I wish to move the following amendment—

The recommendation that we have before us asks, in effect, that there be written off an accrued amount of capital repayments and interest which together at this date amount to some R2,700,000. There has already been a sum of R2,500.000 written off in the past. The amount of land which was originally scheduled was some 30,000 morgen, but it has been gradually reduced until it is about 7,000 morgen at present. In the evidence given by the Secretary for Water Affairs it was explained that the water of the Orange River scheme will be available to the Sundays River’s irrigators in approximately five or six years’ time. Their trouble, like on so many of the other irrigation schemes, has been caused by the drought. From time to time they have suffered because there has been inadequate water available to them, and with the best will in the world they then cannot produce crops, no matter how hard they work. When the Orange River water reaches the Sundays River scheme we are assured there will be ample water for the 10,000 morgen scheduled now, but that they will also re-proclaim the 10,000 morgen which was withdrawn in the past, and they will return to the 20,000 morgen which was originally scheduled. The water available will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the whole of that area, which is double the area under irrigation at present. Let me say at once that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we have no doubt that the irrigators under that scheme require assistance and that there must be some amelioration of the conditions under which they are labouring. The point at issue is what is the best way to assist them. This was a matter for considerable discussion in the Select Committee, and I am afraid I must say that some members of the Select Committee never realized fully precisely what we were trying to explain chiefly through my colleague the hon. member for Gardens in making it clear that we were seeking a greater amelioration of the conditions of those irrigators than is proposed in the recommendations we have before us, and as shown in the amendment I have moved. These recommendations in the item before us are harsher on the irrigators than the amendment I have just moved.

Why?

I will explain that. My amendment has this practical effect, that this R2,700,000 which has accumulated in amortization charges and interest will be frozen. That is public money in respect of which we have a duty. There will be no further commitments in regard to interest or redemption so far as the irrigators are concerned. In other words, they will carry on from now until they get the Orange River water with no further charges to them.

And then they will start with a debt against them.

No, they will not start with a debt against them. The issue will then come to the Select Committee. That is what my amendment suggests, and we then take the issue, including this R2,700,000, which it is suggested in the report before us should be written off but which I propose in my amendment should be frozen. When that time comes the Select Committee on Irrigation will review the whole situation in the light of the supply of water from the Orange River. The Select Committee will then investigate the conditions under which those irrigators operate, in regard to the marketing of their citrus, etc. We cannot foresee that now. We cannot tell what the market for citrus will be in five or six years’ time. But the recommendation of the Select Committee purports to operate for 30 years and not for five or six years. For the first five or six years the irrigators will not be free of the accumulating debt. This recommendation of the Select Committee provides that they will continue to pay interest and amortization charges, at an amount to be fixed which is not more than 6 per cent, or R6 per morgen. That is what is worrying us on this side of the House. If these people suffer from continued drought between now and the time they get the water from the Orange River, and if the value of citrus fruit drops, the R6 per morgen they have to pay is still a charge that they cannot face. What we are trying to do is to relieve them of any charge in this period until they get the Orange River water. Why load them with R6 per morgen? We want to avoid that. That is not going to hurt me. We say that the whole position should be frozen.

We say: Let the R2,700,000 representing accumulated interest and amortization stand frozen; let them go free of any annual commitment or payment of any kind whatever until they get water from the Orange River in five or six years; let them first get established in this period, if the markets permit and if the amount of water they can get from Lake Mentz permits them to reap crops. But let us. lift this continual load of anxiety and trouble, based upon R6 per morgen, off their shoulders. Once we know and we can guarantee that they can get all the water they require, that is to say, when water from the Orange River is supplied to them, that will be the time for the Select Committee to say, “Now we can face the future with some security because we know that these unfortunate people are going to get water; that is the one thing that they can rely on; whatever vagaries there may be in regard to the market, at any rate they will be able to produce”. Sir, they are not people who have yearly crops; they are by and large citrus growers. Their trees cannot just be uprooted one day and replanted again in a year’s time. Sir, I ask hon. members of the Select Committee who sat with us, whilst they have the chance to consider this matter, to support this amendment I move in the interest of the irrigators themselves. This is a better deal for them than the proposals printed in the Order Paper before us. It is going to give them a better chance. Why load them with R6 per morgen? It will not hurt us to hold this over for five or six years until they are secure in their farming operations. It will be quite competent for the Select Committee in five or six years’ time to say, “We suggest that you write off this sum of R2,700,000”; if that is the feeling of the Select Committee at the time, well and good. I am sure that nobody on this side would object. These people must have some assistance and it must be definite and quite clear-cut. We feel that it is unfair and wrong to leave them with this annual load. I therefore move this amendment which will have the effect of lifting all financial burdens from their shoulders until they get Orange River water and then the whole matter can be reviewed by Parliament.

The decision reached by the Select Committee with regard to the irrigators of the Sundays River Valley was based on an exhaustive report from the Department of Water Affairs, which resulted from a petition by the farmers concerned of the Sundays River Valley. Let me say that the hon. member for South Coast has now come with a new argument and other proposals, because their argument actually revolved on the idea of freezing the entire matter until such time as the Orange River water would be available. Our argument was that in view of the whole set-up and the position of the farmers in that area, it would be most unwise to leave those people in a state of uncertainty for another four or five years before they would know what their position would be and whether the State would in fact meet them. We then decided, also in the light of that petition, that we were quite prepared to meet those people as far as possible, but that we did not want to relieve them of all commitments. For the information of this House I just want to say that in their petition those people did in fact request that they should be enabled to carry on on that basis of a tariff of R6 per morgen.

In other words, those people did not ask to be relieved of all commitments. Like all farmers in South Africa, they would like to make their contribution. These people have the tremendous problem of a chronic water shortage, but they were prepared to pay this R6 per morgen despite their problems, and the Select Committee felt that this was the most favourable basis on which to meet them. I left that Select Committee meeting with the idea that this was an opportunity for hon. members of the United Party to show that they also wanted to meet the farmers in their distress, and they did not do that. This morning the hon. member for South Coast comes along and paints a different picture, as though they want to meet those people in a much better way. I do not accept that; they did not make it clear in the Select Committee, nor did the hon. member really explain the matter to us this morning. Let me add this: When the water of the Orange River becomes available to those farmers it will not mean that they will be receiving, so to speak a double present from the Government, because while they are now undertaking to pay a tariff of R6 per morgen, they will then have to buy water from the Orange River, and they will have to pay for that additionally. The Select Committee also received information that they will probably have to pay approximately R20 per morgen. It will be relatively expensive water. The only real change that will therefore be brought about is that those people will then have a regular water supply, but when they have that regular water supply it will entail additional costs to them; they will have to pay for that water over and above this R6 per morgen they are now undertaking to pay. I do not want to prolong this discussion much further, but I want to ask that we should abide by the recommendations of the Select Committee and of the Department of Water Affairs, also in terms of the petition from the farmers, in which they asked for and undertook to pay this tariff.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast, and I want to state unequivocally that we are convinced that the settlers of the Sundays River Valley are decidedly in need of assistance. They cannot pay the amount they owe. Nor do I believe they are able to pay the present annual installments. In the first place the dam has silted up and does not hold much water. The wall has been raised, but the fact remains, according to the petition, that the dam has silted up to a tremendous extent, and we know that that is true. Secondly, they say that the inflow of water to the dam has decreased to a large extent as a result of soil conservation works carried out above the dam, and thirdly, they point out that as a result of the drought there is virtually no more inflow. The result is that these people simply do not have any water. For the last few years they have had virtually no water, and for the first two reasons that will remain the position in future until such time as they receive the water of the Orange River. If that is so, then surely the position of those people will not be ameliorated appreciably if they still have to pay the annual installments. The write-off of capital plus interest will not help them at this stage. It will not help them at all. It is a debt they owe on paper. What causes their difficulties at present is the annual installments they have to pay—capital redemption as well as interest.

As soon as the Orange River scheme comes comes into operation, the position of those people will be completely different. At present their difficulty is that they cannot obtain enough water and that the water they do in fact obtain is irregular. Once the scheme comes into operation they will receive water regularly and then the whole position will change. I repeat that they must be granted some relief. We feel that what will be in their interests is to relieve them of the annual installments which they have to pay now and which they will not be able to pay, even if it is only R6 per morgen, until such time as they can obtain regular water supplies. Then they will be able to pay, and then the entire position as regards the write-off of the capital can be reviewed. That is how we set out the position in the Select Committee. The statement of the hon. member for Piketberg is not correct. That is how we saw the position in the Select Committee and that is how we set it out. The hon. member said that the farmers were not being relieved of all commitments; we agree, but their circumstances are such that they simply cannot pay at this stage. We want to grant them this relief, and the entire position can then be reviewed when they get regular water supplies.

I was not a member of the Select Committee and I therefore have no knowledge of the attitude adopted by the Opposition in the Select Committee, but I just want to correct some incorrect statements made here. If it is said here that those people cannot pay R6 per morgen for 30 years in order to redeem the entire capital debt, then that is an incorrect statement. It was also the request of the petitioners that there should be relief of this nature. I may say that the present levy per morgen, which of course includes maintenance, etc., comes to R14 per morgen, and if this additional levy were to be paid, it would have come to R18 per morgen, which could not be met by the farmers, citrus prices being what they are. These people did not come and ask for alms in the form of a total write-off, and if this capital amount, as proposed by the Select Committee, is written off and they are to pay a levy of R6 per morgen, capital charges plus maintenance costs plus whatever may be added to that on the loan of R400.000 and the loan of R20.000 which are still outstanding, they will be able to meet it, and I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I have already informed those people accordingly—I do not know whether I acted precipitately—and that there is general gratitude and contentment.

And if the dam has no water?

That is another point that was raised here. If the dam had no water and there were to be another request, I believe the Select Committee and this House would be sympathetic towards those people, but I just want to tell hon. members that the last year those people were without water was 1961, and since then they have had water regularly.

Enough water?

Yes, enough water, and at this stage, when the country is drought-stricken, they still have three turns to use water, which will keep them going until January, and we really hope it will have rained by then. But I want to point out another aspect. There have been references to the Orange River water which will be available. Yes, we are all waiting for that, and I want to tell you that the State is justified in writing off capital amounts in advance, for when the water of the Orange River becomes available, it is not only the previous 20,000 morgen that will be scheduled there as irrigation area; considerably more land will be scheduled, and then the State will use the existing cemented canals, which the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs opened there some days ago, to irrigate not only the almost 11,000 morgen but also additional land, much more than those 20,000 morgen.

There is only one other erroneous statement that was made here and that I want to correct. Those people are not settlers, they are farmers, because it is not a Government settlement. There is a complete misunderstanding in that regard. On behalf of the people in that part of my constituency I want to convey our sincere gratitude to the Irrigation Commission which brought up that recommendation; it is of great assistance, and the farmers will be prepared to pay this R6 per morgen levy plus the additional amount they will have to pay in respect of loans that have not even been fully paid out to them yet, and also to pay the additional amount when the water of the Orange River becomes available. We want to thank "the House in advance for this relief granted to them.

I just want to make two aspects quite clear. Hon. members should remember that agriculture is not static, and the decision of the Select Committee is also quite correct, for if the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast were accepted, it would mean that one would hang a millstone of uncertainty around the necks of those farmers for five or six years. In other words, for five or six years, if one of the farmers, who is scheduled and who is allowed to use this water, wanted to sell his land, he would have this millstone around his neck because the potential buyer would not know whether or not he would later obtain exemption.

You do not understand my amendment.

I understand it very well. Your proposal means that this R1,336,000 in capital and the R1,332,000 in arrear interest should be kept in an interest-free suspense account, and that there should be no write-off. In other words, the proposal of the hon. member for South Coast means that a future Select Committee will have to decide about this amount once again, and that those farmers will have no certainty that a future Select Committee or Parliament will write off this amount. In other words, for the next five or six years, until a final decision has been taken on this matter, a millstone of uncertainty is put around the necks of those farmers and becomes a basic factor in the ordinary sale of land and the ordinary farming procedure. Here we receive a petition from farmers asking that this R2,668,000 be written off and telling the Select Committee that they will be prepared to pay R6 per morgen to show that they do not want to receive alms and to be regarded as beggars. If we do that, there is certainty in respect of any business transaction and the farmer knows exactly where he stands, something which does not obtain at present. That is the one aspect.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is repeating what has been said by two previous speakers.

No, Sir, so far no speaker has dealt with this aspect of uncertainty.

Order!

I conclude by saying the following. It is most extraordinary that the hon. members for South Coast and Gardens should know better what those farmers want than the farmers themselves. It is a strange phenomenon. I am very sorry, but we cannot accept that amendment.

Question put: That all the words after “that” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the recommendation.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.: De Jager, P. R.: Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Dönges, T. E.; Du Piessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobier, M. S. F.; Grobier, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Horn. J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.: Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.: Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan. W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.: Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Poteieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treur-nicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuv, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.: Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.: Waring, F. W.: Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

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

Noes—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P: Connan, J. M.: Eden, G. S.: Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.: Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.: Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Recommendation, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned on Saturday afternoon I had just referred to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had reconfirmed with his amendment here that the Opposition has been in the political wilderness in South Africa longer than any other Party has ever been. Never has a Government been in power as long as the National Party Government. Because the United Party has been so long in the wilderness they have never had a chance. In the last election they thought they had a right and could lay claim to the electorate returning them to power once again. However, they returned with the knowledge that they have a policy which they themselves cannot implement. In other words, they are now speculating with a policy which is really an auctioneering policy, knowing that they could place the responsibility upon the Government and knowing at the same time that they would not have the responsibility of ever having to implement the proposals they were making I definitely want to say this in regard to the amendments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, particularly as a result of the reference he made to increased cost of living, when he referred to the increase in price of certain food products. He was followed by other speakers who referred to the increase in prices of chops, boerewors, etc.

After that, when the hon. member for Newton Park spoke, he said that the consumer was paying altogether too much for food and that the farmers were receiving far too little for their products In other words, the position now is that the consumer is paying too much while the farmer is getting too little for his products. The hon. member also stated specifically that increased subsidies must be granted. According to him the subsidy which is now being paid is insufficient.

Sir, I am just referring to this year’s Estimates which make provision for that. Over and above soil conservation, etc., an amount of R62,397,000 is being appropriated in these Estimates to subsidize the prices of products, both in order to help the consumer and support the industry. It is an increase of almost R15,500,000.

What will the result be of such a proposal? The tax-payer is now being asked to pay more. The result of this proposal can only be that the producer will be placed in an unfavourable position in the eyes of the tax-payer of South Africa. That is why these clarion calls are being made, such as the recent one which was made in this House itself where an hon. member alleged that the farmers at Vaalharts were wasting too much water. From Johannesburg the call recently came that farmers at Vaalharts should be bought out, they should be paid R1,000,000, so that Johannesburg itself could use the water. It is statements like those which will ultimately lead to one’s entire farming system losing its character. Just take four of the major key industries. If we consider mining for example we find that the individual did in fact have a share in the mining industry until the diamond-diggers lost favour with the public. To-day the entire mining industry is in the hands of companies. Our industries in South Africa are also in the hands of companies. So too is trade. Small shops in the rural areas are disappearing while undertakings in major cities are becoming bigger and bigger. These undertakings are also in the hands of companies. And as far as our agriculture is concerned, if we continue in this irresponsible way it must ultimately result in the individual disappearing from our agriculture. That is going to be the result of this attempt to lay greater and greater claims upon the tax-payer in order to improve the unfavourable balance between the consumer and the producer.

As far as the United Party is concerned, we find that all its leaders are to-day representatives of urban constituencies and that is why, if they ever come into power, they will not be able to maintain their position in regard to the rural areas because they will be forced by the urban consumers to abandon this kind of policy. We say that the policy which the United Party is pleading for here is irresponsible and will lead to many problems for the tax-payer of the country as a result of his being placed in an unfavourable position over and against the consumer. But we also maintain that this policy is being adhered to by the United Party because they know they will not in the foreseeable future be asked to apply the policy in practice. That is why they are now doing our farming population a disservice by acting so irresponsibly here.

In reply to the hon. member for Christiana I should just like to point out that we in the United Party are concerned about the fact that the farmer is not getting an economic price for what he produces. We are also concerned about the fact that the consumer is paying a very high price for what he has to purchase. We believe that the trouble lies in the fact that the costs of distribution are far too high and therefore we believe that steps must be taken now by the Government to reduce the margin between what the producer gets and the consumer has to pay.

What steps?

That is for the Government to decide. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer any questions. I have only a short time at my disposal and I have a lot of things to put across. When the House adjourned on Saturday, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and of Water Affairs was telling us what the Government was achieving in the field of agriculture. He quoted ad lib from the many able reports we have received from the various departments and indicated how much money the Government was spending and what was being done in the way of planning, etc. But that is not a test of the case. What we want to know is what is, in fact, being achieved on agricultural lands outside. We should like to know what fences are being erected, what river valleys are being dammed up and what farm plans are being implemented. These are the things we should like to hear about and until we do we in the Opposition shall not be satisfied with what the Government is achieving in the fields of soil conservation. It is not necessary even for me to be critical because I need only read from these reports. The very opening paragraph of the report of the Soil Conservation Board reads—

That is what this report says—they are unable to check erosion.

That is being realistic.

It is an admission that they are not achieving their object and that is why we from this side of the House are pressing for a different approach to the matter. This is the position after 20 years of implementation of the Soil Conservation Act by this Government, an Act which was placed on the Statute Book by this party. This is what this report has to say about the deterioration of the veld—

Is the Government responsible for that?

I submit that the Government has no reason at all to be complacent or to be self-satisfied in so far as its handling of soil conservation, particularly, is concerned.

But there are many other fields in which this Government cannot afford to be complacent. Take the dairy industry for instance. Here I submit the Government is going from bad to worse in its handling of this industry. Surely this is a field in which planning should receive priority. We are told that the Government wants to plan for the country on a long-term basis and that that is why they have established a Department of Planning. But I submit such planning must be concentrated first of all on the production of foodstuffs in order to ensure that this country is, as far as humanly possible, self-sufficient in respect of the production of foodstuffs. It is a matter for concern to find that to-day we are importing 17,000,000 pounds of butter per annum, 4,000,000 pounds of cheese, 12,000,000 pounds of dried milk and 1,000,000 pounds of tinned milk. This may, to a certain extent, be attributed to the prevailing drought conditions but these droughts are, after all, going to repeat themselves. Therefore I submit it should be one of the priorities of this Government to see that we become self-sufficient in so far as such an important item as foodstuffs is concerned. I also believe that it we take the necessary steps now and reorganize and rationalize the industry there is no reason whatsoever why we should not produce all the dairy products which this country needs. I believe we have the potential—all we need is the proper organization. The party responsible for bringing about that reorganization is the Government. There is no doubt that as the years go by the demand for dairy products is going to increase because not only is our population increasing at the rate of 4 per cent per annum but thousands of immigrants are coming into the country annually.

Our non-White peoples are attaining a higher standard of living with a corresponding increase in their purchasing power. Consequently they would require more and more of these dairy products. Taking these factors into account, and we take note of the fact that already we have to import certain dairy products, what will be the position in ten years’ time if the present expansion in demands is going to go on? What steps is this Government taking to ensure the extra production necessary to meet this extra demand? We must look at the production side and look at it with a critical eye. But all over the Farmer’s Weekly we find notices like this: “Total dispersal sale of well-known Seymour Friesland stud.”

And if another farmer buys them?

They probably go to the abattoirs. Here is another notice of a “gigantic sale of Friesland cows and heifers” by the owner because he is “relinquishing dairy farming as it is no longer profitable”. Here is another notice of the sale of 330 beautiful Friesland cows because the owner has decided to give up dairying. So it goes on— dairy farmers getting out of the industry because it is no longer profitable for them to be there.

Does it state there in the advertisement that it is no longer profitable?

It stands to reason that if you are concerned in a profitable undertaking you are not likely to relinquish that very lightly.

So we go on: “Sale of 190 outstanding Friesland cows.” So there are other items of that kind, big advertisements. Then by chance I came upon another thing: “Dairy Board created a disaster.” It says here—

Who selects the Dairy Board?

I do not think that that is the important point. The important point is, and we have to face up to it, that ultimately it is the Government that is responsible for creating a policy in this country whereby we can become self-sufficient in respect of dairy products in this country. Although the farmers elect them, the ultimate authority rests with the Government, and I believe that it is possible that if the Government takes the right steps, they can ensure a sufficiency of production in this country. The Government has to give very serious consideration to the elimination of the dual board system of control in the dairy industry in this country. Why must we have two dairy boards? Surely it stands to reason that if the efforts of these two boards are amalgamated, there will be greater efficiency under single control. They will have to give serious consideration, Mr. Speaker, to the registration of all bona fide dairy farmers in this country. The sale of milk has to be brought on to a standardized basis. I have been told on very good authority that if they sold the milk in the Cape Peninsula alone on a standardized basis, there would be sufficient butterfat available to provide and make the Peninsula area self-sufficient in as far as butterfat is concerned. These are considerations which should receive attention from the Government. Then we will become self-sufficient.

Another aspect of the matter which should have received the attention of the Government is the establishment of a wide-awake information service to go into all these matters and to advise the Ministers and to use publicity methods similar to those used in the wine industry. See what has happened in the wine industry! Why can the same not be done in our milk industry? I believe too that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the field of milk recording. If we can get our milk recording services on to the same high standard as our dairy research institute, I am quite sure the necessary improvements will be brought about to get our dairy industry on a satisfactory basis.

I thought that the previous speaker, who spoke mainly about the dairy industry, would come forward with quite a few constructive arguments. However, he did not come forward with anything of that nature whatsoever. He gleaned his main argument from the Farmer’s Weekly and he read out to us how many auctions were being held of dairy herds which were being sold off. Does he want to tell us that because there is perhaps a good market for houses here in the city we are all going to live in the bush? That is approximately what the argument which the hon. member used amounts to. Because a dairy herd is now being sold off he wants to intimate that the dairy herd is being destroyed and that fewer dairy products are now going to be produced. Surely that is the most foolish thing in the world to say? The hon. member has probably attended one of the auctions himself and he knows very well that those dairy animals are all bought up again by dairy farmers who are going to use them for production. They are not being bought for the abattoirs. If he thinks they are all being bought for the abattoirs then he is but a poor farmer who has apparently been blown about so much by the wind on Walmer beach that he does not know where he is.

