I move as an unopposed motion: That the proceedings on the Bethelsdorp Settlement Amendment (hybrid) bill be suspended under Standing Order No. 75 (Private Bills) and leave be granted to proceed with the Bill next session at the same stage as that at which the proceedings are now suspended.

Agreed to.

I would like to say “thank you” to the hon. the Minister for having brought back to us this amendment. The amendment itself does remove the fears that we had at the second reading that, as the measure stood, it would take away the rights of certain people to the use of water, and I would say that this amendment, having regard to the short time that we had to consider it and bearing in mind the complicated measure it amends, does the job, but I would like, if you will allow me. Sir, to say this: During the course of the second reading and the Committee Stage fears were expressed by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) which I would suggest to the Minister might well have been taken up by him in that he should perhaps consider …

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

I ask for a little indulgence, Sir, because I think water is a very important thing. I suggest that the Minister might well consider consolidating this Act and bringing it before a Select Committee so that this amendment might be considered.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourned last night, I intended mentioning that there were 318,580 telephones in South Africa in 1948 and that the present number, according to the latest figures available, was 1,090,000—an increase of approximately 300 per cent. The point I want to make is that a White man does not have a telephone installed in his house if he is unable to pay the account.

Similarly, one can take every sphere of the White national life in South Africa and one will find that under Nationalist rule unprecedented progress has been made for the White man. And the voters are aware of that, because the voters in every house in South Africa reap the sweet fruits of that Nationalist rule every year. Therefore, the United Party story that too little has been done for the White man in South Africa is devoid of any truth and is completely refuted by the facts. But for more than 17 years this Nationalist Government has been a target for the poison arrows of the outside world, for more than 17 years it has been accused of being a Nazi Government, one of the ugliest terms of abuse for many generations. What is the origin of that accusation? It lies at the door of that Opposition which has been accusing the Government for 17 years in this House of suppressing the Black man. And now those same people make a complete about-face in the 18th year. There is a nice word for describing that which I may not use in parliamentary language. They made a complete about-face and now they want to gull the world into believing that they are the so-called White leaders who want to maintain White leadership in South Africa. In this pretence, in this complete about-face, the United Party is standing before the people of South Africa like a crocodile. When it opens its mouth one does not know whether it wants to smile or whether it wants to bite.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party has a bad record. That has been unmistakable for the past 18 years. In respect of what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in this House during the no-confidence debate, I put it to him that the United Party has been “right so rarely on so few things” and that it has been right least of all when it came to the preservation of the White people in South Africa. The United Party’s record in connection with the preservation of White people in South Africa shows undeniably that it is resolute in being irresolute, determined in being undecided, and absolutely determined to let things take their own course, and that as regards the most important issue with which a nation can concern itself, namely its continued existence. For that reason the United Party is powerful for one thing only, to be powerless. Contrasted to that one has the record and deeds of the Nationalist Government over a period of 18 years standing like a granite rock in a restless world. The nation of South Africa knows the United Party—as I indicated in my speech last night—as a tree is known by its fruit, and for that reason the justified departure of the United Party will be unlamented, unhonoured, unsung, unpraised, about 30 March 1966.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof) yesterday and to-day, I was reminded of what Chaucer wrote in his “Canterbury Tales” hundreds of years ago when he said—

I think one could sum up his whole speech in those few words. It shows how little the clerks at Oxford have really changed in these hundreds of years. They really seem much busier than they are and they really contribute far less than they think they do.

This hon. member accused this side of the House of denigrating South Africa by criticizing Nationalist policies in certain respects and thereby giving South Africa a bad reputation overseas, but what were his speeches at Oxford but a fundamental criticism of the basic policy of this country, migrant labour? He condemned it hook, line and sinker.

That is not true.

Yet migrant labour is the basis of the Government’s policy to-day. So if he accuses us of criticizing the Nationalist Government and thereby giving South Africa a bad reputation overseas, then he should have seen to it that his thesis was never published, because his thesis is a total condemnation of the policy of the Government. Furthermore, the hon. member seems to think when he quotes all these figures of development and extra telephones, etc., since 1948, that when the Nationalists came into power in 1948 everything had come to a standstill. But things did not come to a standstill in South Africa or in the rest of the world. If he wants to measure progress he must measure it in relation to what has happened in the rest of the world, as I will endeavour to do in my speech.

We on this side of the House of course accept that the Government and hon. members opposite are as determined to maintain Western civilization and the White man in South Africa as we are. The only thing that baffles us from time to time is the means they employ to do this. To give an example, we always thought on this side that the most obvious way of maintaining Western civilization here would be to strengthen enormously the numbers of the White man. That is why when this Government came into power they found that the Smuts Government had an imaginative policy of immigration, but what did they do? When they came into power they found this policy working so well that they were complaining that too many Whites were coming into the country. But immediately they came into power they choked this stream of White immigrants off to a trickle. It is only in recent years that they have reverted to a policy of large-scale White immigration again. I say that in the balance sheet of South Africa this Government has cost the Republic at least 1.000,000 Whites since they have been in power. That is the cost the country will have to pay for all time, that our White community is 1,000,000 less than it could have been. How much stronger would the White man and Western civilization not have been if we had had those extra 1,000,000 people to-day? But it was not only that the United Party had a dynamic immigration policy in 1948. It also had a well-conceived policy of family allowances, tax concessions and educational grants to encourage larger families. In 1953 the United Party issued a special pamphlet on this. A conscious policy like this has had dramatic effects in certain European countries like France in increasing the birth-rate. But in 1953 when we published this pamphlet hon. members opposite called it the “Verenigde Party sê konynbeleid”. Now, 12 years later, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has dimly become aware that there may be a need for larger families and a more rapid increase of the population, and he has come with his emotional appeal for Republican babies. He is apparently unaware of the very complex factors in Western societies which make for low birth-rates. If he thinks he can solve them by such simple emotional appeals, he is wrong. Psychologists and sociologists have studied this problem in the Western world. It is a most complex thing, and simple appeals like this will not help at all. If the Government is genuine in wanting an increase in the White population, it will have to be tackled by very comprehensive policies along the lines outlined by this side, and particularly some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) yesterday. Again we on this side realize that whilst the White man is and will remain for a long time the torchbearer of Western civilization here, there are also other racial groups whose destinies depend as much as that of the White man on the maintenance of Western civilization. We have in mind the 1,500,000 Coloured people who are a Westernized community. Again, the Indian people and the permanently detribalized Bantu have as much to fear from the twin forces threatening Western civilization here, African nationalism and Communism, as the White man has. All these groups have a common political interest with the White man to maintain Western civilization and Western standards here. But here again, what amazes us are the Government policies which seem to reject them as potential political allies in the maintenance of Western civilization here. The Government’s Bantu policy can only actively stimulate African nationalism. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, it has rejected the traditional South African policy that the Coloureds are associated with the Whites politically. As far as the Indians are concerned, the Government has no policy at all now that it has abandoned its scheme for repatriation. It is surely political folly to neglect to cultivate and develop the support of so many millions of non-Whites in South Africa who have a common interest and desire with the Whites to maintain Western civilization here. Under these circumstances, how is the Government going to keep their promise to the electorate that it will keep the Republic White and maintain Western civilization, when their policies have led to the Whites becoming a shrinking and isolated minority in the Republic? When I first came to Parliament I remember the hon. the Minister of Finance making a speech here. In those days, of course, the policy of the Government still was physically to separate the races. I remember a phrase the Minister used, which was used often in those days, when he said that economic integration must lead to political integration, and political integration to social integration, and therefore the answer to keeping the White nation’s identity was apartheid.

In those days it meant separating the races. We do not hear that slogan any more to-day because, of course, economic integration between the races has gone on merrily ever since, and even the Minister of Finance has forgotten those fine words of his of those days. Without it, the economic development which the Minister gave us here could not have taken place. What is more, the Government expects that it will continue to take place in the future as in the past. All one has to do is to look at the Economic Development Programme’s forecast of labour requirements, and you will see that the Government expects for the next five years that the traditional pattern of the racial mixture in industry will be maintained. In fact, if you look at the figures carefully, not in a single case has the percentage of Whites increased, but there are several industries in which the percentage of Blacks and other non-Whites has increased. So they have given up all hope of separating the races. To give you an idea, Sir, the Economic Development Programme estimated that the demand for White labour between 1964 and 1970 would increase by 203,000, but they do not know where they will get 30,000 of those from. Even with an immigration rate of 20,000 a year, they only expect the White labour force to grow by 173.000. The demand for non-White labour they expect to increase by 774,000. So the Government has really rejected the concept of separating the races economically. It is a pretty good bet that the 30,000 White workers the plan estimates the country to be short of by 1970 will ultimately have their jobs filled by non-Whites. How then are we going to carry out this promise made by the Government that they will keep the country White, when in fact the Whites are in the minority and a declining minority, thanks to past policies? Nor, having abandoned baasskap, can they mean White baasskap when they say they will keep the country White. As far as we can discern, after having abandoned the idea of stopping economic integration and White baasskap, they now have another scheme to keep the Republic White without having to get rid of the vast majority of Bantu who are necessary for the Republic’s economic life. And it is quite a simple scheme; it is to turn them into foreigners, or “uitlanders”, and then not count them as being in our midst, or entitled to any political say in our political affairs. It is just to pretend they are not there. Of course, the cost of this political fiction is the creation of a series of independent Bantustans in our midst and on our borders, and all that that implies. I do not want to recapitulate that, because we have argued it over and over again. We have repeatedly pointed out the dangers of such non-viable independent states, the fact that they will be centres for breeding extreme Black nationalism amongst all the Bantu in their homelands and outside, the fact that they will be in a much better position as independent Black states to invite outside assistance from the Western as well as the communistic world to interfere in our internal affairs.

How many times do you want to repeat that?

As soon as you accept it, I will stop making these speeches. There is also a military danger inherent in this, and there is the fact that our economic base will depend on our overwhelmingly foreign labour force owing no allegiance or loyalty to South Africa in any crisis. Have those hon. members ever asked themselves what will happen, if we ever get into a war again, if some of these independent states choose opposite sides? What will happen to our foreign labour force, on which our industries are largely dependent, if they owe allegiance to these foreign states? It is really such a dangerous policy that to use an phrase an English statesman used once upon a time, anyone who votes for it must be “bonkers”. Nationalist spokesmen, fully aware of these dangers, fondly imagine that they are worth paying, because at least the Bantu will then not demand political rights in the Republic. But what on earth makes them think this? Was this the experience with the “Uitlanders” in the old Transvaal Republic? Has the Minister of Finance forgotten his earlier warning that economic integration must lead to political integration? If people live exactly as before, except that they are now technically foreigners, will they change their natures and their political aspirations? The fact is that if the physical separation of the races is impossible, as members opposite are now tacitly accepting—they will not accept it openly yet, judging from their interjections—apartheid as a policy to keep South Africa White has failed, and no political fictions can save it. The strategem of turning the non-Whites into foreigners only imperils our future more; it does not safeguard it any more. The Government is clinging to the concept of apartheid, whilst accepting that its basis, which gives it political sense, namely the physical separation of the races, has failed. Sir, it is heroic to adhere to a noble idea despite temporary setbacks, provided always it is a good idea. If not, it just becomes sheer stupidity. I am afraid that this is what apartheid or separate development has come to.

Now, the Minister has given this House a survey of the “phenomenal” development this country has experienced in recent years. I use the word “phenomenal” because he used it. He implies that this was because of sound Government policies. He does not seem to realize that it was at the cost of the central idea of this Government, namely separate development. The development that we have had has destroyed the core of the Government’s policy to keep the Republic White, because it could only take place on the basis of the economic integration of the races. Nor do I understand why the Minister called it phenomenal. If he looks at the rate of economic development of South Africa since Union in 1910, he will find that economic development since 1948 has been more or less at the same tempo. So why is it phenomenal? This also answers the previous speaker, who claimed that there was phenomenal development. There has been no marked acceleration of the rate of economic development. If the Minister would draw a graph he would see that. Nor in fact has the economic development programme assumed a markedly rapid increase in the rate of economic development in this country. How can it be, unless it changes the whole structure of society? Otherwise a country cannot suddenly start developing phenomenally, and that the Government has not done. Nor can it be called phenomenal in relation to the rest of the Western world in the post-war period. I am sure the Minister will agree that the best measure of economic growth is the increase in real income per head, because provided it is evenly spread this measures the rate at which the standard of living of the people increases. I think the Minister will accept that that is a good index of the economic advancement of a society. After all, the whole purpose of economic development is to improve the standard of living of the people. If the Minister would look at some comparative figures according to The Economist, the real income per head for certain European countries between 1953 and 1963 is given as follows. For Germany and Italy it is 5.2 per cent per annum, Greece 4.9 per cent per annum, the Netherlands 3 per cent per annum, the United Kingdom is 2.1 per cent per annum. That measures the rate at which the standard of living of the people should have increased. If we come to South Africa, according to the economic development programme, at page 84 South Africa’s real income per head for the 12 years from 1952 to 1964 increased by 2.2 per cent per annum, or considerably lower than the rate for Germany, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, and on a par with that of the United Kingdom. Is that phenomenal development, where the whole of Europe regards the economy of the United Kingdom as a sick economy? But our performance has been no better over this comparable period than that of the United Kingdom. It is a great pity that we are not developing faster than the United Kingdom, but this is what the Minister calls “phenomenal” development. If the Minister really wants to use the word “phenomenal”, he should look at the Japanese rate of growth, which was 8.5 per cent per annum. That shows what is technically possible. Therefore I say that our rate of growth has not been phenomenal by Western standards at all. [Interjections.] We are already beginning to see the practical results. Salaries in countries like Germany and France have risen much faster than in South Africa. The gap which existed in salaries between European countries and South Africa is closing. What better illustration have you got than that of the failure of the Transvaal Provincial Administration to recruit personnel overseas, because they said the salaries were too low? And the Railways also failed to recruit people overseas for the same reason. The fact of the matter is that in Western Europe the standards of living, with the exception of the United Kingdom, have been rising faster than in South Africa in the post-war period; and this is a very dangerous development if it continues. Where will we get immigrants from in future? If this Government had not stopped immigration in 1948, South Africa certainly would have had a “wirtschaft-wunder” like Germany experienced, and for the very same reason, i.e. large-scale immigration. What is more, South Africa would have been a Whiter country to-day. A million extra Whites would have revolutionized our economy. Our economic power, and hence our military potential, would have been vastly greater. We can only really accelerate our rate of growth markedly if there are marked changes in the structure of our society, and the only way of doing that is really by large-scale immigration or very rapid acceleration of our educational standards. That is the only way in which you can do it. Unless you change your society fundamentally, you do not change the rate of expansion fundamentally, and the Government has completely failed to do that. In the end there is no stronger force to safeguard Western civilization here than a powerful and rapidly developing economy. Our relative immunity to sanctions to-day depends on our economic power. How much safer in this hostile world would we not have been if we had a much bigger White population and much greater industrial power? The more powerful we become economically and militarily, the more indispensable will we become to the West, which in this world in which we live is the best guarantee of their support. The more valuable we are to them militarily and economically, the more we can depend on them to support us. Speakers on the other side seem to imagine that the Government has planned the economic growth in the Republic. We have heard that over and over again. If this is so, we have really seen some rock-and-roll planning these past 17 years, short periods of rapid economic growth, followed by periods of stagnation. But the past 12 years we have had four such stop-go periods. Moreover, the planning of this Government has led to our economy being one of the most controlled economies in the Western world 20 years after the end of the war. I think the United Kingdom economy must be the only economy in the Western world which is controlled to the extent ours is. We have import control, capital control, price control—and this in a country where the Government day in and day out profess that they believe in free enterprise unhampered as far as possible. This happens, moreover, in a country which is the biggest gold producer in the world and whose gold production has doubled in the past ten years. If ever there was a country in the world that should have been free of all control and should have developed evenly and rapidly over the past 17 years, it was this country, because of the stabilizing factor of gold.

The Minister denies also that he has bungled the boom, but let us see what has happened in recent years. We had the stagnant years from 1960 to 1962, followed by rapid growth in 1963, 1964 and 1965 and now we have a slowdown again. If this Government had a grasp of economic affairs, this could have been avoided. The Association of Chambers of Commerce points this out clearly in its “Challange to Sustain Prosperity in South Africa”. I quote …

Now, the Minister acted much later than that. The Minister apparently only became aware of this at Budget time last year. When he introduced his Budget he said …

He then went on to explain that while the cost of living only increased by 1 per cent in 1962 and 1.4 per cent in 1963, it shot up to 4.1 per cent in 1964. Now. a rate of increase of 4.1 per cent is very inflationary, particularly in South Africa and for the reasons the Minister himself gave. The Minister then announced steps to restrict liquidity and to contain monetary demand. But what did the Minister himself then proceed to do. He started running down Government deposits with the Reserve Bank from R200,000,000 in March 1965 to R75,000,000 at the end of June and R14,000,000 at the end of July. Through this he undid the effects of the credit squeeze imposed on the commercial banks by him, to a large extent. I cannot do better than to quote the words of the Reserve Bank Bulletin of December 1965 in which they say …

In other words, the Minister’s right financial hand was undoing all the work of his left financial hand. The net result of the Government’s contradictory financial policies is. of course, that the cost of living continued to rise—not only for this reason; there were also special reasons such as the drought. This is. however, one of the reasons. Thus between January and November, 1965, the cost of living increased by nearly another 3 per cent. In other words, in the past two years the cost of living has risen by 7 per cent—a dangerous inflationary rate for a country like South Africa which is so dependent on its gold-mining industry. But it is not only the Government’s credit policy that is somewhat strange. Its policy in regard to wages, if you can call it that, is even stranger. At the beginning of the last session the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the United Party drew attention to the manner in which the incomes of Government employees have been whittled away by inflation and demanded increased salaries and wages for these people. The Prime Minister refused these requests saying that they were utterly unreasonable. The Minister of Finance himself made no provision for relief for salaried people and wage-earners. The Minister claimed that his budget was a very finely balanced affair and that he had done his best to steer between the Scylla of deflation and the Charybdis of inflation. He dramatically cried out: “The United Party is asking me in this budget, which they say is not tough enough to stop inflation, to pump more and more money into the spending-stream. I can almost hear them say: ‘To blazes with inflation because if inflation increase we can always blame it on the Government’.” The Minister was adamant that he could not give away more than the meagre concession amounting to R10.600,000 to pensioners. But as the election got nearer and nearer, he apparently forgot more and more of his budget speech because during the past two or three months the Government has made extensive salary concessions to public servants amounting to probably R80,000,000. Government employees deserve these latest increases but they will find that in the coming year they will lose a very large part of these increases as a result of the increased cost of living because of the way in which the increases have been granted. But of course as far as the Minister is concerned the election will be over by then. To prevent these increases from being inflationary they should of course be given at budget time and the Government should have taken the necessary steps to neutralize the inflationary effect of the increases. But the hon. the Minister told us at that time that he could not possibly grant any wages and salary increases at all because it would be too inflationary.

Has not the position changed since last year?

Well, the election is nearer— I shall admit that. Inflation will to a large extent erode these salary increases. The cost of living has already increased considerably during the past year and the effect of these increases has not yet been felt. In the absence of strong deflationary steps, these increases can only add fuel to the inflationary forces. The manner and timing of these increases indicates that this Government certainly has no income and wage policy. Wage decisions are made not in the light of economic conditions but of possible electoral gains.

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant for me to hear the remarks made by hon. members on that side of the House. The Opposition are embarrassed because they are faced with an election which they know they are going to lose, and that is why they are always ready to “boo” other people and to resort to similar practices. The hon. member who has just sat down tried to give us a new image of the United Party. 1 remember the days when the United Party tried to frustrate all the industrial development in this country. I remember how they opposed Iscor and how they did everything in their power to tell us: “You cannot make steel in this country. You must leave it to mother England to supply the fine steel we need.” Those same people, who did absolutely nothing in their day to promote industrial development, come along to-day and try to educate this Government which is the father of industrial development in this country. The industrial development in this country first began under the Government of General Hertzog and received a further impetus in 1948. When this Government took over, the industrial turnover amounted to about R500,000,000 while to-day it is about R2,000,000,000. That is why it is strange for me to see that hon. member suddenly standing up and to hear him speaking about industrial development. The policy of the United Party has always been: “Feed mother England; starve South Africa.” That was always their policy and we always had to feed the mother country. That was what they did all the time, but this side of the House was truly South African and we saw to it that South Africa came first. That was why we started our industrial development and that is why we have brought it to where it is to-day. We are proud of it. The development in the past was concentrated on the gold mines and on agriculture, but the National Party is responsible for the phenomenal development that has taken place in the industrial sphere.

