Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement—with your permission—in connection with a supplementary question which I put to the Minister of Water Affairs yesterday, after he had answered a question of mine which had appeared on the Order Paper. It has been brought to my notice that the question, as I put it, might have been construed as containing an insinuation or an innuendo. For the reason that I am not given to innuendo—that I say what I want to say, plainly—and for the further reason that I did not intend an insinuation or an innuendo, I regret the form that the question took; I regret the possible construction that might have been placed on it, and I tender my apologies to the hon. the Minister.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement which I actually should have made yesterday afternoon concerning the Budget.

While it would not be appropriate to anticipate the Budget of 1966-7, which will be presented later this year, there is one tax matter which I wish to mention now. The investment allowances for machinery will, under the present law, expire at the end of the 1966 tax year, except in the case of the economic development areas. Cases have come to my notice where certain firms, as a result, directly or indirectly, of Government action, would fail to meet the deadline. In certain instances, at the instigation of the authorities, the firms have placed orders for equipment with South African rather than with overseas suppliers and delays in delivery have occurred because the South African suppliers were working to capacity. In deserving cases of this nature I believe that sympathetic treatment should be given and that an extension of time should be granted and I intend to introduce legislation during the next session of Parliament to make it possible to allow an extension in such cases on a selective basis so that the investment allowance may be granted in whole or in part even where the machinery is brought into use after the end of the 1966 tax year. The 1966 tax year refers to the tax year of companies. In the case of some of them their financial years end on 31 March, in the case of others on 30 June and in the case of others on 31 December. That is why I consider it necessary to make this announcement. I do not think there is any need for any further incentive, but on the other hand if there are hard cases which fall in the category which I have mentioned I am prepared to meet them next year in my Budget.

I think that other hon. members on this side will, in due course, refer to the statement which has just been made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I rise to say that we on this side of the House are still extremely disappointed at the fact that there is very little in this Part Appropriation Bill to gladden the hearts of the South African farmers, and I say this in pursuance of what has already been said during this debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing tried to give us to understand that the farmer is sharing in the prosperity of South Africa. He believes that the drop in agriculture’s contribution to the national income is quite a normal occurrence which is not peculiar to South Africa, but, he said, this did not mean that things were going badly with the farmers in South Africa. We all know that agriculture’s contribution to the national income has dropped. What interests us is not simply the drop in the contribution of agriculture to the national income; what interests us on this side of the House is the position of the farmer as an individual, and if, as the hon. the Minister says he believes, things are still going well with the farmer of South Africa, how is it that the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union, Mr. de la Harp de Villiers, had this to say last year—

I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not tell me that he is better acquainted with what is going on in our agricultural industry than are these people who give the lead in these matters. I do not for one moment believe that a man like Mr. de la Harp de Villiers would try to harm the industry in which he plays a leading role, by making a statement of this nature. How is it then that the president of the South African Agricultural Union—and not only he but so many other people, as well as this side of the House—holds the same view? When one peruses periodicals like Commercial Opinion today, one finds that even the leaders in com* merce and industry are concerned at the conditions prevailing in our agricultural industry, because they know that if things go badly with the agricultural industry, commerce and industry will also suffer. But the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is satisfied that things are going well with the South African farmer. I am surprised that the National Marketing Council in its report for the period 1950 to 1963 …

Your ally, the drought, has broken.

… could have the following to say on page 20—

The Marketing Council itself states in its report that the purchasing power of the farmer of South Africa has increased by 8.1 per cent over a period of 13 years—less than 1 per cent per annum.

What do you mean by “purchasing power”?

The Council goes on to say that this increase was to a large extent confined to the years prior to 1954, that is to say, the period which included the Korea crisis, and 1954 was nearly 12 years ago. This report deals with that period. That was the only period during which there was a great deal of prosperity for the South African farmer. Even including that period, the purchasing power of the South African farmer has increased by less than 1 per cent per annum over the past 13 years, How can the hon. the Deputy Minister now try to give us to understand that the agricultural industry is sound— that there is nothing wrong with the industry? He tells us that the agricultural industry’s contribution to the national income dropped because the manufacturing industry’s contribution increased. That is quite correct, but what is the position in the industrial sphere in South Africa? One finds each year that there has been an increase in the number of factories and the number of companies while the number of farmers in the agricultural industry is decreasing every year. Under the circumstances, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell us that things are going so well with the agricultural industry. We on this side and hon. members on that side had the experience six or seven years ago that at every congress the representatives of the rural areas had items on the agenda asking that something be done about the large amount in income tax that the farmers had to pay, but the fact is that one no longer has those items on the agenda at congresses. Why not? Because the average farmer in South Africa no longer has such a high income and has accordingly no longer to pay such a large amount in income tax. It is because of this fact that there is an absence of that type of agenda-item. Does this then not prove to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the contribution which the farmer is making to the national income is decreasing? If they were flourishing, these people would all be paying an extremely high rate of income tax. A few days ago we quoted to the hon. the Deputy Minister from a report by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue in order to show to what a low level the contribution of the farmer by way of income tax had fallen. Surely this proves that there is something wrong some where?

It is due to the drought.

The only reply the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) can make is that it is due to the drought. Has the drought been responsible for the fact that so many of our dairy farmers are no longer practising that profession today? Has the drought been responsible for the fact that so many farmers have had to sell their farms? No, the dairy farmers sold their farms and their dairy-herds because they could no longer operate at a profit. This was the only reason why those people left the industry.

Can the hon. member tell me who fixes the prices of dairy products? Is it the hon. the Minister or the Dairy Board?

I shall tell the hon. member who fixes the prices. I shall quote to him what was said by a member of a control board at the Congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, and from it the hon. member will be able to ascertain who fixed the prices. Mr. Hudson Klerck had this to say—

Mr. Hudson Klerck of Rustenburg took exception to the attitude adopted by the Minister and said farmers had the right to a share in the prosperity of the country. He said that as a member of an agricultural price control board he had attended four meetings asking the Government for price increases. Each request was refused.

And now?

What year was that?

This was said on 25th August last year.

You know that the prices have been increased.

The hon. member ought to know that every price recommended by a control board requires the approval of the hon. the Minister. It is the Minister in the last instance who gives it his stamp of approval. I say that the statement made by hon. members on that side that things are going well with the agricultural industry, is devoid of all truth.

Who said that?

If hon. members opposite are satisfied with the position in the agricultural industry, why do they say then that the United Party cannot make out a case for the farmers—that things are going well with the farmers of South Africa?

A natural disaster has struck the farming industry.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that he has set up an agricultural advisory board, but he knows that that agricultural advisory board has been on ice for a long time. It was brought into being again a little while ago; it is nothing new; it is something which we have had for some time now. But the Government has kept it on ice for some while and about seven months ago that agricultural advisory board came into the picture once again with its duties slightly increased. It therefore simply does not pass muster for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that something new has now been established for the farmers of South Africa.

It appears to me that the Government feels that our agricultural industry has not been neglected. They appear to think that our agricultural problem will be solved as the demand for the product of the farmer improves. They appear to think that if we can have large-scale economic development and if we have a larger White population, we shall be able to solve the problem in our agricultural sector. I readily admit that this will help to a large extent and here I want to say that if the Government had not halted the immigration scheme of the United Party, we would never have had the position where from time to time we have had to force farmers out of the industry. as happened as a result of the Government’s policy of reducing prices when there is a surplus of agricultural produce. But what worries me is that we in South Africa, just like the rest of the world, are faced with a population explosion. I am convinced that the number of farmers in South Africa to-day will not be able to feed the whole population of South Africa if we continue to develop as we are developing to-day. We must therefore not follow a policy of deliberately forcing farmers off the land; we must follow a policy which is aimed at keeping them on the land. Now, how can we keep the farmer on the land? The hon. the Minister has certain means at his disposal. I do not want to discuss credit facilities and that sort of thing at this stage.

Why not?

For the simple reason that it is patchwork; it does not solve the problem. What we ought to have in our agriculture is vision; we ought to be able to set a goal for our farmers and it should be possible for every farmer to achieve that goal. This can be done by fixing prices on such a basis that the farmer will receive a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage over and above his production costs. But if one’s price policy does not take account of the risk factor inherent in farming in South Africa, then I say that any price policy of that nature, no matter what it may be, will be of no value at all.

Does what you say also include wool?

Mr. Speaker, it is not only we who say this. On how many occasions has the meat committee of the South African Agricultural Union not told this Government: “Give us a good, guaranteed price for our meat for. say, five years, a price which can be adjusted each year according to circumstances, a price which also takes the risk factor into consideration.”?

A price for five years, but then you want it to be adjusted from time to time!

If that were to be the Government’s policy, if it were to be their long term policy, then I would almost be inclined to say that they would eventually not need a short-term policy.

They have no policy.

But they need a short-term policy to-day because they have no longterm policy.

The hon. member is advocating guaranteed prices for agriculture. Do his remarks also hold good as far as export produce is concerned?

The hon. the Minister knows that there are certain products …

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question in my own way. The hon. the Minister knows that there are certain products which do not present difficulties. For example, there is no difficulty to-day in regard to export grapes. It is not necessary to assist the producers of this product, but there are certain essential products, such as milk and cream and cheese and meat …

And the wool farmers?

The hon. member knows that wool is sold on the international market. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister appears to think that the wool farmer’s only income is from wool. He ought to know that the wool farmer makes just as much out of his meat as he does out of his wool, and, in many cases, more. Is it impossible for the hon. the Minister to follow a policy of this nature? If he does not do so, what is the hon. the Minister’s reply to the fact that our herds of sheep remain static and that our beef production in South Africa remains static? The number of head of stock remains static. [Interjection]. The hon. the Minister says that the numbers have increased, but he knows that our herds of cattle have remained static over the past 30 years. He says, however, that we can supply the needs of South Africa in that we can breed a heavier animal. That is correct. If we had not done this we would have found ourselves in even greater difficulty. But if the hon. the Minister will consider the position in Australia and even in the Argentine he will realize that not only have they improved the weight per carcase but also the size of their herds. But here in South Africa the position in some areas is that the number of head is decreasing and in other cases it remains static. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that he can rectify the position and supply South Africa with the necessary food if he is not going to follow a policy of encouragement to the meat industry? What encouragement can there be to the farmer except to tell him: We guarantee the price and we shall subsidize the price of your product; we do not want to see the consumer having to pay through his neck for the product, but we shall ensure that you are paid a good price. The Minister says that that is what he is doing, but he objects to my saying in the House that he will have to improve these prices and statistics considerably if he wants to save the agricultural industry. Unless the hon. the Minister does so, he will have to come forward each year with short term plans to place agriculture on a sound basis, and his plans will be to no avail because more and more farmers will simply have to leave the land. The hon. the Minister must tell us what he is going to do. They say that they do not encourage the exodus of the farmers to the cities, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister what steps they are taking to discourage it? The only steps which that side of the House can take to discourage the exodus to the cities are steps to ensure that agriculture is placed on an economic basis. I know what the hon. the Minister’s reply will be. He will ask me whether I want to keep the weak farmer on the land as well, the man who is not able to produce. Sir, the weak farmer has never given those of us on this side of the House cause for concern, but what has given us cause for concern is that there are good farmers, people who have increased their production considerably and who look after their land but who, as a result of the fact there is an uneconomic price policy in regard to their products, are being forced to an increasing extent to leave the land. The hon. the Minister knows that this is so. He knows that the salvation of the farmer in South Africa has up to the present only been inflation because it has increased the value of his land and has improved his solvency. But the hon. the Minister knows too that in terms of what it makes, in terms of dividends, agriculture is to-day probably the worst sector in which to invest one’s money, and this Government with its two Ministers and a Deputy Minister of Agriculture is responsible for this fact. A party which is not concerned about its agricultural policy is not entitled to form the Government of this country. How can it maintain a country, how can it allow normal development to take place, how can it protect the character of its people unless it nurtures the agricultural industry? And this nurturing that I speak of does not simply entail coming along to this House each year and saying: We spent this much by way of State advances and farmers’ assistance, and the Land Bank granted this many loans. What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing when the Government is still following a policy as a result of which 2,600 farmers leave the land each year. I want to put this question to the hon.

If trouble were to arise to-day in our manufacturing industry, for example, to which this Government gives a great deal of protection—and we do not object to this fact; it is a good thing and our manufacturing industry is being strengthened more and more because of it—but if trouble were to arise in our manufacturing industry, would the Government not immediately take active steps to overcome it? Of course it would, and rightly so. But has the time not arrived when the Government should also take note of what is happening in our agricultural industry? One of the first steps it can take is to ensure that the Department of Agriculture and the farmers have available the best extension services and the best veterinary officers, and many more of them are available to-day. If we do not provide these fundamental services, if we do not ensure that we have the veterinary officers and the extension officers we need, how can we improve our agricultural techniques? How can we succeed in doing so when we have one extension officer for every 750 farmers? How can we succeed in building up our herds when we have large areas which do not have the service of a veterinary officer? It is absolutely impossible to improve the agricultural industry on that basis.

But that is not all. There is another matter to which the Government will have to give its attention. It will have to ensure that its agricultural planning is adapted to the requirements of the country. It will have to ensure that it does not make the same mistakes that have been made in the past. It will have to ensure, firstly, that we can supply our own needs in time of drought. In other words, the Government must see to it that we do not simply export our surplus maize but that we hold sufficient in reserve for domestic consumption, particularly in time of drought. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says that I do not know what I am talking about, but how is it possible that South Africa which 18 months or two years ago had a tremendous surplus of maize and exported all of it, now finds herself in so much trouble that the Government has to import maize? This Government was initially able to export large quantities of butter and cheese, but if it had adapted its planning of the agricultural industry to the requirements of South Africa, would it have been necessary for it to import the tons and tons of cheese and butter that it has had to import? Will the hon. Minister tell me that there is not something wrong somewhere? Will he tell me that he planned it that we would have to import butter and cheese, that he planned it that we would have to import maize? Cannot the hon. the Minister learn from experience? I have told him on previous occasions in this House that if, for example, the Government will ensure that our stocks of lucerne in South Africa are built up in order to meet our needs during time of drought, things will be far better. Or will the hon. the Minister tell me that he planned it so that the farmers should export all their lucerne, and that that is why we have such a fantastic shortage of this commodity?

Where did they export it to?

I have an idea that a while ago I heard a news item on the radio to the effect that quite a few tons of lucerne had been exported to the protectorates. It is for the hon. the Minister to reply if this did not happen. But then they tell us that they planned things in this way. Unless we adapt our agricultural planning to the needs of South Africa we will shortly find ourselves in the same difficulty again. We on this side say that one of the ways of solving this problem is to establish an agricultural planning board. Why not? The hon. the Prime Minister has an Economic Advisory Board. Hon. members opposite have told us about everything that can be planned and about the wonderful expansion at Escom, Sasol and other undertakings. It is impossible then for the Ministers of Agriculture to have a similar body to advise them in regard to South Africa’s future needs and the way in which they can ensure that those needs are met? But the hon. the Minister refuses to listen to us and he refuses to listen to the S.A. Agricultural Union. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, in the brief thirty minutes I have at my disposal I should have liked to reply more fully to what the hon. member on the opposite side has said, but I shall have to leave him to the tender mercies of speakers on this side. I should also have liked to have devoted my time to the discussion of certain aspects of the economic conditions in our country, but I feel obliged to reply to certain remarks—I almost want to say accusations—made in this debate yesterday and the day before, in the first place by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), and also, obliquely, by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) in regard to crayfish and diamond concessions.

You will remember, Sir, that hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Karoo, made certain blatant remarks here. Some of those remarks or questions were quite unwarranted on the part of a member of this House, but others left matters suspended in midair and were calculated to arouse nothing but totally unjustified suspicion. For that reason I should like to avail myself of this brief opportunity to reply as far as possible to some of those questions which have been put and the insinuations which have been made in this regard.

The hon. member for Karoo asked quite a number of questions and he asked, inter alia,on what basis allocations for fishing licences were being made. The questions in regard to diamonds will be replied to by my colleague, the Minister of Mines. I shall confine myself to the fishing licences. In the first place I want to say that the allocation of fishing licences is one of the most difficult and most thankless tasks one could have. Seeing that from the nature of the case these licences are limited in number, and that there are quite a few applicants, there are usually applicants who have to be refused and are then dissatisfied and who then seek all manner of motives for the allocations not having been made to them. However, one even finds the peculiar phenomenon that applicants to whom allocations are made are also dissatisfied because they think that they should have been granted larger allocations. As regards the basis of allocations, however, I can inform the House that the basis of allocations is still precisely the same as the one which was in existence in the United Party’s time, in that time when tremendous allocations were made to certain people from which so-called monopolies resulted. We still have the same basis of allocation, the only difference being that it is now being applied over a much wider field, so that the financial editor of the Cape Times had to remark in his article this morning that it was conspicuous that there has been a tendency of late to deal less one-sidedly with applications. In the time of the United Party, as regards crayfish in the first place, certain allocations were made on which we had to build. I can tell hon. members that this old basis has its pros and cons. If hon. members on the opposite side would bring me a better system for making allocations. I should very much like to consider it. Mention was made here of an open tender system. Sir, if we had to make allocations according to a tender system in all instances where the State grants concessions, whether they are import permits oi permits in respect of water, gold mines or diamond mines, I do not know what will become of us, neither do I know what will become of the small man because the large companies will receive all of them. But I repeat that if hon. members are able to bring me a better system than the one they applied and on which we improved, I shall consider it gladly. We inherited from the United Party an allocation of crayfish concessions in the first place to quite a number of people on the basis of their export achievements to America over a number of years. I cannot find much fault with that basis. On the strength of that basis extensive crayfish concessions have been granted to a number of companies. Over the years, however, some of those existing quota holders bought out the smaller ones to an ever-increasing extent, and on account of these purchases and the merging of these smaller companies with larger companies, so-called monopolies resulted which were steadily increasing in size. When we came to power we felt that we had to conserve crayfish. The hon. member for Karoo was right in saying that it had to be done, and we applied a policy of gradually decreasing the number of crayfish concessions. We have steadily decreased the number of concessions over the years, and in doing so we have saved a large percentage of the total quotas. But in the meantime, tremendous pressure has been brought to bear upon us on the part of the people who are engaged in the crayfish industry in the sense that they catch crayfish and sell them to the exporters. They asked us why they had to sell the crayfish to the exporters who had the quotas and why they themselves could not get export quotas. Consequently it was approximately three years ago that we took back a certain number of those quotas we had saved and we took into consideration people who were engaged in the crayfish catching industry, a wider allocation—not those who had established themselves long ago, but all the people who were engaged in the crayfish catching industry and had to sell the crayfish to the exporters. In all fairness and justice we made allocations to those crayfish catchers who had been bringing pressure to bear on us for such a long time according to their merits and their capacity and their capital, etc. I do not know whether hon. members have any criticism against that. Allocations were not made to Coloureds at that stage, because there were no Coloureds who had really attained those achievements which would have entitled them to a crayfish quota. One has to export at least one thousand cases to be able to construct an installation for exporting crayfish at a profit, and at that stage there were no Coloureds who had attained those achievements to entitle them as individuals to an export permit for crayfish. But what did we do? We granted the Coloured Development Corporation a considerable quota—not individual Coloureds but the Corporation—to be used on behalf of the Coloured community. Under the circumstances I am convinced that we went far enough to prove our goodwill which we have always had towards the Coloureds in this regard by allocating to their own Corporation a considerable quota which it can use for the benefit of the community.