The hon. member also spoke about an essential improvement in the information service as far as the industry was concerned. He did not tell us in what regard the information service was not functioning satisfactorily. I want to tell him that if we are going to have one normal year as far as rainfall is concerned, we will produce more than enough dairy products in South Africa, more than we will be able to consume. A few years ago, approximately five years ago, when we had a normal year in the Free State and when we had very good rains in the Free State and the Transvaal there was an over-production of dairy products in South Africa, so much so that we sold butter in quarter pounds in the Bantu towns on the Rand to find a market for the surplus dairy products. And then it was that side of the House who came along and bewailed the fact in this House that we have an overproduction of dairy products in South Africa.

And then the prices were reduced.

There was nothing to reply to in the speech made by the hon. member for Walmer.

I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present in the House, because I wanted to return to the speech which he made in this House on Saturday. In that speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements which I found very interesting. Amongst other things, he protested vehemently against the fact that a consolidation of the Bantu areas in South Africa is going to take place. He stated that there are 80 Bantu areas in Natal and approximately 130 Bantu areas in the Transvaal, and that the whole transaction of consolidating them would be far too expensive and that it would go quite against the grain of historical development in South Africa. I now want to read what the Cape Times wrote a short while ago with reference to a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this regard. The Cape Times wrote the following—

The Cape Times went on to state—

The newspaper regarded it as one of the “positive aspects”—

You will remember that the hon. member for Transkei made a great fuss about the small measure of criticism which the Cape Times levelled at the Opposition in that article. The Cape Times wrote—

The hon. member said that the United Party was not guilty of making negative statements. But here we have an example from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition of one of the negative things which the United Party is doing, namely, that they do not want to see those Bantu areas consolidated.

But there is another side to this matter. It is that if we do not consolidate those areas, then I must conclude from the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he spoke about federation—apparently he spoke about a geographical federation in South Africa whereby all the Bantu areas would sit in a federal parliament—that he will have to answer this question: “Does that mean that you are going to give each one of those separate Bantu areas a seat in the federal parliament which you, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants, on a geographical basis?” He has omitted to reply to that and he must give us a reply, because not only we, but the entire country, should like to know whether his federation is still the old federation in which he wants to bind the races on a federal basis and whether he now wants to give it a geographic content and whether he wants to give all the Bantu areas, which he does not want to consolidate, a seat in Parliament on a geographic basis?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred again in his speech to his speech made at Britstown in which he stated that he wanted to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas to a minimum. I really thought that we had made great progress with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, seeing that he has already reached this stage. He reproached us with the fact that we were doing very little to get the Bantu out of the White areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used all kinds of imaginary figures. Unfortunately he is not present but I want to tell him that if a standard six child did things like that one could understand it, but the Leader of the Opposition in our country ought not to play around with figures in South Africa as he has done. He is straining the truth, he is straining the figures of the Department of Census and Statistics (which were furnished to him), because he did not take the trouble to look at their reports. He alleged, inter alia, that for every White person leaving the rural areas 26 non-Whites take his place. He stated that 32,000 Whites have left the rural areas in the 18 years the National Party has been in power, and that for each one of them 26 Bantu have flocked into the rural areas. In other words, if one multiplies 32.000 by 26, then he is alleging that slightly more than 800,000 Bantu have come to the rural areas. I want to tell him that it is an abominable and disgraceful untruth which is unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition. If he had only gone and looked at the figures of the Department of Census and Statistics, he would have found what the actual state of affairs was. Let me furnish him with the correct figures. I shall furnish him with the following figures, which he can find in the statistics of the Department of Census and Statistics, because he is apparently incapable of checking them himself. The latest census made by the Department of Census and Statistics, supplied the following figures. In 1952 there were 592,000 Bantu workers on farms in rural areas in South Africa. The following year the total was 605,000 the year after that it was 623,000, and so it varies until one finds the maximum figure in 1959 of 659,000 Bantu workers on farms in the rural areas. Since that time it has decreased to 646,000 Bantu workers on the White farms in 1962 (the latest available figures which these statistics supply).

Now one can just multiply it by five to get the number of Bantu. In one had 659,000 Bantu on the White farms in 1959 and 646,000 in 1962, then one can see what effect influx and efflux control by the Government in this regard has had. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that there has been a tremendous increase in the cities. He has looked at the figures of the Department of Statistics and said that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of Bantu in the cities. Sir, between 1951 and 1960 (the only figures available) there was a total increase of 1,080,000 Bantu. There were 1,080,000 more in 1960 than there were in 1951. Now I want to analyse this figure for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as is also done in these statistics. We then find that the increase of Bantu males during that period between 1951 and 1960 was 547,360, and that for Bantu females it was 533,287, But then that same Department of Census and Statistics indicates that the figure for the natural increase of Bantu females in the cities is 5 per cent per year and that of Bantu males is 2.8 per cent per year. If one were to take the natural increase into account one would find that the increase in the number of females in the urban areas of South Africa during those ten years was only 121,600 and that for males it was 83,410, over and above the natural increase. And one ought in fact to take the natural increase into account when one talks about the increase of Bantu in the cities.

He also made another allegation. He said we were not excluding any Bantu from the White rural areas and that we were not resettling them in the Bantu areas. I want to quote these figures, the latest ones, which I have obtained from the Department of Bantu Administration, and they are reliable. I want to quote these figures so that one can see what has been done in this regard by the Department. There is a policy to clear locations which are situated in White areas but close to Bantu areas—such as the one near Potgietersrus, which is within a distance of two or three miles from Potgietersrus—and place them in the Bantu areas as Bantu townships. In that case that is what we did in fact do. I can mention other such examples. At Clermont there was a Bantu location near Pinelands which was first a White area but was subsequently occupied by Bantu. It was declared a released area and was then made a Bantu area. In the process of moving Bantu locations in the White areas 63,970 souls have so far been moved out of the White areas to Bantu areas. This amount I am including in the numbers now settled in Bantu townships.

I now want to come to the figures for the border industries. We must be careful when we work with these figures because the Department of Commerce and Industry only describe certain areas as border industries because those border industry areas receive certain benefits as border industries, and then the Department of Commerce and Industry classifies those townships as border areas. However, it does not include all border industry townships, because I have already mentioned to you that Umlazi is situated in the Bantu area but that it is on the outskirts of Durban and it is not classified as a border industry township; and that Dalmeni, which lies just to the north of Durban, is also a Bantu area and a large Bantu township has been established there, but it serves Durban and it is not classified as a border industry township by the Department of Commerce and Industry. I have obtained these figures in two parts from the Department in order to make them clear to the hon. members. The latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce and Industry for workers working in Bantu townships in the border industries which are classified by the Department as border areas is that to date there are 53,500 workers. There is another figure of 41,000 but that is already a few months old. The latest figure to date is 53,500, [Interjection.] Now I want to look at the workers in Bantu townships situated in the Bantu areas bordering White areas which are not classified as border areas by the Department of Commerce and Industry. There the total number of workers is 83,595. They are for example those in Dalmeni and those in Umlazi, and there are quite a number of similar townships which I could mention, where they are living in the Bantu area but working in the White area. But these are not regarded as border areas by the Department of Commerce and Industry. The total number of workers in these two is 137,000 and if one multiplies that by five to get the family, one gets a total of 685,000 souls which have already been settled there.

I come now to the following point. It is in regard to the Bantu who have been taken from the mission stations and have been removed from private farms during the same period. To date the total is 5,499 families. That amounts to almost 28,000 souls which have been moved from mission stations and private farms. We come now to the labour tenants who have become superfluous on farms. There were 8,225 superfluous families of which we could settle only 4,430 in the Bantu areas. The other approximately 4,000 once more found a place as labour tenants on other White farms. The total number of souls, labour tenants, who have been accommodated in the Bantu areas, is 22,150. The tenant families which have been settled there, according to the figures which they have furnished, number 345,555 souls, i.e. tenants which have been taken from the White rural areas and settled in the Bantu areas.

I then come to the Black spots, and you know what the Black spots are. They are Bantu who have farms in Bantu areas or who live in small Bantu reserves and who have been transferred to the Bantu areas through consolidation. First of all I want to give the number of morgen. The number of morgen which have already been cleared is 126,000. Still remaining to be cleared are 602,000 morgen of which 235,000 morgen is at present in the process of being cleared. Let us now look at the inhabitants of the Black spots and see what became of them. Up to the present we have taken 41,430 souls from the Black spots and resettled them in the Bantu areas. If one were to make a calculation from all these figures which I have furnished one would get the following: Locations which have been cleared to the Bantu areas 63,947 souls; Bantu townships in border industries, which are classified as such, as well as those which are not, 621,505 souls; Bantu from mission farms, 27,915 souls; labour tenants 22,150 souls; tenant families 345,555 souls; and in the Black spots, 41,430 souls. One then gets this very interesting figure. We have already resettled 1,122,000 souls in the Bantu areas. One can then come and ask me why the figures furnished by the Department of Census and Statistics are so far out, and I shall tell you why that is the case. Nowhere will you find in the Department of Census and Statistics that a separate figure is given for the inhabitants of Bantu areas and White areas in South Africa. [Interjections.] I know you feel uneasy when I furnish these figures. Sir, you will now ask me why the Department of Census and Statistics does not give the figures of Bantu areas as against those of White areas. But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He states that in the rural areas 26 Bantu have taken the place of every White who has left the rural areas. Where does he get that figure from? I went to check that figure in the Department of Census and Statistics and I found that this is what he did. He took the urban figure as against the rural areas figure and then found out what the increase in the rural areas had been, and everything which was an increase in the rural areas he counted as an increase on the White farms. But he quite forgot that all the Bantu areas in South Africa are included under the rural areas, and he has taken the entire increase in the Bantu areas and stated that it was the increase of the White farms. That is a disgraceful sleight-of-hand with figures. He does not know what he is talking about. I think it is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not make more sure of his figures.

In another week’s time you will have them all in the reserves.

I want to come to another figure. I want to talk about the so-called depopulation of the rural areas which he has alleged is taking place under this Government. It has never happened like that. Do you know what the correct figure is? If you will look once again at the figures of the Department of Census and Statistics, you will see that between 1948 and 1960 there were 52,000 Whites who left the rural areas to go to the cities, people, not farmers, because he juggled with the figure of 32,000 farming units and forgot that a farming unit may have been two or three farms which had previously been in the possession of one man. When that one man leaves he counted it as three farmers who have left. But the figure which is given is that 54,000 Whites moved to the cities, but do you know how many moved between 1936 and 1948, under the United Party régime? It was 58,000 Whites, 4,000 more than under the rule of this Government. But what did they do with those Whites who went to the cities? The United Party crammed them into uniforms to go and fight for Great Britain. They did not offer those people a means of subsistence. Those poor Whites who left the rural areas to go to the cities did not have a livelihood such as the one this Government is giving them, they had to go and fight. This Government has seen to it that we have experienced major industrial developments since 1948. There is not a single one of those Whites who left the rural areas who did not find an excellent livelihood in the cities. But now those people want to give themselves out as the patriots of South Africa. Let us strip them of their mask a little. They want to create the impression in the rural areas that they are the patriots of South Africa with this new image which they have tried to create of themselves during this Session. They have tried talking about a “bipartisan policy”. Apparently they already have a “bi-partisan policy” in connection with foreign affairs and they want a “bi-partisan policy” for defence. I see the Cape Times is already talking about a “bi-partisan policy” for Coloured affairs in South Africa. But let me tell them that we do not want people who do not belong with us out of sincere conviction. As long as they do not subscribe to our principles out of sincere conviction we do not want to know anything about them. They can remain where they are, with their “bi-partisan policy” and all.

In the few words he has just spoken, the hon. member for Heilbron has repudiated his own leader and his own Prime Minister. He rejected the hand of friendship we offered with regard to international affairs, and it is well that we should record his words, when he said that they did not want a bi-partisan policy in South Africa unless we agreed to their policy in all respects. But. Mr. Speaker, we know the hon. member for Heilbron.

You are a refugee.

We are still wondering when he will ever become a deputy minister …

Never.

I think his own party also knows him. Only the other day I read of the attack he had launched on Iscor, on Foskor and on the Industrial Development Corporation. He alleged that the language medium of those organizations was predominantly English. Does he recall the sound drubbing he received from Dr. Van Eck? He embarrassed his own Party, and now he is embarrassing his party again by stating that he and his party are absolutely opposed to any bi-partisan policy. It is a scandalous statement, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will repudiate it.

It is just another piece of gossip.

I am glad that the hon. member spoke just before me, because I want to say something about that hon. member and about hon. members like him to-day. We are always hearing—and we admit it— that Communism presents a great danger to South Africa. I want to make it clear that I regard sabotage and the murders committed as a result of it as the greatest danger to our country. Let me make that clear. Then I want to come to another danger threatening South Africa, a danger for which the police are not needed, a danger which has perhaps nothing to do with sabotage, but a danger which is harmful to the morale of South Africa and which is a deadly peril to South Africa’s image abroad. I am referring to that sinister, intolerant, narrow-minded group which is getting an increasingly stronger grip on the country and on this Government, “die verkramptes van Suid-Afrika”, of which the hon. member is one example. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, some of those hon. members are laughing, but I notice there are other members on that side who are serious about this. I admit that the bigoted people in that party on the opposite side are in the minority at the moment. According to the list I received, there are so far only 24 of them.

According to the list of the Sunday Times.

Hon. members are laughing because I point out the danger. Do you know what they are laughing at now? They are now laughing at one of their leading newspapers. Let me quote to you from the Beeld, and then we shall see if hon. members on that side will still be laughing. In the Beeld the following appeared—

Mr. Speaker, what has become of the laughter? Are the hon. members on that side repudiating their leading newspaper? The Beeld said that those bigoted people included English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking persons. It said—

This comes from their own newspaper. But their newspaper goes further and says—

You will not even catch a toad with this.

I think we should look at the characteristics of this group, of which there are some members in this House —the bigoted group.

Who are they?

That hon. member knows who they are. Let me describe their characteristics and then see whether the hon. members on that side recognize them. They are the people who have given support to the S.E.D. Brown group, which made an attack on Dr. Dönges, on Professor Thom, on Mr. Anton Rupert, on Professor Nick Olivier, Mr. Paul Sauer, Mr. Piet Cillié, the editor of the Burger, Mr. W. B. Coetzer, Mr. Jan S. Marais, Dr. Van Eck, the Rev. Landman, Dr. Tinie Louw, Mr. Tom Muller, Brother of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dirk Richard, editor of the Vaderland, on Schalk Pienaar, editor of the Beeld, on Jan van Rooyen, coeditor of the Transvaler, on Dr. Jack Hollo way, on the Rev. C. Brink, on Dr. A. D. Wassenaar, on Etienne Rousseau of Sasol, on Willem van Heerden and even on Mr. Justice Hiemstra. These are the people who are attacked by the bigots, some of whose henchmen are also sitting in the ranks of the Nationalist Party in this House. [Interjections.] Very well, if that is not true, responsible members on that side have an opportunity to-day to get up and repudiate S. E. D. Brown and his S.A. Observer unconditionally. We shall see whether that is going to happen.

Why are you so concerned about Brown?

They are the people who see ghosts in television, they are the people who see ghosts in the Beatles. They see ghosts in the Burger; they see ghosts in liberalism, in neo-liberalism, in imperialism, federalism and capitalism; all these are little demons that they see around them. They see ghosts, to quote Brown, in Dawie-ism, in Rupert-ism in Jan Marais-ism, and now they have found a new one.

And there is the biggest ghost of all.

I should like to know to which one the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party belongs. We know that there are communists; we know that there are anticommunists, but now we hear from the chairman of the Anti-communist Congress that the greatest danger is presented by the anti-anticommunist. Mr. Speaker, I am not very much in favour of the chairman of that anti-communist congress; therefore I suppose I am an anti-anti-anti-communist.

I come to a second characteristic of these bigots. They are paralysed with fright and they are afraid of the English Press, of English folk-singing, of the English traditions (except, of course, rugby and English dress); they are afraid of the Black Englishman; they are afraid of the red Englishman, but here and there they do accept the tame Englishman. They are against the majority in America, in Britain, in Scandinavia, in Japan (if they trawl our fish at sea, but not if they swim in our swimming-baths); they are against the Olympic committee, against the American Field Service, against the Leader Exchange Programme with the United States, against the Maoris and against ever so many others of whom I do not know. “Verkramptes”! Mr. Speaker, what a good name for these people, of whom there is also a large group on that side of the House. They are against swimming on Sundays, they are against Virginia Woolf on the stage, though not on the screen; they are against 20th Century Fox and they are against Sapa. I hope the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be present just now, because I should like to say a few words to him.

Mr. Speaker, basically I regard those bigoted Afrikaners, who have obtained such a strong grip on this Government, as anti-English as well, as against the English-speaking people. In this regard I want to quote—not what someone on our side said; I want to quote what a leading columnist on that side said, i.e. Mr. Dennis Worrall, who writes a regular column in the Beeld every Sunday.

Is he left or right?

I should very much like to know what that hon. member considers him. Is he not one of the bigots, or is he also a bigot? This columnist is a lecturer at the Natal University. He is a leading Nationalist in Natal, and I quote what he wrote—

Here an English-speaking leader of the Nationalists in Natal and a leading columnist comes along and accuses their chief propagandist, Dr. Albert Hertzog, of being anti-English.

Then I should just like to quote the words of Mr. Eben Cuyler once again, that the Afrikaans culture is the only culture in South Africa. He is a leader of the Nationalist Party in the Johannesburg City Council. I may tell you how leaders of the Nationalist Party did in fact repudiate the words of the Provincial Council member of the Free State, P. W. Nel, when he said that there should be only one language in South Africa, the Afrikaans language. Have these other things to which I have referred, however, ever been repudiated?

Which things?

These things I have just mentioned, for example their anti-English attitude. Have they repudiated, for example, what the hon. member for Heilbron said, i.e. that the language medium of Iscor and Foskor is predominantly English?

You do not know what I actually said.

Have they ever repudiated what another member of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council said, i.e. that he believed in indoctrination? He wants the children of South Africa to be indoctrinated. There is the hon. member for Randfontein. He and some other members on that side believe in indoctrination, not so? He is silent now, but the other day he had a good deal to say about that.

Another characteristic of this group is that they are opposed to real freedom of the Press in South Africa, freedom of the Press as understood by Western countries. The communists speak of freedom of the Press in Russia, but there is no freedom of the Press there. They are against basic freedom of the Press, as we understand it in South Africa. Now and then, of course, there is one on that side who also speaks against the Nationalist Party newspapers, for example the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I hope he was quoted correctly, but according to the newspaper report he had said that the Nationalist newspapers were also guilty of terrible distortions.

I did not say that; you are talking nonsense.

That is how he was quoted. If he had not said that, then the Nationalist newspapers which reported him really distorted, because they published it and they attacked him on account of it.

Have you read the article by Jan van Rooyen about that? You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Carletonville is the man who asked that there should be special courts for the Press. A delegate from Innesdal—I wonder why Innesdal? —called out at a congress of the Nationalist Party that action should be taken by means of legislation against sections of the English Press—also by way of punitive action. I know that that motion of his was rejected, but such a motion should never have been introduced. Only 14 days ago the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the hon. member for Innesdal—I think that was before the Ver-eeniging vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys—once again made an attack on Sapa, as of old, and said the following—

Instead of being ashamed of the pitiable figure they struck after they had been rapped on the knuckles by their own newspapers in the past, they came and repeated this charge against Sapa once again. Two years ago the Burger wrote about them—

But, of course, having attacked the Press, they do not have the courage to go outside this House and mention the name of a specific newspaper, nor do they have the courage to take a newspaper to the Press Council. The other day I queried the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this House about newspapers, and do you know what he said? It was not published, because he said it so quickly; he said that if one takes a newspaper to the Press Council, it is tantamount to taking the devil to Beelzebub. That is recorded in Hansard. Is that the kind of word one should use against a competent ex-Judge who is head of the Press Council of South Africa? Are those the kind of words approved by hon. members on that side? Do the bigots on that side also regard the Press Council as Beelzebub? They are afraid of going to an ex-Judge, the head of that Press Council, to ask him to judge a particular report. They are also opposed to real co-operation in South Africa. The hon. member for Primrose said the following when he spoke at the Sabra Congress. I have the English translation here and it reads as follows—

That was only a few days ago, at that congress.

Pump him up a bit. He is deflated.

When it comes to being inflated, I should rather not ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to tell us much about it. He is always inflated. Now we come to the mouthpiece of the bigots. Their mouthpiece is the publication the S.A. Observer. For years the members on that side of the House devoured and swallowed the attacks of the bigots through the S.A. Observer, until the A.S.B. Congress came to that eruption recently. And then the ordinary members on the other side of the House boasted of a victory over Brown. The following words appeared in the Beeld: “Skerp reaksie teen Brown. Sy dae is getel. Die reaksie teen Brown was so skerp, beslis en algemeen dat die Brown-episode so goed as verby is. Nog net opruimwerk is nodig.” I should have been contented if that had indeed been the case. I am against the bigots, as you may have deduced. But what happened? The other day there was an issue of the S.A. Observer, larger than any previous issue. It covered 20 pages. And now the fat is really in the fire. Now we are waiting once again for that paper to be repudiated by the opposite side of the House. Because this latest edition attacked the leaders of the Nationalist Party and leading Nationalists as never before, and that with the assurance that the editor is a Nationalist himself. Do hon. members on the opposite side deny that he is a Nationalist? Now there is silence once again. They are afraid of repudiating him. They are afraid of repudiating the man for what he says about Piet Cillié, Schalk Pienaar, Jan van Rooyen, and of Venter of the Nataller. If he speaks of them as “those frantic and unintelligent …”

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may an hon. member raise political havoc in the last days of the Session? [Interjections.]

Only the other day there was an article in one of the Nationalist newspapers in which it was alleged that the Session had been remarkably peaceful. I should like to preserve that peace. That is why I want to raise a matter here, one of those matters on which I am sure 100 per cent of the Opposition will agree with me, and also 90 per cent of the Government members. Here we really have a matter on which we can agree. If we consider what is said by the bigots about the ordinary members, then we find that the bigots are saying that the ordinary members are no longer Nationalists. The Nationalists, in turn, say that the bigots are communists turned inside out. I do not think there has ever been such a difference of opinion, such cracks and ominous rifts in a party as those in the Nationalist Party of the present. [Interjections.] Or are they satisfied with being called “no Nationalists”? Are they satisfied with the fact that the leader or mouthpiece of the bigots calls the editor of the Burger “no Nationalist” or “a neo-liberalist”? [Interjections.]

Order!

