Before calling for notices of motion I wish to announce that I shall allow private members to give oral notice of only nine motions which may be dealt with during the next fifteen sitting days.

All other notices of motion by private members must be handed in at the Table and will be placed on the Order Paper for Friday, 26th August.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the question of the extent to which the children of the Afrikaans- and the English-speaking groups in this country have been reared in isolation. May I say that many of us in the English-speaking community have watched these things happening over the years, and being on the whole a rather unemotional lot, particularly where politics are concerned—and I think perhaps the more is the pity—we tended very much to shrug our shoulders and to turn aside and to get on with our daily affairs. But, Sir, we are only human and my generation and that of my children have no links whatsoever with the Milners and the Kitcheners of history. In fact, my generation is in the happy position of being able to recognize and appreciate very deeply indeed the courage, the faith and the determination that lies behind the victory of the Afrikaner people in building up their language, in getting recognition of their identity as a people, and the magnificent contributions they have made in building up this country of ours. But I want to say this. Need all this have been done—need it have been done historically—need it have been exploited politically, as it has been, up to the hilt at our expense? Because this is what has happened. It has been done at the expense of the English-speaking people. It is no good anybody in this House from the Government benches pointing an accusing finger at the United Party and saying that it was our own leaders who misled us. May I say quite unequivocally that they did nothing of the kind. I want to make it clear that these Afrikaans-speaking people here amongst whom I sit were the only Afrikaans-speaking people in the country who really made people like me feel welcome. Yes, Sir, it was our Afrikaans-speaking people who made the English-speaking people in South Africa feel that they belong and that they are part of the South African nation. That side did nothing about it. Let me remind hon. members of the slogan they had in the 1958 election. Do hon. members remember it? “Daar is geen plek vir die Afrikaner in die Verenigde Party nie.” Why? The object of that slogan was to scare the Afrikaner away from joining with the English and people like me, and I am as good a South African as any of them. That slogan was used because hon. members tried to give the impression—and have said so in the debate in the House in the last few days—that their language, their destiny and their traditions would allegedly not be safe in our hands. And I consider that a very wicked thing indeed for them to have said. [Interjections.] Yet, Mr. Speaker, the people who have done most to help us to keep our South African patriotism alive during the last 20 years have been the Afrikaners in our own party. Little or no encouragement has come from the Nationalist Party. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we English-speaking South Africans are no longer merely bored with this situation, but we are getting very angry about it. [Interjections.] Any furtive suggestion that the English-speaking members of the United Party are un-South African and not patriotic is something that we reject with the greatest contempt. I say these things advisedly, because I think it is time that some of us in the English-speaking community spoke out and were frank about these things. There was a time when the Nationalist Party quite deliberately set about excluding us and our children from the grass-roots, traditions, struggles and achievements that accompanied South Africa’s earliest history. Do not let hon. members on that side of the House tell me that we were welcome but that we did not bother to participate. If hon. members opposite have sufficient honesty to examine their consciences they will know that on many occasions we were not welcome at all, and we knew it. These national occasions were, for the most part, used to boost Afrikaner nationalism at the expense of what hon. members chose in those days to call the "English”. I say this quite without bitterness, Sir. I just feel that the statement should be made and should be put clearly by a member of the English-speaking community. So we have Professor Verhoef who felt obliged to tell the ASB at the end of their congress in Stellenbosch in July—

The whole concept of unity, which was the theme of the ASB congress was rejected, was doomed by our youth itself.

I wish to say this to the Nationalist Party in conclusion. You may have helped to keep yourselves in power by these means, but in the process you have lost precisely those qualities which you valued most in your own respected forebears in the struggle that you had here in South Africa. By that I mean you have lost that sturdy independence of mind and of spirit. You are losing it—you are losing it every day of the week. And so South Africa is left with a large percentage of her youngsters who know no other mental exercise, at a student conference representative of several universities, than adulation of the Government and condemnation of all who disagree with the Government on the one side, and another element on the other for whom patriotism has become almost a dirty word. What a tragedy! Fortunately, Sir, there is an even larger element who, thanks to the background which we have given them, still stand upon the ground of moderation. But I say that they too, and their successors, are in danger of being suborned by one side or the other. On these two grounds we indict the Government. We indict them on two very serious counts. The first is for having failed South Africa in the field of education, and the second is for having talked a lot of sob-stuff about national unity for their own personal, sectional and narrow political advantage whilst doing absolutely nothing positive to promote it. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking nonsense when she claimed that the National Party Government was to be blamed for the rift between English- and Afrikaans-speaking children in our schools, which has allegedly resulted in the rift between the ASB and Nusas. The hon. member ought to know much better than that. The rift between those two organizations had already developed when I was at university years ago. That was round about 1938-40. The rift developed as a result of disputes on colour policy and not as a result of difference in language. The rift developed because Nusas demanded implacably that it should be possible for all racial groups to belong to Nusas and its organizations. That is what caused the rift. It was not caused by this Government, but in fact by the United Party, the party which seeks to lump together people of all races. Surely it is arrant nonsense to argue that the National Party seeks to keep our children apart. Was it not the United Party members of the Executive Committee in Natal who decided three years ago that not one single parallel-medium school should be allowed in that province any longer, but only single-medium schools?

That is not true.

Of course it is true. It is absolutely true. The hon. member reminded me very much of a lady, years ago in the Transvaal, who told me, when I wanted to do canvassing at her house, “Look, Mr. Maree, my late husband was a United Party supporter for years and years and died one. I suppose I shall also die one, but thank God my children are at least right.” The hon. member’s big problem is really that the young people are no longer supporting the United Party, because the young people of to-day are idealistic. The young people of to-day are inclined either towards the side of the National Party or towards the side of the Progressive or Liberal Parties. That is what is worrying her.

Yes, they are extremists.

Now she wants to lay the blame for that at the Government’s door. Unfortunately I do not have enough time at my disposal to give a full reply to the hon. member’s speech. I merely wanted to refer to a few aspects of her speech in passing.

You are fortunate.

Fortunately for the hon. member, yes. I really want to deal with certain aspects of the attack made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville. I refer to their criticism that the anti-inflationary measures which are being taken are affecting the lower and the middle income groups adversely, particularly in those respects which are related to my Departments. They claimed that those income groups are adversely affected by the increased rates of interest fixed by our building societies, which result in their being unable to obtain houses of their own. They mention all these things, however, without saying what should be done. They criticize day after day, but they omit to say whether or not they are against these anti-inflationary measures. That they do not say. Their criticism in this regard contains three statements, and I want to deal with those now. In the first place they contend that an unfortunate group of people are now unable to obtain houses of their own, because higher interest is charged on building society loans. The Minister of Finance dealt with that aspect when he explained what steps were going to be taken to extend the redemption periods of loans so that payments on loans may remain more or less unchanged. They said that tenants were being exploited. And they also said that those measures were hitting our pensioners very hard. They claimed that the increased rates of interest charged by the building societies at present were resulting in a grave shortage of housing. The Leader of the Opposition purported to give proof of that by saying that there had been a considerable decrease in the number of approved building plans over the past few months, and that as a result there was a shortage of 4,000 houses for Whites on the Witwatersrand. That is the statement he made here. But what are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The facts are that the number of approved building plans did in fact show a decreasing trend over the past number of months. But that did not follow upon the increase in the rate of interest. That decreasing trend started before there was any question of an increase in rates of interest. There is a very good reason for that decrease, Mr. Speaker.

In the first place there is a tremendous backlog in our building industry, particularly in the 18 major urban areas in our country, as a result of the introduction of building control during the boom period. At that time a large number of new projects were launched, and the danger arose that luxury buildings would be erected everywhere at the cost of dwellings. Government buildings were also affected by the building control, because in that regard, too, there were considerable curtailments. Apart from Government buildings, building plans to the value of R62,000,000 were delayed for periods varying from one to two years. The time is now approaching when these building plans will be carried out. The period of delay is just about past. There is consequently a backlog which has to be made up. For that reason there are fewer building plans now, because the building industry has to make up the backlog first. There is also another reason, Mr. Speaker. The backlog in the building industry and in the provision of buildings arose as a result of a shortage of building materials and a shortage of artisans to carry out approved plans. As a result of the shortage of materials and labour the erection of approved buildings could not be proceeded with so rapidly. In the 18 major urban areas, building plans in respect of flats and dwellings to the value of R118,000,000 were approved during 1965. But in that year building plans to the value of only R80,000,000 could be completed. In other words, at the end of 1965 there was a backlog of R40,000,000 in respect of flats and dwelling units. If one adds to that the buildings delayed as a result of building control, it means that at the end of 1965 there was a backlog of more than R100,000,000 in respect of approved building plans. It is therefore to be expected, surely, that there will be a decrease in the rate of approval of building plans. It is therefore not correct to suggest that the decrease in the approval of building plans is an indication of a decline as regards the provision of housing. What is even more important than the approval of building plans, is how the work is being carried out.

Yes, tell us.

That is the important point. During the first three months of 1965, buildings—that is, dwellings and flat units—to the value of R17,000,000 were completed in the 18 major urban areas. During the first three months of 1966 flat and dwelling units to the value of R21,000,000 were completed. In other words, the building of dwelling units has been accelerated by 24 per cent.

That is still too slow.

That is the kind of nonsense one gets from the other side. They complain because there has supposedly been a decline, and if one proves that there has, on the contrary, been an improvement of almost a quarter, they say it is still too slow! I may add in passing that the hon. member’s assertion that building costs have risen by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent may perhaps be true in respect of luxury houses with all kinds of embellishments added. But the experience of the Department of Community Development is that there has been an increase of between 23 per cent and 25 per cent in respect of houses for the lower income groups during approximately the past 18 months, and not of between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. We are concerned about the rise in building costs, and for that reason we have taken special steps in this regard. The Building Research Institute section of the C.S.I.R. is carrying out research in this respect. On the instructions of my predecessor my own Department inquired into preconstructed building methods. The primary object was to be able to provide accommodation at a more rapid rate.

Over what period did that increase of between 23 per cent and 25 per cent occur?

Approximately the past 18 months. Mr. Speaker, building costs remained more or less constant for a long period. Since the increase started, it has come to between 23 per cent and 25 per cent. I say we are concerned about that, and we are seeking ways and means to combat it. Research is being carried out continually. Preconstructed building has been encouraged. By means of preconstructed building methods, by building factory-constructed houses, we have until now succeeded in providing houses at a more r?nid rate. We have not yet succeeded in reducing the cost structure of houses by those means without sacrificing standards. But there are at least indications that the application of preconstructed building methods may eventually contribute towards reducing the cost structure without a concomitant sacrifice of standards. We are therefore going to concentrate on that. We must remember that the preconstructed building industry is as yet in its infancy, yet it can compete on an equal footing with the conventional building methods. That should be an indication that as these methods become accepted, as more and more use is made of them and as the turnover increases, we will and should succeed in our endeavours. Factories and undertakings that concentrate on preconstructed building should endeavour to find a cheaper method of building that does not entail standards being sacrificed. If they fail to do that, they will be unable to compete with conventional methods in the long run.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also maintained that there was a lack of planning, and as an example he mentioned the fact that there is a shortage of 4,000 houses for Whites on the Witwatersrand. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the planning there. The Department of Community Development is planning and is already at work on a total of 2,500 dwelling units in the Witwatersrand area. With funds obtained from the National Housing Commission, the local authorities are undertaking schemes for 3,876 dwelling units. Private concerns have already been granted permission for the erection of a further 3,000 dwelling units, which they are now undertaking. In other words, the total number of dwelling units being erected in the Witwatersrand complex at present is 9,376. In addition there are hotels, hostels and boarding houses, and those which are in course of erection at present will provide accommodation for about 1,000 people. We are therefore planning not only to make up the existing backlog, but also to keep pace with the normal growth-rate.

Is that for Whites?

I can give examples of that kind for almost every city in our country where there is a shortage.

He also asked the question: what is becoming of the poor pensioners? Mr. Speaker, we all have great sympathy with the aged, but we should realize that the task of accommodating the aged, who can no longer be accommodated in the usual way and who should go to homes, is in fact one that should not be shouldered by the State itself, because in a State institution one can never have the warmth which one can have in an institution controlled and run by a welfare organization. One therefore has to rely on the welfare organizations and on private concerns to provide accommodation for the aged who can no longer be accommodated in the usual way. In that respect the Government has done everything in its power to enable those organizations to provide accommodation for the aged. I am referring to the one-twentieth per cent they receive on their loans, to the subsidy they receive on furniture, and to the per capita subsidy they receive. From 1st October of this year the per capita subsidy for infirm, aged persons will be increased from R10 to R17.50 per month. Those private concerns are therefore continually being encouraged by diverse means, and I want to show you what the results have been, because results count: In 1953 there were 36 homes for the aged for a total of 2,000 White inmates.