The hon. member asked what the Coloureds received out of all of this. Apart from this allocation of a crayfish concession to the Coloured Corporation I may state that at present Coloured catchers derive considerable benefit from the crayfish industry by catching crayfish and selling them to exporters at particularly high prices. So much as far as crayfish is concerned.

Attempts were also made here to arouse suspicion in respect of the recent issuing of fishmeal licences. What happened there? We must try to protect our fish resources. We have heard from our scientists that we can issue fishing licences which do not exceed 50 tons per hour. The economic minimum for a fishmeal factory is 10 tons per hour, and if we wanted to split that we would have had the choice of distributing those 50 tons among four or five factories at most. Once again we followed another course. We have said again, as it is assumed by the Cape Times in this respect, that we are going to distribute these quotas as widely as possible, and we have taken into consideration all the applications which have been received from fishing companies and fishing undertakings, and the point of departure was not to give a single one to individuals, but to grant fishmeal rights to fishing companies which are engaged in the fishing industry according their their status, their capital, their competence and their capacity at a certain given time. That is what happened. All of these fishing companies in the vicinity of Cape Town which had applied, received a share in the rights we granted. We decided that there had to be three companies because another principle which we took into consideration was the regional division of quotas, so that everybody from Hermanus up to the North-West might be considered and receive their share. I am asking hon. members to say whether anything is wrong with that principle? We distributed fishmeal quotas to the companies and gave a share to each of them and to companies still to be established. In this way everybody receives a share in a company which is still to be established, which is of much more value to him than receiving for himself a small quota which he cannot exploit properly. I have in front of me a list of the largest companies to which a 25 ton per hour quota has been allocated and I shall show this list to anybody here. I am convinced that, although we did not allow political considerations to play any part in this, if you analyse the list you will find that they are predominantly supporters of the Opposition and not my supporters. I do not go into the politics of the people but the matter has been dealt with on merit, and in my opinion they are predominantly supporters of the Opposition and not members of the National Party. It was solely on merit that certain quotas were granted to certain fishing undertakings and that the regional principle was followed to grant quotas to certain parts of the country for the benefit of the local community.

The hon. member also said that the names of certain M.P.s appeared on the list. Mr. Speaker, there are M.P.s who are engaged in the fishing industry, both on that side and on this side of the House. I do not want to mention names because that is no concern of mine, seeing that they were granted on certain merits. I think that if we are going to compare the interests, the real interests of M.P.s on that side and on this side, one would have a different picture.

It seems to me they are now discriminating against us.

There is not a single individual M.P. who received a concession in his capacity as an M.P. Where these M.P.s, regardless of what side of the House they are from, received concessions, they acted on behalf of a company which in most cases represented the interests of the fishermen of that community and which contemplated the development of a specific region. And we should be grateful to those people for taking the initiative in giving guidance to a specific community and in organizing an unorganized community such as the fishing community into a company and obtaining their co-operation, and that they acted not for themselves but in the first place for that company which consists of members in that area, and to obtain certain rights for them. I see no wrong in that.

Something else was said. It was said that an ex-M.P. had a share in a certain company. What nonsense that is! May a person who has retired from the House of Assembly not have any right in a company which receives a concession from the State? May Mr. Harry Oppenheimer no longer receive concessions for diamond companies? May an ex-M.P. have no interests in a company which has a fishing or diamond concession? I know of one case and perhaps that is the case referred to by the hon. member, but no rights were granted to that ex-M.P. He had a limited share in a company and an extremely limited share in a company which had previously existed, and rights were granted to that company. Should he now resign from that company because he used to be a member of this House?

Then Harry Oppenheimer will become a poor White.

With the insinuations he made, the hon. member talked about a certain person who farmed with peaches and asparagus 600 miles away, and he was granted a concession, but there is no truth in that. I wish he would tell me who that person is. I have in front of me a list of all the names of those people who received concessions. No persons who farms with peaches 600 miles away received a concession. The hon. member may perhaps be thinking of a certain person, a quite honourable person, who has a share in a fishing company which has received a quota. Should a person not have shares in a fishing company because he farms with peaches and asparagus? That is sheer nonsense. They are merely insinuations for the purpose of making political propaganda.

The hon. member went further and spoke of South West Africa. Now, we have nothing to say about South West Africa. South West Africa’s licences are issued by their Administration itself. However, the hon. member also spoke about a certain quota which was applied for and which was subsequently withdrawn at our request. We have no knowledge of such an application which was withdrawn at the request of my Department. But even if it were true, even if we had asked somebody to withdraw his application, what would be wrong with that? Should it not rather be to our credit if we thought that such an application did not deserve our consideration and if we were simply to ask the man to withdraw his application? However, there is no such thing and I do not know where the hon. member got it from. The hon. member also spoke of a certain mining company which had received a concession, and he asked, “What does a mining company do with fishing rights?” I do not know to which company he was referring. I do not know to which companies he was referring. However, there is indeed a company which bears a name which it has taken over from an old company which was principally a mining company. However, at present it is a finance company and it has investments in all sorts of undertakings throughout the country. At the request of a certain local company, that finance company merged with the former company in order to provide it with technical knowledge and to assist it financially. It was a financier who intervened at the request of the local company, and not a mining company to which a fishing concession was granted to be used by it on its own.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to an hon. member who spoke of the Coloured Development Corporation. He said that a member of the C.D.C. had been granted a right. He said that there might perhaps have been two people with the same name, but that he did not know. He did not take the trouble to investigate the matter. I emphatically deny that a member of the C.D.C. has been granted a right. Here is the list of the Coloured Development Corporation. Everybody knows who they are. I challenge the hon. member to examine the list of allocations which I have here and to show me that the person to whom he has referred has obtained a share under this allocation of fishmeal licences. These extremely loose and irresponsible allegations are calculated to arouse nothing but suspicion. I can tell hon. members that as far a I am concerned, these particulars in regard to crayfish licences and fishmeal licences are plain for all to see. I think that if there is one Party which has done its utmost to allocate these licences in a just manner and in the interests of the fishers and the fishing community in general, then it is indeed this Party. I hope that, in the interests of our country and the interests of our fishing industry, hon. members such as the hon. member for Karoo—I do not know whether he intended that or whether it was done in ignorance or whatever—will stop spreading throughout the country these cock-and-bull stories and these stories which are calculated to scare people and to stir up suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to take exception to the fact that the matter was raised at all in this House.

No, I said it was a justified question.

Yes, when the Minister started off he said that the question were justified, but then he turned round and attacked the hon. member for Karoo and the hon. member for Pinetown for having raised the matter at all.

No, for the way in which they raised the matter.

Mr. Speaker, there was no insinuation in the speech of the hon. member for Karoo. He asked for certain information. [Interjections].

Order!

He pointed out that the Coloureds were not gettng the concessions that he thought they should get. That is what he did, and the charge is still that the Coloureds are not getting enough of these concessions. Why does the hon. the Minister go for the United Party for raising this matter? His own people are just as dissatisfied, and they cannot deny it, I auote from the Burger of September, 1964—

Is it our fault that people sell their concessions?

No, but there is dissatisfaction among your own people. The complaints do not come only from this side. The Nationalists are just as dissatisfied with what is going on.

He did not speak about the allocations of concessions. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall quote further from the Burger of September, 1964—

That is just what we did, when we awarded shares to the fishermen.

I quote further—

Mr. Speaker, one of our complaints is that not enough publicity is given to the value of these concessions. We demand that more publicity must be given and that tenders must be called for. I want to bring a particular case to the attention of the Minister. In the Transkei there are all sorts of rumours going around about a concession that has ben granted at Port St. Johns. I asked the Minister a question in the House about it the other day. He has given me the reply. The impression was given that White people would not be allowed to initiate private enterprise in the Transkei. The impression is that the Government is against White capital and private initiative taking part in the development of the Transkei.

Port. St. Johns is a White area.

Yes, Port St. Johns is a White area but the rest of the area from the Kei River to Port Edward is not a White area.

The headquarters of this company is in Port St. Johns.

Yes, but that company was not in Port St. Johns when it got the concessions. It only moved to Port St. Johns after it got the concession. The gentleman who has the concession is a certain Mr. de Jongh of Vredenburg. How did he come to get a concession? Why was publicity not given to the fact that a concession was going to be given—a concession for rock lobsters on the Transkeian coast? Nobody knew that the Government would entertain White enterprise of that nature. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Transkeian Government was consulted. The coastline falls under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government. The Chief Minister of the Transkei and his brother, the Minister of Justice, have made it quite clear that White enterprise would not be allowed along the coast of the Transkei.

They even tried to prevent a liquor licence of a White person being renewed, because White people were not to be allowed to take part in the development of the coast. Now we hear that a White person has been given a concession for kreef between the Kei River Mouth and Port Edward, namely the whole of the Transkeian Coast. Port St. Johns itself is a very small portion of that coastline. It is only a few miles long. The Minister said that the concessions are like an “ope boek”. Are we entitled to see the terms of this concession that has been given to Mr. de Jongh? I have a question on the Order Paper for Friday, asking for details of the concession. I do not know whether we will still be here on Friday and whether I will get a reply, but I shall ask the Minister now whether he is prepared to let me see the terms of this concession. Has this man got sole rights?

No, it is a whole company that is to be formed, and not just one man. It is one man dealing on behalf of a company which is to be formed.

From the reply I got to the question which I put to the hon. the Minister, I understood that a Mr. de Jongh of Vredenburg had been given this concession. This is what Mr. Bezuidenhout complained about. One man gets a concession like that, floats a company and then sells the shares at a high value and pays no tax. That is what Mr. Bezuidenhout complained about, and I have mentioned a typical example of this, where a concession was given in a case where nobody expected any concessions to be given. I do not know how Mr. de Jongh came to hear that the Government was prepared to give a concession there. He is in business in Vredenburg, which is for away from the Trans-kei. How did he know that the Government was prepared to give a White man a concession? Why was publicity not given to the fact that the Government was prepared to give concessions along the Transkeian Coast to White people to develop an industry? The Minister must not sit here and behave as if it is only the United Party that is dissatisfied, that it is only we who are criticizing and that there is no cause for criticism at all. There is much cause for criticism. He himself knows how the shares of these companies have soared once they have been brought on to the market. He knows it. and we say that it is quite wrong that certain people should be given these rights to exploit our national wealth as they do. They must be getting information.

I agree with you that this bartering of shares is not right. That is what the complaint is about.

Yes, that is what we complained about. The trouble is that only a few people are getting those rights. Only a few people are making all the money. I hope the hon. the Minister will take steps to stop that. He is granting concessions over the national wealth to certain people.

Will you do it in the case of diamond companies such as De Beers and Anglo-American shares?

Yes, why not? I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister thinks that only diamonds should be protected.

Do you want to control the sale of shares?

No, I do not want to control the sale of shares. I am talking about cases where the Government gives concessions to certain people. He knows very well what I mean.

I want to deal again with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. The Prime Minister came into the debate yesterday afternoon and dealt with Rhodesia and with the suggestion that he was prepared to give over the conquered territory to the Basutos. The Prime Minister took exception to the fact that the matter was raised at all by the hon. member for Orange Grove in an article in a paper. He said that there was no justification for it and that nobody would believe that he would think of doing a thing like that. The Prime Minister is going to be in continual trouble on this issue until he defines the boundaries of the Reserves. The Prime Minister himself is to blame for this suspicion. We cannot get from them the definition of the boundaries of the Reserves. We have asked them for it time and time again. Why can they not tell us what they intend doing? They have replied that the boundaries are laid down in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. But that is quite wrong. That is not true.

Why do you not accept the Prime Minister’s word?

I shall tell that hon. member why I cannot take the Prime Minister on his word. I hope he will be here to listen. The Government’s reply that the boundaries are laid down in the 1936 legislation is not true. I want to give two recent examples. The first example is Mdantsane, a Native township now established near East London.

Is that not a compensating area?

The farms which were bought to establish this township were not in the released area. The point is that nobody knew two or three years ago that that area was going to be a Native reserve. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) is saying that as long as you compensate—take out some land from a released area—you can take land anywhere in South Africa and make it a released area. That is what he is saying. I shall tell you, Sir, what they are going to do and why they are saying that, now. They will probably take out the whole of Soweto one day and they will make it a reserve, and find compensating land somewhere else. And then they will say: We are entitled to do so in terms of the 1936 Act. We can excise land.

The whole of the Mdantsane area was proclaimed a released area before the township was proclaimed and started.

Yes, but who proclaimed it a released area?

Parliament did.

Exactly, Parliament did. But nobody knew before that Bill was introduced here that that area was going to become a reserve. The Minister has just admitted that you can take any part of South Africa and Parliament can proclaim it a released area.

Yes, provided Parliament proclaims it.

Exactly, but nobody knows which area is going to go black. [Interjections.] What is to stop the conquered territory in the Free State from going black. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday if the land which was historically occupied by the Bantu is the land which would be added to the reserves, because in his speech he said that land would be claimed from the Whites to be added to the Protectorates. I asked him if this would only be land which was historically black and he replied: “Sekere dele wat dwarsdeur die ge-skiedenis die plekke was waar hulle hul gevestig het en waar hulle vandag nog bly.” Chief Kaiser Matanzima following a speech he had made about the land between the Fish and the Kei rivers, said that the land which historically belonged to the Bantu would be given to the Bantu in terms of the promise made by the Prime Minister. That is the impression the African has got and the conquered territory was indisputably Native territory. The Basutos occupied that territory.

You would rather believe that than what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

The East Griqualand farmers were given an assurance by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Native Affairs that East Griqualand farms would not be purchased for the Africans. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development implied a similar assurance in a letter to me. I had heard that the Government is going to buy two farms in the Umzimkulu area and I wrote to the hon. the Minister and asked him about this. I received a reply in a letter dated 14th October, 1961, in which his private secretary said this:

Because of that he was not going to buy these farms. The Umzimkulu area has always been White. The Strachans came there in 1858—before the Griquas went there the Strachans were already settled there. In 1860 the Hulley family settled there. Adam Kok later gave these families the titles to their land. They are not a White spot because they bound on Natal. The majority of the farmers do not want to sell. The Minister of the Interior also gave an assurance to the people of East Griqualand that their farms would not be purchased. In 1963 in reply to a request from these people that they be taken from the Cape and added to Natal so as to be assured that the area would not go black, the hon. the Minister had this to say:—

In other words, they did not need any further assurances or any endorsement of the Prime Minister’s assurance by the area being joined to Natal. The Prime Minister’s assurance that the area would remain White was sufficient. The Transkeian Government passed a resolution demanding the annexation of more land to the Transkei. The reply given by the Government was:

So again the Whites got an assurance. But then there was a by-election in the Transkei in this very area and Chief Kaiser Matanzima assured the voters in that area that the farms would be given to them. The Natal Agricultural Union took this matter up at once and I wrote to the Minister asking him if it were true because I had heard that the Government was going to buy two farms. I received a reply from the hon. the Minister stating that despite the decision mentioned in the letter he sent me, the Government was going to buy those farms. The farmers objected and so the Secretary for Bantu Administration was sent to interview them. He made it quite clear that despite all these assurances, the Government was going to buy those farms and add them to the Native Trust. The farmers raised certain cases with the Secretary. The hon. member for Brits asked me: “Do you not accept the Prime Minister’s assurances?”. How can we accept such assurances. I have told the hon. member what assurances the hon. the Prime Minister gave these farmers. At a meeting of the farmers of Umzimkulu last year the Secretary for Bantu Administration was asked whether the assurance given to the farmers of Umzimkulu was in any way different from the assurance given to the farmers in the Ongeluksnek area and those at Port St. Johns. He replied as follows:

As it did in the case of Umzimkulu but he changed his mind. Again the farmers asked him whether there was any difference between the assurances given to the farmers at Port St. Johns and those at Ongeluksnek. Mr. Dodds, the Secretary, replied:

The questioner then asked:

Mr. Dodds replied:

In what respects do they differ?

Why attack an official here who cannot defend himself.

This official was talking on behalf of the Government. The Minister sent him to interview the farmers and to explain the position to them. I am quoting the official who was sent there with the Minister’s approval. He had to deal with the farmers. If the hon. the Minister had gone there himself I would have been able to quote him. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the question of assurances being given and then not being adhered to—promises which have been broken.

Those were clearly political questions.

Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister then not go there to deal with them. The question then was whether if one farmer did not sell his farm, would he then be surrounded by African farmers. The reply to this was:

The questioner then says:

Mr. Dodds replied: “That is a matter for you to decide yourself.” The Secretary then went on to say that he would give the farmer good neighbours. I understand—and the hon. the Deputy Minister can correct me—that one of the neighbours is to be a farm prison. The position of those farmers being allowed to stay but with Native farms around them, is exactly the same as the position in which the villagers in the Transkei find themselves to-day with the zoning that has taken place. Again they are not going to be forced to sell but they are going to have Natives living all around them. That is of course not our traditional way of life in South Africa. I say that as long as the Prime Minister avoids giving us the exact boundaries of the reserves, he will be under suspicion all the time. There is no reason why the Prime Minister should think it so absurd that anybody should think that he would give over the conquered territory to the Basutos. There is no reason why it should be so absurd as he thinks it is because the Natives are expecting to receive the land which is historically theirs—and abviously that land is historically theirs. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he is going to buy White farms to give them and he is buying White farms to give them. He has bought these farms at Umzimkulu which have been occupied by Whites since 1858 and my information from people living in that area is that that is before the Natives ever got to that area.

In an earlier debate I raised the question of disputes between the Transkeian Government and the Government of the Republic and asked how they could be resolved. I got no reply. I raised two questions in particular and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply because the hon. the Minister himself replied to that debate but he did not answer my two questions. The one concerned the Liquor Act which had been passed but which has not yet been signed by the State President although it was passed almost a year ago. In the meantime this is causing hardship to the Africans because they cannot buy hotels or own hotels and they may not even sell liquor in a White-owned hotel. A bill which has been passed by the Transkeian Parliament does away with prohibited persons which means that Whites and non-Whites are treated the same and can go into any hotel. Obviously there is a conflict of policy between the Transkeian Government and the Government of the Republic. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what is happening in this regard. I also asked what is happening to a certain Mr. Ndamse—an inspector who has been banned by the Minister of Justice but who has received a senior appointment from the Transkeian Government. The Minister of Bantu Administration said that the Minister of Justice would deal with this matter and make a reply but the hon. the Minister of Justice has not done so yet. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration if he came into the debate if he could tell me whether these difficulties had been resolved. I would also like to know if the Transkeian Government was consulted at all before Mr. Guzana’s passport was refused. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guzana is not just an ordinary African who has had his passport refused. He is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei and he is the chairman of the Democratic Party—the only opposition party in the Transkei.