I want to come back now to the question of agriculture. One must always draw a comparison before one can criticize. I want to deal with the policy of the United Party. What did they do? In the first instance, they violated the Marketing Act and replaced it by emergency regulations in 1939. I remember very well the way in which they with their imperial ideas wanted to feed only England at the time and allow South Africa to starve. We remember very well how they closed the agricultural colleges, because one had of course to fight for the “Empire”! That was what they did. But what else did they do? They treated our poor stock farmers so badly that our herds of stock where struck a mortal blow. Hon. members will remember how they fixed the price of meat. The highest price for mutton was about 7d. or 8d. per lb. The prices were so low that even the National Woolgrowers Association protested against the fixing of those low prices. Mr. Strauss was their important man at the time and it was Arthur Barlow who eventually said: “Strauss must go.” It was their agricultural policy which drove them into the wilderness. It was the agricultural policy of Strauss and the United Party which swept the platteland so clean of United Party members that the National Party was able to win all the platteland seats, which is the case to-day. Just look at the hon. members sitting on that side of the House to-day. I can, however, pay tribute to one of my old friends there, the hon. member for King William’s Town. He is the only remaining platteland member on that side because he is the only one who has some knowledge of agriculture. He is the only one remaining because all the others fled to the cities. They were beaten on the platteland as a result of their policy: “Strauss must go.” They have now embarked upon a sort of vulture policy. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose to speak. I really thought that we would hear something about an agricultural policy, a wonderful agricultural policy. But what did we get? We got a vulture policy. The speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg was like the speech of an old vulture sitting on a ridge and looking around to see whether he could not find a lamb whose eyes he could pick out or which he could tear to pieces. They pecked here and there, but we heard no policy from them. Those hon. members have exploited the drought conditions shamefully in order to try to make propaganda. Instead of their making plans and doing something to assist the farmers, they have simply gone around the country inciting the people. The United Party has done nothing to try to relieve the drought conditions. I challenge them to say that they have ever approached the banks for assistance to try to save the farmers. Not one of them has done so. It was hon. members on this side of the House who approached the Reserve Bank and made arrangements with commercial banks for the assistance of the farmers. I want to say here that we are very grateful that the Reserve Bank and other banks have reacted in the way they have. What has the United Party done to assist those people, besides criticizing the Government? We have a policy which we have been following for 18 years. It is a sound policy. We still have the “magna charta” of the farmers, the Marketing Act, and we have done everything possible at all times to extend its provisions. Those hon. members call it “our” Act. They violated it in 1939 by means of their emergency regulations. A Select Committee was appointed in 1946 to investigate the matter. I also served on that committee. What was the purpose of the United Party in destroying the Marketing Act? The committee submitted a minority report as well, and when the National Party came into power in 1948, it was the minority report and not the majority report that was adopted. Those hon. members have no right, therefore, to say that they had anything to do with the Marketing Act. [Interjections.] We also cherished great ideals in regard to soil conservation and we have implemented them. We have done more for the conservation of the soil of this country than the United Party has done. What have they done? The first small scheme they launched was for a subsidy of R300 and then they introduced their emergency regulations and closed our agricultural colleges. They neglected the whole question of soil erosion in order to go to war. It was this side of the House whose ideal it was to assist the farmers. Soil conservation has to-day become a national monument. The erosion in certain parts of the country was, however, so bad that we could not resort to soil conservation, but this was the fault of the United Party. This Government has done everything in its power to revitalize the soil of our country, the soil we all love. There is still a great deal of work to be done in this connection and there is one point I want to mention at this stage. We must improve our manpower position in this connection. The Government has so organized things that at Grootfontein, courses which previously took two years to complete can now be completed in one year, but we must see whether we cannot obtain additional staff for this institution. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he cannot make more use of his erosion committees. These committees consist of people of standing and if they can receive training at the agricultural colleges, it will greatly assist in improving matters.

I come now to the question of water conservation. What did the United Party do in regard to water conservation? From the time they came into power up to 1948 they did absolutely nothing in regard to this matter. All we heard was: “We want to see the war through.” That was their policy in regard to agriculture. Then this Government came forward with its great undertakings. The mighty Orange River scheme is to-day the finest scheme in the world. The Government is busy with that scheme. What did the Opposition do? Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Orange River scheme we want to thank the hon. Minister of Water Affairs, and particularly the hon. the Prime Minister, for their great foresight in establishing this wonderful scheme. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall continue with my speech no matter what hon. members on that side of the House may say. I want to tell them that I was a guest of the American Government. I travelled right through the Tennessee Valley. That was once the poorest part of America but now it is the richest. By the same token, the Orange River will give our country a new lease on life. Every drop of water which falls in this country must be conserved. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement in regard to what he is going to do and that is why we say: Leave these matters in the hands of a good farming Government, a Government which will ensure that there is food for its people, unlike the United Party in its day when women had to stand in queues and fainted from hunger. This happened under the policy of the United Party. The world knows this, the farmers know it and all the agitation of hon. members opposite will not help them at all. We stand by the Marketing Act. It is our Act. It is our Magna Charta.

What was the position in regard to maize under the old United Party Government? They allowed the maize to lie about on the stations and rot. They showed us at the time what they thought of us. Maize prices then were the lowest ever, and when, just after the war, the farmers had good crops of maize, the maize was exported. The United Party Government made a profit of £5,000,000 on that maize. What did they do with it? They stole it! When the National Party came into power, Mr. Havenga gave back to the maize farmers the money that remained, in the form of a reserve fund. We want to thank the maize farmers, the Maize Board and the Government for the wonderful system which they have worked out for us under the National Party. We have a wonderful system of grain elevators. There are grain elevators everywhere. How many were there when the United Party was in power? They covered the maize with tarpaulins! Are these the people who say that they want to come back into power? They can forget about it. The farmers remember how the United Party allowed the maize to rot.

What did they do for us in regard to meat? They supplied all the ships with meat. They went so far eventually as to commandeer all the sheep at auctions, just to show their loyalty. But how did they treat their own people? They were put into concentration camps. Their food was sold at low prices and they had to starve. That was the policy of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, the farmers do not forget these things. The farmers may suffer, and they have suffered as a result of prolonged droughts, but they will never forget the policy of the United Party. As I have said, it was a vulture policy.

I come now to the question of agricultural training. Our agricultural training has really flourished. Let us look at Grootfontein, which is to-day one of our fine institutions for agricultural training. There are other large agricultural colleges, one of which is at Potchefstroom, but I want particularly to discuss Grootfontein. Grootfontein fits in with the whole development of the Orange River scheme. The Government was good enough to appropriate R1,000,000 last year for expansion at Grootfontein. Grootfontein is to-day a wonderful institution for the training of farmers and for giving them the knowledge they need. That is why I say that no agricultural training was given under the United Party Government. For some reason or other they closed the agricultural colleges, but since this Government came into power these agricultural colleges have been given a new lease on life. Adequate training is now available there. Hon. members opposite should be the last ones to ask that they be re-accepted on the platteland. They will never be re-accepted on the platteland.

I come now to the question of transport. We have wonderful transport services to-day for which credit must go to our fine railway administration. They have helped us by means of their grain elevators and in the export of our maize. I want to issue one warning to the country. We must never be afraid of surpluses. We did take fright on one occasion but we have learnt that surpluses are always a great asset to a country. They do not constitute a problem. We must therefore never complain if we have surpluses in our country. We must encourage it because those surpluses earn foreign capital for us and we also have sufficient food to feed our own people. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that a country which has no food cannot wage war, but if it has the food, it can do so.

I want to say that although our dairy farmers have experienced setbacks, such as droughts, dairy prices to-day are the highest they have ever been. This Government looks after the dairy farmers. I want to make an appeal to the Government not to be afraid of surpluses should they occur. Money is in circulation to-day, as a result of our industrial development, which enables us to buy many of those products which would not have been purchased in former years. So we must not complain if surpluses occur. We must welcome them. I hope that, with the new policy we are following and the new ideas we have, we will never have occasion to be afraid of surpluses. There are world markets to-day which we have already exploited very successfully.

In connection with agricultural credit I want to say that droughts have taught us that one must consolidate one’s debts. We have the Land Bank. It is there for a purpose and it functions very well, but we have found recently that when there are large-scale droughts and people are pressed for money, it is far better to co-ordinate all debts as State debts, and to establish a Department of Agricultural Credit. The Government is occupied with this matter at the moment. We can keep agriculture on a sound basis by means of that system. We shall never allow ourselves to be influenced into saying that because there has been a drought we will vote United Party. The platteland will never again vote United Party.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock, in his valedictory speech here to-day reminded us very much of the fact that he has not blossomed out in the years since he was in the United Party. It does seem a pity, Sir, that, in those years since he left us, he has not been able to make any further constructive contribution in this House. But we do appreciate the manner in which he has played his role in this House. We wish him a period of happy contentment and good health, and we feel sure that, as he looks back in his years of retirement, he will come to appreciate all the wisdom and the foresight and the good political acumen that came to him as a result of the years he spent in the United Party, and that it has been badly tempered by his sojourn on the other side of the House. It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Cradock relating all the advances that have taken place in the agricultural field. It was significant that he made no reference whatsoever to any advances in cattle or sheep farming. That was left unsaid, and the hon. member knows that that is the most condemnatory point that this House and this country holds against the Nationalist Party. Possibly in his retirement this hon. member may be able to convert many members on the other side of the House to realize what their correct policy should be to increase the livestock population of South Africa. The hon. member dealt with industrialization of this country, and he spoke most enthusiastically of what has taken place in the industrial world in South Africa. I should like to cross swords with him and ask him if he will come along to the Witwatersrand and make this type of speech to the people there.

Yes.

I should like to ask him if he will come along to the East Rand and face the public there and tell them what he said to the House, because I can tell him that he will get a vote of no-confidence from the East Rand because of what the Government has done there. This Government has seen fit to deliberately hold back the industrialization of the Witwatersrand. It has been a deliberate policy of this Government ever since 1957, when the present Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Native Affairs, sent a letter to the Boksburg Town Council and then gave the warning that no further industrial townships were to be established on the East Rand. When we warned the public about this danger, they said it was “Sap” propaganda; but it is true and the chickens are coming home to roost. No further industrial townships are being opened up on the Witwatersrand because the fear exists in the minds of the Government that it will bring an influx of Bantu into that area, because of the shortage of White manpower.

Do you believe in decentralization?

Yes, decentralization on a sound economic basis, but not on an ideological basis as the Government is now practicing it. In the process you are forcing towns on the Witwatersrand to go into economic stagnation. The Government is giving us no alternative …

Which one are you referring to?

The hon. the Minister knows very well that he is not prepared, because of pressure from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, to allow any further industrial townships to be opened up on the Witwatersrand. But, Sir, what is more frightening to us—and we have to take notice of it—is a speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan in this House last year. In that speech he said that any industry on the Witwatersrand, which employs a proportion of more than two to one in Bantu labour, should go to the Border industries. He advocated the policy that, by some form of Government compulsion, these industries should be obliged to go to the Bantu reserves. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deny and repudiate that contention of the hon. member for Brakpan, because it is something that is of frightening effect to all the people on the East Rand.

If we look at what is happening, what strange anomalies do we find? You find that a National Party controlled town council, such as that of Springs, which has had its applications for industrial townships repeatedly refused, having to resort to the subterfuge of having to make application to the Minister for an industrial township and, instead of the council’s minutes reading that the grant concerned is being reserved for “industrial purposes”, they camouflage it by stating that the grant in question is required for “township purposes”. The word “industrial” has to be left out, That, Sir, is a Nationalist Party controlled council which is bumping its head up against the Government’s policy, in that it cannot get the assistance and support it requires for the people of the East Rand and. consequently, has to resort to that type of tactics. And not only do they have to do that; but they have to ask me, a United Party member of Parliament, to continue pleading for industrial development and for a fairer share of it for the East Rand. And do not think I am exaggerating! Even the chairman of the Nationalist Party branch in Springs asked me never to give up making these representations, but to drive home my point of view that we should have more industries allocated to Springs. He told me: “Ek kan nie hierdie ding teen my Regering doen nie. Jy is die enigste persoon wat dit kan doen.” But let me go further, and say that, for the sake of party political advantage to the Nationalist Party, the Nationalist Party controlled council took a resolution immediately they came into power to the effect that I was not to be invited to take part in a single deputation to any minister. They have carried out that resolution, and that in spite of the fact that I am a duly elected representative of the people of Springs and am here to look after their interests in the best possible manner. But I must be boycotted by a Nationalist Party controlled town council, to the extent that I shall not be allowed to take part in any deputation, or from being consulted by a single member of the management committee of the Springs Town Council. Nevertheless, I write to the town council each year to ask them whether there is any matter which, in the interest of Springs, should be brought up in this House, but each time I receive a notification to the effect that there is no matter affecting Springs that need be raised with the Minister.

That is how satisfied they are.

So satisfied are they, Mr. Speaker, that the public of Springs are going to return me as their Member of Parliament and give the Nationalist Party candidate a severe defeat.

Rather tell us about the lottery.

I will tell you something about that in a few moments. At present I am still pointing out how petty-minded these people are, and how they put their own personal political interests before the interests of the people of the town. That is all that matters in their outlook: That is typical of the Nationalist Party since it got into power in 1948. The Government at that time did not want White people to come into the country, and only because they wanted the Nationalist Party to retain its position as the party in government. Party political interests were thus put before those of the country! [Interjections.] That is the truth. You sabotaged South Africa’s true interests. But you do not want to hear the truth. The Government kept White people out of the country in order to stay in power, and to-day they are having to face up to these problems in order to undo that harm.

There is another matter in regard to which complaints are justified, and that is the treatment by the Government of the mineworkers of South Africa. Throughout the years this Government has been using the mineworker as a political tool. That goes back to the days when the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was specially designated by the Broederbond to act as the means of breaking trade unionism in the country. Accordingly he and his lieutenants found their way into the mineworkers’ union, and set about deliberately to destroy that finely co-ordinated body. That policy has since that time been continued by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who never wanted to see a true genuine trade union movement develop amongst the miners of the country.

They did that because they knew that if a trade union movement should gather momentum amongst the miners, that would react to the disadvantage of the Nationalist Party because we would then have a movement representing the genuine interests of the workers. It would have been a movement midway between two racialistic parties such as the Nationalist and the United Parties! That would have been in the interests of the worker and therefore it had to be broken by this Government. And broken it was by the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Economic Affairs! But the time has come where the political loyalty of a party cannot any longer be forced upon these people. They have seen through it. They are no longer prepared to accept the dictum that the only thing that you have to do is to be true to your Government and to your party, even if that is against the true interests of the mineworkers. That is the result of hon. members on that side of the House deliberately and misguidedly using their political influence in the mineworkers’ union and its affairs. Do you want proof of that, Sir? Why did the Government on two occasions during the past 12 months have to interfere with matters where the employee and employer were busy negotiating their own arrangements? Where else in the world, and in which other industry, have employee and employer managed to come to a satisfactory arrangement, only to find that the Government steps in and throws it overboard? Why did they resort to these extremes? Because if the employee and employer in the mining industry were allowed to negotiate amongst themselves, the Nationalist Party would lose its political influence and control over them. That is why the Government interfered on these two occasions. But now the mineworkers are seeing through it. They are not prepared to take it any longer. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Mines to take mineworkers’ affairs out of the political arena, and to allow these people to negotiate amongst themselves and so to reach solutions of those problems which are of a domestic concern to them. They are fully capable of finding these solutions. The Cabinet must not underestimate them by thinking that they do not know what is in their own interests, because they do know.

What the Nationalist Party Cabinet is trying to do, is to unduly exert its political influence. The hon. member for Krugersdorp jumped in at an untimely stage and thwarted an experimental scheme which had been finalized to the satisfaction of the people concerned. Ministers, too, have interfered in this way. That time is now gone. The mining industry is one of the vital industries of this country contributing as it does more than 10 per cent of our gross national revenue. Efforts at influencing the industry politically should therefore be stopped.

It may be interesting to note that the wage bill is one of the most important items to-day amongst the cost items of operating a mine, and to-day is already as much as 50 per cent of the cost of production. Since 1955, working costs have increased by 36 per cent, whilst the earnings of White miners have increased by 47.25 per cent and that of the Bantu by 25 per cent. If this trend continues, it may be that in five years’ time, the percentage for White miners could be 70 per cent, and for Bantu 64 per cent. It must be remembered that there is a fixed price for this commodity. It is a different matter therefore from the usual business practice of adding increases in costs on to the price of an article bought by the public. Here, however, it cannot be added on to the price of gold, because that is fixed. Therefore I think a satisfactory solution should be found to this continuous rise in working costs. In this connection, I should like to point out that too much valuable low grade ore is being left in the earth. I wish to suggest to the Cabinet, that the time has arrived when it is urgently necessary to call a round-table conference of all interested parties—employees, employers and the Government—in an endeavour to evolve a more satisfactory approach to the whole question of wages, conditions and, in general, everything affecting the mining industry.

I am asked to state what in my opinion these people are entitled to. I will answer that, and will base my answer on personal conversations I have had with miners time and time again. First and foremost, they do not want to work underground all the years of their lives. They would like to be brought back to the surface after a period of 20 to 25 years of working underground. Thereafter they should, at the joint expense of the State and the industry, be trained to become qualified artisans to enable them to go into other spheres of industry. This is an important consideration, especially from the point of view of encouraging White people to go into the mining industry. The Minister has already stated that there is a shortage of 2,000 White workers on the mines, i.e., approximately the same figure as last year. Apparently there has been no improvement since then. We must, therefore, be prepared to make this occupation a more attractive one. One way in which to do this is, as I have suggested, to relieve the mineworker from working underground after he has worked there for a period of 20 to 25 years and to train him as a qualified artisan. Secondly, these people want a five-day week. I think they are entitled to this. In factories and offices, it is felt that it is to the advantage of the staff, as well as the employer to work a five-day week, so why should it be begrudged to the mineworkers, provided arrangements are made to provide for essential work on the sixth day? Thirdly, they want the security and knowledge of being certain of receiving an adequate and satisfactory monthly wage. This business of a miner having to be paid on a daily basis, is a most unsatisfactory one. It is outmoded, and should be replaced by a fixed monthly salary which should be adequate for their living requirements.

I thought you said they should attain all these things by means of negotiations.

But more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, the mineworker is dissatisfied at the Government’s handling of pneumoconiosis compensation. This question has been badly mishandled by the Government since 1962. This side of the House warned the Government when it introduced legislation in this connection at that time, that that legislation was in itself unhealthy, un satisfactory and prejudicial to the mineworker and certain groups of sufferers. But we were laughed at, and not only that, but it is recorded in Hansard, we were even accused of being “stupid”. And yet the Government through that legislation took away from 395 widows, lump-sum payments of R1,150. These have since been paid back with retrospective effect from 1962. As a result of repeated representations from this side of the House. And yet we were being accused of being “stupid!”. To my mind, however, the present basis of compensation for pneumoconiosis is wrong and should be improved. The present method of certification, for instance, should be replaced by a more satisfactory method of classification. Fifthly what is more important than anything else, is that this Government should concede the demands of the mineworkers’ union that certification of the diseased should be taken out of the hands of the Department of Mines and be placed in the hands of the Department of Health. As long as the Minister refuses this request, so long will the Cabinet have to face dissatisfaction and unrest. The mineworker will never be convinced that he is receiving a square deal in regard to these examinations. I cannot see any logical reason for the Minister’s refusal of this request, unless there are political motives behind this refusal. Furthermore, sixthly, I should like the hon. Minister to tell the miners why he is refusing to grant them the facility of enjoying Republic Day as a paid public holiday, when during the present Session of Parliament, a measure was passed declaring Republic Day to be a paid holiday for all the other trades in South Africa. Why should the miner be excluded? Where is the logic and justice of it? Why this differentiation and discrimination between one group of artisans and the other? I feel it is not too late for a new deal to be given to the miners. Unless this Government shows sincere goodwill towards these people, I am afraid that the present dissatisfaction and unrest will never come to an end. The tragedy of this unrest and dissatisfaction is that the mineworkers themselves declare that it is not directed against their employers, but against other causes. The villain of the piece here is this Cabinet, in taking up its present attitude towards the mineworkers. If you want proof of this just take note of the fact that within the 17 years this Government has been in power, there have been no less than seven Ministers in charge of the Department of Mines, i.e., about two and a half years per Minister. No sooner does a Minister get to know what mining is about, then he is transferred elsewhere. That is the contempt which this Government has for the mining industry. Now they have put in a “Kapenaar” who admits that he does not know much about mining, but that he is prepared to be guided by the professional men and experts of his Department. In this way we can possibly expect a change for the better. As a matter of fact, we have already seen a bit of a change, but it had to be a “Kapenaar” to come along and to tell the previous Transvaal Ministers where they had been going wrong.

The hon. member for Vereeniging asked me about a lottery. Here is another aspect of the dissatisfaction of the people of South Africa with the present Government. They say that the Government will not be allowed any longer to dictate to them what is in their own interests and what is not; what they should do, and what they should not do. So they have taken the initiative. The proof of that is the petition I have here, containing as it does about 20,000 names, two-thirds of which are of people within my constituency. But I have also received representations from all over the country, requesting me to come along and organize petitions elsewhere, but unfortunately I did not have the time to do so.

Read out the names of your petition, please.

No. I can’t do that— there are too many thousands—but what I will do, is to read out to you one or two letters received from your Nationalist friends. Here is one from a Mr. A. E. Swiney, of Duiwelskloof. In it he says that he could get thousands of names from the Letaba district in support of my campaign. He states further—

Then I have a letter here from Mr. M. H. W. Wepener, from Parys, in which he says—

I can give hon. members his name and address: Mr. M. H. Wepener, P.O. Box 358, Parys.

What is your party’s policy on this?

Here is our policy pamphlet, and this is what it says on this aspect—

Therefore, I challenge hon. members on the other side of the House to hold a referendum simultaneously with the forthcoming election so that the public can show whether or not it is in favour of a lottery. Why won’t the Government do that? It will cost them nothing. They talk about the “volkswil”, but let them test the “volkswil” in this matter. I will tell you what “volkswil” is, for instance, in the Free State. I have a letter here from Mr. A. J. Weideman. of 1, Turner Street, Kroonstad. in which he says—

Here is another letter of a Mr. D. P. Marais of Robertsham in which he states:

May I tell you, Sir, that over 60 per cent of names on the lists I have here are those of Afrikaans-speaking people — thousands of whom are Nationalists. Any member on that side of the House can come and inspect these lists. Do hon. members opposite know that at our tables in Springs there were secretaries of two Nationalist Party branches in Springs? They sat there openly, and what is more, some of them are canvassing for me to-day, not as a candidate for the United Party, but because they want a lottery. If this then is the attitude of the public, why is this Government not prepared to test public opinion on this matter in order to find out what the people want? But they shout “volkswil” only when it suits them: when it dies not, the “volkswil” is ignored.

In conclusion I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions the plight of so many thousands of people in my constituency who to-day are living merely on their old-age pensions. I say “thousands” because I had the privilege during the last three months of interviewing on an average 47 people per day each Wednesday. until I came down to Parliament. [Time limit].