For the entire country?

Yes, for the entire country. In 1966, 122 homes for 6,489 have been completed for the entire country, and a further 47 homes for the aged are being erected for a further 3,229, and in the case of 13 of the existing institutions extensions are now being made to provide for a further 420 inmates. With this scheme we shall therefore have accommodation for 10,138 aged this year. In other words, we have increased the accommodation for our aged by 500 per cent during the past 13 years, while the number of old-age pensioners in our country has increased by 18 per cent. I may just mention that I myself and the Department of Social Welfare are at present inquiring into and drafting legislation to protect the aged from exploitation by unscrupulous persons who accommodate and care for them purely with a view to profit. Unfortunately there are such cases, and we are going to devote special attention to them.

Rents have been mentioned here, and it has been said that we are doing nothing as regards the rising rents. The hon. member for Yeoville said: “The Government has the power; why does it not do something about the rising flat rents?” He mentioned a few examples; I can mention many more. It is correct that there is enabling legislation, but a lengthy and detailed inquiry into each particular case is required. During the past months I have placed numerous buildings under rent control. The whole of Kempton Park was recently placed under rent control. But because that process is too cumbersome, the Government has decided that during this Session we shall introduce and try to pass legislation to authorize me to introduce rent control by proclamation and without instituting those preliminary inquiries, and it is intended to pilot that legislation through this House as soon as possible, and then to apply rent control to all buildings and all business premises which are already in existence to-day. It will not apply to new buildings which are not yet inhabited or occupied, but to all existing premises, dwellings and business premises rent control will be applied immediately, as soon as we have the necessary authority. The rents will be fixed at what they were at 31st May of this year. I should just like to point out that we appreciate what the private sector has done as regards the provision of accommodation. The State on its own cannot possibly meet all the country’s requirements, and we should not like these measures which one necessarily has to take in times of emergency, in times when there is inflation, in times when there is a shortage of accommodation, to become a permanent institution, with the result that it would deter investors from investing in that sector. I must therefore point out that just as the tenant has the right to appeal to the Rent Board if he considers that the rent he is charged is too high, so too will landlords who consider that as a result of circumstances beyond their control—rising interest rates, etc.—they are not receiving the rents to which they are entitled, have the right to appeal to the Rent Board. The Rent Boards will then be instructed to look after the interests of the landlords as well, with due regard to current rates and circumstances, so that justice will be done to both tenants and landlords as far as it is possible to do so. All increases introduced after 31st May—that is, from 1st June—will therefore be declared invalid.

With retrospective effect?

Yes. I want to appeal to landlords to take these facts into account when collecting rents. I just want to add that the Bill to be introduced later will contain certain further provisions, one of which will be to enable me to release areas or buildings or groups of buildings from rent control at any time. We should not like to retain this measure as a permanent measure, and we also want to make the lifting of rent control easier than it is at present. Certain other anomalies and loopholes in the Rents Act will be eliminated at the same time, as in this one instance which I want to mention, where landlords let a number of flats or rooms on condition that the tenants are to receive a cup of coffee and a slice of toast in the mornings. But for that cup of coffee and slice of toast the rent of the flat is virtually doubled. Such cases have in fact come to my notice.

At the same time the Government has given attention to the problem of rents for buildings provided by the State, by the Housing Commission and by the municipalities. It has been decided to increase the qualifying limit in respect of sub-economic dwellings, which in the past was an income limit of R80 per month for Whites, to R100 per month for Whites as from 1st August. For Indians, Chinese and Coloureds, it was R50 and is being increased to R60. As regards economic dwelling units, the qualifying limit is also being raised. In the case of Whites with families of not more than two dependent children, it is being raised from R180 per month to R225 per month, and in cases where there are more than two dependant children, from R250 to R300 per month. This concession is being made because we feel that as a result of increased building costs and higher rates this group of persons, which in the past had to rely on building societies, etc., can now no longer be assisted so easily by building societies. Therefore they too will now to a large extent be assisted by the State. Similarly, the qualifying limit for non-White groups, excluding the Bantu, is being increased from R180 to R225 per month. As regards rents, these remain, as far as the sub-economic groups are concerned, exactly the same as they have been until now, with the present sliding scale. As regards the group which was previously regarded as the economic group, we have the problem that a man who earns less than R100 per month is accommodated in a sub-economic dwelling, a dwelling built with capital supplied at an interest of 1 per cent, but if he earns R101 he can no longer be accommodated in a sub-economic dwelling; he then has to be accommodated in an economic dwelling, where he has to pay the full current rate of interest. It has therefore been decided that in the case of all new schemes—it cannot be applied to existing schemes because that would be administratively impossible—the rent of persons in the income group of R101 to R130 will be calculated at an interest rate of 3 per cent on the capital outlay as from 1st August, and to calculate the rents of people in the income group of R131 to R161 at an interest rate of 5 per cent of the capital outlay. The group between R161 and R180 will pay the current Government rate of interest, but we feel that where the State is meeting these less privileged classes by providing what in actual fact amounts to a rent subsidy, there is some justification for charging people who now join for the first time—that is, Whites with fewer than two dependants and all Indians, Chinese and Coloureds, in the income group between R181 and R225 per month—a rent calculated at 8 per cent of the capital outlay. In view of the cheaper type of houses we can build, they will still be better off than they would be if they had to resort to the building societies. The same applies to Whites with more than two dependant children in the income group between R251 and R300. Their rent will in future also be calculated at an interest rate of 8 per cent on the capital outlay. I hope that these concessions will provide a large measure of relief to the large number of people who in the past could either not be assisted or, if they could be assisted, could not afford the rents. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has announced a number of steps which, he said, are aimed at improving the position of the house-owner. But why should we always have the situation in South Africa that a crisis first has to arise before the necessary steps are taken to ensure that adequate housing is available?

No, there is no crisis; there is only a crisis in the United Party.

Over the past number of years housing has become a fantastic problem in South Africa, and one of the main reasons why it has become a problem is that this Government started a large-scale immigration scheme—and we are grateful for that—but started it without ensuring that adequate housing was available in South Africa. To-day one can go to any urban or peri-urban area, and one will find a tremendous shortage of housing. Here we have another example of lack of foresight on the part of the Government. They have not planned for the future of South Africa and they have not planned for a larger White population. The hon. the Minister had a great deal to say, but I wonder whether he read the statement which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times—

The hon. the Minister did not use this opportunity to comment on that report. That is what is happening in South Africa at present.

Did you not hear the Minister of Finance say that he was negotiating with building societies in order to eliminate that kind of thing, or would take powers to prohibit that?

Mr. Speaker, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I want to make. According to what the hon. the Minister said here at the beginning of his speech to-day, one thought that the house-owner was going to pay less than he is paying at the moment. It is due to the policy of this Government that this state of affairs has developed in South Africa. Surely the hon. the Minister is not trying to tell us that the increase in the bank rate would have resulted in those people paying lower rents! If there is one thing this Government should bear in mind, it is that our people cannot enjoy a decent home life unless they have decent accommodation. That was the promise this Government made before 1948: a house for every family in South Africa. To what extent have they succeeded in carrying out that promise? Under the present circumstances I foresee it becoming less and less possible for every family to have decent accommodation. There is not a single member in this House who does not day after day receive representations from people who are finding it very difficult to obtain flats and houses. In that respect this Government has a tremendous leeway to make up.

I want to return to the motion of censure. It goes without saying, of course, that this Government will be proud of its achievement in the past general election, and they will naturally regard as presumptuous any suggestion that their policy did not receive the approval of the electorate. But it is essential to determine for what reasons this Government won the past election. They claim that the result of the past election amounts to an endorsement of their policy. Sir, I want to submit that the Nationalist Party obtained its majority not because it is carrying out its policy of separate freedom and separate states, but for the very reason that it is not carrying out that policy. Nobody in South Africa believes that the Government is really carrying out that policy. We have all had the experience of hearing Nationalist voters hotly denying that it is their policy to establish separate states in South Africa.

Whom, for example?

The hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party.

You are talking nonsense.

He also paid a visit to my constituency during the past election campaign, and what did he say there? That, of course, was the reason why we had such a large majority in that constituency. What did he say there? There he did not speak of separate freedom and separate states.

Development along their own lines.

He spoke of development along their own lines and of separate development. There is a wide difference between separate development, development along their own lines and separate freedom. During the past election they published an enormous manifesto in every newspaper, and the contents of that manifesto were taken from the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House in January this year. I do not know how many people read that, because it is a tremendously long manifesto; but as for their apartheid policy and separate freedom—one just about has to use a magnifying glass to find any reference to them. Let me read to you what is printed here (translation)—

Why do you not quote from Hansard?

Why? I can also quote from Hansard what the Prime Minister said. Why did not hon. members on the other side take the Prime Minister’s speech as it appeared in Hansard and publish it just like that? What did he say, according to Hansard? He said (Hansard, Vol. 16, col. 66)—

Hear, hear!

In that speech he referred specifically to “freedom”, but they have to come to the electorate with “development along their own lines” and “self-government”. But, Mr. Speaker, the past election was not the first in which one encountered this equivocation. In 1961 the late Dr. Abraham Jonker, the then member for Fort Beaufort, sent out an election manifesto, and what did he tell the voters in that? This concealment of their policy had started even then. They were too embarrassed to state their policy of separate freedom directly and unequivocally. Let me quote what he said—and this is all that he said—about the Nationalist Party’s colour policy (translation)—

In other words, they will not be granted self-government either. They will only get self-government when they become ripe for it under the guidance of the Whites.

Of course. Do you want to grant them self-government before they are ripe for it?

The hon. the Prime Minister told us very clearly in this House in 1962 that one cannot have different national entities in the same community and that one should draw clear boundary lines before one can grant separate freedoms.

But we still adhere to that policy.

I also have here the election manifesto of the hon. member for Uitenhage, and what did he say in it? He said: Vote National, because he stand, firstly, for a White South Africa, apartheid—not separate freedom or separate development or self-government—and a White Parliament. He mentions only those three things. I submit that during the past election the Nationalist Party presented its colour policy to the people of South Africa in the most ambiguous fashion. That is the only reason why they won the election. They also won by giving a slanted representation of the policy of the United Party. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were above all others the persons who were guilty of that by saying the following, for example. What did the Prime Minister say about the United Party? “Having mixed churches is the object of the United Party.” The insinuation there is, of course, that if the United Party came into power, it would change all our Afrikaans Churches, the churches which the Afrikaners hold dear, into mixed churches. The Minister of Finance went so far as to say from a platform: “The United Party and Mao Tse Tung, the communist, are on the same platform.” That was the kind of thing the Nationalist Party used during the past election to win the election, not on their colour policy, not on the policy of separate states or separate freedom. No, they are too cautious to submit that policy to the electorate. The Nationalist Party is the party which says one moment that the Bantu are to be removed altogether from our White areas, and the next moment that the Bantu are to be brought back. The finest example of that is provided by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. That hon. member is the great advocate of having a pure White man’s land in the Western Cape; he is the great advocate of the policy that the Bantu are to disappear from the Western Cape altogether. He claims that the Nationalist Party is the only party that ventures. He agrees with the hon. member for Primrose that one cannot build up South Africa on a Black population; that the Black population should be removed from the White areas altogether. What did the hon. member for Moorreesburg say? He said: “The National Party has a leader and a party that have the courage to venture, that in the coming years will be able to create a new labour pattern, in which there will be no need for the White man to rely permanently on the Black man for his survival.” That was what he said during the election campaign, but only three months later he wrote a letter to the Press. And what did he say then? He said that instead of 36,000 Bantu coming to the Cape Town-Bellville area, some Bantu should be moved to the West Coast. One moment they want to remove them, but the next moment the Bantu may enter or simply move. But, Sir, if one considers what the people of South Africa did not give them in this election, what this Government failed to do; if we look, for example, at what has happened to our agricultural industry—to what extent has this Government succeeded in gaining the people’s approval for that? To what extent have they succeeded during the past 16 years of their régime in keeping the Whites in the rural areas? Because one can only keep the Whites in the rural areas if the agricultural industry is sound. But if one looks at what is said by a man like Mr. Theo Gerdener, the Administrator of Natal, one sees that he presents to us a very sombre picture of the present position in the rural areas, a sombre picture of what has taken place over the past 17 years, because the Government did not see to it that our agricultural industry was in a sound state. And I want to say that that process will continue with gathering momentum and intensity unless this Government adopts a different attitude towards our agricultural industry. They will never save the rural areas of South Africa unless they look after the basic industry practised there, and that is agriculture. Why have we found the rural areas becoming depopulated? Why have the farmers left the rural areas to go to the cities? Not because they wanted to do so, but because they were forced by circumstances; because, in the first place, they had to be contented for so many years with uneconomic prices for their agricultural products. They have left the rural areas because for so many years they have had to contend with an ever-increasing trend in production costs. And, Sir, you need not accept my figures, or those of the agricultural leaders. You need only look at their own reports to see what the position is at present. According to the latest Annual Report of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, producers’ prices increased during the period from 1948 to 1965. For all products they increased from 95 to 164, an increase of 69. All farming requirements increased from 93 to 161, an increase of only 68. In other words, the prices of products increased by 1 per cent more than did the means of production.