But it was rightly said by the Transvaler—

Let us hear who is behind it. Let us hear. [Interjections.] You see, there is a group of bigots in that party on the opposite side. And one asks oneself: Who is their leader? Who is their “grey eminence”? And more and more the finger is pointed at one particular member of the Cabinet, namely the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He is a remarkable figure, a sinister figure in our politics.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, if you rule that the word “sinister” is not permissible, I shall withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has played a remarkable role in his lifetime. Do you know that when he had been in politics only a few years, he was repudiated by his own father, the late General Hertzog, in a letter written to him? Even then he was accused of tearing asunder the Afrikaner people through his actions. During the war years he played another role. The role he played was to take over the trade unions of South Africa for the Nationalist Party. In his own ranks he caused a rift. Ask the hon. member for Malmesbury, who had a similar organization. He had more trouble with Albert Hertzog in those days than he had with the Government, when they tried to take over the trade unions of South Africa. We saw examples of his irresponsible behaviour during the past few weeks. We saw the abominable story he broadcast, namely that the English Press had led on to (“afgestuur het op”) the assassination of the late Prime Minister. I have his words here. He denied that a certain part of that report was true. He said it was a Sapa report. And Sapa and the Burger proved him wrong. He had told an untruth when he accused them of having published an erroneous report to the country. He launched an unworthy attack against the Star. And the Star proved that his attack was rife with untruths.

He is the man who came forward with an untrue charge against 20th Century Fox. He disgraced himself. He disgraced his entire party. Do hon. members on the opposite side of the House recall that the hon. the Minister said that 20th Century Fox was a dangerous organization in South Africa, that African Mirror was harming South Africa and was an un-Afrikaans organization? He alleged that African Mirror had given no prominence to the Republic Festival, and much more to the visit of Robert Kennedy. But as far as the Kennedy visit was concerned, we had an African Mirror programme lasting two minutes, whereas a programme of 26 minutes was devoted to the Republic Festival. That was 13 times as much, almost three full newsreels.

This is a real gossipmonger’s speech.

The hon. Chief Whip will have his turn to reply. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member may speak of gossipmongers and loud mouths, as long as the mouth of the hon. the Minister is closed when he speaks. It is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who warned the country that they should not send their children to English-language universities. When he was challenged by the principal of the Natal University to give examples, he could mention only three or four examples of students who had studied or were still studying at the Natal University, who had been convicted of offences And the principal remarked rightly that he could also mention three, four or five examples of people who had studied at the theological faculty of a large university in South Africa, and who had also been convicted of very grave offences. But that does not mean that one should point a damning finger at that large university and its important theological faculty.

He is an enemy of the American Field Service. He is a great enemy of that scheme, a simple scheme by means of which the children of South Africa and the children of America are exchanged and get to know each other. He was an enemy to such an extent that he was also called to account by the Burger and the Beeld. I quote from the Beeld—

What I find strange is that these bigots consider themselves men of firm principles. Let us have a look at some of their principles. They attack Sapa. But the newspaper of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs himself, the Vaderland, supplies reports to Sapa, and receives and publishes reports from Sapa. They attack 20th Century Fox as something diabolic, but the Minister’s own newspaper publishes advertisements of 20th Century Fox. They do not use that argument against pounds, shillings and pence. They attack the English newspapers, Mr. Speaker. But as we read in a newspaper yesterday, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has shares to the value of R22,000 in an English newspaper company, the Argus Company. [Interjections]. Those men of principle! Look at them! These super de luxe Afrikaners, Mr. Speaker, who say that only bilingual people should be appointed to the Public Service. But do you know that last year the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs appointed a man to the Board of Governors of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation who was not even a South African citizen? His certificate of naturalization came through only a few months ago. I have it here. They are against the American Field Service and the Leader Exchange Programme. But that did not prevent the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs from studying on the money of Cecil John Rhodes. They ask that the gold mines should be taken over, those bigots. They demand that the gold mines be taken over and that the State should have control over them. That statement has been made numerous times by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that that same Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also appointed someone to the Board of Governors of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation—the facts were tabled and may be read by anybody—who was or is a director of no fewer than 47 gold-mining companies? A man who was the director of 47 gold-mining companies is nevertheless appointed to the Board of Governors of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

What is to be done with these bigoted people? As far as I am concerned, their undermining of the Nationalist Party and of the Government is a matter concerning the Government and the Nationalist Party. I was not sent to the House of Assembly to save the Nationalist Party. I was not sent to the House of Assembly to save them from doom and undermining in their own ranks. What does cause me concern, is the fact that those people are creating an image and exerting an influence in our South African nation, in our White nation, and in the Afrikaner people, which can have only a bad and an adverse effect, they are creating the impression that the only true patriots are people who think the way they do, that the only true anticommunists are that small group who follow Bundy and McCarthy and those types. That is the danger they present. The second danger they present is the fact that they do not hesitate to bring people to South Africa from abroad to attack leading South Africans, or to bring in foreigners to attack ministers of our church here in South Africa. That is their danger to South Africa. They do not hesitate to harm our country in that way. They do not hesitate to create through their actions an image of South Africa abroad as a bigoted group of people who are living in fossilization and in the past. That is the danger. What this bigotry does to the Nationalist Party is no concern of mine, but what is of concern to me is what they are doing to South Africa. It is time action was taken against them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has often said that when the United Party talks about disunity in the National Party, a rift appears in the United Party. History has often given us proof of that. How many times has that not happened? Do you still remember how in the fifties they first expelled Messrs. Blaar Coetzee, Frankie Waring. Bailey Bekker and Arthur Barlow as a result of the question of Coloured voters, because it was their intention to agree to the Coloureds being removed from the voters’ roll? And then, a short while later, when the Coloureds had been removed from the voters’ roll and Mr. Bernard Friedman rose and said that he was in favour of the Coloureds’ being re-instated on the roll, they expelled him. And sure enough, Mr. Speaker, a short while after they had expelled him for having said that he was in favour of the Coloureds’ being reinstated on the voters’ roll, the United Party adopted the policy for which they had expelled Bernard Friedman. Do you remember how. in 1959. the Sunday Times and these self-same hon. members spoke about the great tension and disunity which supposedly prevailed in the National Party in regard to the abolition of the Native representatives? Do you remember that all that talk of theirs in 1959 resulted in the Bloemfontein Congress, where the Progressives tore away? And what happened in the National Party, a party which had supposedly found itself in such a state of tension in regard to the abolition of the Native representatives? A certain Mr. Japie Basson tore away and left the National Party, where he had in fact never belonged, and by means of a long detour he once again landed with the United Party, where he had started and where he is now sojourning on his way further left.

In a recent edition of the Sunday Times, he wrote an article in which he referred to office numbers. I only hope that the way in which he can read office numbers is somewhat poorer than his concept of politics, because if his political ability is as poor as his ability to read office numbers, it must be wretched. In the same article he referred to the fact that it was being said of him that he was “unashamedly left-wing”. That, he said, was untrue. In the Cape Times of 21st June, 1962, an article appeared under the heading: “Portrait of an individualist—Japie Basson, Firebrand of South African politics”, written by a certain Donald Woods, who carried on a calm conversation with Mr. Japie Basson on the eve of his going over to the United Party. In that article Woods sang the praises of this hon. member. In a few places he warned the United Party: “Opportunist he is—the best in the business … Political parties are to him subordinate things, vehicles of convenience and not much more.” Having sung the praises of the hon. member in that manner, he also concluded by saying, “He is unashamedly left-wing now that the Republican issue is disposed of”. The journalist, Mr. Donald Woods, wrote this article after a lengthy conversation with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has never denied these words. I challenge the hon. member now to furnish me with proof that he has ever denied these words. [Interjections.]

May I ask you a question?

The hon. member can sneak presently. I am challenging him to furnish me with proof that he has ever denied these words.

I accept the challenge.

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Gardens whether he will allow himself to be described as “unashamedly left-wing”. Here we have the hon. member for Durban (Point). Will he allow himself to be described as “unashamedly left-wing”? Here we have the hon. member for Durban (North). He may perhaps allow himself to be described as “unashamedly left-wing”. Will he? And over there we have the hon. member for Transkei. Will he allow himself to be described as “unashamedly left-wing”? Not one of them wants to reply. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not get so excited now. I say that a party which allows one of its members to say that he is “unashamedly left-wing”, and then tries to parade, as they are trying to do, as people who stand for the preservation of the accepted values in South Africa, is either engaged in deceiving the electorate on a large scale, or inwardly so divided that it has sunk to such a low level … [Interjections.] I am not a prophet, and I do not want to be one. But I am saying that if, behind the face the United Party is trying to show at present, it has in its ranks people who allow themselves to be described as “unashamedly left-wing”, then there is no need of a prophet, but it can be stated as a cold fact that the United Party is saddled with the greatest tension and disunity in its ranks, and that it is trying to exorcize it by means of the old recipe … [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked whether that member was allowed to distort things. Surely, that is a reflection on that hon. member.

He cannot tell a lie.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can reply to the hon. member on a later occasion. In the meantime the hon. member should, however, withdraw that remark.

Very well. Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, but the hon. member is not telling the truth.

Order! The hon. member can reply presently.

It is not a prophecy on my part when I maintain that the United Party is saddled with the greatest tension and disunity in its ranks, and that it once again finds itself on the eve of a crisis, a crisis which will result in the secession of yet another group of its people. This is purely and simply a cold statement in the light of its own history here in South Africa.

It is in order to exorcize the distress of the party that United Party members are now directing these scapegoat tactics—to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has only just testified—against part of the National Party. Looking for a scapegoat is an old technique. We also see that in international politics to-day South Africa has to be the scapegoat so that the United States and the United Nations may conceal their internal weaknesses, the problems with which they are faced and to which they have no solution. I have here a document which was issued very recently by the Institute for African Studies of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys, and in which the following is stated (translation)—

Now, that is the poor United Nations which does not know whether it is coming or going and which has so many problems on its hands and so many matters requiring its attention that it is simply shutting its eyes to them, and then, in order to exorcize its distress, it wants to discuss South Africa’s so-called aggression against the territories as a matter of extreme importance. These are also the tactics employed by the United Party.

It is being said here that we should show the outside world a united front and that we should have a “bi-partisan approach”. But we shall see the United Party again. All these things are being said merely in order to buy time for itself to see whether it cannot exorcize the crisis in its own ranks. That is the whole explanation. If there is to be talk of showing the outside world a united front, it ought to be possible on the basis of simple, proper patriotism which can be expected from any party and can also be expected at all times. What did the United Party do in the days when it was in a position to display its patriotism to the advantage of South Africa?

I have here an excerpt from a report published in the Cape A reus of 7th May, 1960, according to which the Leader of the Opposition said—

Of course! Quite right!

At that time the United Party’s method of approach was in fact to show the outside world that it did not identify itself with the Government and that it wanted to emphasize the fact that we stood divided in regard to the outside world. With that the United Party created the impression that it was siding with the outside world against the Government. [Interjections.] Over the years that has always been the attitude adopted by the United Party.

Here I have a clipping taken from a British newspaper, the Daily News, of 13th November, 1962, in which the following is stated—

It is stated here that the United Party welcomes such an expression of international support for the attitude it adopts. Surely, this is the game the United Party has always been playing in South Africa, namely to make a play for the favour of the outside world, as though they can satisfy the outside world. They made it apparent that they would help the outside world to achieve its objective in South Africa, an objective which amounts to the destruction of the order, the values and the principles for which this Government stands. They should not come with this talk of a “bi-partisan approach” if that has been the substance of the United Party’s approach over the years. They should not come now and say that we should accept their bona fides, as though bona fides are things which can be presented on a tray and which another person can either take or leave. One’s bona fides are tested against one’s actions over the years, and that is why we must test the United Party’s bona fides against its disavowal of patriotism towards South Africa, as I have only just indicated.

The United Party’s bona fides must also be tested against its desire to maintain order in South Africa. Let us have no doubts about the fact that, if there is to be no interference in South Africa’s affairs by the outside world, it will depend on two essentials. The first is our ability to maintain order within South Africa. As long as order prevails within South Africa, there will be few opportunities for the outside world to interfere. Anybody who knows anything, will admit that. Secondly, it depends on how the image of South Africa is presented in the outside world, in other words, whether South Africa’s image abroad is presented in such a slanted manner that public opinion abroad will be poisoned against South Africa. These are the two factors which will determine whether it will be necessary for us in South Africa to stand together as a result of a crisis. It will not be necessary to come with a gesture of a united front if. in regard to these two questions, the United Party sides with us on an unambiguous and proper patriotic basis.

Even the National Party supporters do not agree with you.

These are the questions which will determine the outside world’s attitude towards us. If the United Party is saying that it will side with us against foreign threats, it should in the first place state what attitude it adopts towards maintaining order in South Africa, towards combating Communism, in the light of its record in regard to these matters. On other occasions I have already read out many quotations indicating what the United Party’s attitude was in respect of these matters, but I want to read you another in regard to the United Party’s record in respect of these matters. I am reading you an extract from Time Longer than Rope by Edward Roux, the great “liberal” of the United Party and the Progressive Party. On page 318 he says—

That was the “change-over” in regard to the Stalin-Hitler agreement. He says—

And now—

That is the way they fought Communism in South Africa! That is the way they preserved order in South Africa. If the United Party wants to give out that it is siding with this Government against the foreign threat, it must tell us very clearly where it stands in regard to these matters, because the Communist Party is an international organization. What we in South Africa have seen of it in the court cases of the past few years, was merely the spearhead which is present in South Africa and which is being supported from outside and which has a great deal to do with the hostility to South Africa in countries abroad. I repeat that if the United Party now wants to present a united front, it should first of all tell us very clearly and plainly where it stands as regards these matters. Then we should not hear this sort of nonsense from the United Party, the nonsense we hear time and again, namely that when steps are taken against communists in South Africa, it is McCarthyism, the word which was also used by the hon. member for Orange Grove. You know, these things are becoming so silly that one cannot believe one’s eyes. For instance, you will remember that during the seamen strike which took place in Britain this year, Mr. Wilson said that it was the communists who were behind the strike. And look now. Here I have the Star of 27th June, 1966—

And just listen to this—

How silly can people become in the face of such serious matters? How silly? And then to listen to the hon. member for Orange Grove!

No, there are numerous things against the record of the United Party in regard to combating Communism. There were the days when Luthuli held meetings in Cape Town and said that he wanted to finish off the National Party first, but that the United Party was next. At that time the United Party still went on saying that we should not touch such “moderate” people. And when it subsequently came to light during the Rivonia trial that Luthuli was well-informed of that entire revolution plan which was hatched against South Africa, what was the United Party’s attitude? They interceded for those people in this Parliament. In the days when demands were made upon us in South Africa and when we were told that the entire world was in a state of high moral indignation about the policy followed here, the policy of suppressing these people, while these self-same people were seeking South Africa’s downfall, the United Party laid the blame for their actions on South Africa’s Government.

Patrick Duncan.

Yes, I do not want to mention his name, but here in the front benches of the United Party a man rose and said, “as a child, Patrick Duncan used to sit on my knee. You cannot say these things about him.” I do not want to disgrace the political memory of that former member, but he was a front-bencher of the United Party. These are the things we had to deal with, and now we must believe that when those foreign forces find their extension in these elements in South Africa, with whom the United Party wants to maintain friendly relations, then we must believe that the United Party will side with us against foreign threats! The United Party has many things to account for before it can persuade us that this is sincere.

Then I said that in addition to the maintenance of internal order and security, it depended on the way the image of South Africa was presented in the outside world, how the outside world would feel and act in regard to South Africa. I am glad that the hon. member for Yeoville is sitting there. After the election on 29th April, 1966, when he was still very heavily weighed down by the results of the election, he wrote the following in the Star. He referred to conditions in South Africa, and then he said the following about our young people—

It is the hon. member for Yeoville, a frontbencher of the United Party, who says these things, with one objective, and that is to besmirch South Africa’s name in the outside world. He says that with one objective, and that is to give a bad smell to South Africa’s name in the outside world. Two months later, on the 26th June, we find the following report in the Sunday Times—

Is that not an absolute untruth? And the hon. member for Yeoville, a front-bencher of the United Party, says these things with one objective, and that is to cause a slanted image of South Africa to take root in the world, so that hostility to South Africa may continue to smoulder in the outside world.

No, Mr. Speaker, the United Party also knows that the role played by the English language Press in South Africa over the past number of years, was a role which aimed at making South Africa’s position in the outside world as difficult as possible, and never was a word of criticism heard from the United Party. As a matter of fact, they always defended that Press. This Press which is being monopolized by a handful of people, was held up to us as the great representatives of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech! And then one finds people such as a Stanley Uys who bows his head to a Nkrumah. [Laughter.] The hon. member for North Rand is laughing. He is so ignorant that he will laugh about his own funeral. That is the sort of Press he takes under his protection. When a prominent member of that Press bows his head to Nkrumah and signs a declaration that he abhors the policy followed in South Africa, he is protected by the United Party. Then we find a man such as Lewis Sowden who sat in the gallery at the UN. and while Dr. Eric Louw was defending our country. South Africa, in the teeth of criticism, he shouted, “You must not believe him: I know South Africa. I know he is telling half-truths.” That is the sort of person who is being protected by the United Party and who is time and again appointed by that newspaper. The United Party did not utter a single word against that. They protect such a person.

That is the sort of thing against which the United Party’s bona fides should be tested and will be tested in the future. If its intentions are sincere, there is a very simple test: Let it show us clearly and plainly where it stands in respect of these two fundamental questions. Then we shall either believe it or disbelieve it, but that is the test for the future.

In addition to that, the United Party will be obliged to show us—whether it wants to do so or not—whether it really stands for a policy which will safeguard the White man in South Africa, or whether it merely stands for a policy which differs in degree from the policy of the Progressive Party. For instance, here I have the Cape Times of 20th February, 1963, and I want to read to you how the policy of the United Party is viewed by this paper—

“A vast gulf of principle from the Nationalists” with whom it is now pleading for a “bi-partisan approach”.

The policy of the United Party will result in the destruction of order in South Africa, it will result in the destruction of the Western values in South Africa, it will result in the destruction of all freedom and all democracy, just as in the rest of Africa, because it must inevitably lead to an impossible combination which must take place in the name of democracy, the so-called “multi-racial society”. Or does the hon. member for Yeoville object to “multi-racial society”? The difference between him and the hon. member for Houghton is merely that the hon. member for Houghton talks about “a non-racial society”. But the United Party policy must supposedly lead to a “multi-racial society” in South Africa, and where on earth does a “multi-racial society” exist?

In South Africa.

In Africa this idea of a “multi-racial society” was also sold in the name of all sorts of pious things. What has happened to it in Africa? What has happened to every White community in Africa: Kenia, Zambia, Ghana, Nigeria, wherever White communities were to be found? What happened to them in the “multi-racial societies”? Once they were thrown into a parliamentary democracy which consisted of such divergent groups that there was no predominant interest strong enough to unite them, the White people were automatically expelled from those communities and multi-racial communities were out of the question.

What is the lesson of Africa? That even in a country such as Nigeria, where Black people with religious and ethnic differences were united in a federative parliamentary democracy. the tension was so great that even the uni-racial Blacks could not remain together. What has been demonstrated in Africa proves inexorably that parliamentary democracy cannot possibly unite into a parliamentary democracy such divergent ethnic communities as are to be found here in South Africa. It is a vain hope that it will be possible to maintain order by those means and that it will be possible for the White man in South Africa to survive as a minority. [Time limit.]

I do not mind personal attacks being made on me, but one feels it a pity that one only has a half an hour and that one then has to waste one’s time on a member like the hon. member for Innesdal. If ever there was a man sitting in this House who has been proved consistently wrong in regard to all major issues, then it is the hon. member for Innesdal. Just think of the time when he said that he would wager his entire future on the fact that Barry Gold-water would win. He was angry with Dagbreek because Dagbreek had implied that Goldwater would lose the presidential election in America. He was absolutely certain that Goldwater would win.

To-day he has come along and stated that nowhere in the world is there a valid “multiracial state”. What about Angola and Mozambique here right on our borders? The Portuguese are telling the whole world that their policy of being a multi-racial state is succeeding. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member is consistently wrong. The worst is this. One cannot accept a single quotation which that hon. member uses as being correct, and I shall tell you why. We had a practical example of that here. He read from an article which had been written by Mr. Donald Woods, dealing with me. In the first place I want to ask him whether he is going to accept everything that Mr. Donald Woods wrote about Dr. Verwoerd or what he would to-day write about him or the hon. the Prime Minister? What Mr. Woods wrote was his own opinion, but what did that hon. member say? He said I had described myself as “unashamedly left-wing”. That is totally untrue. Where is that stated? I feel that I would be demeaning myself to accept a challenge from a man who can tell such gross untruths in this House. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members what Mr. Woods said. He said that in all parties there was a “left” group and a “right” group, also within the National Party; and his hypothesis was that there was also a “left” group and a “right” group within the United Party. There is no party in the world which does not have differences of emphasis. What Mr. Woods said is that within the framework of the United Party, which is a very conservative party, I am “unashamedly left-wing”—but within the framework of a conservative party’s politics. In any case, it is only the opinion of a newspaper writer, and he is entitled to his opinion.

But you have accepted his challenge to deny it.

He asked whether I would deny that I had described myself like that, and I have denied it before in the House of Assembly. I do not make a habit of replying to every newspaper article. Where would a Member of Parliament end up if he had to reply to every opinion appearing in the newspapers? I could not care less what a newspaper writer or any of those hon. members call me, because I am responsible only to myself. Throughout my political career I have adhered to one philosophy only, democracy. I have remained a convinced democrat. In that party there are people like the hon. member for Innesdal who do not favour democracy and regard it as a liberal form of Government. But never in all the years I have been participating in politics have I deviated from democracy; and not all the members in this House could say that. If there are member who regard democracy as being “left-wing” or “liberal”, let them think so, and as to what the further opinions of newspaper writers are, I could not care less. That hon. member did not reply to a single point which the hon. member for Orange Grove raised. He made many quotations, but I do not accept a single quotation which he used as being correct, because he wrests everything out of its context.

A great deal was said here about Communism. Surely one must measure a party against the results it achieves. The United Party did govern, and during that time Communism did not flourish. What is as plain as a pike staff is the fact that Communism in South Africa only grew under this Government, and has in fact got out of hand. Why? [Interjections.] That is the test. It did not grow under our régime, but it did grow, consistently, under that of this Government. I have dealt with this time after time and I do not want to say the same things over again, but why did it grow under this Government? [Interjections.] But what is more, the United Party did in fact govern. If one goes back in history then I say that in the years after coalition we had the best Government which South Africa had ever had in its entire history. That is the practical reply to the foolish allegations made by that hon. member.