One can see very clearly that an election will be held in the near future. One can also see that the hon. member who has just spoken finds himself in a terrible dilemma. I want to analyse a few of the things said by the hon. member, He pointed out, inter alia, that the gold price cannot be increased. He continued by saying that it was essential to take certain steps for reducing mining production costs. He then went on and referred to a single item in respect of which production costs should be decreased, namely labour. He gave us the percentages which White and Bantu labour represented in the production costs. Does that mean the old policy of the United Party, namely the “rate for the job” and the White worker competing with the non-White worker receiving a lower salary? Is that the way in which the hon. member wants to reduce mining production costs? Is that what the hon. member had in mind? He stated that the mining production costs should be reduced and in that connection referred specifically to labour. He also said that the Government might not interfere in negotiations between the employee and the employer. That means that mines could reduce their production costs by means of salary decreases and the removal of the Colour bar, while the Government may not take any action for the protection of the mine-worker. That is the background against which the hon. member spoke. But the hon. member finds himself in a real dilemma, because he stated immediately afterwards that the mine-worker demanded a monthly salary and the one thing and the other. But the Government may not interfere in those matters, and consequently the mine-worker has to force that from the mine-owners. That is what one gets when someone finds himself in a dilemma at a time when an election is at hand. I do not even want to mention the foolishness of the hon. member’s lottery. That policy of a lottery if people want it, is exactly like the United Party’s Colour policy in respect of which they say that the guarantee White leadership as long as people want it. But they do not say what people. That is how they leave themselves a loophole; they always add “if the people want it”.

However, I did not rise in my seat to discuss the Colour policy of the United Party but to discuss agricultural matters. It is strange that the United Party made a whole number of wild allegations in this and in previous debates about agriculture without giving any evidence in support of those allegations. After they were invited by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to take part in this debate once more and to furnish their evidence then, they made themselves scarce. They know full well that they cannot furnish that evidence. I want to make an analysis of a few things here in order to put what the Government is doing in its right perspective. It has been alleged that agriculture was sick and that it had not received its rightful share in our economic revival. No evidence has been furnished for that accusation which is still up in the air. We know that several persons are experiencing hard times as a result of the drought. It is easy to suggest here that agriculture is sick and that it has not received its rightful share in our economic revival. But where is the evidence? What is the norm? Allow me to mention a few norms. The first norm I want to apply is the number of liquidations and provisional liquidations occurring in South Africa. Included in the total number of liquidations and provisional liquidations published in the Government Gazette during the period 1 November 1965, to 27 January 1966, are 133 businesses, 25 town-dwellers plus 201 judicial sales and nine farmers. In other words, farmers represented only five per cent of the total number of liquidations during that period. Now I want to ask the hon. member the following question. If a garage or an insurance company’ or any other business undertaking, becomes bankrupt or is liquidated, would one say that things were going badly for the business sector or that things were looking bad in the insurance business ? No, one would not do so. But for the sake of a few votes hon. members on that side are trying to exploit a few unfortunate cases in agriculture by giving out that things are going badly in the country’s agricultural industry.

Now, I want to apply another norm, the norm hon. members should apply when dealing with this type of matter. The people in the agricultural industry are subject to the same economic laws as the people in commerce or engaged on various economic developments. The same economic laws apply to all spheres. The only difference is that a security factor applies in the sphere of agriculture which does not apply in the other spheres. Because that security factor creates certain problems, the Government has created special machinery for granting the agricultural industry the necessary assistance in the economic sphere. In that respect one has the Land Bank and now also the Department of Agricultural Credit which replaces the Department of State Advances.

Let us examine the latest figures of the Land Bank. At present the Land Bank holds approximately 25,000 mortgages. The bank admits that there is an increase in arrear instalments, and that debtors are finding it more and more difficult to raise arrear instalments. At the Nylstroom branch of the bank capital redemption and arrear interest increased to 6.9 per cent. At Pietersburg the percentage increased to 5.1 per cent. At Rustenburg the percentage increased to 4.2 per cent. Those areas have been experiencing a severe drought for the past five years. Those areas also suffered severely on account of foot-and-mouth disease. What does the Bank say about these figures? In its report it says [Translation]: “The following figures are not an indication of deterioration.” The report states that the increase in the number of loans granted is not a sign of deterioration because people use the money they borrow for buying land. In other words the money is used for capital investments. The report continues:

In other words, Sir, the loans were made because there is faith in the agricultural industry. At present the Land Bank has an amount of R152,800,000 outstanding in respect of the purchase of land. The document states that these particulars are not a sign of deterioration but of confidence. The report continues—

at which time we were experiencing a drought—

In other words from 1933 to 1965, despite the number of droughts experienced during that period, there has been an improvement in the position. The report continues—

Mr. Speaker, that is what I call a norm. When one makes an accusation, as hon. members on the opposite side have done, one has to have a norm and one has to have evidence. Here is the evidence that things have not gone as badly for the farmers who owe money to the Land Bank as hon. members on that side want to make out. And that despite the drought and other problems with which we had to contend.

Mr. Speaker, what is the position as regards the State Advances Recoveries Office? This Government body assists farmers falling into category 3. They are farmers who no longer have credit-worthiness in the eyes of ordinary financial institutions or even in the eyes of the Land Bank. The assistance granted by this office in 1960-’61 amounted to R9,170,000. Less assistance was given each year until an amount of only R1,662,000 was granted in 1964-65. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in 1964-65 is was not necessary to come to the rescue of as many people and to grant as much assistance as in 1960-61, when we came up with the consolidation of debts. The total cost of assistance granted in 1960-61, including assistance in connection with the maintenance of livestock, production loans, foot-and-mouth disease and rations, amount to R11,914.000. In 1964-65 that amount decreased to as little as R5.845,000. It was no longer necessary to spend such large amounts on coming to the rescue of people. Because when we came up with the consolidation of debts in 1960-61 we in fact called a halt, granted the necessary assistance and since that time the position has been improving steadily. As regards the amount paid out as farming advances, only 2.34 per cent has been written off as bad debts since 1935. Does that not constitute an excellent example of the continuous improvement in agriculture in spite of droughts and other national disasters? Are hon. members able to quote better examples? I do not intend analysing the figures in respect of production and stock loans, etc. However, I do want to mention that the total sum spent from Loan and Revenue Accounts recently amounted to R18,782,000. The State Advances Recoveries Office has no fear that that money has been wasted. The office is satisfied that that money is being utilized to good effect in placing farmers who require such assistance on a sound economic basis. In due course those people will become full and equal self-supporting farmers, farmers who cannot be regarded as peasant farmers, farmers who cannot be regarded as debtors.

Hon. members on the opposite side say things have gone very badly with out farmers since the National Party has come into power. During that period of 17 years our farmers have been protected by the Marketing Act. During that period 21 different commodities have succeeded in building up a reserve fund of R120,384,000 for the agricultural industry. This fund is in existence to be utilized in case any difficulties should crop up.

Mr. Speaker, what is the real position as regards agriculture? What picture dan one draw in spite of droughts, plagues and the pessimism of the United Party? We have to consider the state of our agricultural industry against the background of the economy of South Africa as a whole. It is alleged that agriculture does not receive its rightful share of the economic prosperity in the Republic. Let us compare that position to the position in other parts of the world.

The other day the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the increase in the quantity of agricultural products. Consequently I shall not say a great deal about that, but I want to repeat that the gross value of our agricultural products was R376,200,000 in 1947-48. That increased to R980,400,000 in 1964-65. And that despite the droughts. The figure hon. members on the opposite side are fond of quoting—and they are likely to do so in the election—is the percentage which agricultural income represents of the total income in South Africa. They wrest that percentage from its context.

Let us examine that position closely. In 1947-48 agricultural income represented 16 per cent of the total national income. In 1963-64 that figure decreased to 9 per cent. Now hon. members on the opposite side maintain that agriculture is not sharing in the boom. Why are those hon. members not being politically honest by explaining why there has been such a decrease in the percentage? Sir, in any country where one has industrial development, agriculture’s contribution necessarily has to decrease because the industries are contributing more and more to the national income. Let us examine how the percentage has decreased in the older industrial countries.

In Canada agriculture’s contribution was 13.3 per cent in the year 1951-2. In 1961-2 that figure was only 6 per cent. In the Netherlands the figures for the same period were 13.4 per cent and 9.9 per cent respectively. In Australia they were 18.1 per cent and 13.1 per cent respectively. Note how the figure has decreased in those countries. They are older industrial countries. What is the position in the United States of America? America is one of the older industrial countries where the figure should have remained more or less constant, and there the figure has decreased from 5.9 per cent to 4.2 per cent. The figures for Britain were 5.5 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively. Consequently, we find that the percentage in respect of agriculture has decreased in all of those countries. But will hon. members maintain that things are going badly in agriculture in those countries? No, they do not maintain that that is the position. We must be realistic, and we must realize that, as South Africa is progressing in the field of industry, so agriculture’s contribution to the national income will gradually decrease. That simply is unavoidable. That is not a sign of hard times in agriculture. Hon. members who maintain that that is the case are only trying to gain the votes of the uninformed. The figure in respect of our gold mines has decreased as rapidly, but hon. members on the opposite side do not maintain that things are going badly in gold mining in South Africa.

Hon. members also maintained that agriculture was being neglected by means of price manipulation. That is another thing they want to take to the voters. Now, Mr. Speaker, against whom is the accusation of price manipulation made? I shall tell hon. members against whom that accusation is made. They make that accusation against organized agriculture in South Africa. As a result of this Government creating the Marketing Council and 18 control boards, organized agriculture has been given the opportunity of having their representatives on each of those control boards. Prices are not fixed by the hon. the Minister. Prices are fixed by the control boards. Consequently, any accusation of price manipulation is an accusation against the control boards and against the representatives of organized agriculture serving on those boards. And those representatives, Mr. Speaker, are farmers.

Hon. members on the opposite side also maintain that members nominated to the control boards by organized agriculture as their representatives, have never admitted to agricultural congresses and to organized agriculture itself that the Government allowed price manipulations which resulted in the farmer not receiving his rightful share.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. When she is no longer a member of this House, she will have to eat her words, and I can assure the hon. member that she may choke on them.

Let us examine what the Government has done to achieve co-operation in this sphere. During the 17 years it has been in power, the Government has done much more than ensuring that its Marketing Council was organized in a way which enabled agriculturists to control and regulate their own affairs. It appointed a Soil Conservation Board. A National Marketing Advisory Council was created. The Consumers’ Advisory Committee was established. The Government also created various directorates under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. But most important of all, this Government has given the farmer of South Africa an Agricultural Advisory Council. The members of this council were not nominated by the National Party or the Government. This Council is the Executive Committee of the South African Agricultural Union. As an advisory council, this body has the right to request all documents from the various departments. When they have studied those documents, they advise the Government what policy, what changes to existing policy, and what administrative changes they deem necessary in the interest of agriculture in South Africa. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, some members of that council are United Party supporters.

All this means the following, Mr. Speaker: When hon. members on the other side maintain that this Government does not have an agricultural policy, they are saying by implication that the representatives of organized agriculture are too useless to lay down an agricultural policy. They are the people who advise the Government in respect of agricultural matters and policies. Has anybody ever maintained that their advice was not accepted? That their recommendations were not implemented? Sir, the hon. members on the opposite side are not going to get away so easily with that type of accusation. Those hon. members will have to account for the frivolous accusation that the Government does not have a policy to every member of an organized farmers’ association, to every member of every agricultural union and to every member of the South African Agricultural Union, because the representatives of those bodies lay down policy and advise the Government. That is what those hon. members are saying about agriculture and its representatives. That is the attitude they adopt towards the real mouthpiece of South Africa’s farmers.

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said our agricultural industry would be reconstructed. hon. members on the opposite side laughed heartily. Then the United Party suggested their so-called “Demobilization Board” for the assistance of farmers. But what has the Government done to relieve the position to a certain extent? A new department, namely the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, was created. This Department will have two boards operating under it. It is also going to replace the Fanners’ Assistance Committees by Credit Committees which will function in every magisterial district. Members of the soil conservation committees will be coopted to those committees. Every farmer with financial problems will be able to approach those committees and his case will be treated individually. I want to mention one or two examples to illustrate what the Government has in mind in this respect. In the district of Marikana—that falls in the Brits constituency—it was found that 141 morgen were subdivided amongst 41 farmers. Investigations were also conducted in the Northern Transvaal. Studies were made of the disaster area measuring 6.64 million morgen. We found that there were 565 smallholdings. An area of 21,000 morgen of land was subdivided into units smaller than 100 morgen each. Rural slums are created in that way. What did we do? Two senior employees were sent abroad to investigate in what way resettlement work was undertaken in Holland, Switzerland and Germany. Another person was sent to study the socio-economic effects of resettlement work undertaken in Germany, Holland and France. An investigation was conducted subsequently. The Tomlinson Report, which was brought out recently, relates to the investigation conducted in the Northern Transvaal. I do not have the time to read out all the recommendations of that commission. The commission invited all agricultural unions in the Northern Transvaal to give evidence. Before I proceed, I want to mention that the higher subsidy on the transport of livestock and fodder has been approved by the Government. The report also recommended abolishing the condition that livestock had to return in order to qualify for the rebate on the transport of cattle. In other words, when a farmer withdraws his livestock in order to give his land an opportunity to recover, a one-way rebate will be applicable. The Government accepted and implemented each recommendation made by the agricultural unions.

Time will not permit me to say a great deal about what this Government has done in order to improve the staff position, but I, nevertheless, want to quote a few figures. During the past six years the Government has made an amount of R11,414,000 available for the erection of institutions where farmers will be trained. Plans to the value of R12,598,000 have been approved. In respect of Agricultural Technical Services, there is a 35 per cent improvement on the 1948 figure. In 1948 there were only 46 professors in the faculties of Agricultural and Veterinary Services. In addition to their academic duties, they also had to perform administrative work. Consequently, they were not able to devote all their time to their students. And what is the position to-day? There are 64 professors, 92 senior lecturers and 48 lecturers, and those people do no administrative work. They devote all their time to the students and to research.

In 1948 there were two faculties of agriculture in the country. A total number of 479 persons received training at them. At present there are four faculties where 1,094 students are being trained. In 1948 only 30 students were engaged on post-graduate studies. To-day we have 352 doing research work and 189 receiving training in extension work. As regards our veterinary faculty we only had 58 students in 1948. To-day we have 176.

To-day farmers are being trained all over the country, for instance, at Glen, Cedara, Potchefstroom, Grootfontein and Stellenbosch. In 1948 only 304 farmers were trained while at present 662 are trained annually. The number has more than doubled during that short period.

All these particulars prove that the accusations of hon. members on the opposite side, namely, that nothing is being done for our agricultural industry, are devoid of all truth. Those hon. members furnished no evidence in support of their criticism. It is very easy to make accusations, but they are difficult to prove.

Over the past 12 years the Government has spent an amount of R4.402,000 on combating stock diseases, rinderpest, nagana, foot-and-mouth disease, insect plagues, wheat diseases, locusts and game. What is more, Mr. Speaker, that expenditure is not recoverable. It need not be repaid. Thus the Government has come to the assistance of agriculture, because a larger number of risks are attached to agriculture than to an ordinary business. And in the process the Government has not only assisted the farmer, but the country as a whole.

The hon. the Prime Minister has announced large water schemes. He announced what tremendous areas of land were to be placed under irrigation. He said that our agricultural industry would have to be reconstructed. Only this Government, with the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, will be able to place agriculture on a sound basis once more. The Government will have to consolidate uneconomic units—not land on which smallholders are farming as hon. members on the opposite side are fond of saying—as is now being done in Holland, Germany and America. The farmers concerned will have to be assisted to farm on an economic basis in order to prevent them from becoming peasant farmers—as the United Party wants them to be—and in order to ensure that they will be intelligent and useful farmers, capable of feeding South Africa in the years to come.

I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him in the field of agriculture. However, there are one or two thoughts I want to express which have a bearing on what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said. If the Deputy Minister believes—as I and no doubt we all believe—that farming is so important to South Africa and that we can overcome the tragedy of the drought, then I say that I, as representative of the Coloured people, am equally entitled to say that the Coloured people of this country are as important to the country as the hon. the Deputy Minister believes the farmers are. Mr. Speaker, without our farming population the Republic will not prosper. But without the Coloured people the country will be ruined.

Mr. Speaker, in America the doctrine of separate but equal treatment was declared illegal in terms of the American Constitution. Because that Constitution says that all Americans are equal irrespective of race, colour or creed. In South Africa a different position obtains. The White man has made the set-up here quite different, and this Government has accepted as its policy that which it boasts incorporates both separate and equal treatment. This Government has boasted to the people of South Africa and to the world that our policy is one of separation but equality. The hon. the Minister may wonder what all this has to do with the budget. Well, Sir, I am going to appeal to the Minister to-day to disgorge some of his surplus millions for the benefit of the Coloured people of this country. Because, Sir, I am hoping to prove and to show that this Government is not living up to its boast. The Government has claimed that a Coloured university has been established in the Western Cape. Coloured schools have been established. They have promised that there will be no inferior education for the Coloured people. They claim that there are separate but equal facilities. They have said over and over again that in all spheres of our existence there shall be separate but equal facilities for the various racial groups.

U.D.I. is on the lips of just about everybody to-day. But the White man of this country also made a unilateral declaration some years ago. How many years ago this declaration was made I do not know. This declaration 1 call U.D.E.S. And the letters stand for a unilateral declaration of economic superiority. And ever since that time the Coloured man has been placed in an inferior economic position, and that unfortunate ratio of discrimination has been maintained ever since.

I believe that the time has arrived when 1 can say to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to the Government that there is no further need for this discrimination. If the Government is sincere in its policy of separate but equal development, then I say that I am entitled today to plead with the hon. the Minister, under several headings which I will mention to the Minister—I shall not have the time to mention all of them—to go to his colleagues in the Cabinet and say: “Here is the money once and for all to remove discrimination in those cases where Coloured people render a service equal to that rendered by their White counterparts.”

Take the case of school principals and school teachers, where the Coloured teachers in fact render a greater service than their White counterparts because their classes are bigger; their responsibility has grown. They render this service under the Government’s policy of separate educational facilities for the Coloureds, but despite this country’s wealth, despite the phenomenal economic growth of which we are so proud and about which we boast to the world, we have not yet removed this cancerous growth in our economic life in South Africa, this cancerous growth of discrimination between the Coloured man and his White counterpart, not on the basis of the service which the Coloured man renders but because of the colour of his skin. I am entitled therefore to ask the Minister of Finance to give the Minister of Coloured Affairs some of his millions; to disgorge it for the benefit of the Coloureds so that they can get equal pay for equal work. Take the case of the Coloured postman who works as hard as the White postman and who renders the same service, and yet as far as his wages are concerned he is discriminated against solely on the basis of colour. Coloured medical men in the service of the Government render the same service as their White counterparts but they receive a different pay. Sir, I say that this is an everlasting disgrace to a country which boasts of its economic growth and of the millions that we have at our disposal. I say, Sir, it is a disgrace that we continually suppress economically a class of people who are partly responsible for the success of this country and who have helped to bring about our phenomenal economic progress. Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that without the Coloureds we would not have had this phenomenal progress. That applies not only to the Coloureds but to the other non-Whites of this country. Sir, you will not allow me to refer to them in this debate but we have on our desks Bills dealing with pensions and other matters and which indicate that we persist in carrying on with this discrimination. Take the question of pensions. I am not going to refer to civil pensions because it may be said that my case is not as good in the case of civil pensions as in the case of military pensions. Let us therefore take the case of military pensions. Why should a Coloured man who went to war and who was maimed for life receive a smaller pension than the White man, who may have been a poor White and whose economic position may have been worse than that of the Coloured man. Why should the White man receive twice as much as the Coloured man? Sir, we do not have to pursue this discriminatory policy. I am not blaming the Government only; it is the White man of this country who is responsible, but this Government is in a position to right a wrong which has existed for many, many years. There is no further reason why we cannot pay people according to the service that they render to the country and not according to the colour of their skin. Sir, that is my appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is the pivot around which this whole thing revolves. If he will give his colleagues the money which they require for this purpose I think we can safely do away with this discrimination.

Let us go a little further into this policy of separate but equal facilities to prove that it is a myth. In every phase of our life the Government has been proud to tell the world about equal facilities. When it came to the the question of an opera house for the City of Cape Town the Government said to the Coloured people, “It shall be a White opera house but don’t worry; we will build you an opera house equal to that of the Whites.” Similarly in all other matters they say to the Coloured people, “we will give you equal facilities; don’t worry about the right to sit in the Houses of Parliament because we are going to give you a parliament of your own; we are going to give votes to all your people throughout the country and we are going to give the vote to the Coloured women.” That is the image that the Government holds out to the world but they steadfastly refuse to do away with discrimination in pay, not on the basis of the service that the man renders but on the basis of the colour of his skin. Sir, as long as we are members of this House we on these benches will continue to fight for the removal of this discrimination. This morning’s paper is an indication that it is not merely a matter of finance; it is an indication of the irritation which this Government causes the Coloured people. I read in this morning’s paper that a certain lady who for years has taught Coloured girls typing in an office in the City of Cape Town has now been told that she can no longer teach Coloured girls in a White area and that if she wants to teach them in a Coloured area then she has to get a permit. Sir, if ever there was a stupid act we have it in this particular case. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Planning says: “I am not guilty.” He is only too happy to say that he is not guilty; I think he is relieved to be able to say it. This is a matter which falls under the Minister of Coloured Affairs who unfortunately is not here, or rather under the Minister of Community Development. Sir, what we on this side plead for is the removal of this petty, irritating nonsense. I want to repeat the old cliche that when it comes to a master/servant relationship it transcends all the apartheid beliefs of the Government. It is in order for a Coloured servant girl to work in your home but when a White person wishes to teach Coloured girls typing in an office in a White area then it becomes wrong. I challenge any hon. member on that side to justify that decision if they can. I challenge any member on that side, including the Ministers, to get up and tell us why a White woman should not be allowed to teach Coloured girls typing because her office happens to be in a White area.

They are allowed to teach them in the schools.

Sir, these are the things that we complain about; these are the things which we ask the Government to amend; they have the power to do so. Let us once and for all remember the importance of the Coloured people to this country. I say to the Government that if they want the co-operation of the Coloured people, if they want to create a better understanding and feeling between the White and the Coloured people let them for goodness sake put a stop to this petty apartheid.

Do you want no colour bar at all?

The hon. member who has just interrupted me is a very moderate and very gentle person. Why does he not follow a line of differentiation in his own home; why does he persist in having a Coloured or Bantu girl working for him in his home? Where is the difference between a Coloured girl working in his home and a Coloured girl working in an office or studying in an office, where she does not interfere with anybody to learn a trade or calling? I want to tell the hon. member that we need Coloured typists. I say to the Government that they must call a halt to this policy. I am giving them some sincere advice.