He is a member of a Party which is supported by the majority of the voters in the Transkei. Furthermore, he is the leader in that assembly. As I say, everybody knows Mr. Guzana as being a very respectable man. He is an attorney of repute. Nobody knows anything against his character. There certainly have never been any charges against him. In the circumstances, I think this House is entitled to a statement from the hon. the Minister as to the reason why Mr. Guzana was refused a passport. He wanted a passport not just to travel but for educational purposes as he was accorded a bursary. The effects of this refusal to grant Mr. Guzana a passport must have adverse effects on this country overseas. We have had so many conflicting statements and attitudes from this Government on the question of permits for non-Europeans. Take the case of Papwa. At first he was refused permission to play, then he was granted permission to play at certain places, then he was again refused permission to play anywhere but according to this morning’s paper we notice that he has been granted permission to take part in the South African Open. All this dillydallying with passports to non-Whites is not just fairy stories dished up by the English Press, but are actual things done by this Government. It is these things that get publicity overseas in the same way as the refusal of the Government to give Mr. Guzana a passport will be commented upon overseas. And all that whilst nobody can say anything to the detriment of Mr. Guzana. He is not a member of the communist party or of any banned organization. The Government has the right to veto candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly in the Transkei but he was allowed to stand and was elected. Actions of this nature by this Government continue to harm us and I hope the Deputy Minister, who I see is making notes, will give up and give us a full explanation of what has happened.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories was quite indignant about the granting of a crayfish licence to Mr. De Jong and the company he wants to form in that connection. Apparently the hon. member is opposed to this licence being granted to a White person because he argued that the territory there belongs to the Bantu and ought, therefore, to be developed by them.

No.

But surely the hon. member knows that the ocean is free and that he is quite at liberty himself to go and catch crayfish there from a boat?

Why then did he get a concession?

The hon. member wants to know why this group got the concession. He wants to know why it was this specific group and not any other group. The reason is simply that this group was the first to apply. Let me point out that that part of the coast, including the entire coast of Natal, has been free for years and that anyone could apply for a concession. However, no one applied for a stand from which crayfish could be caught. The reason for that is obvious, the kind of crayfish found along the Natal coast is a different kind of crayfish from that found along the West Coast. Crayfish are found in less abundance there and have seldom been exploited commercially. Three or four licences in Durban are the only licences which have been granted for the exploitation of crayfish along the east coast. Over the years not one of them was able to fill their quota. Apparently it is for that reason that this industry could not be operated at a profit there. Accordingly there were very few applications to the Department for permission to exploit crayfish there; all the applications received, however, were granted. I know of only two applications received and granted in the past five years. It is false to want to come along here and maintain that this individual is being favoured, because anyone could make application. For all that, however, there were, as I have said, only two applications during the past five years.

Why was it not given wider publicity?

It is general knowledge. Anyone can make application. Even the hon. member can make application, and he may still do so. If he wants to incur the risks entailed in that industry, he may still make application to-day. The Department is still not convinced that a crayfish concession can be undertaken profitably there.

I now want to confine myself to what has been said here in regard to diamond concessions. Dissatisfaction in regard to that matter was expressed here and it was alleged that the Coloureds did not receive their full share of those concessions. In addition to that quite a number of questions were put in order to give the impression that, as far as diamond concessions were concerned, the population groups in question were not receiving equal treatment. A problem arose when there was a great rush for State land in Namaqualand. Since 1928 State land in Namaqualand was closed to public prospecting for precious stones. It was closed at that time because there had been an overproduction of diamonds and also because it was impossible for diggers to go there, peg off claims and prospect. It was impossible to accept that diggers could simply go there, establish themselves wherever they wished and rely on the State to look after them. That was, therefore, the reason for that area being closed at that time. Since that time, however, the position in regard to diamonds has changed considerably. Inter alia, control has been introduced, quotas established and South Africa’s share in the world market has become considerably less. In the ’60s it was felt that these areas which, as the hon. member also said, were rumoured to be rich in diamonds—and I emphasize the word “rumoured”—should be thrown open. Strong pressure began to be brought to bear and the then Minister was inundated with applications. More than 2,000 applications were received. The Government then decided that the best solution would be to appoint a committee, an impartial committee consisting of persons who had no interest in the matter and whose recommendations would therefore be above suspicion. The committee was then appointed and consisted of, inter alia, Mr. Verster, the former Director of Prisons and present Chairman of the State Tender Board. Previously he had also been a magistrate. He was the chairman of this committee. Then there was also Mr. Gordon Collins. General Manager of the United Building Society; Mr. Norrie Steyn, attorney: Mr. Orsmond, of the State Diggings, Alexander Bay; Mr. J. Driessen, from the Department of Coloured Affairs, and Mr. W. Viljoen, of the Department of Mines. Nobody can say that any one of these persons had any interest in the matter or that their recommendations would come under suspicion. This committee was then appointed to investigate the matter. From the outset the hon. member for Karoo would not accept that it should be done by this committee. After I had informed him, in reply to a question which he put to me in the House of Assembly, that the entire matter had been referred to a committee for investigation, he again wrote to me on 18 August 1964, as follows—

At that time a committee had already been appointed, but the hon. member was not satisfied with that. This committee then began investigating all the applications which had been received. Everyone had to state what their means were, what their experience had been and whether they were able to go and work there, since to go and dig for diamonds in Namaqualand was not work which a single digger could do alone. There are tremendous sand lays, some of which have already become fossilized and in some places the gravel-bearing soil is 90 feet below the sand. If you want to convince yourself, you merely have to go and see what happened at Oranjemund and at Alexander Bay. This committee received 151 applications. The committee had then to decide, in the first place, whether it should grant concessions there to any individual company already established in the industry. In this regard the committee then arrived at the following conclusion—

The committee also had the following to say—

They then suggested consortiums which were technically equipped. The hon. member also wanted to know what assurance there was that the companies would have the necessary technical guidance and experience. Well, this aspect was taken into consideration by that committee very thoroughly and, for that reason, one company was appointed in respect of all the consortiums which had obtained concessions, in whose hands the technical administration would rest. Here, therefore, you have the reason why concessions were not granted to major companies, such as De Beers, and others, which made application.

Now it is being asked, what about the Coloureds? As far as the diggers are concerned, the committee recommended that bona fide White diggers from the Cape as well as from the Transvaal, should establish a company to which certain areas would then be granted. I want to emphasize “White diggers”, as this committee decided that concessions would only be granted to White diggers and not to Coloureds. The reason for that is obvious. There were certain applications from Coloureds. The Coloured Development Corporation obtained a share, but not the other Coloureds. No recommendation was made as far as the diggers are concerned. There was, for example, an application from Mr. Golding in which he said—

He did not say who they would be, but one may assume that they would have been Whites and not Coloureds. Then there was an application from a certain Mr. Coetzee, a private individual, who was to have been financed by an attorney. As I have already said, an individual had no chance of success there. There was also a Mr. Waldeck, who made application for certain areas. It was said—

Mr. Waldeck, together with a number of Coloureds, sent in another application. Then there was a Mr. Stanton, a Coloured from Cape Town, who also wanted to go on his own. There was also the Athlone Diamond Company. The application was sent in by a certain Mr. H. A. de Ridder, who had formerly been a Senator here. It was obvious that he was making use of a number of Coloureds in order to make the application, but that he and a few other Whites were behind it all. Then there was an application from a Mr. Cloete on behalf of 14 Coloureds from Namaqualand, who had practically no pecuniary resources at all. Besides, their application was sent in too late. Then there was also another application—an application of which the hon. member for Karoo apparently knows more than I do. The hon. member for Karroo took a great interest in the application of this person. He was a digger, a certain Mr. Fortune. In regard to this person the hon. member for Karroo wrote the following on 19 June—

Perhaps the hon. member for Karroo knows where those additional funds would have come from.

He is a very wealthy man.

He also wanted to go there as an individual. The committee, however, recommended that no allocations be made to them. When the Government dealt with the applications, however, all the recommendations in that connection were accepted without any exceptions. The amendments which the Government made were to the advantage of the Coloureds. After consultation with the Cabinet I issued a statement in which I pointed out that the committee’s recommendations had been accepted with certain exceptions. The first of those exceptions was that all the Coloured areas were to be granted to the Coloured Corporation. By that means the interests of the Coloureds were extended to all the Coloured areas. In the second place the Government decided that Leliefontein should be granted to the Coloured diggers, that they should establish a company and that, for the financing of that company, they could apply to the Coloured Development Corporation. Now, you will remember that I said the committee, as such, had said nothing about Coloured diggers. However, the Government subsequently decided to allocate Leliefontein in its entirety to the Coloured diggers. Another of the committee’s recommendations which was amended was that of granting control of the Brizal and Komaggas strips to a consortium. This recommendation was amended because it appeared that a person on the Board of the Coloured Development Corporation was also a member of that consortium. That would have entailed a clash of interests. It is clear that the Government went out of its way to see to it that the Coloureds received a fair share.

The hon. member for Karroo has asked what they pay. He is opposed to their paying 5 per cent. This 5 per cen is paid on the Coloured areas, is paid to the Coloured Development Corporation, whereas the 5 percent which is paid in respect of the White areas has to be paid to the Government. All do not have to pay that 5 per cent however. Besides this 5 per cent is paid by all companies with which prospecting and digging agreements have been entered into, including those who came in afterwards. There was for example an application covering the area from Cape Columbine to Cape Town harbour. In respect of this area a concession was awarded to David Graaff Interests. They, too, have to pay 5 per cent. That is therefore the position throughout wherever prospecting rights are awarded. That also applies as far as certain allocations in Zululand are concerned. This percentage is not as small as the hon. member wants to imply, particularly when a company is not functioning on a paying basis. But suppose a company was left with a profit after it had paid its 5 per cent. Then that company is still liable for the payment of diamond tax, it is Income Tax. This tax amounts to 45c in the R1.

You refered to consessions in Zululand. Could you say what they aie for?

I was referring to prospecting rights. I can furnish the hon. member with the necessary information if she wants it. I also want to point out that the 5 per cent tax, as well as taxes on mine leases, are determined by the Mine Leasing Board. This Board consists of the Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary for the Interior and the Registrar of Mining Rights. They recommend what the State’s share of taxation and royalties in respect of gold mines, diamond mines, base minerals and leases should be, and their recommendation is accepted. Accordingly it was also this Board which recommended the said 5 per cent. The hon. member asked why others have to pay higher taxes. Whenever a mine lease is issued a higher tax is paid, a tax which is approximately 58 per cent of the income. That is what De Beers are paying, that is what West Coast Mining is paying and that is what De Punt Prospectors are paying. That is the tax. But as far as these mines are concerned— those are prospecting rights; that is what they must now pay to the State, and they have to make application for a mine lease once they are functioning on a paying basis. The new tax, which may go as high as 58 per cent, is then calculated.

The hon. member referred to the fact that R66.000 worth of diamonds have already been extracted at Komaggas. I subsequently went to establish precisely what the position was there and obtained the necessary data. The impression created here is that it is a very profitable undertaking with which things are going very well. The actual position is that during the first six months they extracted diamonds to the value of R61,000. However, their expenses for the same period were R185,000. This undertaking, therefore, is not operating on a profitable basis at all.

[Inaudible.]

De Beers did not pack up and leave when they first began. Surely the argument which the hon. member is now putting forward is a nonsensical one? In any case, the undertaking of which I have just mentioned the financial results is proof that consessions cannot be awarded to a person who does not have sufficient capital at his disposal. It is not work for a single digger, even if Mr. Fortune had had all those funds which the hon. member said he had. It must be remembered that as soon as this company is able to operate its business on a paying basis, it can be instructed to make application for a mining lease which entails another basis of taxation. The hon. member referred to the fortunes which may be found lying under the sand there. But there are very few who find those fortunes. Of the places being exploited by De Beers there are very few which are profitable for that company. It has lost on practically all of them in spite of the fact that it is the closest to the coast. West Coast Mining has only declared a dividend once and this company has been in operation for six or seven years. That shows you what expenses and risks are attached to such an undertaking. The hon. member also asked why tenders are not being called for. The result of that would be that the concessions would go to certain bodies only. De Beers has many farms in Namaqualand. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that all that land owned by De Beers in the vicinity of Kimberley and Barkley West should be thrown open to tender when mining rights are again allocated?

I was talking about land which was in the possession of the State.

Very well then. In that case I want to take the hon. member a step further. In Namaqualand there is a strip 140 miles long from the Olifants River right up to Port Nolloth where De Beers has bought up all the farms with the exception of one farm. De Punt. Bordering that land is a strip of State land varying in breadth from 200 to 2,000 feet. In addition to that there is still the coast between the high and low water marks, that is all State property. Must we go and throw all this land open to tender?

I shall decide about that when I am Minister of Mines.

But even if tenders were called for, who would then be in the strongest position to receive those tenders? De Beers, of course. Apart from that, if tenders were called for, the Coloured diggers would not get anywhere. The White diggers would not have got anywhere either if they had had to tender. The Coloured company could only raise R240.

It is clear, therefore, that as far as this matter is concerned the way in which this group of companies is being dealt with does not differ basically from the way in which anybody making application for concessions on State land is dealt with. They have to pay the 5 per cent to the State, and they are further subject to a mining lease being issued as soon as the undertaking is operating at a profit. I pointed out that as a result of the intervention of the Government, the Coloured community obtained a very much greater share of the concessions than that recommended by the committee investigating the matter.

I should like to deal with certain subjects completely different from those which the hon. the Minister has been discussing. Before I come to those matters, I should like to say how sorry I am to see so few Ministers and Deputy Ministers in the House at this moment. After all, the purpose of a debate such as this one is to give the Opposition the opportunity of airing its grievances before it decides whether or not to vote supply. Consequently I think it is incumbent upon Ministers to be present during a debate such as this. There are only three Ministers in the House at present, yet the principle of airing grievances before voting supply is basic to a Parliamentary democracy. There are two or three matters which have been worrying me and as this will be my last opportunity this Session to speak about them, I should like to do so now. First of all I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories here this morning about the withholding of passports for people as eminent as is Mr. Guzana. He is one of the leading lights of the Transkeian Opposition. But his is not the only instance. Many other respectable and moderate Africans have been denied by this Government an opportunity of travelling abroad. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not in the House at the moment so that he could give us some reason, if he has any, for his refusal to grant passports to Africans such as Mr. Guzana. He is a moderate and educated man who could bring nothing but credit to South Africa should he have been enabled to go abroad. He was offered a grant by the State Department of the United States and the fact that he was not allowed by this Government to take up that grant, is an insult to the State Department concerned. What I have said of Mr. Guzana also holds true for another moderate and highly intelligent African who has also recently been refused a passport in order to take advantage of a U.S.A. State Department travel grant. I refer to Chief Buthelezi of Zululand. Recently he was told that his application for a passport has been turned down. I think this is both a scandal and an injustice. Both these men would have been nothing but a credit to South Africa. I cannot imagine what objection the Government can have other than that they do not support the Government’s apart heid policy and have shown themselves to be most moderate men in favour of a multi-racial South Africa. I think that Africans of this kind, who are entitled to go abroad and are denied these privileges are entitled to some sort of explanation—as is the country—by the hon. the Minister of the Interior why they are denied this right. When Africans apply for passports a deposit of R200 is required by the Department of the Interior. Others do not have to pay this deposit. Why this should be, I do not know. This only places further difficulties in the way of Africans who wish to proceed abroad.

There is another important matter which I wish to raise in this House, and I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice is not present this morning. I have a question on Friday’s Order Paper about this matter, as has another hon. member. But there is a possibility that this House may not be sitting on Friday morning, and therefore I must raise the matter immediately. Also I had hoped to get a perhaps more comprehensive answer from the Minister of Justice under present conditions than I would have at question time, for then the opportunity for debate is strictly limited.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this most distressing incident of the police raid on a Johannesburg non-White night-club which took place on Sunday morning. As a result of this raid ten people were crushed and trampled to death and it also appears that a man was shot.

You know there is a commission of inquiry.

Yes, I do know there is a commission of inquiry. But I am not satisfied with a departmental commission of inquiry. I wish to make that quite clear. I am not satisfied with a departmental commission of inquiry for one very simple reason. And that is that the matter has already been prejudged by the Department itself. It has been prejudged by the Commissioner of Police who has already issued a statement.

Surely an inquest will be held.

That is so. But I do not think there is any doubt as to the cause of death. They were trampled to death in a stampede.

Why did they stampede?

Because they were panicking. Sir. That is why. And why did they panic? Because of the raid by the police in crowded premises, and the police actually used police dogs. This is not denied. But the Commissioner has issued a statement that people hostile to the police are already jumping to conclusions. And this means a prejudging of the whole case. Any departmental inquiry which now brings out facts showing the police in an unfavourable light will be a very brave departmental committee indeed. Therefore nothing less than a judicial commission of inquiry can possibly satisfy me completely— and also many others who have an impartial mind—as to the reason for this terrible incident. Sir, I have a question on the Order Paper— which the hon. the Minister of Justice may or may not have an opportunity of replying to —on this matter, and the question is where it is common practice for police to use police dogs in confined spaces where crowds are present. I can think of no more dangerous procedure. Surely this is opening the door to panic and stampedes, and particularly where this happens to be premises where the only exit happens to be down a narrow staircase. Can you imagine a situation where there are a couple of hundred people present in a room, the only exit is a narrow staircase, and then the police, accompanied by police dogs, make a sudden raid? This raid seems to have been made for no apparent reason, since it appears —from the information available so far—that the person they were seeking was somewhere out in the veld already and had left the nightclub. And the police raid this place with ferocious, snapping police dogs.

Why did they run away like that?

The hon. member for Heilbron, a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, whom one would think would at least make it his business to get cracking on this matter in order to have it investigated, and maybe even extend a word of sympathy to the victims and to the families of the deceased, asks why they ran away. The point is, Sir, that you do not use police dogs in a crowded hall, from which egress is obviously going to be extremely difficult, and that you under no circumstances start a crowd panic, which is one of the most dangerous things that can possibly happen.

I hope, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will realize that a departmental commission of inquiry will not go far enough, and that what is required in a case as serious as this is a proper independent judicial commission of inquiry. I hope this suggestion of mine will be passed on to him. I take this opportunity of raising this matter. I think it is important not only because of this particular instance but because of a possible future recurrence of this type of incident. One thing we should have learnt from our unfortunate experiences in the past in South Africa is how to control crowds without endangering human life. I think that is a cardinal rule amongst all police forces throughout the world. And I believe our police are not sufficiently instructed in this regard.

Over the past while we have found—on the part of the Opposition and also on the part of the hon. member who has just sat down—that when anything unpleasant happens in this country, an accusation is always levelled against the police, and a commission of inquiry is urged. This results in the fact that the police are always under a cloud. I do not want to devote much time to what the hon. member had to say here. It has once again become very clear during this short Session that some hon. members root about in dustbins in an effort to find something which can be used against other hon. members. That was what the hon. the Prime Minister said, and that was what happened again yesterday.

The question is, what do the electorate expect of the two large parties? What future is envisaged by each of these parties? It is quite clear that our greatest problem is the colour problem. The first major point of difference between us is in our approach to this colour problem. Let me say immediately that the United Party want the non-Whites—and this includes the Bantu and the Coloureds— to be given a say in this House. In contrast to this, the National Party does not want to give the Bantu a say in this House. The big difference, Sir, is that the United Party want to give the Bantu people a say in this House, the Bantu to be represented by Whites for some time to come. They cannot get away from this fact because it is very clear. The position at the moment is completely different to what it was in 1936. I think that there are only a few hon. members still here who were in the House at the time when that legislation was dealt with. We were faced at the time with an old hereditary right, a vested right, in terms of which the Bantu had certain rights in this House. For years we had the struggle against General Hertzog, the National Party and the S.A. Party to retain the franchise of the Bantu in this House. That was the point of view of the old S.A. Party. Then the United Party under General Hertzog made a promise that this matter would not necessarily be tackled in the first year. The matter was tackled in 1936 and disposed of. and the franchise of the Bantu was taken away.