I want to come to other matters. When this Session began we had legislation on our desks here which would have made this Session one of the most contentious ones we would have had for many years in South Africa. What the Government’s motives were for removing that legislation from the Table, even if it is only temporarily, we will never fully know.

What legislation?

All the legislations dealing with racial matters, inter alia, the legislation in regard to so-called “interference”. [Interjection.] Now the hon. members suddenly do not know what is going on. I am talking about the negative racial legislation, inter alia, also in regard to the universities. What was a good thing was the fact that the Opposition issued a warning very early on in this Session, and did so very clearly, that this was not a time in which feelings against South Africa should be intensified. As it is, the reports which have recently reached us on what is going on in the United Nations, and particularly those affecting South West Africa, are anything but comforting. I do not think the man in the street in South Africa has the faintest idea of what misfortunes are overtaking us. We are moving towards a confrontation with powers of a tremendous magnitude, and in the days which lie ahead we in South Africa are going to be faced with trials such as we have never experienced before.

It is not going to avail the Government at all to persist in trying to place the blame for whatever goes wrong on the Opposition’s shoulders, as the hon. Deputy Minister has just done again. I want to concede that an Opposition is not without duties, but the power to do things, or not to do things, does not rest with the Opposition, it rests with the Government; and the responsibility for what lies ahead for us is going to depend on what actions the Government takes. Upon the climate which this Government creates in the days which lie ahead will depend whether there will be White solidarity, and whether we will in a time of crisis be able to depend upon the loyalty of the other race groups in the country. That will not depend upon the Opposition. As far as the question of daily race relations is concerned: The Government has been in power for 18 years already, and in that time it has had the country in a turmoil time and again in regard to racial legislation and we have passed a profusion of legislation in this House to control relations. Therefore I am now stating that if the Government, after 18 years, has not yet created the machinery and does not yet have enough powers to control relations, it will never achieve success with the controlling of race relations. If. after 18 years, the Government does not yet have enough powers and enough machinery to control matters, they will never have it and we will never reach the position where we can present the outside world with a positive picture. As far as the relations between Whites are concerned, they are equally important. We are continually hearing of “national unity”, and the Government boasts that there is today a large percentage of English-speaking people who support it. If that is so, let it be so. There is nothing wrong with people choosing the side they want to choose. But the fact of the matter is that out of the 126 members on that side only three of them sitting there are English-speaking. If they really want “national unity”, particularly since we are heading for times of crisis, this Government will have to steer in the direction of a balanced Cabinet consisting of English as well as Afrikaans speaking people, on a balanced basis.

Not just the United Party rejects.

The thing which we need the most in South Africa to-day is a national Government, not in the sense of a two-party Government but in the actual sense of co-operation at all levels of government by English as well as Afrikaans-speaking persons. In the times which lie ahead I think that if it is true that the Government is enjoying strong support from the English-speaking persons to-day, it is the duty of the Government to see to it that it creates a balanced national Government in which it will have suitable Afrikaans as well as English-speaking persons to co-operate on all levels of government. Until such time as it has done that it cannot really say that it has created national unity.

But what I should like to talk about is this. The greatest test which lies ahead for the Government is going to be in the field of Black-White relations. During this Session we have heard once again the old story that the Opposition has changed its policy. There is a difference between principles which ought to be fundamental and the implementation of principles under specific circumstances. I shall not accuse the Government of having altered its principles on the question of Bantu policy, but what I am in fact saying is that it has undergone major changes as far as emphasis in the implementation of those principles is concerned. Who does not remember the days when Prime Ministers have stood up here beating their desks and calling out: “Mastery, sovereignty, domination?” Do we still talk about mastery to-day? No, let us be fair. I am not accusing the Government of having changed its basic principles, but there has most certainly been a radical change in emphasis in regard to those principles. They are now speaking in terms of equality. That is why that side should be the last to make accusations in respect of a “change of policy”. As far as Bantu policy is concerned, let us have a look at what this side of the House bases its policy on. In 1956, when the Report of the Tomlinson Commission was published, this party immediately issued a statement and published it in a special pamphlet and in that pamphlet it stated that it accepted the general principles of the Commission and that—

Note the emphasis on “different areas”. In 1961. at the general election, the United Party emphasized it again. I have always subscribed to the Report of the Tomlinson Commission. I have never budged an inch from my standpoint.

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

Unfortunately I do not have much time left and I should appreciate it if hon. members would give me a chance to put the few points I want to make. I should like to come to the federative idea.

When business was interrupted I was pointing out that in 1956 the United Party had accepted the general principles of the Report of the Tomlinson Commission. In 1961 it furnished further confirmation of that in the election manifesto which the Party had published at that time. On that occasion it stated very clearly that it “believed in large-scale and rapid economic, social and constitutional development of the Bantu areas”—within the federative concept. After that the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated repeatedly that the Party stood for the development of the Bantu areas into provinces and, in the case of those which had the ability to develop further, into autonomous units—within a federal framework. A year or so ago we conducted a debate here on South West Africa, on the plans of the Odendaal Commission, and once more the Party adopted the positive attitude that the acknowledged Bantu areas in the northern sector of South West Africa should be developed into autonomous units, even to the point of self-determination. That was our standpoint.

To independence?

I shall come to that, but let him refer to the Hansard and he will see how we put it, i.e. that that in the long run was what the people of South West Africa themselves wanted. Let me just finish my analysis. The hon. Deputy Minister can then put his questions and I shall reply to them. The whole direction of the United Party has consistently been the large-scale and constitutional development of the Bantu areas. To-day we are in fact that only party in South Africa which stands for the dynamic development of the Bantu areas. The Government ought to know that it has no hope of vitalizing the Bantu areas without allowing free capital, and it is not only we who say that. I have here extracts from Volkshandel, the mouthpiece of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, from the Financial Mail, from statements made by Dr. C. R. Louw, head of the Sanlam group, and Dr. Anton Rupert, and every responsible newspaper editor supporting the Government, which all state that one will never, by excluding free capital which is the policy which the Government is following, succeed in relieving the Black pressure on one’s cities. That is why I say that the only party which has a practical policy for relieving Black pressure on the cities, is this side of the House which believes in allowing free capital and free development. That is also my reply to the hon. member for Innesdal who asked how we wanted to safeguard the Whites. We want to safeguard them with deeds and not with words. The policy of that Party, as they are implementing it to-day, is going to lead to the exact opposite. The results which they are achieving are the exact opposite of their policy as they have stated it in black and white. One has an influx of Black people to the cities because they cannot make a living in the Bantu areas and will never be able to do so until such time as capital is freely allowed into those areas. The question is: What is the ultimate goal then? The United Party’s approach has always been first things first, and that is why we say that the areas must be developed to the highest degree of autonomy …

To independence?

I am coming to that. As long as progress is made in that direction, one does have expansion of political and economic rights without the remotest possibility of danger for the White position. One is, after all, not going to put the ultimate goal, i.e. the form of autonomy, first as the Government is doing. That is the reason why we have opposed the steps taken by the Government. It is when such a state reaches the point of autonomy that one determines the relationship between that area and the centre, and that is precisely what happened in South West Africa.

South West Africa as a territory took 30 years before its relationship to the centre was determined and it acquired representation in this Parliament. I am one of the three remaining people in this Parliament who participated in the negotiations with Dr. Malan in regard to the future of South West Africa. We were faced with two alternatives on that occasion— two directions which we could follow. We could have chosen a unitary basis, but what would the result of that have been? The unitary direction in South Africa means one man, one vote. The unitary system is based on the counting of heads. Ten thousand people have more or less one representative in Parliament. At the moment we are only counting White heads, but if one retains the unitary system as it is, then one will ultimately be compelled to count all heads, and that is why we realized in South West Africa that if South West Africa accepted the unitary, or the counting of heads basis, South West Africa would have lost all its local powers; its entire autonomy would have gone by the board, and what would it have received in Parliament? It would have had only two representatives in the centre because it at that time had little more than 24,000 voters.

The two parties in South West Africa then said to Dr. Malan: “We reject the system of the counting of heads; we reject the idea of coming in on a unitary basis, i.e. as a province. We want the highest degree of autonomy, but you must not count heads. Take the value of the territory as a whole, assess the value of the territory as a whole; consider its total population; consider its economic potential; consider its strategic value; consider its geographical size (two thirds the size of the Republic).” We said that one must consider the value of the unit as a whole and that one must not count heads, and that is why South West Africa did not acquire two representatives here but six representatives on a federated basis, which had nothing to do with the counting of heads. It seems logical to me that this is the pattern on which South Africa should in future develop. Where new autonomous units arise one is not going to determine beforehand (because one does not know to what point they are going to develop) what the relationship to the centre is going to be. It is when a unit reaches the point of autonomy that one determines—and this Parliament will have the power to determine that —what its relationship to the centre is going to be, which will not be on the basis of the counting of heads. That is logical and that is the fundamental principle of federation—not a counting of heads, but the assessing of the value of the unit as a whole. Let me tell the hon. Chief Whip on that side that there are numerous hon. members sitting on that side who agree with us in regard to the federative principle.

Mention one.

First just let me read what a man like Mr. Willem van Heerden, who is a reliable commentator, wrote in an article in Optima—

That is, within the Government Party—

It is not I who said this. One of the eminent commentators of that side has said that there are two clear trends of thought on that side, the one advocating the federal direction and the other advocating the direction of fragmentation. I have here a very long list of commentators, who are Nationalists, who have supported the federal concept for some time.

Mention the name of one member.

There sits the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. member for Turffontein has written a book, The Gulf Between, in which he has stated that—

I can also quote what Dr. H. J. J. M. van der Merwe wrote. Even Dr. D. F. Malan said that the possibility of a federal system was not excluded. Mr. Fritz Steyn said in this House in our presence that he stood for a confederation.

He defined it.

Yes, he did come forward later and defined it. A man like Professor J. P. van S. Bruwer, was appointed by the Government to a very responsible position after he had advocated a federation. If I had time I could give conclusive evidence of how many members on that side support the federation idea. Why is that so? It is not because we want to prevent a unit from becoming free, but one has major practical problems to contend with. Take the position if one were to fragmentize South Africa into a welter of larger and smaller states. How does one control one’s roads, one’s railways, and one’s airways? What happens if a number of the states become dissatisfied and close their air corridors to our aircraft, as is happening to us to-day in regard to the African states? How does one operate one’s defence force in times of difficulties; how does one move from one part to the other; and what is the position in regard to one’s police? Fragmentation constitutes a great many practical problems. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people in the world to-day are being governed under federal systems, and with every success. There are failures as well, but that applies also to democracy. One does not reject democracy because Spain and Portugal have found, for the time being, that democracy does not suit them. It has been proved time and time again that where one has a variety of nationalities and interests and cultures, the federal system is the one system which can retain variety and establish co-operations without one kind dominating the other. That is the view of this side of the House. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the former member for Namib, said here that the hon. member for Innesdal was always wrong. I hope that he was not suggesting thereby that he himself was always right. One should not always pass a damning judgement on another person by saying that that person is always wrong. Let me tell the hon. member this: “Although a man’s opinion may be different from yours, yet he may be right”. The hon. member is suffering from some kind of incurable malady. He always thinks that he is right. Even when the nation is right he still thinks that the nation is wrong and that he is right.

The hon. member made a peculiar statement here to-day. He took it amiss of the hon. member for Innesdal that the hon. member for Innesdal had quoted what Mr. Woods had said. He said that it was quite wrong to say that he had said, inter alia, that he was “unashamedly left”.

He said I had said so.

No, he did not say that the hon. member had said so. The hon. member’s entire political creed is “unashamedly left”, and I shall prove that to the hon. member if he would only listen. It is not only to Mr. Woods that he has poured out his heart, and it is not only Mr. Woods who has given an apt description of him. In 1959 I was the Chief Whip of the Government Party and he was a member in the bosom of the National Party Government. On a certain morning in 1959 the hon. member poured out his heart to me as well. He handed me a letter. Must I read it?

With pleasure.

He poured out his heart. He came to see me in a small room, somewhat below ground-level, but we were not engaged in underground activities. I then found myself in very bad company, in the same company in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition unfortunately finds himself, namely, that of the hon. member for Namib. And there he very clearly confessed his entire political creed to me. He came into revolt about the question of Native representation in the House of Assembly. He knows that. He expressed certain liberalistic views at that time about which I may rightly say, as Mr. Woods has done, that “he was unashamedly left”. He poured out his heart to me. He wanted to integrate the non-Whites into the political structure of the White man, as it were. That is so.

Of course that is so.

He says, “Of course that is so”.

On a federal basis.

On a liberal basis. [Interjections.] On what basis?

On a federal basis.

At that time he did not speak about a federal basis. He came into revolt about the communal franchise in particular. He wanted to retain the communal franchise here, because he knew he wanted to convert the fortress of the communal franchise into a fortress for granting equality from which he, as “unashamedly left”, subsequently wanted to launch his political offensive to the slippery slopes of “one man, one vote”, which must lead to the destruction of the position of political authority held by the White man in South Africa.

There the hon. member is sitting—“unashamedly left”. The hon. member says he is always in the right. He came to me at the time and told me: “Look, the U.P.’s timing was wrong in 1948”. Surely the hon. member still remembers those words. And I listened with Oriental patience. He, as an opportunistic politician, told me, “Look, Chief Whip, the U.P. would not listen to me; their timing was wrong and see what a shattering defeat they suffered in 1948”. He said, “And then my timing was right and I jumped into the bosom of the National Party Government …” [Interjections.]

I am sorry to say this, but everything the hon. member is saying is absolutely untrue.

No, the hon. member must not say that what I am saying is wrong. What he said when he poured out his heart that morning is so indelibly engraved in my receptive mind, that I am 100 per cent correct.

Wait until I start telling.

You may start telling. I went to the then Prime Minister and told him that we could deal with the hon. member for Namib with Oriental patience, because I knew that he was not a kindred spirit of ours. He is the twin-brother of the twin-sister, namely the hon. member for Houghton. Outwardly, of course, they look somewhat different, but inwardly they have the same political creed—we cannot get away from that. They should really sit next to each other. Inwardly they are an identical set of political twins.

Therefore I want to make it quite clear today that as far as the hon. member is concerned, I do not take much notice of the things he said here to-day. First he left the U.P. and went to the National Party; then he went to the National Union, and now he is back where he started. It will not be very long before he starts drifting again, and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove and quite a few others will join him in his travels this time. I am convinced of that.

I want to come to the essence of his speech. The hon. member spoke here of an unbalanced Cabinet. Just imagine, Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout accuses the Government of having an unbalanced Cabinet because the Cabinet does not consist of members of whom 50 per cent are English-speaking and 50 per cent are Afrikaans-speaking. Is it not ridiculous to want to use that as a criterion for determining whether or not the Cabinet is balanced? Surely one considers what a person has in him, and I am grateful and pleased to be the Chief Whip of a full-blooded, bilingual South African team pulling the wagon of state in South Africa. We have a balanced Cabinet. But do you know what we do not have, Sir? We do not have a balanced House of Assembly, because the Opposition are so unbalanced in their actions, and where can one find a more unbalanced member than the hon. member over there? He did not achieve balance in the ranks of the U.P.; then he started achieving balance in our ranks. That he lost too, turned a somersault and landed in the National Union. But he dropped that too and he has never achieved balance yet. And now he says that we have an unbalanced Cabinet! No, Sir, the political balance has been disturbed in this Parliament. And I shall tell you what has disturbed it. The numbers, of course—just look at the large number of hon. members on the Government side. But during the war years the numbers were similar. I remember the old government party in those days. I notice that the hon. member for Von Brandis is looking at me. I often told him, “You know, Mr. Higgerty, you whip that old Party of yours, that great Party, under that great leader of yours, General Smuts”. Is that not true? They were really very strong numerically, but intellectually they were not so wonderful. There were, of course, General Smuts and Mr. Hofmeyr. But to speak about an unbalanced Cabinet today! It is the intellectual cream of the English-speaking and of the Afrikaans-speaking section that we have on this side of the House to-day. I may also say that Minister Trollip is a member of the Cabinet on merit and not because he is an English-speaking South African. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Chief Whip never makes an interjection.

I want to come to the point that the balance in Parliament is of course disturbed because the democratic system functions at its best when one has an opposition which is somewhat stronger numerically than our Opposition. We, of course, are numerically strong but we do not only have quantity, we also have quality; hence this wonderfully balanced Cabinet. But our difficulty is our Opposition. The Opposition has become smaller and smaller. It is suffering from an incurable disease—the shrinking disease. It is becoming smaller and smaller. That is the trouble. But it is not only declining in quantity —it is also deteriorating in quality, judging by the speech made by the hon. member who is interrupting me now and who has been suffering from shock all these years and has never come to his senses. It is obvious that that is why the political balance is disturbed in this House of Assembly, because one does not have an Opposition which makes a positive contribution so as to enable one to attain what is called “political equilibrium”. This has been totally upset. In the past it was upset as regards leadership. In the days of General Smuts it was still balanced to some degree, and afterwards they still had the old conservative element, men like Dr. Jonker and Mr. “Blaar” Coetzee and others. In earlier years they also had their leftists, men like Mr. Eglin, Harry Lawrence and others. Then one had political equilibrium. But now the equilibrium has been completely upset, hence the terrible political spectacle we have to witness here day after day.

The hon. member said that we had disturbed the unity of the Whites. Surely that is not true. Where can one find a party which has done more to bring English-speaking and Afrikaans-sneaking persons together than this very Government? One Prime Minister after another came forward with a political creed which would bring our English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people together. It is the Opposition that wants to present our nationalism as being something exclusive. Our nationalism is a common sentiment for both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Now that they see that we are succeeding, they want to see what political capital they can make from that and they are once again harping on the strings of racialism. Hon. members know how the hon. member for Von Brandis helped his Party from the frying-pan into the fire the other night when he launched an attack here. That was an old political skeleton they took from the cupboard to drag across the floor of this House. It no longer makes any impression. Racial hatred no longer exists between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. The people belong to the same race, namely the Caucasian race, the White race, and the sooner the words “racial hatred” can be removed from political terminology in South Africa, the better it will be for us as Whites so that we as a Christian White guardian may act in unity towards the races in South Africa that have not yet come of age.

I do not wish to say anything more about the Cabinet, but want to refer to another statement also made here by the hon. member. He said that Communism did not grow during the time of the U.P. Just imagine making a statement like that! I was surprised that you did not rule him out of order, Mr. Speaker. I remember those days only too well. Yes, I also heard the hon. member for Innesdal saying to-day that the then Minister of Justice, Dr. Colin Steyn, for instance released certain communists. Just imagine—they released them! And subsequently, when we introduced anti-communistic legislation, the United Party said that we need only find the communists guilty in court and they would hang them. Where is one going to find one to hang if Dr. Colin Steyn releases them every time? No, in the time of the U.P. Communism did grow. Even the then Minister of Justice was the president of the Soviet Friends, not so? That was a communistic organization. The Springbok Legion, a communistic organization, assisted the Opposition with its propaganda during those times, not so? Do you still remember the year 1948, Sir? I shall never forget that year, because it brought an unparallelled political trial of strength between us and that side of this House. They will never forget it. The day prior to the election Moses Kotane, the secretary of the Communist Party, made an appeal in the political organ of the Communist Party, the Guardian, in which he wrote the following words: “Comrades, White and Black, to-morrow is polling day. Vote for the U.P. and do not stay away from the polls, because if you stay away and the Nationalists come into power the Nationalist Party will extirpate you.” That Bantu was blessed with a prophetic faculty. It has always been our record that we are engaged in extirpating Communism. So where does the hon. member get these statements from? If Communism did not grow during the time of the U.P., why did he leave the U.P. at the end of 1948? The fact that we wanted to extirpate Communism was one of the items in our election manifesto at that time, and after we had defeated the U.P., for the very reason that Communism had grown, the then hon. member for Namib joined our Party. Again his timing was wrong.

Take the Tomlinson Report. The hon. member now suggests that his Party accepted the Tomlinson Report in 1956. But why is the hon. member so grateful about that? At that time he did not belong to the U.P.; he sat on this side of the House. It is a strange thing—you sit on my side and you preach the other man’s gospel! This is not wrong, but it almost sounds like hypocrisy—only I may not say it, because you, Mr. Speaker, will call me to order. Let us have clarity in this connection. The hon. member cannot make those statements regarding the Tomlinson Report and then try to hide behind them. Then he mentioned 1961 and referred to their statement of policy. But at that time he was not sailing under the colours of the U.P. At that time the hon. member was the leader of the National Union together with Mr. Fasan, and was engaged in a political transaction. Can you therefore see, Sir, that we cannot take any notice of the member as far as these matters are concerned?

Before coming to the essence of the hon. member’s argument I just want to say the following. He exclaimed here dramatically, almost in a state of political ecstasy: “Do you still remember the days of White paramountcy, virtually everlasting paramountcy of the White man over the Black man in South Africa?” He actually took delight in it. But there has indeed been such a political set-up in South Africa. I remember that it was between the years 1943 and 1948; at that time Mr. Strydom once asked General Smuts a question. He asked him, “do you want the White man to be master in South Africa?” And do you know what the reply was? It was, “Yes, I believe in White paramountcy”. Does the hon. member still remember the word? “White paramountcy—baasskap”. No, we cannot get any clarity in that way. We should view our problems differently. For that reason I want to avail myself of this opportunity to deal very briefly with the relationships problem, which is in actual fact the hon. member’s hobby. I want to see whether we cannot get clarity. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not present, because he and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout form a wonderful combination in this House. If the one says something it is a case, with the other, of “as the old cock crows, so crows the young”.

The hon. member for Yeoville said some time ago that we on this side of the House suffered from confused reasoning as regards our approach to the relationships problem in our country. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said at the beginning of this Session that he was not going to resign himself to what had been decided at the polls when the people of South Africa decided to give their approval to the policy of each race group developing along its own lines. Other hon. members called it ‘the will of the wisp” whereas others said that our policy was unrealistic. But who has the practical policy to-day, who has the positive policy? Who has the right policy in South Africa to-day?

The United Party.