Unsolicited.

The Coloured people have been very patient. I feel that they will not be able to tolerate these conditions much longer. Make no mistake about it, they will not do anything serious but they will begin to hate the White man, for no other reason than that the Government follows this policy of petty apartheid, this nonsensical policy of petty apartheid.

Sir, I will conclude by just saying this: The Government has had 17 years to fulfil their programme of apartheid legislation. Why do they not stop? Sir, I will tell you why they do not stop. They do not stop because they have to continue to wave it before the voters of this country; they have to show their “kragdadigheid” in the field of apartheid. Why must we continue in this House to plead with the Government to put an end to this policy of petty apartheid in fields where it does not affect the people in the country, where it does not affect the economic position of the country and where it does not affect the future of the country? I am going to make this appeal to the Government once and for all …

What a “kragdadige” speech.

Sir, the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) will not be with us next session. I am sorry. I will miss some of his stupid interjections. But even he has changed from the time when he used to say “Heil Hitler”. He no longer says it now.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that; he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. At that time he wore a badge similar to those they wore in Germany. To-day he has a moderate approach to life; he has changed since those days.

Order? The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir. I do not know in which way I have insulted him. Anyway let me say that he has become more moderate in his viewpoint and in his thinking.

He has become mellow.

Why cannot the Government become mellow too? Why cannot this Government say once and for all: “We have had enough of this; we feel that what we said in 1948 in order to get into power need no longer be done.” Let me express the hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will make available sufficient money to his colleagues to remove the present discrimination in pay and that the Government will once and for all change their attitude with regard to petty apartheid.

Having listened to the Opposition with mounting surprise and wonderment I feel that they are living in a period of Alice in Wonderland, or should I say Alice in Blunderland? I can only say that it looks as though we have now seen everything. [Interjections.] I am glad to see that the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) is here. Sir, we have seen a regular circus here. It could be a Chipperfield circus or even a giraffe circus. The only missing act, as I see it, is that we have not yet seen the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) stand on his head. The United Party has made a complete circle. They have wobbled to the left and they have wobbled to the right. In 1961 their election cry was “Eight Whites to represent the Bantu in Parliament for the foreseeable future”. This has apparently changed, and it appears that the moment the hon. member for South Coast is in the driving seat. However, the 30 March will tell. He has assumed leadership at least for the election period, because after the election I do not think the United Party will be interested in propagating the policy as put forward by the hon. member for South Coast. It was not very long ago that he made a statement in the Natal Mercury.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I had just stated that according to a Press report the hon. member for South Coast had stated in an interview that there would be no non-Whites in the Parliament of this country; and there are so many United Party policies that it is really difficult to keep track of them. They make a long line of miserable failures, and their latest policy sounds like the windmill policy. It goes with the winds of change, in any direction, but just where it goes, nobody knows. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a case of the United Party having gone with the wind. Truly, Mr. Speaker, for the United Party’s latest windmill policy it is the last days of Pompeii.

Sir, I think it is a great pity indeed that the Opposition has dragged Rhodesia into our affairs. It is a matter which purely concerns Rhodesia and the United Kingdom. I personally took the trouble to go to Rhodesia just after U.D.I. to try to find out things for myself. I talked to responsible people; I talked to the man in the street and I found that support for the South African Government was very evident as well as support for the hon. the Prime Minister. But I have a very interesting cutting here from the Rhodesian Herald dated 30 December 1965. The heading is—

Sir, what do they say about the United Party and about the Leader of the United Party who appears to have tried hard to out-Smith Smith?—

They go on further to say—

Then under the heading “Lost Ground” they say—

And then finally on this subject of Rhodesia—

That sums up very clearly the views of the ordinary thinking man in Rhodesia, and I want to leave it at that.

He wants to read out something else now.

Members of the United Party have so often spoken in bad terms of our call for national unity, but in spite of their attempts to belittle the National Party more and more English-speaking people are joining this party. We stand for national unity in the true sense of the term. I want to say that I personally have never been so happy as I am as a member of the National Party, and I feel it is right that I should pay tribute to my fellow-Afrikaners, particularly to the National Party, because without their steadfast courage, without the political line that they took so many years ago, we would never have been in the safe and secure position in which we are to-day, and as an English-speaking South African from Natal I am happy to be a member of this party It has been proved over the years that the National Party’s policy has been right for South Africa, and because of that we live in a Republic to-day which is sovereign and independent. I cannot help wondering where South Africa would have been if the hon. member for South Coast had got his way when he declared that he would contract Natal out of the Republic in 1960. We would now have been faced, particularly in Natal, with death by strangulation. Once again the United Party was completely wrong. Sir, I have represented Pietermaritzburg (City) in this House for nearly five years and I am very happy to say that in the last five years more industries have been established in Pietermaritzburg than over the preceding 15 years. Last year something like R20,000,000 was invested in industries in Pietermaritzburg alone and I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who has been so helpful to Pietermaritzburg and to the Minister of Defence who saw fit to see to it that the Pietermaritzburg aerodrome, which is strategically placed, was re-built. Next year we hope that something like R35,000,000 will be spent in Pietermaritzburg …

You will have to get Blaar to write your election speeches for you.

I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the hon. member for South Coast. I feel that at least the hon. member for South Coast has remained doggedly determined to try to keep the United Party on the old policy, the policy in which I believed. But he is mistaken. The reply of the hon. member for South Coast was: “I will reply to you in the city hall at Pietermaritzburg.”

And where were you when he did?

I helped to win the election in Zululand. [Interjection.] But the hon. member for South Coast denied his leader. He has a different policy—

Mr. Mitchell said his leader’s speech at Pietermaritzburg …

This is the famous speech referred to by the hon. member for Durbain (Point) (Mr. Raw), but he did not see the point. [Interjections.] He did not answer my aueston. This is what he said, according to the Natal Witness—

Sir, that was not the speech in question at all. He read out a typed transcript of a passage—

He denied his leader. His leader has said so on more than one occasion, as I can prove from Hansard. In 1964, when I put the question to the hon. member for South Coast—and I am pleased to see he has come in now and I hope we will get an answer from him. The Leader of the Opposition stated quite clearly—

That is from Hansard, but the hon. member for South Coast denied his leader. I wonder whom we must believe. Who is right, the hon. member for South Coast or the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that when the hon. member for South Coast can find the time to go to Pietermaritzburg he will quote the right speech and that he will tell the people in Natal where he stands. He will probably have to take another stand! He has often been called “the leader of Natal”, but I think he has been bleeding Natal. Sir, we are going to have an election and I hope there is another thing the hon. member for South Coast will do, and that is that he will tell the people about the secret report he asked for about his candidate. Captain Bradfield Smith, his bosom friend. Also known as Captain Bra. I think it would be a very good thing if the hon. member for South Coast would go to Pietermaritzburg, but I want him to tell the truth this time. We will anxiously await him.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to waste the time of the House in dealing with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He has been making statements about events which are a long way from where I am. The only thing that strikes me is that the hon. member objects to the Leader of the Opposition and this side of the House, being interested in what happens in Rhodesia, but he does not even have the courtesy to listen now. What he seems to condone is that he quotes chapter and verse from a leading article in a newspaper in Rhodesia, but I want to know from him whether he approves of comments of that type about the political position in this country and in particular in relation to the Leader of the Opposition? I think that is a matter which requires some explanation.

I want to talk to-day about two matters as they affect the community I represent. The first one is the question of concessions (a) in relation to diamonds and (b) in relation to fish. It has always been a point of interest to me, because of the people I represent, in regard to the granting of the concessions in Namaqualand. You know, of course, Sir, that when the Government decided originally, that there was some prospect of opening these concessions, there were something like 2,000 applicants. Subsequently the hon. the Minister appointed a committee or a commission which went into the matter and they made certain recommendations and the recommendations were made public. Something like 19 places were thrown open to prospecting by certain selected people, but the committee said its task was invidious because the interests of the Coloured community had to be protected and the White people of Namaqualand demanded a share of the profitability of the area, and thirdly, the interests of professional Coloured diggers at Barkly West and in the Transvaal, as well as interests in Namaqualand and Vanrhynsdorp, whose claims were exhausted, had to be considered. The first thing that emerges is, that of these concessions, which were granted over 12 months’ ago the Minister has said that, in six of the areas concerned up to 31 January, there had been a yield of 4,000 carats to a total value of R99.746. What I want to ask the Minister is this. Does he think it is fair to the Coloured community and that their interests are protected, when their share of the proceeds is a mere 5 per cent, and that the production in the Coloured area yielded 2,462 carats, valued at R69,000, out of the R99,000, which means that the Coloured Development Corporation received only R3,487? I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that that is a protection of the interests of the Coloured community in Namaqualand. My information is along the lines that the bulk of the diamonds in the Coloured areas come from Komaggas, which everybody knew had reasonable prospects of producing diamonds. The situation there is this, and what I want to ask the Minister is this. The company which got these concessions in the Coloured areas had made R66,000 in gross takings, whereas the Coloured community through the Coloured Development Corporation got only R3,487. I want to know whether that is a fair split, particularly in view of the fact that the White companies which are working these particular areas are composed of persons, who I do not think have had much experience of the diamond business before. I want to ask the Minister how the 5 per cent was arrived at, when those engaged in Alluvial Diggings know, that very much higher percentages than that are asked for by and paid to the promoters and the owners of diamondiferous land. Here we have a couple of companies, selected companies, one might say, which get preferential treatment, and which are getting these vast sums of money with prospects of more. I would like to ask the Minister what happened to the proposition of the three Coloured diggers, who were selected at Barkly West to prospect one of the farms and, having prospected it, the farm was to be worked by a White company. I have made careful inquiries in regard to this matter, and I can find no indication whatsoever that anything has been done in regard to the prospecting of the farms. But what I have found is that one individual has been canvassing the diggers, particularly in the Barkly West area, and trying to float a company with R1.00 shares, the idea being that the Coloured community would subscribe to the company to prospect this farm. I ask this, because there is a company here that has got a concession on State Land, at 5 per cent. I would like to ask what are the other companies in the other areas paying and I would like the Minister to tell me what he proposes to do with those companies which have not proceeded with the prospecting. Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to you? There is such a noise going on at the back here, that I cannot hear myself speaking.

Order!

Thank you Sir. So we get to the position which I inquired into, and I ask. that in view of the fact that these concessions were granted, what accrues to the State as a percentage of the finds, if, and when they are made? I would also like to know how the White people in Namaqualand are going to benefit from this prospecting which is proceeding at certain places only in Namaqualand. I am asked these questions by the Coloured community, when I go about among them. They all want to know from me, how does one go about getting the Government and the Minister to relax and to relent, because this is an occupation, which they understand. and there are many who follow it. and the Minister has steadfastly set his face against giving any concessions to Coloured persons in the whole of the Namaqualand area. I submit that that is unfair. It is not in line with the Government’s policy of separate development. This looks to me like White development exclusively, and the Coloured community gets nothing. I can assure the Minister that the bona fide registered Coloured diggers are very dissatisfied, and they asked me how it comes about that they are excluded from these opportunities and that others are getting them.

Another thing I should like to ask the Minister to explain whether or not the companies which were granted these concessions were all registered and in operation at the time when the concessions were granted. How many of those were companies that had to be formed, or were in the course of formation, and how many of them have proceeded with the work? And, lastly, have any of those concessionaires attempted in any way to dispose of their concessions to other persons, and what is the attitude of the Minister towards those people when they do that? I ask that, because the Government is very firm in its attitude in regard to the formulae concerning gold mines, which are a national asset, and in regard to diamond mines. If anyone is so lucky as to find a diamond mine, the Government takes a sizable portion of the gross finds, to the order of about 60 per cent, but in the case of alluvial diamonds found on State-owned land, which belongs to the community as a whole, I am curious to know what the Minister expects to get from these people, who are finding diamonds or will find diamonds on these concession areas, and, who are not covered by the five per cent, which is paid to the Coloured Development Corporation in the Coloured areas. That is the first set of questions I wanted to ask the Minister.

The next matter I want to deal with is this question of fish. If ever there was an industry in which the Coloured community share, by virtue of the fact that they constitute almost 100 per cent of the labour force, it is this industry. Here is a case where they ought, in my opinion, to share in it to a far greater extent than they do. In issuing the quotas for fish and lobsters. I asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs a question during last session. and he replied, that the Coloured Development Corporation was getting a quota of 10.000 cases of fish and that he had an arrangement with other companies for the processing and exporting of the fish. During this Session I got the reply that there are five companies which enjoy the Coloured quota and that they have put out 630 units of 20 lbs. of frozen fish and* 1,480 cases of live units. We know, of course, that the business of exporting live units is very lucrative and again I should like to ask the Minister concerned why is it that no Coloured person has had any opportunity of sharing in these concessions. What motivates the Government in allocating these concessions to these companies? These are the questions the people ask me and they tell me that as a member of Parliament I ought to know. But when one examines the various prospectuses of the various companies that enjoy fishing quotas, one finds quite a number of M.P.s figuring there. To me it is strange that these lucrative contracts are awarded, and the question immediately arises on what basis they are allocated, not only in regard to this very small issue in regard to the Coloured Development Corporation but in regard to the lobster quotas on the whole. You see, Sir, it has been suggested by reports in the Press, which the Minister has undoubtedly seen, that this tremendous asset of lobster-fishing and other fish, and fishmeal also—we heard talk this morning about sweepstakes, but I might say that a fishing quota is a dead certainty. According to one newspaper, it is tantamount to the right to print money, because these quotas go on. According to the fishing quotas for lobster, 59 companies share the quota, and one wonders whether these people pay anything to the Government, to the Treasury, other than the licence fees for the quotas. And on what basis are these allocations made?

Can anyone apply?

I do not know, but what strikes one when examining these lists is that one finds some strange things. I have one case in front of me where a man with a factory 600 miles from the sea has a quota, and to my own certain knowledge he cans peaches and asparagus. Let it be admitted that he may have another factory somewhere else. I do not know, but I would like to know on what basis the allocations are made. An ex-member of Parliament’s name figures in his own right … [Interjection.] As far as I know, there was no fishing business there. He has gone now. Then there is a third one where one finds that a member of the Development Corporation has a quota in his name or in the name of a person, which is exactly the same and with the same initials. Now, the Coloured community and other people also ask me how these concessions are doled out, and I think the time has come when there should be some statement by the Minister on the basis of how it is done. Over the years there has been considerable dissatisfaction— I do not want to traverse old ground—about the fishing quotas in South West Africa, when two new companies got licences, the one at Walvis Bay and the other at Luderitz, and old-established companies were overlooked. When one looks at the list of shareholders of the successful companies, those who got the shares in the one company, one is surprised at the familiar names that appear. One wonders how one can get into this business. Then there is a third company. The number of shares which had to be allocated to other companies was in excess of one million; I take an interest in this purely from the point of view of the fisherman who catch the fish. They get well paid for it, but they would like to see themselves getting on to the boards of directors, the people who get the concessions. Now they seem to be faced with this tremendous wall which they cannot pass, and as their representative in Parliament I cannot help them, so I ask the Minister to help me. Let the Minister tell me what I must tell these people so that they can also share in this wealth.

Now we come even closer home. Recently, from Press reports, a very small fishing concern catching lobster was purchased by a big insurance company. Again we find the names of certain Members of Parliament appearing on this, and the statement was made that they hope to get a fishmeal factory. The original company did not have that, according to my information, so one must ask what is happening; how do you go about it? You see, Sir, there are 14 fishmeal factories in the Cape handling 480,000 tons of fish, and there are eight factories in South West doing almost double that amount—720,000. In spite of that, another company comes into the picture, and there is talk that the shares which were 50 cents each at that time, would soon rise. Whether they have gone up or not I do not know. But the point I want to make there is that money is being made, not so much in the merchandizing of the fish, but in the merchandizing of shares. I would like the Minister to give us some idea as to what control there is, because this is a national asset. Lobsters are not like taking a few diamonds out of the ground, which you can only find once. The fish breed and, when one sees the tremendous quotas being given to new companies, one immediately wonders, whether the fishing is not being overdone and whether some sort of control should not be applied, and whether or not the fishing companies should not even be controlled directly. Because, to get a fish quota—this is what the Coloured men tell me and they should know—involves big money, and one often wonders to what extent the Treasury benefits from this enormous amount of money which is being merchandized in the lobster industry.

How quiet they sit now!

Another strange thing is this: that one of these quotas was given to a gentleman in Springs. I honestly feel the time has come when the Minister of Finance should look into this matter, because I believe he is losing a very fruitful source of revenue. It seems to me that in the same way that other industries are paying into the Treasury, this is an industry which should be looked at, not so much from the profit angle where the Government taxes the profits in the way of companies’ tax, but from the procuring angle, when and how the individuals concerned get the quotas, or know that they will be allocated the quotas. That seems to me to be the point. One has to know that there is a definite prospect of getting the quotas; because it is extraordinary that the shares of some of the older companies in the fishing business are not quite so good; they seem to be dropping a bit, but the price of the shares of the newer companies is fantastic. I say with the greatest deference and respect to the Minister that there is a great deal of public disquiet, and it is no use blinking at the fact. What I thought originally was merely a matter concerning the Coloured fishermen, I find now is a matter which goes far beyond that. These people ask me how the White men get these quotas. I want to know how they do get the quotas. I have no fishing quotas, but I must be able to tell these people what the position is when they put these questions to me, because there may be some of them who want to do something about it. I, therefore, feel that the time has come when a great national asset such as we have in the fishing industry, and which, in the opinion of some, is being over-fished to the point where we are going to start running short, should be protected, and I feel that the Minister of Finance should devote some attention to the matter. And I think the Minister of Economic Affairs might also give us an explanation. I was also told—I only mention this in passing—that an application was made by one of these new companies for an enormous quota of fish and it was granted, and there were objections from other fishing interests, and the quota was withdrawn. Now, if that is not so, I think the Minister might tell us. If he does not know who it is. I will be happy to tell him, but I do not think it is fair to bandy names backwards and forwards across the floor of the House; that is not cricket and one does not do these things. But the fact remains that there are cases which I think should be looked into, and that should be done fairly soon, because it would appear to me that the fishing business is getting into the hands of such an involved group of monopolists, so enmeshed and intertwined, that one does not know who is who. I think it would require an expert of no mean order to unravel all the shareholdings in all these companies. For that reason I make that appeal. I mentioned the case of the Namaqualand diamond concessions to indicate that what the Minister thought was going to happen has not happened, and that what is now happening in the fishing business is creating a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured people who are concerned, because that is an industry which, if the Government was sincere in carrying out the policy and the wishes of the Prime Minister, of separate development, then the whole of the fishing business should be in the hands of the Coloured people, because they are the people who catch the fish. My final point is this, that among these quotas I find a company which describes itself as a mining development corporation. How can a mining development corporation get a quota for fish? So I say with the deepest sincerity to the hon. the Prime Minister, who has granted me the courtesy of listening to what I have had to say, that the time has come to look into this question of the granting of the concessions both in regard to diamonds and fish or anything else in regard to which we want to grant concessions, to see that the State gets a fair share of the wealth which belongs to the community, and that we do not have so many individuals making a lot of money out of assets which belongs to the community as a whole.

Seeing that we are approaching the end of the Session, I think the time has come for me to examine two points closely. The first is: what is the character, or the reliability in the political field, of the United Party, of the Opposition? The second is: what is the fundamental difference between the policies of the two major Parties here? I shall deal with both cases in the light of what has become apparant in recent times.

In examining the character and the reliability of the United Party, I want to base my test on facts. I do not want to indulge in mud-slinging as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recently did in connection with a motion when he spoke about the tarnished reputation of Cabinet Ministers. The mud which he slings I leave to cling to his own person; everybody will surely be able to judge the true value of something like that. I want to look at facts in connection with the nature or the character and the reliability of the United Party.

As an example I want to take the attempts to stir un suspicion among the Whites of South Africa that the present Government wants to take some of the land of the Whites and give it away or hand it over to the Black man. After the propaganda borrowed from the Basutoland Congress Party—propaganda which has been used by the Basutoland Congress Party in their elections—had miscarried, an accusation was made in connection with something I had allegedly said, and reference was made to a speech which I had made to the Congress of my Party in Pretoria in 1963. Now we must recall that I said the following on that occasion—and these are my words in full as subsequently quoted in a pamphlet which was distributed far and wide and was consequently at the disposal of everybody, apart from what appeared in the newspapers. The words which I used there were published in English as follows—

The point of view expressed here was used to create the impression that I had said that White territory would be alienated to the High Commission Territories. On that occasion I had spoken about the liberating process in respect of the High Commission Territories, and I had said that if they were guided (like the Transkei and other territories of ours) to freedom under our guardianship, the situation might develop in a different way to that in which it would develop if they were guided to freedom under the guardianship of Britain, for the reason that Britain as a guardian did not have the same facilities at her disposal, in that it was not a neighbour. When dealing with our own Black areas, we operate on the basis of. inter alia, the 1936 Act, in terms of which certain areas were released, and those released areas result in additions being made to our Bantu areas; in other words, White land becomes Black land in terms of legislation passed by the United Party. If the heartlands of the Swazi, or of the Basuto, or of the Tswana, were under our guardianship and they were being guided to independence, then the Tswana areas belonging to us, and also the Swazi areas belonging to us, or the Basuto areas belonging to us, could be guided to independence along with them, and they would therefore receive the benefit of what could be added to their territories in terms of the 1936 Act (the Act of the United Party). Now I am being accused of wanting to give away White land, but all the time it is stated here in clear terms “with reference to the Act of 1936.” The hon. members, however, went along and took words from a different source. It so happened that within two days after the speech to which I have referred, so many misrepresentations appeared both in the Press supporting the United Party in South Africa and in the British Press in Britian, to the effect that I wanted to annex the High Commission Territories, that I felt obliged to publish a brief summarizing statement on 5th September, 1963, to correct the position. I had made my speech before my Congress on 3rd September. In that short summary I briefly stated—

They seized upon the wording of this summary, although there was the very clearest proof of what that summary of the third point in fact meant in the context of my speech. I therefore want to say here that this is a very clear example of the way in which the United Party, in its propaganda against us, in its fight against us, makes use of facts. It will conceal the true substance if it can only get a chance to employ some trick to make use of certain wordings in order to misrepresent our policy to the public.

