I wish to deal firstly with the attempt to present in a completely false light one of the charges of the United Party in this debate. I refer to the attempt to allege that we have called South Africa a police state. Sir, there has been an almost hysterical reaction to the charge of my Leader and other speakers, a charge in which we in the United Party sincerely believe, namely that there is a noticeable and defineable tendency towards totalitarianism in the actions of the Government. But every speaker has stated quite clearly that what we are attacking is not the achievement of a police state but the tendency, the movement, towards one. I think it is necessary that we should get this clear differentiation between the approach of the United Party and of the Government towards the philosophy of government, perfectly straight before we deal with the allegation that we are charging South Africa with being a police state. What we have charged is that there is a growing intolerance towards all ideas and thoughts which are different from those held by the Government and the governing party. We have charged that racial sectionalism lives in the minds, in the thoughts and in the attitudes of the Government, and we have charged that these two tendencies, the tendencies towards intolerance and sectionalism, lead towards totalitarianism. Sir, we have had replies to the charges made by us but not one attempt to repudiate the past adherence of the Nationalist Party to ideas and thoughts in direct conflict with all the basic ideas of freedom and democracy. Those who have been charged have not repudiated their own past, neither have those who have spoken after them. In fact, they have reaffirmed with pride their rejection of the democratic ideal when it seemed that democracy was doomed. I say that we have charged the Government with sectionalism and I want to call as my witness the Prime Minister himself. I speak with feeling when I refer to the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made on an occasion which should have been a national occasion, on the occasion of the celebration of the achievement of a republic in South Africa five years ago. Sir, I listened to that speech and I was shocked to hear the political leader of South Africa say, speaking in Afrikaans, “Ons het 60 jaar van nederlaag vir die Suid-Afrikaanse volk deurleef”. Sir, I repudiate that and I throw it back at the Prime Minister, because what the Prime Minister thus said is that two victories for democracy in two world wars were in fact defeats. The Prime Minister was not speaking of the Nationalist Party or of the Afrikaner; he specifically used the words “die Suid-Afrikaanse volk”. If the South African people have suffered 60 years of defeat then the Prime Minister regards the victory of democracy over fascism as a defeat for the people of South Africa. There is no other interpretation, because to those of us who believe in democracy the last World War was a victory for democracy over fascism and totalitarianism. Yet the Prime Minister classifies it as a defeat. He classifies the First World War victory, a war in which South Africa participated, as a defeat for the South African people. I want to say, Sir, that that is not the South African people we know. The South African nation since 1910 has never known defeat. It has never been defeated either in peace or in war by any force opposed to it. We have won every struggle and every attack directed against the South African nation. We have faced rebellions against the State, and the State and the South African people achieved victory. We have won two wars; we have survived a national strike in which blood was shed. In every case the South African people, represented by the authority of the State, was successful, and I repudiate the statement that we have had 60 years of defeat. I repudiate too the Prime Minister’s statement that we have nothing worthwhile to look back on in South African history before 1961. That, Sir, is a statement which is an insult to the memory of every man whose forefathers helped to build up South Africa as a country and as a nation. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what right he has to say to those of us, on both sides of the House, whose forefathers contributed to establishing White authority and White leadership in South Africa, to say to those of us who stem from that tradition and from that history of service to and sacrifice for South Africa, that it is not worth looking back on with pride. To us it is a matter of pride to look back on what was done to build this country, not in the last five years but throughout our history in which those who came before us tried to establish a base here in South Africa upon which Western civilization could grow. The hon. the Minister of Planning supported the Prime Minister in equally unequivocal terms; he said in this debate that when history is written it will record no contribution by the United Party. That statement too I throw back in the face of the Government, and I ask the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Sport, who were so proud when they served in the United Party, and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration who were so proud of the contribution that this party and its forerunner had made to the growth of this country, to stand up in this House and say, “I repudiate my past; I repudiate my pride…”

I repudiate plenty of it.

I am glad to hear the acknowledgment of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that he repudiates many things in his past—an acknowledgment that he has abandoned those faiths and those ideals which guided him through most of his adult life.

The tragedy is not that I am no longer a “Sap”, the tragedy is that you are still a “Sap”.

Secondly, we charge this Government with arrogance and intolerance, and I want to quote an example which I believe is an example of completely arrogant intolerance on the part of the Prime Minister himself. I refer to a letter written from the Prime Minister’s office on the 25th March of this year to a member of Parliament, a member of this House at that time, serving the people of South Africa as their representative. That member of Parliament sent to the Prime Minister a petition pleading for something in which the petitioners believed, a State lottery in South Africa. But, Sir, it does not matter what they were pleading for. Here thousands upon thousands of South Africans were addressing a request to their Prime Minister and it does not matter what the request was; the Prime Minister’s view towards that request does not matter; what matters is that it was a request from thousands of South African citizens, directed to their own Prime Minister, asking for something in which they believed. This is the reply which the Prime Minister sent in reply to the letter under cover of which that petition was forwarded to him. He did not even have the courtesy to write it himself. He made a public servant, a man paid by public taxes in South Africa, sign this letter in these terms …

Even you know better.

I want to quote the letter addressed to Mr. L. B. Taurog, M.P.

Ex!

At the time this letter was written he was still Mr. Taurog, M.P. The letter reads—

Sir, I say that this is an example of arrogance, which is an insult to the fundamental principle of public representation by an elected person. Here an M.P. sends a petition to the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister makes his private secretary write a letter—which I do not believe any public servant would draft in these terms—I have more respect for the Public Service than to believe that. I suggest that this letter was the work of the Prime Minister but he did not sign it himself and he says to thousands of South Africans that he is not prepared to waste his time on an approach directed to him, legitimately, honestly and democratically, by people who append their signatures to a petition. I say that this is another of the examples of the intolerance of the Government. I go further. I say that this Government is now forbidding legitimate criticism. Let me hear the denials. Let me hear the denial from the Minister of Justice who believes in democracy.

Why are you so annoyed?

I am annoyed because I have a permit addressed by a Bantu in South Africa to a White person forbidding that White person to criticize the Government or any of its officials. Does the Minister deny it? I have a letter here under the heading of the Transkeian Government, from the magistrate’s office at Bizana, signed by one Majaba. From the same office I have a permit authorizing a person to camp in the Transkei, and this permit is issued subject to certain conditions. The second condition is that in his dealings with any of the Bantu the behaviour of the holder of the permit must be dignified. This is a Bantu telling a White person how to behave. His behaviour must be dignified and no criticism must be made of the Government or any of its officials. Is this approved by this Government, that it now forbids criticism of the Government or any of its officials? Because here is the permit which lays that down as a condition for entering the Transkei. Sir, this is not a police state, but if that is not a tendency towards totalitarianism, then I ask you what is. It is a refusal to allow any criticism of any official of the State, Black or White. Then this Government says this is nonsense, there is no tendency towards totalitarianism. Sir, I want to say this. I do not believe South Africa is a police state, and I do not believe it will become one, and the reason why it will not become one is because of the people of South Africa and the existence of the United Party. As long as there is a United Party in South Africa there will be no dictatorship. We stand as the last bulwark between what I believe to be the fundamental aim and objective of many members of the Government and its implementation. The one thing that protects South Africa from totalitarianism is the knowledge that the United Party, representing nearly half the electorate of the country, stands between its implementation and this ideal. What is more, the 42 per cent of the people whom we represent are the 42 per cent to whom freedom and the Western principles of democracy are most dear. They are the people to whom it means the most, the people who have been prepared to make sacrifices for that ideal. That is why we accept the ballot-box as the weapon of democracy. That is why we accept that this Government has a mandate to carry out its policy, given to it by the people through the ballot-box. Nobody denies the Government that mandate. All I want to do is to warn the Government that this mandate is a limited mandate to carry out the policy which it set before the people. It is not a blank cheque. The rights of the people lie in their right to return to the ballot-box if that mandate is abused. I say to the Government that it should not try to take away nor blunt the weapon of the ballot-box as the last resort of the people, because the 42 per cent whom we represent are the 42 per cent who have known what it means to defend democracy and their rights, and who know what it means to sacrifice for something in which they believe very deeply. And whilst we have the weapons of democracy at our disposal we will use them, but we will never give up the fight for those things in which we believe. This Government is so sensitive to charges of totalitarian tendencies because it knows that it failed in its three basic objectives in this election. It failed, firstly, to break the United Party; 42 per cent of the votes prove it. It failed, secondly, to break the loyalty of the Afrikaans-speaking supporters of this party to the ideal of a truly united people; and. thirdly, it failed to subjugate the political loyalty of the English-speaking voters to the ideals of an equal and unconditional share in South African nationhood and patriotism. The English-speaking voters were not prepared to become political “bywoners” of the Broeder-bond. The Government realizes that it has failed in its three fundamental objectives, in trying to destroy the resistance to its march towards unlimited power. It has a mandate, Sir, to carry out its policy. I remember once at a meeting, overwhelmingly Nationalist, where a questioner got up at the end of the meeting and said: “Meneer, julle het mos hier gekom om ’n tak te stig.” Our people were about five, and there were about 60 of the Nationalist Party. The speaker said: “Ja.” Then he said: “Toe maar, stig horn.” Now I say to the Government: “You have a mandate to establish Bantustans. ‘Toe maar, stig horn, en laat ons sien’.” That is the task to which this Government must now turn, and I ask it to tell us where the Bantustans in Natal are going to be. I ask the Minister of Bantu Administration what has happened to the Bantustans in Natal. Nothing has happened. The Bantustan in Natal is still a mirage. I ask the Minister of Bantu Administration to tell the people of Natal, who rejected Bantustans, how many Bantustans there will be. The Prime Minister says two, but the Minister of Indian Affairs says five or seven. I ask how many and where their boundaries will be, and I ask him to tell us whether the frontier towns of Natal are going to border on a Bantustan or not, the border area towns of Ladysmith, Estcourt, Newcastle and Maritzburg, which are the new frontiers of South Africa. I ask him to tell us whether they are placed on the extremity of White South Africa bordering on Bantustans; because if not, then the very names “border industry” and “border area towns” are a complete bluff and a complete misnomer. The Government now faces the responsibility, the hangover of the victory over which it is so jubilant, of carrying out its policy and letting the people see what it really stands for and not what it pretended to stand for when it was looking for votes.

We who have been in this House a long time and have heard the hon. member for Durban Point, who has just finished speaking, speak on so many occasions both here and in the Other Place, saw before us to-day a totally unfamiliar person. I do not know whether it is the front bench which has had the moderating influence, or whether it was the sequel of the National Party victory, but the hon. member has surprised me to-day as he has never done before in the past. When he rose to speak I thought he would come out with his old pattern of attack, attacks on Bantu areas, on boundaries and on other miscellaneous matters. The hon. member had absolutely nothing to say on that score, except for a few obscure questions towards the end, which are still based on mistaken assumptions. The hon. member did not disappoint me, but he did astound me. He revealed himself to us to-day as a kind of political army chaplain, he tried to boost the morale of his diminishing soldiers with a moving sermon, and he even had a tremor in his voice. That I can understand, because his soldiers have diminished. But the hon. member posed a few questions towards the end to which I just want to refer briefly, and after that I unfortunately have nothing more to say about him.

Towards the end he asked me how many Bantustans there are—two, as the hon. the Prime Minister is supposed to have said according to him, or five or seven, as the Minister of Community Development is supposed to have said. Let me disillusion him at once. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Community Development spoke of two or seven Bantustans in Natal. But the hon. member is not yet able to unravel these simple matters. The hon. member must distinguish between a Bantu homeland, or as he terms it, a Bantustan, and the areas constituting a Bantu homeland. And the two hon. members of this House whom that hon. member mentioned did not talk about two or five or seven Bantu homelands, they spoke about the consolidatable units of the Bantu areas of Natal. They were not talking about Bantustans. They were talking about whether the number of Bantu areas in Natal could be consolidated into two or more units, and not about the number of Bantustans which would come into being in Natal. I would like to enlarge further on those matters, but it would not be fair because I have actually risen to …

You cannot.

I want to tell the hon. member that if there is one province where I have spoken at ad nauseum in this recent election and in last year’s Provincial Council election about this very subject, it is that one. I did it gladly and I did it wherever I could, and that old tale of his about boundaries and whether there would be two or seven Bantustans, whether each town will become a border industry town and whether there are any dangers inherent therein—these things are all being exaggerated by the hon. member and I am not going to waste my time on them because I want to come to the member for Transkei and to the Leader of the Opposition, and my time is limited. The hon. member can discuss this matter under the relevant Head.

The Leader of the Opposition had a number of things to say but I want to return to only one of them. He said the Bantu in the White urban areas constituted a threat to the Whites, because they would always remain there, and he even dragged in the recent train disaster in Johannesburg, which occurred a few days ago, as an example of what threat they are to us. The hon. member for Transkei also mentioned this matter and said the Bantu in the towns kept our industries on the go, but they had no rights there, and that this situation was fraught with danger. First of all I just want to deal with the random idea of the train disaster and tell the Leader of the Opposition that if there is one thing which reveals his ignorance of Bantu affairs, it is the fact that he has dragged the train disaster into this discussion. The actions of the Bantu after the train disaster has as little to do with politics in this country as with the man in the moon. The hon. Leader does not know the character and the nature of the Bantu. After any occurrence of that kind in an urban area their true natures appear and they throw stones, wield cudgels or commit arson. This is the instinctive reaction one finds in them, and it has nothing to do with politics. Even if they were to have eight representatives in this House under the race federation and such a train disaster were to occur, they would still do it, not because of the eight representatives but because of their nature. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Transkei are making a grave conceptional error when they speak about these things and say that the Bantu in the White areas constitute a grave threat because they are there in great numbers and have no rights. When they say that, they are thinking in terms what they, as Opposition, want to grant the Bantu in the form of rights under their system, and then they project those suppositions of theirs onto us as if we also wanted to grant those rights. We are in fact stating very clearly what our political system for the Bantu is, and we are stating it to the Bantu wherever we come into contact with them—apparently they have a better fundamental understanding of it than the hon. Leader of the Opposition has. In terms of our policy we state very clearly that with the application of apartheid, with the control of the influx into the White areas, and by concentrating on doing everything possible to divert the stream from the White areas, the presence of Bantu in the White areas does not constitute an inherent threat to the Whites.

May I ask a question? Since the hon. Minister is saying that it does not constitute a danger, I want to ask him this: Was it not his Government who said that if we had a 50-50 relationship of Whites to Bantu, there would be certainty regarding White civilization.

No, the hon. member does not know what it is he wanted to ask me. If he would only listen, he might get the answer. I stated very clearly that our policy must be taken into consideration, and what are the fundamental principles of that policy? It is a very important point and I should like to enlarge on it further, but I cannot because I must reply to other points put in connection with the Transkei. Fundamentally, however, it amounts to this, that in the White areas the Whites hold the primary position in every respect and the Bantu hold the secondary position to the Whites, and precisely the reverse applies in the homelands. There the Bantu hold the primary position and the Whites the secondary. The members of the Opposition must understand this point of policy well, for if they understand it they have no right to say that the presence of Bantu in the White areas constitutes a danger to us, because they are only a danger to the Whites here if we keep them here on an integrational basis.

That is your view.

That is the view of my whole Government, and it is apparently the view of the vast majority of the public of South Africa. Neither is it an injustice to put it like that, because we tell the Bantu very plainly where they do hold a primary position and where we hold a secondary, and at the same time we tell them where we hold a primary position and they a secondary. It is a very clear moral parallelism which the Bantu understand very well. We come into contact with them regularly and I would like hon. members opposite to hear how the Bantu understand the position and what they have to say about it. However, the position is that it would be an injustice under the U.P. policy. They think in terms of their own policy and then tell us we are committing an injustice. We know that under “White leadership”, under the race federation, there will be constant manoeuvring between White and Bantu, or as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout terms it, justified politics, where they will always be saying to the Bantu: You share every possible equality with us. But they will constantly be trying to keep the Bantu from those alleged equalities and to outmanoeuvre them. That is the injustice which will be done to the Bantu. That is the way in which, as the Bantu also realize, they will be outmanoeuvred under the race federation. That is why I say that they are making a conceptional error when they state that there will be injustice under our Government. As one of the hon. senators said to me in regard to the so-called eight White representatives which there will have to be in Parliament: “Oh, what difference could such a tiny concession possibly make?” That is just the point, Sir. That tiny concession in the political field, in the economic field, in the field of labour, in the social field, in the field of education, in all the various sectors of society, that tiny concession can never ever be the end of it except if those Bantu were to be satisfied to always continue being cheated by the people in power—under “White leadership”. That is the major conceptional error they are making.