It is so easy to say that in parrot-fashion and there are quite a number to echo that political parrot. But that is not the solution. We shall have to put it to the test. Who is suffering from confused reasoning in South Africa as regards the colour problem? We all know that the crux of our involved racial problem, therefore of our relationships problem, undoubtedly is racial conflict and miscegenation. That is the crux of the entire matter. But what does the U.P. do now? Instead of trying to separate the races by employing a scientific and virtually sociologic approach so that one may remove the breeding-ground for racial conflict and miscegenation to some extent, they offer a policy which moves more and more in the direction of equality and of racial integration. The Opposition does not have a solution to this problem. All that is happening is that they themselves are becoming part of that problem. Instead of presenting a policy offering a solution to this racial problem they present a policy of integrating the races. That is why they are talking about a “multi-racial society” to-day—a hodge-podge society which will be a breeding-ground and fertile soil not only for contrasting interests, but also for conflicting interests and friction and tension which must eventually result in racial war in South Africa. If there is any question of confused reasoning, it is to be found in the ranks of the United Party, because they approach that problem in such a way that they cannot find any solution to it, while their confused reasoning causes them to become an inseparable part of the problem itself. They say they are not suffering from confusion. But it is precisely on account of their confused reasoning that they first shook off their left wing and subsequently their right wing. There is such a struggle to come to political reality, and in order to rid themselves of their political confusion they first shook off their right wing. They then thought they were sober-minded, but they were still so confused that they also shook off their left wing. In this way they shook off their political feathers instead of preening them. A small group only remained in the middle—a middle-of-the-road party. They are as shortsighted in their policy as the hare that tried to escape an oncoming car bearing down on it in the dark of the night at 100 miles per hour by jumping between the two headlights. That is what they are trying to do, that is how confused their reasoning is. They cannot achieve clarity. I want to make the statement to-day that the United Party landed itself in this difficult position precisely as a result of its confused reasoning. They do not want to reason out their policy. They do not want to reason it out in such a way that they can see the logical consequences of its practical implementation. What right does one have to want to solve a certain problem in a country while one is not realistic in one’s judgment? They are suffering from confused reasoning. They have a sickly and sentimental approach instead of a level-headed and calm judgment. That is why they experience one crisis after another from time to time, but yet the hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to make out here to-day that there are discord and crisis in the ranks of the National Party.

Do you agree with S. E. D. Brown or not?

If one wants an example of a line of action which speaks of uniformity of purpose and feeling and of a party which is not a collection of fragments, that party is the National Party. The fragmented party is sitting on the opposite side.

Do you repudiate Mr. S. E. D. Brown?

I am not speaking about that now. What I want to know from the hon. member is whether he approves of the domestic race policy of the White man in this country or whether he agrees with the liberal idea of equality between White and Black? This is the cardinal question which the hon. member should also put to me. I say that hon. members opposite do not have the right to accuse us of confused reasoning as far as this matter is concerned. As I have said, they first shook off their left wing and then their right wing. But that is not all. Virtually every year they have come along with a different policy. That proves that they have never reasoned out their policy. That is why they always have to change their front. At one time it was the Senate plan. To-day one no longer hears about that. One no longer even hears about the race federation plan. One no longer hears about the Rhodes policy which they included in their manifesto of 1948. At that time they said that it was their policy to grant political rights to all civilized people irrespective of race or colour. That was their third policy. The fourth was the sixpence policy, but if the nation had accepted that policy, it would not have cost a sixpence, but incalculably more, namely, South Africa itself. Therefore I say that we cannot regard this policy of theirs as a crystal-clear one. They never make it crystal-clear and at every election they try to obscure their case by plying the electorate with propaganda. They try to obscure their policy instead of stating it frankly and making it crystal-clear. They do not examine their policy in all its aspects, but flinch from the logical consequences of that policy and in doing so they employ all kinds of propaganda. Just look what happened here the other day. The hon. member for Gardens, who is sitting over there lost in thought, and the hon. member for South Coast again came forward the other day with a kind of political ghost. There we once again had the same thing we had before from the former hon. member for Drakensberg and the former hon. member for Hillbrow. They came forward with that White policy to frighten people— one day it is a White policy, the next day it is a policy of terror, and the day after a policy of hatred. These are all so many guises that they don to obscure their real policy to such an extent that they confuse the people so that they cannot choose between the two policies existing in South Africa. I say that if there is one party which has reasoned out its policy, that party is the National Party. We considered and reconsidered it and we considered it well. As a matter of fact, we have reasoned out our policy to such an extent that it has gripped the imagination of all Whites, and not only the imagination of the Whites but also of the non-Whites. We reasoned out our policy to such an extent that we embodied it in a manifesto in 1947. And do not tell us to-day that it is impossible to implement that policy; do not say that it is a fantasy. We came along with a programme of practical measures and during the past number of years we have implemented this policy splendidly and we have gone from strength to strength. Now hon. members opposite maintain that we are not implementing it fast enough. Just consider this contradiction. On Saturday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here that it was a wonderful ideal, but that it would cost too much.

I said nothing about a wonderful policy.

Then it was the hon. member for Pinelands who said that it was such a wonderful ideal, but that it was impracticable. That is as far as we get. Those hon. members admit now that the policy of each race group developing along its own lines is a wonderful ideal. We say that it is not only a wonderful ideal, but also practical politics. To us it represents the only policy in South Africa which can offer a permanent and final solution to our involved and vexed colour problem. And because it offers the only permanent solution we, unlike the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, do not ask what it will cost; we say: “Whatever the cost, it must be implemented”. Nor will it be of any use if hon. members maintain that it is unrealistic and impracticable.

When are you going to make a start?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not put me off my stroke. He, too, made a start, but it was a false start. Fortunately we made the right start, because we began with the traditional policy of the White man, a policy based on experience of non-Whites and on the know-ledge which resulted from that experience. In 1948 we placed our colour policy before the people of South Africa and the people passed a damning judgment on the then liberal colour policy trend in South Africa. The nation was level-headed and made a clear-cut choice in favour of the policy embodied in the 1947 manifesto of the National Party. Now I challenge the hon. the Opposition to mention anything in that programme that we are not implementing.

The take-over of the gold mines.

That was not contained in that manifesto. I am now speaking about the implementation of our colour policy. In 1948 we had those two conflicting policies. The one had its roots in South Africa and the other had been imported from outside. These two policies were placed in the focal point of political interest and the nation passed a damning judgement on the outlandish policy of the Opposition. The nation repeated that judgment in 1953. again in 1958 and again in 1961. The White electorate of South Africa passed a damning judgment on the liberal colour policy of the United Party with an ever-increasing majority each time.

Colour policy had nothing to do with the Republic.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should not try to lead me. He has his own party to lead. Where is the United Party at fault? They do not want to give up their stupid and senseless struggle against the policy of each race group developing along its own lines. They say they differ with us basically and fundamentally. They concede that it is a wonderful ideal, but they do not want to become sober-minded and realistic and accept our policy—a policy which has grown from our own soil. For that reason they suffer such shattering defeats at the hands of the electorate of South Africa from time to time. Since 1948 the nation of South Africa has given its approval to this policy of each race group developing alone its own lines with ever-increasing majorities. The policy of each race group developing along its own lines is no longer only an opinion in South Africa but has grown into a national conviction. Therefore I say to the United Party that they may speak as piously as they like; they may dress that pernicious colour policy of theirs in the most respectable guise, but we shall expose it until eventually only their political complexion will remain, their political complexion of nakedness. We shall show that they are engaged in integrating the Black man and the White man in the same parliamentary mechanism. something that would give rise to so many tensions that it would not lead to mere equality, but also to the destruction of the position of political authority of the White man and to the Black man’s dominating the White man in our fatherland. [Time limit.]

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party. He to-day has demonstrated. just like his colleagues the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration demonstrated the other day, the positive genius that the Nationalist Party members have for deceiving themselves and for believing things which are so self evidently not true that one is amazed really that they can continue in this fashion. To-day we had the hon. Chief Whip informing us virtually that as long as there is no political integration in this Parliament of African representatives, so long has South Africa therefore, by his way of thinking, maintained itself, not as a multi-racial society but as a separate society of different races in this country. On the contrary, whichever way one looks at it, one has only to walk in the streets of this country, one has only to set foot in a factory, to go into every home in this country, to walk on every farm in this country, to go down any mine in South Africa and the self evident truth is there, for all to see who have eyes to see and that is that this is a multi-racial country [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration by further tortuous reasoning, came to the conclusion the other day, that the White Government of this country is a majority Government. I must say this is a new idea even for the Nationalists. He told us that since the African population was divided into several ethnic groups, one could therefore numerically elevate the White population of South Africa to a majority Government. I must say I have never heard this point of view advanced before, not by the hon. the late Prime Minister, not even by the Ambassador to London, Dr. Carl de Wet, who has told audiences in England that South Africa is a country of many nations, many Black nations. Not even he has drawn the conclusion that therefore the South African White Government is a majority government.

Is it not a logical conclusion?

No, it is not a logical

conclusion.

Why not?

For the simple reason, that hon. members over there have forgotten all about the overwhelming influences on industrialization and urbanization which have had their effect in South Africa on the Black population just as indeed they have their effect on the White population. So the tribal customs and ethnic differences are completely blurred as far as Africans in the urban areas are concerned. There are to-day second and third generation Africans who know little and care less about tribal customs and tribal taboos. Their children, Sir, play the penny whistle and dance the twist. Their daughters wear high-heeled shoes and berets. Their wives shop in supermarkets and in the bazaars in this country. All of them buy modern appliances on the hire-purchase system. And, however, much this applies to urban Africans it applies too, though in a lesser degree, to Africans who have been in the urban areas as migratory workers.

Does that make a Zulu less of a Zulu?

Yes, it does make a Zulu very much less of a Zulu. [Interjections.] Urbanized Africans are no longer dancing tribal dances. They are no longer wearing tribal clothes.

I do not dance the polka anymore but I am still an Afrikaner.

All I am trying to say is that I am giving examples of the system of urbanization as it has affected the old tribal customs, the breakdown of ethnical grouping and, Sir, most important of all, how it has led to inter-marriage of members of one African tribe with members of other tribes in the urban areas. Not all the ethnic grouping that the hon. the Minister has attempted in the urban areas has prevented inter-marriage between members of the African tribes. So today to talk about separate nations among the African tribes is just so much nonsense. It does not exist. It still may exist to some extent in the actual tribal areas, but to a lesser degree there than previously.

On what grounds do you say that?

You have only got to walk into an urban township to see that this is so. You have got to accept the changes. Westernization is what I am trying to put across, the westernization that has taken place among Africans. One must realize that Africans are not separate ethnic groups any longer as they used to be perhaps 20 years ago. [Interjections.] It does make a difference. It makes a considerable difference as any sociologist or any anthropologist will tell hon. members. I now want to come to the hon. member for Heilbron.

May I ask the hon. member a question. Does the westernization of the Japanese make them any less Japanese?

It has had an enormous influence on the Japanese. Their customs have changed. Japanese women to-day are completely different …

But does that make them less Japanese? [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to get on with my speech. I said I wanted to come to the hon. member for Heilbron. He gave us a great number of figures this morning to prove what an outstanding success the Government policy has been in regard to border industries. He quoted facts and figures about the number of industries that have been established, about the thousands upon thousands of Africans who are now dependent upon the border industries for their livelihood, the number of additional Africans who get their subsistence indirectly via the border industries, and so on. He mentioned the great number of people who have been resettled as a result of the border areas. Now, Sir, he gave us to understand that the border industry policy was a policy of unqualified success. He was proud of what has been achieved by the Government. I want to know in that case, Sir, why is the Government not satisfied with its achievements in this regard and why has it now found it necessary to take a new, and what I believe to be a dangerous, line as regards policy of the border industries. I say it is a dangerous line because I believe for the first time that there is now the danger that the border industry policy that the Government intends adopting is going to have a really retarding effect on the economic development of South Africa. The new and dangerous line to which I am referring is the threat that we have had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration regarding mandatory provisions to force industrialists to site their industries in border areas. I maintain that this is a drastic departure from the previous policy. And I believe that it is one which the industrialists are going to disapprove of wholeheartedly. The hon. the Deputy Minister, when he was swept away by his own eloquence the other day, told us first that the Chamber of Industries agreed wholeheartedly with this policy. He afterwards corrected his statement. [Interjections.] I am going to be perfectly fair to him. He afterwards corrected his statement and said that he did not want to give the impression that he discussed this officially with the Chamber of Industries itself, but that he had discussed this with certain individual industrialists who did agree with him. I cannot deny the conversations which the hon. the Deputy Minister has had with private industrialists. But I can tell him this, Sir, that I will be very surprised indeed if those individual industrialists prove to be the majority of the industrialists in South Africa, the men largely responsible for our high standards of living and for the economic development in this country.

They were worried about the flow of Bantu labour …

Being worried about the flow of the labour does not mean anything. The impression he gave us was that they agreed with him … [Interjections.]

Order!

Until now the policy as regards border industries and the siting of industries in the border areas has essentially been one of persuasion, of offering incentives to industrialists to establish their factories there or to persuade industrialists to move their factories to the border industries. And this is being done by different means. The incentives have been either higher depreciation rates for plant, machinery and buildings and lower rates of interest for loans from the Industrial Development Corporation. There has been assistance through the provision of housing for White employees, much lower railway tariffs for the moving of goods that have been manufactured in those areas, back to the markets which are very many hundreds of miles away. And of course, most important of all, the incentive of lower wage rates. In other words border factories have been exempted from the wage provisions which have applied to established industrial areas. These have been incentives, carrots to try and persuade the industrialists to come to the border areas and start their factories there. And I want to point out that there have been repeated assurances, both from the late Prime Minister and from the previous Chairman of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries, Dr. du Toit Viljoen, who gave repeated assurances that the policy was to be one of persuasion to try and voluntarily persuade these people to move. Dr. Verwoerd made it clear in 1960 when he spoke. He said that the border industry policy was not to affect the economic development of the Republic as a whole. There was no question of shifting existing factories or of disrupting the economy. He gave the assurance at that time that—

Further incentives were granted in 1963 and Dr. Viljoen at that time again reiterated that it was not the policy of the Government to resort to mandatory measures, to force industrialists to go to the reserves. And this applies again to 1964 and even as late as 1965, when I might say that at that stage the whole concept of border industries had been further expanded and extended. It was now not only to cope with Africans, to try and keep Africans employed in the border industries, but border industries were also to be extended to include the concept of providing employment for unemployed Whites in areas where there were unemployed Whites, and to provide employment for unemployed Coloured people and for Indians. But now for the first time this year there is an ominous threat of compulsion. A threat of compulsion has now come into the border industry concept. Why is this? Why, if as the hon. member for Heilbron to-day told us, the border industries policy was going ahead magnificently, that thousands upon thousands of Africans were now being employed in those industries, that so many more industrial establishments have been set up and generally that the whole thing was an outstanding success? One would like to know why it is that the policy is now to be changed from one of persuasion to one of compulsion. Even under the persuasive policy, if you will remember, industrialists were not 100 per cent in favour of this policy. They always had reservations about it, the most important one being of course that existing industries should not have to compete with industries in the border areas which had all these great advantages which the Government was giving them. And of course, they also felt that if these industries were to employ large numbers of Africans then all job reservations in those areas should go, so that Africans who come to work in border industries in White areas could achieve higher levels of employment than Africans in the existing White industrial areas. Industrialists will of course not agree to compulsion. They were not 100 per cent in favour of this policy when it was a persuasive one. But now that there is the element of compulsion I shall be very surprised indeed if they agree with it. They do not like it for a good reason. Like entrepreneurs all the world over, our South African entrepreneurs want to locate their factories according to the dictates of economics and not according to the dictates of politics.

Is it allowed in London?

Yes, it is allowed in London.

It is not allowed.

The hon. the Deputy Minister keeps on comparing South Africa with London and America. Surely he has the wit to know that England and America are fully developed industrial countries. South Africa is not a fully developed industrial country. We do not face those tremendous dangers of over-centralization that London faces and which the outer areas of New York face, or Chicago or any of the large industrial areas in America. [Interjections.] So that is just nonsense.

What about the Vaal-triangle?

The Vaal-triangle has been established because of the most magnificent economic advantages. There is the proximity to power, to coal, to the iron ore fields and to water. [Interjections.] Also its proximity to the markets and to labour. Those are exactly the locational factors that determine where industries should be sited. That is precisely why the Vaal-triangle has developed to the extent that it has. It was not because they anticipated having the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration as their public representative, I assure you. The development in the Vaal-triangle was purely and simply due to the fact that there were these wonderful natural advanwages. And that is how industries should be located. And it is only when they are fully developed and all the disadvantages of over-centralization manifest themselves that we should take one step away from the economic location of industries. This is precisely the point I am making. Now, certain of our border areas happened, by an accident of history to have these very economic factors that I am talking about. Some of these areas are close to cities, for instance, like East London. Some of them are close to areas like Pietermaritzburg and Durban, such as Umlazi, Hammarsdale and Rosslyn near Pretoria. These are areas which in fact have the natural resources and by luck happen to border …[Interjections.] Yes, I will say why I think it is luck. It is luck because historically in 1913 and 1936 when our lands acts were passed—which reserved certain areas for the exclusive ownership and occupation by Africans of those areas—they happened to have tribal people living in those areas. Therefore they became the released and scheduled Native areas. Now if the same luck had applied to the Witwatersrand area we could have had the whole area of the Rand south of Johannesburg and north of Vereeniging included in the 1936 area, had there been tribes living there, and we would have had no trouble about the development of the Witwatersrand complex or of the Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark area. Those would have been close to scheduled or released Native Reserves and therefore there would have been none of this ideological nonsense about not allowing them to own their own homes in those areas and to live normal family lives. They would have been border in industries.

And what about Houghton?

Well, if Houghton had been lucky enough it would have been a jolly good thing for Houghton. [Interjections.] My fear is that the future sitting of industry, and this I am sure will be the fear of industrialists throughout the country and of our leading entrepreneurs, is no longer going to be planned so as to bring about maximum national productivity at the lowest cost structure. This after all is what will determine the economic future of this country. As the gold mines decline, there is only one hope for South Africa if she is to maintain a high standard of living for all our people, and that is to switch over to manufacturing industries for export purposes and at as low a cost as possible so that we can get lower unit costs of production and we can export these goods in competition with other industrial countries. That is the future of South Africa from now onwards, and nothing that hon. Ministers do or say can change it. But now we have this ideological threat to stop the natural development of South Africa’s industries by attempting mandatory provisions and threats to see that industrialists locate their industries, not where they should be located according to economic factors, but where they should be located according to the Government’s racial policy.

Is labour not one of the economic factors?

Yes, labour is one of the important economic factors, but it is only one of them and proximity to the market and to raw materials and the availability of transport and water are also important factors. It is particularly because the light industries like the textile industry use a big concentration of labour that one has been able to site some of these industries in what I say are naturally favourable areas which happen to be near towns like Pretoria, East London and Pietermaritzburg, but you cannot do that with heavy industries. We are lucky that Phala-borwa happens to be near the borders of the Native reserves also. It is luck and nothing else. That is why I say the whole policy of this Government, in certain respects, can be carried out simply because by historical coincidence their policy happens to go parallel with what would have been the natural economic development. But now, instead of this sort of harmless decentralization which the border industries policy entailed up to now, or the fortuitous sitting of industries near the reserves where the resources also happen to be, we are going to be faced with a real distortion of our economy. I want to warn hon. members that it is all very well to talk big when you do not have to face the consequences. We have often heard the late Prime Minister say that if South Africa had to choose between being rich and mixed or being poor and White, it would choose to be poor and White.

What do you choose?

I do not choose to be poor and White, because I do not think it is necessary to make this ridiculous choice. I want to warn hon. members that they cannot put 12,000,000 people out of sight and then think out of sight is out of mind. They think that if they just move the population away from the large urban areas they need no longer see them nor do they have to be afraid of them. You cannot banish your existing population away from the Rand in terms of this distorted economic policy.

Your trouble is that you are a “verkrampte” liberal.

If I am a “verkrampte” liberal I wonder what that makes the hon. the Minister. As I say, one does not banish the African population with a wave of the wand and site industries where the Government thinks they should go. I do not believe that South Africa, given the choice, is going to choose to be poor and White. We have never had to face that choice yet, but now if the Government proceeds in this reckless fashion, to try and distort our future economic development, on which the prosperity of this country depends and the maintenance of decent standards of living, I believe the population of South Africa will reject a policy which will lead to such a disastrous future for us. Before the Ministers go ahead and apply these mandatory provisions to force industrialists to site their industries in area which do not have natural locational advantages, I ask them most earnestly to pause and consider. [Interjections.] I want to say that as far as I am concerned one has to try to be realistic about South Africa and to accept its multiracial complexion. Whether one likes it or not, this is a multi-racial country and it will remain so. It has always been so and it will always be so, and despite the fact that hon. members think that by denying political rights and attempting to have separate social amenities, group areas and legislation of this kind, it is not going to change the basic pattern which is that we are dependent on Africans and they are dependent on us. There is a mutual interdependence which I must say has operated for the good of all of us. None of us has suffered as the result of it. except perhaps the Africans and the other non-Whites in so far as they have not been allowed the privileges that the White people have. Therefore, as I say, it is one thing to have a policy which is followed as the result of persuasion and perhaps certain natural features, but it is quite a different thing to have a policy which is forced on to an unwilling section of the community in whose hands the whole of the future development of South Africa rests.

Last Saturday the hon. member for Houghton sent me a note in which she said: “can you be here on Monday? I am going to deal with you. border industries and all that jazz.” In reply I wrote to her: “I will be here, and when I have finished with you, you will dance the twist.” The fact that she can twist and can undoubtedly do it very well, and no longer dances the old Jewish dances, does not make her a less good or attractive Jewess. Like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, she attacked the statement of the hon. the Minister that we do not constitute a minority government, but that the Whites form the majority group in South Africa. It is, of course, quite true that we are still a minority government at present, but we are moving away from that. The hon. member for Transkei asked how the Minister dared divide the Bantu nations into ethnic groups such as the Zulu and the Xhosa, because he should then also divide the White section of the population into such groups. But that is nonsensical. The Greeks in South Africa have no desire to be a Greek nation; they want to form part of the White nation. The Jews in South Africa have no desire to be a Jewish nation; they want to form part of the White nation; and that applies to all of us. But that is not the position among the Bantu. They have no desire to belong to one Bantu nation.

May I ask the Deputy Minister whether he believes that the Zulu in the urban townships accepts himself as a Zulu or as a Bantu?