In passing I may just say to the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that over the years, when I discussed the way in which Bantu areas and White areas could be associated with one another as development proceeded further and further, I referred to mutual consultation. When they asked me how that could be achieved, I said that it could, for example, be done in the form of a commonwealth. I gave a further example by referring to the economic markets which have developed in the world. The other day the hon. member made the charge against me here that, after what happened in Nigeria as far as the Commonwealth was concerned, I had suddenly become afraid of the word “commonwealth” and had therefore substituted the words “a consultative political body” for it, although I had also said in between, “the broader concept was what I used, the other was merely an example.” Now, it is interesting enough that in that same speech of 1963, therefore long before the events in Nigeria and the provocation to which Britain and her Commonwealth were subjected there, I said the following—

There you already have the concept of a consultative body. The statement which appeared subsequently, also contained the words—

The concept which he wants to present here as being a new concept which we are suddenly putting forward now, therefore is the concept on the basis of which we have repeatedly stated our position in the past.

You were speaking about the High Commission Territories there?

No.

Read it again

The hon. member for South Coast should remember that I have said over all these years that what will develop here in South Africa in the course of time, will be a method by which the various states developing here will co-operate with another. and that it will be a consultative body in some form or another. I have made it very clear that that will apply to the areas to which we are granting independence, that the leaders of the national councils of the Indians and the Coloured people will sit on that body, and that it may be extended to the High Commission Territories, to neighbouring territories such as Rhodesia, and even Zambia and Malawi and the Portuguese territories, if they want to join. I have said that the various states will retain absolute independence in the political sphere, but that they will come together in that way to discuss their common political and economic interests there. I have also expressed the conviction that because those interests are interwoven, such discussions will lead to better relations.

Now, that is an example of how facts are abused, and the character of a party must be tested on that basis.

Then there is a second test that I want to apply as far as the reliability of the United Party is concerned, and it is this: how consistent is their attitude, or how do they change their attitude as it suits them? I want to take one of the latest examples of that, namely the relationship to other countries. It will be recalled that over the years the complaint has continually been made against us that we create enmity through tactlessness, through lack of diplomacy, that in that way we create enmity between Britain and us, between the United States and us, between Western nations and us, between the nations at the UNO and us, between the African states and us. That was the standard attack made against us. In the first place we proved that that was not correct, and in the second place we proved that when the interests of South Africa were involved as against those of any of those countries, we would put the interests of South Africa first, even though it would cause repercussions on their part. The United Party nevertheless continued to make that complaint against us. Now the situation in connection with Rhodesia has arisen. In that situation we are trying to maintain our old principles of doing what seems right to us in principle as far as Rhodesia is concerned, but at the same time we are trying to retain the friendship of the other states in so far as it is possible— while always maintaining our own interests. But the United Party, which has attacked us to such an extent, were prepared to slap Britain in the face squarely by acting in such a way in the problem which has resulted from Rhodesia’s declaration of independence that they would not only make an enemy of Britain, but would also come into conflict with the United States of America, which has to a large extent associated itself with the United Kingdom as an ally. The United Party would, furthermore, have come into conflict with the UNO. which has become involved in the matter through adopting certain resolutions. It would also have come into direct conflict with the African states. The same Party which has over the years been prepared to reproach us for not having enough tact, is the Party which is now suddenly prepared to pick a quarrel with everybody, while one can reach one’s objective in a legitimate way. I know that lately, in order to get away from the slap in the face they wanted to give Britain, they are again trying to swing about by saying that they are merely asking us to help to arrange a meeting between the two parties in the dispute, but that has come as an afterthought after they ran into difficulties. I therefore repeat that here we have a flagrant example of the way in which the United Party cannot even adopt a consistent attitude as far as its friendship with Britain is concerned.

I want to mention another example of the volte-face which the United Party has made, of its lack of stability. In actual fact it is such a preposterous volte-face that it assumes the character of an immoral action. In this case we are dealing with the United Party’s latest statements of colour policy, through the mouth of its leader. We have all these years adopted the attitude, and it has been very clear particularly since we came into power, that the White man should remain in control in our country permanently. The concept that the White man should retain control permanently has been described in various terms: it has been defined as “mastership” (baasskap); it has been described as “supremacy”; it has been described as meaning that the White man should retain control over his own country. We have all along consistently adopted the unambiguous attitude that, just as we claim for ourselves the right to retain complete control of our future, so we concede that right to others. Accordingly we have stated explicitly how, for example, we also want to grant the Bantu who are settled in or fit in ethnically with their own areas future development which can lead to their independence. I myself have made the statement (and it was cast in my teeth by the other side of the House) that, just as the White man wants to retain permanent control over himself and his own affairs in his own area, so he is prepared to grant the Bantu control over his own affairs in his own area. But that concept has been attacked. That concept of White control—that is all that mastership means—has been attacked viciously. The idea of oppression, of hate, of immorality, has been associated with it, and for that reason it has been described as an ugly policy. That idea that the White man should retain control over his nation and his affairs in his own country has been slandered to such an extent that that slander has reverberated throughout the world. Ever since we came into power in 1948 South Africa has been faced with an ever-increasing struggle in the world, and that struggle has been perpetuated by all these statements and all the methods of attack employed by the United Party. Their statements have been quoted; the statements published by their newspapers have been quoted. I am convinced that the struggle at the UNO which has landed South Africa in the difficulties which have arisen has its basis in the United Party’s resistance and method of attack against us …

Your laws.

The attacks have been directed against our basic policy, namely that the White man should continue to rule this country permanently, in the interest of the Whites, but also in the interests of those people who are at present under the guardianship of the White man. but who will gradually become emancipated at a rate which is in accordance with their own interests. It is therefore perfectly clear that we have stated all along that the White man should rule South Africa permanently, and that statement has been slandered in the world. But now we find that the United Party, after drawing up various constitutions and planning various proposals to no avail, in course of time tried to woo the electorate more and more by saying that it also stood for a White “something”. That White “something” it sometimes called “leadership”. When, however, the people began to realize that leadership, if it was voluntary leadership, if it had to be the choice of the entire population, including the non-Whites, was something that one could not count on, the United Party moved away from what had first been meant by the concept of leadership, and did so by attaching a different meaning to it, by qualifying it. They moved away from the concept of leadership as a result of a voluntary choice to the concept of a leadership which one claims for oneself and which one retains, not only to lead, but (in recent times) also to control. Then leadership (they did not want to use the word “supremacy” for it yet) meant “control”. That is the word which they then used for it. It was also “control for the foreseeable future”; therefore a short period. But now during this Session the concept of “leadership” has been changed to denote leadership, meaning control by the White man, not as a result of voluntary choice, but by compulsion. What is more, it is no longer “for the foreseeable future”, but “for ever”. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sees no time in the future of South Africa when the White man will be able to abandon that leadership. In other words, he, on behalf of the minority of the population, will have to see to it, by compulsion, that he retains that supremacy. That is nothing but “mastership”. And that is the volte-face which has been made by the United Party. The voters of to-day are expected to believe that the United Party is reliable when they see this volte-face being made before their very eyes in order to arrive at what is now being proclaimed by that Party as its policy!

At the moment I do not want to go into the question as to whether that policy is capable of implementation. I do not want to go into the question as to whether, if they are going to implement all the other little plans that they have, such as granting land ownership to the non-Whites in the locations in the White area of South Africa as well, and economic integration (in the sense in which they use that term), or social integration within the limits they impose upon it—a little in some schools, a great deal more in the universities …

Untrue.

In certain English church-schools integration is already taking place, and the United Party has not officially declared itself opposed to it. All that I am concerned with is that I do not want to go into the question as to whether, in the light of all their policies of the type mentioned, and also race federation in the political sphere and the kind of Senate they want to constitute, it will be possible in practice to retain that control. I am merely placing my finger on this one clear point, that they have swung round from extreme criticism of White supremacy to displaying a front of advocating permanent White supremacy, by compulsion, over the whole of South Africa. That is a further example on the basis of which the reliability of the Party must be tested.

I want to subject the reliability of that Party to a further test, namely by means of something that was said in this Parliament this morning. Here I am dealing with the tendency on the part of the United Party to take matters which have already been discussed and simply deal with them again suddenly at a later stage as though the other side of the matter had never been put. The example I want to mention is the statement made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) this morning when he said, “Economic integration is taking place here, economic integration is increasing, and that proves that the policy of the Government is absurd and impracticable.” Mr. Speaker, the question as to what is to be understood by economic integration has been an issue between the Opposition and ourselves ever since 1948. Hon. members who were present here at the time will recall how we drew a clear distinction between real absorption of the Black man by the White man to form a part of the economic community—that is to say, in the sense of the Black man as a worker being able to rise to any position, being able to take part in any trade union, of even being able to become the head of any undertaking, even with Whites serving under him, that is to say, integration in every respect—and his mere presence as a worker. Such complete absorption was what we called economic integration. We explained how, as far as we were concerned, the mere presence of the Bantu as workers, even when they might be used in various higher grades of work, was not the same. We said that as regards the use of that labour, because we had inherited it from history, we would in fact increase the separation progressively, so that in every sphere, including economic life, the Whites and the non-Whites would not intermingle, would not develop into a unit, in other words, would not become interwoven. This morning the hon. member for Jeppes referred to what the hon. the Minister of Finance said at the time, namely that if one had economic integration (in the United Party sense, of course, that is to say, in the sense of complete intermingling, of admission to all the various fields of work—which they were advocating as opposed to our point of view—the purchase of property for business purposes as well, admission to trade unions, etc.), political integration and social integration would follow. Now the hon. member for Jeppes has changed that statement so as to mean that the hon. the Minister had said that the presence of increasing numbers of workers led to political integration and social integration. Surely that is something else in respect of which we have always drawn a clear distinction. There is a major difference between the two points of view in regard to the way in which the presence of the Bantu as workers in our country should be dealt with. I say that that is another example of the way in which statements which had previously formed the subject of argument and which they then left alone are suddenly revived by them as though the matter was never discussed. I mention that as a further example of unreliability.

However, I particularly want to deal with the conclusions reached by the hon. member this morning. The position is that members of the Opposition do not take the logical outcome of their point of view and compare it with the logical outcome, as they see it, of our point of view, or the true logical outcome of our point of view. They try to make an attack (and in so doing to create a wrong impression) by simply placing their interpretation on our point of view, without at the same time examining what the effect of their policy must be. We find that the hon. member suggested this morning, “If economic integration is taking place and more and more Natives are obtaining employment here, how can you ever hope to retain permanent White political control?”

As a matter of fact, the hon. member’s argument was that the fact that more and more Natives were coming in made our policy an absurd one. that it made our policy of apartheid and of White supremacy an absurd one.

Yes.

Very well, now I ask hon. members: If. in spite of all the separation which we are deliberately trying to bring about (and our intention is in due course to progress to a point at which we shall begin to reduce the numbers of the Bantu substantially and at which increasing territorial separation will be brought about), the presence of the Bantu makes permanent White supremacy impossible, how can the United Party then say that permanent White supremacy is in fact possible if the United Party deliberately wants to allow all the forms of integration to take place? If they want to allow economic integration to take place, with the absorption of the Bantu as a permanent part of the population of the country, if they say that they should be included in the Government of the country—by whatever method—and if they are prepared to admit them to the universities along with the Whites, how can the United Party, which also wants to have them politically integrated in a race federation, then say, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, that is can see no time in the future when the White man will not be able to retain or should not retain that supremacy in South Africa? This again shows clearly how unreliable the United Party is in its reasoning. It wants to conceal the logical outcome of its policy by making an attack upon our policy on much weaker grounds than those on which it would have to attack its own point of view.

We therefore come to the conclusion that the United Party is absolutely unreliable, and that is the conclusion that will be reached by the electorate of the country.

That brings me to the second general matter which I should like to discuss, namely: what is the fundamental difference between the United Party and the National Party which is now becoming apparent? It is of course in connection with the colour problem and it is this: the Government’s attitude is quite unambiguous, namely that we believe that history has presented us with two facts. The one is that there is a part of our country which indisputably belongs to the White man by reason of his occupation and development thereof, but that there are also other parts of the country where various Bantu nations established themselves and which have throughout history been recognized as belonging to them.

Historically?

Certain parts which have throughout history been the places where they established themselves and where they are still living to-day. There are parts in which they established themselves in the course of history, but which are no longer in their possession, and therefore those parts are no longer theirs. I am speaking about the result at the end of the historical development, that is to say, the stage we have reached at present. That means that the National Party adopts the attitude that we in South Africa have to deal with a variety of nations which cannot be combined so as to form one nation. They are different in character, they have different origins, they are different in outlook, different in colour and different as far as their standards of civilization are concerned. In other words, in this country we have different nations which are totally different from one another.

But there is also a second fact which has its origin in history. It is that, because the White man has so much initiative and, as a result, so much development has taken place in his inherited domain, the Black people came to work for him and large numbers of them still want to work in his area up to the present day. Furthermore, it is true that as a result of the protection afforded by the Whites and the opportunities of employment provided to the non-Whites by the Whites, they have not perished through famine or through internecine wars, but have greatly increased in number. That, then, is the second inheritance from our history. We accept that in these circumstances we have to try and find the best solution to our problems. The best is to do what has always happened automatically in the history of the world whenever attempts have been made to hold together empires containing various nations which differed from one another. In the end the various nations separated—each with its own territory in which it governed alone. In other words, we have to adopt the course adopted in every other part of the world—in Europe, in Asia, in South America, and in Africa at the moment. That is that one should recognize the fact that where there are separate nations, they should be separated and should be able to govern themselves if they are to be happy. That is why we as the National Party have unambiguously adopted the attitude that happiness for and good relations among the people of Southern Africa can only be achieved by means of separation in every sphere, inter alia in the political sphere as well. That means that there will be a White nation which can control its own future and affairs, and likewise there will be the various Bantu nations which will have their own territories and will have control over their own people. We accept the consequences of separation. We also accept that it will mean that the Bantu who work here, that is to say, in the White area, will have his citizenship in his own area, as is the position in the case of the Basuto who work here to-day. We therefore have one clear and distinct concept, namely that we are prepared to accept the principle that South Africa is not one country for one nation alone, but, like Europe, contains various nations, and that in due course it will have to be made possible for those nations to govern and develop themselves, within the limits of their potential, in their own territories, which also belongs to them by inheritance.

And what about the Coloured people and the Indians?

I have dealt with their position many times. I have now stated the point of view of the National Party. Let us contrast it with the point of view of the United Party. Note that it is very clear that the point of view of the National Party is that there are different nations and that each of them will in course of time govern itself separately. In contrast with that the United Party adopts the attitude of “one nation, one fatherland, one loyalty”. Consequently there will be only one national government. Note that one cannot deduce from that this one nation will permanently delegate its powers to a minority group in its own ranks. After all, it is one nation with one fatherland and one loyalty. In such circumstances one would not by means of any paper policy be able to do anything but allow the entire nation to rule, that nation which has to be loyal to that fatherland. When such a nation exists, it is impossible to accept that one nation will rule in any way other than by means of the decisions given by its majority. Can anyone imagine a position where there will be one nation in South Africa with one loyalty to one fatherland, while only one section of that people will be able to rule for all time? I even want to ask, will that be moral? We have so often been asked whether our policy is a moral one, although we are granting rights to all separately. But now I ask: what the United Party wants to give South Africa, namely, only one father-land for one nation with one loyalty, while only a minority group of that people will rule, is that moral, is that what the world is going to approve? The inevitable outcome of that point of view is that that one nation will not be able to avoid, by means of any paper constitutions, by means of any declarations of policy made by the United Party leaders of to-day, that in course of time— how long it may take or how soon it may be is beside the point now—they will have to integrate more and more or will have to split apart more and more. If they split apart, they will split in the direction of apartheid, and if they become more and more integrated, they will become one mixed mongrel race under majority rule in South Africa. That is quite inevitable. It is quite inevitable that if one nation is formed here out of Bantu, Whites, Coloured people and Indians, with one father-land and with one loyalty, they will eventually serve together on a basis of equality in one army and in one public service, and that they will want to be educated together by means of one common system of education. Remember: that one nation has one loyalty to a common fatherland, and a fatherland is something which unites and cements together its people, because all are brothers in such a common fatherland. One cannot have one nation with one national loyalty and then say that apartheid is to be applied in the schools or in the universities and that minority is going to rule. [Interjections.]

I said that I wanted to point out the clear contrast between the points of view of the two Parties. I have indicated that the Government stands for separation of the races living in this country; I have explained how that separation should be brought about to an increasing extent. With that I contrasted the United Party’s point of view of having one nation with one fatherland and one loyalty. The people now have to make a choice, not only on the basis of the sincerity with which views are held or the thoroughness with which policies are stated or of honesty which penetrates to the consequences of those policies, but on the basis of the visible policy of each of the two Parties. On the one hand there is the policy that the entire White section of the population is to become part of a Black-Coloured-Indian-White nations—a composite nation which has to swear common allegiance to one common fatherland in which the White group is to see its future as lying in that great process of unification which will be intensified progressively if there is to be true loyalty. On the other hand there is the policy of the National Party. The people will have to choose. I have no doubt that the choice will be unambiguously in favour of separation and the preservation for everyone of that which is his own, instead of in favour of amalgamation and the gradual process which must follow upon that on one foreign people being swallowed up by other foreign peoples, while in the course of decades or centuries to come power will surely and inexorably pass into the hands of the Black majority. That is also what I should like South Africa to realize, namely that the crux of the struggle for survival lies in the choice of either the right of survival of each nation, which will live in increasing separation from the others, or of a mixed nation, that is to say, one nation in one fatherland. The electorate cannot but decide against the bluff of the Leader of the Opposition, who claims that he believes in permanent White leadership, but at the same time adopts a course which makes White leadership absolutely impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister and I would be able to commence this election by finding a measure of agreement on at least one subject. He has complained of the misrepresentation of his policies and of the things which have been said about his policies. But we, Sir, have the same difficulty. We have had it over the years and we have complained of it over the years. We have complained of it in the Press controlled by that side of the House and in some of the newspapers in which the hon. Prime Minister has a great say. We have also complained of the manner in which news is represented and reported over Radio South Africa. I know that the hon. Prime Minister and I are going to spend the next few weeks trying to get a clear understanding amongst the members of the public of what our respective policies are. I am sure, Sir, that the hon. Prime Minister does not want to fight on false premises just as I do not. I should therefore like to suggest to him that the time has come here in South Africa where we should decide to use the means which are being used in most civilized states of the world, namely the radio, to reach the people in their homes. I should therefore like to recommend to the Prime Minister that we make joint representations to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and to the S.A.B.C. for both Parties to be given adequate time during the election.

You do not get any attendance at meetings.

You are scared.

We experimented with this system about thirteen years ago and the United Party got so much the better of the exchanges that I can understand the absence of enthusiasm on that side of the House for a repetition. But I am sure that in view of the complaints the hon. the Prime Minister made to-day he is three-quarters converted to my point of view already. In the last few elections and during the referendum the opportunities given to each party to put its point of view were very limited indeed. I think I am correct in stating that during the last election both the Prime Minister and myself were each accorded only twenty minutes at the end of the campaign. Well, it is very difficult to sum up a campaign, to get rid of all the propaganda innuendos, and to put the policy clearly before the public in such a very brief period of time. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that we make joint representations to the S.A.B.C. for the Parties to be given adequate time to deal with their respective policies before the public during the election.

You see, Sir, that what has happened here this afternoon is indicative of the sort of difficulties which we have. We have the hon. Prime Minister complaining that use was not made of a speech which he made to his Congress in 1963 when certain allegations were made on what the policy of his Party was. But those allegations were made on the authority of a publication called Bantu, originally published by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and subsequently taken over by the Ministry of Information. In that publication there is no mention of any limitation on land promised under the 1936 legislation. Here the statement is reflected as being completely unqualified. So if the hon. Prime Minister and I had had our opportunity over Radio South Africa I think there would have been very little difficulty in clearing up misunderstandings of this kind. If the hon. Prime Minister wants to tell us he intended to limit it, then I can only say that here is evidence of incompetence on the part of the members of his Government in allowing a publication of this kind to be given out which shows quite clearly that they are not fit to govern the country. Here is this publication still to this date. Has there ever appeared a denial of it? Has there been at any time a correction?

It is quite clear that there was a statement and a summary and in the summary it was stated quite clearly that it was a summary.

Whether a summary or not, here is no qualification whatever. Here it stands. I have read it out to the Prime Minister before. But then there is no question about it that there was incompetence on the part of the people concerned. The hon. gentleman has also complained that much was made of the fact that he was no longer talking of a commonwealth to be established with the various sovereign independent Bantu states which he was hoping to see created out of the Bantu reserves but that he was now talking of a consultative body. The hon. gentleman is complaining that in the past he talked of a consultative body and that this therefore was nothing new. But the hon. gentleman will remember clearly that when he first raised this matter in the House and spoke of a possible commonwealth, I challenged him by asking him whether he knew what a commonwealth meant, namely that its members were sovereign independent states in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their internal or external affairs? The hon. Prime Minister then came back at me with words to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition need not think he could frighten him, the Prime Minister, and that that was what he meant.

Yes.

But is that still what the hon. gentleman means? I believe it is because when he talks about a consultative body or some kind of economic union then that is merely the first step in that direction.