I now want to come to the points in regard to the Transkei raised here by the hon. member for Transkei. The first random point raised by the hon. member was the statement that overall apartheid might perhaps be a very good thing and could be considered, if one were able to apply it. However, he goes on to say, since it cannot be applied immediately it is wrong, he says that he does not even consider it, and maintains that even Dr. Malan rejected it.

Yes.

Now I first want to refer the hon. member back to Dr. Malan for a while. I do so because I cannot tolerate Dr. Malan being charged in such a slanted and erroneous manner. Dr. Malan expressed himself very clearly on these matters. Nowhere did he express himself more authoritatively than in the election manifesto of 1948, which he issued personally. It was in March, 1948, before the election, and in it he had the following to say: “The policy of the country should be drawn up in such a way that it will promote the ideal of ultimate total apartheid in a natural way.” Is that how Dr. Malan rejected total apartheid?

He said it here in this House.

I know what Dr. Malan said. The same was said by Mr. Strydom. Dr. Verwoerd also said it, and so do we.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member must not chop and change like that. He is not busy within his party now, he is now in the House. Dr. Malan said that, if an immediate policy which was to be applied immediately, complete apartheid, as he put it …

Not immediately.

Oh yes. It is clearly stated in the writings. Subsequently Mr. Strydom said the same thing, that as an immediate issue … [Interjections.] Here it stands in our manifesto, it is expressly stated in the manifesto. Dr. Malan said that it had never been the policy to apply it as something immediate in the immediate present. That is very clear. Subsequently Mr. Strydom said the same thing. He expressed it very clearly. In 1956, when he was already Prime Minister, he said, “As we have repeatedly said in the past, that would be the ideal solution (i.e. complete territorial separation) and for that reason one cannot blame people who plead and strive for it, even though one thinks that it is an ideal which cannot be obtained 100 per cent, and that for that reason it will not be a practical policy.” That is what he said. [Interjections.] He said it was an ideal. I am quoting to the hon. member from Hansard, from the speech of the 14th May, 1956. In the same speech the Prime Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 91, Col. 5338)—

namely complete territorial apartheid—

At a Transvaal National Party congress, the late Mr. Strydom said—

He urged us as Nationalists to do things daily in the application of our policy which would not be an obstruction for future generations who wished to realize the ideal of complete territorial apartheid in practice. [Interjections.] The present hon. Prime Minister also used words with the same purport, and I shall read them to the hon. member. He said the following on the 15th September, 1958, shortly after he became Prime Minister. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 98, Col. 3805)—

This was stated very clearly by both these people. Hon. members on that side must understand it very clearly. We are still saying to-day that that is the ideal, that that is the direction in which we are working. As practical people, as people who deal with these matters daily, we know that we are not going to be able to apply it tomorrow, just like that.

But you are taking another direction.

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not taking another direction. We stated very clearly, and our deeds and measures prove it, that neither in this sphere of education, of society, of labour, of politics or any other sphere are we allowing the Bantu in the White areas any possibility of complete equality with the Whites. In the political sphere we already have—and I have already said this repeatedly—absolutely complete apartheid between Whites and Bantu. It is complete because they are no longer represented in this House. Their systems have still to be perfected. They must still develop along their own lines. In the other spheres a varying degree of progress has been made. But what I find so interesting about the hon. member for the Transkei is something which is particularly amusing and which shows you. Sir, how illogical the thinking of that side is, their mental leaps are so prodigious. Yesterday he told us by implication that if it were possible to apply complete apartheid straight away, one could consider it. In other words, the hon. member would then be in favour of it. He would then think it was all in order. If it could be obtained suddenly, it would be a good thing. But if one moves gradually in that direction and only arrives at it in the future, then it is a bad thing. And then they would rather do the wrong thing because they cannot arrive at the good thing a little later on. What kind of political morality is that? What kind of idealism is that to hold up to a nation?

In the world of today it can never be practicable.

The hon. member does not want it and that is why he does not wish it. The mistake the hon. member is making is that he will not work in a direction. In fact, he would rather not work in any direction at all. That is the reason. The hon. member does not want complete apartheid at all, that is why the hon. member wants to maintain here that he will accept it as a good thing if it can be applied straight away. Sir, the hon. member would be one of the first to oppose it even if we were able to effect it immediately. The hon. member does not want it. He must not argue with such false premises on this matter.

The hon. member put a large number of questions here on the Transkei. Most of these matters are of course scare stories which he used during the election and which he wants to conjure up here again. He states that the Government is neglecting the owners of the trading stations in the Transkei. The Government is doing nothing for them. They have forgotten the traders. According to him those people are also in the dark as far as the procedure in regard to the take-over of properties in the Transkei are concerned, both in the zoned areas of the White towns as well as at the trading stations.

That is because they have a poor member of parliament—he does not explain these matters to them.

The hon. Minister has now taken the words from my mouth. The hon. member alleged here that the Whites in the Transkei are being treated in a worse way than the Whites in Kenya are being treated. Of course that is an old argument with which the hon. member has on many occasions already tried to conjure up spectres and raise a few votes—and has only succeeded in scaring away the votes! I am not going to talk nonsense now. I am going to quote facts. But before I do that I want to quote some of the hon. member’s fallacious arguments. He states that the Coloureds have also been altogether forgotten because certain areas have been zoned off in the towns for the Bantu and the Whites, an allegation which, of course, is false. I shall deal with it presently. He also wanted to know what was going to happen to the owners having one property in a zoned area and another property in an unzoned area of a town. He also wanted to know what become of owners of property living only in the unzoned areas. Let us now consider the facts. It is always far better to deal with facts than with gossip. Now, there is no reason why people in the Transkei should be in the dark, unless their M.P. keeps them in the dark. And that is what he has done. Towards the end of the 1964 session a White Paper was issued in this House in which it was very clearly stated what would be done in principle in regard to the trading stations. In this document it was stated in advance that when the zoning was complete—because it had not yet been done at that time—the same principles would also apply in that case as well. Since then my esteemed predecessor has often made statements on this subject in this House. I would prefer that he himself gave a reply here today.

Yes, you are now in trouble. You are afraid to do it yourself. [Interjections.]

No, I am not afraid to do it myself. [Interjections.]

Order, order! The hon. member for Transkei must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

I am not afraid to give the replies myself. I shall do it gladly. I want to pay tribute to-day to my predecessor who, time and again, did his level best to bring these matters home to people who simply do not want to hear. Time and again he issued ministerial statements. There is Proclamation No. 1323, which was proclaimed in December, 1965 and which deals with this matter. In July, I myself issued a Press statement by way of information although there was not exactly anything new I could say because all these things had already been said in the various statements.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making himself guilty of a disgraceful misrepresentation by saying that the Whites in the Transkei are being treated worse by this Government than the Whites in Kenya are being treated by theirs. That is nothing else but pure political sensationalism on the part of the hon. member when he alleges a thing like that. I now want to furnish a few details. I would like to tell the hon. member that in the recent Budget passed in this House, R2,500,000 was voted for the take-over of properties of Whites who were not able to sell to Bantu and who, for various reasons, had to leave. In a previous financial year R250,000 was appropriated. Altogether R2,750,000 has already been voted for this purpose.

Is that for trading stations only?

How much of that sum has already been spent?

I shall furnish the figures. We have spent practically the whole amount. The amounts were for both purposes, for trading stations as well as for zoning. Why are hon. members not aware of these things? Because, Sir, all these years when we have gone into Committee and the Bantu Affairs Vote has been dealt with, they have never opened that book. They do not inquire about a single item in that book. They do not ask for details. They do not utilize the Bantu Affairs Vote—in fact, the same applies to other posts as well—to discuss the Vote to the advantage of those people who must derive benefit from it; but they are always engaging in general politics. We must continually hear about Bantustans and all manner of imaginary dangers instead of the work before the Committee being properly analysed. If that were done they would know all these things. I shall now furnish the figures. Hon. members must remember that the zoning of the towns only took place at the beginning of the year. In practice not much could as yet have come of it. The trading stations have been in a position of possible take-over for a longer period of time. The number of trading stations offered as at July, 1966, was 256. We have already made offers and purchased in 140 cases. Of the amount appropriated we have spent an amount of R798,000 for completed purchases. Offers which have not yet been finalized total an amount of R1,800,000. Surely these are major amounts? If all our offers are accepted during this year then I do not know whether the money which has been voted will be sufficient. That is why I can inform the hon. members who inquired so noisily a moment ago about the amount of money which had been spent, that just about all of it has already been spent—and even more might yet be spent.

Of the zoned properties in White towns 120 have already been offered to us. So far none of them have been purchased because this phase was only commenced with recently. The hon. member complained because we were supposedly doing nothing for the Coloureds in the Transkei; Mr. Speaker, the Coloureds have also offered one already. The Coloureds know that. They paid the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and myself a visit in Pretoria and we informed them about these matters. They know about it, but the hon. member for Transkei does not want to know about it. He can know about it if he wants, but he does not want to.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to remind you of the stupid assertion made by the hon. member that we are doing less for our Whites than has been done for the Whites in Kenya. Would the hon. member tell us whether R798,000 has ever been paid out in Kenya? Has R2,750,000 been voted in Kenya—by any Government whatsoever—for Whites who had to leave Kenya? Have any guarantees been given that irrespective of how much it would cost over the years the Whites would not suffer losses on their properties? Nothing of this nature was done in Kenya. No guarantees were given, and the hon. member ought to be aware of the fact. He ought to know that the accusation he made was repudiably untrue, except if he wants to avail himself of disgraceful methods.

Now the hon. member comes forward and speaks about the zoning of the towns. He says the towns have been zoned for Whites and Bantu but that there is no zoning for the Coloureds. How can anyone make such a stupid assertion, particularly someone who is versed in the law? Those towns have not been zoned for the three different race groups. Those towns have been zoned for one purpose only. Actually, “zoning” is not the correct word, although it is the popular one. The word “reserved” is the one used in the Proclamation. In those towns zones or districts have been reserved as districts which the Bantu may enter to make purchases without having to have preliminary approval from the State President. They can make direct purchases and get done. Some of those towns have been completely reserved, in other words the Bantu may make purchases throughout the town, and in other towns zones and districts have been specified, as in Umtata and other large places for example. And what does that mean? It means that while the Bantu can make purchases in the reserved section, the old position remains unchanged in the rest of the town, in the smaller remaining part of the town. That is all it means. The old position remains. It does not mean that only Whites may live in the other part. That was the great misunderstanding amongst the Coloureds. If there are Coloureds living amongst the Whites in the rest of the town—and this occurs in towns in the Transkei—then the position remains the same. In that part intended for Bantu occupation there is money available according to our policy with which the properties of Whites and Coloureds, which have to be bought out there because the Bantu must move in, can be purchased. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to what the hon. the Minister had to say. I do not want to enter the argument between him and the hon. member for Transkei, except to say I found it remarkable that the hon. the Minister evinced so much enthusiasm and so much conviction in claiming that the Nationalist Party Government was eager and active and vigorous in making the Transkei a homogeneous Black country. But in spite of the very fine speech we had from the hon. member for Pinelands regarding the situation of Black people in so-called White South Africa, I did not notice any particular enthusiasm on the part of the hon. the Minister to act as vigorously in order to make White South Africa white.

It is something which we should perhaps examine a little bit further, this dichotomy in the Nationalist Party’s attitude, this keenness to make the Transkei and other Bantu areas black and this lack of enthusiasm to make the rest of South Africa white. But before I come to that I think it is necessary that we should ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to clarify one or two matters for us in connection with the case of young Mr. Ian Robertson. When the hon. the Minister spoke yesterday he was very emphatic that Mr. Robertson had been to Swaziland and that there his conduct caused him to land in trouble.

I corrected that immediately.

I understand that the Minister has now corrected that. He was wrong; Mr. Robertson has never been to Swaziland. The Minister now says that Mr. Robertson has been to Bechuananland. I wish I could be sure that the hon. the Minister is right now, Sir; because there has been a very emphatic denial from friends of Mr. Robertson’s who telephoned me from Durban to say that the only protectorate that he has ever visited is Basutoland. There is also a denial in the Stop Press column of this afternoon’s Cape Argus by Mr. Robertson’s father that he has ever been to Bechuanaland. The hon. the Minister should check his facts. There is something wrong somewhere. The hon. the Minister, as we know, is a punctilious gentleman, and when he spoke yesterday and said “Swaziland”, he said it with great convicition; he said it twice. I think he had information that Mr. Robertson had been to Swaziland. That has now been corrected. I think that possibly he is misinformed again and I personally am a little bit worried that there is too much misinformation on the facts which led the Minister to act in this particular case, because people who know Mr. Robertson, who have been associated with him for years, who were associated with him throughout the period when he was with Nusas, have assured me—to give one or two examples of the case which the Minister made out yesterday—that Mr. Robertson, as chairman of Nusas, was ex officio and only ex officio a member of the Defence and Aid organization, the membership of which have caused the Minister so much perturbation in the case of Mr. Robertson. But I am assured—I have no reason to doubt it; the Minister can investigate it—that Mr. Robertson never acted upon that ex officio appointment; that he never once attended a meeting of the Defence and Aid organization and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Will the Minister check that? Sir, the hon. the Minister made a point of it yesterday that he had had only one communication from Mr. Robertson, an application for an exit permit to leave South Africa, with no right to return.

That is not true either.

Is that true?

No.

I am not talking to the hon. member for Houghton at the moment. Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that photostat copies of correspondence between the Minister and Mr. Robertson were handed to the newspapers in Durban this morning to show that Mr. Robertson wrote to the Minister asking for reasons for his banning.

Naturally …

How then can the Minister tell the House that he only had one communication from Mr. Robertson? What value can we attach to this statement by the Minister? The Minister should be more careful.

Did you look at my Hansard?

On the facts he has been shown to be wrong.

You are talking nonsense.

The Minister himself admitted that Mr. Robertson has not been to Swaziland.

I never said that.

But the Minister did say that he went to Swaziland. The Minister has been wrong again and again. He was not aware of the fact that Mr. Robertson was only ex officio a member of Defence and Aid and that he never availed himself of his membership. He was not aware of these facts. Sir. I am not pleading that Mr. Robertson is innocent I do not know. But I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the Minister does not know either that Mr. Robertson is guilty. When you have a prima facie case stated by the Minister against Mr. Robertson and that case can be attacked and shown to be vulnerable on many essential points by the friends of Mr. Robertson, because he is not allowed to speak for himself, is it not time there was a proper investigation; should the merits of these two conflicting statements not be tested in the only way that we have in a democratic state for testing facts and that is by examination before an impartial court, with legal representation and with the right of cross-examination. This is a fundamental difference between the Minister and his Government and this side of the House: We say that Communism is a wicked thing and should be eliminated from South Africa’s life. We say that crime should be punished. But we also say that we cannot see any reason why punishment should be left to the sole discretion of the executive, of the hon. the Minister, and why the courts should be excluded, the very courts which the Minister has stated are the corner-stones, the ex hypothesis qualification for democracy. Why not let this man appear before the courts and if he is guilty let him be punished; if he is innocent let him be set free. If he is such a dangerous man, is it wise, is it politic, to allow a dangerous communist and agitator, a man organizing subversive activities, to run around free in Cape Town and in Durban? Why not then have him before the courts and lock him up if he is guilty, and why not satisfy the doubts—I do not want to put it more strongly—that exist in the minds of hundreds of thousands of South Africans that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case? There is a simple way, Sir. The Minister has said that he will account to Parliament for his actions. He did so yesterday, and I do not think there is a single objective member of this House who can be satisfied with the account given by the Minister. I invite the Minister now to bring this man before the courts …

He has not got the courage.

… and if he is guilty, let him be punished and punished severely, because we all detest Communism.

Order! Who made that remark about lack of courage?

I did.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, the hon. the Minister probably has the courage but that makes his timidity all the more inexplicable. Why not show that courage and bring this man to justice? If he is guilty mete out justice to him and if he is innocent mete out justice to him. He is entitled as a young citizen of South Africa to have justice done through the courts of this country in view of the doubts there are and in view of the poor way in which the Minister acquitted himself of his task in this House yesterday.

Sir, my hon. Leader brought a charge against the Government yesterday, the charge being that through lack of foresight they have been guilty of gross neglect of the interests of the ordinary people of this country, a charge which he substantiated with evidence no one can dispute. There has been very little attempt, in fact hardly any attempt at all, to answer the charge that this Government’s mismanagement of our economy has encouraged inflation in this country, which became so alarming that the Government had to take Draconian action to try to reverse the trend which it had set in force itself, and that in that process, both going up and in coming down, the ordinary man, the salaried man, the wage-earner, the pensioner, the man living on his interest, was hit hardest of all.