There is no doubt about it that he regards himself as a Zulu. I shall give an example of that. We have Zulu schools and Xhosa schools and Venda schools in Soweto, and one of the greatest difficulties we experience is when a Xhosa child gets into a Zulu school. The Zulu do not want to be Venda, and the Xhosa do not want to be Basuto. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is therefore quite correct in saying that the White nation is the largest nation in South Africa. To speak of us as a permanent minority government is therefore quite wrong. The only party in South Africa that represents a permanent minority is the United Party. They are the only party that advocates a permanent minority government in this country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what we were doing to meet the shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. I want to make this statement, that no matter what we do to relieve this shortage, we shall never succeed in solving the shortage of semi-skilled and skilled labour as long as we think we can employ only the 3,500,000 Whites to provide skilled and semi-skilled labour for the 17,0,000 people in this country. That would be imposing an impossible burden on the Whites. The only solution is therefore to draw the Bantu into semi-skilled labour and skilled labour. But one cannot do that in the White areas, for then one destroys the position of the White worker, and therefore there must be border areas and border area industries, where we have agreed with the trade unions that the Bantu should be allowed to do semi-skilled labour to a very large extent. And it is essential to develop the Bantu homelands, where the Bantu may be developed to be able to perform fully skilled labour. Before we reach the position where there will be semiskilled labour on a large scale in the border industries, I say we have little hope of solving our shortage of semi-skilled and skilled labour in South Africa.

There was tremendous criticism of our development of the Bantu homelands by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon. I should like to have clarity on exactly what the policy of the United Party is as regards the development of the Bantu homelands, and I want to ask a question or two. and I do so with the sincere intention of achieving clarity on their policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that we should allow free private capital in the homelands, and free White initiative. In other words, I take it that an industrialist, whether Mr. Oppenheimer or Dr. Rupert, should be free to establish an industry in a homeland. They should be free to buy land in the homelands and to establish a factory there.

Under protection.

Then surely that is no longer free private capital; of course it is not, and I shall tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout why. Mr. Oppenheimer, provided that he complies with the urban development programme, can erect a factory or industrial land in Johannesburg without receiving permission from anybody; the hon. member may also do that; I may also do that and Dr. Rupert or anybody else may also do that. We are at liberty to erect a factory there. Does the hon. member want industrialists to be afforded the same privilege in the Bantu homelands?

Provided that it is in an industrial area.

Of course I am speaking of industrial areas. May a White person establish a factory in an industrial area in the Bantu homelands without permission? What it amounts to, is that if one allows that one should allow the White farmer to buy land in the Bantu homelands, and then the Bantu would not own a square inch of land in the Bantu homelands within ten years. The fact of the matter is that when hon. members of the Opposition speak of free private capital, they do not mean free capital: they mean capital which is subject to a certain control, to prevent the Bantu being deprived of their land.

The Bantu’s land must be protected in his homelands.

Very well, the hon. member says the Bantu’s land must be protected in his homelands. Must his land be protected in his industrial areas? Let us get some clarity. The hon. member for Yeoville says the Bantu’s land must be protected in his homelands. Why should one protect the Bantu farmer’s land in his homeland and not the Bantu industrialist’s land in his industrial areas?

For the sake of clarity, may I put the question in the following way to the hon. the Deputy Minister; Does the fact that Natives occupy and use land in Soweto mean that the White area around Johannesburg is not protected?

That is a nonsensical question. The Bantu in Soweto do not get ownership in any event. Is it the hon. member’s idea that the Whites should not get ownership there at all? You see, Mr. Speaker, they want uncontrolled capital in the Bantu homelands. White capital and White initiative, as the late Dr. Verwoerd said, can be used in the Bantu homelands, but then it is canalized through the Bantu Investment Corporation. There are numerous examples of that, for example, there is one company at present that wants to undertake large scale afforestation in the Bantu homelands, and they are negotiating with the Bantu Investment Corporation. I do not want to mention their names, but there are other companies that are negotiating with the Bantu Investment Corporation on similar terms, with a view to the establishment of factories, etc., in the Bantu areas. They either lend the money to the Bantu Investment Corporation or the capital is invested in such a way that it will eventually be held by the Bantu. When I told that to the hon. member for Transkei the other day, he asked me whether tenders had been called for. There is no need to call for tenders. Any White company is free to negotiate with the Bantu Investment Corporation and to enter into an agreement to start factories there on an agency basis, in such a way that they will meanwhile obtain a reasonable return on their money but that those factories will eventually be in the hands of the Bantu and not in the hands of Whites permanently. And that is exactly what the United Party wants; when they speak of free capital, they do not mean free capital; they mean controlled capital. Let us devise a programme and decide how that capital is to be controlled. But one thing is quite sure, and that is that this Government will never allow private capital to be used uncontrolled in the White homelands. It can be canalized through the Bantu Investment Corporation, and through the Xhosa and other investment corporations that are still to be established.

I now come to the question of border industries.

S. E. D. Brown.

The hon. member reminds me of the old joke of the teacher who dropped snowflakes and was told by a boy that he was thinking of something, and when she asked him why he was thinking of that, he replied: “I am always thinking of that. ”1 think the hon. member for Yeoville is always thinking of S. E. D. Brown. One can speak of whatever one likes, but he is always thinking of S. E. D. Brown. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that border industries are uneconomic—and listen to his argument. He says that border industries are uneconomic because it costs us R3,000 to employ one Bantu in a border industry. What nonsense! Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition know what it costs on the Witwatersrand to employ one Bantu? It costs more than R6,000. A factory that has now been established at Crown Mines costs more than R4,000,000 and will employ only 60 Bantu. In other words, it is costing them more than R200,000 to employ one Bantu. What determines whether or not an industry is economic?

But now I want to come to an article written by the hon. member for Yeoville in last Saturday’s Argus, and it was not about S. E. D. Brown; I was rather surprised at that. The heading of the article said: “One back-bench Puff brought down the House of Cards”. He referred to whom he called the brilliant member, Mr. Webber, for Pietermaritzburg (District). That is what he calls the hon. member, not I; I shall reserve my opinion for another year or so. He said that this brilliant member had challenged me “to say whether those White industries on the borders of the reserves would be dependent on Black labour for their existence. Mr. Coetzee had to confess that they would be”, and then he continued and said, “so, the House of Cards, which is the thinking of the Government on matters of race, was blown away by one puff from an intelligent United Party backbencher”. Mr. Speaker, look at the lack of logic. The hon. member may have a great deal of puff, but he has no logic. The hon. member asks whether those people will be dependent on Bantu labour, but that is the very reason why we are sending them to the border industries, because they are dependent on Bantu labour. If they had not been dependent on Bantu labour I would have encouraged them to remain in Johannesburg, because I should like to see Johannesburg make economic progress. If one takes industries to the border areas, one does so for the very reason that they are dependent on Bantu labour.

Therefore you do not believe in economic apartheid. You merely believe in restricted apartheid.

You take industries to the border areas because they are dependent mainly on Bantu labour, and if they were not dependent on Bantu labour, or if they were not dependent on Bantu labour to such a large extent, there would have been no objection to their staying in the White metropolitan areas. So how the hon. member brought down the “house of cards”, Heaven alone knows.

The hon. member for Pinetown—and he should correct me if I am wrong—said that the border industries were uneconomic because concessions were being made to them. He then added the following: “Why are concessions necessary if they are economic?” Mr. Speaker, do we not give concessions to all kinds of industries in South Africa? Have we not given concessions to Iscor and Sasol? Do we not give concessions to industries with a view to larger exports to foreign countries? Do we not give concessions to motor assembly factories—tax and other concessions—to use more South African components? Do we not give concessions to mines with a low-grade ore? Does that make them uneconomic? Of course we give concessions to these undertakings, and eventually they develop into large economic units, as is happening in the border areas at present. We give considerable concessions to the motor assembly industry for the use of more South African components. Does that make them uneconomic? Why would it make them uneconomic if we gave them the same concessions to go to the border areas? What nonsense to say that the border industries are uneconomic because they receive concessions! And those are the hon. gentlemen who claim that they are in favour of decentralization. Now I want the hon. member for Houghton to listen. I do not know whether she is also in favour of decentralization.

Yes, economic decentralization.

How will one bring about decentralization without making concessions? The natural trend is to establish industries in the existing industrial concentrations. But there are only two ways to persuade people to decentralize: one is to offer them concessions, and the other is to force them to decentralize. There is not one modern industrial country in the world that does not grant concessions to encourage industries to decentralize and that does not force them to leave the metropolitan areas. I want to give the hon. member for Houghton one example. In the north of England there is an airport and next to that airport there is a terrible swamp, and because there was a tremendous shortage of industrial land in England, they wanted the swamp to be exploited for industrial land. They then granted industrialists tax exemptions for periods of up to 18 years to convert that swamp into industrial land, and at present it is one of the most flourishing industrial areas in England.

That was an incentive to them.

Of course it is a form of decentralization, and we want to do exactly the same thing. The hon. member for Houghton says that we may not force industries to leave the metropolitan areas, but industries are forced to leave the central part of London because the traffic problem there; is becoming impossible there.

But that is being done for economic reasons, not for ideological reasons.

The Witwatersrand is fully developed; the Witwatersrand has an over-concentration of Black people. Even a person like Mr. Dorfman advocates this, because the traffic problem in Johannesburg is becoming impossible.

What about the position on the East and the West Rand when the marginal mines close down?

I am not saying there should be no industries. Where do hon. members get the idea that all industries are exclusively dependent on Bantu labour? Where do they get the idea that there be no industries that employ Bantu labour to a limited extent? I have now approved the establishment of a factory on non-industrial land between South African Explosives and K.O.P., with a capital of R1,000,000, and do you know how many people that factory will have in its employment? 62 Whites and 41 Bantu. Why cannot one have that kind of factory on the West Rand or on the East Rand? Mr. Speaker, we are too fond of comfort in this country, because there is a large number of Bantu that we can employ. We simply say that we refuse to spend capital on mechanization because there are enough Black people to work for us —so-called cheap Black labour. Industrialists expect that it should always be made available to them, and in future it will simply not be made available to them.

Are you going to apply the same policy on the farms?

Yes, the farmer can also mechanize to a much larger extent, as the hon. member for Standerton said the other day. Hon. members need not think that we are afraid of saying these things. The farmers will have to mechanize in order to get along without Bantu labour as far as possible. In the past we tried to keep the Bantu out of the metropolitan areas by flying in the face of economic laws.

And you did not manage that.

No, we did not manage that, and why? Because we were going against the economic laws. We are now going to harness those economic laws for the implementation of our policy. Instead of taking workers to the jobs in Bantu-predominant industries, we are now going to take the jobs to the workers, and we are going to harness the economic laws to implement our policy. I do not want to repeat the figures quoted here by the hon. member for Heilbron this morning to prove how much success we have already achieved with border industries, but I may tell hon. members that the development is simply fantastic. As a result of border industries established through the permanent committee for the establishment of border industries, and as a result of border industries established by private initiative which did not request the assistance of this permanent committee, we are now keeping more than 1,000,000 Bantu in their homelands who would otherwise, under the policy of that party, have made their way to Cape Town, to Bloemfontein, to Johannesburg, to the West and the East Rand.

That is absolutely untrue.

If I had the time I would have given that hon. member the official figures to prove this statement.

The fact of the matter is that the over-concentration of Bantu on the Witwatersrand and the over-concentration of Bantu in the Western Cape—and these are our two major problems —will simply have to stop, and in this respect I repeat what I have said and that is that I have spoken to leading industrialists—I shall not mention their names now, but they are industrialists who play a leading role in the Transvaal and also in other provinces. Tomorrow afternoon I am meeting the Cape Chamber of Industries, and I have not met one of them who said that they were not concerned about the flow of Bantu to the metropolitan areas.

The point I want to make is this: Less Bantu labour in Johannesburg does not mean less industrial development in Johannesburg. The labour-intensive industries must simply be pushed out and the capital-intensive industries must be drawn to the Witwatersrand and other metropolitan areas. Let me give a few examples to show that it can be done. Here I shall mention the names, because the people are proud of it. Take Brickcor. In their factory near Pretoria Brickcor made 60,000,000 bricks a year, and they employed from 600 to 720 Bantu. They have a factory at Crown Mines which is now in the process of production and which will also make 60,000,000 bricks, but it employs only 60 Bantu. From next year it will have only 35.

Give us some new examples. You have given us those examples.

I shall give new examples. I shall give the example of a brick firm of which the mechanization came into operation for the first time last week, and of which the Bantu labour decreased from 150 to 32. There is the case of Golden Brown Bricks, at Stilfontein, which employed 150 Bantu, and now they employ 35 Bantu. And their production has doubled.

We cannot live by bricks alone.

I have mentioned the chemicals industry. I can give hon. members the labour strength in certain industries. My time is limited, however, and I shall not be able to do that now. But I enjoy the support of our foremost economist in South Africa. I wish the hon. member for Primrose would say what is happening in his constituency, how capital-predominant industries are progressing there. We shall simply continue with this policy. It can be done if we want to do it, if we are not so lazy, if we are not so selfish, if we are not so fond of comfort, if our industrialists are not so lazy, fond of ease, and grasping, then it will be done, even if it has to be done by means of legislation. We fix our eyes upon the ideal and we are going to roll up our sleeves and do it.

I want to conclude by mentioning a true episode. It concerns the Rev. Notane, the Bantu minister who is the Moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. He was in Holland recently. In Die Parool there was a report on a speech made by the Rev. Notane. One of the people asked him: “Rev. Notane, you are a cultured man, you are a Christian; why do you tolerate the fact that there are separate toilets for Whites and non-Whites in South Africa?” He then replied, “Well, my oubaas, what is the most important—toilets or the gospel?” To us the gospel is the most important. We see the difficulties and the practical problems that exist, but we are not going to hide from them. We are not going to be afraid of them. We are simply going to do this thing, and it need not be accompanied by any far-reaching interference in the normal economic development of the country. The hon. member for Houghton can say what she likes. We are going to get the co-operation of the industrialists in this country to implement this plan. We are going to get their co-operation because they themselves are concerned about the problem. And nothing will prevent us from doing so. In a few years we shall discuss this subject again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has painted an interesting picture of the gradual mechanization of industry in the urban areas and of labour being moved to the border areas where you will have semi-skilled Bantu workers, and over the border, into the Bantu areas, where you will have skilled Bantu workers. I want to ask him whether that means that Bantu left in the White areas are going to be unskilled.

Mostly unskilled.

In other words, the Deputy Minister envisages that the only Bantu who are going to be allowed in the White areas are going to be those without skills. Now I ask you, Sir, what is going to happen to the Minister of Transport, with some 12,000 skilled posts formerly filled by White people now filled by non-Whites, including Bantu. I want to ask what is going to happen to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

I think you are a bit mixed up between skilled and unskilled,

I said specifically 12,000 posts.

Unskilled.

Not unskilled. So a ganger is a shunter unskilled?

No, they have not replaced gangers and shunters.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the Black workers are who are walking around in Durban, if they are not Bantu and Indians. Anyway, the picture has been painted of this mechanization removing the Bantu. Now I want to ask the Deputy Minister this. When the border areas mechanize, what happens to their labour then? Where are they going to?

I answered that question.

The Deputy Minister paints this picture of less and less Bantu being required in industry. But there still have to be jobs for these people. They still have to be employed. And I want to deal in a moment with the problem which faces the Government in regard to the employment of these people. But firstly I want to answer one question which the Deputy Minister put to the United Party, and that was this: When we allow private capital into the Bantu areas, would it be free or not? The policy which the United Party has advocated is absolutely clear. It is the same as that advocated in the Tomlinson Commission report, namely the use of White capital and White skills in the White towns like Umtata and as at Zwelitsha and similar areas, where you can develop your industry within Bantu areas, using the Bantu skills and the Bantu population. We are not alone in this. The Editor of Dagbreek en Sondagnuus last Sunday stated quite clearly—

Now read on.

If I read the whole report it makes no difference to the fact that here is an acceptance of the need for White capital and White “know-how”. Yesterday there was another report by an expert closely connected with the Tomlinson Commission, who came to the conclusion that although border industry was desirable and Bantu-developed industry within the reserves was desirable, he concluded—

It is becoming commonly accepted by Nationalist thinkers that unless you have the White capital and the White skill you are not going to be able to achieve the objective. And that is the policy of the U.P., that is where we stand, and that is where the Minister is going to be forced to stand as I hope to show later.

Uncontrolled?

Nothing is uncontrolled, Mr. Speaker. If you want to put up an industry, you must go to an industrial area. The industrial area is controlled by a local authority. There is the matter of a licence, there are other controls which are applied by the local authorities. You have to have your buildings and your plans approved. There is control over every activity. There is nothing uncontrolled. You have to apply to the Department of Bantu Administration for Bantu labour. You have to make arrangements for water and power. Every single aspect is controlled by one or other authority. To talk of uncontrolled development is absolute nonsense, and the Minister ought to know it is nonsense.

Before continuing with this specific question raised by the Deputy Minister, I want to return to two other speeches that were made this afternoon. First I want to turn to the light comedy tirade of the hon. Chief Whip of the Government side. I do not know whether he was trying to be serious or whether he was merely trying to entertain us, but he made one or two statements which cannot pass unchallenged. Firstly, Sir, I think he must have rather embarrassed one of the Ministers because when he talked of the intellectual giants amongst the Cabinet representing the English-speaking community, the hon. the Minister of Sport blushed very badly indeed. And I realized why he was blushing. It was because the hon. Chief Whip made a violent attack on this side of the House for being pro-communist because we had once supported the Springbok Legion. Yes, there were members of our side who supported the Springbok Legion. I want to quote for instance what one of our people said quite unashamedly, and I want to quote it because it indicates his approach to this question. The hon. member said—

The member went on to say—

that was the Nationalist Party—

Of course, Mr. Speaker, you know who that was—the hon. the Minister of Sport. It was Mr. Frank Waring speaking on the 19th June, 1950, not so long ago. And he went on to say what a wonderful organization the Springbok Legion was. When a member on the Nationalist side—it was Mr. Van den Heever—asked him, “Why did you not join the B.E.S.L.?” Mr. Waring replied, “I am a member of the B.E.S.L. And let me say this to the hon. member, the B.E.S.L. is a British ex-servicemen’s league and I wanted to join a South African organization. I joined the Springbok Legion because it is a South African organization, and I also joined the B.E.S.L.” Now we realize why the hon. Chief Whip is so proud of the intellectual giants representing English-speaking South Africa on his side of the House. They are people with a broad vision, who are tolerant towards Communism.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this same Minister boasted how proud he was to have stood on the steps of the City Hall of Johannesburg and to have spoken with a communist from the same platform—the same Minister, the intellectual giant of the Nationalist Party? But they did not stop there. I have in my possession a letter written by a gentleman during the strike of 1922 wherein he said: “I live for the day when the Red Flag will fly over the City Hall of Durban.” He worked hand in glove with the Nationalist Party fighting for Communism to raise the Red Flag over the City Hall of Durban. As a reward, they made this gentleman a Senator. Therefore, let not that side of the House talk to us about Communism. The hon. member for Innesdal had much to say this morning about Communism. I want to quote to him what the Commissioner of Police under the Nationalist Party said about the fighting of Communism in South Africa. He said this nearly ten years after the Nationalist Party had been in power. In an interview to the Press, where he counted and weighed his words, he first of all said their job was to deal with Communism. He concluded his remarks with these words—

Where now is this story of anti-Communism? Since this particular Commissioner for Police has now retired, I think it is fair to say that he was not a United Party supporter. In any event, he said publicly that the United Party in the years 1946 and 1947 set the record for having the best years—not equal but the best —in the combating of Communism in South Africa. That was seven years after the passing of the Anti-Communism Act and nine years after this Government took over control in South Africa. Nine years after they had taken over control their Commissioner of Police admitted publicly that under the United Party they had seen the best years as far as combating Communism was concerned. Let these hon. members therefore come to me to-day and talk about combating Communism!

The hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Heilbron both to-day attacked the United Party in terms which we are not prepared to tolerate. I want to refer specifically to what the hon. member for Heilbron said. I wrote his words down, words which were more or less repeated verbatim by the hon. member for Innesdal. This is what the hon. member for Heilbron said—

I think this is a shocking statement. It is a repudiation of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Prime Minister in his first public speech during the discussion of his Vote in this House, the first time he came before this House to state his philosophy, stated here in reply to a question which I put to him that he did not believe that acceptance of Nationalist Party policies was a test of patriotism. He said he welcomed the attitude of the United Party towards the creation of a common front in respect of external affairs. We on this side of the House have in all sincerity made that offer and have repeated it. My hon. Leader on Saturday again offered the hand of friendship and again pledged the United Party to a bi-partisan approach towards the outside world where the interests of South Africa were at stake. But here two hon. members of this House, both of them frontbenchers on the Government side, flatly and blatantly repudiated their own Prime Minister. I say South Africa expects this Government to say whether it is prepared to tolerate in the Nationalist Party front-benchers who repudiate their own Prime Minister, who reject a common approach by the Government and the Opposition and who tell us that they do not want our help in defending South Africa unless we accept their political principles.

HON. MEMBERS: That is not what he said.

I have his words here. I wrote them down. They were: “Ons beginsels deur innerlike oortuiging onderskryf nie”. He was talking about political policies and was attacking the United Party for its attitude to political issues. [Interjections.] But South Africa wants us and South Africa needs us and we will continue to serve South Africa as we have always done where and when we are needed and it is necessary.

I now want to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I notice he is not present in the Chamber at the present moment but his Minister is. I want to deal with this question of the Development of Bantu areas. Now and then a leader in the Government points a tentative finger at the realities of our problems. Such was the case the other day with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Usually, however, they do not point their finger very hard, but they do sometimes point it. Last week the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration dealt with what he called “die drie voorwaardes” for carrying out their policy. The first of these was: “die beskikbaarheid van die massale bedrag geld wat nodig is vir die aankoop van grond om losliggende Bantoegebiede to konsolideer”. But that is only the first step because having spent that massive amount of money and having got the land, then economic viability has to be established. Unless they deal with this aspect of economic viability, the whole theory of Bantustans becomes a form of political escapism, escapism from the cold reality of figures and facts which cannot be avoided.