We are living to-day in changed world circumstances. Both parties admit that the non-White must be given a political say in some or other way. It is clear that the Black man has become politically conscious, and the Black man has received political rights to such an extent that there are only a few countries on the Continent of Africa—to tell the truth, it is only in South Africa that this is the case —where the Black man has as yet no political say in the highest Chamber of the country. But the United Party is quite prepared to give him political power in this House. In one of its publications the United Party came to light with the story that a referendum could be held on this matter in five years’ time. Do they realize what a dangerous weapon they would immediately be placing in the hands of the Black man? It may be argued that such a referendum will only be held when it has to be decided whether the authority of the Black man in this House should be increased or not. Do hon. members think for one moment that once the Black man has become politically conscious and has demanded political rights, he will be satisfied to be represented by Whites in this House? It is absolute stupidity, having regard to the political power which the Black man has received elsewhere in the world, to think that the Black man will be satisfied with White representation here. This is the weapon which the United Party is prepared to place in the hands of the Black man.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations in regard to agriculture and I want to refer particularly to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) had to say here this morning. I have here a pamphlet dealing with the political policy of the United Party. It is entitled: “Matters of the Day” (Sake van die Dag), by Sir De Villiers Graaff, No. 1 of 1965. In this pamphlet is set out the same political policy of the United Party as was described for us this morning by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). Before I go any further I want to rectify a matter which was raised recently by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to what was said by Mr. Bührmann. President of the Transvaal Agricultural Union’s Congress, in respect of soil conservation and soil erosion. This is what Mr. Bührmann said [translation]—

I am reading this portion of the speech simply for the purposes of the record, Mr. Speaker.

According to the policy statement of the United Party in the publication to which I have already referred, they are continuing to search for larger markets. It is quite clear that they have studied the question of the influx of Bantu into the cities, but they have also opposed an influx control policy during this Session. We find the following in this connection on page 23 of this pamphlet [translation]—

This aspect of the United Party’s policy is set out very clearly here. It is quite obvious that the United Party are not in favour of the Bantu being sent back to the Bantu areas from the White areas. The reason why they are not in favour of such a policy is based purely on economic considerations.

Why do you say that it is based “purely” on those considerations? Where do you find the word “purely”? Where does it say that that is the only reason?

I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. member. Another matter which is also related to this question of their concern in regard to markets, and to which this, pamphlet refers, is the old school-feeding plan. It is stated that the school-feeding plan will establish a tremendous market for certain products. They also refer to the question of marketing under the Marketing Act. This Act is, of course, an empowering Act and for nine years it was under the control of the United Party. They had this power in their hands for nine years, but on no occasion was one single product placed on this cost-plus basis. I repeat, Sir, not one single product, and this is the United Party’s important policy. This cost- plus policy is their important policy. What does this United Party pamphlet have to say? It states that the first and most important requirement is that the farmer must be guaranteed a fair income over and above his production costs, on the basis of the Marketing Act. The United Party did not make use of that power, but it wants that power to be used now. It is interesting to note that a cost-estimate system is applied to-day in regard to two commodities only. The hon. member also advocated a guaranteed price. Well, Sir. I should like to know from the hon. member how he is going to make his estimate of costs. How will he do so in regard to dairy products? Is he going to base his estimate on the case, for example, of a farmer at Vryburg who, for ten months of the year, produces from the veld? Or is he going to base it on the case of a farmer on the Transvaal Highveld who has to feed his stock for 12 months in the year? Or will he take the case of a farmer in the Western Province, a part of the country which has a winter rainfall? How will the hon. member set about establishing an average price? The hon. member spoke about a guaranteed price for every farmer. How is he going to determine this under the Marketing Act? We cannot have a number of different prices. There can only be one price for the whole country, and if there is only one price, there will be a number of farmers who produce below that price and a number of farmers who produce above that price. In other words, every farmer cannot be given a guarantee that his costs will be covered. What are we supposed to do, even if a determination can be made? It is absolutely impossible to fix a guaranteed price under the Marketing Act.

In regard to farmers who are forced off their land because of circumstances beyond their control, the hon. member said that a scheme should be put into operation on a nation-wide scale to enable them to be trained for other professions. After the United Party had been put out of office, the National Party tackled various schemes. People are now being trained, their training periods have been reduced, and they can even sit for their examinations without having had any particular training as apprentices. The United Party are also in favour of the payment of pensions to aged farmers who have dropped out of the profession and who cannot be trained for new professions. This then is the policy which they are going to place before the public of South Africa at the coming election. But the United Party must remember that the public have experience of a United Party Government. How practicable is this policy of the United Party?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that we need more farmers, and this pamphlet also reflects their plans to make provision for more farmers on the platteland. We have about 100,000,000 morgen of land at our disposal which is continually shrinking as a result, inter alia, of the expansion of our towns and cities and public facilities. We have 100,000 farmers on this land. According to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), the number of farmers does not even reach the 70,000 mark. It is also being said here that their numbers are decreasing by between 2,400 and 2,600 per annum, and that this has apparently been happening for the past 15 years. Let us accept the fact that there are 70,000 of them. We know that things are not going well with the farmers. We know that they are struggling; but to want more farmers to farm 100.000,000 morgen of land would be the height of stupidity.

The hon. member also discussed the question of cattle and sheep in South Africa. Let us take a figure of 12,000,000 head of cattle and assume that each head requires five morgen of land. This amounts to 60,000,000 morgen. If there are 40,000,000 sheep and we need two morgen of land per sheep, then we do not have enough land in the Republic! We will not have enough land unless we have scientific development. That is exactly what this Government is occupied with. It is occupied with the building of large irrigation dams in order to make this development possible. That is the only way in which we will be able to support a larger farming population. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister referred to when he told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that farmers who had dropped out of farming, and who had to find work in factories, would be given the opportunity to go back to farming on the more thickly populated settlements under irrigation schemes. At the moment we are busy with the Orange River scheme, the Pongola scheme and others. That is the only way in which this country can support a larger farming population. The Government was criticized in this House the other day for undertaking large schemes of this nature. It was said that preference should be given to a larger number of smaller schemes.

I am sure hon. members will know that at one time everyone in South Africa was a farmer. Even the townspeople were farmers because they farmed on large areas of communal land. Development in the country was unavoidable and some of these farmers had to find their niche elsewhere. If we did not have the exodus from the platteland to our towns and cities to-day, the country would not be able to carry our farming population. Where are the days when our farm lads had to work on the railways with pick and shovel? We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Transport in that we can offer those lads better positions to-day. We have no unemployment problem in South Africa. I also had experience of the depression in the thirties. The people from the farms were simply unable to find work, but to-day there is work aplenty. In the days when we were struggling to find work, our sons had to do odd jobs in the back yards of shops. They had to earn their living in the mines. And when one walked into a shop and addressed the shopkeeper in Afrikaans, his sneering reply was: “I do not speak that low Dutch language.” When ten Afrikaans-speaking people walked into a shop, the farm lad was summoned from the back yard to serve them. Our people have to-day won a place in commerce. They have left their mark in the mining sphere. We can take them away from the roads and the railways. They have found their place in the economy of the country and they can hold their own in the commercial world and industry. How could we have had the tremendous industrial development that we have had if we had all been farmers. As the mines develop and as more people become employed there, so must the population figure on the platteland fall and the number of workers on the mines increase. This is what has happened over the years. If one considers the index figure for income, it is apparent that it has increased and has not decreased. A comparison is the only way in which one can determine whether or not there has been a decrease. But one cannot make this determination by a comparison between the total figure and the figure for one particular sector because one will then arrive at an incorrect conclusion. On this basis of comparison we will find that the figure for mining has also decreased considerably, namely, from 27 per cent to 13 per cent of the total national income. On the other hand the average income of the farmer has fallen from 18 per cent to 9 per cent, but this is not proof that things are going badly with the farmers because the figures are not comparable. The farming industry is beset with problems under present-day circumstances, particularly as a result of the drought, and account must be taken of the conditions prevailing in the country before prices can be fixed. When drought conditions have been prevailing in certain parts of the country for two or three years, it has been apparent that insufficient consideration has been given to the risk factor in the fixing of prices. The Government has two avenues open to it. The first avenue which is presently being investigated and which will probably provide a solution under present circumstances is to pay greater attention to the risk factor in the fixing of prices. The second alternative is to try to establish an insurance scheme under which farmers can insure themselves against drought, a scheme which works well in America and which has already been accepted by everyone in principle. The important question to be decided, probably by the commission, is whether such a scheme should be made compulsory for all farmers or whether it should be on a voluntary basis. If one establishes a scheme on a voluntary basis one will have to make greater provision for the risk factor in the farming industry as far as the fixing of prices is concerned. One has to face problems in the light of the development in the country. We know that our country is subject to periodic droughts, and this is a factor which must be considered.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made here to the question of the importing of maize. Hon. members must remember that we harvested 47 million bags of maize last year and that these 47 million bags were insufficient. Initially, only a few million bags were imported to help South Africa over the drought period. Maize is used mainly for human consumption and not for animal consumption. If the drought alone was the cause of the small crop, the consumption figure for yellow maize would have increased considerably. It was not the consumption figure for yellow maize that increased to such an extent but the consumption figure for white maize for human consumption. Last year’s crop was 47,000,000 bags of maize while during the period of office of the United Party the consumption was only 20,000,000 bags.

Mr. Speaker, how does the maize price of to-day compare with the price fixed in the days of the United Party? I quote from the pamphlet to which I have already referred [translation]—

It was not during the war years that the farmers received £1.2s.6d per bag. No, during the war years the price was not even 16s. per bag. The price of £1.2s.6d was only reached after the war years but the price then was not fixed by the United Party Government in terms of the Marketing Act.

Are you referring to Stephen le Roux?

No, Stephen le Roux was the man who stated in 1948 that the price for that year would be the price for the next year; that stability was the aim of the Marketing Act. That was the aim of the Marketing Act, not a guaranteed price. The United Party came to light with a price of £1.2s.6d. in 1947, the highest price paid during their period of office. The Maize Board stated at the time that production costs had risen and recommended a price of £1.3s.6d. per bag. What was Mr. Strauss’s reply? He said: “No, the country has sufficient maize; I am going to bring the price down to fl.ls.Od”, not a guaranteed price. He fixed the price according to the requirements of the country. The United Party lowered the price of maize under the Marketing Act, notwithstanding the increase in production costs. The Maize Board maintained that it was quite clear, even though no estimate of costs had been made, that production costs had risen, and when the Maize Board recommended a price of £1.3s.6d per bag. the United Party Government reduced that price. [Time limit.]

I listened with very great interest how the hon. member who has just sat down tried to gloss over the situation of the farmers in the country. That, of course, was attempting the impossible. I was touched to the heart. He found it very difficult, to gloss over the matter, because he perhaps knows better what happens to farmers under the Nationalist Party Government than most members of this House; because he was one of the members who had to come along with General Hertzog in the thirties to join General Smuts in founding the United Party in order to save the farmers from the utmost misery in which the previous Nationalist Party Government had landed them. It was touching to hear the hon. member tell us how grateful he was that the farmers need no longer leave their farms to work on the Railways for 3s. 6d. per day. Surely that was exactly what he helped to prevent when he became a member of the United Party in 1933 in order to save the farmers from the Nationalist Party Government. But that is not all. At that time the hon. member was still pleading the cause of the farmers, but to-day I did not hear him pleading for the farmers. To-day he was only pleading for the Government against the farmers of South Africa. The hon. member holds it against us that we object to the fact that 2,600 farmers have to leave the farms of South Africa every year and move to the cities.

That does not correspond with the facts.

Sir, the hon. member admits that.

No.

What I find so tragic is that he is pretending that because we object to that, we want more farmers on the farms. We do not say we want more farmers; what we are saying is that we should do something to stop this evacuation of the farms by Whites, this depopulation of the rural areas. Of course, there will be more farmers on the farms — the hon. member does not realize that. If it is the Government’s policy, as the hon. member alleges, that there should not be more farmers in South Africa, why are they damming the Orange River? Are there going to be no farmers under that scheme? The important point which the hon. member overlooks is this: If 2,600 farmers have to leave their farms every year to go to the cities, even though they do not go to work on the Railways for 3s. 6d. per day, they have to go and work somewhere in the cities, in a mine or in a factory; they are not skilled; they have no training. That means a complete revolution in the personal lives of those people, of whom many are middle-aged. Mr. Speaker, that is cruel, and I challenge any hon. member on the other side to get up and tell us what this Government is doing, since it is their policy that those people should leave their farms, to make it easier for those people to adjust themselves to city life, so that their adjustment need not be as disrupting as it must necessarily be for middle-aged people. Hon. members on the other side should not speak about farming matters. Take the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). How many of the Nationalist Party Members of Parliament in the Cape Province who will not be returning, who have been defeated at nomination or, like him, have withdrawn from nomination have been replaced by farmers? Look at the attitude of this Government. The hon. member for Cradock is a prominent farmer. He was chairman of their farmers’ group for a long time. If he had been more capable he may perhaps have been Minister of Agriculture. Is he being replaced by a farmer in his own constituency? Is he being pushed out by a farmer in his own constituency?

I was elected unanimously for 28 years. You are a vagabond.

Mr. Speaker, that is excellent, a proud achievement on the part of the hon. member for Cradock, and I congratulate him. 1 wish I could say that. But by whom is he being replaced? Is he being replaced by a farmer?

No.

That is the attitude of the Nationalist Party towards the farming community of South Africa. In several constituencies in every province of South Africa farmers have been pushed out by people who do not know which end of a spade to dig with. Of course, the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is speaking with an eye on the election.

And I suppose you are not.

We all do that, with the difference that we on this side can present the people with a case in this election, whereas hon. members on the other side have no case. We have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Christiana and we have also listened to speeches made by other hon. members, and it is now quite clear what the attitude and the propaganda of hon. members on that side are going to be in this election. They want to take us back to 1948. It is going to be another election of scaremongering, a bogyman election. The poor people outside are going to be set on edge with all kinds of fictitious stories about what the United Party will do if it gets into power. The hon. member for Christiana said they would make much ado about the fact that the United Party will give the Natives a say in this Parliament, “and nobody knows where it will all end”. They will tell the voters that the United Party wants Black men in Parliament; they will say that the United Party will even see to it that a non-White becomes Prime Minister of South Africa. They will tell the voters that according to a report which appeared in a Natal student publication, the hon the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to see a non-White become Prime Minister of South Africa. All that paper reported was that the Leader of the Opposition reputedly said that it was possible; that it was most improbable, but that it was possible. Mr. Speaker, we have fought elections in South Africa, where the Nationalist Party adopted the attitude that Parliament was sovereign. No matter what Government is in power, if this Parliament wants to appoint a non-White Prime Minister, it may do so. That is possible. But I repeat, it is most improbable. The United Party does not believe it will ever happen, but constitutionally it is possible. Under this Government it may happen tomorrow. In the past years they have changed their Native policy so regularly that I will not be surprised if they tell us to-morrow that we may now just as well appoint Kaizer Matanzima Prime Minister of South Africa. One can expect anything from them. But that is not all. The other famous story they are going to tell the people is that the United Party is devoted to the task of replacing the White workers on the Railways and in industry by non-Whites. That is also nonsense. If that story is spread during the election, it will be a scandalous falsehood. The United Party’s attitude regarding this matter is stronger that that of the Government. The Government wants to leave the destiny of the White workers to the arbitrary decisions of a politician who happens to be Minister of Labour, and who has the power to apply job reservation, whereas the United Party maintains that any decision about changes in the pattern of employment in South Africa should and may only be taken with the consent of the White workers involved in the spheres of labour affected by such changes.

When business was suspended, I had pointed out that as regards the protection of the White worker, the United Party has a stronger policy than the Government itself. It is the Government’s policy to entrust this matter to a politician, the Minister of Labour, who holds powers of control by means of job reservation, whereas it is the attitude of the United Party that such changes may only take place with the consent of the trade union to which the White workers who are involved in such a decision, belong. That is the reply, for example, to the question which has been put, “What about drivers and firemen on our trains; they do not want that.” The reply is that if Lemas, their trade union, is not prepared to grant them that, it will not happen. The decision rests with the trade unions. I should prefer to entrust this responsibility to the workers themselves, rather than to a politician in the Nationalist Party Government who changes his policy from one day to the next. I find it very strange that the hon. members on the other side bring this complaint; in respect of the non-Whites in South Africa they follow a policy which is not founded on knowledge of South Africa; it is their policy to fragmentize South Africa; to create seven Bantustans which will become independent States, not in accordance with the South African tradition, but in order to apply Europe’s Africa policy in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, that is a very grave thing to say, but I say that on the authority of no less a person that the hon. Prime Minister, who has from time to time made statements about the Government’s attitude towards self-government and sovereignty in the Bantustans, and who has set out their policy quite clearly. For example, on 24 March 1959, shortly after the hon. gentleman had become Prime Minister, he criticised our policy and alleged that nothing but disharmony could arise under us, and then he asked the question—

The hon. the Prime Minister then continued and said—

That was in 1959. Does the hon. the Prime Minister still believe that South Africa would be well-advised to follow the British policy towards the Bantu areas in South Africa, after the events in Ghana, after the events in Nigeria, after the events in Zanzibar, after important bodies, for example the weekly Life the Republican publication in the United States of America, came to the conclusion that that policy was unwise and dangerous? Does the Prime Minister still maintain that our policy for the Bantustans should be founded on the example set in Africa by the premature emancipation of these states by England and other European countries? But the Prime Minister is still thinking along the same lines. To come a bit closer to our own time, he said, for example, on 22 April 1963, as quoted in the British Hansard, Col. 4455—

Because the states in Africa desire to do that, according to the Prime Minister, it should now be granted to the Xhosa, to the Zulu, to the Venda, to the Tswana, to the South Sotho and to the North Sotho. All of them should be granted independence, although it is becoming clearer by the day that it is fatal to grant independence to people who do not have the background to uphold democracy. [Interjections.] I am always greatly interested in the reactions of my audience. I am very pleased to see that hon. members on the other side are so sensitive about this matter. We are making progress. The Prime Minister founded his attitude on a fine piece of sophistry, to the effect that he would prefer to govern himself, no matter how poorly, rather than to be governed by others. But then I must ask the hon. the Prime Minister this question: What about the great majority of the South African Bantu who will, in fact, not be governed by their own free Bantustans? What about those millions of Bantu who will remain in the White part of South Africa after the Prime Minister’s policy has been implemented? The hon. the Prime Minister said that they were entitled to claim self-government in their own country. What makes the hon. the Prime Minister think for one moment that they will accept as theirs a country they never see, where they earn nothing, where they can exercise no actual, effective civil rights, rather than the country in which they were born, in which they live, in which they earn their livelihood, and in which they will die? Surely that is ridiculous. Where do we see the slightest indication—let us look at realities—that the Bantustans will provide a home for the majority of the South African Natives? The flow in the opposite direction is increasing in strength. Last Friday the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) that the flow of Bantu to the Witwatersrand was 32,636 in 1963, but last year it was no longer 32,636; contrary to the so-called policy of the Nationalist Party, the flow to the Witwatersrand in 1965 was 70,815 Bantu, more than twice as many as in 1963. And, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the influx control which is applied, not one of those Bantu comes to the Witwatersrand unnecessarily. Each Bantu is allowed to come to the Witwatersrand because his services are essential to the economic life of the Witwatersrand; because he has to be an economically integrated part of that community. The hon. the Prime Minister will say: No, they are not economically integrated. Because, as he has explained to us in the past, the tractor on a farmer’s farm is not integrated, although the farmer works with it. But the difference is that a farmer’s tractor forms part of his capital, and a Bantu who comes to the Witwatersrand is a labourer; that is a completely different production factor. It shows wrong in principle how basically unfounded the hon. the Prime Minister’s thinking is, if he compares a human being to a tractor; if he compares a labourer to an item of capital.