Not a single member on your side has so far told us just where we erred.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed to over-spending by this Government; he referred to the use of short-term credit and a great many other things. Where was the hon. the Minister of Community Development? No, let us keep to the facts of this debate. I want to remind the Minister that the most striking fact my Leader mentioned was the fact that responsible citizens—the home-owners of South Africa, for example—have been hardest hit as a result of the increase in the rate of interest which they have to pay on their bonds. The rate of interest of the building societies has gone up by 1 per cent on a total indebtedness of R1,500,000,000—about R15,000,000 a year. Sir, that is a tremendous burden to place on the ordinary man. Here an unconscionable burden has been imposed upon the bondholders, the home-owners of South Africa, a most responsible element of the people of South Africa. Sir, it may be said that this is a temporary measure—that is the only apology that I have heard for the Government—and that the rates may change again within a year or two; but in the meantime this imposition has been placed upon the home-owners in order to save South Africa from the consequences of the Government’s short-sightedness. And even if this burden is removed in a year’s time the ordinary man in South Africa will have paid the biggest penalty of all for the Government’s mismanagement. Is the hon. the Minister going to make some amends to these people in his Budget? He said at the time that fiscal measures may be necessary too, but no fiscal measure is required to tax the home-owner today; he is already being taxed and he is being taxed disproportionately. This hits mostly the middle classes of this country.

The same applies to house-rents. In my own constituency I know of cases where house-rents have been put up twice within three months and where flat rents have been put up. Only to-day people came to this House to tell us that their flat rents had been increased by 10 and 15 per cent in the past few weeks.

30 per cent.

And 30 per cent. The Government has powers but it does not act. No, the ordinary man and his wife must pay. One can only express astonishment that this substantiated charge by my hon. Leader has not been answered by any hon. member opposite. But, Sir, the Government’s neglect of the ordinary man, its indifference to the ordinary man, goes beyond purely economic matters. The very policy stated so eloquently to us by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development a few minutes ago is creating dangers for the ordinary man and woman in South Africa, because it is a policy entirely unrelated to reality. It is a policy, as I said at the outset of my speech, to make the Transkei Black with great enthusiasm but with little evidence of any real intention to make the rest of South Africa White. Sir, it is time we took a real look at this policy of so-called separate development, for which the people apparently voted in the last election.

“Apparently?”

Yes, I will tell hon. members why I say “apparently”. I do not believe that any person who really understands what the Government is doing about separate development can ever vote for it. They are voting for ideas, for the sort of thing that the hon. the Minister quoted to us to-day—an ideal for to-morrow, a possibility for some time in the future but certainly nothing today. Sir, I am not alone in saying this. It has been said before by intellectuals like Professor Bruwer, an ex Native Commissioner, and by a man like Dr. Rhoodie. Members of the Sabra organization have shared the doubts and the misgivings that I am expressing to-day.

Professor Bruwer is absolutely in favour of our policy.

Yes, except that he says that you are doing sweet blow-all about it!

He did not even say that; that is a misstatement again.

Let us accept Professor Bruwer’s theory that this is a good policy; then I want to say that if it is a good policy, then surely one should carry it out. Surely if separate development is the answer to the problems and the illnesses and the fears and the distresses of South Africa, you would expect the Government to give everything it had—all its enthusiasm, all its much-vaunted “kragdadigheid”—in order to carry out this policy. But what is happening in fact? Hon. members opposite are not facing realities. They are bluffing the country and I am afraid—I say this because I know how sincere the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is—that he is bluffing himself. They are bluffing themselves because they are not reducing the number of Black people in South Africa. They are doing nothing to reverse the flow of Black people to the White areas back to the Native areas. All they are doing—and as you know, Sir, I am a fair man—is to change the nature of the Black labour force in White South Africa. They are changing the nature of that Black labour force from a settled law-abiding community to an excessive proportion of migrant labour with no roots and no interest in the part of South Africa where they live and move and have their being. That is all they are doing. They are changing the nature of our labour force from something which offers some security to this country to something which can only offer danger to the people of South Africa, and this, I believe, is the basis of the facile assurance given to the people a year ago by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that numbers did not matter. If anybody else was in power and the number of Black people in South Africa grew, as they are growing under this Government, it would be a menace to White South Africa, but under this Government it does not matter if the numbers grow; numbers do not count. As long as we have the Government’s policy, it does not matter if the whole of South Africa is utterly Black. I do not understand the logic of it, Sir, but the basis of it must be that as long as you have the Black people working for the White man in White South Africa—I am using the terminology of hon. members opposite—as long as the Black people who work for the White man are people without a stake in the country in which they earn their livelihood, with no security, with no roots whatsoever, with no family life, with no home-ownership, with none of the fundamental things which are necessary for good citizenship, then it does not matter if they are with us. But they must not own and possess the fundamentals of good citizenship; then their presence is a danger! Let me show you, Sir, what is happening. The Government is now taking strong action to endorse certain Black people out of the White cities. Last year we were told by the then Minister, who is now unfortunately no longer with us, that in 1964 they endorsed 98,241 Natives out of the White areas and another 23,000 in the first three months of last year, a total of approximately 121,000. But in the same period they admitted into the White areas 175,099 new Black workers in 1964 and 49,540 in the first three months of last year. For every Black man endorsed out of the White cities of South Africa, two new ones were admitted! And this, Sir, is reducing South Africa’s dependence upon Black labour! Have you ever heard greater nonsense in your life? I want to say for argument’s sake—I have said it before—that if we had a Government that believed in separate development, if we had a Government that had the courage of its own convictions, which stood up and said, “If the White man is to survive, we must partition South Africa; we must separate the nations and we shall do it, we shall do it whatever sacrifices it may mean and we shall call upon the people of South Africa to make those sacrifices”, then we of the Opposition would have admired that Government. We may not agree with their policy but we would respect their policy and discuss it on its merits, but how can one take this deception seriously? They are changing the nature of our labour force from a settled force to a rootless force. Look what is happening here in the Western Cape, which has been described by influential, responsible Nationalist organs as the very laboratory of apartheid, as the very laboratory of separate development. Look what is happening here. I quote from the Burger of 10th June, 1966. There was a conference of the Southern Region Agricultural Organization at George. There was a resolution that the Government should recruit more Bantu for farmers in the South Western Districts. The mover of the resolution said—

Other speakers supported him. The resolution was not voted down. The discussion was postponed because the farmers were unable to arrive at a decision, but what was accepted was this: They asked that the Government, the Provincial Administrations, the Railways, Government Departments, Divisional Councils, City Councils, etc., should make use of Native labour if they want the farmers to use Coloured labour. We have had the statement by the hon. member for Pinelands about Durbanville where the farmers, dissatisfied with the sloth of the Department of Bantu Administration, formed their own recruiting organization and within a few months declared a dividend of 10 per cent, so successful were they in recruiting Native labour for the Western Province. They recruited 842 Natives for work in the Western Province within the first few months of their existence. Sir, how can one take the Government’s policy seriously? Remove the settled Native workers and bring in migrant workers and then you make South Africa White! Have you ever thought of the consequences? The policy was announced some time ago, for example, to build where the present Alexandra Township is near Johannesburg, four hostels, I think, each to house 10,000 single Bantu workers, male and female but single. The phrase used was “alleen-lopende”. What are we doing to the character and the morale and the moral fibre of these people when we destroy one of the most fundamental things that they need in order to be good people, and that is to live a family life? We have no vital statistics for the Natives in South Africa. Their births and their deaths and their marriages are not registered; we do not know what is happening, but the Medical Officer of Health of Cape Town tells us that more "-m half the births in this city in the case of Black people are illegitimate, and in Johannesburg the position is certainly not better, because we force men to come here without their wives, and we force women to come here without their menfolk. The consequence is irregular liaisons. Can the Minister tell me how many illegitimate births there are—the Deputy Minister who is particularly interested in the urban side of Bantu administration? Can he tell me how many illegitimate births take place amongst the Natives in the nine major urban areas of South Africa per annum? He has no idea, but he knows as well as I do that the figure is staggering.

What happens to those children?

Can he tell me what is the extent of abnormal sex behaviour amongst these migrant workers in our urban areas? He knows it is staggering but he is not interested; he does not even do research to find out what the position is.

You are talking nonsense. You are worried about the mineworkers.

I am not talking nonsense. Sir, in America they are having great difficulty with their American Negroes. There we find that they investigate; they do research, and what do they find? According to an article which I read recently by a former Deputy Secretary for Labour in the United States Government, they found that one-quarter of the children born to Negroes in the whole of the United States were illegitimate and that many families were headed by women; that 47 per cent of the family units in the urban areas of the United States were without a father, and the position in South Africa cannot be better. They found that out of every 1,000 Negro births, 263 were illegitimate. It is infinitely worse in South Africa. What dragon’s teeth are we sowing for ourselves in South Africa? The Minister will deny this but does this not lend significance to the reaction of the Black people in Johannesburg when their train was smashed? Was it not a deep-seated resentment that was coming to the fore, because there was an immediate stimulus that brought it to the fore? We must remember, in the words of an American psychologist, that a just society is one in which children are loved and protected and taught by parents who are able to support them in dignity and independence. Is this being done under the policy of this Government, which is changing the nature of our labour force in South Africa from a settled population, in so far as it has become settled—I do not say that it was perfect—into something which is completely migrant, which is depriving the Bantustans, the hope of the future for the Government, of their males during the most productive periods of their lives? Sociologists and psychologists will tell you that in a family where there is no father there is no mature relationship towards authority on the part of the children. Sociologists and psychologists will tell you that a child needs a father’s authority and that paternal interest in his welfare and his future is essential if you want to shape the character of the child. They will tell you that the absence of a parent, especially a father, encourages anti-social qualities because the child lacks an important anchor in his social development. They will tell you, Sir, that poverty is the cause of delinquency; they will tell you that a broken home is the cause of delinquency, but they will tell you that when the two are combined—poverty and a broken home with one of the parents missing—and that as a result of official Government policy—you have a potential tragedy on your hands. Sir, my accusation against the Government is that by its attitude of making the Transkei Black with great enthusiasm but only changing the nature of the growing Native labour force in the White parts of South Africa, they are sowing dragons’ teeth for South Africa and God knows what the harvest will be for all of us.

Are you in favour of every Native bringing his whole family into the White area?

Let me answer my hon. friend’s question in this way, because I want us to think fundamentally on this issue. I want to say to him that if he is not in favour of that, then he should not bring them in at all; then he should carry out his policy of separate development; then he should remove Black labour from the White areas. But he cannot say, because he is not willing to bring the families here, “I am going to destroy family life; I am going to destroy the very stability of Black society in South Africa”. I want to say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, our policy is well known. We want to establish a stable Black middle class in the White areas of South Africa, a property-owning middle class enjoying family life. We have confidence in South Africa. Sir, in their hearts hon. gentleman opposite know too that this is a country with a burgeoning economy; nothing is going to stop South Africa …

Except the Minister.

… except possibly this Government, and they are having difficulty. They are having difficulty in stopping the development of this country. If you bring Native people with their families into the White areas to form a stable, law-abiding, stabilized labour force in our economy, then their families and their progeny will be needed by South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will probably speak in this debate. I want to invite him to tell us, if they are sincere in their policy—and they must be sincere; they are my fellow-South Africans—how they are going to make South Africa’s economy independent of Black labour. And, Sir, if we are not prepared to face that question and give an answer to it, then we must stop the cant. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down started by attacking this side of the House for not replying to the significant charge laid by the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the cost of living has rocketed sky-high and that the income of the workers has not kept pace with it. I should like to bring to the notice of that hon. member and of the House that it was the Leader of the Opposition who made that charge, which we regarded as being his principle charge, in regard to the cost of living. It appeared on the front page of the Argus, but what has happened on that side of the House? After the Leader of the Opposition the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the Broadcasting Corporation, and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about “isms”, and never again did we hear another word about the terrible charge on which their Leader’s motion was based. Now for the first time the hon. member for Yeoville comes forward and says that, we have not replied to that, but what has he said? He says that there has been an increase in flat rent of as much as 30 per cent. That was his charge, and, having made that point, he branched off without saying another word about the principal charge made by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell him that we will reply, but that they have to make their charges. Each of their charges will be replied to in a fitting manner. If flat rent has been increased by 30 per cent, this Government has provided them with the machinery to put that matter to rights. Old blocks of flats are still subject to rent control and the newer ones can be placed under such control; the machinery is there. His only charge could be based on the fact that interest has now gone up 1 per cent. That is the only factor which might have brought about a change in the rentals for flats.

However, the Leader of the Opposition based his motion on one consideration in particular, a qualification such as he has never before attached to his motion, namely lack of foresight on the part of the Government. I think that when such a charge is made against the Government in regard to lack of foresight, we should conduct a test to see which party in this country has a record for lacking foresight, and that test should be applied particularly to the political development of South Africa and its economic development. If I may start, I should like first of all to examine the Opposition’s attitude in respect of the political development of South Africa. If we take South Africa’s position at present and compare it with that of Rhodesia, about which hon. members on the opposite side are concerned, just as we are, then we have to admit that in contrast with Rhodesia we are in a tremendously good position. How did this come about? Did the position in which we find ourselves to-day come about with the aid and foresight of the United Party? Did they contribute to placing us in the sound political position which we occupy in the world to-day, in contrast with the position in which Rhodesia finds itself? In conducting that test we find that if a National Government had not come to power, we would still have found ourselves in the same unfavourable position as that of Rhodesia at present. Let us refer to the history of this matter. In order to see where we stand, it is necessary to compare the history of the two. Let us go back to 1928 when we took the first step in that direction in regard to long-term political development. We did not obtain their co-operation. Think of that grand deed of 1931, the Statute of Westminster. To my mind that was the greatest advance in our political development when we were granted the power to make laws without interference from any other country in the world and to determine our future in any sphere. Who granted us that? Was it the result of the initiative or the co-operation of the United Party? No, and since 1948 this Government has been building on that political development. I should like members on the opposite side to realize that. Perhaps they never realized at that time that it was a vision on the part of the Government to progress gradually to the ultimate end which we achieved in 1961. Let us consider the development since 1948, the acquiring of our own National Anthem, of our own citizenship. Did we have the assistance of the United Party in that direction? Let us consider our own symbols on our coins. They are simple little things, but all of them are things which made South Africa independent and which brought us further along a long-term road which led to the achievement of the goal we ultimately reached. Even the abolition of the Appeal to the Privy Council was done not because we lacked foresight, but because the National Party had a vision of the future and planned ahead. Eventually we became a Republic. We left the Commonwealth. There was a great deal of fuss about it, but what are members on that side of the House saying at present? Is there one of them who is dissatisfied to-day about our becoming a Republic? They can tell me now whether they think the National Party acted wrongly by deciding that we should have a referendum and become a Republic. But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you of what they said about it. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for South Coast said at that time. The hon. member for South Coast says interesting things, things one can always refer back to him. At present there is not one amongst them who objects to the Republic, because when the National Party proposes development in any field they always oppose it, but later they accept it as a good thing; not only do they accept these but they claim the credit for themselves, just as they are at present trying to claim the credit for the Orange River project for themselves. At present all of them are satisfied with the Republic, but what were the words of the hon. member for South Coast—

What is he saying this afternoon? To-day he has no objection to it. [Interjection.] It was after the referendum that he said the following—

These are the people who never say an unfavourable thing against their own father-land—

That is what the hon. member for South Coast said at that time. What are they saying to-day? To-day they are accepting all these things that have been gained, not through lack of foresight on the part of the Government but through foresight. They accept it gratefully and to-day they admit that it is in the best interests of South Africa that these things happened. Now he talks about unity. What have we actually found in that province he is referring to? I am reading from the Cape Times, an article written by a member of the editorial staff just before the latest election—

The Cape Times says that Natal has discovered South African patriotism for the first time, and why did they discover it? They discovered it because the National Government has created the atmosphere for bringing South African patriotism home to the English-speaking people in Natal. The fact that they have taken to patriotism is the very reason for their joining the ranks of the National Party in such great numbers, and it is for that very reason that we are gradually becoming stronger in Natal than ever before. No, they emerged from this election in a very bad shape. A letter appeared in the Cape Times recently, just before the election, and I think that it was applicable to the United Party, because during all these years they have opposed everything the National Party has done, but when it is accomplished they want to claim the credit for themselves. It says here—

And that is what has happened. The National Party has always offered the “genuine article”, the genuine road for South Africa, and then the United Party comes along later and wants to appropriate the credit to themselves.