Let us try to bring into perspective the demands which will be made on the people of South Africa in this connection. Let us try to get into perspective the amount of development which is necessary. I do not have the time to quote the authorities for it but I think it is commonly accepted that by the end of this century, i.e. some 33 years from now, there will be between 20,000,000 and 22,000,000 Bantu in South Africa. Let us now assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister is successful in reversing the trend by 1978 and that you will then have some 7.000,000 or 8,000,000 Bantu in the White areas of South Africa. That will mean that we shall have to find in the Bantu areas of South Africa, in the so-called Bantu areas outside the White areas, an economic existence for the breadwinners of as many Bantu families as there are to-day in the whole of South Africa and that the reserves will have to carry some 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 Bantu—in other words, that we shall have to provide within one generation, i.e. still within the lifetime of many hon. members of this House, occupations and homes for from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 Bantu. That is equal to the number of Bantu which the whole of our economy in South Africa provides for to-day. I have taken out a lot of figures regarding what this means.

I have here a Digest of 1962. According to that the Government intended spending R114,000,000 on Bantu homelands under a 5-year development programme. The hon. the Minister stated a few days ago in this House that R135,000,000 had been spent. Somewhere there is a magic R48,000,000 because on 8th February this year I asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration what had been spent under the 5-year plan. I have the details here: Water supplies R8,750,000, afforestation R6,500,000, soil conservation R9,300,000, roads and bridges R1,700,000, dipping tanks R260,000 buildings R12,600,000, sugar, cotton and fibres R1,390,000 and stock sale pens R50,000. This makes a total of R40,848,277. If to this is added R46,000,000 in respect of housing in the townships you get a total of R87,000,000, i.e. the total over the 5-year period.

A few days ago the hon. the Minister, however, said it was Rl35,000,000. But here I have the figures given to me in reply to an official question put in this House and between these two sets of figures there is a discrepancy of R48,000,000. But let us assume that the hon. the Minister’s figure of Rl35,000,000, or R27,000,000 per annum is correct. On the basis of what has now been achieved in and outside the reserves on I.D.C. money it is costing something like R3,483 per worker established in industry. I have assumed that that cost can be reduced and consequently I have taken it at R2,000 per worker. Now, we have to establish something like 5,000,000 economically active Bantu in employment. That is the total number in employment in South Africa to-day. By means of simple arithmetic this means that it is going to cost South Africa Rl0,000,000,000 to establish that number of Bantu in employment, or R300,000,000 per annum.

The total capital investment by private enterprise in South Africa, investments in commerce, industries, mining and in every other field, this year amounted to nearly R1,000,000,000—R995,000,000. That means that if we are to carry out this idea of establishing the Bantu in the Bantu areas, over and above the capital now invested, we have to find another R300,000,000 plus per annum. If you look at the taxation this year—the current Budget—it comes to R1,055,000,000 in direct and indirect taxation. It means that every South African must be prepared to pay one-third more than he is paying to-day in order to achieve the objective of the Government of establishing the Bantu in the Bantu areas which they themselves aim to establish by the end of the century. Every tax payer must be prepared to pay 30 per cent more on his income tax, 30 per cent more on his cigarettes, 30 per cent more on his cars and his petrol.

What is it going to cost to put them in work elsewhere? They must work somewhere.

Normal private enterprise generates R1,000.000,000 capital per annum, and as the population increases, so does that generated capital increase. I quote these figures because I have said specifically that if the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister and the Government close the Bantu areas to White capital the Government has to find those R300,000,000. And if the Government has to find it, they can only find it in two ways, namely either by taxation or by loans. This so-called White investment which the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about is no more than a loan. It is an investment in the Bantu Development Corporation, a loan of money to them. However, that money must ultimately come out again because the investor will have no rights in the Bantu area. So the R300,000,000 per annum—compared to what is now being spent, even taking the hon. the Minister’s figure which is not nearly as high as that—is some 20 times more than we are spending now and one-third added to the total taxation of South Africa and it has to be found either by taxing the South African tax payer or by borrowing the money. Already our national debt is rising to tremendous heights, and what are we going to say to the people of South Africa if we ask them now to provide this additional 30 per cent in order to carry out a Nationalist Party pipe-dream which, even if the money is found, is still going to collapse because it will lack the White skills, the White management and the White know-how which can only be recruited if there is a profit motive available to the investor. You are not going to find industrial missionaries who are going to give up their lives providing know-how to industry if they are not going to achieve any reward for it.

The Nationalist Government is just playing with this problem. The total number of people established according to the Government is 53,000 Bantu in border industries throughout South Africa. The hon. member for Heilbron said that in border industries classified as such there are 53,000 Bantu. By juggling boundaries —and he specially mentions Umlazi—and by calling existing Bantu townships alongside White cities “Bantu areas”, by declaring them to be Bantu areas, he brings in another 83,000, But in point of fact the new industries, the true border industries, have found employment for 53,500 workers. That is the total in six years, and we are talking in terms of finding work for 5,000,000 Bantu. [Time limit.]

Mr.Speaker, it has so to speak become the fashion in this House that whenever the United Party’s stand really reaches rock-bottom, the hon. member for Durban (Point) or the hon. member for Yeoville is thrown into the debate. Now that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has taken part in the debate, I shall not be surprised if the hon. member for Yeoville also takes part in it later. I must say, however, that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) is used to play full-back for his team, he failed completely this time. If there is one thing the hon. member for Durban (Point) should not discuss then it is figures, because he knows less about figures than the average member in this House. It is simply not his strong point.

In a debate of this nature one would think that the United Party, the so-called alternative government of this country, would come and present its policy to the voters of South Africa. Surely one cannot adopt the attitude that you should simply try to demolish the Government’s policy without submitting anything constructive to the voters. That should not be done, and I think the hon. member for Wynberg will also admit that. Apart from their criticism of the Government, it is also the task of the United Party to come along now and then and tell the voters: “We criticize the Government, but this, indeed, is our policy”. But what have we had from the United Party in this debate? Not one member of the opposite side said: “Look, we criticize the Government’s policy, but we also present our policy positively to South Africa”.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did that this afternoon.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did nothing but talk a lot of rubbish. It is a pity that the hon. member is not here, because I am still coming to him. There is one hon. member who has adopted every attitude one can possibly adopt in respect of politics in South Africa, it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I thought the hon. member for Durban (Point) and other hon. members on the opposite side would say: “Here is our policy in respect of the problems of South Africa, frankly and candidly, and we present it to the voters of South Africa”. But they must really not think that the voters will be foolish enough to reject the policy of the National Party without knowing exactly what the United Party policy implies. Who has told us what the attitude of the United Party is? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made vague references to a federation on the first day of this debate. In fact, I thought the federation policy of the United Party had been buried long ago, but here he produced it once again.

You will hear it many more times.

The hon. member for North Rand has much to say. Why does he not present his party’s policy? I want to challenge the hon. member and tell him that he does not know what his party’s policy is in respect of the Bantu in South Africa. I am convinced that he does not know that. He should be the last hon. member to speak of that. I want to refer, however, to the standpoint the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact present, and that relates to the policy in respect of the so-called federation plan. It is very interesting that the United Party used to speak of a race federation, but nowadays they speak merely of a federation. The standpoint presented by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar was that he had relinquished his race federation, but that he was now saddling the horse of a federation of states. I will concede to him that it is more logical than a race federation. But now I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg whether she knows all that is implied by a policy of federation in South Africa.

Yes, of course I do.

Let me give the hon. member a lecture. A federation in South Africa implies the assumption of independence by various states, which will then form a federation with each other on an equal footing.

Not necessarily.

I do not mind the hon. members making interjections, but she should rather not reveal her ignorance. I should like to read one quote to the hon. member—I have hundreds here—by one of the greatest authorities on constitutional law, namely that a federation is a “compact between sovereigns”. That was said by one of the leading Judges in the world, namely Mr. Justice Douglas, in the famous case New York V. United States in 1946. Numerous other authorities also say that. It is a pact, an agreement between various sovereign states. In other words, if we think of a federation in South Africa of which this White Parliament will be one unit, then we should think in the first instance of other states in South Africa that enjoy similar independence and sovereignty.

Geographical.

Geographical, or whatever it may be. Quite right. I can see the hon. member for Salt River is beginning to see the light. Just like this White Parliament, there would also have to be other Parliaments in South Africa in various states, in those states that will form part of that federation and that will enjoy the same sovereignty. All of them will be sovereign states. The first step the United Party would therefore have to take if it wanted to implement its federation policy, is to develop the Bantu homelands into completely sovereign states, just as the White parts of South Africa form a sovereign state. Let us presume the United Party envisages division of the country into territories like the Transkei, Zululand and Tswanaland. It would then have to develop these areas. It would first have to grant them sovereignty. It would first have to grant them economic sovereignty, because they would have to be able to maintain themselves. It would also have to give them political sovereignty, however. Surely that goes without saying, for has there ever been a federation in which one member country had sovereignty while the other states of the federation had nothing whatsoever? Surely it is preposterous to think of that.

I can see the hon. member for Newton Park is also beginning to see the light, although it looks as though he has smelt something rotten. The point is that if we want a federation in South Africa, we shall first have to bring about the development of the Bantu homelands. And now the figures of the hon. member for Durban (Point) are of absolutely no use to him. All the problems that he outlined and that are supposedly awaiting the National Party, will also await the United Party, namely that it would have to develop the Bantu homelands to the full, to give them a Parliament and to transfer certain legislative powers to them. Surely that is quite clear. I can see the hon. member for Orange Grove is also experiencing a moment of enlightenment. It is quite clear that they will have to achieve a certain degree of sovereignty.

Now one should see this federation plan against the background of the policy of the United Party, as it is frequently revealed and advocated in this House, in respect of the urban Bantu or the Bantu who are still living in the White areas of South Africa. The United Party will simply not get an independent Transkei or a Zululand, but it will come to face a situation in which the Bantu will have the majority in the White area of South Africa. In the White unit of the Federation the Whites will therefore also lose total control, because they would have to grant the Bantu the vote and political development. And now I want to ask the United Party the cardinal question. What is its policy in respect of the urban Bantu? Does it want to keep them out? Does it want to move them back to the Bantu homelands gradually, which the National Party seeks to do, or does it want to draw them into the White areas? And when it accepts them in the White areas as an inseparable entity, it will also have to accept the fact that it will have to give them political rights here. Under United Party policy one would therefore find a situation in South Africa in which there would be the various homelands, that is, various federal units. As examples I take the Transkei, where the Transkeian Parliament will have sovereignty, and also Zululand and others that would have to get sovereignty. There would also be a unit, however, that would consist of the White area in South Africa, where the White and the urban Bantu in South Africa would have to enjoy joint sovereignty. Now I ask the hon. member for Orange Grove, whom does he think would be in the majority under the United Party régime if that federation were cairied through to its full conclusion?

Must I reply?

Yes, and the hon. member may do so even by way of interjection. But the further implication of a federation is this:

Let us presume one has combined various states in a federal government. But supposing the United Party were to become a bit sober-minded at some stage or other and remove the Bantu to the homelands and form a White state here, where the Whites would have the majority in their own Parliament. Let us accept that for the sake of argument, although I have just demonstrated that it will be impossible and that the Bantu will be in the majority in this White state as well. But let us presume they keep this White area White, then it is generally acknowledged that in a federation the central federal government has most of as well as the most important powers, and the various states have only limited powers. In other words, the Transkei, as a separate state in the federation, and White South Africa as a separate state, would have only limited powers in this great federal state in which we would live. I want to refer the hon. member to the American constitution. I may refer the hon. member for Wynberg to various constitutions in existence, but I just want to refer to America. There Bernard Schwarz, a very prominent writer on international law, put it as follows in his book American Constitutional Law—

In other words, the most important powers are granted to the Federal Government, but these various units, of which White South Africa would be one, would have no powers whatsoever as regards government over the entire federal South Africa. In Section VI, the American Constitution puts it as follows—

In other words, when it comes to the question of which powers have been entrusted to the Central Government and which to the states, even a court would rule that the Federal Government held the most important power, and in a most important court action in America a decision was taken on this matter, the case of Gibbons v. Ogden of 1824, in which the Judge said—

That was ruled in 1824, and to this day that case is still quoted as the basis of the federation in America. In other words, we would then have the situation that this White South African Parliament which we have at present, will be subject to the federal government that would consist of the Transkei, Zululand and other states. Then we would not be playing second fiddle, but last fiddle. This Parliament would have powers that would be of no use to us at all, and the federal court would decide who should hold the most important powers, and it would not be this Parliament. But an interesting question, when one has a federal institution such as that in America, Australia and Switzerland, with its 22 cantons, is, what is the position of the president or the head of that federal state? We should not forget that if a federation were to come in South Africa, it could not be organized on a loose basis. It must have a head of state, who would have to be the head of all the units in that federation, and who would appoint him? Does the hon. member for Constantia think that the White Parliament, which would be only one of the possibly ten units in the federation, would appoint him? No, one of two things could happen. Firstly, he could be appointed by the various states jointly, of which White South Africa would have only one vote, or, secondly, the voters could appoint him, and who would have the majority vote in the federation? The Blacks, of course. I therefore maintain that no matter what one does. South Africa would lose its authority over its own management if we had a federal Parliament here. Surely that is quite clear.

But what powers are held by the head of state, for example in modem America? It is to be expected that it would be a Black president or a Black head of state, which is logical, after all, because the Black states would not merely have the majority of states but would also have the majority in the population. What is the position in America? The head of state is the head of the army and also of the naval forces. Therefore the head of state in South Africa, if he were a Bantu, would also have the defence force at his disposal. He would be able to conclude treaties and he would appoint the consuls and the ambassadors and the Judges of the appeal court. In other words, we would not even have recourse to the appeal court, because we would be bound and enslaved in the federation system of the United Party, and it would offer us nothing for the protection of the Whites.

But I am by no means concerned about that system of the United Party, because I know that the voters will always reject it. What does cause me concern is this, that if we ever decided to carry out this federation concept, we would commit ourselves to a federal government from which we would never be able to escape. Under the present position in America there have been states from time to time that wanted to escape from the federal government at all costs, because they wished to lay down their policy themselves, but in one court action after another it was decided that they were not allowed to do so under any circumstances. No state in America can escape from the federation, and the same applies to Canada, Australia and Switzerland. In other words, no Bantu homeland or White homeland would be able to say: “Things are getting too hot for me, and I want to get out.” We would then have committed ourselves, and it would mean the end of White authority in this state in which the Whites are in power at present. Surely that is clear, and that is why I say that this entire federation plan of the United Party means only one thing to us, and that is the death of the White man in South Africa. I therefore say that if the United Party wants to continue with its federation policy it is even more dangerous than the policy advocated by the hon. member for Houghton, because in terms of her policy the voters of South Africa would at least be knowingly led to a situation in which we would have to abdicate; but in the case of the United Party federation policy, they would not be dragged into it knowingly but unknowingly, because the United Party does not present the voters with the full consequences of its policies. I therefore say that if ever there was a policy in South Africa that we should reject utterly and completely, it is the federation policy of the United Party.

What is left then? What else has the United Party? The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville did not tell us that if this horror came to failure, they would try something else. They did try various plans from time to time, but one was worse than the other. But the hon. member for Yeoville cannot wait until we are in trouble; he should tell us now. At present the United Party is leading the public of South Africa unknowingly to its death. I ask whether the hon. member for Orange Grove is aware of this misleading of the voters by the United Party. Is the hon. member for Yeoville aware of this erroneous standpoint and this misleading on the part of his party in respect of the future of South Africa? If he is, why does he not repudiate it? I want to leave the matter at that. In the few minutes I have left, I want to touch on another subject.

S. E. D. Brown.

The hon. member seems to have Mr. Brown on the brain.

May I ask whether the hon. member for Wynberg is allowed to read The Observer of Mr. S. E. D. Brown in the House?

It is not a newspaper.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I welcomed that very much—stated that the United Party supported this Government in respect of its foreign policy and particularly in respect of its problems at the UN. I want to welcome that wholeheartedly, but let me say this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not think that that attitude of his will create a better image of the United Party.

Do we not want to create a better image of South Africa?

Yes, I should like South Africa to have a better image, but I want to put it this way. I think the United Party owes South Africa nothing less. They need not think they are doing us a favour. It is their duty, and if they do not adopt that attitude the voters will reject them even more. But I want to say frankly that I am grateful that the United Party is arguing soberly at least in respect of this matter. Well, we have our problems at the UN, particularly in respect of South West Africa. I do not want to deal with that. I just want to make one or two observations.

We presented our case to the world court. In the course of the past 18 years we have presented it to the United Nations and to the world. We have honoured our mandate in respect of South West Africa; since South Africa accepted the mandate, the Governments of South Africa have honoured their obligations in terms of it to the full, and it is estimated that South Africa has spent an amount of almost R200,000,000 in cash on South West Africa. I am not even speaking of invisible expenditure. The money that may be calculated in terms of cash amounts to almost R200.000.000, and that is equal to about R300 per person in South West Africa, White and non-Whites. There is no other state in the world that can claim that it has received such generous treatment at the hands of a friendly neighbouring state. What we should not lose sight of its the fact that not only has South Africa honoured its obligations under the mandate, as contained in the Odendaal Scheme, but we have spent large amounts of money there right from the outset.

Our case was brought up before the World Court, and eventually the plaintiffs came with the allegation that South Africa had not honoured the mandate because we had applied separate development in South West Africa. We proved to the World Court that even in 1920, when the mandate was awarded to us, South Africa accepted separate development as a policy, and that provision had even been made in the mandate for differentiation between the various population groups. I refer, for example, to the provisions relating to liquor, ammunition, etc. In other words, we proved to the World Court that the mandate itself provided for differentiation, and furthermore we proved to them that differentiation was the only policy by which we could mete out justice to the Native population of South West Africa and to the various groups, in order that one majority group would not dominate some other minority group. But we went further. We produced evidence to show that differentiation was generally accepted throughout the world.

We pointed out, for example, that there were four sectors in the world which provided a clear example of how differentiation promoted the interests of the minorities in those countries. We referred, for example, to legislation in Burma and India and to legislation in countries on the Eastern Mediterranean, countries like Cyprus and Lebanon. We referred, for example, to multi-racial states like the Arab States, which have a population of230,000,000, and we established that there was even tribal differentiation in a large number of countries like Liberia, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan, Panama, Nigeria, Peru, the United States of America and Venezuela. We established that differentiation was applied in 50 countries of the world, 40 of which are members of the UN. We put it to the World Court that there is no militarization in South West Africa and that no oppression is taking place. After all this evidence that we produced before the World Court and that was never disputed, the UN comes along once again and they repeat all those charges which we repudiated before the World Court. At UN South Africa now finds itself in a position similar to that of Martin Luther when he said: “Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.” As far as UN is concerned, let us leave it to the common sense and sound thinking of the Western countries to determine what they want to do with South Africa; we are not prepared to abdicate, and we tell them that candidly.

I just want to remind the hon. member that we have only two official languages in this country.

The hon. member for Middelland has spent most of his time attacking the United Party and its policy upon what is in effect a false premise. The hon. member apparently holds the view that there is only one federal constitution in this world and that is that of the United States of America. The hon. member said that the definition of a federation was a compact between sovereigns. Sir, that is perfectly true in relation to the original American Constitution, but it is not true in relation to the other classic federal constitutions. Take Australia and Canada, for example. There you have federal states formed out of what were either provinces or what were in fact Crown colonies. They were certainly not sovereign; they were countries which were the colonies of Great Britain and Great Britain formed them together, not into a unitary state such as we were formed together but into a federal state, into a federation. Those units that were there were not sovereign, but they were blended together and formed into a state which was federal in character, federal in this respect …

On a sovereign basis.

No, the country itself later became sovereign. The country that was formed into a federation was not at that time completely sovereign, certainly not in relation to its external affairs but subsequently the whole federation became a sovereign country. Exactly the same applies to Canada. The hon. member, obviously relying on the precedent of America, says that when you have a federation, the head of state appoints all the Judges and all the ambassadors, etc., as happens in America. This does not happen in Canada or in Australia. The hon. member must not just look at America and say because that happens in America it is going to happen in South Africa if such a concept were to be employed.

And America is not the only kind of republic in this world either.

The hon. member for Yeoville correctly points out that the American Republic is not the only kind of republic in the world either. The hon. member for Middelland is obsessed with the idea that if you are to have any sort of getting together, any sort of distribution of power in your constitution, it has to be on a territorial basis. Sir, it does not have to be on a territorial basis. You can have a different unit from a territorial unit; you can have a territorial unit and, say, a race unit together in a constitution. There is no reason why you cannot do it. In Cyprus, for example, the British Government provided for a division on a race basis, and said, for example, that it should be 70 per cent Greek and 30 per cent Turkish; that regardless of the statistics that was to be the representation. But, Sir, we do not have to go to Cyprus; we only have to go as far as certain enactments of this Parliament; we only have to look at the Coloured Council Bill. The hon. member will recall what the Coloured Council Bill dealt with. It dealt with the Coloured people, with the Coloured race, and it provided that the Coloured people as a group should have the power to deal with matters relating to the Coloured people— matters which are defined—with powers to legislate upon them and powers to administer them, irrespective of where the Coloured people worked, and that is the important point. There are no geographic boundaries to the powers that the Coloured Representative Council has.

How is your federal parliament going to be constituted?

I just want to point out to the hon. member that the concept of having a body which can deal with the affairs of one race is already recognized in our law, in an enactment introduced by the Nationalist Party Government. I do not have to ask such an enterprising person as the hon. member for Middelland to go very much further in his thought than to conceive of what they are going to do in the case of the Indians; they are going to extend the same principle to the Indians. I might say in passing that in addition to giving the Coloured people these powers to deal with matters that concern them, this Government allows them representation in this House. It allows them to be represented here by four Members of Parliament. Of course, that is quite out of proportion to their numbers. Here we have almost the modus classicus of a race federation, of a communal council, as it were, having the power to deal only with matters relating to the Coloured people, regardless of where they are, regardless of geographic boundaries, and on top of that—because apparently at this stage, the Government believes in consulting with the Coloured people in relation to their interests —they have provided that the Coloured people should have representatives in this House. The representatives of the Coloureds take part here in debates on matters which are of national concern and which also affect the Coloured people. They have been given representation here so that they can tell this Parliament what they think. If this can be done by the Nationalist Party in relation to the Coloured people is there any reason why it cannot be done in relation to the Indians, as they say they are going to do, although they are not going to give them representatives here as yet? Let me go further and say that if you can do it in relation to those two groups, then why cannot you do it also in relation to the urban Bantu as distinct from the Bantu living in the Bantu homelands, in the Bantustans? There is no reason at all why you cannot do it. Sir, this conception of having a unit which is different from a territorial unit and which you recognize for the purpose of the distribution of power, can be implemented to-morrow.

Do you know of any race federation in the world?