Are we going to give the Coloureds and the Indians their own homelands? [Interjections.] Are we going to give them their birthright, or are we not? [Interjections.] In other words, one can commit an injustice towards minorities, but not towards majorities. As long as somebody is in the minority one can accept him as part of the population, but if he is in the majority, one has to create a fiction, in order to silence your conscience, of a fatherland 1,000 miles away, which he will never see. Surely that is ludicrous. That is nothing but superficial thinking on the part of somebody who has lost his wits. What the Prime Minister wants to do is this: Through the seven Bantustans he wants to create political organs for that majority among us, in our midst. He wants to create for them a government where they will be de jure subjects of the Bantustans, but where they will be de facto subjects of the Republic of South Africa. Those people will aspire to more rights, for. in this world, all of us aspire to more. The Prime Minister is giving them sovereign organs to realize those aspirations. The Prime Minister wants to give them seven seats in the UNO. He wants to create seven more enemies for South Africa. That is stupid and short-sighted. [Interjections.].

Order!

I have here a very important document which relates to the future of South Africa. It is the Economic Development Programme for the Republic of South Africa, which has been released by the Department of Planning, and which is based on reports made and research carried out by the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know whether this so-called policy of segregation— of separate development—of the Prime Minister’s will ever succeed, you have to read what his own experts tell us. What this report indicates is that the more South Africa prospers, the more South Africa will be dependent upon Bantu labour under the policy of this Government. If you look at Table 3 at the back, you will find that they anticipate that, if our average annual growth is 4.5 per cent, we will need 774,300 Bantu labourers in South Africa in the years 1964 to 1970. But if we want to be more prosperous and raise the growth rate to 5.9 per cent, the number of extra Bantu needed will be more than 100,000 higher. In other words, the more prosperous South Africa is, the more impossible and ridiculous the attitude and the policy of the Government becomes.

But I do not want to speak about Bantu affairs only. There is another matter I should like to raise, and that is the administrative inadequacy and ineffectiveness of this Government. vVe find, for example, that, in the course of a session of Parliament, a Minister tries to justify his actions in transferring a man because that man had operated what they call a “call-girl” organization from the offices of a Government Department, and in the Department’s time; operated a brothel from a Government Department, but was not discharged for that; he was transferred and, because he was not prepared to accept that transfer, it was regarded as a great sin, and he was discharged. Sir, what sense of values is there in this Government in a Christian Calvinistic country, that people who run a brothel, that people who exploit the bodies of women as a business, should be allowed to remain in the employment of the Railways and are merely transferred? The hon. the Minister over there submitted that as a justification to ridicule us on this side. Can you believe it that a Minister, in defence against an attack made on him, states that a man ran a brothel in Railways’ time and was punished by being transferred? Can you believe it, Sir, that he can be so weak and ineffectual? One wonders what vested interests were involved in this matter, so that the man could not be discharged. [Interjection.] I am most interested in the interjection made by the Minister of Community Development. Is it his policy also that if somebody operates a brothel in his Department he should be transferred instead of being discharged?

May I ask you a question?

No. Is it then Government policy to condone the operation of such a thing as a brothel in Government offices?

The Minister never used the word “brothel”, and you know that.

In the argument against me, the hon. the Minister of Transport spoke of a “call-girl” organization. How does that differ from a brothel? No, I am sorry, but I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible and more shocking than that acknowledgment on the part of the Minister. I should very much like to know whether the Prime Minister allows his Minister to act in that way. That is the picture we find before us.

Did you not complain about the actions of the hon. the Minister?

I was under the impression that that official had been discharged because he was not prepared to accept a transfer, and the hon. the Minister’s reply to me was no, he was transferred because he had operated a brothel, and was discharged when he declined the transfer. But if he had accepted the transfer, the fact that he had run a brothel would have been covered up. That is my unavoidable conclusion. No, I very much regret to think that such a thing can happen under a Government in South Africa. That is the last thing I expected. Instead of defending a thing of that nature, the Prime Minister should take steps to ensure that nothing like that will ever happen again.

But surely you defended the man.

Order!

That is the picture we see. I started with the hon. member for Christiana. He tried to defend the Government against the farmers of South Africa. His plea was that it was no longer necessary for the farmers of South Africa to work on the railways for 35 cents a day. That was his main defence. Sir, there has never been a government which relied on the farmers and made use of the farmers of South Africa for its own political purposes and who left the farmers in the lurch when the farmers needed it, in the way this Government has done that. We have the phenomenon of a Government which wants to attack the Opposition about their Native policy and which alleges that we want a Prime Minister from among the non-Whites for White South Africa, when they have already appointed a non-White Prime Minister over a large part of South Africa, and intend appointing six more. Then we have the phenomenon that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to create sovereign political organs by means of which the Bantu who work in White South Africa can promote their cause against South Africa. Believe me, Sir, the Bantu who work in South Africa will remain the under-privileged among us for many years to come, and they will aspire to more, and if they cannot get more as quickly as they want it, they will not hesitate to use the governments which the Prime Minister wants to create in the Bantustans in order to promote their cause against South Africa throughout the world. Such a policy is political suicide. We have a Government which maintains that people are entitled to self-government, and then imports thousands of Bantu into the White areas of South Africa in order to use them as labour, and yet refuses them for all eternity the opportunity of enjoying political rights in this country. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have now listened to the last agonies of a party which does not know where it is heading. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) became virtually incoherent in his rage, but one does not really know with whom he was furious, whether it was with his own party or with himself. He resented the fact that the man defended by him had been dismissed, and he resented the fact that that man whom he defended did something of which he had been unaware when he defended him.

The argument of the hon. member as regards Bantu homelands is briefly this. If there is any danger it is much better to have it at home than away from home. If there is any risk, it is better to deal with it in one’s own house rather than in the house next door. All dangers he foresees in the policy of separation are a hundred times worse if they occur in his own territory. That is the fundamental weakness in the entire argument advanced by hon. members on the opposite side; and if what we have heard here, and that from their master exciters or revivalists what is more, is an example of the best they can do, then it would not surprise us at all if they are going to walk straight into the arms of defeat as they have done so many times before. If one puts oneself in the position of an objective citizen of South Africa, but one with common sense, however, one would immediately say that as an alternative government the United Party on its record as an Opposition is completely immature, irresponsible and incapable of ever governing the country. I do not want to make loose allegations only. I am saying that they are irresponsible and I want to take an example from the finances of the country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, supported by other members of his party, suggested the total abolition of the means test for old age pensions.

With a national contributory scheme.

That was not the argument advanced here. The argument was that there should be no means test. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever calculated how much that would cost the State. I know that we once did that in connection with the war veterans and I also know that the real cost to the State was at least ten times more than the estimated amount. I have had a very conservative estimate made of the costs of such a scheme, and the costs amount to between R60,000,000 and R80,000,000 per annum at least. If there is a contributory scheme, it will be yet another form of taxation. That money has to be found somewhere and it would not differ from the present position in the least. The other day a man retired on a pension of R18,000 per annum, but he will also qualify for a pension. When the Leader of the Opposition reaches the age at which the old age pension becomes payable, he, too, will be entitled to that. Irresponsible promises such as those are being made. You know, Sir, during a previous election, Mr. Sauer, or perhaps it was the Minister of Transport, estimated how much the promises made by the Opposition would cost, and that figure exceeded R100,000,000. But here we have one now which would cost R80,000,000 per annum and I am not even speaking about other promises made outside this House. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) made two suggestions which would cost between R15,000,000 to R20,000,000 more. Thus in this debate alone, the costs of just two of those promises amount to that sum of money. I say that anyone who can be so irresponsible when it comes to perceiving the financial implications of promises is making a big mistake, because that money will have to be recovered in some form or another from the taxpayer. It makes no difference whether one has a welfare State and a special contribution for that purpose. In all other countries that is still regarded as forming part of the taxation one pays for that welfare. The hon. member now wants to turn South Africa into a welfare State. If there is one thing for which we should be really grateful, it is the fact that we have never given way to those cheap requests of turning South Africa into a welfare State. People have said a welfare State means a farewell State—farewell to the stability and the character and the moral strength of the nation. Once a nation knows that everything will be handed to it on a platter, it loses all initiative and self-reliance. That is the first step; another follows.

I now come to the foreign policy. I have listened carefully and that was one of the main points of the debate. Imagine dragging in foreign affairs as a platform from which to fight a local election! What was this proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition and his party? To me it merely illustrates the absolute immaturity and irresponsibility of the foreign policy of that party on the opposite side. Here we are dealing with a very delicate matter. In a case such as this South Africa simply cannot afford to take any gamble, but the Leader of the Opposition stormed into this delicate matter like a bull into a china shop and one can well imagine what the possibilities would be if he is going to apply the same principles in other respects. For that reason I am saying that such irresponsible actions are quite inconceivable.

I only want to refer to one point concerning their domestic affairs policy, namely their colour policy. We know that there have been changes in their colour policy, first editions, second editions and many more. Some of those policies have fallen into oblivion. There was the sixpence policy, too! I think the Prime Minister once made a very imposing list of all the Coloured policies which the United Party has followed, but I now want to come to their latest, namely, race federation. They say South Africa’s salvation is to be found in one large fatherland in which the majority group is the Bantu population. They say that holds no dangers, but what does hold dangers is having Bantustans, because the hon. member has just said that the Bantu population has aspirations and that they will not be satisfied with having Bantustans. Does the hon. member think that those people would be satisfied, that they simply would have no aspirations if they form part of a single South Africa and have seats with us in this Parliament, without their being able to make their numbers felt? Does he think that they would be satisfied with that? Does he think they would be satisfied with eight White representatives? They will not be satisfied with that. They have realized that already. [Interjections.] When the hon. member for Yeoville, who has just interrupted me, was asked: “Then, does the United Party envisage that there will one day be Black M.P.s in the National Assembly in Cape Town?”, he said on television in July 1964—

The hon. member said his leader had merely said that it was possible for a Bantu to become Prime Minister, but the mere fact that it is possible is dangerous enough. Under our policy that is simply not possible. And that is one of the basic differences. The hon. members are now saddled with that policy. In 1959 when the Prime Minister stated the policy of Bantu homelands here, I pleaded with the Opposition: Do not be hasty in taking a decision; think about the matter; this is the turning point not only in the history of South Africa, but for your party; give the matter serious consideration before taking any decision. But they took that decision and adhered to it stubbornly in spite of the elections which have taken place since 1959. They are still adhering to that and what is the position to-day? I want to tell the United Party that it has no future as long as it is committed as a party to that policy. If it wants a future in South Africa it must break away from that policy, and the sooner the better. For as long as it is prepared to kick against the pricks of separate liberties and of a policy of separation, for just so long should it expect to come from the arena of every election in a blood-stained condition.

What about the Coloureds and Indians?

There is sufficient historical evidence of that, and not so far back in history either. There is no need to go to Servius Tellius and there is no need to go to the image of Cyprus once used by the hon. member. In Africa there is sufficient proof that it simply cannot happen. A very important person, a British administrator who was Governor in Jamaica and in North Borneo and Gambia and the Fiji Islands, stated in a letter to the London Times no so long ago that the skeletons of multi-racial dreams were scattered all over Africa. This is yet another multi-racial dream which will lie scattered there. But listen to what else he said about the reasons why all those racial plans are idle dreams to-day. He said the Black African everywhere now wanted to be an African and not a pseudo-European. He said the South African Government was spending large amounts on assisting the Bantu people to realize their ambitions—not frustrating their aspirations by granting them eight representatives here—and to qualify for political independence coupled with economic interdependence. That was what Lord Milverton stated and he then went on to say—

In other words, a race federation, which is an administrative partnership, is impossible—

As the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education said the other day, there are economic bonds which compel them to turn their eyes towards South Africa and which will restrain them from taking the course hon. members on the opposite side predict. But if one wants to place restrictions on their dignity by giving them only eight White representatives in this Parliament, then I say their aspirations cannot be satisfied and then they will insist upon more and more powers; and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the United Party or any power in the world will be able to stop them if that stream of Black nationalism is obstructed. It will break through. However, we are providing a safety valve in so far that they are able to develop in their own territories. There they can satisfy their aspirations and there they can realize their human dignities as Lord Milverton has said. There they can govern themselves. There will be no question of administrative partnership—there they will be on their own. For that reason I am saying that if the Opposition is still going to adhere to that policy I can foresee no other destiny for them than never coming into power again.

But I hasten to add that that is not the only reason why voters will rather vote for the National Party than for the Opposition, but that there is a positive reason too, because this Government need not go to the voter with promises; it need not promise those things, it can go to the voter with what it has done, with what it has done for the various sections. I do not have the time at my disposal to enumerate all those things, but I do want to mention a few of the things this Government has done. Recently I saw quite by chance that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) addressed some congress and made the following headlines: “Cents for the child, millions of rands for the cannon.” Do you know what he did? He took the expenditure on education and compared one sub-division of that with the total expenditure on the Air Force or the Navy, but he took the combined expenditure on Defence and compared with one sub-division of that on Education. I deemed it necessary to get some information on that matter, and I now want to ask him where he comes by his “Cents”. In the 1965-6 Budget R131,600,000 was made available for education in its different forms. That figure includes R64,700,000 of the subsidy to the Provinces, but the 60 per cent spent by the Provinces has to be added, namely R90,000,000. That gives us a total which exceeds R221,000,000. That amount was spent on lower and secondary education in South Africa for that year. And that was not all. One was left with higher education and university education, and in that connection R18,700,000 was appropriated. This brings us to R240,000,000. But even that was not all. R2,195,000 was spent in the form of bursaries and R30,700,000 on research, which forms part of education. Now we have a total of more than R270,000,000, which exceeds our total expenditure on Defence. Then the hon. member speaks about “Cents for the child and millions of rands for defence.” That was last year’s Budget. It illustrates what importance we attach to education. Recently the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science too quoted certain figures here which were very important in illustrating how education has progressed.

I want to come to something else. What have we done for pensioners? According to a survey I have had made of the increases in pensions, this Government has effected the following improvements. I am referring to real per capita increases. What is the real per capita increase in our national income? Do you know that the income of pensioners has increased more rapidly than the average national income? I am now going to quote some additional amounts spent by us in recent years. Yesterday we were informed here that there will be an increase of R6.100.000 in this Vote, last year it was R8,600,000, the previous year R3,500,000, the year prior to that R6,300,000, the year prior to that R3,800,000, in 1961‘2 the increase was R2,800,000, in 1960-1 it was was R3,200,000 and in 1959-60 it was R1,800,000. These are the increases during those years, and let me now take the total amount of expenditure on pensions in 1947-8; at that time it was R16,900,000. The latest figure exceeds R84,000,000. If we take note of the increases in expenditure over the period from 1948 to 1966-7, we find that there has been an increase of nearly R68,000,000. As regards pensions, the 1947-8 figure was R16,000,000, and that has increased by R68,000,000. That shows that the Government has the interests of those people at heart. It does not come forward with promises; it comes forward with activities, it comes forward with deeds.

I want to consider housing. I think the hon. the Minister of Housing has already given the figures, but over the past two years only more than R27,000,000 has been spent on White housing

More than that.

Yes, that figure does not include Railway housing, and there are also other amounts. That is what the Government has done to relieve the housing emergency.

Those are only a few of the positive reasons why the people of South Africa will say in the next election that they are going not for negative reasons, but for positive reasons, to vote for the National Party, not only for negative reasons but also for positive reasons, they are gaing to vote for a party which has proved that it does things.

The United Party has now come to light with something new. All of a sudden they have become concerned about the White man in South Africa, and all of a sudden they have nearly turned against the non-White. The non-Whites must be given no assistance; too much is being done for the non-Whites. With all due respect I say that that cry sounds hollow coming from a party which has incited feelings against South Africa abroad over the years …

That is not true.

They have incited that feeling by telling stories about suppression and racial discrimination and racial hatred on the part of the National Party. The image of South Africa which we are still struggling to rectify to-day, was created to a large extent as a result of the United Party’s accusation that we were doing too little for the Bantu. But now we learn from them that too much is being done for the Bantu and too little for the White man! But not all the members of the United Party are saying that. There are certain members, who are not even here, who preserved a salutary silence about the matter. I wonder what the hon. member for Parktown thinks about such actions and such a policy, what does the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) think about that, what does the hon. member for Durban-Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) think about that. Do they support that? In the past the United Party acted somewhat differently and then they looked and spoke to both sides. Now the one side is remaining silent and the other side is talking, but they are doing neither. Do you know a man like ex-Senator Brookes said: “My conscience will not allow me to swallow this repugnant and abominable behaviour of the United Party and I am now going to resign from the party.” Now. they once more come with the same repugnant and abominable policy which must disgust any right-thinking person. That is why I am saying that a party coming forward with that story, a party with a past record which has plunged us into most of our present problems abroad, should not expect any right-thinking person with the proper attitude to believe that story.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the House go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Accounts during the year ending 31st March, 1966.

Agreed to.

Vote No. 4,—“Prime Minister”, R410,000.

Under sub-head E there is an item “Relief of distress in Basutoland”, R395,000. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced last June, I think it was, that the Government had decided to make this relief available to Basutoland, we made no objection. It suited the Government’s policy of good neighbourly relations with neighbouring states and its desire to be of assistance if any of those states were in distress. In principle we agreed with the Prime Minister’s announcement. and we are not objecting to this assistance in principle. The gift has now been made, and as the hon. the Prime Minister is well aware, there has been a great deal of doubt and discussion as to how that gift has been used and particularly how the distribution and the organization of the distribution of that gift has been done. It has been suggested that some of that grain which we gave has not yet been delivered to Basutoland; it has been suggested that some of it is still lying at stations in the Republic; it is suggested that some of it is not in a fit state to be delivered. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister could give us some information. There has been comment in the Prime Minister’s own Press, for instance, that the British Government has been involved in the delay in making the gift available to Basutoland. I am referring to the Vaderland. “Skandalige Britse taktiek van vertraging.” There have been other Press reports that only 6,800 bags of the 100,000 bags have got as far as Basutoland. I do not want to go into details, but the hon. the Prime Minister will agree that there has been a good deal of talk and a lot of doubt cast upon what were undoubtedly the good intentions of the Government in making this gift, and I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to give an account to the Committee before we pass this Vote as to just how the scheme has worked and whether it has been carried out with satisfaction and whether he is satisfied that the goodwill gesture of the Republic towards Basutoland has been used to the best advantage.

I am glad that the hon. member has made it clear that the idea of making the gift for humane and other reasons also had the blessing of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition said that at the time.

In the light of all the reports which have appeared in the newspapers from time to time, I can understand that there may be some doubt as to whether the scheme was carried out systematically and whether it worked properly. I have here certain particulars about the way in which the distribution was made over the months. It is understandable that the transportation of such a large quantity of goods, which had to be conveyed over the mountains by donkey and by Basuto pony to many parts of Basutoland, necessarily had to be a gradual process. At the same time the threatening famine was anticipated for certain times, and consequently it was arranged that the grain would be sent at periodic intervals. I can first make the reassuring statement that it is not true that there are still large quantities lying at railway stations and that they have gone bad. The only quantities still lying here are 760 bags at Matatiele and 671 bags at Zastron. That was the position on 25 January and some of them have since been sent off. The grain was dispatched as follows: in June 1,890 bags were delivered, in July 7,244 bags, in August 22,541 bags, in September 41,356 bags, in October 12,777 bags, in November 7,715 bags, in December 2,895 bags and in January 2,181 bags. That makes a total of 98,569 bags.