In other words, the balance was maintained.

No, how can you tell me the balance was maintained? Surely that is utter nonsense. If it was not for the fact that the farmer has increased his own productivity, I would have been surprised to find 20,000 of them left in the rural areas today. It is only due to the fact that the farmer, through his own appreciation of matters and his own initiative, has been able to cope with this discrepancy between production costs and producers’ prices that he has been able to survive; not as a result of the policy of this Government, because they have failed to see to this kind of difficulty. I submit that that is one of the major reasons, and not droughts, and not because the people have received tremendously high prices for their land. It is well known and it is accepted that the South African farmer wants to remain on his land and is forced to leave it only when he no longer sees his way clear to maintaining his standard of living and meeting his commitments. With regard to the steps recently taken by the Minister of Finance—which he told us would not affect the farmer to any great extent because the banks had been requested not to curtail the farmers’ credit—I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that because we are not yet sure what the Land Bank’s policy will be in respect of its loans and whether its rates of interest will also be increased, he should not forget that the commitments of the farmers of South Africa total approximately R1,000,000,000, and that an increase of only 1 per cent means that they will have to pay R10,000,000 per year more. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that that will have no effect on production costs? That, and not only drought, will be one of the reasons why the man who is already in difficulties will now be even harder hit; because although not all farmers have commitments in respect of the Farmers’ Assistance Board or the Land Bank, they will have to pay exactly the same interest on their overdrafts and mortgage loans as other people, as a direct result of this Government’s lack of foresight.

It has been announced before with a great fanfare that the farmer of South Africa will be assisted in times of drought, and schemes are announced every so often, but there are numerous instances of areas which have suffered droughts over the past few years, and particularly during this year. How many areas did not have adequate supplies of maize? In how many districts like Calvinia and Williston did the people have difficulty in obtaining maize? We know that lucerne is at present almost unobtainable, not through any fault of the farmers, but as a result of Government policy. They told the farmers: Plough up your lucerne; we cannot give you a decent price for it. They did that despite the fact that we know that that is one of the most important means of assistance in times of droughts. I repeat, if there has ever been an outstanding example of lack of foresight on the part of the Government, then it is surely in respect of our agricultural industry. We have had enough of emotional problems in this country, enough of those things which stir up emotions. The individual, the salaried man, the farmer and the wage-earner now expect their interests to be looked after in the next five years; and if there is any appeal I should like to make to the Ministers of Agriculture, it is the following: Forget about blaming the farmer on the land for everything; forget about blaming everything on the high prices of land. See what you can do to reduce production costs and to plan so as to ensure that we will not lose so much of our stock in times of drought. See what you can do about our soil and water conservation. If they do that, we shall not accuse them of lacking foresight. We shall be grateful if they accept our advice, and the farmers of South Africa will also be grateful if the Minister adopts a different attitude to the one he adopted at his congress in the Transvaal last year, when he told the farmers: “Which of you, in which constituency, still represent the majority of the voters?”

I have known the hon. member for Newton Park, who has just sat down, for many years as a very modest person, but I think the hon. member has proved in this House this afternoon that he has good reason to be modest. Because the hon. member has once again proved how bankrupt the United Party really is. He is the person who is actually the chairman of the agricultural group of the United Party, but two-thirds of his speech this afternoon was devoted to the Bantu problem and the housing problem. As regards housing, I just want to tell him that this National Government spent over R400,000,000 on housing for Whites from 1948 to 1965, and does he know how much the United Party spent on housing over a more or less equally long period? A mere R60,000,000. As regards the Bantu problem he raised here, I want to say that until the United Party has learnt that in this country there is room for only one of two alternative policies in respect of our Bantu problem, namely the policy of integration advocated by the hon. member for Houghton, or the separate freedoms policy advocated by the National Government on the other hand, it will continue to be slain on the political battlefield of South Africa. But, Sir, so much for that hon. member, except that I just want to say this to him in respect of the agricultural aspects which he only mentioned briefly in the two or three minutes before he resumed his seat. During the 18 years this National Government has been in office, it has proved to the farmer of South Africa that it looks after his interests. And I want to tell him that this Government will prove to the farmer during the next five years that in spite of the drought, the Government will continue to look after the interests of the farmer better than any other government this country has had in its history, and the farmer in this country knows that.

I now want to waste no time in making the following introductory observations in connection with the debate we have had during the past few days. The first is that the United Party—and I want to express myself in very strong terms—has proved in this debate that it still looks at South Africa’s problems through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe. I am expressing myself in strong terms, but I can account for that. Sir, I shall tell you why I say that. When this National Party came into power in 1948 the Opposition began to use one of the dirtiest moves against this Government that any Opposition is capable of using, and that is consistently to vilify this Government during all those 18 years, by using one of the worst swear-words one can possibly use against anybody in the world to-day, and that swear-word is Nazism.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “swearword”.

I withdraw, but I say that the United Party, because it is trying to seek an entrée with South Africa’s enemies outside South Africa, specifically the African states, after the decision of the World Court, has once again come to this House and has said, through one speaker after another in this debate, that this Government is a Nazi government. The people outside realize what a tremendous disservice the United Party is doing South Africa by telling these stories here. The result of this type of agitation conducted and allegation made against the National Government—and I want to quote a few examples—leads to the sort of reporting which I lay directly at the door of the United Party, and which is sent out into the world by South African “stringers” about South Africa, this sort of thing which appeared comparatively recently—

If words like “Nazism” and “totalitarianism” are so freely bandied about by the United Party in this House, which is a responsible body, one must expect that some “stringers”—and some of them are Afrikaans “stringers”—would send out reports of this type into the world, reports which branded this country in the past and are still branding it to-day with words such as “Hitler’s Germany”, “Nazism”, “Fascism”, and so forth. Here is another example—

which was sent out into the world from Cape Town the other day; and I should like to see and hear what the “stringers” are going to send out after this debate. For that reason I say that I lay that directly at the door of the United Party. I want to quote the following further examples—

The United Party is to blame for reports of this type being sent out into the world. I just want to quote a last example which occurred the other day—

That is a lie.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say it is a lie?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

Yes, and I withdraw it.

I want to read this quotation from a report which came from Cape Town the other day—

As a result of this sort of irresponsibility on the part of the United Party in this House, that is what happens in respect of South Africa.

But the United Party proved a second point in this debate, and I now come back to the first point I made. That is that the United Party really likes the worker in South Africa. It likes to see the worker work, but nothing more. If it had liked the workers in a different sense, we would not have had this negative attitude from the United Party in this debate. Then it would at least have come forward with positive suggestions. That is why the United Party once again flapped all over the place like a crazy starling without achieving anything, causing at the most only a minor political disturbance and nothing more. I want to tell the United Party that under these circumstances it is very exciting for the Nationalists on this side of the House to be shot at without being hit at all.

I now want to deal particularly with the hon. member for Durban (Point), who yesterday showed himself in this House to be not only the army chaplain of the United Party, but also the Carpio of the United Party, because he “Carpionized” here in a manner I have never before had the privilege of seeing. For those who do not know what “Carpionizing” means,—and I hope I am expressing myself in Parliamentary language, Sir—it not only means to slant the truth; it means to go the whole hog. I refer specifically to what the hon. member said the hon. the Prime Minister was supposed to have said at the Voortrekker Monument on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Republic of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that those were solemn moments, and it was he who got up in this House a few months ago and said that the two main things the United Party should do were to create an image of patriotism to the outside world, and, secondly, to convince the people that the United Party could be trusted with the future of the Whites. He said here yesterday that the Prime Minister had said at the Monument: “We have experienced 60 years of defeat for the South African nation.” The first question I want to ask is: Was he at the Monument?

I said I had heard it over the radio.

Presumably with a cup of coffee next to the hon. member. I want to ask him if he, a front bencher, before sending out into the country this kind of attack against the Prime Minister, took the trouble of getting the speech by the Prime Minister—which he had only listened to—before making this sort of allegation here? He gave his version here of a statement which I cannot find anywhere in the speech made by the Prime Minister, which I have in my hand and I challenge him to show me the words which he read to the House yesterday; and if he cannot do so I can come to only one conclusion, that he must go and learn Afrikaans or adopt a different method of listening to what the Prime Minister says on the radio on solemn occasions, before he as a responsible front-bencher stands up in this House and says these things. I now want to quote precisely what the Prime Minister said on that solemn occasion (translation)—

He said that the Prime Minister had said that we had had 60 years of defeat. The Prime Minister was so magnanimous that he did not exclude even the hon. member for Durban (Point) on that occasion. I quote further—

A little further on in the same speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) used the following sentence in English and ascribed it to the Prime Minister—

Nowhere in his speech did the Prime Minister say anything like that. On the contrary, and that is where the impropriety of this attack on the Prime Minister comes in, the purport of the entire speech by the Prime Minister is the very opposite, namely our continued successes in all spheres under the influence of all our ideals, and particularly the Republican ideal. I quote again from the Prime Minister’s speech—

And then the Prime Minister mentioned each of them separately—

And then this hon. member and his party want to pose as a patriotic party. I could express myself in unparliamentary terms. But I also want to say this to the hon. member for Durban (Point). His speech yesterday reminded me—because it really seemed to me to be the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe from which to view matters—of an orchestra consisting of drums only. In that orchestra there is no melody, no violins and no harps, not even a piano, because his party does not have those things, and I can indeed say to him that it was a feeble attempt at a big roar by a little “Raw”.

But I can hardly wait to deal with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I noticed him at the Monument the night the Prime Minister spoke. I also want to tell the hon. Leader that those were solemn moments, and that one does not expect the Leader of the Opposition to come to this House and to do what he did as far as the Prime Minister was concerned and to send such a statement into the country. Because what did he do? He said the Prime Minister only berated Botha and Smuts. But what is the true position?

That is not what I said.

That is the implication of what you said. What are the real facts? The real facts of the matter are—and I am going to quote again from the Prime Minister’s speech—that the Prime Minister gave a very magnanimous account of the limited significance of Botha and Smuts, even up to the birth of the republican ideal of liberty, to which Smuts and Botha were opposed. And he did that in a characteristic way. I am sorry I do not have the time to repeat them in full, but these were the words of the Prime Minister (translation)—

I think it is to the discredit of the Leader of the Opposition that he should make allegations of that kind about solemn moments, and that is why the people reserve their contempt for people who refuse to adopt an attitude and for a party which refuses to adopt an attitude and which then wants to pose as the great patriots of South Africa. For that reason I have no hesitation in saying that the cracks in the United Party as it is sitting over there are already apparent to a trained eye. One only has to look at the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville and Durban (Point) and Durban (North) to see the cracks clearly in front of one, and we do not need a prophet to predict that it will not take long before the United Party begins to splinter once again. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made so many twists and turns in his time that my head is already beginning to turn.

The hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment, but I want to give him something to think about. That is the Party which has accused the Government in this debate of being sectional. The hon. member for Wynberg also said so. I am sorry I do not have the time to reply to the absurd statements she made. But I want to show what kind of a party the United Party is according to what the hon. member for Yeoville has said, and I quote from a newspaper of 14th November, 1965, in which it is stated that the hon. member for Yeoville said the following at the United Party congress—

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read the following. This is what he said about the Prime Minister—

To my mind the difference between these two parties, as again revealed in this debate to-day, cannot be better summarised than was done in the Natal Mercury of 1st January, 1966, that is to say, when the decision of the World Court still hung like a. sword over everybody in South Africa. In that edition of the Natal Mercury Dr. Verwoe rd’s New Year’s message was announced under the heading: “Confidence in the future.” On the reverse side of the page the New Year’s message of the Leader of the Opposition appeared under the heading: “Many problems.” While this newspaper had only one small paragraph on what the Leader of the Opposition had said, virtually the whole of the rest of the page was devoted to the Prime Minister’s message of “Confidence in the Future,” confidence born of true nationalism, love of that which is one’s own, and not from the kind of passivity and negativity of the United Party. And as long as the United Party cannot free itself from these things, so long they may continue to conjure up any sort of image of the United Party without winning the confidence of the people, because so long will they be rejected by the people and will they continue to be reduced to splinter groups. With regard to the message of the Leader of the Opposition The Natal Mercury carried the following report—

For that reason one may indeed call the Leader of the United Party Sir De Villiers “Problem” Graaff, because that is how he has always seen matters and that is why the United Party is so negative in its approach to the country’s affairs. In what light did the United Party reveal itself in this debate, for example? It revealed itself as colourless, as spineless, as spiritless, as hopeless, as helpless, as discouraged and as a party without a policy. That is because it is so uninspired and so incompetent. In this debate the United Party has tried to run down the Government, but they have not succeeded in doing so, and they themselves have been slain on the political battlefield. It is strange that while they were doing that I came across a pamphlet from Great Britain on my desk. What I now want to quote from this pamphlet is not by way of praise for the Prime Minister because I do not believe he is in need of praise; what I want to quote is to illustrate the disgraceful behaviour of the United Party, which both inside and outside this House wants to give out that South Africa is not faring well in the economic field. The pamphlet I received is entitled The Mining World and Engineering Record. The pamphlet states the following, and I want to quote it to the shame of the United Party—

That is what is being said in Great Britain. In South Africa, however, we find the United Party displaying no confidence whatsoever in South Africa.

The industrial growth during the past 15 years has been simply remarkable, something which is admitted by all the leading industrialists whether or not they support the Government. Allow me to mention a few facts in this connection. During the period from 1950 to 1965 the gross national production has more than trebled, while the physical volume of factory production increased from R889,000,000 in 1960 to R1,384,000,000 in 1965. Over a period of five years the actual employment of workers from all races increased by more than 30 per cent. Steel production increased by 76.5 per cent over a period of five years, the supply of electric power by more than 50 per cent, while the chemical industry, which in 1950 was only in its initial stage, developed in the meantime into a complex of industries to-day manufacturing even specialized products such as synthetic rubber. Such was then the miraculous progress made by the South African economy. But now the United Party comes along and accuses the National Party of a lack of foresight. According to Cols. 34 and 35 of the 1960 Hansard, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in that year that the Government had placed its foot on the brake of economic development in South Africa. That was the foresight it revealed on the eve of the greatest economic development ever experienced by this country. A year later this economic development was already proceeding strongly, a development described by industrialists and economists outside this House as phenomenal and miraculous. And yet, according to Hansard, Col. 4160, the hon. Leader of the Opposition got up in this House in 1961 and said—

That gave rise to laughter. The hon.. the Leader of the Opposition thereupon continued and said—

No wonder that the United Party is in the same boat as the old lady who accidentally landed on the oven and got it “hot-agter.” Experts have calculated that with an increase of 5f per cent per annum in the growth rate of the country’s economy, the domestic product will amount to approximately R14,400,000 by 1980, which indicates at the same time that the standard of living of the South African people will be able to double itself by the year 1990. The man in the street must inevitably share in this soundly based economy which is waiting for us in the future. Every sensible person realizes that proceeding along such an economic course presents its temporary problems and requires temporary sacrifices.

Some of the members of the United Party spoke about the philosophy of the National Party. I now want to ask the United Party two questions in this regard. Do they not agree with the requirements for good government laid down by all the foremost international experts? Do they not agree that the primary requirement for good government is the maintenance of law and order? Look at the National Party’s fine record in this regard. One need not hesitate to compare it with that of America and of Great Britain. The other question I want to put to the United Party is whether they do not agree with all the distinguished international economic experts who regard political stability and labour peace, which in turn create a healthy climate for investment, as prerequisites for a sound economy? [Time limit.]

I am going to waste very little time indeed on the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Primrose. It has been a bitter and arrogant speech—in short, the speech of a demagogue. His speech is indicative of the contempt in which this Broederbond dominated Nationalist Party holds the farming community of this country because after the leader of the agricultural group of the United Party drew attention to the grave problems facing that community the Nationalist Party replied by putting up a speaker of that kind. His only reference to agricultural matters was the promise “Hierdie Nasionale Regering sal na die landbouer kyk”. I do not blame the hon. member for having had nothing else to say because he knows so little about agriculture. But what about this promise? If we have to judge by the record of this Government over the past few years then Heaven help the farmers of this country if this Government has to continue to look after their interests. In the past this Government failed signally in this respect. But this statement of the hon. member is in line with the sort of statement made by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself last year when at a time when all the agricultural leaders in the country were stressing the economic difficulties of the agricultural industry the Prime Minister on 2nd February said in this House in reply to an accusation that the agricultural community was not participating in the prosperity of the country: “It is said that groups, such as e.g. the farmers, do not share in the prosperity of the country. Surely that is obviously nonsense.” Since then, however, the Prime Minister has attended the Transvaal congress of his party in company with the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and what was said there by the delegates to the congress should have served to give him a better insight into the problems facing agriculture in this country.

He has removed one Minister already.

Yes, Sir, we have a new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. We on this side of the House welcome him although we all feel sorry for him on account of the load of problems which has been be queathed to him. But we wish him well in solving those problems. Many of these problems are long-term ones. Yesterday the hon. member for Klipriver in his maiden speech drew attention to the fact that by the year 2000 this country would have to support a population of 40,000,000. Now, if there is one true thing about agriculture, that is that it is a strategic industry. It is a basic industry without which there cannot be any development. Throughout this debate attention has been drawn to the difficulties and dangers facing our country but if there is one industry which we cannot allow to stagnate or go backwards, that industry is the agricultural industry because if ever we are faced with pressures from outside we cannot simply turn on the tap in order to revive an industry which is under the weather, tottering on its feet.

In the light of the likely population increase of this country, it is up to this Government—and so far they have shown few signs of realizing it—to devise a long-term plan to safeguard and increase the production capacity of the agricultural industry. Price fixing should be co-ordinated and there should be coordination in other fields amongst the various bodies governing the agricultural industry. The prime requisite is that we should ensure an adequate food supply, a food supply available to the consumer at prices which he can afford. We know that consumers in this country are to-day very hard pressed indeed by rises in the cost of living. Let this Government please not repeat its mistake of the past by thinking that they can assure cheap food for the consumer by keeping down the producers’ prices. That is a mistake which was made with the beef industry, with the result that to-day we are experiencing a terrible shortage of this commodity. It was a mistake also made in fixing prices in the diary industry, with the result that thousands of dairy cows were sold. There is another matter to which the Government seems to pay no attention at all. That is that in the minds of the consumers of the country there seems to be a connection between rises in consumers’ prices and rises in producers’ prices. There is of course a connection but that connection is being exaggerated whilst the Government is doing nothing to counteract it. Let me give some examples of this. Last year when the K.W.V. raised the producers’ price of certain wines by 2c the wholesale price was raised by 4c and the retail price by 15c. When the producers’ price per gallon of milk on the Wit-watersrand and Pretoria was raised a few months ago by 2c the consumers’ price was raised by ½c per pint, that is, 4c per gallon. The reason for doing that was perhaps that you could not push up the price of milk by ¼c per pint. But in June of 1964 the same thing happened when the producers’ price was raised by 2c when the price to the consumer was also raised by 4c. If they had to do it then because they could not raise the price by ¼c per pint then surely there was no reason now for raising it by another ½c per pint.

Do you only sell milk by the pint?

The Government has done nothing about it. It is quite clear that we cannot rely on imports because when we are short of one particular commodity it is also difficult to obtain that commodity on the overseas market. What is more, we have an inflationary situation in this country, a situation which has been aggravated by the actions of this Government and a situation in which one of the prime requirements is that the producers of this country should reduce their production costs. The hon. member for Newton Park has already drawn attention to the rise in prices of production requirements. There is a lot this Government can do at least to slow down this increase. Here let me say that I hope that the hon. the Minister of Transport will not later in the Session have some shocks in store for the farmers of the country in so far as rates are concerned. Now let me say that the economic position of the farming community simply cannot stand up to any appreciable increase in rail rates in so far as agricultural products are concerned.

There are many fields in which the Government can and should help the farmer to reduce his costs. They are, however, not doing so. First of all I should like to refer to the question of training. The Deputy Minister has recently made a statement about this and stated that we needed more trained farmers. With that I agree but how can we expect that there should be more trained farmers if their remains one region at least where there is no college? Here I am referring to the Eastern Cape grassveld region. Training facilities are also required for farm managers. Here the same argument applies. There is still another aspect, in previous years we had a farm foreman class on the farm but they are there no longer. They have gone into the cities where they can draw higher wages in factories. The reason for them shifting to the towns is that farming has been relatively an unprofitable proposition because farmers could not pay them wages equivalent to those they can earn in the cities. So the day has come that we must turn to other sources, including non-White sources, for more farm foremen.

This brings me to a subject which I have raised before in this House and it is unfortunate that it is necessary for me to rasie it again but I am forced to do so because this Government has done absolutely nothing about it. This is the question of training Bantu labour on our farms. Wages paid out by a farmer to his workmen constitute a considerable proportion of his expenses. For the year 1961-62, for example, farmers in South Africa paid out in cash an amount of R96,000,000 as wages in addition to R28,000,000 in kind. It is no exaggeration when I say that our Bantu farm labour is untrained, inefficient and unreliable. Every farmer knows this. The farmer is being burdened more and more with paper work, and with filling in returns required by Government Departments. Because he has an inefficient and unreliable labour force it is difficult for the farmer to get down to it and maintain his farm as an economic unit. He is forced to spend too much of his time chasing around supervising his labourers. Modern farming is something demanding skill and, therefore, skilled workmen. So I say it is a matter of urgency in the interests of the Bantu themselves, not to speak of the interests of the farmers, that something should be done to uplift the rural Bantu. The Government, however, is doing nothing about it. These problems will increase as farms in our country become larger, a tendency which is manifest to-day and to which apparently the Government is not averse, because it is doing nothing to stop the flow of farmers to the big cities at the rate of 2,400 per annum. It was said by a machinery manufacturer that we in this country use more spare parts per tractor than is the case in any other country. The repair and maintenance bill for our farming machinery is something like R34,500,000 per annum. But whereas machinery may be ill-used stock may not. This is a problem for the stock farmer.

It is not training only that is needed but also the provision of the basic amenities of life to the Bantu labourers on our farms. I hope, therefore, that once the Borckenhagen Commission reports the Minister of Finance will give attention to this aspect, to the fact that the farmer is being discriminated against because whereas municipalities can get housing loans in order to enable them to provide housing for Bantu in the municipal areas there is no form of credit available to the farmer for that purpose. What is more, the farmer in the Cape is being discriminated against also to the extent that where he does provide housing for his labourers out of his own capital resources he has to pay Divisional Council rates on such housing. The economic adviser to the Prime Minister in a radio talk on 26th June this year put the problem very well. He said—

It is strange that the Government is following this advice in many spheres. For example, we have technical training schools in some of the big cities of which Port Elizabeth is one. There is also one near the Cyril Lord factory at East London where the Department of Bantu Education is running eight-weeks’ courses training 300-400 workers per annum.

But what is being done to train Bantu labourers on our farms? In this field nothing at all is being done by this Government. Such training is, however, being given by the Government to the Bantu in their own reserves. That is, for instance, being done at the agricultural college at Fort Cox where peasant farmers and demonstrators are being trained. Training is also being given at Tsolo in the Transkei and at Taungs. The farmers, however, have to see what can be done in this respect themselves. They do not get any assistance from the Government. It must be remembered that the farmer does not have the same resources as the major industrialist or manufacturer has to train his labourers, particularly when it has to be done by audiovisual methods. The farmer has to look to his farmers’ associations and to his co-ops and even to an oil company. So great is the need that even an oil company is going round giving demonstrations. This is a function of the Government but they are neglecting it. They are neglecting to solve one of the biggest problems of high cost production in this country, namely the inefficiency of farm labour. The reason why they are neglecting it is not far to seek.