The hon. Prime Minister also accused the United Party of changing its policy and its attitude towards other countries. He referred specifically to the Rhodesian issue and said that the attitude taken up by this side of the House amounted to a slap in the face of Great Britain, the UNO and the Afro-Asian States. He asked: “Why do you do that when you can reach your objective in another way.” Now these are the important words “when you can reach your objective in another way.” I think we must learn from the hon. gentleman what his objective is and in what way he is going to reach it. If his objective is to stay out of this thing and that it does not matter what happens to Rhodesia, if he is prepared to see Rhodesia being brought to its knees, if he wants successive generations of South Africans to say that Rhodesia was destroyed and that this Prime Minister bears a large measure of responsibility, then he is correct because then he can achieve his objective in another way. I asked him, first of all, whether he was prepared to use his influence with both the countries concerned in an endeavour to reopen the dialogue between them. But I have had no satisfactory reply yet. To-day I want to go further and want to ask the hon. gentleman whether he is prepared to examine ways and means of helping Rhodesia so that he would know what these means are in the event of the necessity of using them, arising. Because, Sir, there is an extraordinary situation developing in this country, i.e. the Prime Minister is getting support for his policy towards Rhodesia because people believe that while he says he is neutral he is helping Rhodesia under the lap. That is why people are supporting his policy towards Rhodesia. His own supporters feel very strongly on this issue. I believe this story of help is a myth. It is like the help for his Bantustan policy—his own supporters vote for the Bantustan policy because they are quite sure that he is never going to give them independence. The moment they have reason to believe that these Bantustans are going to be independent, then they will think again. The hon. Prime Minister says that we have changed our policies and that we can achieve our objective in another way. I challenge him to say what his objective is and in what way he is going to achieve it, unless his objective is that he does not mind what happens and is prepared to sit still and see chaos being created across his northern border.

Do you want him to be as irresponsible as you are?

There is another person, Mr. Speaker, believing that help is being given. That is why they say these things. But do they really think they can help without the outside world finding out about it? Are they really so naive as to believe that we can do all sorts of things behind the scenes and that the outside world will not know about it? What kind of childish game behind the scenes do they think they are playing? But I will take this matter no further but will leave it here. The hon. Prime Minister will have the opportunity of saying what his objective is and how he intends achieving it “in another way.”

Thirdly the Prime Minister charged us with continually changing our colour policies. Mr. Speaker, it ill becomes that side of the House to accuse others of continually changing their colour policy. Because, after all, look how the colour policies of that side of the House have changed. You and I, Mr. Speaker, can remember when the Coloureds were going to be put on a separate roll and were going to be made second class citizens with limited powers. You and I, Sir, can remember previous Prime Ministers talking of “baasskap” and domination. You and I, Sir, can remember previous Prime Ministers of the Nationalist Party talking about always retaining control over the reserves. You and I can remember the late Dr. Malan talking about a federal relationship between the developed reserves and South Africa. And now we have this Government with its policy of granting these reserves sovereign independence. And it is charging us on this side of the House with having changed our policies! As I said, accusations of this nature come ill from a party which has shilly-shallied and has changed its policies in respect of so many things over the entire period it has been in office.

That is not true.

The Prime Minister says that is not true. Has he then not changed his policy about immigration?

I explained that before.

The Prime Minister can explain this point until the end of time without persuading anybody that he has not changed his policy.

You are continually misrepresenting it.

There are so many things, Sir, in respect of which they have changed their policies. And yet they come along and try to accuse us of having changed our policies and telling the public that they should not trust us on that account. But what is the burden of the complaint? It is that the Prime Minister is back where he was during the last session of Parliament trying to describe White leadership with words which I am not prepared to accept as indicating the concept we have in mind. He tried then to suggest it was supremacy, “baasskap” and domination. I explained to him then that White leadership meant White political control. The Prime Minister complains that in the past I have said “White political control for the foreseeable future.” How far can one see into the future? In a debate we had in this House on one occasion hon. members on the other side interpreted the future as being one generation and that after that there will be Black domination. Now, Mr. Speaker, the position is quite simple. As far as I can see into the future, there will be White leadership. Let. hon. members on the other side say it will be five or ten years or for so long as their imagination may prescribe to them, it is the policy of the United Party that for the foreseeable future there will be White leadership. As a matter of fact, I can see no time in the future when White leadership will not be necessary in South Africa. Where then is the change, Mr. Speaker? We are back again at the old question of the meaning of words.

We have it again when we have to deal with this question of economic integration. According to the Prime Minister a Bantu may work for you, he may work in your factory and do semi-skilled or certain categories of skilled work even, he can work on the Railways and be placed in such a position where you cannot run your Railways without him, he can be so vitally important for your economy that you cannot maintain your economy without his labour, but, according to the Prime Minister, he is not integrated with the economy of South Africa. Well, if that is so, all I can say is that that is a concept of economic integration which is accepted by no English scholar anywhere in the world. Economic integration simply means that labour, capital, initiative, skill and things of that kind are integrated together in order to produce the end-product. Here then we have the labour which is economically integrated. The reason, of course, for this interpretation is the wonderful little theory they had in the past that if you have economic integration it would be followed by social and political integration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they have economic integration, but because they want to avoid social and political integration they have to say that economic integration means something entirely different. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such nonsense. They have got economic integration, and if they still believe that it is not going to lead to political and social integration, then I say they are well on their way and it must be obvious to every student of politics that that is the position. What is happening to-day? More and more jobs are being thrown open in the economy to non-Europeans. The hon. Minister of Labour knows it. He knows that he cannot go on without it and that the economy demands it. He knows that we cannot maintain our rate of growth without it happening. Mr. Speaker, are they going to suggest that that is not integrating labour into our economy? Where is the line to be drawn? This is a most ridiculous performance, merely to try and run away from the logic for which they have stood all these years that economic integration is going to lead to a measure of social and political integration. Now, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with what he referred to as the fundamental differences between the Parties. But he is first trying to create the impression that the public cannot trust the United Party because its policies have changed. What has changed, Sir, is the hon. gentleman’s use of words and the meanings he is attaching to them. What is changed is the policies of that side of the House. What has happened all too often is that they have been proved wrong and that they had to retrace their steps. The hon. the Prime Minister proceeded to sum up the essential differences between the United Party and the Nationalist Party. The hon. gentleman, Sir, limits himself to Bantu policy. I should like to use his argument—I do not accept the logic of it—but I want to use the argument that he has advanced here about the Bantu. He has said that where you have the Bantu who accepts one fatherland and one common loyalty to one State and fall under one central Parliament, then the consequences are going to be inevitably that you will have to share your education with them, you will have to accept them in the army, and that you will have to accept them in the civil service. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that I do not accept the logic of the hon. gentleman’s argument. Now let us apply his policy to the Indians and Coloureds. He accepts them as members of one State, with one common fatherland, South Africa, together with the Europeans. He wants them to have common loyalty to South Africa. Must I now understand. Sir, from the hon. gentleman that this means that in due course they are going to share our schools, that in due course they are going to serve in the army with us and that in due course they are going to be accepted in the civil service? You see, Sir, it is no good using this argument only when it applies to Bantu …

No, we are separating them.

… and turning around and saying that it will not apply to the Coloureds and the Indians.

We are not making one nation out of them. We are keeping them separate.

The hon. the Prime Minister is trying to split hairs again. He says he is not going to make one nation out of them. Now. Sir, let us put it this way. Are the Coloureds and the Indians going to be South Africans under his policy? Or are they going to be citizens of separate Industans and Colouredstans? You see, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister’s whole argument in so far as the Bantu is concerned is that they are not South Africans but citizens of sovereign independent Bantu states. If they are not citizens of independent Bantu states, then they are South Africans. They form part of the South African nation. They are citizens of South Africa. It says so in the South African Citizenship Act which was put on the Statute Book by this Government when it first came into power. If you want to apply that argument then I accept that it is the policy of that Party that the Coloureds and Indians are going to form one nation with the Whites here. They will have a common loyalty to one fatherland. South Africa. They will be controlled by one Parliament. Does that then in effect mean that they are going to share our schools, our army and our civil service? [Interjections.]

You see. Sir, the moment you say that they say “of course not”. Now, if it is “of course not” in so far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, why should it not be “of course not” with the Bantu as far as we are concerned? You see the ridiculousness, Mr. Speaker, of trying to apply that sort of argument. The hon. gentleman should know that that need not follow. For 300 years it has not followed. Anybody who says “of course” has to accept that he will have the Indians and the Coloureds in his schools, and he is going to have them in the army and in the civil service. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, we had it from the hon. the Minister of Finance not so long ago. speaking of the Coloureds and the Europeans as five million hearts beating as one for South Africa.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of argument that does not get us any further at all as to what is the policy for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister says that we are not prepared to look at the consequences of our policy. Of course we are. What about the consequences of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy? First of all, Sir, if you apply his own logic, his is going to have a mixed State with one nation and one Fatherland, which the Coloureds and Indians will have to share with the Europeans. And they are going to be in the civil service, the army and things of that kind. And they are going to have four-fifths of their labour consisting of Bantu from sovereign independent black states which may be hostile to South Africa. They are going to have eight Cubas carved out of South Africa. And then they talk about looking at the consequences of our policy. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the consequences of the policy of the hon. gentleman opposite you wonder how anybody who has love for South Africa, who believes that Western standards must be maintained here, who believes that the White race has a future on the southern portion of the African continent, I say you wonder how anybody having those sentiments could vote for policies of that kind. Because on their own argument they are going to destroy everything. You see, Sir, when you ask me what the difference is, I would say that the first difference between us that is fundamental is that we stand for White leadership over an undivided South Africa, and that we are going to stop the dangerous policy of dividing South Africa up into sovereign independent Bantu states. We are not going to tolerate the establishment of independent black states on our borders. We want to keep South Africa as one country. It is one country to-day and we mean to keep it so.

One black-white nation.

Mr. Speaker I then throw back at the hon. the Prime Minister his policy, which means a brown-white nation.

[Inaudible.]

It will be one brown-white nation undermined by a labour force consisting of foreigners so organized that you have eight Cubas within your boundaries and no hope whatsoever of defending yourself.

They said that in Kenya and the Federation.

The hon. the Minister of Information should study the facts before he starts talking. In Kenya there are 97 blacks to 1 White.

Yes, they were in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, the childishness of this sort of thing amazes me. I am sorry it was 124 Blacks to one White in Kenya: 97 to one in the Congo and over 400 to one in Tanganyika. And the hon. gentleman tries to compare those countries with South Africa. Here, Sir. we have the maximum of four to one and if this hon. the Prime Minister had the statemanship to keep the Coloureds on his side it would be two and a half to one and he would then have a civilized people maintaining civilized standards here in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, we have had this argument so often that I do not think it is necessary to take it any further.

But I believe that the second fundamental difference between us Sir, is that we in the United Party stand for the maintenance of South Africa’s traditional way of life. We stand for the traditional social and residential separation justly maintained.

Since when?

My friend asks since when. When did we ever depart from it? The United Party always stood for social and residential separation. The foundation of residential separation that exists in South Africa to-day is due to what the United Party did and not this Government. We stand, Sir, for the maintenance of influx control but to be applied in a more reasonable and in a more humane manner. But we want no part in the petty restrictions which cause unhappiness and friction between the races and which has come to be understood as an essential part of the policy of the Government. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference is I think too that our policy is the traditional policy of South Africa. The policy on that side of the House is a new-fangled policy they thought out in the last few years and which they are changing every three years to suit themselves and to try and mislead the electorate. But they ignore fundamental differences as well. We are prepared to see the urban Bantu in their own native urban townships become a settled part of the community who will be on our side for the maintenance of law and order and act as a bulwark against communism. They are keeping them as a ruthless proletariat with their interests in foreign states across the boundaries of South Africa. There is, Sir, another difference that arises from this as well. We want to see the Bantu reserves develop to the maximum and we are prepared to see White skill and White initiative employed with this object in view. They talk about developing reserves, but they are not prepared to use the one means which will get these reserves developed at speed, namely the use of private White capital.

Some more “one country, one fatherland”.

The hon. the Prime Minister could go on saying “one country, one Parliament”. He is going to have “one country, one Parliament” for the Coloureds and the Indians. And he is going to have a permanent urban Bantu population here, whether he likes it or not. He can call them foreigners but he cannot do without them. And they are going to out-number us in every single city in the Republic of any size.

Mr. Speaker, there is a third fundamental aspect of the United Party policy, and that is that we will brook no interference in our internal affairs here in South Africa.

That is new.

And that is also the policy of the Government. Sir, here is the hon. the Minister of Information interjecting again. Where was he when we protected the Government in protesting at the resolutions taken at the United Nations Organization because they were interfering in South Africa? The political memory of some people are very short.

Yes, yours is.

We on this side of the House have said time and time again that we want to tell the outside world that we are the biggest Western group on the continent of Africa, the biggest European group. We are not settlers. We have as much right to South Africa, our fatherland, as any other nation in the world has to its own fatherland. We want to go further Sir. We are the most highly industrialized country in Africa. We have every right to be here and we mean to stay here. We have a higher standard of living and we are not impressed by the sort of developments we have seen as a result of pressure from metropolitan powers in certain of the other emergent African states. We cannot help noticing that even the International Society of Jurists indicated that democracy in the Westminster sense had virtually disappeared from the continent of Africa. We say, Sir, we have our own peculiar problems and we are going to solve them in our own way without interference from outside. Even when it comes to getting rid of that Government and that Prime Minister we are going to do it on our own without any interference from outside.

That is your talk before any election.

The Prime Minister says that is election talk. Perhaps he read my address at “Geloftedag” a few years ago. I take it that was also election talk.

Before every election you talk that way.

Perhaps the hon. gentleman read my address on “Geloftedag”. You know. Mr. Speaker, this sort of cheap mud slinging does not help anybody.

You are a mud slinger par excellence. [Interjections.]

I enjoy this, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Prime Minister that I am sure he will take up my challenge. I am sure we are both going to approach Radio South Africa so that the public can judge who is slinging mud. Let them judge for themselves. Let them judge who is putting across constructive policies for South Africa. I am prepared to meet the hon. gentleman at any time, Sir, either separately, or in debate. Let us then put our policies before the public. I am sure the public will listen. [Interjections.] I was reading only yesterday reports of what had happened in the United States of America. On the great national occasion something like 83 per cent of the television sets in the State of New York were tuned in to what was being broadcast. If we could have that sort of discussion of the political problems here in South Africa, I believe the interest would be there. I feel sure, Sir, that the Prime Minister would support me in making these representations. I have indicated certain fundamentals and I wish to indicate a fourth fundamental where I think we differ from this Government, and that is we want to see a fair deal for the agricultural community in South Africa. They have been neglected for 18 years by this Government. Their numbers are sadly depleting. Now, speakers on the other side of the House have been using the drought as an excuse to explain the difficulty in which they have landed. Long before there was a drought they were leaving the land in alarming proportions but we have indicated very clearly that we felt that it was vital to have both a long-term and short-term policy to deal with these problems. I cannot tell you, Sir, how happy I was to find, not only the Minister of Agriculture, but also the Minister of Defence a convert to my point of view. In a speech he made earlier in this debate he indicated how sad he was about the position of agriculture in South Africa. He intimated how necessary it was to have a short-term policy to deal with immediate problems and a long-term policy for the rehabilitation of the soil and conservation of water in the future. Mr. Speaker, I have outlined that policy very often in this House. I have outlined the vital necessity of having a planned system of rehabilitation for suffering farmers during droughts. I have asked that it be done on a scale in which the problem was tackled of resettling ex-servicemen on the land after the last war. I pointed out, Sir, that there should be a new agency created, a new agency that would have vast powers to consolidate farmers debts, to arrange for suspension of interest for State loans, and to arrange that those loans could be cancelled in certain cases. This body would have power to arrange for credit to give farmers a start. And I pointed out the vital importance of rehabilitation of soil and the creation of a position where conservation farming was possible for the future. What do we have? I have been taking in this way for a year or two now, Mr. Speaker, but we could not get the Government thoroughly interested.

But let us go on. I think there are other differences between us. There is the difference that the United Party would like to see a stop put to the crippling of family finances by illness which happen so often in South Africa at the present time. We would like to see a State medical aid scheme with a right to call in your own doctor. Mr. Speaker, how often have we not pleaded for that and how often have we been told that it was not feasible or possible? And what has happened?

I think there is a further difference between us. It is a difference that has come out during the course of this debate very fully again. And that is that we believe that the Government has been unfair to its own employees in its failure to meet the demands made upon them by rising cost of living and its failure to adjust their salaries timeously to deal with those rising costs of living. We cannot forget. Sir, how we pleaded for rises from time to time. We cannot forget how often we have indicated that the old United Party scheme of cost-of-living allowances adjusted periodically to meet rising living costs was a much fairer basis than that which is being adopted at the present moment. Mr. Speaker, there has been no imagination. There has been economic mismanagement, but there has been no imagination when it came to dealing with matters of this kind.

Then, Sir I think there is a seventh matter on which we differ with the hon. the Prime Minister. We want to see old-age pensions for the people of South Africa without the means test. And that is why we propose a national contributory pension scheme. Year after year we have been told by this Minister of Finance with his large surpluses that he cannot afford a national contributory pension scheme. Mr. Speaker, these are matters that must now come before the public of South Africa. They must decide what it is what they want in this field.

Then, Sir, we spoke about television. Time and again we have pleaded with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to take steps with the view to the introduction of television in South Africa, even if it was close circuit television for use in the schools and in universities for educational purposes as a first step. Sir, why should we be the one civilized Western nation of the world denied television. This is a matter that has been discussed on many occasions. May I say that the United Party will take steps to see that television is made available to the public in the shortest possible time. I believe, Sir, that when that Minister is in his old age he will thank the United Party for the consolation he will get from watching the events of the world on his television set.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter on which we differ, and that is the question of a lottery, be it State-administered or State-controlled or an examination of the question of premium bonds. That side of the House, Sir, is not prepared to consider it. We on this side of the House has said it is a matter we are prepared to leave to the conscience of members and if the public wants it then it is up to them to see to it that they elect members who are prepared to vote for it in this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked what the essential differences were between the two Parties. I think I have outlined eight main differences this afternoon and one on which there is common ground, that is that we will not brook interference in the internal affairs of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I think the essential difference is that we on this side of the House look to the welfare of South Africa first and to party political interests second. If anything was revealed by this debate it is that members on the other side of the House are looking to party political advantage first and the interests of South Africa second. And I believe, Sir, that if the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to dispel that impression that he will support me in an appeal to Radio South Africa. Let us go on the air and let us put to the public directly, with no intermediary, what our policies are. Let us not leave it. Sir, to be interpreted by reporters in newspapers or by reporters over Radio South Africa. Let us go ourselves to the microphone in the headquarters of Radio South Africa and put before the public of South Africa what the policies of the two different Parties entail. I am satisfied, Sir, that if those policies are put and understood that the hon. the Prime Minister will get a very big surprise as to the attitude of the public of South Africa.

It is typical of the United Party and particularly of the Leader of the United Party, that he should testify here with mock piety that his Party puts South Africa first and party political interests second. And that, Mr. Speaker, came just after he had made a speech which teemed with inaccuracies from beginning to end, and which completely repudiated the views he held in the past. In explicitly repudiating on the eve of an election the views he held in the past, he dares to take those words into his mouth and to say that they are putting the interests of South Africa first and not party political interests. His entire view is one of party political interests, party political interests first, adapted to those things which will be best for him for the moment. In the course of my speech I want to point out a few of them. I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the quotation he made from Bantu in which he said that the United Party’s view in regard to what the Prime Minister was alleged to have said in connection with additions of land to the High Commission Territories, was based on what appeared in Bantu and that in this publication no reference was made to the 1936 legislation. I also obtained a copy of Bantu, the same one he had quoted from. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted the following from page 628—

And on this he based his entire view as if it meant that the Prime Minister was prepared to add to the High Commission Territories, beyond the provisions of the 1936 legislation, territories at present occupied by White people. But, Mr. Speaker, in the same edition of Bantu and in the same article, only two pages back, where the matter is dealt with in greater detail, these words appear on page 626—

Explicitly referring to the High Commission Territories, the Prime Minister explained here in greater detail that it falls within the restrictions of the 1936 Act. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition either did not read all of the article from which he quoted, or else he deliberately tried to mislead the House. Mr. Speaker, I think that such a great deal of wilfulness and dishonourableness on the part of the Leader of the Opposition as regard his conduct towards the hon. the Prime Minister deserves nothing but the contempt of the House and of all of South Africa.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister allowed to make allegations such as these? It was rather shocking.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the hon. member’s attitude, the United Party’s attitude with which they now want to go to the country, namely that they stand for White domination over the whole of South Africa for all time. The Leader of the Opposition tried here to show that his Party’s attitude was “White leadership,” which at a certain stage he explained to mean “White political control for the foreseeable future”. Then he started explaining what “foreseeable future” actually meant, but all the time he created the impression and made it clear that in as far as he could see the representatives of the Bantu in Parliament, as he would grant it to them, would be Whites. As he sees it, the White man will have to be in control of the whole of South Africa for all time. But, Mr. Speaker, what was his own point of view?

Quote the words I used.

As regards the public, the hon. member creates the impression of White control over the whole of South Africa for all time.

So far as he can see.

The hon. member explicitly said that he could not see that it could ever be different. Let us now look at the hon. member’s own point of view in the past. I want to quote a few examples. I want to quote what he said in this House in 1964, only two years ago. I want to add that he bases his point of view on the fact that it is now the irrevocable point of view of the United Party that the representatives of the Bantu in this House will be Whites. He has apparently been persuaded to that point of view by the hon. member for South Coast. However, what did he say in 1964? In 1964, according to Col. 317/8 he said—

He was brave at that stage—

At that stage, however, the election was still far off. In 1963, according to Hansard, Col. 277, he said—

Now read the guarantees.

Why do you stop there?

In other words, they anticipate that it will happen.

Why do you not quote further?

That is the principle idea. He added all sorts of things later, but they anticipate that it can indeed happen.

However, let us continue. I have referred to this in the past, but for the sake of convenience the hon. member has always ignored it up to now, but to-day I want to refer very explicitly to an article he wrote in the American publication Foreign Affairs, when he wrote about “Thoughts on an Alternative Race Policy.” In that publication he wrote the following in regard to the Bantu; this is the policy advocated by the United Party—

The following is the important part—

What about it?

Here we have the United Party’s point of view, in the words of its Leader, that they will cause political institutions in the Bantu areas to develop with powers of local self-government and that those bodies, which will consist of Bantu, will have to be granted representation in this Parliament.

What is the colour of the Coloured Representatives in this House? Are they Coloureds?

I shall deal specifically with that point at a later stage. [Interjections.] If the hon. member would only allow me to proceed, I shall give him an opportunity of putting a question to me in a moment. The important point here is that the United Party is prepared to allow political institutions amongst the Bantu in their areas to develop in a part of South Africa. But that is not all. Then they want to grant them representations here. If one has such political institutions here, if one takes into consideration the trend of their development, then such bodies of local self-government can be nothing but Bantu bodies.