However, the principal charge made here was actually in regard to the cost of living. It was supposed to be an economic attack on the Government, but in considering the economy I think that we might as well apply the proverb “the proof of the pudding lies in the eating thereof” because we know that since the National Party took over the reins of government in 1948 we have had phenomenal industrial expansion in South Africa, greater perhaps than in any other country in the world. We admit that that expansion did not take place without problems, and that it was for the very reason that tremendous expansion had taken place in the field of industry that problems were caused. We know that we were largely an agricultural country before the war. The mining industry was the only industry of a reasonable size. Since then our industries have developed to such an extent that factories produce one-third of our gross national product at present. As I have said, this tremendous expansion brought about problems, particularly because factory equipment had to be imported from other countries to such a great extent. And it is also in the field of factory imports that our greatest shortage in the balance of trade is to be found at present. Notwithstanding the fact that such a great share of our imports in recent times consisted of factory machinery and primary products for processing, we still find that since 1946 our exports have increased twice as rapidly as our imports, and is that not important? How different it would have been if our exports and our imports had remained more or less level since that time? However, our exports have in fact increased twice as rapidly as our imports. I do not doubt that, taking a long-term view of matters, we are heading for a very favourable balance of trade, seeing that we are at present merely at the threshold of our factory expansion. The imports of factory equipment in recent years have to and will decrease later, while exports will increase as a result of the industrial expansion.

As far as our man-power is concerned, we realize that we have a great problem, but hon. members must bear in mind that where one has such tremendous industrial expansion, there is a great strain on the man-power, and that is what has happened here. We were faced with the position that there was simply too much work available and too few workers, particularly as far as skilled and semi-skilled labour was concerned. Such development is inevitable, and we are not the only ones to have that problem. It is a problem throughout the world where there is extensive economic expansion. There may be five vacancies and only four applicants, with the result that one employer is without a worker and simply has to pay more in order to obtain the services of such a worker. It is this that gives rise to the great increase in wages. But in this field, where we have a labour shortage, I feel that the Opposition can help us. If they want to they can make a major contribution to our economic progress in this debate, but they are not doing that. If they want to they can make proposals in regard to the improvements that can be effected in order to improve our position, seeing that they are so concerned about it. As regards our labour, we realize that we shall not only have a major problem at present, but also in the future. According to the first development programme it was estimated that even if we were to receive an additional 20,000 immigrants per annum, there would be a shortage of 47,700 workers in 1969, and that was calculated at a proposed real rate of growth of 5f per cent in the gross domestic product. There is only one of two methods by which one can solve one’s labour problems. One of them is by immigration, which is already being done as far as possible, and the other is by training more skilled or semi-skilled workers; a possible third method is by making better use of the available manpower. It is precisely in respect of this last method that I think that the Opposition can make a contribution and help us to make better use of our man-power. As I am saying, at the moment there is too much work in South Africa, and we can be grateful that this is the case instead of unemployment, but, even so, this gives rise to problems. The prosperity we have had, has also brought about a certain measure of love of ease amongst our people. There is prosperity, a man if offered more and starts working for that firm; somebody else offers him still more and he lives according to a higher standard of living than he has ever done before. This brings about a certain amount of love of ease. For that reason I think that it is our duty to find the means to nip that love of ease in our workers in the bud, in order that we might get better work out of them. There is one thing in particular which disturbs me very much, because I know it to be so, and that is that in the years that lie ahead the tune will be set by those countries where people are prepared to work. Those will be the countries which will make progress, and we are seeing that to-day. Japan is a very good example of that, a country where people really work, 24 hours a day, if needs be, and seven days a week. However, in our country we see that the people are ease-loving. One thing that disturbs me a great deal, is this practice of drinking tea in the morning and in the afternoon. This is perhaps only a small thing, but I should like to see a survey made of the number of working hours lost because of the half-an-hour in the morning and in the afternoon spent in drinking tea. It is almost peculiar to South Africa; it is not a practice generally found in the world. I think it is time that we did something about lessening the time lost in that manner. In this respect, too, the Opposition can help us by suggesting plans.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the cost of living and he said that the income of the people did not keep pace with the rising cost of living. I want to approach the matter from this point of view. After peace and calm as opposed to war and unrest, the greatest ideal of any government in the world is to effect a rise in the standard of living of its population. In doing that two objectives are achieved: firstly, because it ensures its citizens a better life, and, secondly, because a raised standard of living must inevitably bring a flourishing economy to that country. I think that the Government has been particularly successful in this respect. I should like to know from the Opposition whether there is any layer of our national life to-day which does not have a much higher standard of living than it had when the National Government came to power. The Leader of the Opposition cannot merely talk about the rising cost of living. That is not the only factor which determines whether or not people suffer hardships. Even if there were a greater rise in the cost of living, I would still be able to live a good life, and perhaps a better one than before, if my salary or income were sufficient. If one takes salaries and compares the salary increases which have taken place since 1948, one would find that the salary increases are much more extensive than the increases in the cost of living, and it is that very difference which has caused our standard of living to improve. I can merely quote my own case. When the United Party was in office I started working as an apprentice on the Railways for 4d. an hour. My salary was 2s. 8d. a day. My average monthly income was £3, and the least I ever earned was £2 15s. I did not read this in a book; these are my personal experiences. At present the same apprentice starts with a salary of R56 a month in his first year, and then he gets R70, R75, R80 and R85 in his last year. The position has changed thus. I admit that we want to make it slightly more attractive to the people seeing that there is a shortage of man-power, but the difference is nevertheless a tremendous one.

In conclusion I should like to read to the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on the opposite side an extract from a paper of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, accepted by their congress recently. I think that I need not do more in reply to their charges as regards economic affairs, than merely to read to them this one paragraph—

That is what Assocom has to say, and they are people who know. No, we know what we are contending with when we deal with hon. members on the opposite side. You know, Sir, Dr. Skaife is at present giving a series of talks on “Uninvited guests in the House”, and I think hon. members may safely tune in to these every morning. Last Monday he was talking about the flea and he said that a flea emerged from a chrysalis, and when it did so it could lie without food for weeks and months, in wait for its prey. That reminded me a great deal of the United Party. They do not look for their prey; they did not look for their food. In the field of politics or economics they have never planned ahead for South Africa. No, they act like the flea and lie in wait for their prey: if it comes, well and good, if it does not, it is immaterial. What is more, Dr. Skaife said that the flea thrived on refuse. The dirtier the house, the better-off the flea. Before it becomes a chrysalis, it is a worm and it gets fat on any organic material it can obtain, and that is what the United Party has always tried to do. I can forgive them everything. I can forgive them for being stupid in the past, and for their lack of foresight, but I cannot forgive them for having thrived on dirt against South Africa. They can make as many excuses as they like, but they did thrive on dirt against South Africa. A few minutes ago I read what the member for South Coast had said in 1961. That is the type of dirt against South Africa on which they thrive. Last Tuesday when this debate commenced, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there was no country in the world which had less freedom than South Africa, or words to that effect. How can a man in his position say that against his own country? The fact that he is permitted to say so in this House or on a platform outside, proves the extent of freedom in South Africa. But he also knows that in many countries of the world such statements are punishable by public execution. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, like so many other members on that side, has not answered the charges which we have made.

The hon. member talked about what has been done in the last 18 years. I should like to remind the hon. member that just over 18 years ago South Africa’s position was such that she was able to lend £80,000,000 in gold to Great Britain. Very soon after this Government came into power, 18 years ago, they wanted it back. Only a year or so ago this Government, through the Minister of Finance, claimed that it had planned the boom. I take it that they will accept the responsibility and say that they had planned the inflation too? Or do they not take any responsibility for the inflation?

We planned the drought too!

Did you? I did not think it was as bad as that.

The Leader of the Opposition has generally censured the Government for its lack of foresight. Seeing into the future is not impossible if notice is taken of economic trends. The Minister has had good advice in the past, which he has not accepted. Last year we warned him of the dangers of inflation. He was warned by others too of the dangers of inflation. He took no notice. This year during the Part Appropriation Bill debate I again warned him. Recently he has taken strong deflationary measures. The hon. member for Ceres who has just spoken said that 1 per cent was nothing and that it was the only issue. Does the hon. member for Ceres appreciate that 1 per cent on the bond of a householder is a very serious matter as far as he is concerned? He regards the increase in the cost of living as a matter of no consequence. In his frank confession about his early days the hon. member for Ceres said that he earned only 3d. an hour. But that hon. member has been so successful in recent years that I think he has forgotten his days of hardship. He does not know what the cost of living is in regard to many items.

Mr. Speaker, if the drastic measures taken by the Minister recently are the right measures now, why were they not the right measures a year ago. When did they become right? If they were wrong a year ago why are they right now?

Are you suggesting that I should have taken these measures a year ago?

I suggest that the Minister should listen. He will then realize that he should have taken steps previously. These measures would not have been as drastic had he taken them a year ago. The hon. the Minister should have taken the advice of his experts. In the South African Journal of Economics there appears an article which was the subject of an address given on 27th August, 1965. The article was written by a gentleman by the name of Mr. G. W. G. Browne. If the Minister knows that gentleman, I think he will accept his advice. This is what Mr. Browne said:

This is excellent advice. I agree with Mr. Browne. But why did the Minister not take the advice? Had he taken this advice earlier, he would not have landed himself in the position in which he finds himself to-day. About the same time the Federated Chamber of Industries Economic Affairs Committee bluntly told the Government in a memorandum to the Minister of Finance that Government expenditure should be scrutinized and the inflationary element in its financing curbed. The Minister took no notice. While the Government on the one hand was telling commerce and industry to save and refrain from borrowing, the Government itself was spending and borrowing short-term money for long term projects and pumping this back into the private sector. Professor Viljoen in the same economic journal to which I have referred, spoke about investments in the private sector. This was an address given at the economic conference in August, 1965. He said:

Now this was the Minister who was controlling affairs. This was the Minister who was supposed to have had foresight. I have quoted men, and I think the Minister will agree, who are experts in their field. The Minister should at that time have accepted that advice and he should have introduced his curbs earlier.

Which curbs? The latest curbs?

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for the Minister to make interjections of that kind. He ought to know that had he acted earlier he would not have had to take such severe steps.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I want to know what curbs the hon. member is talking about.

Will you resign and let him take over from you?

Mr. Speaker, we are in danger of running into difficulty. The advice given by the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, was to “spend for prosperity”.

Yes, but when? That was in 1962.

No. The Prime Minister said it later than that. He followed the excellent advice of the Minister of Economic Affairs. A position could arise similar to that which obtained in America. I again quote Professor Viljoen:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister failed by doing too little too late and eventually when he found that he would have to do something, he had to resist the temptation because it was more in his interest to play politics than to do something for the fiscus of the country. As far as the Minister was concerned it was more important to achieve popularity at the hustings than to take timeous steps. By encouraging easy credit and by taking no steps to discourage it, he was encouraging the pouring of oil on the flames of inflation and as a result the cost-of-living went up and many people, particularly those on fixed incomes, found that their money could buy less than it could before. The Government has been in office so long that it has lost touch with the ordinary man. Flashy cars, posh houses, overseas visits and the round of social functions have clouded the vision and dulled the wit.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk of the lower income groups particularly. I want to talk about the poor. The recent increases in the prices of food have hit them very hard indeed. The Minister has seen frequent references in the press to these people. The Cape Times a day or two ago carried over 30 items, and anybody who has had experience of being in touch with the poor will know that they are finding it very hard indeed. Recently I have come across more than one elderly person who has said: “Do you realize what the increase in the cost-of-living means to me? It means that in order to live now I can only have meat once a week.” The Minister, by his policy of no planning or of very little planning and of acting too late has so encouraged the cost-of-living to rise that in many cases prices have been inflated beyond a reasonable figure. We are having not only inflation, but in many cases we are having something worse. We are having exploitation. Sheer greed on the part of some people has caused them to capitalize on the position and the Government has no remedy for this. Reference has already been made by others this afternoon to rents. Many people are finding it hard. Let the Minister deny that there is not hardship. There has not been a single denial on the Government side that people are not feeling the effects of inflation. One only has to go to the various departments of the Public Service, to the lower income groups, the pensioners and the non-Europeans—the people who are voiceless, who have no say in this House—to see what the effect is on them. The Government is out of touch. They are so out of touch that when we had the speech by the State President the other day, which is a Government speech, the indication was that everything was well with the economy. I just wondered how cynical we had become. Only in April of this year Mr. Botha, president of the Federation of Salaried Staff Associations of South Africa, said:

He went on to say:

and this Minister was very proud to introduce

Either the standard of living is dropping, or people are creating debt to maintain their standards. This is one of the dangers. In order to maintain their standards, people have been borrowing, and in many cases borrowing beyond their capacity to repay those debts within a reasonable period. The additional burden of one per cent is going to aggravate the burden. This additional one per cent is the highest increase for a number of years. It is significant that the bank rate of six per cent was last reached in about 1930 during the gold standard depression and before that in 1922 in the depression just after the first world war. Is it at all significant that the figure is now six per cent in 1966? I think it warrants some study. I think that at the moment we are experiencing both the lowering of the standard of living and the creation of debt to maintain those standards. This is confirmed by a recent report in the press which showed that the summonses for debt had reached an all-time record in South Africa. People do not allow themselves to be summonsed unless they are absolutely desperate. Does the Minister think that a record for summonses for debt is a healthy sign and that all is well with the economy of South Africa, or is he blind to it? There has been a failure on the part of the Minister and of practically everybody on the Government side to accept the fact that people are facing real hardship. The hon. member for Ceres remembers the days of hardship, but I think it is time that he should admit that there is hardship to-day under this Government. And if there is hardship to-day, Mr. Speaker, it was planned because the Minister’s claim is that he planned the boom. Therefore, he planned the inflation and he planned the hardship. This Government is entirely responsible.

Easy credit has resulted in several new institutions rising in recent years on the bubble of short-term debt. The country is not yet out of financial danger. The Minister knows that it is difficult to get long-term loans except with very high rates of interest. He went overseas last year and he failed to get long-term loans. The only way he will get long-term loans in this country is to exert a certain amount of pressure on financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, the position is that the doctor has made his diagnosis, but he has dithered about performing the operation. He has been hoping that given time the temperature would fall, instead of which the inflationary temperature has risen and the operation that will have to be performed will be more serious than it would have been had he acted in the early stages. The Minister asked whether the same measures should have been applied 12 months ago. It would not have been necessary if the Minister had not dithered. The unfortunate trait about this Minister is that he always dithers. He dithered in the days when he was Minister of the Interior. He exhibits the same traits to-day as Minister of Finance. The Minister cannot say that he was not warned. In his report to the Annual General Meeting of the Reserve Bank in August, 1964, the Governor of the Bank said:

The Minister cannot say that he was not warned. Surely he accepts the fact that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is an authority whose warning should be regarded. The Minister was in the position to exert pressure at the time, had he been willing to do so. We commented on this matter during the Budget debate last year and the Minister took no notice of our advice. Again in August, 1965, the Governor of the Reserve Bank used stronger terms in giving his warning. He said:

He also said:

The Minister was therefore advised about this position in 1964 and then again in 1965. He dithered about the steps to be taken. This is confirmed by none other than the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch University. The Minister, I think, will accept the Bureau at Stellenbosch as a good bureau. The Bureau at Stellenbosch has been doing some excellent research. The Minister, I believe, is the Chancellor of Stellenbosch University. This Bureau gives a re-appraisal for 1966, and how it gives the Minister away! The report states:

This body says that, had there been a budget at the usual time, the corrective steps could have been made. It did not suit the Minister to bring forward a budget, because he would then have had to apply the correctives. It was more important to have the election and try to get a bigger majority. Here the Minister is condemned by his own university. The hustings were more important than looking after the finances of the country. This is confirmed by the Bureau for Economic Research. It confirms what I have already said, namely that the correctives should at the latest have been made in March. All the evidence shows that the diagnosis was right, but the Government was either reluctant to act, or political opportunism decided that the National’s Party’s election success was more important than the finances of the country. The Minister has gambled with the purchasing power of the rand and thereby eroded the standard of living of millions of people in the country, the majority of whom can do nothing about it.

But these are not all our problems, Mr. Speaker. The balance of payments position has improved and this is due partially to the inflow of capital. But, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us whether or not the bulk of this capital is short term? Can he tell us what proportion of that capital is long term? If that capital is only short-term capital, the position is going to be obscure for some time. The Minister has further problems facing him. We have charged the Minister with lack of foresight. We have proved our case to the hilt. He was advised and given the necessary directives by people who were qualified to give these directives. There are other problems to be considered. The United Kingdom is struggling to save the £ from devaluation. South Africa is tied to sterling. Has the Minister given consideration to that? We do not expect a reply to that question to-day, I doubt whether the Minister will give us a reply until such an event takes place, if it takes place at all. It is, however, a matter which can seriously affect South Africa. Anybody who knows South African economic history remembers the dark days of 1930. What happened then as a result of the Government’s dithering for nearly nine months?