It is because they are “Boerehaters”.

Yes, that may be one of the reasons. Another reason can be found in what the economic adviser to the Prime Minister has had to say when he talked about the training of non-White labour. He said that—

Here again we come to the problem of warping our economy by pursuing this particular political line of thinking. What the limits are the economic adviser referred to becomes clear from a letter written in 1964 by the Secretary of Bantu Administration to a farmer in the Free State. In that it was said that—

I want hon. members particularly to note this last sentence of this quotation.

There you have it, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no training because of this Nationalist Governments ideology. What is more, this theory that these people are visitors and that they are going to go back to their own particular homelands is not even in accordance with the facts. I wonder how many hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House who are farmers do not pride themselves on the fact that they have had on their farms for 10 or 20 years good and reliable farm servants. The hon. member for Yeoville quoted yesterday what was said by a delegate to a South Western Districts agricultural union congress; He said:

Mr. Speaker, the position is that the Bantu are actually increasing in rural areas despite the policy of this Government to get them out. In the last 17 years up to the end of 1965 they have increased by 1,400,000. In one district alone, the district of Alexandria, their number doubled from 17,000 in 1952 to 34,000 in 1962. Even if we accept this theory that these people are going to go back to their homelands, why can this Government not see to it that they are trained to work efficiently when they do go into the White areas to work? If the Government is not prepared to train them in the White areas themselves, why will it not train them within the Bantu areas so that they can be efficient when they go to work in a White area for White farmers? Mr. Speaker, this provision of training is not such a big problem. If the Government does not wish to establish permanent training schools in the White areas, there are other means open to them such as mobile training units. This is only one way in which the Government can help the farmer to help himself, to reduce his production costs and to provide the food that our people need at prices that they can afford to pay.

There are, however, many other ways. The shortage of veterinary surgeons was touched upon this morning. Then there is also the failure of the Government to provide electricity to the rural areas. As I have said the new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services has a great backlog to make up. Let us hope that the spirit which motivates him will be different from that of the hon. member for Primrose.

Mr. Speaker, in the final stages of this debate members of the Opposition have come to light with a few speeches on agriculture. They will probably get their reply to those speeches at a later stage. Consequently the hon. member who just sat down will forgive me for not dealing with what he said. I want to come back to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He said that we did not win the election with such a large majority as a result of our policy, but because we did not carry out our policy and did not inform the public about the real nature of our policy. His story was that we did not inform the public that the real result of our policy would be independence down the throats of those people. That is sheer nonsense. Just as it is part of the policy of the National Party to make those people entitled to independence, it is also part of the policy of the National Party that they will not receive that independence before they are ready for it. It is a slow process of emancipation and we are not going to make the same mistakes that have been made in the rest of Africa. We shall not grant those people independence before they are ready for it and before they are able to absorb it. The body which will decide whether they are ready for it is this White Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. But it is a part of our policy—the Prime Minister has made that as clear as the light of day—that if those people have it within themselves they can ultimately progress to independence. To a large extent it depends upon themselves. The hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday that we were sowing dragon teeth in the urban areas. He said that we were creating a “rootless society”—people who do not have any rights here, who have no roots here, and people who have no property rights here. He said that such a rootless society would have alarming effects. The hon. member for Brakpan asked him a question. The question was whether their policy would result in every Bantu labourer coming to the urban areas bringing his entire family along with him. The hon. member said that it was a fair question, but I am still waiting on a reply to that question.

Were you not listening?

The only thing the hon. member said was, “We want to build a middle class”. Now I want to ask him outright, “Is it the policy of his Party that each Bantu labourer who goes to Johannesburg should or should be able to take his entire family along with him?”

You will get your reply.

When shall I get the reply? We could not get the reply yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I say that he does not have the courage to give the reply.

Mr. Speaker, may I be given the opportunity of replying now?

The hon. member is being ridiculous.

On a point of order…

Order!

Yesterday the hon. member had the opportunity of giving his reply when that question was put to him. The hon. member should know what the position in this House is. However, I concede to the hon. member that we would have been creating a rootless society if it were our intention to keep those Bantu labourers in the urban areas for all times. The hon. member does not believe that we shall succeed in decreasing the number of Bantu labourers in the metropolitan areas. But I have a surprise for that hon. member. We are going to succeed in doing that. It will not be the first time that the National Party has done things which seemed impossible to the Opposition.

When are you going to start?

We are already engaged on that and I shall deal with that in a short while.

The hon. member for Newton Park argued that this Government had been in power for 18 years and that it had done very little to carry out its policy. It is a foolish statement to say that the Government has had 18 years in which to carry out its policy. It is true that the Government has been in power for 18 years, but during those 18 years the Government has had to deal with problems such as no other government in South Africa has had to deal with. During those years it has had to solve problems such as no other government has ever had to solve.

You are creating your own problems.

I shall mention a few of those problems. There has been the constitutional struggle which dominated the debates in this House for many years. I want to refer to the slum conditions which developed after the war, when there were literally hundreds of thousands of squatters living all around Johannesburg. The slum conditions which developed were of such a nature that the district surgeon of Johannesburg said that if those squatters and slums were not removed the health of the entire population of Johannesburg would be endangered. When one has such a problem on one’s hands one cannot simply say that one was going to leave that problem as it was and was going to develop the homelands or the border industries. The most urgent problems have to be solved first. It has been this Government’s task to clear up the worst and the most appalling slum conditions in South Africa. This Government has had to clear up the shanty towns surrounding Johannesburg in which hundreds of thousands of squatters lived under the most unhygienic conditions, and it has done so against the wishes of the Johannesburg City Council and of that party. They fought against us clearing up Sophiatown and establishing Meadowlands. They opposed us on every possible front. Johannesburg placed so many obstacles in the way of the then Minister of Native Affairs that he had to establish his own local authority for the removal of Sophiatown. He was faced with resistance from the Opposition, the English Press, the Johannesburg City Council, and the Anglican Church, but he had to proceed. The most serious problems have to be solved first. During those 18 years we have been sitting on a volcano. We had a condition in which law and order was getting out of hand. We were dealing with something which was nothing else but a bare-faced attempt to achieve a communistic revolution in South Africa. Need I remind the Opposition of Langa and Nvanga? Need I remind them of Sharpeville, Rivonia and the high treason case against Fischer? If it appears that the country is on the verge of bloodshed, or a revolution is imminent, one cannot say that one is going to ignore that and develop homelands and border industries. That is childish talk. There are countries which have threatened to attack us. We were refused arms by our friends and arms were given to those who threatened to attack us. One is then compelled to deal with those problems first and to spend money for building up a strong defence force in South Africa. One then has to establish one’s own arms factories. Surely one cannot say that that money should be taken away from Jim Fouché and given to De Wet Nel for developing the homelands. The most serious problems have to be solved first. We have succeeded in doing so. We have been threatened with boycotts and sanctions, even by our own friends. It has therefore been absolutely essential that we build up a strong White economy in the Republic. For that reason our position has become quite unassailable. Those, Sir, were the priorities which had to receive our attention first before we could give our undivided attention to the development of the homelands and the border areas and to decreasing Bantu labour in the metropolitan areas. The Republic had to come and it did come. However, it was only after all these problems had been solved, after the slums had been cleared, the constitutional struggle had been terminated, law and order had been maintained, a strong defence force had been built up, that our economy is so strong to-day that it is virtually unassailable. Only after all those problems had been solved, could the Government give more attention to the development and the practical application of its policy of separate development. I maintain that it is absolutely unrealistic to say that this Government has had 18 years in which to have done so. It is much more realistic to say that this Government has had four or at the utmost five years’ time for the practical application of that policy. What has the Government achieved in those four or five years? What is our task now? I repeat what I said previously. Our task is to stem the flow of Bantu labour to the metropolitan areas, to stop it and finally to turn it back, and nothing will prevent us from fulfilling that task.

You are now contradicting the Minister.

In the first instance we shall do so by developing the Bantu homelands themselves. We have already made considerable progress there. The Bantu Investment Corporation was established approximately five years ago and the Xhosa Development Corporation has just been established. What have we already achieved there? We have the furniture factory at Umtata with a turnover of more than R500,000—a furniture factory to which the hon. member for Transkei has referred as a “glorified carpenter shop”.

When did I say that?

The hon. member has said that. I want to tell the hon. member that if he owned that glorified carpenter shop he would have made much more money than from his practice. At present there is a furniture factory in Ovamboland which supplies all the schools with their desks. We are now engaged in planning a furniture factory at Letaba. The hon. member may really go and have a look at it. Near Umtata there will be a large meat and deboning factory. It will be undertaken by the B.I.C. I just want to warn the hon. member for Durban (Point) to stay away from that factory. There is a textile factory in Umtata which employs 90 Bantu women. In the near future a factory will be established near Rustenburg for the manufacture of leather articles. There is already a large brick-works in Zululand. Four large business concerns, the capital of which varies from R100,000 to R250,000, have already been established there. Four others are now in the process of planning. Four savings banks have already been established in the Bantu homelands and four more are now being planned. A total of 620 loans has been issued and 90 per cent of those businesses are successful. Those 620 loans have been issued to Bantu for shops, butcheries, cafés, garages, bus services, brick-works, grain mills, cartage contractors and undertakers. I understand that they do not deal in political funerals otherwise they would have made good business from the Opposition. At present we are engaged on major plans for expediting that development more and more. I am very optimistic that in five years’ time the appearance of the homelands would be considerably different from what it is to-day. Where we have achieved most success was in the field of border industries. The permanent committee for the establishment of border industries was appointed six years ago, but it took them a full three years to organize themselves and to overcome the prejudice of the English Press and the Chamber of Industries. For that reason this committee has only been functioning effectively for the past three years. And what has it done during the past three years? During those three years capital amounting to R300,000,000 has been invested in border industries. They employ 50,000 people of whom 41,000 are Bantu. They are directly employed in those border industries. For each of those Bantu two more are employed in related capacities, in construction works, in trade and in secondary and tertiary activities related to the development of such industries. During that short period of three years the committee has therefore succeeded in employing at least 120,000 Bantu. On a basis of five persons per family, 600,000 Bantu are in their own areas as a result of border industries. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to see those 600,000 Bantu in Johannesburg. Now, Mr. Speaker, if in a short period of three years one can keep 600,000 Bantu in their homelands, what will one not be able to do in the next three, five, or ten years? We all know that factories attract other factories and that industries attract other industries. We already have so many points of growth and they will now develop further under their own steam. The committee is now going ahead full-steam to create points of growth throughout the Bantu homelands. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask any reasonable-minded businessman: If it has been possible in three years to invest capital amounting to R300,000,000 in the homelands and to keep 600,000 Bantu in the homelands who would otherwise have come to the cities, what will it be possible to do in five years, in ten years, in 15 years? No, Sir, it seems to me my political reputation is as safe as can be.

We shall simply have to realize that fewer employment opportunities will have to be created for the Bantu in our metropolitan areas. The Bantu will no longer be brought to the factories, but the labour-intensive factories will have to be taken to the Bantu. They will have to be taken to the border areas. We are engaged on that. In this connection I want to pay a tribute to the Chamber of Industries and to every responsible industrialist on the Witwatersrand. These bodies and persons give their full support to that policy and are assisting us in carrying it out. We can no longer fight against economic laws. We cannot simply continue to create employment opportunities thinking that our Bantu will not follow those employment opportunities. We have to utilize the economic laws to carry out our policy, and that is what we are going to do by taking the factories to the border areas. One’s Bantu labour-intensive industries in one’s metropolitan areas will have to do either of two things. They will either have to mechanize and use less Bantu labour or they will have to go to the border areas. The Opposition has referred to the speech made by my Minister before the Chamber of Commerce when he warned that if the same pattern of development as had been followed in the past was going to be followed, it would result in a further 700,000 Bantu being drawn to the Witwatersrand in the next number of years. Now they say that we are strangling industrial development on the Witwatersrand. That is the biggest nonsense in the world. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he can face up to having an additional number of 700,000 Bantu on the Witwatersrand complex? Can he face up to that? Why does he not help us to arrest that position? And what about their families? Mr. Speaker, I say less Bantu labour does not mean less industrial development. We can prove that again and again. We shall have to exert ourselves, everyone will have to exert themselves, to draw capital-intensive industries to the metropolitan areas, which in turn will have to assist in forcing labour-intensive industries to the border areas.