It is true that there have been rumours from time to time that after the bags had arrived in Basutoland they were not distributed properly. Of course, after we had handed over the grain to Basutoland, it fell under the control of the Government there, that is to say, of the organization established by the Prime Minister, Leabua Jonathan, and of the Government machinery, that is to say, both the private organization which had been built up and the machinery of the State. There may have been certain initial delays which may have aroused suspicion, but on the strength of the information furnished to me and judging by the thanks expressed to the Government on behalf of the people of Basutoland, not only by the present Government of Basutoland. but also by various parties which had received the gift, I can only say that it seems to me that the gift was in fact distributed properly, after there had been certain hitches at the start. As hon. members are aware, the cooperation of certain private aircraft owners was even enlisted to ensure that the grain would be transported to the higher mountainous areas to which it was difficult to convey it. It is also true that from the side of the members of the Opposition in Basutoland an impression was created that the gift was unwelcome. They even tried to stir up agitation aimed at making the Basuto people reluctant to receive the gift, by telling the people that the maize and the kaffir corn from South Africa would be poisoned. All the efforts of the communist-inspired Opposition parties to make this gift unwelcome, failed. On the contrary, when the supplies arrived at some places where the famine was pressing, they were received with joy and interest, particularly by the mothers, who, more than any other, welcomed the arrival of the food. It was received with jubilation, as is proved by certain photographs which were taken of the arrival of the grain. The photographs were not taken by us, but were sent in by persons who happened to be present there. I, therefore, want to state that the gift was made, that all the grain was distributed, and that although there were certain hitches and deliberate resistance on the part of communist-inspired Opposition parties who wanted to throw suspicion upon their own Government (not our Government), the undertaking was successfully concluded. I feel that we have done a good deed which has made an impression in Basutoland. has demonstrated the goodwill of the South African Government, and has also made the outside world realize that South Africa wants to keep its promise to live in good neighbourliness with its Black neighbours.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 10.—“Inland Revenue,” R87,568,

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some explanation of this “remission of grace or favour” in respect of undistributed profits tax, R586?

I think it is the usual thing which occurs every year that the particular applicant or the particular beneficiary has paid money because strictly according to the law he did not receive the dividends in the period allowed by the law, and the reason why he could not do it was that his sole income consists of dividends from other companies and these receipts fell outside the stipulated periods, and that is why under those circumstances we usually give an ex gratia payment of what we have demanded from him strictly according to the law, but which morally we are not entitled to ask from him.

Vote put and agreed to

Vote No. 11.—“Customs and Excise”, R326,470.

There is one very large additional amount here “refunds and remissions of grace or favour” of R55,100, under G.

The hon. member refers to sub-head G. Those are payments in lieu of refund of customs duty on goods purchased ex open stocks, to the South African Railways & Harbours Administration and the Naval Forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in the Republic acting in concert with the Armed Forces of the Republic in terms of items 530.01 and 530.02 of the schedule to the Customs Act. This expenditure is authorized by the quoted items which provide for a refund to the S.A. Railways and the Naval Forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain of the duty included in the price of goods purchased ex imported duty-paid stocks by these Administrations. The provision authorizes payment of the determined amount to the Administrations concerned in lieu of refunds.

As a result of negotiations between the South African Railways Administration and the Department the amount payable to the Administration is calculated according to an agreed formula whereby the value of direct importations and clearances ex Customs and Excise warehouses by the Administration (as recorded by the Department) is deducted from the total purchases of imported goods by the Administration. The balance represents purchases from imported duty-paid stocks and duty refundable to the Administration is calculated on an average percentage based on the relation between total duty collections and total value of imports in the Republic after adjustment of these amounts in respect of goods which do not enter into the refund provision such as petroleum products which are never purchased ex duty-paid stocks. As the payment is calculated according to a formula, the amount is paid from voted funds. These items are purchased by the authorities mentioned duty-paid, but in terms of the Customs and Excise Act they are entitled to have them not duty-paid and therefore they pay the duty and we give them a refund of the duty.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Transport”, R1,139,900,

I want to draw the attention to Item L, and additional amount of R600,000 as a “loss on operation of Railway Bantu passenger services to and from Bantu townships.” The original amount was R7,500,000 and the revised estimate is R8.100,000. I would like to have some further particulars from the hon. the Minister in regard to this colossal loss on Bantu services.

In accordance with an agreement between the South African Railways and Harbours and the Treasury, any loss on the operation of Railway Bantu passenger services to and from approved Bantu resettlement schemes is to be reimbursed to the Railway Administration by the Central Government. Provision is made on the Estimates furnished by the Railway Administration. The amount provided for the current financial year was R7,500,000 but on advice now received the anticipated loss will be R8.100,000 and provision is made accordingly. The increase of R600,000 on the original Estimate of R7,500,000 it attributed by the Railway Administration mainly to increases in salaries and wages with effect from 1 October 1965.

Has there been any increase in fares? The hon. the Minister says that the increase is due to an increase in salaries and wages, but has there been an increase in fares, and is there any limit to the amount the Government has to pay in respect of losses? Is there no limit to the amount?

Whatever losses they suffer on these services must be refunded. Naturally if there is an increase in traffic that loss, we hope, will be reduced, but that was an agreement entered into at the time when they were asked to provide these necessary services to bring the labourers to the places where they work.

May I ask the hon. Minister whether one of the reasons for the increase is an increase in the number of passengers carried?

Order! The hon. member is suggesting reasons for the increase and that I cannot allow.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Education, Arts and Science,” R1,374,549,

Can the hon. the Minister give us any information regarding subhead J? It deals with a grant of R45,000 to the Trans Oranje Institute for Special Education. Can the hon. Minister also tell us something about this Institute?

This Institute is a school for the deaf. The formula according to which institutions such as these are subsidized has recently been revised by the Government. This particular Institute has an accumulated debt of R90,000, and it had to borrow this amount from the bank to meet its liabilities. This accumulated debt was caused by the tremendous expansion that took place in all the departments of this Institute in Pretoria. The Government then decided to make a donation of R45.000 to it this year in part payment of the bank loan, hoping that next year the Institute will be able to pay the remaining R45.000 itself by means of the improved and increased subsidy. Because the grants under the old dispensation were quite inadequate, the Government decided to donate this amount.

So it is only a temporary measure?

Yes, it was only done to help them out of their difficulties.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—“Water Affairs,” R1,757,700,

Can the hon. the Minister give us an explanation of the increased amount under sub-head L, i.e. from R95.547 to R1,335,047? Is that due to poor estimating or is there a special reason for it?

In consequence of the rapid development at Phalaborwa the Phalaborwa Water Board had to make additional provision to meet its water needs, hence the increased amount.

I should like to refer to sub-head L (2): Extra-statutory subsidies, Utrecht Municipality, Natal—R100. Is it intended to authorize the Utrecht Municipality to proceed with the water works it so seriously needs?

Order! The hon. member is permitted to ask only for the reason for the increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 28.—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services.” R3,750,000,

I should like to have more information from the hon. the Minister in regard to item R—Losses on Radio Bantu. Originally this service was estimated at R400,000. whereas the revised estimate is already R551,000. There is already an increase of R151,000.

As this item shows, the actual losses were larger than originally expected. Radio Bantu has expanded tremendously. At the moment there are broadcasts of more than 691 hours per day in seven languages and in six separate programmes. Because of the expansion of this service the expenditure on it naturally increased. That is the reason for this additional amount. May I just inform the hon. member that the indications are that up to 2,000,000 Bantu listen to Radio Bantu daily.

Order! The hon. the Minister must confine himself to the reasons for the increased amount.

Well, the reason was that the service had to be extended to provide for an increasing number of listeners.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General,” R8,784,000,

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to sub-head E (3)— Net loss on the importation of maize, R700.000. This is a new item. Can the Minister indicate to us how this loss has been assessed having regard to the information already given by the Minister of the purchase price of the 1,750.000 bags of mealies bought overseas, i.e. R4.50. The figure given here, i.e. R700,000, bears no relation to the price paid for the imported maize or to the price received by the producer in South Africa. I should accordingly be glad if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us in what manner this estimate of R700,000 was arrived at and what the subsidy per bag will be for the number of bags imported.

Chiefly as a result of the severe drought the demand for and use of maize have increased tremendously during the current season. The increase in the total local consumption as well as the production of maize since the 1963-4 season is as follows: For the year 1963-4 the production was 67,243,000 and the total consumption 40,308,000; for the year 1964-5 the production was 47,167,000 and the consumption 42,591,000; for the year 1965-6 the production was 47,947,000 and the consumption 47,383,000. In the meantime it has also been found that owing to the continuous drought in the maize-producing districts the forthcoming crop which is to be harvested by September 1966, will probably be inadequate for the needs of the country up to May 1967. But the hon. member asked how this amount was calculated. I wish to explain that now. At this stage the indications are that the production of the forthcoming season will be considerably less than 47,000,000 bags. It is therefore a mere calculation and provision has to be made accordingly. In view of the small expected carry-over of only 1.3 million bags— which may shrink even more if the demand for maize as fodder increases further—and in order to prevent a local shortage of maize, it has been agreed that the Mealie Board should call for tenders for the importation of 1,769,600 units of 200 lbs. each. The Tender Board is entitled to supply 10 per cent more or less than the quantities called for by tender. The total quantity imported may therefore amount to 1,952,000 units of 200 lbs. each. The average price at which the maize purchased will be delivered in the Republic is estimated by the Mealie Board at 531 cents per 200 lbs. That includes the import duty of 41 cents per bag. The Minister of Finance has agreed to this amount being indicated in this way.

I appreciate the information which the Deputy Minister gave us. I should like, however, to remind him that the other day we asked the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in this House how many bags of mealies were being imported. The Minister then said that the Government had decided to import H million bags. As a supplementary question I asked the hon. the Minister then what the price was going to be, to which the Minister replied that the delivered price was to be R4.50 per bag. Now, even if you accept a loss of R1 per bag, the total loss on the 1| million bags of mealies is more than the R700,000 reflected here. Therefore I should like to know from the Minister how this loss of R700,000 on the 1| million bags of maize delivered to the Republic at R4.50 per bag has been assessed? As things stand the figure of R700,000 bears no relation to the price received by the producer in South Africa and the price paid for the imported mealies. There is a difference of about R2 per bag between the price paid for the imported mealies as against that paid to the producer in South Africa. Sir, I should like to know how this estimate of R700,000 has been arrived at by the Minister’s Department. I appreciate all the figures the Deputy Minister has given us, but we know all that.

I have said for what quantity of maize tenders are being called for. I have also pointed out that the total quantity that may ultimately be imported may be more than 1| million bags. As a matter of fact I said that the quantity which may ultimately be imported may rise to 1,950,000 bags. The hon. member therefore has to adapt his calculation to this latter figure. If he does that, he will see where the R700,000 comes from.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36,—“State Advances Recoveries Office”, R3,480,

Can the hon. the Minister give us an explanation of the ex gratia remission of R3,480 in respect of the estates of D. and J. H. Joubert?

Two brothers are involved in this case. One of the brothers died, and while they were winding up his estate the other brother also died. The two estates are interwoven. In terms of Resolution No. 1 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of 1960 the following principle must be applied in respect of remissions of grace or favour—

On 4 October 1965, the Treasury agreed to writing off the amount involved, subject to Parliamentary approval. The loss to the State amounts to R3,749 plus 7⅞ per cent interest on R3,151. It is proposed that R2,000, being the yield of a policy in respect of furniture, should not be taken into account. This is done purely because the date by which this estate had to be wound up entailed that the heirs would no longer be able to receive the benefit of the legacy which consisted of the policy. Not to be too hard on these people— I think it was merely a question of three or four days—this ex gratia payment to them is now being asked for.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 37.—“Defence,” R112,502.

We find that the total amount of R112,502 consists of ex gratia remissions, two in respect of clothing and one in respect of the manufacture of munitions. Under the latter there is an amount of R82.175. Will it be possible for the Minister to give us some information regarding each of these ex gratia remissions?

The first item is the remission of R6,598 to Messrs. Felt & Wadding Mills (Pty.) Ltd. This firm tendered for delivery of 28,875 blankets at R2.65 per blanket. The order had to be delivered at a rate of 5,000 blankets per month, and had to be completed by 31 March 1962. However, by 31 January 1962 no blankets had been delivered yet. As a reason for that the firm concerned submitted that some of the weaving apparatus had become defective and as a result of that production could not be commenced. On 1 December 1961 an extensive fire broke out in the supply store of the firm concerned. The contract was then cancelled as a result of the firm’s inability to comply with the terms of the contract. Because the blankets were urgently required for the Permanent Force units established in April 1962, however, the Department was forced to place an order for 20,000 blankets with another firm. That contract was for R3.15 per unit, with delivery before 31 March 1962. This firm could only deliver 13,000 of the blankets, however, and that only after 31 March 1962. As a result of the late delivery by this firm, the State Tender Board recommended that Messrs. Felt & Wadding (Pty.) Ltd. be not held responsible for the increased costs of R6,598. Treasury concurred in that.

Then there is an item of R1.38O, to Messrs. I. M. Lockhat & Co. On the recommendation of the Department of Defence a tender for the cutting, manufacturing and finishing of 10,000 shirts was awarded to this firm at R34 per 100. The material for the shirts were supplied by the Department itself. On 9 August 1963, the firm was advised that its tender had been accepted, and was requested to supply three shirts on approval before production commenced. After the firm concerned had informed the Department that as a result of a colour variation the material could not be used, it was requested to select the material in the various colour shades and to proceed with production. These materials are supplied to firms in bales, with the purpose for which the material is to be used stated on each bale. When they started assembling the shirts they found that there were variation in the colour shades. As a result of that they had to take the shirts apart again and rearrange them, which involved a tremendous deal of work. As a result of that, the firm incurred a loss of R1,3 80. that is, approximately 14 cents per shirt. The firm then requested that its price be raised by 14 cents per garment in order to cover its expenses. The firm also advised that when it had tendered originally, it had not tendered for the various shades in the materials. The matter was considered by the State Tender Board and remittance of 48 cents was recommended instead of the original 34 cents. Treasury concurred in this recommendation. Hence this ex gratia payment.

Were there no Greyshirts among the lot? [Laughter.]

Then there is the ex gratia payment of R82,175 to Instrument Manufacturing Corporation of South Africa Ltd. During the execution of the programme for the manufacture of munitions, a number of cases occurred where firms had entered into agreements with the State for delivery of certain articles and where it appeared subsequently that for some reason or other outside their control, it was impossible for them to deliver the required articles at the contract price.

In general, manufacturing munitions is a highly intricate task which demands special knowledge, skill and experience. The inability of the firms concerned to estimate their production costs correctly in advance and to manufacture the articles economically was due mainly to lack of knowledge and experience. The position as regards this Instrument Manufacturing Company is that from a total of twelve firms which were approached to tender for the supply of tubes for use in cartridges, this was the only firm that tendered. The contract price per unit was R0.735. This price included electrolytic treatment of the tubes in order to preserve them against various weather conditions and against rust. During December 1964 the firm approached the State Tender Board for revision of the contract price, and submitted that this was the first contract for the manufacturing of this type of article which had been entered into, and that it had been necessary to incur expenses with regard to the training of personnel in this specialized field. It was found, for example, that in using the specified material, it was not possible to adhere to the prescribed resistance provision of 21 lbs. in manufacturing the stirrup spring. After considerable losses had been incurred on the manufacturing, the matter was referred to the British manufacturers. They advised that a resistance limit of 16 lbs. was acceptable. It is understandable that where one has to do with a new industry such as this, it is very difficult, after laying down the specifications, to determine what margin of variation one should allow. Inter alia, the specifications required the anodizing of a part, which had the result that a large number became unfit and were rejected. After many difficulties had been experienced the British manufacturers advised that anodizing could be dispensed with. During the period of manufacturing there was a slight increase in the cost of materials as well as an increase of 2 cents per hour in the wages of craftsmen and also a general increase in labour costs. These factors caused an increase of R1.0637 per unit in the production costs. In comparison it may be mentioned that the price at which commercial suppliers in the United Kingdom supplied this article during 1954 was then already 89 cents per unit. The prices are therefore still very fair. The Chief Cost Accountant of the Board of Commerce and Industries, who instituted a cost investigation, found that the amount of R1.60637 per unit, which includes no profit to the firm, is still inclined to be conservative. The total loss incurred by the firm amounts to R82,157, and that is the amount which is now proposed as compensation for them.

We then come to James Barwell (S.A.) Ltd. This firm’s tender price for delivery of cast crossheads, a part of a rocket, was 13 cents and 14 cents respectively. Despite the many difficulties experienced and a high reject figure of 66 per cent, the firm eventually succeeded in producing an acceptable product. Most of the rejects were the result of air bubbles inside the casting, which became apparent only after finishing. In calculating the unit price the firm had made provision for the possible rejection of only 15 per cent. I want to emphasize once again that when we start off with such a new product, there are small variations. Our inspectors are very strict. Nor can one blame them. They are not quite experienced in these matters yet, and therefore there are many rejections. According to a statement drawn up by the firm’s auditors, there has been a total loss of R4.661. The firm’s profit is included in the amount mentioned, however, and the actual loss is calculated at R3,307.50.

Then we come to the Heatmaster Manufacturing Company Ltd. This firm accepted a contmct for delivery of 2,925 ammunition cases at R4 per case. That is, the tender contract price was R11,700. For the sake of information it should be mentioned that the second lowest tender was R41,286. You will therefore see that there was a tremendous difference between the lowest and the second lowest prices. It is clear to us that the firm, which had no experience of the type of equipment and tools needed for such a task, estimated the expenses at too low a figure. A major factor was the price of cardboard furnished by Messrs. Sappi, on which the tender price was based. When the contract had been awarded to Messrs. Heatmaster Manufacturing Company Ltd. and they approached Sappi, the latter informed them that they were unable to manufacture the particular type of cardboard. The firm was then forced to buy a much more expensive cardboard from Messrs. Gummed Tapes (Pty.) Ltd. It was ascertained that the loss was made up of the following: materials —R25,944.75; labour—R2,895.75; equipment and tools—R1,900; total—R30,740.50; that is, less the R1 1,700 of the contract price, a nett loss of R19,000.50. The amount of R1,12,502 therefore has to be voted by the House.

It appears that the Minister has given us a reasonable explanation for some of these amounts which have to be compensated. However, as regards the amount he mentioned last, namely that in respect of the Heatmaster Manufacturing Company, it seems to me that here the Department had to deal with a firm which was exceptionally negligent and which did not go into the matter properly before they submitted a tender. I wonder whether it is right that this House should be asked to pay for the negligence of such a firm. At this stage it is difficult to criticize this large amount of R82.175 intelligently, but it appears that in regard to this last item a great deal of negligence and inefficiency has been displayed.

I should like to get some clarity on this point, because I think it is a serious one. This has to do with the manufacture of munitions. Munitions are primarily the concern of the Munitions Production Board.

No.

It is placed under this heading. Who was responsible? In one of the other cases the Minister mentioned, he stated clearly that it was discovered that the firm did not have the necessary experience to make these ammunition boxes. I thought it was the function of the Munitions Board to make an assessment and a determination of what firms are capable of carrying out the munitions programme of the Department. It is not the Department which carries that responsibility. It is the Munitions Board. In the light of the interjection that the hon. the Minister has just made, are we correct in assuming that the Munitions Board in fact had nothing to do with these tenders at all?