Then there is also the entry of Britain to the Common Market and the effect it will have on our exports. The entry of the United Kingdom to the Common Market can have serious repercussions on the South African export market, especially as regards those countries that look to Britain as the buyer for their exports. Then too, there is the question of the nationalization of steel in Britain. Mr. Wilson is committed to the nationalization of steel. Under the Bill to nationalize steel, the following companies are included in those which will be vested in the National Steel Corporation: Richard Thomas & Baldwins, Stewart & Lloyds and United Steel. I believe these companies have subsidiaries in South Africa. What is the position going to be if these companies are nationalized in Britain and the National Steel Corporation is the controlling shareholder? We will then be in the position of having a foreign company controlling companies in this country. What will then be the position if the steel companies processing steel in this country refuse to sell that steel to the Minister of Defence because of sanctions which may be imposed by the British Government on buyers of her products? She has already indicated sanctions in respect of certain arms. The nationalization of steel opens up another field of inquiry and I suggest that the Minister give consideration to this matter. When the National Steel Bill becomes law, those companies will in effect be companies owned by the National Steel Corporation. I hope that the Minister will give us an indication of what his intentions are in this regard.

Then there is also the problem of Rhodesia and what possible help it may require from South Africa. We do not know what will happen in the future, but Rhodesia may seek financial help from this country. That is a position which could considerably stretch the resources of this country. When we mention these problems and when we criticize the Government, we do it with a sense of responsibility and we repudiate suggestions made by the hon. member for Ceres than when we criticize the Government, its shortcomings and its lack of foresight, we are un-South African. We are entitled to criticize this Government and we criticize it as good South Africans. While we are criticizing the Government of the day, we are not criticizing South Africa. Our case has been fully proved that this Government has failed to show the required initiative in planning for the future of South Africa. This Government, which claimed that it had planned the boom, must also accept the responsibility for having planned the inflation, the erosion of the rand and the hardship the people are now feeling. It bungled the boom and it must accept full responsibility for those economic hardships which must be borne most of all by people who are least able to bear them. For that reason we charge the Government with gross neglect of the economic needs of the ordinary citizen of South Africa. In that regard it has failed, and failed miserably.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply in detail to what has just been said by the hon. member for Pinetown. But before doing so, I want to say a few words about what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said. It might be considered impolite of me if I do not say a few words about him! We have witnessed his very critical analysis of the philosophy of government as practised by this side of the House. But while listening just now to the exposition of the various results in the latest elections, I wondered whether it would not have been of much greater value to his party if he had made as critical an analysis of the philosophy of opposition, as practised by that side of the House. Then he would have found that his philosophy of opposition is, in the first instance. that he has to cling to a policy obstinately, even though that policy has been rejected by the electorate of South Africa time and again. To me his obstinacy seems to become more Gadarene in proportion to the increase in the number of votes against him! I should say that if he were to make an analysis of his side’s philosophy, Sir, he would find that according to that philosophy the main function of an opposition apparently was to criticize and not to lay down a policy. I want to give the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that that is a fatal philosophy, because criticism, however sound it may be, can never be a substitute for a policy. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for more than an hour the other day. His speech contained a great deal of criticism, but what did it contain as far as policy is concerned? Is the proper philosophy for an Opposition not that it should present this House and the electorate with a policy on the basis of which it may be described as an alternative government? That is the correct philosophy, but instead of that we have had this policy of negativism. They speak about the “isms”, but they are also guilty of that. They have a policy of negativism and for that reason they as an Opposition have produced all those negative results since 1948.

There is also a third shortcoming. If he had taken a critical look at his own philosophy of opposition, he would have found that they lacked a message, an ideal. They lack something which can serve as an inspiration to their own people, something for which the electo-ate yearns and to which it aspires consciously or perhaps even unconsciously. The Opposition is a party which has nothing to offer the electorate of South Africa, apart from exploiting a possible grievance every now and then. A party should at least attempt, even if it does so badly, to give expression to the desires and aspirations of a young nation which is creating its own future. However, they are totally lacking in that respect. I think it would have been much better for him if he had taken a critical look at the philosophy of opposition. Now the Opposition comes along with a motion of censure on this Government. They say that the Government has shown a lack of foresight and that it has mismanaged matters. But now I ask myself whether this attack on the so-called incompetence of the Government to deal properly with the affairs of the country is not in fact a condemnation of his own party, because if the Government was as bad as he wants to make out, and if it really was as incompetent and incapable of governing the country, then it should certainly have been one of the easiest things in the world to defeat it at the polls. But if the Government is really as bad as he makes out, and he can nevertheless not succeed in defeating it, then he is in fact condemning his own party! I really think that it would have suited him much better to have said that they were defeated, but that they had to fight against a very good opponent. In the days when I still played tennis, I never told a player who had given me a thrashing that he was a bad player, but I always told him that he was a wonderful player because he had beaten me! But this hon. member comes along here and maintains that the Government has mismanaged everything.

Let me tell him that every country in the world which has recently experienced some measure of economic prosperity and revival has experienced similar problems of prosperity as those at present being experienced by us. I am thinking of countries such as Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and others. They have experienced the same difficulties. I have noticed recently that countries such as Holland and Belgium are faced with a similar problem. Now, Sir, I wish you could see what the nature was of the steps taken in those countries to deal with the situation. Bear in mind that those countries are also dealing with problems which flow from prosperity, problems such as inflation. Are all the governments of those countries as bad as the Opposition represents this Government to be? Are all of them also incompetent, ignorant and at fault in not foreseeing the course of events? Incidentally, I cannot recall the governments of those countries being subjected to criticism similar to that being expressed by the Opposition against this Government to-day. Is that perhaps the case because they have oppositions in those countries which display a greater sense of responsibility than the Opposition we have in this Parliament?

The problem which we have in South Africa, namely that our gross domestic expenditure in South Africa exceeds our gross domestic product, and the availability of too much money and quasi-money in relation to our domestic product, has been aggravated in South Africa, unlike the other countries to which I have referred, by the fact that we have had to incur considerable military and strategic expenditure on account of our particular position in the world to-day. The excessive expenditure in our country as a whole is to some extent attributable to the fact that we are living in a hostile world and are threatened, inter alia, with boycotts and sanctions and even open aggression. For that reason we have been compelled to spend much more money on defence in order to ensure our continued existence.

Now I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they have any objection to the necessary money being spent in order to ensure that we shall be able to resist any military or economic steps which may be taken against us? Let me mention at this stage that I have made a calculation of the additional military and strategic expenditure we have had to incur, and that I arrived at a figure of R300,000,000. I have also calculated what the estimates for defence would have been if we were not living in a hostile world and were not threatened as we are to-day. This calculation I based on the normal rate of growth up to 1960 and then projected it into the future. To that I added an extra R40,000,000. In that way I arrived at the conclusion that whereas at present an amount of approximately R270,000,000 is set aside for defence purposes in the estimates, the expenditure would have been R100,000,000 less under normal circumstances.

But apart from defence we also had to incur expenditure on other things. We had to develop more rapidly in certain directions in order to be able to survive and to be self-supporting in the event of being cut off. Now I want to point out that the additional strategic expenditure we have been compelled to incur has affected either the entire inflation position or Government expenditure or its inflationary financing.

Those then have been our problems, problems which have been much more serious than the problems being experienced in other countries. Nevertheless, we have had more success in combating inflation than other countries. Now hon. members on the other side put forward the view that the position in which we find ourselves and the measures we have taken have a detrimental effect on the lower and middle income groups in particular. It has also been said that we waited too long before taking our measures. I do not know whether they wanted us to take more drastic action at an earlier stage. They are very vague on this point. A third accusation was that the Government was the main culprit because of the amounts spent by it. I want to deal with those points briefly. In the first place there is the effect of these measures on the lower and middle income groups. Of course, it is quite true that when one has to deal with inflation and you take steps against it, the people in the lower and middle income groups will be the ones to feel it most in the short run. That is true. On the other hand, however, it is also true that if those steps are not taken, those same people will suffer most in the long run. Then it will not be something of a temporary nature, however, but they will have to face a future of uncertainty and misery. Today we know that inflation is the biggest enemy of the pensioner and of the wage and salary earner. They are the people who will be affected most. Consequently those people will have to face a very unhappy future if the necessary steps are not taken. I admit, however, that in the short run these same people will relatively speaking be affected to a greater extent than the more well-to-do people. If one bears in mind the ultimate goal, however, one finds that it is again those people who will be saved from even greater misery.

In the statement in which I announced those measures, I also indicated that the Government would do everything in its power to alleviate the position of that group of people as far as possible, at any rate in so far as it was compatible with the existing inflationary position. In accordance with that, we have already announced certain measures of relief. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Yeoville made special reference to building societies. An appeal has been made to those societies to extend the term of loans wherever possible rather than to increase the instalments. The building societies are prepared to do that. I understand, however, that some of them are prevented from doing so by existing legislation. I therefore wish to announce that it is the intention to introduce legislation to authorize building societies to extend the term of existing mortgage loans in order to avoid increases in the monthly instalments. That authority, however, will be limited to cases where the original loan did not exceed R15,000. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that the total amount in respect of mortgage loans was R1,500,000,000 and then made a calculation and said that 1 per cent would mean R15,000,000 in interest per annum. That was repeated by the hon. member for Yeoville. According to them, those poor people would have to pay an additional R15,000,000 per annum! Now, I have before me the edition of the Star of 19th July, in which the following appeared—

In addition it is stated that the rate of interest on the mortgage loans of 24 per cent of the mortgagees will increase by f per cent, whereas the rate of interest of only 21 per cent of the mortgagees will increase by 1 per cent. But hon. members opposite come along here and say that everything is being increased.

What about those borrowers who have to pay an increase? Is the principle not the same?

The point now raised by the hon. member is not relevant. As has been said, the building society concerned has stipulated that the rate of interest on loans will not be increased by more than 1 per cent, and because the rate of interest has already been increased by 1 per cent they cannot increase it further now.

May I ask you a further question?

I am very sorry, but I have a limited time at my disposal and in that limited time I still have to reply to many of your own questions.

The point is that only one building society is involved.

That is the type of thing they want to spread about, namely that everyone will have to pay 1 per cent more. In the case of the largest building society the figure is only 21 per cent, and now we are enabling them, in the case of the 21 per cent as well not to increase the instalments but to extend the period of repayment.

We have also given an assurance that the prices of the main foodstuffs would not be increased in the course of this financial year at least. Those include maize, milk, butter, cheese, bread—in respect of which a statement was made recently—and also sugar. The prices of the main foodstuffs will not be increased for at least six months.

And what about meat?

There is no price control on meat. I am sure that other measures will be taken to carry out my promise in that connection. Let us now proceed to the second charge levelled against the Government, namely that the Government has waited too long and that those measures should have been taken a year ago. I have been accused of not having accepted advice. I have been accused of not having listened to the advice of the Reserve Bank. I have come to the conclusion that the Opposition’s political memory is as poor as its political judgment. I shall tell you why, Mr. Speaker. They allege that I have given no warnings. Now, I do not know whether they are aware of it, but I was the first person to issue a warning in that connection. In November, 1963, I addressed a meeting of the Insurance Institute of the Transvaal and said that in my opinion the time had arrived for us to think about taking our foot from the accelerator, and perhaps applying it lightly to the brakes at a later stage. That was the first warning and it was given as long ago as November, 1963. In March, 1964, on the occasion of my Budget speech, I said that it was clear that, as far as fiscal and economic policy was concerned, the accent should to some extent be switched from the stimulation of growth to the retention of stability. I made an appeal to people to work harder and to save more. In July, 1964, the bank rate was increased to 4 per cent, and after discussions with me the President of the Reserve Bank made an appeal to commercial banks and other financial institutions to limit the expansion of credit. In December, 1964, the bank rate was increased once again, namely to 4½ per cent. That is one of the measures—one of the curbs—which has been applied now too. But as I understand hon. members opposite, no curbs were applied before. In March, 1965, there was a further increase in the bank rate, this time to 5 per cent, while the rate of interest on long-term Government stock was increased to 51 per cent. The minimum liquid asset ratios of commercial banks were increased—they used to be known as additional reserves. They were first increased to 4 per cent and subsequently to 10 per cent. Those were all measures for restricting credit. The Reserve Bank refused to grant assistance to, or otherwise applied penalty rates on, financial institutions which granted excessive credit. That was as long ago as March, 1965. They made another appeal, and in the Budget of March, 1965, I levied a surcharge on company tax and imposed a loan levy. In April, 1965, the rate of interest on long-term Government stock was increased to 5¼ per cent. In September an appeal was made to the Central Government to curtail expenditure. There was a meeting of representatives of the provincial administrations which was also attended by the Prime Minister. An appeal was made to municipalities and public utility companies and State corporations to curtail expenditure, especially in respect of capital works. In October, 1965, the Reserve Bank requested monetary institutions to see to it that the total of their discounts and advances to the private sector, excluding agriculture, on 31st March, 1966, would not exceed the total in respect of those items as at 31st March, 1965. In July, 1966, we took these final steps. Now the hon. member says that I should have taken these steps a year ago.

Before replying to that, I just want to say that the steps I have mentioned here were described by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in November, 1965, as “very drastic”. He said those steps were very drastic. And now apparently they were not drastic enough! Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is one aspect of the Opposition which is characteristic of them—but not always—then it is the following: their hindsight is always better than their foresight. He complained at that time that the steps were very drastic, but now they were apparently not as drastic as he would have liked them to be. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the steps I have mentioned here were in fact drastic. No hon. member on that side has said that I should have applied even more drastic measures. However, the steps taken by us would have checked the inflation, had it not been for a very unexpected factor which no-one could have anticipated. I am referring to the tremendous inflow of capital from outside. During the period from 1st July 1965, to 30th June, 1966, foreign capital to the value of R290,000,000 flowed into the country. That was a very good thing for our reserves, but as a result there was a tremendous increase in our supply of money, and because our rate of growth remained virtually unchanged, inflation simply continued on its merry way. Until March this year the best expert advisers—and that includes the Economic Advisory Council—had not suggested that the existing measures were inadequate for checking inflation. At the meeting of 15th November, 1965, the Advisory Council were unanimous that no further steps should be taken by the Government to curb the private sector. But that side of the House criticized me for not having taken these steps a year ago! Even at the meeting of 14th February of this year the members of the Economic Advisory Council agreed that “the various restricting measures taken by the Government in the course of the past year in order to slow down the rate of expansion to a level which is commensurate with the country’s available resources, have now taken effect”. It was not the Government that said that. It was said by representatives of the entire national economy. But that side says no, I should have acted differently! But that tremendous inflow of capital which no one could have anticipated, neutralized all those measures. During the second quarter of this year, when we experienced a record inflow of R88,000,000 in the private sector, it not only neutralized the position even more, but even led to the unfavourable trend beginning to predominate in our struggle against inflation. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I deem it a privilege to have become a member of this House. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Benoni, who yesterday expressed his thanks to our leaders, the officials and all those here who have made us newcomers feel considerably less nervous. I can assure this hon. House that we needed all their assistance in that respect, and as I am standing here I can assure you that I still need it!

I am glad that I am able to stand here as the successor to a representative of my constituency who represented that constituency very ably for many years. I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Mostert, the former member for Witbank. He was particularly interested in education, in respect of which he rendered distinguished services here, not only in the interests of his constituency, but also in the interests of the country as a whole. My constituency was and will continue to be proud of him. As part of another constituency has now been incorporated in my constituency, I also want to pay tribute to another predecessor, part of whose old constituency I am now representing, namely Mr. Hannes Schoonbee. He sought to promote the interests of our farmers in particular, and he will certainly be remembered with gratitude for many years.

I am privileged to be the successor to men of that calibre, and I also have the privilege of being able to serve here with a Government which has meant such a great deal to our country over the past number of years, and I am sure, and at any rate I hope, that it will still mean a great deal to us for many years.