Tremendous progress is made in that direction. I want to quote a few examples to hon. members. Because I do not have the permission of the factories concerned to do so, I shall not mention their names. But I shall furnish those names to any member who wants to know them. One particular brick-works has produced 60,000,000 bricks per annum up to now. This concern employed a minimum of 600 Bantu which number was increased to 725 in busy times. This particular firm is at present erecting a new factory. I recently paid a visit to the factory and it will come into production in the course of this month. The new factory will also produce 60,000,000 bricks per annum. And do you know what number of Bantu the new factory is going to employ? Only 60. And next year this number will be decreased to 35. Through a process of mechanization the number of Bantu has decreased from 725 to 35. In Stilfontein there is another factory which employed 152 Bantu. At present it only employs 31 Bantu and in spite of that it has doubled its production.

What happens to those who are put out of employment?

They go to the border industries. They will be absorbed there. The question just asked by the hon. member has been asked since the invention of the spinning frame. Industries bring forth industries. Industries draw other attractions and capital-intensive industries. They feed the border areas and the outside areas. Those are the economic laws of the country, those are the economic laws of the world. The largest soap factory on the Witwatersrand has informed me that it had decreased its labourforce by more than 40 per cent. They also maintained that if they were able to import the necessary machinery—something which may be somewhat difficult under present circumstances—they would be employing only one Bantu for every White by the end of next year in contrast with the present ratio of seven Bantu to four Whites. I recently gave approval for the erection of a factory on non-industrial land. I was only too willing to do so. Why? Because that factory was going to invest R1,000,000 and was going to employ 65 Whites and 42 Bantu. This is the type of factory which has to be drawn to the industrial complexes. We must have this type of factory in Cape Town, on the Witwatersrand, in the Vaal Triangle. This is the type of development we must have and, Mr. Speaker, it is the very best development we can have. When we are working in this direction then we are working in exactly the same direction as London; in exactly the same direction as Paris; in exactly the same direction as Italy. In other words, to make the over-concentrated areas less concentrated and to get the people away to what is called the “depressed areas” in England. In Italy they are sent to the “impoverished South”. In those countries this process is made compulsory. [Interjections.] No, I am not shy of 1978. However, I have played safe. I shall still be here in 1978, but that side will no longer be here. We shall talk again in 1978.

Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to the day when the homelands will have developed to such an extent that they will be able to absorb their natural increase in population, and when they will be so prosperous that the Bantu will no longer want to come to our urban areas. I am looking forward—and we are working in that direction—to the development of the border industries being such that it will be able to absorb all the superfluous Bantu in the White areas. I am looking forward to the day when the Witwatersrand and other metropolitan areas in our country will be Whiter and more prosperous economically. However, hon. members on that side do not believe in that because they do not believe that it can be done. That does not surprise me. Indeed, they did not think Iscor was possible. They did not think Sasol was possible. I clearly remember the day when the hon. member for Yeoville said here that the interest on that money came to such an amount that petrol would cost approximately 7s. per gallon. Yes, they did not believe Sasol was possible. Nor did they think that the Republic could be established. They could never have thought that our Republic outside the Commonwealth would become the most prosperous country in the world. They believed in nothing. Mr. Speaker, they are suffering from a complex. Yes, something is wrong with them. I am not a psychiatrist …

But you are a psychiatric case.

… but I read my Bible, in which is written, “The slothful man saith, ‘There is a lion in the way’.” That is the trouble with that side. They are simply lazy. They are too lazy to think, they are lazy to work, lazy to make plans, lazy to concentrate. For that reason, whenever we want to do something, they always see lions and snakes and crocodiles in the way and then they simply stay where they are. Let them be lazy. We are going to put our shoulders to the wheel. Let them doubt if they like. We shall have confidence in our policy and in ourselves. Let them be destructive. We shall be the builders of a future happy South Africa for White and non-White, for White and Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what a little responsibility can do to somebody who is not emotional in changing his entire approach to things. I take it this was an attempt by the hon. gentleman to make a responsible speech. What had interested me most was to find that apparently the first job of the funeral undertakers in the homelands was to bury the year 1978. Although we have had all these grandiose claims from the hon. gentleman, he has not repeated the claims he made earlier on after his appointment, namely that we would see the turning point in 1978. I am not surprised that he has not repeated that claim, because he knows very well—or should do by now, as I have no doubt the Prime Minister has informed him—that when that original graph of which I have a copy here was drawn three fundamental conditions were set. The first was that the Tomlinson Commission recommendations be put into operation at once. They have not been put into operation even now. The second was that the population in the Bantustans would have the same relationship to those outside in 1956 as in 1951. There has been a small change, Sir. They know of course that they made a mistake of over 1,000,000 in counting the population round about that time. So that also does not apply. The third is that the population of the Reserves should increase at a tempo that would result in a population of about 8,000,000 in the Reserves within 20 years. The hon. gentleman should know that that population in fact has not been growing. It has tended to decrease. It is not easy to get the figures, because of the manner in which the census is drawn up. The hon. gentleman says that I see a lion on the road. No, Sir. All I see is a very disillusioned little Deputy Minister. He talks with great courage of the fact that they will not grant independence to the Reserves until they are ready for it. But is that not the story we heard from all the metropolitan powers in Africa? Was the result not the same in each case? Once you had promised those people independence they took charge of the time-table and you could only limit or control it by force.

That would, have been the case had you been in power.

You see, Sir, there is a great lack of realism in respect of what this Government is doing. There is a tremendous lack of foresight. I level this charge very deliberately in this debate in order to draw attention to some of the more serious mistakes the Government has made in the past. It has been interesting to see the sort of reaction that we have had from speakers on that side. Some of my charges have been left entirely unanswered. Some of the problems I have raised have not been dealt with at all by speakers on the other side. Some of the answers given have been, to say the least of it, most disappointing. It does not seem that the Government has yet learnt the error of its ways.

Now, Sir, when I raised this matter I started by complaining about short-sightedness of the Government’s approach to the whole philosophy of government. What did I get in reply? I got claims from that side of the House, from one speaker after the other, that they were democrats. They were traditional democrats. I am not going to define democracy. When you consider that nearly all the communist countries of the world claim to be democracies, and most of the emergent African States with dictators as governments claim to be democracies, I have been wondering just what they meant when they claimed that they were a democratic government. I prefer the definition of an American constitutional writer, Bekker. He described democracy as “a conceptual Gladstone bag which could be expanded or contracted to hold any group of sociological ideas you happened to want to take round the country with you.” The hon. the Minister of Justice has defined democracy. He has defined democracy as a state of affairs where everyone is free to vote and the courts are independent. That is correct. But there is not much use the courts being independent, though you are free to vote, if you cannot bring your complaints to the court. That is the difficulty with which we are faced at the moment. It is very interesting to find how sensitive members on the other side are at the suggestion that South Africa is departing from democratic norms. They suggest that this side are trying to infer that this Government is creating a police state in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I was at pains not to suggest that. I do not believe it is a police state. It never will be while this Opposition is here. What does amuse me so much is to find that the hon. the Minister of Justice referred to the former United Party Government as having converted South Africa into a police state. When there is any suggestion of criticism from our side of the House, what do we get? Then it is said, “Julie beswadder Suid-Afrika. Julie vervuil julle eie nes.” But of course it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. the Minister to say that South Africa, perhaps at a time when its name stood highest amongst the nations of the Western world, the democratic world, was a police state. One wonders what is happening to these definitions. Of course there are traditions of democracy in South Africa. As has been said in this debate, the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people of this country come from other lands with tremendous democratic traditions. There is no doubt, Sir, that there was every effort to maintain and keep those democratic traditions here in South Africa, particularly in the formation of the early Boer republics. But somewhere it looks to me as though the Nationalist Party onposite has got off the road that was pointed out by its forefathers. That they ceased to be the upholders of the true traditions of South Africa, the true traditions of democracy, of which they pretend at the moment to be so proud. You see, Sir, they slipped badly. They slipped very badly during the war years when they thought Germany was going to win. The hon. the Minister of Transport said their whole hope “was gevestig op ’n Duitse oor winning”. The Leader of their party at the time said that they accepted 85 per cent of national socialism. They must forgive us, Sir, if we are a little suspicious of some of the things they are doing, because we are not a bit sure that their democratic tradition is so rooted in their ranks as they would like to have us believe. The fact of the matter is that they have given way to a rather extreme form of sectional nationalism, and in order to give vent to it they are prepared to take steps, many of which are not in accordance with democratic traditions either in this country or in the other countries of the world. We have heard, of course, that we are in difficulties in this country and that steps must be taken to safeguard our position. We had been warned by the hon. the Minister of Justice that Liberalism is so often a forerunner of Communism. It may be, Sir, that the Liberal Party and liberals have been used as a front by communists in South Africa. I agree. But do not run away with the idea that Liberalism is the forerunner of Communism, not true Liberalism. What has tended to be the forerunner of Communism has been the very opposite of true Liberalism, it has tended to be extreme Nationalism exploited by the communist, it has tended to be the breakdown of ordinary law and order exploited by the communists. If one looks at the history of the states that have become communist there is not a single one in which there was a decently functioning democratic government before the communists took over. In fact, Sir, in many cases, all you had was extreme Nationalism rampant. We had it in cases. Sir, like Cuba. French Indo-China, Algeria, which is fast becoming under the communist influence, and possibly also in Indonesia. With that sort of background the danger we have here is that the sectional nationalism for which this Government is standing is setting an example to the Black nationalists which may be very dangerous indeed to the future of South Africa. That, Mr. Speaker, is the problem we are up against. You see, Sir, sectional nationalism is becoming more and more extreme. Instead of tending to be watered down as a result of years in power and years in office, it is tending to look for more and more victims, not only amongst its own ranks but amongst the ranks of the Opposition in South Africa. The pattern tending to unfold is that one sees in so many countries that have strayed from the democratic path, namely attempts to victimize people and attempts to cast suspicion upon the ordinary legitimate objectives of others. I have complained about this approach to the philosophy of government and quoted as one of my examples the state of affairs that had arisen as a result of the exercise of powers by the hon. the Minister of Justice. Here I find myself in a difficulty in that I believe we are tending to make a particular case, something by which to judge the whole system. Unfortunately, Sir, this case of the young student, Ian Robertson, has been in the public eye and it seems to have been evident that the Minister’s information was incorrect in regard to certain matters on which he apparently based that ban. The Minister corrected himself the moment he had the opportunity but I have here, Sir, certain information made available to me which I should like to place before the Minister as well. The Minister stated that Robertson has been to Swaziland, then corrected his statement and said that he had been to Bechuanaland. Now it transpires apparently, as a result of a statement by the father of the boy, that Robertson has been to Mafeking and not to Bechuanaland. I thought it was interesting to find out what he went to do in Mafeking. I have discovered that he went to Mafeking to attend a meeting which was held at the Secretariat on the 7th February, 1966.

What secretariat.

I am not sure what the name of the secretariat is. On the one side were representatives of the Council for Adult Education and Training on which Nusas was apparently represented, and on the other side were representatives of the Bechuanaland Government and of the university being established in Bechuanaland. I have been given the minutes of that meeting which seemed to indicate that it was in fact a very innocent performance. It seems to indicate that on one side there were as representatives, Mr. Murray Hudson, the permanent secretary to the Minister of Labour and Social Services in Bechuanaland, Mr. Smith’s Director of Education, and Miss Chiepe who I do not know anything about, Professor Blake, Vice Chancellor of the U.B.B.S. and Mr. J. K. Watson, Assistant Director of the Extension Department in Bechuanaland. On the other side were Robertson, Dr. Hoffenberg, …

… of Defence and Aid.

Maybe, The other gentlemen were Mr. Leo Marquard, Professor Beinart and two students, Williams and Guelki, representatives of the World University Service. Both students are from the University of Cape Town. The minutes which were made available to me through the organization concerned, says as a preamble:

Why was the meeting not held in Cape Town?

I presume that the members of the Bechuanaland Government found that most convenient. Why, I do not know.

What is wrong with Mafeking?