Nonsense. What about the Coloured Council?

I am now talking about the institutions in Bantu areas. The hon. member does not have enough brains to understand that.

[Inaudible].

Order! The hon. member knows how to put a question. He cannot shout it across the floor of the House.

He says that that was the first step, that they will have their own political institutions there, but also representation here. It has been their point of view throughout that their policy was founded on a form of consultation, and in addition to that we should remember that the Bantu will, of course, have and express their desires and needs in this regard. Does he think that it will ever be possible to create a Bantu society to which one grants, in various Bantu territories, powers of self-government by means of bodies to which they elect their own people, and then to expect that they will be satisfied with White representation in this House? But the hon. member realizes that himself.

He calls it race federation.

He calls it race federation, but he goes further. In regard to this picture I have now painted, namely the development of their own political institutions in those areas, he says—

In other words, he opens the door instantly. Only in the initial stages will it be Whites. In other words, he gives the non-Whites the undertaking that their representatives can eventually be non-Whites.

Mention the guarantees, too.

In this passage there is no mention of guarantees at all. However, let us look at the hon. member’s policy in regard to the Coloureds, to whom he also refers in this passage. I find it interesting that at its Congress in Bloemfontein last year, the United Party adopted an altogether new attitude, on the very eve of the election, an attitude which it did not uphold previously, namely that Coloureds, whom they want to re-instate on the common voters’ roll, will be re-instated on the roll in the case of those people whose names appeared on the roll before 1951, but as regards all Coloureds whose names did not appear on the list before 1951, higher educational and economic qualifications will be required.

Where will the borders of the Bantustans be?

However, they do not tell us what those higher qualifications will be. That is a promise which is being held up to the Whites on the eve of the election, namely a measure of protection for the Whites that too many Coloureds will not be placed on the roll, but then they continue to say—

Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition picture to himself that he has any hope of obtaining the co-operation of the Coloured leaders to lay down higher qualifications? Surely this is merely an attempt at misleading both the Coloureds and the Whites in this country.

Legalized politics.

That is the sort of legalized politics of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) spoke. They will, of course, ask for lower qualifications, not for higher qualifications, and then he thinks that he will be able to lay down higher qualifications in consultation with them. On the eve of the election he wants to lay down higher qualifications for the Coloureds, but what was his point of view when he wrote this article in that American publication? In this regard I want to quote in reasonably great detail—

Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker, that he tells the world that he regards the Coloureds as part of the Western society in South Africa, and that he will grant them all the rights to which that status entitles them. How does he dare to say that and afterwards he comes along saying that Whites above the age of 18 years will have universal suffrage, but as regards the Coloureds, whom, as he maintains form part of the same society, whom he wants to recognize as an integral part of the Western society, he intends laying down higher franchise qualifications. Then he is dishonest, surely.

Why do you not quote the qualifications?

No matter what the qualifications may be, it says here—

How can the hon. member tell the world that that is his policy and then not lay down any qualifications for the Whites, but indeed for the Coloureds? He says further—

No mention is made here of any qualifications. But then he continues—

In other words, here he tells the world that economic measures for the protection of the higher standard of the Whites should not be applied to the Coloureds; they should be placed on the common voters’ roll; they should be able to send their own people to Parliament; they should be part of the Western society. That is what he tells the world when an election is not near, but when the election is at hand he says that he intends consulting with the Coloured leaders, and after he has consulted with them he is going to lay down higher qualifications for them.

But you do not say what the qualifications are.

No, the hon. member has not yet told us what those qualifications are. He explicitly said that for the time being his congress had agreed on certain possible qualifications, but they are still subject to consultation with the Coloureds.

What are the qualifications recommended by the congress?

The Leader of the United Party is the last person who can accuse the National Party of changing its policy. He wants to suggest that the National Party has not always supported the principle that the Bantu Territories should be able to develop to ultimate independence under the policy of the systematic granting of self-government. That has always been our policy. That is the policy we have stated consistently. As far back as 1949 when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in the Other Place, he stated our policy in this direction, but as far back as 1925, General Hertzog stated this policy as follows (Translation)—

No other restriction than those which are necessary within every well-regulated national unit ought to be applied to the Bantu in the Bantu Territory—

Here the policy is stated in clear language, a policy which is still exactly the same as the policy we pursue to-day. But now the hon. member comes along and he maintains that the fact that the Bantu Territories within the borders of the present Republic of South Africa will be able to obtain independence at some stage or other in the future, means that this Government is creating Cubas within our territorial boundaries. Now, I can deal with that provided there is time to do so, but I should just like to point out that the hon. member’s policy contemplates the Bantu having to be represented in this Parliament, even if it is only by Whites. Le us assume, for the purposes of this argument, that they will be White representatives. But if the Bantu in South Africa will develop in the direction of communism, they would much rather develop in that direction under that hon. member’s policy which does not offer them the opportunities of living out their lives to the full, which places constant restrictions on them in every sphere, particularly in the political sphere, and then they will therefore tend to become communistic. Therefore, if their inclination lies in the communistic direction, they will not move away from communism, but closer to it under the hon. member’s policy, and the hon. member’s policy grants them representatives in this Parliament, and who will those representatives be? They will be those persons who stand closest to their communistic tendencies. In other words if it were the case, as the hon. member says, namely that the Bantu in South Africa are inclined to communism, which I do not accept, and that we are allegedly founding Cubas in the Republic, then I tell him that through his policy he is bringing communists into this House, and in saying that I am not guessing; I am speaking about something I know. There was a time when we had Native representation in this House and surely we know what kind of representatives they elected then, because that was the policy of the United Party at that time. It was under their policy that representation in this Parliament was granted to the Bantu, a policy which is similar to the one they now want to pursue, and then they brought communists to this House. When we introduced legislation and measures to rid this House of communists, hon members on that side still pleaded that Mr. Sam Kahn should retain his seat here after he had admitted that he was a Communist. I repeat: the United Party’s policy creates the opportunity for communists to sit in the Parliament of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, it is true then that the National Party’s policy holds that danger? It may possibly develop in that direction, but if it develops in that direction communism would at least not be in our midst; we would not have that danger in our ranks; it would then be on our borders and then one can deal with it as one deals with an enemy, but I do not think that it will be the case.

Where are the borders?

That hon. member’s ignorance is so infinite that one cannot speak to him about borders. I do not think that the possibility that the Bantu can at some stage or other be granted independence in his own territory in South Africa, need exactly imply the danger of communism. In actual fact I think that it is a possible method of keeping the Bantu of South Africa away from communism, because it affords him the opportunity of realizing his own national self-consciousness; because it affords him the opportunity of realizing his national ideals.

Black nationalism.

Yes, it may be Black nationalism. Hon. members on the opposite side use the other countries of Africa as examples to corroborate their argument that independent Black states would supposedly become communistic, but hon. members must remember that in those other territories peoples have not been liberated as we intend doing here in South Africa. Over there territories were liberated and in them various population groups were thrown together, and as a result of the conflict which developed amongst them, as a result of the fact that there was no feeling of national bonds in those territories, unrest and difficulties resulted; for that reason chaos resulted on which communism has grown. Another important difference is this: in the other territories in Africa the cosmopolitan countries destroyed the natural authority of the chief and the headman, who used to be the traditional ruler of the Bantu community, before they liberated those territories. In other words, they destroyed the natural anchors which the community had against communism and disloyalty, before they granted them self-government. Then they granted them a form of government which did not develop out of their ranks and which was not adapted to their circumstances. We act differently. The self-government we grant the Bantu in his territory is based on the traditional characteristics of Bantu tribal customs and the peculiarities of their own population groups, and they are adapted to modern requirements and from that basis they are developed. In other words, the circumstances which prevail here are totally different from the circumstances which prevail there.

Allow me to mention another reason for not believing that these territories run that risk, and that is the important consideration of the close economic ties of those territories with the Republic of South Africa. In other countries of Africa, in their process of being liberated, there was no such close economic ties with their parent country, the country under the supervision of which they had developed. Indeed there were, as a result of historic considerations, economic ties, but they were purely for historic considerations; they were not for considerations of contiguity and necessity: Let me take an example, namely Nigeria. What does it matter to Nigeria whether it has economic alliances with Britain or with Russia or with China? They are all equally distant from her; all of them can grant Nigeria economic aid which she may possibly need. Therefore there were no economically essential ties between Nigeria and Britain. It is a totally different matter with the Bantu territories on our borders in Southern Africa. For various reasons they are economically so intertwined with us and so closely connected with us that they will have to seek economic friendship with the Republic, and for that reason it will be in their interests to keep communism away from them. It is for that reason that I am not afraid that strong communistic development will easily take place in the High Commission Territories. Common sense will triumph amongst the Bantu there.

But the Government has already admitted that there are strong communistic movements.

Yes, but they will not gain the upper hand. Even among the Whites of South Africa there are people who have strong communistic inclinations. Therefore one cannot stop communism, but in general I believe that common sense amongst the majority of the Bantu will triumph in those territories. For that reason I maintain that the policy of the National Party is really a guarantee against the growth of communism in those territories; it is a guarantee for the continued existence and the safety of the White man in South Africa.

I am really astonished that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, following upon what several members on that side and also the hon. the Prime Minister have said, still wants to make the assertion that it is this side of the House which has changed its policy and that the Nationalist Party, the governing Party, has not changed its policy since it came into office. He said that since 1949 the present Prime Minister had begun to intimate in the debates that what they intended was total independence and self-government for the Bantu areas. I also want to quote a few passages from Hansard. Furthermore, I want to read a few quotations to the hon. the Minister—

It deals with the Bantustans—

That was in 1951. I can proceed and read the same thing from Hansard. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said on 11 April 1961, according to col. 4306—

But let me quote further from the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party. This leading article goes on to say—

But this mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party goes further and it defends the Nationalist Party’s change of policy—

What newspaper is that?

The Burger. This is what is said by the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party, or is the Burger no longer the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party? This was said on 3 June 1964, not so long ago. Then the Burger goes on to say—

This is what the Burger says in defence of the Nationalist Party’s change in policy over the past ten years or more, and what do hon. members on that side do? In this connection I want particularly to mention the hon. member for Edenvale who last night made an extremely vicious attack on this side of the House because this side of the House supposedly wants to give itself out as the patron of the Whites in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister continued from that point, and even the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and of Indian Affairs spoke in the same strain. Mr. Speaker, in 1959 the Nationalist Party said that these Bantu areas would never become independent areas …

Where did we say that?

… and now they are prepared to cut the heartlands (the hon. the Prime Minister’s favourite word) out of the Republic of South Africa and turn them into separate, independent areas, and whereas it is the Nationalist Party who have changed their platform, they nevertheless want to blame us and accuse us of changing our policy when we act as the patron of the Whites, since the Whites have no other patron. Now we are being blamed for trying to reveal ourselves as the patron of the Whites when we say we want to retain this Republic as a unit, with one fatherland in which the multifarious races must dwell together with their own governments in their own areas. The Minister spoke about these Reserves which must have their own councils, and then he said “… and with their own representatives …” (and he insinuated that they would be Bantu) in this House. Let me tell the Minister that if this Party comes into office— and it will not be long before that happens— the Transkei will not develop any further along the road to self-government as it is doing at the moment. And that is the policy of the United Party, that such a reserve will develop to a certain extent only, but that as far as its defence, its finance, its transport and its national services are concerned, it will not obtain independence. When it has developed as far as the Transkei has now developed, it will obtain representation in this House and we have said what kind of representation that will be. We have said it will be White representation. [Interjection.] We have said White representation in this House, and I can imagine, if that is the position under which the Transkei must be governed to-day, whom they would have sent to this House. [Interjections.] The Minister of Bantu Education went further. He spoke about these areas which have to be created and which have to obtain as much self-government as possible, and which must be represented in this House, and he insinuated that it would be Black representation, and then he asked further for how long there would be White representatives? Who can predict what will happen a hundred years from now? Is there anyone in this House who is so foolish as to predict what will happen in a hundred years’ time. There is not one such person. Is there someone who can predict what will happen fifty years from now? If we look back over our shoulders to a period fifty years ago, we would never have thought that we could have come as far as we have to-day. that there would be a government of farmers pleading for the establishment of independent black states. Could anyone have thought this twenty years ago? But here we have the protagonists of the Black man to-day, the most liberalist Government in the whole wide world, and they are talking about nations here in the Republic. The hon. the Prime Minister calls them nations, but they are not really nations as such. These territories of our country are not being given to nations. He calls them Bantustans; they are not nations, they are not even being given to races, but to national groups. [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Sir. And then the Minister goes on and talks about the qualifications of Coloureds. He was dealing with a Coloured policy and the Coloureds who have to be replaced on the Common Voters’ Roll and the qualifications of the other Coloureds, and he says we are too afraid to mention what those qualifications would be. I am astonished, Sir. The Minister knows that we have been saying what the qualifications would be for a long time now. We said the qualifications is an income of R80 a month or Standard VII.

Where did you say that?

We said it repeatedly. The fact remains that it is not a question of the United Party suddenly revealing itself as the protector of the Whites in South Africa. It is the course the Nationalist Party has taken which has established the objective which we shall have to maintain, and if the Whites in South Africa are to be preserved as one unit then it is the United Party who will have to do so, because those people have neglected their duties to the Whites.

I had hoped I would find time to discuss agricultural matters, but my time is running out. In the time remaining to me I want to confine myself to agriculture, because I have not yet had an opportunity of talking about that subject in this debate. I cannot deal with all the aspects of our agriculture, but I want to limit myself more specifically to animal husbandry. Before coming to that, however, I just want to point out that the import figures for agriculural products over the past six months, as recently furnished to me by the Minister, are almost 15,000,000 pounds of butter and 3,350,000 pounds of cheese. In addition to that we are importing 1,750,000 bags of mealies, and although the Minister said that it is not expected that it will be necessary to import any more mealies, it was nevertheless stated by responsible bodies that it might be necessary to import 10,000,000 bags of mealies.

Yes, if it has not rained.

We hope it will not be necessary to import again. I have already mentioned dairy products, and now I want to deal with meat, and want to mention the following figures. In 1964, during the last six months, from July to December, 452,000 cattle were slaughtered in this country in the controlled areas, and in the six months of 1965 570,000 cattle were slaughtered. In other words, the number of cattle additional to the number slaughtered during the previous period of six months was 120,000. As far as sheep are concerned the position is almost worse, because in 1964 it was 1,790,000 and in 1965 it was 2,105,000. That is over 300,000 additional sheep. As far as pigs were concerned the position was almost the same. There is no Minister of Agriculture present at the moment. I want to put a question to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, he who has said repeatedly that things are going very well with the farmers. He read out so many statistics to-day in order to show how well things were going with the farmers that it sounded almost like a machine gun. They are no longer borrowing money from the Land Bank, they are no longer going bankrupt and they are just as rich as they have always been. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I did not want to appeal to you, but I cannot hear myself speaking. I am asking the Deputy Minister whether he is convinced that the country has so many extra cattle that we could afford to slaughter 120,000 additional cattle, and more than 300,000 additional sheep? No, he will not say, because he is just as convinced as I am that the people were slaughtering up their cattle because the drought was ruining them and they were being forced to send the cattle to the controlled markets. I want to lay this accusation squarely at the door of the only Minister of Agriculture present here to-day, that the Government’s treatment of the farmers during the drought was one of the most disgraceful things this country has ever experienced and I want to support that accusation.

Fodder subsidies, etc., are all very well, but where is the master plan to protect livestock against a drought which we have been struggling for three to five years now to get the Minister to accept? I myself have been pleading here since 1961 for the establishment of a fodder bank. What happened? In 1965 the Transvaal Agricultural Union asked for people from the army to cut grass along the national roads and the railways. In 1964 I raised a plea and said that this country has great reserves of roughage and I even mentioned the chaff which was lying rotting on the land in the winter rainfall areas, whereupon many members on the opposite side said I was talking rubbish (kaf). Subsequently that chaff became so valuable that people were ordering it from far and wide at 30c a bale and adding molasses to it in order to keep the animals alive. But what did the Government do? Let me mention an example. I want to talk about what a neighbouring state did during the terrible drought which affected them too, and when I am talking about a neighbouring state I am talking about a neighbouring state the Government of which we do not want to recognize because we are too afraid to do so. But what did this neighbouring state do? I want to mention this to show what is meant by planning in times of drought. They announced more than two months ago that in large areas which they regarded as being drought-stricken areas they would buy up the cattle at fixed prices; and what were those prices? They announced these prices beforehand. They said they would pay 72s. 6d. per hundred lbs. live weight for year-old calves. The Government would buy up the cattle. For two year old cattle the price was 67s. 6d., and for three year old cattle they would pay 62s. 6d. They would remove all the animals themselves. They advised the farmers to sell the cattle in order to rehabilitate the veld. They sent a representative from the cold-storage plant, one representative from the Government and one from the farmers, who placed the cattle on the scales on the farmer’s farm. They encouraged the farmers to send the cattle to areas where there was sufficient grass so that the animals could stay alive and so that the farmer could rehabilitate his veld. At the moment they are moving 200,000 cattle across the Limpopo River, and they are moving 1,000 cattle per day in trucks and a 1,000 on the hoof. This is how they have planned. Not content with going so far, they went even further. They said to the farmer whose cattle they were buying up: When you restock your farm with cattle we will subsidize you to the extent of between £5. 10s. to £3. 10s. an animal, depending upon the age. They are selling the purchased animals to those people who can take them at the purchase price plus 17s. a head for administration, and when these cattle are sold again the farmer pays the capital plus 4 per cent interest. That is planning. I was there 14 days ago and I sold half of my cattle to the Government under that scheme because it is a safe one. Not only do I get my money from the Government and not only are the animals safely off the farm, but when I buy them back one day I am subsidized. We are always being asked where the United Party’s policy is. Whenever we pleaded for fodder banks and for the preservation of our breeding stock, our requests are never complied with. What is it the hon. the Minister of Agriculture told me last year when I reminded him of the scheme I had recommended in 1964? We had warned that there should be planning as the drought was becoming heavier and heavier. The Minister said: Suppose for a moment the hon. member was a sheep farmer. This was after I had told him about that scheme under which the stock are taken away to areas where grass is available, the man is financed there so that he can buy the sheep and it is made possible for him to do so by charging a low rate of interest, thus preventing the people from slaughtering their breeding stock. He then said: Suppose for a moment the hon. member was a sheep farmer in the Karroo, it was dry on his farm and his animals were dying from the drought; what would he do? He said that the Government would then be lending money to other people to buy up the sheep so that there would not be too many sheep on the farm. He said it would be a short-sighted policy: But how else must the animals in the drought areas be saved? What did the Minister do? He spoke about fodder subsidies and railway subsidies. The Agricultural Unions and Vleissentraal had to place hundreds of officials at the disposal of the farmers to go round frantically loking for veld and finding out where the livestock could be moved to. Municipalities even offered grazing in heartwater areas where one did not dare send cattle and in their ignorance the people sent the cattle there because they were at their wit’s end under this Government in the drought. I am not taking advantage of the situation. These are not election speeches. We have been experiencing these drought conditions for three years now, but the hon. the Minister does not want to respond to any suggested method of taking preventive action against the drought. But now, at this late stage, at the end of this short session, an agricultural finance bill is being brought forward which will not even be passed in time. I ask you, Sir, whether this is the way in which to take care of and rehabilitate the farmer? And then the hon. the Prime Minister talks about the farmers in that emotional tone of voice which he used the other day, and the Minister of Defence reveals himself as the patron of agriculture. Those were all election speeches. This is their policy to save agriculture

I have very little time left, but I want to deal with one other aspect. I want to proceed to a point which I made last year and the year before, and that is in connection with the areas of the Ciskei and the Transkei, and the lack of clarity on the part of this Government in regard to this matter. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

I am talking about the lack of demarcation lines between those two areas which are growing nearer and nearer to one another. We do not know whether the two lines of demarcation of the Corridor will not eventually merge. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Somerset-East said last year that 72,000 morgen of land still remained to be disposed of, but it is compensatory land and will be done on an exchange basis. But in some places the Corridor is already eight miles wide. Sir, the voters of East London have a major suspicion that they will later have to become the White island in a Black sea. The voters of East London and King William’s Town and of those areas which are being pinched together between the pressure of a Ciskei which still has to be declared and a Transkei which has already been declared—not one of which have a boundary—are beginning to regard the behaviour of the Government very sceptically. In reply to two questions of mine last year it was said that the Government hopes to maintain the Corridor there. Is it the Government’s intention to do so? If it is the Government’s intention to maintain the Corridor, it is high time the Government tells us where the boundaries of the Corridor are. Then we will know whether it is being maintained or not. [Interjection.] I know very well what is going on there. The Minister knows that I have already come to see him in his office about that matter. But I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if this Government does not want to give clarity in regard to this matter of where the boundary lines between the existing Bantustans, of the Transkei and the Ciskei, are—and land still remains to be purchased, and this must happen in the natural way, so that they do not grow away from one another … [Interjection.] But the Minister will not reply. I repeat that as long as this Government tries to throw dust in the eyes of the voters of the country, (a) in regard to the establishment of the Bantustans and their independence, and (b) in regard to where their boundaries are, the voters will not follow blindly after the Government. I predict the time; I see it coming. There is only dissatisfaction in the country districts in regard to the agricultural policy, because the Government has no agricultural policy and that is why agriculture is in such a sorry state. This is something which developed slowly over a long period of time. Just as the farmers are not as solidly behind the Government as they were a few years ago, so too the people are not solidly behind this Government in regard to this Bantustan policy. They do not believe that story anymore.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 (a).

Mr. Speaker, one is sorely tempted to take part in the general debate, particularly after the interesting and very illuminating speech by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. However, I have a duty to perform and before I can indulge myself I shall have to dispose of the financial case that has been put up in this debate, because after all, this is supposed to be chiefly a financial debate. But I am afraid that the financial debate from the Opposition side has been particularly thin, more so even than in the past. There were a few questions put to me to which I shall reply in due course. There were a few rather infantile calculations made about the state of the Fiscus in the course of the next year, and then we had a very spirited attack, a spirited attempt to denigrate the economy of South Africa. Those are really the three main ingredients I have to deal with. Now, I must confess that I really expected something much more impressive, both as regards criticism and as regards constructive financial thinking from the Opposition on the eve of an election. I say this particularly because they have been very vocal in their criticisms outside this House. There were quite a number of criticisms which were levelled at the policies we have followed in the past 12 months, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition showed himself as one of the financial experts on the opposite side of the House. Perhaps I shall have time to explain the rudiments of public finance to him.