I represent a constituency which in actual fact provides us with a cross-section of the Republic as a whole. In my constituency we find represented all the ramifications of our society and all the activities which are carried on in our fatherland. It is a constituency which includes a large agricultural area, and in addition it has recently experienced enormous industrial development, which will probably still expand tremendously. I am referring to the steel factory which is in course of erection. Along with this development have come the things which are normally attendant upon it—both the benefits and the problems. Owing to the industrial development in that area we have come up against the usual problems as experienced elsewhere in the country. Education is another activity which is carried on in my constituency. The problems of our mineworkers are another matter which frequently requires attention there. My constituency presents one with a cross-section of the vitality but also of the problems, of both the bitter and the sweet, which are found everywhere in our fatherland. I am grateful that in my constituency there are organizations which include amongst their membership persons who are probably much more capable than I. They are persons who, since our people and our Government have always been democratic in character, are carrying out the work in regard to which we may pass laws here. I am referring to the people who, in the various sectors of our society, and under different circumstances, are responsible for ensuring the progress of our country. I refer to the people who serve in our agricultural industry. One of the hon. members here is a former secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and, like many other farmers in the agricultural unions and farmers’ associations, he did his best, at the time of the unexpected drought, to relieve the distress of people who had suffered even more severely than we in the Northern Transvaal had. Through their work, which they carried out in so able a manner, we were able to do our share in relieving the distress suffered by so many of our people. And in addition, when the proposed establishment of the steel factory was announced, there were people who devoted their energies to ensuring that the growth and development that would follow would take place in an orderly manner within the framework and in accordance with the precepts which this Government has always held up to us as the ideal. I am proud to declare that the work which has been done by the town councils of Witbank and Bronkhorstspruit—the two towns in my constituency—fills one with gratitude.

As far as one’s work in one’s local community is concerned, it is not always that one is in complete agreement with measures which have to be complied with. And in any case that is probably not necessary in a democratic country. I believe that in a democratic country it is everyone’s duty to adopt a critical attitude at times as far as certain aspects of the government of the country are concerned. But nonetheless it is also everyone’s duty as a law-abiding citizen to comply with the enactments concerned. That has been done by the two town councils I have mentioned. I am sure that they are not the only ones that have done so. I am sure that that proof of loyalty to the fatherland and obedience to its laws is to be found in the case of the many leaders, both men and women, who serve on educational bodies, town councils, farmers’ associations and so forth and do their share for our country. They are doing excellent work without receiving any remuneration, without any fuss being made about it. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I feel we cannot forget the excellent work which, even in the years after humiliation had been suffered—and I want to say no more about that—was done by people who, through the establishment of small schools and in other ways, helped to restore a nation’s pride. That work was continued in the years after the different population groups had come together, and it is still being carried on to-day.

If I may deliver a plea this afternoon, I want to ask that this work which was performed with so much patriotism and unselfishness in the past, as it is being done at the present time and will be done in the future, should receive greater recognition from this House as the highest legislative body in the country. In saying that I do not want to suggest that this work is not receiving any recognition. I know that the doors of our Ministries have always been open to any local authority which had to deal with problems of a local nature. But, contrary to what some hon. members have said on occasion, I believe that the time has arrived in our rapidly developing country—and in the world—that we should recognize that we can no longer, as in the past, speak of the autonomy of local authorities. We can no longer have something like that. The autonomy of a local authority can only exist within the framework of what the Central Government and other higher bodies tell it to do. That has always been the position. And one need say no more about the theory and the hair-splitting in connection with this matter. The world has come to realize that as a result of the urbanization of communities a new approach has to be adopted, that different methods have to be applied in order to employ this level of government in the most advantageous way.

Mr. Speaker, in this connection I shall refer to only one statement, made as recently as 1963. It is a statement by an authority, Mr. Harold Banwell, the former Secretary of the Association of Municipal Councils in London, and General Reporter of the congress of the Institute of Local Authorities in 1963, and it is one that he emphasized. He moved at that congress “that this I.U.L.A. appoint an international study group to investigate anew what governmental structure is required to meet the needs of planning in respect of large areas”, to which Dr. Luther Gulick, the President of the Institute of Public Administration in New York—the country which is experiencing the same problems as we are—during that same congress in 1963, added the very important principle “that the cities and their leaders should put aside separatist rivalry, actively associate themselves with their nation and participate in the national life of the country. The cities will need the assistance of the Central Government more than ever before. They also have very important services to perform for the Central Government and contributions to make towards national life. Deliberate rather than incidental co-operation must be the aim. A primary requirement in this co-operative effort is for the municipal government to help the national planners by making the city plan an integral part of the national plan”.

Mr. Speaker, in the rapidly changing world in which we are living there is no longer any such thing as the autonomy of smaller authorities. Canalization and co-operation with the Central Government, which is after all the final authority, are essential. As far as the method of co-operation is concerned, I want to state that, although we in South Africa are ahead of many countries in this field, we nevertheless do not have the necessary cooperation in this sphere. In this connection I want to ask the Government, which has already shown the foresight to plan ahead in this particular sphere, to give its kind consideration to the matter, that attention may be paid to the part played by local authorities in particular. The present position is that local authorities go to government bodies or provincial authorities with their own individual problems, where they have always met with a very cordial reception. But as yet, unfortunately, there is only a very small measure of canalized contact with the Government. The fact that the provincial municipal government associations function mainly through the provincial authorities, and that the United Municipal Executive of South Africa meets only twice a year and in the interim has to function through an executive committee which also meets very seldom, has resulted in there being inadequate liaison, and in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, has also resulted in the position that the local authorities sometimes do not function as smoothly as is necessary as far as the implementation of laws passed by our Government is concerned. And without making any suggestions I want to ask the Minister of Planning and other bodies and persons to give consideration to possible improvements which may be effected in this connection in order to enable talented people and true patriots and leaders in their respective fields to have their legitimate share in the government of the country and to co-operate with us for the welfare of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it made me feel even more proud of my country and my Government when, in connection with this planning of cities and of co-operation, I read the following, in a paper which came into my hands, about the country which is held up to us as an example, namely the United States of America. I quote from an article written by Mr. Kingsley of the Department of non-White Affairs of the City Council of Pretoria after a recent visit to the United States of America. It reads: “The President of the United States of America in a recent report to Congress stated the following: ‘In our time two giant and dangerous forces are converging on our cities, the forces of growth and decay.” And with reference to those dangers which had recently been discovered at that time, the article continues as follows: “ ‘The President went on to say that, in order to meet these problems, he asked Congress to establish a department of housing and urban development.’ ” How proud it makes one feel to know that in our country that department of housing, which is producing such splendid results, was established long ago already by this Government. I know that other countries have tried to find a solution by appointing ministers of local government and others. I know that various methods of achieving co-ordination have been found and have been sought. In this country the hon. the Prime Minister was able to make the following announcement on 4th August, 1964: “In view of the increasing importance of joint planning and the co-ordination of activities in various spheres and in order to bring about such planning and co-ordination between the public and private sectors of our society, a department of planning is being established.” After referring to other matters as well, the announcement continues: “Other aspects of regional, territorial, geographic or physical planning with which various authorities have to deal have to be co-ordinated.” Thanks to the insight and the vision of the Prime Minister and others we are ahead of the rest of the world in many respects. And because we are far ahead of them, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask that we should continue with this work of enlisting the services of our leaders in local areas, in order, by so doing, to be able to provide even greater guidance to the world. That enlistment will make it possible for a town such as Witbank or any other town to utilize its talents locally and to know that responsible leaders in their own small areas will do everything, for the sake of local conditions, to apply the laws there and to encourage development. But because they are patriots they will also, in the interests of our Republic with its growth and the benefits and the problems which go with that growth, grant the Government all the assistance required for the successful completion of our programme of work in the shortest possible time and in the easiest possible way.

It is my pleasure this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Witbank on having got over that somewhat difficult hurdle of his maiden speech. I think the House ought to have been impressed by his fluency, and his sincerity, and that the House will look forward to great things from that member. I hope that he is also as appreciative of Mr. Harry Lawrence, who one might almost call the father of housing, as he is of the Government whom he says is doing so much to-day.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance in his speech to the House this afternoon told us that all the countries of the world that had made rapid economic progress were suffering from the illness of inflation. He intimated that they had the same problems as we have to-day. This is true, Mr. Speaker, perfectly true. The hon. the Minister also told us that we have had to spend on military equipment and on strategic provisions, many hundreds of millions of rand perhaps not required by a country which does not have our particular problems. This is also correct. He also went on to say that it was necessary that we should develop quickly in certain fields so that in the event of this country being cut off from the rest of the world or from essential supplies of commodities, we could look after ourselves. This is also correct. But what astounds me is that the hon. the Minister apparently did not know these facts 12 months ago. Because, Sir, in the Budget Debate last year, we asked the hon. Minister whether he anticipated an increase in the cost of living. What was his reply? He replied that he hoped that the cost of living would come down. So apparently, Mr. Speaker, the facts which the hon. the Minister has supplied us this afternoon are new discoveries. The hon. Minister spoke about hindsight and foresight. I would not like to mention the phrase “blindsight”. We told the hon. Minister last year, Mr. Speaker, that although we hoped that he was correct in suggesting that the cost of living would come down and I quote our words: “We find nothing in the Budget to indicate that a drop would take place.” So 12 months ago we were at variance with the hon. the Minister. He thought that prices were going to come down while we did not find anything in his Budget to indicate this. On the Part Appropriation Debate only six months ago, Mr. Speaker, the optimism of the hon. the Minister continued unabated. This is what he said: “I think we have succeeded in combating inflation without causing any serious disruption in the national economy. To-day we can feel more at ease in this regard than we could six months ago.”

When was that?

Six months ago. The facts are recorded in Hansard, Col. 597. And in winding up the Part Appropriation Debate, Mr. Speaker, that is six months ago, in Col. 1122 this is what the hon. Minister said: “The best proof of the pudding lies in the eating and it will be seen that we have been more successful in halting inflation than other countries.” So the hon. the Minister apparently did know that other countries were having problems with inflation, but that we were more successful in combating them. “We are not out of the woods yet.” The hon. the Minister said that. “But we can already see the light at the end of the tunnel.” The only problem is that he did not tell us whether it was a green light or a red light. Apparently the hon. the Minister saw a green light, while we were seeing a red light. But listen to what the hon. the Minister said afterwards: “For that reason we can afford to pump in R80,000,000 in the form of increases in salaries and wages.” Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister did not say it was necessary for us to grant …

You wanted it a year ago.

That is right. I am talking about a year ago, or rather six months ago, to be more precise. The hon. the Minister did not say we had to give these good people an increase. He did not say that it was necessary. He did not say that it was fair because of the cost of living. The words he used were “We can afford”. So at that time the hon. the Minister made up his mind that everything was hunky-dory, that there were no other problems, that the state of the country was economically sound, and that inflation was so under control that we could afford to give—not have to give—these increases. Then his hon. the Minister goes on to say: “Now these increases have been brought in at a point of time when we can at least see the turning point ahead.” Where is the turning point? Ahead as of to-day, we hope but not ahead as of last year. The hon. the Minister then continues: “We are therefore in the fortunate position to be able to do now what we could not do a year ago”. The hon. the Minister is optimistic. Not a prophet of doom but a prophet of boom. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister still holds these views. I should think not. It is true that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but sometimes the pudding gets far too expensive to eat. The hon. the Minister himself has made a complete reversal in his economic policy. It is no good reading to this House the things he has done during the last three years. We have got to see the fundamental difference between what was done previously and what has been done in the last three weeks. What was the hon. the Minister’s basis of arresting inflation in this country? An increase in the bank rate to 5 per cent; fixing interest rates that could be offered by building societies or financial institutions; curtailing lending by commercial banks and financial institutions, and the imposition of import control not coupled with financial measures which should have gone with that imposition. The hon. the Minister was warned by practically every economist in the country that those steps were not the correct steps. I exclude the Economic Advisory Council. There was hardly an economist in this country who did not protest against the fixing of interest rates. The hon. the Minister knows this as well as I do. These measures were apparently the reason for the hon. the Minister’s optimism. And what were the results? First of all it is true that the balance of payments position has improved. The hon. the Minister has told us why. The causes are mainly fortuitous, for example that there is a lot of money in this country on short-term loan. Secondly, the cost of living index has gone up. This is the one instance, Mr. Speaker, where one does not have to quote statistics. Everybody in the country knows that the cost of living has gone up. It is no good the hon. the Minister coming along now and giving an undertaking that he is not going to allow the cost of living to rise any further in regard to butter and milk and cheese and sugar. It is no good closing the stable door after the horse is out. The public of South Africa is already paying increased prices, some of which were only put up a month or two ago. It is therefore no virtue to come along now and say that for the next six months prices will not be allowed to go up further. Even this hon. Minister cannot allow prices to go up every Monday, Wednesday or Friday.

The wage spiral continues to increase, but in the main unaccompanied by any increase in production. We seem to have forgotten that you cannot pay people more money without greater production. We have got to encourage production, and it does not seem to be something that the Government is very clear on. Further, the timing of the hon. the Minister in his R80,000,000 increase in salaries to the Civil Service and the Railways was quite obviously not an economic timing. The hon. the Minister will have to tell the House that there was an election and that this was a political timing. It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister through the actions he took has not managed to achieve in any great measure that “golden mean” he talked to us about a year or two ago. It has been known for quite a while that the position was serious. In its reappraisal for 1966 the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch used phrases such as “serious intensification of excessive demand” and “a dangerous aggravation of inflationary pressure”. I know that when one writes papers one is apt to use superlatives. The hon. the Minister is perhaps the greatest exponent. Sometimes he almost convinces me. Nevertheless, these facts were known and these facts were correct. The condition was serious and there was a dangerous aggravation of inflationary pressure. That report sets out a series of policy goals and it says this: “If these policy goals are accepted as data the forecast leads to only one logical conclusion: that existing measures are inadequate and that further action is required.” The hon. the Minister has at last seen the light and he has now taken a series of further actions. In reviewing the facts, however, it seems that Government spending continued unabated. The hon. the Minister has given us certain reasons why that was the case. However, the cardinal crime—if I can use this phrase in the context of economics—was that he was financing it by short-term borrowing. It was not the spending of the money alone which created the inflation. It was how he got the money to spend. That is the seriousness of the position. Now the hon. the Minister has changed his viewpoint. The bank rate has now been increased to 6 per cent; interest rates have been unfrozen; import restrictions have been relaxed and the long-term gilt rate has been raised. The hon. the Minister will, we hope, change from financing by short-term funds to long-term funds. But as this House has already been told, the man in the street is going to be hit by these new provisions. I agree with the hon. the Minister that sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. I also agree that these measures will probably do some good in regard to inflation. However, this does not help the man in the street. He has already suffered increasing prices and hardships through bad policy and is now going to suffer further hardships through good policy. The one does not offset the other, Mr. Speaker. The penalty has already been paid. The householder is going to pay more interest on his bond and it is no good the hon. the Minister telling us that he is going to introduce legislation so that bonds can be paid off over a longer period. Nobody knows better than the hon. the Minister of Finance that when you owe money, you owe money. Because when we owe the fiscus money, they get it quickly enough from us. And the fact that your bond is going to be paid over 20 years instead of over 15 years is going to be of very little help to the man in the street. Many of these bonds are projected for retirement age. Many of these bonds are now not going to be paid until the poor borrower has died, because the period has been lengthened and lengthened. It is no consolation to say that only 21 per cent of the borrowers are going to be affected. Of the 55 per cent who will not be affected, many are the people whose bonds are probably already reaching maturity, because they have had their bonds for a considerable time. But in the case of the 21 per cent on fairly new bonds where the escalator clause operates, the payments are going to go on for years. And what about the new borrower? He is going to have the same situation.

The farmer, who has already been hit by the drought, is going to be further embarrassed and hurt by the additional interest rates. The manufacturer will be forced to include the additional interest in his cost of production, which in turn will be paid for by the consumer. I do not think the public is going to be very pleased with the hon. the Minister when they come to pay these additional costs. I think the hon. the Minister has been forced to do some rethinking, and I hope he has read the report on prices, profits and controls by Dr. van Waasdijk of the Department of Commerce and Applied Economics of the University of the Witwatersrand. There are some interesting things in this report, and a lot of ideas which have been held to be correct have been thrown aside so that there is much disillusionment. Dr. van Waasdijk says, for example, that the main causes of inflation in the Republic have been (1) the increase in Railway rates, which during the past seven years have increased more rapidly than the general price level. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Transport may take cognizance of this fact before he introduces his Railway Budget; (2) the import replacement policy of the Government; and (3) the increase in the (a) cost of services, which increased by 20 per cent from 1960 to 1965; (b) food, which increased by 16 per cent; (c) fuel and light costs, which increased by 12 per cent and (d) housing, which increased by 12 per cent. Actually, manufactured goods only showed an increase of some 5.7 per cent. This is what Professor Samuels of the Witwatersrand University says on this particular study—and I commend it to the Government—

Last year I dealt with the fact that these controls were obscuring the entire position. Dr. Samuels continues:

And now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to another topic which is somewhat foreign to me, namely water.