It seems to me to travel around this country is becoming a very dangerous matter. There was discussed the relationship with the U.B.B.S. the composition of the board of governors, the sitting of the college, the nature and content of short-in-service courses, the admittance of students, control over college, government approval, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be that something happened during that visit that I know nothing about. That is possible. In view, however, of the Minister’s previous statement there does seem to me that there is a measure of uncertainty. It does seem to me that we are reaching a state of affairs where that uncertainty can cause a great deal of insecurity among the public in South Africa. If there is this amount of uncertainty about one case, what about the 453 other cases. You see, Mr. Speaker, we had a Judge of the Supreme Court the other day saying that he felt the death sentence should be abolished in South Africa because he feared courts of law might have made mistakes in respect of some sentences. We, of course, know what the safeguards are in our system and how carefully sentences of death are reviewed by the Cabinet and the Executive. If there is still fear that there may be miscarriages of justice in circumstances of that kind, how much greater, Sir, is the fear not where there is no opportunity given the party concerned to state his case. As far as I know this young man has never been told what the suspicions are about him. We have been told in general terms that he has been furthering the ends of Communism or taking action that may be likely to further the ends of Communism, apparently since 1964. But I do not think charges were ever specified sufficiently to enable him to reply to them until the hon. the Minister did me the courtesy of replying in the House the other day. It seems, Sir, that of those charges, at least one of them was inaccurate and certainly the form of the matter as it stands now would seem to indicate that there could have been a mistake. You see, Sir, we are in this trouble also that the Minister uses these powers as he is entitled to, not only when one has made himself guilty of a misdeed, but as he stated very frankly to me, also where he suspects that there is the likelihood of an individual in the future making himself guilty of actions under the Act which would be dangerous to South Africa.

It is not a question of suspecting. It is a question of the terms of the Act.

I am not arguing with that. It is perfectly correct that it is in terms of the Act. But, Mr. Speaker, what worries me is when a restriction is based on a suspicion of what might be done in the future. There may not be a single overt act. All there may be, Sir, is a suspicion as the result of something said or a course of action over a period, and the Minister then feels he has to take action. I know his position is a difficult one, Mr. Speaker. At the same time he must not be disturbed if we feel that this is an inroad on the freedom and dignity of the individual which we want to see limited to the very minimum. And he must not take it amiss, Sir, if we say that we want it under the control of the courts if possible. I cannot criticize existing legislation in this House and I do not propose to do so. What I can discuss is how the Minister uses his powers. The question is whether the hon. gentleman should not try and use those powers far more in an effort to bring cases before the court rather than in restricting people where there is always this uncertainty as to the true state of affairs. And I would say, Sir, we have had a certain statement from the Minister for which I am grateful, we have had a reply from the young man’s father and I understand that affidavits have been handed to the Minister about people who were with this young man on two trips to Basutoland. But has the time not come for this whole matter to be reviewed now? I wonder whether we cannot get the hon. the Minister to say that he is prepared to reconsider this matter in the interests of the general security of the peoples of South Africa and the general feeling that here is a possibility that an injustice may have been done.

I said that to the Nusas delegation who came to see me. That was three months ago and I have not received a reply.

I do not think that is a very satisfactory reply. The hon. the Minister said he has received nothing from them. But what did he expect to receive from them? Did they know what the charge was?

I discussed it with them.

Did you also discuss with them what you believed this young man had done?

Yes, I discussed the matter with them.

I am afraid that according to the information given to me the minutes put out by the Nusas people do not indicate that this charge was specified with any clarity at all in respect of the activities of this gentleman.

I discussed the main points with them and they undertook to let me have the necessary contrary evidence.

I was not at that interview and know nothing about it. What I do know, is that there is a feeling of insecurity created throughout South Africa and that there is great unhappiness not the least from some of the people who were at that interview. They are still absolutely convinced that this young man is innocent. I would say to the hon. the Minister I think there is a prima facie case now for a reconsideration of this matter. I feel that the least we could expect from him is to give an undertaking that he is prepared to re-open this matter.

You know, and I have told you time and again that I am prepared to review all cases when new evidence is submitted.

But if the wrong evidence is submitted to you?

Am I correct now in saying to the hon. the Minister that when this young man asked for what reason he was restricted, the hon. the Minister wrote to him saying that he was restricted because he had acted in a manner which might further the causes of Communism and that it was not in the public interest to reveal …

That is the obligation that the Act lays upon me.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the minimum obligation that the Act lays upon the hon. the Minister. There is, of course, no need for the hon. the Minister to stick to the minimum. And that is exactly where this whole point arises. I am referring to the philosophy of the approach to government. It is not enough for the hon. the Minister to satisfy himself that he is just. He must appear to be just to the world as well, particularly to the public of South Africa. In this case action is taken that will affect this young man’s whole career. The hon. the Minister says he has given him an exit permit.

No, I have never used the words “exit permit” whatsoever.

Well, now I have difficulty with this. What did the hon. the Minister say on this subject? He made application to …

He asked me whether he could leave the country because this was necessary on account of the fact that he has been restricted, and I said yes.

I see.

But how he wants to leave is no business of mine. This is the concern of my colleague, the Minister of the Interior.

I am very grateful to hear that, because there has been some confusion in this regard. Apparently then he can leave on a South African passport if the hon. the Minister of the Interior will grant it.

That is no concern of mine whatsoever.

I see. So any representations in this regard must be made to the hon. the Minister of the Interior.

Yes.

Nevertheless, this young man’s whole future is in issue and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter provided the necessary representations are made. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to see Ian Robertson?

I am prepared to consider all cases when evidence is laid before me. That is my duty.

The hon. the Minister should know how difficult it must be to lay evidence before him in regard to someone that is not guilty and when it is not clear what the charge is. The hon. the Minister knows that this young man was going to see me. I cross-examined him very thoroughly for some time. I had no idea, of course, of what the Minister’s charges against him might be. I want to say that I was not tremendously impressed. However, I could find nothing on which I could pin a suspicion, let alone a case. The hon. the Minister has the information. You cannot cross-examine unless you have the information. It seems to me that this is a prima facie case where in the interests of South Africa and the interests of the general feeling of security in the Republic and in the interests of our good name overseas this whole matter should be reconsidered. We on this side of the House have made it very clear that when a man is brought before the courts and tried and found guilty we believe he should be punished. But the moment that we say anything like that in this House, the reaction on the other side is that we are trying to protect the communists and saboteurs in South Africa.

As I have said before, we on this side of the House have had a bit of experience of sabotage. We have had to combat it ourselves. I believe that there has never been a party in opposition that has done more to assist the government in the combating of sedition and sabotage than has this Opposition Party. The trouble we have with this Government is that every year their appetite seems to increase for additional power. I would not be the least bit surprised to find the hon. the Minister asking for even more powers this year. What we want to see is that these powers are limited to the absolute minimum and not continually extended. We believe that the reason that the Minister is coming for extended powers is that this Government is not getting down to the root causes which underlie the fact that so many of our people are becoming the prey of agitators and foreign ideologies. It is because of this entire lack of a grasp of the cause which is at the root of these matters that we feel the Minister and the Government are not having the success that they should have. A large section of our population is without the normal means of political expression. A large section is without any political expression at all. When you have that state of affairs existing, you have the creation of a field on which the agitator thrives. It is for that reason that we are so worried about the general approach to the philosophy of government by this Government. We feel it is so vitally important that it should be reviewed and altered.

I also raised the question of race relations here in South Africa and the Government’s lack of foresight in promising independence and allowing political development to outrun both economic development, educational standards and the problems in connection with consolidation which were inevitable and inherent in those promises of independence. We raised that problem for the very particular reason that if you have political independence and sovereignty without economic viability, then you are once more in the position that you are creating in this part of Southern Africa more examples of have and have-not states. We have seen that situation developing in the outside world where you find the position that a certain section of the population is “have-nots” and the other section is “haves”. When the section of “have-nots” gets too great in proportion to the section of “haves”, you have the classical conditions for revolution. In the outside world where you have this imbalance between “have” and “have-not” states, you get the sort of thing developing which you see at the United Nations to-day where certain of the “have-not” states are trying to force the “have” states to take actions in certain directions by holding them to ransom because of promised support by possibly other groups of “have” states. This is exactly the danger which we have here in South Africa. You promise independence to these people. The hon. the Deputy Minister says bravely that he will keep control of the time-table. Our metropolitan powers have not been able to do so. If you are going to have a series of “have-not” states on the borders of the “have” states in the Republic of South Africa, you are creating the classical conditions for trouble, racial friction and hostility between the states concerned. The experience in the outside world has been the same and it results when the political development outruns the infra-structure for economic development. That state of affairs is inevitable. What infra-structure is there for independence in the Reserves at the present time? How fast is it being developed? Do not just look at the Transkei, look at the other Reserves. How fast are they being developed? What infra-structure is being created? What partnership is there for economic development? All the experience of the international agencies dealing with backward states has been that the best and the quickest way of economic development is the partnership between developed and undeveloped people in economic development. This Government refuses to allow private White capital into the Reserves. So that very fundamental is denied them and it is not available for this sort of development. This concentration on the Bantustan problem has tended to deflect our gaze from what has become the real problem, namely the problem of the urban Bantu. There was a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Heilbron on this question of the urban Bantu and on the development of the Reserves. However, many of the ideas which he has conflict with the ideas which we are seeing being developed in most of the civilized countries of the world. It has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party, when we criticized the manner in which the urban Bantu was used as a migratory labour force, to refer to what was happening in Western Europe. The latest information from Western Europe is that where in the past they sought single foreign workers, now the tendency is more in the direction of having a stable labour force consisting of married people who are being encouraged to bring their families to acquire skills and to assist in developing the areas concerned. What is happening here? There is an awful lot of talk, but there is insufficient development in the Reserves to restrict the development in the urban areas. Professor Bruwer said something else—

Sir, that is not the development that we are seeing in the Reserves at the present time, and when a man like Dr. Bruwer, who has been a commissioner-general for this Government, comes out so strongly for the sort of thing for which we have been pleading, then I suggest it is time the Government had a look at what it was doing and reconsiders the whole situation. What is happening is this: Instead of reducing the number of Bantu in the urban areas at the moment, all the tremendous activity that there has been on the part of the Minister and his staff has been to change the nature of the Bantu labour force. Instead of being a permanent force, instead of being able to acquire skills which will help us to develop our industries, instead of becoming a stable labour force on which we can rely, which will result in our being able to build up an export market in the world outside on a competitive basis with other countries, we are finding a continually changing population.

You see them only as slaves.

The Minister says that I see them only as slaves. Sir, it is strange how, when you have a view of people, you try to implant it in the minds of other people. The hon. the Minister knows that the policy of this side of the House has always been to try to have a stable labour force and the development gradually and the emergence of a stable middle class amongst the Bantu workers in our urban areas.

With no political rights here?

The hon. gentleman knows what our policy is in regard to political rights. He has been running ever since he heard it and he will keep on running but one day it will catch up with him because he is faced with this situation that he is not increasing the number in the Reserves and the numbers outside the Reserves are increasing and one day he is going to find himself in the position that his White population is outnumbered by many more times that it is outnumbered at the present time by an urban Bantu population on which his whole economy defends and which is not satisfied with political rights in Reserves which it has never seen, and then he will have to find an answer. That is the whole weakness of this Government; it has no answer to the most urgent problem in South Africa. It is creating a dangerous source of instability here in our midst. It has already abandoned its original objective of parity between the numbers of Whites and the number of non-Whites in the so-called White areas by the year 2000. The Prime Minister is already saying that it does not matter how many they are, that it does not conflict with his policy at all. I take it, Sir, that it would not conflict with his policy at all if all the Blacks were in the White areas as long as they voted in the Reserves. That is the criterion. Do you get any safety in that way?

The hon. gentleman has told us that they have found jobs for 50,000 in border industries. Has he forgotten that Tomlinson said that you had to find jobs for 30,000 a year, ten years ago? The figure should have been 300,000 to-day, not 50,000. At what speed are they going to continue? The hon. gentleman knows the difficulties of establishing border industries. He knows that a great deal of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has been saying is just pie in the sky. We have heard his plans for the last ten years and look what has happened: Jobs for 50,000 in ten years when Tomlinson confidently expected the figure to be 300,000. You see, Sir, the whole trouble is that because the Government is blind to this problem of the urban Bantu, it has no policy for the security of the White man in the White areas. The hon. the Minister says that in the White areas the White man is first and the Bantu is second, but how is he going to keep the White man first with the policy he is following at the moment? He talks very confidently of controlling the time-table. Other countries in other parts of the world have not found that possible and he cannot go on just being blind to this policy. What is he going to do in the face of this advancing flood of Black labour in the urban areas, in respect of which he has no policy at all? You see, Sir, when this Nationalist Party started there were only two policies. We heard that from the hon. member for Primrose again to-day. There were only two policies: Complete integration or complete apartheid. It was not long before they abandoned complete apartheid.