I thought you said that they were manufacturing it.

No. I said that, as we understand the position, the responsibility for the manufacture of munitions in our country is in the first instance the responsibility of the Munitions Board. They are the body that must determine the ability of a company to manufacture the munitions required by the Department. What disturbs me about the explanations given by the Minister, is that firms were given these contracts which, according to the Minister’s explanation, were in fact incapable of executing the contract. That is a most disturbing situation. One must then assume that somewhere along the line there was not a proper investigation of the ability of these firms, for example the Heatmaster Manufacturing Company, to manufacture ammunition boxes. I would like an assurance from the Minister this afternoon that proper investigation will take place in the future. We are spending millions on the acquisition of munitions. We vote millions in this House for that purpose. How are we to know, with the programme of acquisition being developed by the Government, that in subsequent budgets and subsequent Additional Estimates we may not get more long lists of this type of ex gratia payment. I think I am correct in saying that this is probably the largest amount ever placed on the Estimates for the payment of any ex gratia amount to any company. I view it in quite a serious light that we should be faced with a situation of this kind and I hope that the Minister in his reply can give the necessary assurance that he has given instructions for more careful investigation of these firms who tender for the manufacture of our munitions.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that this whole concept is new to us. We must be very careful not to spend in a very free-handed way. As you will notice, the second lowest tender was for R41,000, whereas the tender of this firm was R11,000. I acknowledge that they did not have enough experience of what it would cost them to produce these boxes. It is a new undertaking, but eventually they gave us munition boxes which are very satisfactory. We are still getting them at a much cheaper price than that quoted by the second lowest tender. I suppose that things like this will happen, but it is a generally accepted fact that nobody will be given a tender who is not in a position to produce that kind of equipment.

Does the Munitions Board carry out an investigation of the companies tendering for the manufacture of munitions and their ability?

Yes, their inspectors do that. I suppose that this firm did manufacture equipment of that type—not actually ammunition boxes, but something of that nature. That is why their tender was accepted. As it worked out, it was a cheap tender.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister is quite right. We have to spend a tremendous amount of money on munitions and we have to be very careful that we are not taken for a ride. It seems, as we have said before, that as far as the last item is concerned, there was some very bad tendering and some very bad accounting. It seems that these people did not know whether they were coming or going. I was perturbed to hear from the Minister that when the Instrument Manufacturing Corporation drew up their plans, they expected something like 15 per cent of their products to be rejects, but that in fact more than 60 per cent of their products were rejected. That is very bad indeed. It indicates to me that we had to deal with a company with very bad workmanship and with very bad equipment. Sixty per cent is a very high figure indeed. 1 should like to join with the hon. member for Turffontein in thinking that the Munitions Board should look after these things and should go into these matters before such contracts are placed. The Minister is quite right. We expect the Munitions Board to accept the lowest tender, but not from every Tom, Dick and Harry who afterwards come along and claim losses such as these where it is obvious that a certain amount of negligence and bad workmanship was involved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch on one other aspect. I should like to deal particularly with the Instrument Manufacturing Corporation. These instruments play a very important part in the security of the troops and the people who are afterwards going to have to use them. Any one in this particular line knows that it is probably one of the callings requiring the highest precision in the world. There are specialist firms that do nothing else but that sort of work. Because of the high percentage of rejects it is quite obvious that the firm was not competent to do the work and that adequate inspection had not been carried out to ascertain that they were competent before the contract was placed. Even allowing for the fact that we are new to this field and we have to feel our way to a certain extent—and here I accept the Minister’s line of debate—there is room for so much unrest and disquiet in an occurrence of this sort that I think it does call for the Munitions Board who were after all appointed on the recommendation of the Government and by the authority of this House, to display a far higher degree of supervision before contracts of this nature are placed.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Simonstown is drawing the conclusion from the name Instrument Manufacturing Corporation that they make instruments. It is easy to interpret it as meaning that, but that is not correct. They were engaged in manufacturing fuses.

That is even worse. That justifies the hon. member’s argument even more.

These fuses are not instruments.

*They are placed in the front part of the bombs. They had certain defects which we would not accept.

Quite right.

That was why there was a rejection of 66 per cent. I think I have already explained this, but I would like to tell the hon. members: they have seen what a huge undertaking it was for a new firm. When one starts something new, one has to be terribly strict, in order to attain quality. These people were initially not able to do everything to perfection. From our side the inspection was, perhaps, somewhat too strict. Why was that, Mr. Chairman? Those doing the inspection have certain specifications. They do not have the experience to know what the position would be were they, for example, to concede .2 per cent. These people adhere strictly to the specifications. A minute ago I informed you how British firms, on our consulting them, had said that a lower standard would be quite acceptable, but the specifications which they gave us, prescribed a certain standard. Similarly we had difficulties with the inspection. Many of the products which were in fact good enough were rejected. In this case it was the only tender we received from amongst the 12 firms which had been approached.

I am afraid that the hon. the Minister’s explanation has shown that the cause for concern is even greater than we thought it was. It is one thing if they were making instruments, such as instruments for gunnery work. If, however, they are making fuses, it calls for the highest degree of perfection and precision. The fuse, as one well knows, has to be timed to split-seconds, otherwise the explosion takes place at the wrong time.

That is why they were rejected.

Yes, I accept that, but if the firm was competent enough to do the job, there should not have been anything like that proportion of rejections. That brings me back to the argument that we are raising, namely that there was obviously a lack of advance examination to satisfy those concerned in placing the contract that the firm was indeed competent enough to do the work. Millions of that kind of war weapon were made in this country during the last war, and they attained a very high degree of precision. One understands that the Munitions Board is composed of people with the highest degree of proficiency in this particular line. One expects them and holds them responsible to ensure that when firms are given contracts of this important nature they have been convinced that those firms can do the work. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do, that when this sort of work develops in this country and we have to depend on our own resources to start from scratch and make our own munitions of a certain type, there are very many firms quite ready to cash in on what will be a very profitable market. One has to be all the more careful until they have proved themselves and one is satisfied that they can do the work. One has to be very careful until one knows that they are indeed able to produce equipment that they are asked to produce. And that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders on that section of the Munitions Board or its inspectors who have to judge that competency before they enter into a contract. That is the argument of this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the Instrument Manufacturing Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers in the world. Here in South Africa their firm makes, for example, the tellurometer, one of the most precise instruments ever to be produced in South Africa and one for which we have won world fame. It is not an ordinary run-of-the-mill firm. As I have said, we approached 12 firms. And then a firm of such very high standing came along—one of the firms with the highest standing in the country. We all know what the significance of the tellurometer is and what a famous invention it was for South Africa, and that it is being manufactured here. That firm tendered.

We all know that a fuse should be perfect. I agree with that. That is why 66 per cent of them were rejected. But, Mr. Chairman, at the moment they are doing a good job. There are not so many rejections any more, not nearly as many. They are doing a good job now and if we did not accept their tender that special type of fuse would not have been made in South Africa to-day. Are we not glad that that fuse is now being made in South Africa? Is it not to the benefit of South Africa that it is now being made here? We accepted that tender from this firm of standing. It was the only tender. I think we did a good job, Sir.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 38,—“Labour”, R127,000.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us details of the payment to this Mr. W. F. J. Steenkamp?

Professor W. F. J. Steenkamp is the former Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries and also of the Wage Board. He resigned in January 1964. When he resigned, there were 139 days of accumulated leave due to him. His contract did not provide for his resignation. Consequently he had to forfeit all accumulated leave at the time of his resignation, whereas he would have been entitled to all accumulated leave at the conclusion of his contract. The relevant code dealing with officers under contract who resign voluntarily was amended during December 1964 because of his anomaly. In terms of the amended provisions officers under contract who resign voluntarily are now also entitled to a leave gratuity. Professor Steenkamp completed three terms of five years each under contract. He was serving his fourth period of five years. If, at the end of any of the three terms, his contract had not been renewed, he would in fact have been entitled to a leave gratuity. It, therefore, seems unfair that he should forfeit all accumulated leave because of the interruption of his service during his fourth term. On account of representations made by him the matter was submitted to the Treasury, which gave approval for the payment of the leave gratuity. Because it is an ex gratia payment, however, we have to approach Parliament to make special provision on the Department’s Estimates. I may mention the fact that Professor Steenkamp rendered excellent service. He was one of our best men. I can, therefore, support this recommendation without hesitation.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 44,—“Prisons”, R1,053,000.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister explain the ex gratia payment to the Tevrede Slaghuis?

The contract for the supply of meat to the Groenpunt Prison—that is the prison on the Free State side of the Vaal River—during the period 1 March 1964 to 28 February 1965 was awarded to the Tevrede Slaghuis. Documentary evidence was furnished to the Tender Board in regard to the losses suffered due to an unforeseen rise in prices. On the recommendation of the Tender Board, an ex gratia payment of R1,850 was approved on 14 May 1965. The amount represents compensation for losses on the purchase of meat and 5 per cent for expenses. At the time it was pointed out by the Tender Board that the contractors were in a precarious financial position and creditors were threatening legal action.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 45,—“Police”, R1,600.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us details in regard to the ex gratia payment to P. C. van Heerden, which amounts to R1,600?

Mr. Chairman, this arose as a result of an accident suffered by a Sergeant P. C. van Heerden. He was involved in an accident on 12 December 1943. Years later his leg had to be amputated as a result of this accident. His disability was assessed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and on this assessment this amount was paid out to Sergeant van Heerden.

Is he still in the Service?

I doubt it; he is an old hand.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 48,—“Foreign Affairs”, R87,200.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he can indicate the nature of this presentation to a foreign dignitary referred to in Item E?

As hon. members know it has been the practice of this Government and of previous governments over the years to make gifts to foreign dignitaries in friendly countries on certain special occasions, and in order to enable me to continue this practice it is necessary that the amount required be approved. Unfortunately that is the only information I can submit to the Committee at this stage and I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with it.

Is this a contingency amount that we are being asked to vote here? The Minister has no idea at the present moment of making a presentation to any foreign dignitary?

It will be realized that presents are always delicate matters and I think the least said about a gift before it is given or the amount it will cost, the better, so I hope the hon. member will not insist on further particulars in this case.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote M,—“Education, Arts and Science”, R326,000,

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain the last item. Why is there this large increase in the loan required for the nautical college?

The architect and Harbour Engineer estimated that the cost would be R597.210 for 1965-6 and that R475,000 would be spent up to and including 31 March 1965. The actual expenditure was R444,317, and the provision for 1965-6 was then decreased to R470,000 by the Department. Since the Estimates for 1965-6 were drawn up, the cost provision also increased from R1,151,000 to R1,381,000, and subsequently to R1,445,000. The balance of R54,000 which is being carried forward is mainly in respect of retention moneys. The main reason for all these things is that the work at Granger Bay has progressed more rapidly than was originally anticipated.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the additional provision being made here will be sufficient to allow for the completion of the work?

That is the idea.

Have you no idea when it will be completed?

By 31 March.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimate of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts reported without amendment.

Estimate adopted.

The Minister of Finance brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimate adopted by the House.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has given notice of an instruction which he proposes to move before I leave the Chair. I regret that I cannot allow him to move it as its implementation would involve expenditure requiring the State President’s recommendation.

House in Committee:

Clause 1,

There is one particular point concerning Clause 1 on which I should like some information from the hon. the Minister, and in dealing with this one point I should like also, with your permission, Sir, to refer to the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 as the same point arises there. The position is that we realize that in terms of this clause the volunteer’s potential pre-disablement earning capacity is taken into consideration and that an amendment is being made here which will entitle a volunteer to receive the supplementary allowance. We know that provision was made in the Pension Laws Amendment Act of 1965 to grant relief to these people, but unfortunately the technical difficulty has arisen that these persons who were intended to receive this increase, are precluded from doing so due to the limitation that is placed on the payment of the supplementary pension. In terms of Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill provision is made to raise that limitation as far as the payment of the supplementary pension is concerned. My main point here is to ascertain from the hon. the Minister why the effective date for this clause and also for Clauses 2 and 3 which are consequential, is 1 October 1966. It would appear that the increase of approximately 10 per cent is to take effect from 1 April 1966 and it appears that if we are to maintain the limitation that exists in relation to the payment of the supplementary allowance until 1 October 1966 there will be a period of six months during which these people will not be able to benefit by this increase because where the increase is granted it will be disqualified in terms of the limitation and, on the other basis, the limitation restricts payment of the supplementary pension. The explanatory memorandum sets out quite clearly the purposes of this clause and also explains the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3.

In the particular section dealing with this clause, reference is made to the fact that the basic pensions and allowances will be increased by approximately 10 per cent with effect from 1 April 1966 but not the supplementary pensions. and then it goes on to deal with the limits that are imposed in the payment of the supplementary pensions. Once again it refers to the fact that many of these people will continue to receive the same amount in total after 1 April 1966 as they were receiving prior to that date. It does appear that the provisions of this clause and of the two following clauses are restrictive in that they will only become effective from 1 October 1966 and my question to the hon. the Minister, therefore, is why these clauses cannot become effective from 1 April 1966 so that the recipients may enjoy these benefits during this period of six months, whereas they are now restricted, in terms of the limitation applicable, to the payment of the supplementary pension.

This is an administrative difficulty. The hon. member will understand that in the case of certain grants all individual cases have to be checked, and when individual cases have to be checked, it has to be done by the clerical staff seeing that errors can very easily creep into the calculations otherwise. There are other instances where that can be done automatically, by making use of the electronic computer. In order to clarify the difference, I want to refer to the fact that the provisions of Clause 7 take effect on 1 April; that is in regard to civil pensions, but that can be done automatically. It will not be necessary to check individual cases, but in the other instances where it will be essential to check individual cases, it cannot be done automatically and we shall have to use this additional time to check those cases properly.

But can they not get a refund?

The hon. member asks —and it is a reasonable question—whether we cannot do that with retrospective effect. I have been informed by my Department that it is extremely difficult to do calculations of this nature in individual cases and to make the increase with retrospective effect, and it is very difficult to make sure that no errors creep into the calculations. I can also mention that an improvement was effected in respect of supplementary pensions by means of a bonus in 1964, but other pensioners did not receive an increase at that time. Speaking generally, I should just like to state that is extremely difficult to carry through in a limited period all the adjustments contained in these concessions by means of the existing staff and the existing machinery, and seeing that we want to make certain that we shall be able to make these concessions on a fixed date, we must have reasonable time to go into individual cases where it cannot be done automatically. I am very sorry that I cannot help the hon. member in that respect.

Is it not possible for them to get a refund?

On the strength of their experience, my Department informs me that it is extremely difficult. It happens quite often that errors occur when similar refunds are made, particularly when it is necessary to check individual cases, and that causes a great deal of administrative work which would otherwise have been unnecessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

In dealing with this Clause I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us why there has been an alteration from past practice in the payment of the additional amount that is payable to war veterans, in view of the ratio which has previously been maintained. We know that where an increase of this nature has been granted in the past it has been granted on a ratio basis. In terms of this Clause the additional amount to be paid to a European war veteran is to be increased by R24 per annum or R2 per month. It will now be R120 per annum. In terms of paragraph (b) of the clause the Coloured or Indian war veteran will receive an increase of R6 per annum, from R48 to R54, which means an increase of 50 cents per month. It would appear from the past practice of this Government and of previous governments that where these increases have been granted, the Coloureds have received one-half of the increase granted to the White group. On that basis it would appear that this amount of R54 for the Coloured and Indian war veteran should be increased to R60 per annum, one-half of R120. I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister can give us the reasons as to why this amount has been set at R4.50 per month as far as Coloured and Indian war veterans are concerned.

Sir, I do not want to ask the Minister for any information. I just want to say that I am extremely disappointed to find that this lesser amount is being paid to the Coloured and Indian war veterans. This matter was discussed last night. I do not think that there should be any ratio in paying pensions to people who served their country and who were maimed or wounded. However, you will no doubt rule, Sir, that the principle has already been accepted. I therefore cannot go into it, but it has always been accepted, quite wrongly in my opinion, that where an increase of R4 is given to the White man the Coloured man is given R2, and every time pensions have been increased the increases that have been granted have been on that basis. In this Clause, however, I see that the White war veteran will now receive R120 per annum and the Coloured man R54. The amount used to be R96 for the Whites and half of that amount, R48, for the Coloureds. Why should the Minister now come along and give the White man an increase of R24 while the Coloured man is given an increase of only R6? Sir, there is no justice in it and I am going to move—

Order! As this amendment will involve increased expenditure I cannot accept it.

I replied yesterday to this point in the second-reading debate. I said that the question of an increase for Coloureds and Indians was a question which would be investigated further. Hon. members will appreciate that when one comes forward with such a large number of changes, it is often very complicated and may have far-reaching consequences. At present there is even a difference as regards the Coloured representatives, and they are the people who have to plead for the interests of the Coloureds here.

Where does the difference lie?

I shall tell the hon. member where the difference lies. I said that yesterday, but the hon. member was not here then. The hon. member could have obliged me by being present; I shall not be here much longer …

I was here until 10 o’clock.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the whole question has been referred to the Department of Coloured Affairs and to the Department of Indian Affairs for investigation, and as far as it is applicable there, to the Department of Bantu Administration as well. The whole question, will be properly investigated, and when, in due course, it has been investigated—and I hope that will be soon—this Parliament will have the opportunity of going into the question of increases. It will then be possible to have uniformity as far as the Coloureds are concerned as well; the ratio can then be adjusted and it will also be possible to achieve uniformity as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. Since welfare matters and allowances áre now in the hands of the Departments of Coloured Affairs and of Indian Affairs, they have asked us to hold the matter in abeyance for further investigation. I said yesterday that that was a matter which, it was hoped, would soon be investigated and speedily rectified. It is not quite correct to say that the adjustments have always been made simultaneously. In 1960, for example, I changed the ratio. At first the ratio was less favourable towards Indians, compared with Coloureds. Over the years that ratio has gradually been altered in such a way that it was favourably accepted by all parties. But since this matter is so complicated and since it is those Departments who are concerned, I have said that they have been referred specifically to those Departments, which will investigate the matter immediately.

Arising out of the Minister’s reply I should like him to tell me how the figure of R54 was arrived at instead of R60. After all, it was as easy to make it half the amount payable to Whites as it was before, as to make it less than half. Who thought up the idea of saving the Government a certain amount of money at the expense of the Coloured and Indian war veterans by making the amount R54 instead of R60?

A nominal amount was fixed when the increase was introduced. That nominal amount is subject to scrutiny in the course of the investigation which is being carried out. If this nominal amount had not been fixed it would not have been possible to grant the increase.

I shall not embarrass you any further.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the whole matter will be investigated. I expect that he will still be here when that investigation is completed; I shall not be here.