Water is discussed in this House practically every year, but it is usually the prerogative of the farmer. This year, however, the townsmen are equally concerned with the question of water. As you well know, Sir, in the Transvaal—I refer now to the Vaal triangle, the complex of Pretoria-Vereeniging-Johannesburg—we have had our water supplies cut by 30 per cent. Five million people live in this area, more than one-third of the total population of the Republic. Industry is struggling to carry on with its production, as far as the average person is concerned, he is no longer allowed to water his garden except for an hour a day, twice a week, with a hose and, with a bucket, four times a week for an hour a day. He is no longer allowed to wash his car with a hose and we are feeling the full impact of the situation. The Johannesburg City Council, for example, although they have had to put up the price of water, is to-day losing over R1,500,000 of its income a year. The Vaal Dam, when it is full, holds something like 520,000,000,000 gallons of water. At the present moment it is only in the neighbourhood of 42 per cent full and holds some 220,000,000,000 gallons of water. The assured daily supply from the Vaal Dam is 640,000,000 gallons of water. With a cut-off of 30 per cent, it means that there is 448,000,000 gallons available daily, so at the present moment the Vaal Dam, under the best circumstances, does not hold more than 18 months’ supply of water and this, as you know, Sir, is nothing. This takes no account of the high evaporation, which some people estimate at as much as 150,000,000 gallons a day and about which I am glad to see the hon. the Minister is trying to do something by spraying with alcohol. I hope he will be successful. We are more used to having water with our alcohol than having alcohol with our water. It takes no account of the actual demand for water, the inflow or the contamination which we might find if the water in the dam gets lower, so the position is serious and it is the same in many other parts of the country. I am concerned for the moment, however, with Johannesburg and its environments. Sir, there are certain fundamentals. We know that South Africa is a country which suffers drought regularly. We know that it is a country which does not have an overabundant supply of water and we know it is a country where estimates of future water requirements have in the main been hopelessly out. In 1923 they said that 20,000,000 gallons of water daily from the Barrage would be enough. That figure was hopelessly out. A decade later they said that 60,000,000 gallons daily would be quite sufficient for the needs of the Transvaal. It is always a question of too little too late, and this Government is the worst offender. We have seen this on so many occasions. It was too late in the coal crisis; it was too late in the case of the Post Office; it was too late in the case of the Railways; it was too late with immigration and we still have not solved the question of the telephone services yet. Sir, when this Government is faced with a problem they have a peculiar way of dealing with it. First of all they pretend that they are unaware that it exists. Then they suddenly discover that it exists. They then make a stab here and a stab there and they consider the matter in terms of ideological concepts to see how their solution fits in. They then decide to set up a commission, which they usually do after some months of indecision and eventually, when everybody has had all the suffering that they can put up with, they take the advice of the Opposition and do what the Opposition tells them to do. What we need here is an urgent plan for the Vaal triangle. We are glad to hear from the Minister of Water Affairs, who, we hope, will be most successful in his new job, that he at least agrees that this is a matter of urgency. What we want to know from him is what his short-term plan is and when it is going to be implemented. I hope one of his colleagues will convey my remarks to him. It should not be beyond the compass of the hon. the Minister to appreciate the problem, to examine its causes and to find a solution. Sir, what we want the Government to do is to take every possible step right now to alleviate the present position in the Transvaal. We want to know whether the hon. the Minister has taken cognizance of all those factors which become important—the fact, for example, that agriculture uses 100 per cent of its water; that is its consumptive use; that the householder’s consumptive use is only 25 per cent; 75 per cent goes back into the rivers after purification. Industry’s consumptive use is only 5 per cent, and the rest goes back into the rivers after purification. Sir, industry can play its part, agriculture can play its part. Industry may perhaps be forced to play its part by the reuse of water. In the United States the great chemical concerns provide up to 2½ per cent of their investment for the re-use of water because in certain areas of the United States their water problem is as great as ours, and we must start facing this problem. Agriculture has to do its share. Perhaps it must use sprinklers and save 80 per cent, instead of using water in the way in which it is using it now. It is obvious that something must be done and we want the hon. the Minister to tell us what is being done. My hon. the Leader told the House that the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned the appointment of a commission in January. He appointed it in June and it is meeting in four days’ time. Well, if that is the way you deal with a crisis then God help this country. The hon. the Minister must get on with the job, because if there are any further cuts in the Transvaal, particularly in Johannesburg, which uses 40 per cent of the total, we can run into trouble because water is a very important factor. The biggest user of water in the city of Johannesburg, for example, is the yeast manufacturers. They use 31,000,000 gallons a day, and if they do not get water we will have no yeast, and so we will have no bread and then the fun will really start. It is time somebody started doing something about it. Sir, I would rather not tell you what quantity is used by the manufacturers of beer. It is 17,000,000 gallons. Sir, we hope that the hon. the Minister will get on with the job. This is a good opportunity for him to show that he is a first-class Minister of Water Affairs. We hope that he will take the interests of the whole country into account; that he will take the interests of the Vaal triangle into account, and the interests of the people of the Vaal triangle, and that he will not forget that the well-being and the prosperity of the Republic of South Africa is based primarily on those industries situated in the Vaal triangle.

Before dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Parktown and saying a few words about the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to express a few general views on the economy of South Africa. The economy of South Africa is one of the most valuable possessions we have in this country. It enables us to raise the standard of living of our population from time to time, as has in fact happened. I do not think there is a single person in this House, who will disagree with me when I say that the standard of living of the entire population of South Africa has become much higher over the past years. It gives us the funds for developing our country, something which has happened on a fantastic scale; it gives us the funds for dealing with the problems of our country. Just in passing I refer for instance to expenditure in certain under-developed areas of our country, in the Bantu homelands and in South West Africa. It affords us the means of building up a strong Defence Force. It has enabled us to become a major factor in international trade, and to have become practically indispensable to certain states as far as international trade is concerned. It has made us so strong that a committee of the U.N. decided, after making a thorough study of the matter, that a boycott against South Africa could not succeed. That is what our economy is doing for us, Mr. Speaker. It is a valuable asset belonging to all of us. We shall continue to be protected by that valuable asset of ours, our economy. There is nothing wrong with our economy. It meets all the requirements necessary for building South Africa into a great and powerful country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the economic discussion we have had in this House this afternoon, and I welcome it because I think that it is the duty of this House to bring the people of South Africa the message that our economy is now passing through an important stage; that the economy, which does not belong to the Government only, but to every man and woman in this country, to every sector, should be understood by our people; that we should all realize that we are now passing through an important period of our economy and that we all have a duty in the matter. If we in this House cannot succeed in bringing that message during this debate, then we who sit here would have failed in our duty. Up to now this debate has not quite met with that requirement. I shall come back to that eventually, but in passing I just want to say that we were reproached in very strong terms this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville for not having reacted to what his leader said in connection with those matters on Tuesday; for having remained silent. Mr. Speaker, there has not been enough for us to react to. When the hon. member for Yeoville proceeded to another subject, I went up and asked Hansard for a copy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech on Tuesday, and was given one. As far as this specific problem is concerned, which is South Africa’s problem to-day, namely the purchasing power of our money, I find that where he should have put his finger on the root of this specific problem, he devoted a mere half a page of a speech of nearly 40 pages to it. For a further four pages the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in general about “unrealistically optimistic forecasts”. He said the small man should tighten his belt; he said there had been an increase of 25 per cent in debts; he spoke about the higher rates of interest charged by building societies, but as a matter of fact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the essence of the matter in a mere half a page when he put his finger on the following matters. He said that we were guilty of negligence and continued by saying: “After Sharpeville they placed restrictions on the repatriation of foreign capital.” Sir, this afternoon I want to put the following question to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for Constantia, who is not present at the moment, and to the hon. member for Kensington: Are we to understand that the Opposition condemns and rejects the steps taken for stopping the flow of capital from the country? It is an easy, straightforward question. The hon. member for Kensington still has to speak, and I ask him to reply to the following question: When, subsequent to 1960, money was flowing from this country in a tremendous stream, was the Government entitled to introduce foreign exchange control or not? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproached us on Tuesday by saying: “They placed restrictions on the repatriation of foreign capital.” That then was one of the errors we made. Do hon. members agree with that? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say, “They embarked on a Government spending spree.” Sir, was it not the Opposition sitting over there which advocated higher Government expenditure every year that I have been sitting in this House? Were they not the people who advocated more and more social services? Was it not the hon. member for Gardens who advocated food subsidies in South Africa, who advocated that people should be taxed in order to introduce food subsidies? Did they not advocate higher Government expenditure at every possible and impossible opportunity? And to-day they reproach this Government “that it embarked on a spending spree”. The hon. member proceeded to say, “They compete with the private sector for the available man-power resources.” We should not have competed with the private sector to draw man-power to cope with the country’s administration. What did the hon. member for Constantia, a front bencher of the United Party, the first speaker on their side, say in this House on 16th June last year? He then said that there had been an increase of 10 per cent in wages in the private sector during the preceding 18 months. He then blamed the Government for not doing anything for its own people. He said it need not necessarily compete by paying altogether identical wages, but it should make conditions at least so attractive as to enable it to retain the services of its employees. We were not to increase the salaries of our officials; we were not to improve their conditions of service, because then we would draw them away from the private sector! Mr. Speaker, we do have expenditure by the authorities in this country to-day. A great deal has been said about expenditure by authorities, but I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the next speaker to mention to me a single instance in which they have suggested the deletion of any item when we have dealt with expenditure on the Loan Estimates over the past five years. On the contrary, they are constantly asking for more. Sir, on what was that expenditure by the authorities incurred? It was incurred on the entire infrastructure of our country. It was incurred on Railways; it was incurred by the provinces on roads; by the National Transport Commission on roads; it was incurred on the provision of water and electricity, and if we had not done so and bottlenecks had occurred, what would have been the inflationary results to our economy? Hon. members opposite said that there was a waiting list of 10,000 people for telephones somewhere. Those are reproaches made against the Government. Through the medium of the Press the country is beguiled into thinking that the public’s difficulties are due to the fact that this Government has no discipline; that it spends and wastes money recklessly. Sir, we are on the verge of tremendous developments in this country. We have to plan. A telephone system has to be introduced which will enable one to dial any place in the country. It is going to cost money. It is going to cost a great deal of money. That is only a single example. Those are the things we are reproached for by the Opposition. They are only doing it to create confusion outside amongst people who may perhaps be struggling a little at the moment.

Why should we teach you what to do?

That hon. member requested the adjournment of the debate last night; he had the entire night in which to prepare himself, and what did he say about economic affairs this afternoon? Nothing.

This Government provided for an infrastructure through governmental expenditure. Take the Orange River scheme, Sasol, etc. We have done our duty. The result was a strong South Africa, and those who spoke about attacking this country, left us alone. This country achieved status in the international world and in international trade. We now have a strong South Africa. Now they maintain that that governmental expenditure was inflationary. We at least kept the thing neutral. Year after year we transferred the surplus on Revenue Account to Loan Account. At least we did not bring more money into the country. But what have those hon. members been advocating for the past five years? They said we should not have done so; we were robbing the people of South Africa; we were stealing the money from the pockets of the people under false pretences, because that money belonged to the taxpayers. Year after year they said we should return the money to the taxpayers. And do you know, Sir, my opponent, supported by the hon. member for Sea Point and others, travelled about and told my voters at every meeting that we had taken R630,000,000 of the hard-earned money of the taxpayer during the past five years? That was not true in any case and what was true was that we utilized the surplusses on Revenue Account for the Loan Account. If that is inflationary, what would have happened if those hon. members were in power? They would have returned that money to the people and it would have come into circulation. They said we should have borrowed that R630,000,000 abroad and should have brought it into circulation. Heaven help us if that had happened.

But now they reproach us that we were too late and that we have done nothing. Consider even the issue regarding rates of interest. They spoke about the man in the street. Do you know. Sir, that this Minister has done his duty? In 1961 when our economy was at a low ebb, the Minister announced that we should spend, and he decreased rates of interest. The Government itself spent money in order to illustrate that it had confidence in the future of South Africa and we got the economy going again. They reproach the Minister, but the revival came, and the Minister told us to-day what he said in 1963. In 1964 the Minister said we should begin marking time; it might be necessary to apply the brakes. But now the Opposition maintains that the country did not know. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “They have at no time warned the private sector of the danger of continued excessive expenditure.” The Minister did so at least half a dozen times. You yourself, Sir, are aware of the subsequent steps taken, the increase in the bank rate and the appeal to the banks in 1964 to be more judicious in granting credit. The Minister did not simply intervene with an iron fist. This is not the economy of a socialistic state, but of a capitalistic state. This is the economy of a people who are assisting in the development of the country on a basis of free enterprise, and the Minister did his duty. Even when money became more scarce, when we experienced that tremendous competition among the deposit-receiving institutions in the country, when rates of interest started going up—which affected the people who borrowed money, the mortgagees, the house owners about whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned today—the Minister fixed deposit rates and as a result fixed borrowing rates, directly in the interest of the farmer, the house owner and the man in the street. That argument falls away entirely. In reply to the hon. member for Parktown I just want to say that he, being an economist, should know that all the graphs are obtainable in the latest quarterly of the Reserve Bank. At the time when the Minister took all those steps and made that remark which the hon. member criticized to such an extent, all the graphs were beginning to show a downward trend. The Minister’s steps had all been successful. All the graphs were either levelling out or were showing a downward trend. Then the thing happened which the Minister said he could not have foreseen, which no-one could have foreseen, namely the tremendous amount of money which suddenly flowed into the country. During the last quarter of 1965 alone R114,000,000 net flowed into the country and that made the entire banking sector in South Africa completely liquid. That neutralized all the measures for restricting credit. The Minister and the Government cannot be blamed for that, nor the advisers or the Economic Advisory Council. It is a pity that we now have to come with that increase in the rates of interest, but unfortunately there is no alternative. If at all possible, I want us to get the message across to the people of South Africa that there is nothing wrong with our economy; that we are facing a wonderful future in every respect and that if we all help to mark time now, if we can succeed in bridging this period of transition in our economy, if we can win the struggle against inflation—and we are not the only country in the world experiencing that problem—it will be a major victory for all of us. What I want to ask for is a positive approach from this House in requesting the people of South Africa to assist in making those measures a success, not because there is something wrong with our economy, but because we want to combat that small threat and because we do not want to allow those horses which have already been reined in to run too strongly. We ask for their co-operation in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a very great privilege to be able to serve my country in this highest legislative council, and I am also particularly honoured to be able to serve under the leadership of a person like our beloved leader, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd. Sir, allow me, on behalf of the voters of Lydenburg, to express our gratitude to my predecessor, Mr. Hiemstra, who represented our constituency for quite a few years in this House.

When we have to determine whether or not a government lacks foresight in the implementation of its policy, it is essential that we should refer to the history of that government, for as you know, Sir, a government is just like a man and a man is known by his deeds. It is therefore essential to take a look at the past of this Government, and in this case the judges are the people of South Africa, the electorate. The people of South Africa have delivered their verdict, as is proved by the fact that this Chamber is filled by National Party representatives. That is evidence of the fact that the people, who have the final say, have here too given their decision, and we accept it, and we believe that the entire nation will in its turn accept it.

For almost two decades the Prime Minister and his Government have shown the people of South Africa and the whole world that they respect the democratic right of the people, and as a clear example I may mention the referendum we held when the Republic came into being. The Parliament of South Africa had the right to declare a Republic without consulting the people, but the hon. the Prime Minister saw fit to acknowledge the right of the people in this case also, went to the people and called a referendum, and there too they gave their verdict, for which all of us in South Africa are deeply grateful. The Government acknowledges the freedom of the law-abiding citizens. Because so much emphasis has already been placed on the freedom of the individual, I want to ask you to allow me, Sir, to elaborate somewhat further on that. As long as the Government acknowledges the basic rights of the individual, it can never be charged with lack of foresight, because that demonstrates that it is upholding the democratic system of our country. But now the question arises, what exactly is the freedom of the individual? You know, Sir, that that freedom can sometimes be treacherous. Must the freedom of the individual under all circumstances take priority over the security and freedom and survival of the nation as a whole? This is a very contentious question, but the answer is obvious, and I believe that the freedom of the individual implies a certain lack of freedom. The freedom of the individual may never destroy or in any way prejudice the freedom of the nation to which he belongs. That is simply unthinkable. There can therefore be no absolute freedom in any well-ordered state or society, and I should like to mention an example to support my statement.