It has not been abandoned.

Dr. Malan did it for them; this is what he said—

He was dealing with the question of its immediate application.

Dr. Malan went on to say—

Sir, you see what is happening. First it was total apartheid. Now there has been a deviation already. They realize that it cannot be applied. Now there are no longer two solutions only; a third solution has now been found, that of the Nationalist Party. You see, Sir, there are other solutions as well and those other solutions will ensure the security of the Europeans in the so-called White part of South Africa. It will ensure his security over the whole of South Africa, but hon. members opposite are still bluffing the public that there are only two solutions; they are bluffing the public that they are carrying out one of those two solutions. In fact they are carrying out neither of those solutions. They are carrying out the middle course which they have always condemned themselves as impossible, without the necessary safeguards which are inherent in the policy of this party. Sir, if ever there was a lack of foresight, lack of foresight is evinced in their handling of this matter.

I dealt also with the control of economic affairs in this country and spoke of the lack of foresight in that regard. The hon. the Minister of Finance replied to me himself and he pointed to the warnings that he had given in respect of the dangers of inflation in South Africa. The only warning that I have been able to trace, earlier on, was given in 1963 at a meeting in November of that year when he said—

Sir, although he stated this I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that it is the opinion of organized industry, of commerce, of some of the country’s best economists, even of some of the hon. gentleman’s own advisers, that throughout this period the Government did too little, too late, and very often took the wrong steps. Take the question of the time of their acting. Here is a statement by Mr. Kittshoff, Chairman of the Board of Trade to the Junior Chamber of Commerce on 17th May, 1965, complaining “that the Minister failed to warn the private sector at the outset that funds built up after Sharpeville were abnormal and should not be spent extravagantly”. Would he be saying that if there had been a proper warning from the Minister of Finance? In fact, the Government so mismanaged the situation that it not only failed to warn the private sector but it embarked on a spending spree itself. Sir, look at the report of the Reserve Bank for 1964-65. What do they say? They mention a large shift of Government funds to the private sector and they say: “Without this addition to the liquidity of the private sector, it is highly improbable that total spending would have risen to the extent that it did.” Sir, with an increase in the private sector’s investment amounting to 24 per cent, there was an increase in the public sector as well of 18 per cent. There is not the slightest doubt that in the view of most economists in South Africa to-day, this Government’s spending spree was ill-timed and that criticism remains in full force at the present time. The Chamber of Commerce on 24th May of this year stated its strong disapproval of Government expenditure, not only of its volume but of the manner in which it was financed. The Chamber of Industries in May of this year said—

Let us look at the Stellenbosch Economic Review, the hon. the Minister’s own university: “In spite of repeated warnings, the required change in the financing of Government expenditure has not taken place.” Here is what they say in the introduction—

Sir, is this not all evidence that the hon. gentleman acted too late?

Would you read their July review?

I have read their June review and I have been very interested in it. I have also read what the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries have said. I say that not only did the Minister act too late but I ask: “What was the real seriousness of these timely warnings that he claims?” You see, Sir, the Chamber of Commerce warned a long time ago that there was a need for stricter measures. But what did the Minister say in the 1963-64 Budget?—

Then in 1964-65: “A stern anti-inflationary Budget would at present be altogether out of place.” Even last year the hon. the Minister, in introducing his Budget, said—

Sir, what has happened now? I think not only did the hon. the Minister act too late but he acted too little, and I think there is a well-grounded suspicion that he did too little because of the impending election and the impending Festival celebrations. What was the mainstay of Government policy until the post-election clamp-down?

Do you agree with the measures taken by the Government?

I am not interested now in answering those questions. What I am interested in is pinning the Minister down to the fact that he acted too late and did too little when he did act, because what were his weapons before the post-election clamp-down? Moral persuasion and restricted imports. That is what it amounts to. Moral persuasion failed. It is generally accepted that his instructions to bankers to restrict credit were totally inadequate. In spite of his advice commercial bank credit rose tremendously in those early years of the boom, as we well know, and I believe the Government has been afraid to tell the financiers and the business executives of the seriousness of the economic ills. Take the Economic Review again: “The process of educating the public in a clear and unequivocal manner as to economic realities, should be a preoccupation of the authorities.” That was in June, 1966. Sir, would that have been necessary if one of the mainstays of Government policy had worked? Only last week we still had the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs saying that prosperity will prevail. “The Government’s past experience and present tendencies bear out the contention that import control not only disguises the problem but encourages unwarranted new investments and cost increases.” That is what the Economic Review says about the hon. the Minister’s import control policy. Did he take the right step or did he take the wrong step? I think the method of financing Government expenditure, to which reference has been made above, was undoubtedly a wrong step. Here is what the report of the Reserve Bank says—

The Economic Review goes on to say—

I think in that respect it was incorrect. I think it is doubtful whether it was correct in pegging interest rates: “Frozen interest rates have aggravated the existing problem, frustrated normal monetary measures and inevitably led to further control.” That, Sir, comes from the Chairman of Union Acceptances in his 1965 review. Sir, I do not want to be wise after the event. It is possible that the bank adjustment that would have followed, if interest rates had been allowed to reach their natural level, might have been preferable to the sort of situation that has developed here.

Sir, there have been restrictions on imports. Some of them have applied to raw materials and capital equipment, which may have a very insidious effect on local production. Then, Sir, came the sudden inflationary rises in salaries without the necessary correctives by way of a budget and, of course, lastly the continued high expenditure by the Government, despite the warnings it was giving to the private sector. I say that the Minister did too little too late and that some of the things he did were wrong. I believe that what he should have done is this: He should have decided at an early stage which section of the population he meant to protect. I believe he should have decided that the section that he wanted to protect was the great mass of the South African people, the working people, and I do not believe that that decision was ever taken by this Government. What have we had, Sir? We have had the Minister of Planning claiming that the right things were done. I wonder if he is going to tell the trade unions that they are wrong when they claim that they saw too little of prosperity and that they fear for their future as the first victims of the squeeze. Is he prepared to admit openly that he is on the side of the profit-makers and not on the side of the workers of South Africa? What have we had from that hon. gentleman? We have had excuses for a large number of things. We have had him talking about globular figures spent on education to reduce the manpower shortage and on globular figures spent on water. The answer simply is that the lack of foresight is shown by the fact that we still do not have the water where we need it most and we still have not the skilled men where we need them most. The shortage still exists, due to the lack of foresight on the part of the Government.

The Minister of Community Development has given us a great burst of activity in respect of certain matters for which he is responsible. May I say at once that we on this side of the House are extremely pleased about the progress made in respect of old people’s homes. That is progress in respect of which he will get support from us whenever that matter comes before us. But the measures which have had to be taken since the election, and the measures which that hon. Minister has announced to-day, are to my mind completely conclusive proof of the lack of foresight of this Government and of the state of affairs which it allowed to develop without taking adequate steps to combat them. The imposition of rent control measures is a serious step. The Minister says he hopes it will not be necessary to retain it for a long period, but the fact remains that those 1948 rent control regulations still apply and the buildings then controlled are still largely subject to rent control, and he knows how difficult it is to remove rent control once it is imposed. He knows that he is faced with a very difficult situation. He will have our support for any measures that are necessary to relieve that situation. Sir, is it not first-class evidence of lack of foresight in regard to this situation which has developed? And look at the position in respect of housing. The Minister tells us proudly of the steps that are being taken in order to catch up on housing. No. 1, Sir. What a backlog, and No. 2, look at the extent to which he has had to extend the qualifications to occupiers of both sub-economic and economic houses. If ever there was an indication of the deteriorating position of the house-seeker and the house-owner in South Africa, it is the very steps which this Minister has had to take to-day.

Is it not true that the most important reason for the problems of that group of people lies in the rise in building costs, which came about as the result of wage increases? Did the hon. member not want us to grant the people those wage increases?

That question is not worthy of the hon. the Minister, because he asks whether I will not agree that the main reason for the shortage of houses is the increase in salaries, which resulted in the rising cost of houses. Sir, the increase in salaries was due to the inflation this Government allowed to develop. It is merely a symptom of our inflation. The Minister says there was a rise of about 25 per cent in building costs in the last 18 months. My period was over three or four years, and I believe it was between 30 per cent and 40 per cent for certain types of houses. But I will accept the Minister’s figure. But it is simply symptomatic of the inflationary tendencies in South Africa. It is symptomatic of nothing more or less than the fact that this Government has failed to manage our economy properly because of its lack of foresight in dealing with problems it should have foreseen. Now certain steps have been taken, but attention has been drawn by the hon. member for Newton Park to this statement in the press this morning in respect of bondholders, that where the mortgagees find themselves in the position that they could not raise the rent they threaten to call up the bond. The hon. member has told us that the Minister is taking powers, but can these powers relieve this danger? Here is a contract between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and while the Minister can try to fix rates he will find himself in great difficulty if these people start calling up their bonds, and there is a very real danger that that might happen. I have suggested that there has been a lack of foresight in regard to a large number of things. I suggested also that my charges have not been met in respect of certain of the matters I raised. There has not been a single member on that side of the House who has answered me in respect of agriculture. We seem to be getting into the position where that side of the House has come to the conclusion that the farmers are no longer a major political force in South Africa and that they can neglect them; they are expendable. Despite the depopulation of the platteland which is proceeding apace, and despite the years of unsatisfactory price policies, and despite the years in which they had no long-term policy for South African agriculture, and despite the repeated proposals we have made to them from time to time as to how our agriculture should be managed, there was not a reply from a single one of the members opposite, despite the fact that a large number of them represent farming constituencies. I hope that there will be a report of this matter back to their constituencies. I hope the farming community will be told that this is the way in which their problems are treated in this House. This is how the Prime Minister treated them when I raised these matters under his Vote two years ago; then I was told that I must raise only matters of fundamental national importance. What can be more fundamental than a drought and the position of the farmer? I was remonstrated with for daring to raise those matters under the Vote of the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Sir, I am not surprised those gentlemen are getting a little excited. They know they have not got an answer. But what is more, there are a number of other questions I posed in this debate which I thought would have interested the Prime Minister, even if he is not interested in the future of the farmers.

I nosed the question of South West Africa. I raised the position of the Coloureds’ Representatives in Parliament. I spoke of the future relationship to the Protectorates which are now emerging as independent states. I raised the question of sterling. I know he cannot answer that yet. I raised the question of how far we were going to go on the road of this wrong apporoach to the philosophy of government. This whole debate, or a very large part of it, has been concerned with the lot of the ordinary man in Sooth Africa. Must I tell the public that the Prime Minister was not prepared to enter this debate and that he left it to his junior Ministers, who failed to answer the questions? He failed to come to the defence of the Minister of Finance, who was in a very difficult position. Sir, if ever there was a Government guilty of lack of foresight, it is this Government. I want to tell the Government this, and particularly the hon. member for Middelland who gave such good advice. I was delighted with his advice. He said of course the Opposition never thought, but yet we changed our policy; we let our policies be dictated to us by the newspapers but we would not listen to the newspapers. That is the sort of stupid criticism we get, Sir. I want to tell the hon. gentlemen opposite that this Opposition has a very real sense of its duties and responsibilities towards South Africa in the present political situation, and in the full sense of that duty we shall see to it that this Government is brought face to face with the problems of the country, that it is not allowed to run away from them and that the public is made aware of its lack of foresight and efficiency in dealing with the problems of the ordinary man in the street.

Motion put and a division called.

To facilitate the counting of members during a division, I have decided that the following arrangements will apply in respect of the seats to be occupied by members during a division:

1. (1) When Government members vote with the “Ayes” the hon. members for Peninsula and Houghton (and the members behind them) will vacate their seats, the row thus vacated forming a dividing line between the members voting for the “Ayes” and those voting for the “Noes”. In such cases the benches up to and behind the front bench of the hon. members for Waterberg and Innesdal will be known as the right hand side of the House. The remaining benches will form the left hand side.
2. (2) When the Opposition vote with the “Ayes” the Ministers of Agricultural Technical Services and Immigration (and the members behind them) will vacate their seats, the row thus vacated forming a dividing line between the members voting for the “Ayes” and those voting for the “Noes”. In such cases the benches up to and behind the front bench of the Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs and Agricultural Economics and Marketing will be known as the right hand side of the House. The remaining benches will form the left hand side.