I now come, in the first place, to the calculations of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who, I think, was joined by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin). They calculated that in the course of the next financial year I would have to tax the country to the extent of R220.000.000. Well, that is a very excellent exercise, but it is more designed for the nursery than for the debating Chamber, and I will tell hon. members why I am not prepared to take part in this little exercise. After all, in dealing with matters of this nature there are so many incalculable factors that angels fear to tread on this particular field. Therefore hon. members must pardon me if I do not take part in this exercise of estimating what the degree of taxation or the surplus or the deficit will be in the course of the next year.

There is, however, one point I should like to stress. The hon. member for Constantia based his little exercise on two premises. The one is that because in the Part Appropriation provision was made for seven months of last year plus 5f per cent, he assumed that that meant there was going to be an increase of 5| per cent in expenditure. That is the one premise in which he is wrong. The other premise was that income would remain static in the coming year; there would be no increase in income tax in the next year. Now he says that if the expenditure is up by 5| per cent and the income is the same or perhaps a little down, then there must be a deficit at the end of the year. As far as this premise is concerned, there is one little point that the hon. member for Constantia overlooked, and that is the fact that he has not taken into account the potential productive capacity which has been caused by the large imports of capital goods in the past two years particularly. These imports of capital goods have been one of the reasons for the disequilibrium in our balance of payments on current account, but at the same time they have increased our total productive capacity, because all those capital goods which were imported during the last two years must come into use from now on and in the future. In other words, there is an increase in the productive capacity because there has been this tremendous importation of capital goods in the last two years. That is the point that the hon. member overlooked altogether. Because, if there is increased productive capacity and increased productivity, then incomes and income tax cannot remain stationary, and therefore his premise has no foundation at all. That is all I want to say about this particular point.

Hon. members on that side also asked me why I did not introduce a budget before the election. An hon. member himself gave the reply, because he said I did not dare to do it. I think again that the hon. member is rather in a hurry. Because, Sir, I think it would be very unfair of me if I were to introduce a budget at this stage and thereby bind the hands of the incoming Government. The new Government would be morally bound by my budget, and that is not fair, Mr. Speaker. And unless the Opposition is completely without hope as far as the outcome of the election is concerned, they should be glad that I have not introduced a budget, so that they can have a free hand.

But there is a further reason why I have not introduced a budget. This Parliamentary Session ends in the course of this week. There has not been time for me to have done what has been suggested by hon. members on that side. But even if the Session did not end this week, if there is an election on 30 March it would still have been impossible for me to do it.

I wish to remind hon. members on that side that in 1948 we had an election much later in the year, namely on 26 May, almost two months later than the election this year. The Government of the time did not introduce a budget, and I—in Opposition, of course— queried the Government’s action and asked why they did not at least inform the House what they intended doing in the way of taxation relief or improvement of social services. I wanted to know why the printed estimates of expenditure—at least—were not available. I think my criticism was fair, because the election was only in May of that year. The same criticism cannot be levelled at the Government this year, viz., that we cannot oblige with either of these alternatives mentioned by me at the time. I have, however, announced certain concessions which would normally have been included in the budget. Before Parliament is dissolved the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is going to introduce his Pensions Bill. That Bill provides for relief for pensioners to the extent of R6,158,000.

That is just vote-catching.

The hon. member is the last person in the world to talk about vote-catching. For the last 12 hours I have been listening to the most blatant attempts to catch votes by hon. members on that side, efforts which are rather unsuccessful though. My criticism in 1948 cannot be laid at my door now because I have indicated what relief the Government is prepared to give.

There is another matter which is, strictly speaking, not part of the budget. I refer namely to relief granted to civil servants, a matter to which I shall refer by and by.

Now, Sir, before I deal in more detail with various matters raised by hon. members, I will give replies to various questions put to me. The hon. member asked how much short-term capital has entered the country; under what conditions; and what benefit does the country derive from such capital. The figures at my disposal are, of course, only preliminary figures. Well, plus-minus R100,000,000 in short-term capital entered the country in 1965. The money entered the country under varying conditions. A portion of the money is trade credit. Some short-term capital in practice remains a long time and is of lasting benefit. The balance of the money helps to tide the country over temporary difficulties, as happened in this case.

The second question was whether the control of transfer of dividends by subsidiaries of foreign companies was having the desired effect. Mr. Speaker, the principle is that dividends should be paid from current profits and not out of proceeds of local borrowing—this was always our Exchange Control policy. To finance transfer of dividends subsidiaries may. however, borrow locally up to 25 per cent of effective investment.

The following question was whether the practice of importing capital goods on export credit was growing, and thus relieving the balance of payments. The answer is: Yes, export credits for several million rand have been obtained for capital goods. This does not imply that permits are automatically given when credits are available.

Then I was asked whether capital is entering South Africa for investment in gold mining shares. Mr. Speaker, the answer here is: Yes, but purchase of shares is largely with “blocked rand”, that is, proceeds of investment by another foreigner.

An hon. member wanted to know from me how much our food imports will cost in the coming year. I am afraid I cannot say at this stage. My figures are that we will import about 2,000,000 bags of maize, 50,000 tons of wheat and 3,350 tons of butter. These items have already been ordered, but further imports depend on the weather.

I was also asked how much salary increases would cost the State. The answer is as follows: About R23,000,000 per annum for the Public Service. R35.000,000 for the Railways, R19,000,000 for Provinces and R2,000,000 for the Universities. This makes a total of round about R80,000,000. I think the hon. member for Jeppes was more or less correct.

Another question was how much new money did the Exchequer raise from internal loans in 1965-66. The reply is R15,000,000 nett so far, but the loan of the 15th February is still to come.

An hon. member wanted to know how much was raised through tax-free bonds in 1965-6. The figure is R9,500,000 so far.

The hon. member for Pinetown also had many questions to ask. He asked me, firstly, when will the time be ripe for foreign loans. The answer is it is impossible to say. Factors making conditions difficult I have already described in my opening speech. The type of loan very popular on the European market at the present time is not a Government loan but a corporation loan coupled with conversion rights.

Then the hon. member asked me whether I envisage forced loans from insurance companies. Well, I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. I prefer to retain the present more flexible system and I want to retain it for as long as possible.

The next question put to me by the hon. member was whether I have given an assurance to insurance companies that claims from Rhodesia will be paid without exchange restrictions. The answer is as follows: South African insurance companies operating in Rhodesia will almost certainly maintain assets in Rhodesia sufficient to meet claims. That is either because the law compels them to do so, or because sound insurance practice demands it. In the case of South Africa the law demands it. But if a company in South Africa issues a policy in a foreign currency and premiums are received in that currency, the claim may also be paid in that currency.

The hon. member for Parktown was not behind in asking questions. He asked me, e.g. what will the tendency of foreign reserves be. Well, there are many uncertain factors. I need not dilate on them. There are the effects of the drought, the inflow of capital, and many other factors. We hope to build up our reserves gradually over the year. I think I have dealt with all the questions put to me.

Mr. Speaker, whilst I have just been dealing with questions asked by the hon. member for Parktown, I wish to refer briefly to his suggestion to the effect that all newly married couples should be granted a sort of tax honey moon for the first few years of their married life. That was his one suggestion. The other suggestion was that for the first child born within three years after the marriage a rebate of R240 should be granted. It is not an abatement but a rebate on the actual amount of tax. It is not an abatement on the taxable income. I have had this proposal investigated. Before I deal with the results of the investigation, I shall like to mention that the hon. member is also one of those who remarked upon the tremendous expected shortage of money. Yet now he comes along and wishes to increase the shortage further! Because, Sir, if his suggestion is accepted, it will cost the State a lot of money. Let us take the lowest assumption. Let us deal with a couple enjoying a joint income of say R2,400 per annum. It would cost the Government R5,700,000 in the first year. R11,400,000 in the second year and R17,100,000 in the third year. This would be rather a risky gamble, and in any case it would be quite ineffective as well. The hon. member is very much mistaken if he thinks relief such as he has suggested will be of any worth-while assistance to a couple wishing to buy their own house. Taking the figure I have given as a basis, the most that will be gained by the couple will be about 8 per cent of the purchase price of a house for a couple in this income group. We have done something more realistic. Last year we reduced the transfer duty on property. If the purchase price is less than R5.000 then two-thirds of the duty is rebated and only one-third is payable. If the value of the property is between R5,000 and R10,000, one-half of the duty is rebated. If the purchase price is between R10,000 and R15,000, one-third of the duty is rebated.

Now I come to the second proposal of the hon. member. He suggested a rebate of R240 for the first child. If a couple have children as soon as possible after marriage and after the first few years they cease having any more children. this proposal would have some merit. But we much prefer to see couples having larger families, and therefore a greater rebate is granted for the third and subsequent children. The hon. member prefers to have a high rate or rebate for the first child. Well, let us see what his proposal means. If a rebate of R240 were to be paid for the first child born during the first three years of the marriage, then until the child reaches the age of 18 years the parents would have to earn more than R3.866 per annum before they become liable for any tax. That would be the position if they had only the one child. If a second child were to be bom during the three-year period, the parents would enjoy a tax holiday for 18 years as long as their income does not exceed R5.670 per annum.

Now, both these proposals apply irrespective of whether the couple is rich or poor. The millionaire’s son or daughter will also share in this relief. And, Sir, I hesitate to think what the result will be and how much it will cost the country if couples were to follow the. advice of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The sum involved would be astronomical. The rebates which are granted at the present time encourage larger families because the amount of the rebate for the third and subsequent children is R39 instead of R34.

The hon. member is in favour of earlier but smaller families. Well, I am not in favour of that. Under the circumstances. Sir, I regret we will have to reject his proposals.

I will now deal with the hon. member for Jeppes. I have already remarked upon his spirited attempt to denigrate the economy of South Africa, and it is my experience—and I think that of most hon. members of this House—that the hon. member for Jeppes is never more eloquent than when he is attacking the economy of South Africa! The hon. member took exception because I referred in my introductory speech to the “phenomenal” growth of our economy in the last five years. He said I was wrong in my description. He quoted figures to prove his point. Well, I talked about the gross national product and the growth rate on that. He quoted other figures. But I will make use of his figures too. He made his comparison on the basis of the real income per capita. And, Sir, he selected his years carefully. I shall refer to the years 1960-3. Mr. Speaker, before dealing with these figures I want to refer to something contained in the economic bulletin of the Netherlands Bank of South Africa Limited, of which the hon. member is the chairman. Under the heading of “Main Topics” the following appears—

Mr. A. B. Dickman, Assistant Manager of Union Acceptances, wrote something on this subject in the Bankers’ Journal of August, 1965. He says this—

But the hon. member for Jeppes does not want to face the fact that our economy has been expanding considerably. He cannot get himself to admit that South Africa has been experiencing a phenomenal growth in this respect. Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member suffers from some form of split personality, some kind of dual personality. And at times there must be a tremendous struggle inside him when Frans the economist has to battle with Frans the politician. It really is a pity, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member would make a very sound contribution if he only introduced the economic part of his personality into the debates in this House. From the political point of view, does the hon. member really think that by decrying South Africa and derogating from her economy he will obtain any votes for his party? I think his conduct is economically unsound and politically senseless. And I think Frans the politician should talk to himself and see that this sort of thing does not happen again.

Why don’t you try and deal with those figures? Why don’t you answer his case?

I have already said that the hon. member did not compare like with like. But I will now compare like with like, and I will use his figures as the basis of my comparison. My authority is the United Nations Yearbook of National Accounts and Statistics for 1964. Now, here is the average annual growth per capita from 1960 to 1963 in a number of countries—

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member particularly to the South African and Australian figures. But the hon. member would rather not see these figures. I think it hurts his political soul to have to take notice of anything like this. He would much rather prefer to see figures illustrating South Africa’s decline.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown suggested that in my next Budget I should assume the role of the dancer in the Dance of the Seven Veils. Well, Sir, I really do not fancy myself very much in that role. But the hon. member has given me a very good idea. Because, Sir, I have been thinking of myself as Snow White in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And I have been wondering which dwarf should be portrayed by the hon. member for Pinetown. I considered the various dwarfs. Hon. members will remember Bashful. Well, I thought Bashful would be more appropriately portrayed by the hon. member for Natal South Coast! Why, the hon. member is even blushing from sheer bashfulness! There were other dwarfs. I thought of Happy and Sneezy and Sleepy and Doc. But I think Doc’s role is the prerogative of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Well, I rejected all these names in turn, except for two, namely Dopey and Grumpy. Now I offer the hon. member the choice of either of these roles in my cast for next year!

There has been a lot of criticism of this side of the House, especially outside the House, and more especially on the part of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He complained that increased public expenditure is one of the main causes of our inflationary position. He argued that, on the one hand, we have been organizing a credit squeeze whilst on the other hand the State has been spending hand over fist. 1 will deal with his criticism to a certain extent, because I do not think there is any need for me to go into it very fully. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to hon. members that, when we talk of public spending, public capital expenditure, we are talking not only of State expenditure but also of spending undertaken by public corporations, by the provincial administrations, and by municipalities. They are all included in this term. The money spent by the Central Government is only 43 per cent of total public capital expenditure. For the 12 months which ended in June of last year the gross private fixed investment was R980,000,000. while gross public fixed investment was R520,000,000. Now, the major portion of this 43 per cent is used for building up what we call the infrastructure of our economy. It is expenditure asked for by and in the interest of the private sector. And, Mr. Speaker, if we do not build up this infra-structure, then there can be no growth in our economy. It must be obvious to hon. members that this is one of our prime necessities, and we cannot dream of curtailing or even postponing this expenditure when there is a need for it. Of this public expenditure 70 per cent goes towards improving the infra-structure of our economy. Social services receive 9 per cent. The public corporations, such as Iscor, Sasol and Foskor, receive 13 per cent. Eight per cent is spent on public buildings and other smaller works. Hon. members will see that the expenditure here, although large, is necessary. We cannot stint on that. Housing is one of those things which is part of the infra-structure. We experience a shortage of manpower which we are trying to meet by getting more immigrants into the country. But if you want immigrants, you must have housing for them. I think about R43,000,000 was spent on housing last year. This is now the type of criticism which we get. It is perfectly true that, where the State spends, it is putting that money into the spending stream. That is perfectly true, but what about the private sector? The money put into circulation by this sector was much more than that of the public sector, the one being R980,000,000, the other R520,000,000. When we come to consumption expenditure, we will find that private consumption is more than R5,000,000.000 whilst the current expenditure of the Government and public bodies is R980,000,000. During the period June 1964 to June 1965 the rate of expenditure by the Government and public bodies was R80,000,000 higher than that for the previous 12 months. As against this, private fixed investment was R190,000,000 up on the previous year, whilst for private consumption it was R419,000,000 up on the previous year in comparison with R97,000,000 as current expenditure for Government and public bodies. Hon. members accordingly will see firstly that the volume of money being put into the spending stream by the public bodies, in relation to what the private sector is doing is not so much and secondly what the Government is being attacked for is only 43 per cent of what the public sector is putting in; and thirdly, that 70 per cent of that 43 per cent is essential expenditure. That then was one of the arguments.

The hon. member for Jeppe mentioned another one. He said that we were financing our expenditure in an inflationary way. He said we had been drawing down our balances at the Reserve Bank. That is so. We have been drawing these down and in November we actually went into the red. What the hon. member did not take into account, however, was that from 1 April to 30 November last year out of the expenditure of the State R147,000,000 was spent overseas and, naturally, this money was therefore not put into the spending stream and is consequently not inflationary. I agree we could have made it deflationary by collecting that amount from the public and then by sending it overseas. It is very much the same thing as when we have loans overseas. When we bring those loans from overseas here and put the money into the spending stream here, then it will be inflationary; but if you use those loans to pay for what you have bought overseas, then it does not come into the spending stream here. We might have taken it out of the spending stream in order to pay those accounts but that would then have been deflationary and that we do not want.

There is another point which was raised during the debate, a point on which the attitude of the United Party is somewhat ambiguous. This point is whether our steps to curb inflation have been either too feeble and too late or too drastic. I have here the Star of 10 November 1965. in which it is stated that these steps are too feeble and too late. In the same issue, however, the Leader of the Opposition described them as being “drastic curbs”. Some hon. members went so far as to say that we brought our economy to a standstill. So I do not know exactly what is the attitude of the Opposition in this regard. Are we being attacked for being too drastic or are we being attacked for not being drastic enough? But let me accent from the present debate that the latter is the case. Now let me say in this regard that the moment we considered there was some danger—and that was already at the beginning of 1964—we applied the brakes very gently and resorted to moral suasion. We could afford to do that because our reserves were high. We were then in a position where we need not have panicked. We we-e not tempted to halt our economy altogether. to grind it to a standstill. That was so because we had taken sufficient steps beforehand. The crisis was not such that it was necessary for us at that stage to take any further steps. But that is not all. We have tried to maintain a lower rate of growth, but a rate of growth nevertheless. We did not switch from an inflationary to a deflationary policy. It may be that to a certain extent we did not anticipate that our productive urge, our economic urge, was so strong and would last for so long. But after all. the best proof of the pudding lies in the eating. We have seen that we have been more successful in halting inflation than other countries. We are not out of the woods yet but, at any rate, we can already see the light at the end of the tunnel. For that reason we can afford to pump in this R80,000.000 in the form of increases in salaries and wages. Had we, however, followed the advice of hon. members opposite last year at a time when the inflationary graph was still going up, if we had followed that advice and granted these increases then, I wonder where we would have been standing to-day? Now these increases have been brought in at a point of time where we at least can see the turning point ahead. In many cases, in fact, the rate of growth has already turned downwards. We were therefore in the fortunate position to be able to afford to do now what we could not do a year ago.

I still have some time at my disposal and should like to react to the debate in general. I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to say this afternoon. He reiterated here this afternoon. that this party’s policy was White political control over the whole of South Africa for the forseeable future. These are brave words. The first question I should like to ask is how you are going to maintain White political control for the foreseeable future? Is it going to be by force? Leadership implies the free choice of those who are being led and it implies the right of those who are bring led to kick out their leaders, in the same way as the member’s predecessor was kicked out. That is what leadership entails. If it is the intention to maintain White leadership by force if necessary, then it is a pipe dream to talk as if it were something praticable and realistic. In regard to the phrase “for the foreseeable future”, it all depends on how shortsighted the Leader of the Opposition is. If he is myopic in his vision of these things, then the “foreseeable future” can be next year, or in five years. That depends on his degree of shortsightedness. The Leader of the Opposition has already been quoted as having said in an article on race federation—

So it is no longer only White political central, but White and Coloured. He went on to state—

This point has been made very forcibly by the Minister of Bantu Education.

There is one point on which the hon. member has been fairly consistent. This afternoon he came with a speech which we have heard every time before an election since 1948. Look at what he has promised here: old age pensions without the means test is one of them. I have here a list of motions introduced by the Opposition since 1961 on this question of old-age pensions, but not in a single one of them has the United Party gone so far as to ask for the complete abolition of the means test. What they were prepared to ask up till now was only a relaxation of the means test. I wonder whether they have calculated what the expenditure is going to be should the means test be abolished. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has a precedent for the making of promises, because his predecessor became known as “Koos Promise” afterwards. The hon. Leader now comes and promises a State lottery, television, as well as a number of other things. But this has been the same story before every election since 1948. After the elections it was also the same story, although a little bit different. In 1948 Gen. Smuts said that the United Party had reached rock-bottom. It could not go further down. In 1953 Mr. Strauss said the same. In 1958 the present Leader of the Opposition said the same. But, in spite of that, they continued to go down. In 1961 they went down lower than rock-bottom and, as I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition to-day, I could understand why they have lost and have lost consistently since 1948. There is no disputing that there is one policy which has counted consistently against them since 1948, i.e. the colour question. But to-day, with Gadarene obstinacy, he is clinging to the same policy …

Although I am being accused by the Prime Minister of changing my policies?

… but the result is going to be the same again this time. The hon. member has been wrong so often that he can no longer distinguish between right and wrong. Look at all the major issues we have had to face during the past 20 years. In regard to all these issues, the attitude of the United Party was wrong. They were wrong about a republic. When a republic was established they said they would work for our re-entry into the Commonwealth. Wrong again! When we came with decimalization, they were against it and fought it tooth and nail. Wrong again! When we had to fight inflation they came with the suggestion that more money should be pumped into the spending stream, which would have fed the flames of inflation higher. So they were wrong again. Last year we heard a lot about Parity and about the negligence of the Minister and of his officials, in the same way as they were fighting for a trial for 90-day detainees. I said to them that they must wait until the commission had reported. But they were prepared to fling as much mud as possible, but now that the commission’s report has appeared, they are silent. The hon. Leader of the Opposition for the moment forgot one of the first principles of his profession. When we had our balance of payments crisis in 1961 what did hon. members on the other side say? They said never again would we get capital again into the country. The hon. member for Kensington even broke into verse and recited the song of Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall, and falling off without a chance of being put together again. He became lyrical because it was against South Africa. That, Sir, is the besetting sin of the Opposition: they are simply chronically incapable of thinking, acting and speaking South African. They have continually to find something wrong with South Africa. They were wrong again by refusing to give their support to measures against sabotage and violence in South Africa. They were wrong in continuing to oppose Bantu homelands and separate freedoms for them. Unless they give up the idea of fighting that, there will only be one fate for them in an election. We have already fought three, four elections on this issue. When we wanted to give the South African citizen the right to call himself a South African citizen, they fought it tooth and nail. Wrong again! In fact, on every major issue in South Africa during the past 20 years the attitude of the United Party was wrong! Now they are trying to make a turn to the right, but in that they will find that they are wrong again!

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—89: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. I. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; 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.; Fouché, J. J.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; 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 Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—44: 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.; Dodds, P. R.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

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

Evening Sitting