In time of war the state has the right to force any citizen who is liable for military service, even if it is against his will, to take part in that war and even to risk his life, and that individual has no right of appeal to any court in the country. That is therefore clear proof of the fact that the freedom of the individual also has its limitations when it is in the interest of the people, of the survival of the nation; then the freedom of the individual must give way to the survival of the nation as a whole. Therefore the Government’s primary duty is to look after the freedom of the state as a whole. Our Government has never suffered from lack of foresight, not even in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, but has always done the right thing at the right time, and for that the people of South Africa owes it a great deal of gratitude. Even our descendants will remember with gratitude and appreciation what this Government has done for the people of South Africa. To keep pace with its ever-growing population and in order to make South Africa self-supporting the Government in its foresight and wisdom has planned for a sound economy, a growing agriculture and a sound industrial policy. I may mention here, although it has already been mentioned by previous speakers, that no wise government can ever hope to achieve full development of its country without the basic industry, namely a steel industry. A previous National Party Government provided for that and founded Iscor. That very same Iscor which in those days was a contentious issue in Parliament later served the late General Smuts as one of the greatest assets in his Second World War effort. That same Iscor also served as the basis of all our steel-processing industries. So much for the steel industry. But the Government did not stop there. They also considered it essential to make South Africa self-supporting as regards fuel, and in these times in which we live, with so many threats of boycotts against our country, the Government saw to it that we got a Sasol; tankers in order to make South Africa even more self-supporting in times of emergency. But the Government did not content itself with that: it also gave thorough consideration to the interests of agriculture in its planning for the future. Thus we got the mighty Foscor at Phalaborwa, and allow me to say that I am particularly proud that that fine factory, which is such a great asset to our country, should be in my constituency. I am very proud of that. In the past the farmers were dependent upon imported fertilizers. Sir, you know that in the past we had to get our fertilizers from Morocco and Chile and other countries, but here our Government has seen to it that South Africa will be independent of foreign countries as far as fertilizers for the agricultural industry are concerned. Thus we can ensure that the people of South Africa will never go hungry, thanks to the foresight of this Government.

But that is not all. We also think that the Government has ensured our security in the military field. I shall elaborate on that later. The Government has also established an aeroplane factory, as well as factories where other armaments are manufactured, but it is not in the interests of the country to discuss those in detail. To come back to the subject of agriculture, here we find a wide field of development and well-thought-out agricultural planning. Let us begin with soil conservation. This Government regards it as a matter of primary importance to apply soil conservation in the interest of the people, which has to rely on agriculture for its support, and we have a fine system of soil conservation. We even brought out an expert from America to advise us in regard to soil conservation. Think of all the water conservation schemes in operation in our country. The Orange River scheme has already been referred to; I need not refer to it again, except to add that it is not intended to benefit agriculture alone, but that it is another example of the foresight of the Government in that we shall be able to generate power at those tremendous water projects if in future our coal supplies should diminish. Throughout our country we see irrigation dams being built in order to stabilize agriculture in times of drought. These are all things which any citizen who loves this country must notice, and the people do in fact notice them, and with gratitude.

We are very grateful that the Government has seen fit to establish a Department of Tourism. I do not think there are many people who realize the real value of tourism. We cannot as yet quite grasp what tourism can really mean to South Africa. We live in a country which is blessed with probably the most beautiful natural scenery in the whole world, and we should make full use of that asset. For that reason we are very glad that a Department of Tourism has been established. Allow me to quote a few figures in connection with tourism. In reply to a question which was put by an hon. member in this House, it was stated that during the year 1965 no fewer than 228,865 tourists visited South Africa. They came from all the different countries of the world. I then went and made a small calculation. I calculated that if each tourist spent R20 per day, made a stay of ten days in South Africa, that number of tourists would have spent an amount of R45,773,000. We can see from that what a tremendous asset tourism c n be to our country, and we are very grateful to our Government for seeking to exploit to the full our country’s potential in that respect.

I want to refer to a further aspect of tourism, and I hope I shall not be accused of provincialism. We have to consider the facts as they are and accept them as such. I want to refer specifically to the North-Eastern Transvaal, which is virtually the Mecca of the tourist. In the first place there is of course the Kruger National Park, and then there is some of the most beautiful natural scenery, which is already being developed. There is also the Blyde River scheme, commonly known as the Blyde Canyon, which may almost equal the Grand Canyon in America. That can become one of the greatest tourist attractions in our country. But over and above that there is another outstanding asset of world class in that part of our country. I am speaking of the Sabie-Graskop region. There we have the largest forest reserve planted by man in the whole world. It cannot be equalled even in America or in the Scandinavian countries. I therefore hope that the time has come that this asset too will be exploited to the full as far as the promotion of tourism is concerned.

But, Mr. Speaker, of what use is it if we have all these assets and yet remain vulnerable to any proposed aggression? I am glad to be able to say, however, that in this respect too the Government has shown its foresight by building up our Defence Force so that it has become a very strong deterrent to any prospective aggressor. In fact, we are so strong in this respect that a person such as Colonel Nasser, the dictator of Egypt, recently accused the UNO of conniving at South Africa’s arming itself so formidably that it is at present the strongest military power on the Continent of Africa. For these things the people are deeply indebted to the Government and our military leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I have almost finished, but before concluding I want to mention a few more points in connection with the North-Eastern Transvaal. That area has an enormous mineral potential, particularly at Phalaborwa, with its large deposits of phosphate ore and copper, and the Steenpoort complex, where we have one of the richest vanadium mines in the world, on the farm Kennedy’s Vale. In addition there are large deposits of chromium ore, asbestos and magnesite at Burgersfort. We hope that in the not too distant future the Government will find it possible to establish border industries in that part of our country. While mentioning these matters, I do not want to forget our agricultural activities there. The Lowveld of the Transvaal is known as the vegetable garden of South Africa. I also think of the cattle-farming in that area, as well as the fruit farming in the vicinity of Lydenburg in particular. In thinking of these I hope the Government will realize the necessity of building more irrigation dams there in order to stabilize agriculture in that area and to make it possible for our farmers to prosper.

It is my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Lydenburg on his maiden speech. I hope he is as glad to have got over this hurdle of his maiden speech as I was to get over mine. I find it most fitting, as things stand in South Africa to-day, that a Capetonian should congratulate a Transvaal member! However, I wish him all the luck in the world and hope he will make many more constructive contributions to the work in this House.

I am sorry the hon. member for Queenstown is not in the House at the moment. He made a point in his speech that we from the Opposition benches were continually asking for increasing sums of money to be spent on the provision of public services despite the financial position of the country to-day. I think this comment of his was a bit hasty and I suggest that he should wait until we deal with the Vote for the Department of Sport and Recreation, where we shall have some pertinent things to say in regard to that Vote.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said during this debate thus far about totalitarianism and about the totalitarian tendencies of this Government. We have also heard some angry refutations from hon. members on the other side of the House about these accusations. But they can deny these accusations as much as they like and it will not help them, because this is what the hon. member for Malmesbury said some time ago. It was reported in the Burger of the 9th April, 1965, as follows—

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have the truth. We have it from the mouth of the hon. member for Malmesbury that hon. members opposite do not care should South Africa become a one-party state.

But I should like to make some observations this afternoon about a subject which has not yet been broached to any great extent during this debate, namely education and politics in general. In dealing with this I may be a little provocative. I wonder how many members on the other side of the House have ever asked themselves where political indoctrination in relation to education ends and true education begins.

Do you mean in the English private schools?

The question of political indoctrination and education seems to me to be a very relevant question in South Africa to-day. We hear a great deal from our left-wing friends in South Africa and as much, I must say from Nationalist sources …

[Interjections.] The hon. Deputy Minister will have time to make his own speech. As I was saying, we hear a lot from our left-wing friends in South Africa and from Nationalist sources as well, of catch-cries and slogans, platitudes and dangerous assumptions of the Left which, I think, have become the curse of twentieth century politics. We all are very familiar with these cries: The brotherhood of man, the loud high cry of freedom in every dialect and in every language, majority rule, colonialism, discrimination, one man one vote, and so forth. You will agree with me, Sir, if I say, and I do so advisedly, that these are very dangerous cries because so many people accept them unthinkingly. How often do any of us ask ourselves: Freedom to do what? To destroy ourselves? Or to bully others? This too is a possibility. But what is its rightful meaning? As far as equality is concerned, there is little, if any, equality between people anywhere, whatever their colour. There are only two bases on which people are equal: Before God and before the law. In any event this should be so in any democratic Christian State. As far as South Africa is concerned, I sometimes wonder just to what extent we are carrying out these principles.

Let me say that we hear quite a lot from hon. members opposite about these cries from the left-wing extremists. But our right-wing extremists have these cries too and very often, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout earlier in this debate, they adopt similar political tactics. This unfortunate habit, Mr. Speaker, has been developing over the years with very unhappy results for our country as a whole. You see, Sir, what has happened in South African politics is that our politics have become polarized into the two extremes, without the true answer lying in either of them. In dealing with any political alternatives in South Africa, let me say at once that I consider it to be absolutely essential that we should break the present dominant rhythm of totalities in our thinking. This has become a very dangerous habit, so much so, that the electorate is persuaded year after year that we must, for example, have either total apartheid or total integration. The Bantu must either be given total independence or the Whites will suffer total submersion. I regard these concepts as entirely false. Neither of the extremes presents a practical solution. We on this side of the House are accustomed to being howled down when we say that there are only two really sound bases on which any community, whether it is heterogenous or homogenous, can live and work together. The first of these principles is that we should maintain continuous communication between the various groups and the second one is that we should work on a basis of give and take. This means that we should be prepared to compromise, a word which Has become a dirty word in South Africa to-day. Without these two bases we shall continue to live in South Africa in a state of unending tension. Do not let us make a mistake about it: We all live in watertight compartments. The state of the law, furthermore, in South Africa is such that it virtually forbids any contact, however innocent and at whatever level, between us on the one hand and our non-White groups on the other hand for purposes of consultation. There are, however, two exceptions, that is, contact through Government officials and on a master-servant basis. There are no other points of contact. The law forbids it.

This brings me to the main topic of my speech this afternoon, i.e. the possibility of communication between our own White student population, with particular reference to the two student congresses which have just been held, the one in Stellenbosch the other in Durban. [Interjections.]

That member’s name is “Cornie”, and so are his speeches. To an outside but interested observer these two recent student conferences prove as nothing else could have done and to a tragic degree, the bitter failure of the education policies of this Government in forcing the separation of the Afrikaans and English-speaking children in our schools over the past 18 years. I will tell you why I say that, Sir Because the end result shows a rigidity of mind on the one hand—and here I refer to the ASB—and an almost total lack of balance on the other—and here I refer to Nusas. This is what we have. As in our politics, so in our education. Ever since the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948 there has been this steady polarization of our thinking, what the philosophers call the either/ or approach, both of which postulate extremes and neither of which provides any lasting answers at all. And hon. members will learn it one day to their cost. Unfortunately the general public—both sides of the general public—tend to fall for these catch-cries, these slogans, and the words most calculated to frighten the different sections of the community. They take their stand accordingly, without thought, without assessment, and they are swept on by the power of persuasion techniques which are well used by our friends on the other side, to such devastating effect in this modern world. Could nothing have been done to prevent this unhappy confrontation? This tragic deadlock in the minds of young South Africans? I am perfectly certain that it could have been avoided. But this Government has not the necessary breadth of vision to see it. I refer specifically to the hon. member for Namakwaland. I do not know whether he is present in the House. He wrote a letter to the Burger on the 11th July, in which he told our students that they must not listen to Mr. P. J. Cilli?, editor of the Burger, when he said: “Die tyd om te twyfel en te vra is wanneer u student is.” He said in his letter—

Mr. Speaker, if we want to encourage the youth of South Africa to positive leadership and action, we shall never succeed in doing so by forcing them to adopt ideologies and dogmas without question. The whole basis of leadership anywhere is the ability to make decisions. If decisions have to be made in new and changing contexts, the people who make them must be able to think for themselves. This goes without saying. But the hon. member for Namakwaland, and many of his colleagues with him, are in danger of becoming fossilized, I am afraid. May I ask him and his colleagues of how much spontaneous individual thought they really think they are capable? Because I think they are capable of precious little as things are showing up in South Africa at the present time.

As hon. members know, we have pleaded in this party over the years for the two White groups to have at least the option—and I repeat the word “option”—of meeting in our schools, even if only in the secondary and the high schools. These children, who are our university students to-day could have had seven long years in their primary schools of basic, exclusive mother-tongue education and later they could have rounded off the corners for one another—in an intellectual sense—before they crystallized into the rigid and inflexible patterns into which they both seem to have settled to-day. I wonder if hon. members realize—and I think I as a woman can speak about this with some assurance—that to guide and lay the foundations of the thoughts and the behaviour patterns of children in their early years is to lay them for life. Flexibility of mind is a priceless asset and not a liability. This is the great mistake hon. members on that side are making. Flexibility of mind does not of necessity involve a lack of moral standards. Flexibility of mind, may I say, Mr. Speaker, is in the modern world very easily lost. It requires great courage to maintain it in the face of the constant barrage of propaganda which is put out from one side or the other, day and night, by the mass media of communication. Unquestioning acceptance, which is what we get from so much of our youth, is so much easier, it is so much lazier a mental habit. Are hon. members on that side so sure, are they so certain in their minds, that all these years of indoctrination of their children have proved them to be right? Because I would say that only a very small man would dare to get up and face me to-day and say “Yes”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Could the history, the traditions, and the value of both population groups, which we all treasure in our own way in South Africa, not have been jointly instilled in a positive rather than a negative sense during those formative years? We believe most sincerely as a party that this could have been done and we still believe it, unless a large percentage of the present generation of students is irretrievably lost. Without this crazy separation by law in our education would South Africa ever have been faced, as it is faced to-day, with this tragic dichotomy of thought amongst our young people? I very much doubt it. Who would have thought it possible for a young man, removed by 50 years from the initial conflict between Boer and Briton as we knew it in our history, to write to the Press, to the Burger, on 20th July, under the heading, “Kulturele kloof skei Nusas en ASB”. Of course it is not really a cultural division at all—it is a political one. This young man is one of the leaders of the ASB, and I only want to deal with two points made in his letter, to illustrate what I mean. He talks, amongst other things, of the ignorance of the ASB, of its strivings and its objects, and of the position of the Afrikaner people. Now, to what are we to attribute this ignorance? There would have been no need for ignorance had they grown up together, visited each other’s homes, argued, been conscious of the other man, of his mode of living, and of his ideas. The next point this student made in his letter was that perhaps these critical students of the ASB would not have felt at home at an Afrikaans conference. The writer suggested they had lost touch with the Afrikaner people. Can any hon. member tell me how much chance our young people get to make this discovery of each other, vital as it is? Can you tell me, Sir? Unless the parents are either monied or exceptionally enlightened, what hope has the average child in the different language groups of meeting each other on a man-to-man basis—in the educational field at least to-day?

In the old days the great big fear was anglicization. Do you remember it? Now, have the Afrikaners in Natal been anglicized? I can see no signs of it, in spite of the fact that our policy, the United Party education policy, has been in force there all these years [Interjections.] Then why are you afraid? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member can proceed.

What utter folly, what a bitter retribution—no more and no less, Sir—in view of Nusas activities to-day, that the leaders of the Afrikaans-speaking community in this country, and the Nationalist Party in particular, did not manifest a greater generosity of spirit, a little more foresight, in dealing with the English and the Afrikaans-speaking children in their early years. And today we are paying the penalty.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is true, Sir. Let hon. members take Nusas’s rejection of the South African flag. We were ashamed, bitterly ashamed. We deplored their action. One of their delegates said that most of the congress looked on the flag with hostility. Another said that it was not the flag of the country but the flag of the Nationalist Party. The sad thing about this is simply that these two groups of youngsters have been reared in isolation, thanks to the follies and the wickedness of this Government. [Interjections.]

English-speaking people—and I am one of them—will find it very hard indeed to forgive you for this. Nusas is often accused by the ASB of no longer being a normal student organization. It is said that it is merely a political front for sinister international organizations. Well, that may or may not be the case, Sir. But the ASB in its turn, can scarcely be designated a normal student body, since they also, judging by the resolutions adopted at their recent congress, back only the Government and its policies. They refuse to countenance any opposition, and they hand out political accolades to the hon. the Minister of Justice. The fact that all their resolutions were passed unanimously and apparently without discussion proves them to be no more, in their turn, than a political front for the Nationalist Government. If the one attitude, namely that of Nusas, is reprehensible when linked to universities, where open debates covering a wide field should be the order of the day, then the other attitude is equally reprehensible. It applies to both of them, Mr. Speaker. But the Nationalist Party—and here I am going to be frank, very frank indeed—have used the English … yes, that is how they refer to us—an unspecified, ill-defined but a politically useful generalization … have used us as the whipping-boy over the years. And now what has happened? This attitude has suddenly become a terrible disadvantage both to us and to them because South Africa is threatened by forces from overseas, and the need to stand together is the one thing that matters.