I am glad to hear that there is going to be this inquiry and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence in the Cabinet to see that something along the same lines is done for the non-Europeans employed on the Railways who have not received anything at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13,

We on this side of the House would far rather have seen provision made in this clause for an increase in pensions payable to all our social pensioners instead of restricting the increase to White social pensioners. However, we realize that we will not be able to move an amendment on these lines as it would involve increased expenditure and it would rightly be ruled out of order by you, Sir. There is one other aspect of this clause, however, which is important. The increase which is to be paid in terms of this clause is referred to as a bonus. Sir, this is an important word in this clause as it would appear that it is now the policy of the Government and of this Minister to revert to the system of paying a bonus rather than to increase the rate of pension. During 1965 an important Pension Laws Amendment law was passed which brought about a consolidation of the various allowances. That consolidation brought about a simplification of the application of the means test. Sir, although I know that I am not allowed to discuss in detail the question of the means test, it does have some bearing on the use of the word “bonus” in this clause. The ordinary method of increasing the rate of pension, instead of reverting to the system of paying a bonus as a separate amount, would bring in a very small proportion of people in terms of a slight relaxation of the means test. In actual fact it would allow persons to receive R24 per annum over and above the amount that is now permitted, and for that reason it would not be possible for us on this side to move for the deletion of the word “bonus” and for the provision of an increase in the rate of pension. I do feel that the hon. the Minister should give an explanation to this Committee as to why the word ‘bonus” has been incorporated in this clause and whether it now means that the pension will consist of the ordinary basic pension plus the extra R24 per annum which will be paid as a bonus? In other words, a person must qualify for a minimum pension of R24 per annum in order to qualify for this additional bonus.

A pensioner will receive the R2 bonus if he qualifies for the minimum pension. The hon. member will remember the difficulties we had in connection with the whole matter. Yesterday he referred, inter alia, to the fact that both of us thought we were doing something wonderfully good by introducing a new scale in between in order to give needy persons something extra. However, we were compelled to withdraw that scale subsequently as a result of the difficulties we had. I just want to tell the hon. member that if the concession had not been made in the from of a bonus it would have meant that the means plus pension limit would have had to be increased. The means plus pension limit cannot be increased every year. If that were done it would mean that, administratively, radical changes would have to be made. In the past the means test was relaxed from time to time, but administratively it is impossible in practice to do so every year. If we had done it in this way it would have meant a relaxation of the means test. The means test was relaxed as long ago as 1 October 1965. In other words the means test was relaxed in October 1965, as a result of which all those adjustments had to be made, and if one were to do that again in a manner which would entail the relaxation of the means test it would be necessary for the same adjustments to be made in February this year. I said yesterday—and as far as I am concerned that was my policy all along—that the granting of the pensions and the allowances is not something static; it changes with the times. I have often used the expression in this House that it is like the could of Shelley which keeps on changing. Changes are continually taking place; there are always adjustments to be made, but the adjustments should be regulated and correlated in such a manner that administratively the Department is enabled to keep up with them. I personally think that over a period the means test will again be changed from time to time. The means test will be increased, or, perhaps, it will have to be reduced again, but in the meantime, that is in between the periods in which the means test is changed, between one period and another, circumstances might arise as a result of which one is compelled to grant increases; those increases can then be granted in the form of bonuses. It seems to me that my successor will have to consider again whether a middle course would not be to make those concessions from time to time without changing the means test.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedules and the Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We support the third reading of this Bill. We had various comments to make in regard to this Bill at the second reading. We endeavoured to achieve a little further relief for pensioners and we had hoped that it would be possible to incorporate various further improvements in the Bill. We also hoped that it would be possible for the Government to see its way clear to grant a higher increase to the pensioner and to spread that increase amongst the other racial groups as well. We also hoped that whilst altering the definition of a “war veteran” it would have been possible to incorporate the very small number of persons who served during the 1906 Rebellion, the Bambata Rebellion, but who for various reasons were unable to serve in the 1914 War. It was felt that these people who had made a contribution to the history of South Africa should be able to receive due recognition by being entitled to be classified as was veterans and to receive the benefit resulting from that definition. We also hoped that it would have been possible to grant relief to the veterans of the First World War and that they would have been freed of the means test and would have been extended the same privileges granted to the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War. Unfortunately many of these things were not incorporated in the Bill, and as this is the third reading we must confine ourselves to discussing the contents and the effects of this Bill.

One of the effects of the Bill is the increased administrative work it will entail. It is hoped that the Minister will give an indication that the introduction of the electrical computer will mean that these people who are entitled to additional benefits in terms of this Bill will expeditiously receive those benefits. We realize his difficulties in regard to staff and in regard to the transition period while this computer is being installed.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will grant me permission to say a few words in this House to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I believe it is appropriate that this Minister, who has announced his retirement from the Cabinet and as a member of this House, should have on this occasion, in introducing the last Bill he has introduced as a Minister, should have granted increased benefits to social pensioners and to have brought about an improvement and a spread of benefits to certain other pensioners. I believe it is appropriate, because we on this side of the House have learned to respect the hon. the Minister as a sincere man, a man who genuinely desires to assist those persons who require assistance. I believe that in a spirit of true Christianity the hon. the Minister has performed his task to the best of his ability. I would like to say that we have naturally on several occasions differed from the Minister in his outlook, but we have agreed with him in many instances as far as the welfare services of the country are concerned and the care of the aged. There are important matters on which we have differed fundamentally, such as the introduction of a new system of contributory pensions which we advocated. We realize that there will always be these differences. At the same time we wish to place on record our appreciation of what the Minister has achieved in his capacity of Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. We want to wish him every happiness and good health in his retirement. We would like to say to the Minister: Baie dankie, en alles van die beste!

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) made me feel as the boy did the day he left school and his father gave him the following assurance: Look, if you do not pass your matric this time, you will have to go farming and even if you do pass your matric you will still have to go farming. I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. member. I just want to tell him that I expressed my appreciation yesterday to both sides of this House for the spirit of co-operation experienced in this House on matters concerning my Department. I said that yesterday, and I should like to repeat it here now. I think we have succeeded in creating a splendid atmosphere. I made it my conviction and philosophy in life that I regarded it as being necessary that we should create and maintain a mutual spirit of goodwill in all matters concerning the interests of the underprivileged section of the people. I may just tell the hon. member, as he and I both know, that “we very seldom quarrelled, or we may have quarrelled often, but we often disagreed.” There is an old song which says: “We never, never quarrel, although we often disagree.” The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) knows that song very well. I wish to add to the list I mentioned yesterday.

I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the Chairman of the Pensions group on my side of the House for his co-operation, and also to the Chairman of the group on the opposite side of the House who often took the liberty to discuss matters with me frankly. To members of my group I should like to say: Thank you very much. I think the foundations which have been laid are good ones, and I think fairly good work has been done, work which can be greatly improved by my successor. However. I want to express my appreciation for the hard work done in achieving this. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make this farewell a long drawn-out affair, and for that reason I want to leave it at that. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall still be a Minister for a short while, although I do not know for how long. That decision lies with the Government. But as long as I remain a Minister and as long as I am in my office and with my Department, people will always have access to me, and I wish to express the hope that hon. members will take the liberty to discuss matters with me. However, please do not inundate me with requests between now and 30 March because an election is taking place and I may be asked to stand in one or other constituency, and I might agree to do so and then I do not want you to tie me down. I should like to give the assurance, however, that my heart and my door will remain open, also as regards my Department. I should like to wish my successor everything of the best; I do not know who he is going to be; I wish I knew who he was; I think it is safe for me to say—some hon. members might not agree with me—that he will be a member of this side of the House. Whoever he may be I wish him every success with this particular task of this particular Department and its particular problems, a Department which deals with the problem cases of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have already conveyed my gratitude to you. I also want to thank the hon. Leader of the House because it is clear that, having regard to the business of the House, one must have a good leader. One must have somebody who is able to make the train run fast without causing an accident. I should like to say “thank you” to him in his absence, as well as to the Chairmen of the Committees and to those who have acted on their behalf. On many occasions he had reason to call me to order, but 1 want to thank him for not calling me to order every time I was out of order.

And what about the Opposition Whips?

I was coming to that. I came to this House in 1922, and I shall not allow myself to be caught out so easily. I also want to express my gratitude to the Opposition Whips for their co-operation. I must say that on occasion during my Parliamentary experience their co-operation was very effective to keep me here longer than I would have liked to be.

Bill read a third time.

When the House adjourned last night I was explaining why I felt that this Bill should be passed this Session. The Opposition have intimated that they are going to oppose it. I listened very carefully in order to hear their reasons for so doing, but I was unable to discover those reasons. They are apparently opposing it merely for the sake of opposition, and I find it difficult to argue along those lines. It is like a woman who says: “Nevertheless”; one cannot argue further. I shall therefore try to explain why I think it is so vitally necessary that this legislation should be passed this Session.

When one thinks of the areas in Namaqualand which are considered to be diamondiferous, one is thinking of very large areas indeed. In the granting of concessions, each diamondiferous area was given the name of the part into which it fell. We refer therefore to an area like Steinkopf and the Richtersveld and to an area like Concordia. These three areas together cover more than 1,000,000 morgen. Although this is an extremely large area hon. members will realize that the actual diamondiferous parts cover only a few morgen. Consideration was given to the protection of diamonds in the Base Minerals Act, introduced by the hon. the Minister. Although that Act also had protection in mind, it made things difficult for a person who was mining base minerals. The hon. the Minister realized that there were cases in which people wanted to mine base minerals some distance away from the diamondiferous areas but simply could not do so because the Act made it difficult for them to mine such base minerals. This Bill will now make the mining of such base minerals possible. I just want to say that there are many important base minerals in Namaqualand. We think, for example, of the pegmatites which contain so many important minerals such as berillium, tantalite, and so forth, minerals needed by the Atomic Energy Commission, minerals which our country needs urgently at the moment. These minerals are deposited throughout those areas and are sometimes found miles away from any diamondiferous ground. That is why this authorization is being given for negotiation with the owners and, in cases where they do not want to cooperate, the hon. the Minister is simply being given the power to permit certain people to mine these minerals. It is therefore quite incomprehensible to me why the Opposition have decided to oppose this Bill. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having decided to have this Bill passed this Session. It is extremely important for us in Namaqualand and also for the country. I just want to say that the action of the Opposition makes me think of the two old gentlemen who were having an argument at Onseepkans. The first old gentleman said to the other: “If you fell into the water here I would immediately have a net thrown across the Orange River at Upington”, to which the second old gentleman’s wife replied: “Oh, shame! I am just thinking how my poor old husband will bump his head when he goes up the Aughrabies falls!” Because of this trait of the Opposition of opposing everything, I just want to tell them that they will bump their heads very hard indeed.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) has said that he regards this legislation as urgent and necessary. One of the objections we raised to this legislation being introduced in this Session of Parliament—at this late stage of our sojourn here—is that there were other means which should have been adopted in putting this legislation on the Statute Book. The amazing thing to me is that if the Minister and the hon. member for Namaqualand regarded this as so urgent and necessary, why did not the hon. member for Namaqualand come along to the Commission of Inquiry into Mining Rights, which is sitting at the moment, and make representations on behalf of his constituents? It was publicized right throughout the country that this Commission was sitting, and if this thing was so urgent and of such great concern to his constituents he could have come along to make representations. But neither he nor any of his constituents came.

But this Bill has nothing to do with that Commission.

Non of his constituents came to the Commission.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said it is nonsense, but is he aware that there is a clause to this effect in the Bill?

Why should they make representations if that is the case?

If they want this to come on to the Statute Book, what guarantee did they have that somebody would not come to the Commission and make representations to the opposite effect, in which case it might never have come on to the Statute Book? He had no guarantee, and he does not know to this day, what the recommendations of that Commission would be. Therefore I cannot see that this House should be rushed into legislation without having had the opportunity of referring this matter to the interested parties. We have not had a chance to find out from the various people who will be affected by this legislation—and some of them can be vitally affected because it is an interference with vested interests—what their opinions are. We have not had an opportunity to consult them, and therefore that is the main reason for our objection, namely that this is again “rush” legislation. Once again it is typical of the attitude of this Cabinet towards mining affairs, that they do not give us sufficient time to go into the implications and repercussions of legislation of this kind. Every time there is a bit of mining legislation introduced into this House, it is brought in at the last minute. We are rushed into it; we do not know the implications, and afterwards we are often accused by the Leader of the House that we voted for it.

Do you realize that this Bill has been on the Table for weeks?

It was not on the Table for weeks. It was put into the Senate one Wednesday, and the Senate was asked to discuss it the following day. Within a matter of 24 hours you ask a responsible body such as the Senate to decide on important legislation of this kind.

Why worry about the Senate? Are you against this Bill?

If the Minister in his reply says that this legislation has to be rushed through at this late stage because it was anticipated that the Commission of Inquiry into Mining Rights would submit its decisions to Parliament during this Session, had it not been a short session, and that we would have been able to go ahead with the legislation within a year or so after the promulgation of this Bill, but because the report of this Commission is not coming before us now and therefore it is necessary that a separate Bill of this nature should be introduced, my answer to him would be that this Bill will still have to take a year to go through in the ordinary course of events, so the whole delay can only be a matter of five months. It is all very well for the hon. member for Namaqualand to say that we are dealing with huge areas, but it is not necessarily a fact that it has to be a large area that you will have to deal with; it can be a small area, and if it is a small area, do you realize, Sir, the conflict of interests and the considerable confusion which will exist between the prospector for precious stones and the prospector for base metals?

In which case they do not come to an agreement.

Sir, have you ever stopped to realize the danger that is implicit in this form of legislation where a company has rights to precious stones and you then allow a prospector for base minerals to come on to that ground? What security has the owner of the precious stones rights? And security is a very vital factor when you are dealing with diamonds. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Heilbron knows very well what I am talking about, because he knows of the dangers that exist when you let a prospector for base minerals come on to an area where the overburden has diamondiferous ground on it, and you are unable to enforce security properly when you are dealing with diamonds. The overburden is bound to be disturbed, if you allow a prospector for base minerals to come on to that ground. Surely a better approach by the Minister of Mines would be to allow the prospecting for one or other of the minerals to take place first, and not to allow prospecting for both precious stones and for base metals to take place on the same piece of ground simultaneously. What would happen if prospecting licences were granted for both these minerals and you found both of them at the same time? Surely there must be a conflict and a difficulty between the two vested interests.

Have you any idea how it is done in practice?

No, but we would like to know.

Have you ever read the proviso to this clause?

I would like the hon. member for Namaqualand to tell us how the company, in which he is interested, is going about the prospecting for these minerals. I may be ignorant, but surely he should tell us what his problems are, and if there are no problems, why does he want this Bill? We want to know from the Minister, but he has not given us that reply, who made representations and who said it was so urgent that this Bill should be introduced at this particular stage. The Minister did not tell us what areas are affected. He should tell us who made these representations. But we hear from the hon. member for Namaqualand that we must urgently pass the Bill. We do not like this rush type of legislation. I do not say that we do not like this particular type of legislation, but we do not like the fact that we are being forced into passing legislation at this late stage of the Session. When one remembers the large number of prospecting licences which have been granted in the last 12 or 18 months, we on this side of the House say we have a duty to the public to protect their interests. But what is more necessary than ever, is the fact that certain members of the public have vested interests—people who took a risk with mining—who may now find themselves adversely affected, and they should be protected. As far as I know, this came as a bolt from the blue to those people who are busy prospecting for diamonds in the various parts of the Republic. I would also like to ask the Minister whether it is a fact that there are base minerals under the sea? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what is going to be the effect on those companies mining under the sea today, should base minerals be found in that area? No matter how hon. members on that side may scoff, there are base minerals under the sea! And the position will be made even more confusing and confounded by going along and granting these rights, making the task of these people even more difficult.

Read the proviso to the clause.

Yes, the proviso is there, but provisos are inserted to suit the circumstances of the case as they arise. Because, Sir, we have seen some remarkable provisos and the use to which they have been put.

That is a unique argument. I have never heard it before to-day.

Well, it is a good argument. You know, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Justice is really a unique man, and I am flattered by his comment. For the reasons put forward by the hon. member for Rosettenville and for the reasons advanced by me, this side of the House is not at all happy about this legislation, and under these circumstances we will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, a few of the objections raised here have very little to do with the contents of this measure. The first objection raised was that insufficient notice of this Bill was given the Opposition and that they did not have sufficient time to study it. This measure was introduced in the Senate, and it was read for the first time on 1 February. Consequently, hon. members opposite cannot say that insufficient notice was given them. This Bill consists of one clause, a clause which is not a complicated clause and which is not difficult to understand. I informed hon. members opposite that the services of my officials were at their disposal, and some of the hon. members did, in fact, meet my officials, by whom they were fully informed. Hon. members will perhaps agree with me that I did everything possible to make available to them all possible information. The criticism expressed here was to the effect that we could have adopted other methods and that we should have kept this Bill in abeyance. Well, the reason for introducing this measure is, in fact, to remedy an unsatisfactory position. The hon. member for Springs, who is a member of that commission, knows that provision is made for this principle in the Base Metals Act. He is not the only one who knows about it. Surely, everybody knows about it, because this Act has already been published and everybody should have taken notice of it. The hon. member for Namaqualand also knew about it. Everybody knew about it. Everybody knew that this principle which is now before the House is envisaged in that Act.

But he knows the commission may not accept it.

Mr. Speaker, if a measure had, say, 200 clauses and everybody had to give evidence I wonder how long that commission would be kept busy. This matter was quite obvious. In 1964 the Precious Metals Act was passed in this House. That Act contained the same principles as far as precious metals were concerned. Nobody objected to it. All the interested parties had an opportunity of considering this principle. There was the greatest measure of consultation also as far as the Base Metals Act was concerned. Nobody objected to it. I do not want to anticipate the commission’s report but there are certain deductions I may make from the fact that nobody objected to it. For that reason I am convinced that nobody disagrees on this principle.

It is now asked by whom representations were made in this connection. Well, this measure is not the result of any representations that were made, but it was introduced because the Department was aware of this particular problem. And for the very reason that the Department was aware of the problems created by the 1907 Act it was included in the measure at present being considered by the commission. The problems were not unknown to the Department. It was thought that this measure would have been finally dealt with by the commission last year. However. they did not dispose of it and the matter is still not disposed of. Perhaps it will be disposed of during the recess, which will mean that it will be introduced during the next session. Maybe it will then be passed. However, certain regulations will have to be promulgated before the Base Metals Act can be implemented. Of course, it took many years’ work before this legislation could be drawn up in its present form. As regards the regulations: All the regulations dealing with base metals and gold will have to be revised. It will, perhaps, take up to a year to complete this work, because, Sir, the regulations are complicated and comprehensive in nature. That means that this measure will not be implemented before another 1| years have lapsed. For that reason we have decided to put the matter straight instead of waiting another 1| years. If diamond leases were to be issued, it would mean that all activities and prospecting in respect of base metals would have to be stopped. The alternative is that we will have to keep some of these diamond leases in abeyance. It is not necessary to have this Act for all these diamond leases. In certain areas where diamond rights have been granted the prospecting and the pegging off of claims for base metals were stopped. That took place in about 1958. All claims are valid for one year, after which period they lapse automatically. For that reason people are already operating in certain areas where these rights have been granted. In these cases this restriction does not apply. In other cases, however, this restriction does apply. In such cases prospecting for base minerals will have to be stopped if we were to grant diamond leases or enter into mining and prospecting agreements.

Otherwise matters will have to be held in abeyance. Who will suffer through that? People in those areas where prospecting for base minerals have not been stopped will suffer. Representations in connection with Komaggas and Leliefontein have been made to me. The miners on whose behalf representations were made will have to wait for a year or two if this measure is not passed. Other people who will have to wait are White diggers who had to form a company. All the other companies will also have to wait. They have already made all their arrangements. Virtually all their consortiums have been formed. The capital is available. They have people whom they want to use. They want to purchase machinery. They are ready to start operating but this Act stands in their way. For that reason it is considered necessary at this stage to introduce this measure. The matter is regarded as urgent. The only purpose of this Bill is to eliminate technical difficulties.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

I move, as an unopposed motion—