles down in regard to what he imagines is the policy of this party. Let us take one silly little example. He refers to the chairman of different groups of the Opposition in this House. I ask the hon. member: Does he choose the Cabinet Ministers, or has the hon. the Prime Minister the sole prerogative of appointing them? Is the hon. member perhaps a little bit jealous that he has not been chosen by the Prime Minister as a Cabinet Minister himself? Does he believe that if the Cabinet Ministers were elected by the members of the party, he would have a better chance of getting into the Cabinet?

That is quite a different matter. We are talking about the chairmen of the various groups in this House.

Why is the hon. member for Vereeniging not chosen as a Cabinet Minister by the members of his party, and why is he not chosen by the hon. the Prime Minister? That is the kind of piffling argument, so much so that I saw the bored look on the hon. Minister’s face when the hon. member came with that kind of argument. I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he should recommend to the caucus of the Nationalist Party that they find a new chairman of the labour group on the Government side and to put up another member on their side when we start discussing the Vote of the Minister of Labour and when we are dealing with the interests of the White workers of South Africa, and in fact all workers of South Africa. I want to say again for the benefit of the hon. member and any other hon. member who is going to participate in this debate that the policy of the United Party is to maintain the industrial colour bar in South Africa, the traditional colour bar that we have always known, and it is ridiculous to come along with that idiotic argument that because of the economic facts of South Africa White labour is integrated with Black labour, that therefore of necessity means that we do not stand for the maintenance of the industrial colour bar in South Africa. What utter twaddle! I am surprised that the hon. member, who is supposed to be a responsible member, comes along with such silly arguments.

May I ask the hon. member a question? How does he reconcile the maintenance of the colour bar and the rate for the job? If he would just answer that one question.

Sir, if I were to try and explain this simple economic fact to the hon. member for Vereeniging, I would require the whole evening to do so. If the hon. member wishes to look up the subject before he takes part in this debate, I can tell him that there are plenty of references in the library he can look up. But apart from that, I would say to the hon. member that this question has been answered in these debates year after year on the Labour Vote, and Hansard is dotted with arguments on the subject, and the hon. member can look those up, but if he does not want to do so, I want to suggest to the hon. member for Vereeniging that he should read his own speeches that he made when he sat on this side of the House, because the hon. member was one of the greatest protagonists of the principle of the rate for the job in order to uphold the interest of the White workers of South Africa.

Please answer that single question I put to you, then I can have a happy week-end.

You see, Mr. Chairman, you have the situation that in an important debate like this, you have to start off on a basis of attempting to exploit the political feelings of the White workers of South Africa. South Africa and the White workers in South Africa are obviously faced with important issues in regard to the future, especially in view of our industrial expansion. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) hopes to see greater industrial expansion in the city that he represents. I want to ask the hon. member: If there is not going to be greater use made of non-White labour in the industrial expansion in the City of Bloemfontein, where is he going to find the White labour for the industries that he is suggesting should come to his city? Can he offer advice to the hon. the Minister as to where his additional White labour is to come from? The hon. member says that he sees in the upholding of the industrial colour bar the only opportunity of job reservation. His own government is breaking it down day after day. His own government has a trade union dispute on its hands at the present time, a dispute revolving around the upholding of the industrial colour bar. Why does the hon. member not tell us where he stands in regard to that dispute?

Where?

The hon. member knows very well what is happening in the Mine Workers Union. No wonder the hon. member for Krugersdorp walked out of the House when this debate started and this Vote came under discussion!

What has that to do with the industrial colour bar?

You see, you always have this political approach, this exploitation of the racial feelings of the workers of South Africa for the sake of the party political game.