You have it in your Bantustan policy.

The representation that you give in this Parliament to the Coloured people amounts to a race federation.

The hon. member for Middelland complains that if the United Party were to come into power the Bantu will be in the majority in the White areas. Of course; they have a majority to-day in every single city in South Africa.

But under your policy they will form an even greater majority.

The Coloured people are going to be in the majority in the Cape for all time to come apparently. If the hon. member had listened to the speech made here by the hon. member for Wynberg the other day, in which she gave certain figures with regard to the population explosion, he would agree that that is so, but nevertheless this Government is prepared to allow the Coloured people representation in this House. Of course it can be done; of course you can recognize a race group as a unit, as this Government has done. Sir, what the hon. member was worried about was that no positive suggestion had been made by the Opposition. I think if we are going to be positive about South Africa, if we want to be able to talk positively about our problems in this country, I think the very least that we should do is to be realistic about the problems that we have, and I think that when one pretends that certain facts in this country, certain facts which are obvious to everybody, in relation to the urban Bantu, do not exist, then there is no hope whatever of finding any positive solution to that problem.

We talk about the urban Bantu. The urban Bantu, like the poor, are going to be with us for ever. It does not matter. So long as we have an economy, so long as we have industries, so long as we have industry in White areas, we are going to have Bantu in those areas. It does not matter what one calls it. It does not matter what happens in South Africa in the rural areas: it does not matter how many Bantustans we have; it does not matter whether they all become independent; it does not matter how many can be drawn off, we are always going to have a population of Bantu in our so-called White areas. This ought to be elementary.

So, Sir, I am speaking here then to-night to that part of the amendment moved by my hon. Leader which criticizes the Government for not providing better methods of planning for the future requirements of the Bantu in the urban areas. If we are going to plan, let us plan on the realities. Let us plan on what is going to happen. Let us plan for the future on what we know inevitably is going to happen here in the future.

The population movement from the country to the town of course is an international phenomenon. It is occurring more in South Africa. It has occurred more under this Government over the last 18 years than it ever occurred here before. Everyone has spoken about the border industries, about the drawing off into the border areas of the Bantu labourers out of the White areas as if they are the only people that have to be employed in this country in the future. One must not forget that the White population is going to expand too, and we hope it is going to expand even more than it is doing, with the advent of immigrants, as well as our own productivity. If that is so, they also are going to have to have industries. Are they all going to have to go and live on the borders too? Is this what is envisaged? Are we going to have a border on which all the new industries are going to grow up on the White side and all the towns with living quarters on the Black side? You see, it should be abundantly clear to everyone in this House and to everyone certainly in South Africa that prosperity in South Africa is indivisible and that an improvement in the position of one race group always results, and always has resulted, in an improvement for all the other race groups. But what I am disturbed about is that we are creating deliberately here a proletariat on whose labour we depend, and whose future is not only obscure but it will always, until it is put on a proper realistic basis, be a potential source of unrest. This is the lesson of history. If we are prepared to face realistically up to the facts then we can deal with the situation. But what one has to do to begin with is to appreciate that they are there. We have to take our blinkers off. We have to say that they are there and decide what we are going to do about them. I think that this side of the House can provide a formula. It has indicated a formula which can meet this very situation, which can contain this situation, where you do not have to suddenly divest yourself of all your senses and wander into a world of dreams in order to pretend that you are going to be able to siphon all these people out of the White areas. Because you are never going to be able to do it.

So, if we are going to face up to this position, then it seems to me that the hon. members on that side must look a little further. They must look a little further and look over to this side of the House. They will find within our policy, parts of which they are already beginning themselves to appreciate and enact, a basis upon which they need not be so afraid that they have to in fact abandon their reason in dealing with our future. Because the situation that we deal with—and I think we must never forget this—is quite unique. It is without parallel anywhere in the world, and dogmatism is not going to resolve it.

I do not think that anyone in this House will pretend that he has all the answers to the future of this country. I do not think that anyone pretends that there is one policy that now will determine the absolute end of everything. But if we are going to get anywhere at all in this country in providing a solution, then we have to start with the realities here and now. We have to find a basis on which to accommodate what is here and what is going to remain here. It is a different problem altogether from the problem of the rural Bantu of the homelands. It is separate and quite distinct from it. The Bantustan theory of independence provides merely an excuse—it provides a moral excuse, it is true—for having no policy to deal with the urban Bantu. And that is as far as one can really go with it. It does provide a moral basis for treating Bantu on the basis on which they are being treated.

The economic forces, apart from anything else, and the future events, apart from anything else, are things which we cannot foresee. We cannot assess them. But we can control the situation as it is now. And we must exercise our judgment on the facts as they are now. In other words, we have to come to terms with this problem. Again I want to say that if we can provide a formula for the Coloureds, and if the urban Bantu are going to be a permanent part of our urban areas, then there is no reason whatever why that same formula cannot be applied to them. What we are dealing with here is in the nature of a social revolution. It is something with no precedent whatever. Here in South Africa is happening something that has never happened in this world before. We are producing the most advanced, the most sophisticated Africans in Africa. We are producing a class of person who is completely different from any African that has ever been seen on the whole continent of Africa. And if we do not recognize that fact and deal with it, then we are going to have to face the consequences. We, the White people in the White areas, are going to have to face the consequences. I think our approach is that in this revolution, the social revolution that is taking place, it is necessary, it is imperative that we make the family unit the basis for the settlement of that nucleus of permanent urban dwellers in the White areas. That is the only way to promote the stability which is necessary, not only for that population, for this new, emergent, and hitherto unknown population, but for the White man as well. It is necessary for industry, necessary for our economy.

One can promote through the family unit stability, not only of residence but of social relationship, of human relationship. And I think that in the end this is a problem of human relationship. Let us be frank that we are producing to-day amongst these people an insecurity of tenure. These things can be avoided by adopting, as I say, the realistic approach of accepting that they are going to be here, and placing them on a basis upon which we can deal with the problem as and when that moment arises in the future.

So I hope that the hon. the Minister who has not yet spoken will give us the benefit of what he thinks about this problem, and give us the benefit perhaps of some indication as to whether he in fact agrees with his Deputy Minister that he is going to achieve what he wanted to achieve by the year 1978.

Mr. Speaker, the hon.member for Durban (North) will forgive me if I do not reply to him immediately. During the course of my speech I hope to reply to most of the points that have been raised—at any rate, to those which I consider to be important. In the first instance I want to come to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Saturday in getting this debate under way.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are points of agreement in the policies of the respective parties—and he mentioned these points—if he succeeded in doing one thing he succeeded in pointing out the great difference that still exists between the policy of the Government and the policy of the Opposition as far as Bantu affairs are concerned.

The Opposition have admitted that the ideal position in South Africa will be complete territorial separation. But what has been their attitude in this regard? Their attitude has been that integration exists, that we have to accept integration as a fact, and that we have no alternative but to throw up our hands and to say: “We shall have to make the best of a bad thing”. [Interjections.] No. One speaker after the other has said that we have to accept this integration that exists between the Bantu and the White; we have to accept it as a basis on which to plan ahead. Surely this is nothing more than a policy of surrender? It is throwing in the towel. This is the position and we have to accept it as such. In contrast to this attitude we have the policy of the National Party and of the Government, a policy of separate development, separate geographical development, the development of every race group in its own area.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

We shall come to the Coloureds and the Indians. This is also a matter that has been dealt with ad nauseam, because as soon as one proceeds to discuss the Bantu, hon. members opposite ask about the Coloureds and the Indians. We shall come to them in due course. Our policy is not only territorial separation, but also social and political separation. That is what the Government stands for. And it is on that basis that the Government has emerged stronger and stronger from every election and it is because of their despairing attitude that the Opposition will continue to emerge weaker and weaker from every election.

What was interesting was the speech made by the hon. the Leader o the Opposition at Britstown. Some members of the Opposition have said here that we are taking over certain principles from their policy. No, Sir. I want to mention one instance here. Now all of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition states at Britstown that the numbers of Bantu in the White cities must be kept as low as possible. This then is some common ground we have achieved in this regard. But let us see how this statement fits in with the policy of the United Party. I have here the handbook which was issued by the U.P. in 1963. Let us see what they have to say in connection with the urban Bantu. On page 7 we find the following (translation)—

We must therefore accept that the control which we are applying is not humane; it is too strict. Indeed, the hon. member for Wynberg actually had recourse to this when she wanted to repudiate the Progressive Party by explaining how the policy of the United Party was also adapted to Progressive ideas; she boasted that influx control would be applied less strictly, that it would be applied more humanely. They say that they want to apply influx control more humanely. But what do they want to do besides? I come now to the hon. member for Durban (North). They want more Bantu women to be allowed to enter the Peri-urban areas so that the Bantu may enjoy a family life.

But they are here already.

The point of view of the United Party is that there are still too many Bantu migratory labourers in the urban areas, people who do not have a family life here. The hon. member must not try to give us the impression that he has not followed the debate. But if he has not followed the debate he should certainly read the speeches of his fellow party members. Appeals have been made here to the effect that Bantu women should be permitted to enter the urban areas so that the Bantu there may enjoy a family life. But there is another step that has to be taken, and I want to refer here again to page 7 of the United Party handbook, which states (translation)—

If the Bantu woman is not going to carry a pass, how is the influx of Bantu women to the cities going to be controlled? The United Party do not want to control this influx, because they maintain that the Bantu women should enjoy unrestricted access to the peri-urban areas. They must establish a family life here. This is part of the position of integration as the United Party sees it. I leave it to the United Party to decide what the urban areas of our country would look like a few years after the disaster of the United Party’s again coming into power hit South Africa. Our White cities would then again become White islands in a Black sea.

You will see that in the near future.

We have heard that story about “the near future” over and over again. It is an old and hackneyed joke. The United Party only has 39 representatives here as it is. I do not want to act the prophet and predict what will happen to them at the next election, but I do want to say that if the United Party continue in this way, there will be far fewer than 39 of them left. They say that not only must the urban Bantu be permitted to establish a family life here, they must also enjoy their political rights here. Admittedly, the United Party have said that provisionally Bantu representation will be limited to eight White representatives, but at the same time they have admitted that they do not see their way clear to guarantee that this will remain the position. Here again we have the surrender approach. They throw up their hands and say that if Parliament is to become Black, that is the way it has to be and that is probably to be our lot. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has himself acknowledged this on two occasions in this House. In his notorious television-speech the hon. member for Yeoville said that they would not be able to keep the Bantu out of a common Parliament in South Africa. Here again it is a question of defeatism, of throwing up their hands and surrendering.

We have heard again this afternoon about the race federation plan of the United Party.I do not know whether I am interpreting their arguments correctly, but it now appears to me as though the federation they want is tending more towards a territorial federation. This makes me think of the time a few years ago when we had a discussion here about the federations of neighbouring states on our doorstep which had failed, and when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused me of not realizing that our neighbouring states were territorial federations and not race federations. For this reason it is to my mind rather a striking thing that the Opposition is also tending towards territorial federations now. It is no longer the race federation about which we heard so much in the past. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made another statement here. If I have interpreted him incorrectly, he can correct me. He said that the philosophy of the United Party was the only philosophy which is acceptable to world opinion.

I did not use the words which you attribute to me. Do not put words into my mouth.

May I take it then that it is no longer your contention that your party’s philosophy is acceptable to the outside world?

That is something which we can discuss some other time.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, we can discuss it some other time. A challenge was issued to the hon. the Leader the other day to tell the House which Bantu leaders accepted his policy. I should like to issue this challenge in a slightly different form. Which State accepts his policy to be other than a policy which is the opposite of the policy of the National Party? It will, therefore, be a policy which will go in quite the opposite direction and eventually bring about what the hon. member for Houghton wants to bring about. [Interjections.] I cannot quite follow the interjections. I certainly do not think it is necessary for me to repeat my statement. I think that hon. members ought to have been able to follow it. No State will accept a policy as one that will work unless it is a policy which will go in a direction which will eventually land us where the policy of the hon. member for Houghton will land us. That was the statement I made.

But there is also another policy direction in regard to which the United Party adopts a defeatist attitude and throws its hands in the air. I am referring to the consolidation of Bantu areas.

Do you want to consolidate them?

Yes, this Government will consolidate them. I do not know everything the hon. member has in mind when we speak of consolidation. I can tell him what the Government certainly does not have in mind. A statement has been made during this debate which I heard often during the past election, namely, that when we were asked where the boundaries of the Bantu areas were going to be, and we posed the counter question as to where they wanted those boundaries to be, they said that the boundaries had to remain where they were. That is what we have again heard here from the Opposition this afternoon—that the boundaries must remain where they are.

When did we say that?

Do you deny that it was said here that the Bantu areas must remain as they are? Or are you still in favour of their being consolidated?

You cannot consolidate them.

That then is the reply; that we cannot consolidate them, and this notwithstanding the number of morgen that have already been cleared, information that was furnished this morning by the hon. member for Heilbron. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if hon. members would each in turn make an intelligent remark I should not mind replying to them, but they are carrying on like a chorus of parrots, with the result that I cannot hear what they are saying.

Is it the policy of the Government to consolidate the Ciskei and the Transkei?

If by that the hon. member means the geographical consolidation of the Ciskei and the Transkei, then I should like to ask him whether that is what he advocates. [Interjections.] The hon. member need not be afraid that I shall not tell him what my attitude in this matter is. But I shall be pleased if the hon. member will tell me what he advocates, because the other day during a debate he also asked whether the policy was to consolidate the Ciskei and the Transkei. I promise the hon. member that I shall reply to him as soon as he tells me whether or not it is his view that the Ciskei and the Transkei should be consolidated geographically.

No.

Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in many days the hon. member and I agree that, geographically speaking, the Transkei and the Ciskei cannot be consolidated.

That is not what the Commissioner-General said two days ago.

I have not seen the Commissioner-General’s statement. I think, however, that the hon. member is mistaken and that he has political consolidation in mind. I want to urge the hon. member to read the Commissioner-General’s statement again to find out whether he said that these two areas should also be consolidated geographically. Having replied to the hon. member in this regard, there is another question I want to ask.

You have only given us your view, but what is the attitude of the Government?

I have said that it is not our intention to consolidate the Ciskei and the Transkei geographically at present. If future generations wish to do so, that will be up to them. What we can do now is to consolidate the Ciskei. Does the hon. member still agree with me? Does the hon. member want the Black spots which lie in the constituency of the hon. member for East London (North) to remain there or does he want them to be consolidated with the Greater Ciskei?

You cannot as yet even tell me what the boundaries of the Ciskei are.

Does the hon. member want the areas lying in the district of Humansdorp to remain there or does he want to see them consolidated with the Greater Ciskei? They are unable to reply. They have nothing to say now. I want to put a further question to them. I gave certain figures here the other day and it is not my intention to repeat them. There are still 1,600,000 morgen of land to be bought of the 7,250,000 morgen for which the 1936 legislation made provision. Hon. members opposite have asked me where the boundaries must be. Do they want us to purchase that land immediately and then determine the boundaries, or should that land be purchased gradually? I should like an hon. member opposite to reply in this regard after I have resumed my seat. Does the United Party want to shirk the provisions of the 1936 Act? Do they want to say now that these 1,600,000 morgen of land must not be purchased? We should very much like an explanation in this regard.

You have already departed from that legislation.

Order!

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not look for me among those of his company and say that we have already departed from that Act. I want to tell him this. It is our intention to purchase those 1,600,000 morgen of land gradually over the years. We must purchase that land according to the provisions of the 1936 Act. We are still following the policy of clearing up Black spots and badly situated scheduled areas within White areas, and consolidating them with Bantu areas. But this is a difficult task. It is made even more difficult when people like the United Party make up the Opposition. On every occasion that quota land is purchased under the provisions of the 1936 Act in order to clear up poorly situated Bantu areas, this action is exploited and suspicion is sown and it is said that once again the Government is handing over White man’s land to the Black man. I expressed myself strongly in this regard the other evening, and I am sure that it is not necessary for me to do so again this evening. The United Party must stop trying to make political capital in this way. It is for this reason that the electorate reject them and want nothing to do with them. On the one hand they say that we must accept the position as it is. We must simply allow the Bantu to stream into our White areas. The Black spots must remain as they are. Poorly situated areas must remain as they are. But on the other hand they do not want to say that it is their intention to amend the 1936 Act and that they do not want to purchase any of the remaining 1,600,000 morgen of quota land. I want to tell the United Party that it is because their party wants to accept the fact that the Black spots cannot be removed and that there can be no consolidation in this regard that the electorate has confidence in the National Party and in this Government. That confidence is there because the Government has a dynamic policy and because we are going to follow it through, no matter how difficult it may be and notwithstanding all the opposition and politicking to which the United Party may resort in regard to this matter. I shall not discuss the United Party’s policy in regard to what they call the reserves. Let us call them homelands. Let us get away from the word “reserves”. Let us speak of our game reserves, but let us talk about the Bantu homelands. I do not want to elaborate on the fact that it is the policy of the United Party to develop the homelands with free White capital. My colleague has done so. I just want to ask the following question. If free capital is allowed there and entrepreneurs are free to purchase land where they want to establish their industries, and they also want to take White workers there, must those people have the right to purchase land there for home-building purposes, that is to say, in the Bantu areas? I should very much like a reply to this question. Let the hon. member for Transkei reply to it now. Suppose one of the large industrialists or a group of large industrialists was to establish an industry or industries in Umtata. Should they be permitted to take their employees to Umtata and to purchase land and homes for them there? I am not referring now to land which has been zoned temporarily. [Interjections.] If large-scale expansion were to take place there, could they purchase land in the Bantu area there?

What about the common?

Oh, on the common. Suppose the common was fully taken up. I was speaking about Umtata. [Interjections.] There are other places which have smaller commonages.

Order! If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to reply to all the interjections he will never finish his speech. He should rather make his own speech.

Mr. Speaker, all I want is to get clarity from the Opposition. I am not replying to their interjections.

Order! Does the hon. the Deputy Minister hope to get clarity in this way?

No, Mr. Speaker. You have me there. I must say that that is the best question that has as yet been asked.

On a point of order* Sir, may we answer the Deputy Minister in order to give him clarity? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you would have given that hon. member the opportunity to give me clarity had you thought that he could have done so. But you are just as despairing as I, just as despondent as I about obtaining clarity from him. It is for that reason that you do not want to allow him to reply. [Interjections.] There is also the hon. member for East London (City), who is making such a fuss now. I know that he also makes things difficult for you. Sir. The hon. member can get up after me and tell me whether these people should be given freehold rights in the Bantu areas. I want to tell the hon. member that we say that the Bantu cannot obtain freehold rights here in the White area. We are very clear about that. Those who say that the Bantu should be given freehold rights here must tell us whether the Whites should also be given freehold rights in the Bantu areas. It seems to me that I am not going to get a reply from them in regard to this matter.

I want to come now to a remark made here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who asked what had become of the Government’s policy of supremacy. He said that we had relinquished that policy. No, Mr. Speaker; we have not relinquished it. We still stand by that policy. And if there is one policy from which we will not deviate to right nor left it is the policy that the White man must retain his political supremacy, his economic supremacy and his supremacy in every sphere, within the White areas. I hope that this is clear to the Opposition. But the Government also says this. Because we claim supremacy for ourselves here in the White area, we say that the Bantu also have the right to claim supremacy for themselves in their areas. There has been no deviation from policy on our part as far as this matter is concerned. But what is the policy of the United Party in this connection? They throw up their hands. Their policy is an integrated economy, political rights here within the White areas, social rights here within the White areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with appreciation to the speech just made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I appreciate the difficulties he had to get clarity on certain matters in our South African politics. Quite obviously the hon. the Deputy Minister has no clarity about anything whatsoever. But I should like to help him because I think he needs assistance. What interested me so about the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister and indeed about all the speeches that came from the opposite side, was the avoidance of many of the important and major issues raised at the start of this debate by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, if you look at the amendment that was handed in to you at the end of the hon. the Leader’s speech, you will see that he referred to various matters. He referred to the cost of living, he referred to housing and agriculture and food. He referred only in one leg of his amendment to the question of non-European policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred in his speech in passing to the question of patriotism. It was fascinating to see how the hon. members opposite immediately disregarded all aspects of my leader’s speech which referred to the interests of the ordinary people in their daily lives and concentrated entirely upon attacking the patriotism of the United Party, an attack, Sir, which we collectively and individually treat with contempt because we know we shall survive it. And then, Sir, for the rest, as has been their formula in South African politics for a generation and more, they concentrated on non-European policy. So, we find that in the attitude of our hon. friends opposite non-European policy still has to play one particular important role. It must serve to distract attention from the incompetence and the weaknesses of the Nationalist Party Government in power.

Hear, hear!

That has been the pattern in Parliament year after year. It has been the pattern once more in this particular debate. That is a great pity and I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will remedy this defect when he replies to the debate. I think it is a great pity we did not hear more about the cost of living during this debate from hon. members opposite. It is becoming a real problem for tens of thousands of South African families. [Interjections.] Tens of thousands of South African families with fixed income who cannot put up prices and who cannot put up taxes when it pleases them, are having a difficult time to-day. And if one thing has been vindicated about the attitude of the Opposition in this series of debates that are reaching their end now, it is our warning that the Budgets introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Railways would themselves have the effect of introducing cost-pushes in our economy, in themselves increasing the cost of living. That has been justified to the full. I have here a very interesting statement by Mr. C. J. B. Cilliers, the director of the South African Agricultural Union and as such a witness for organized agriculture in South Africa. On the 15th September of this year, he said: “Railway tariff increases will eventually cost the republic two or three times as much as the R50,000,000 they were aimed at”. Only last week, Mr. Cilliers said, he had received complaints about the increased transport costs of industrial milk by as much as 300 per cent for small deliveries. He warned that this would eliminate a group of small producers while factories were struggling to get enough for their needs and the country had to import butter and cheese. He said these cost increases, like many others, come after the Government had decided to peg food prices, and argued that it was all very well for the Minister of Finance to say food prices should be pegged for six months but then he ought not to have raised the price of fuel by a cent per gallon so quickly. And, Mr. Cilliers in the same way criticized the Minister of Transport for creating a cost-push by increasing the price of petrol. And then the food prices were pegged immediately thereafter. No logic, no policy, no insight and no foresight. I have not much time but I want to refer very quickly to housing. What did we hear from any hon. member opposite in reply to my Leader’s statements here about the problem of the ordinary South African family in so far as matters of housing are concerned? I want to bring us back to earth. Just to remind the hon. the House as to what is happening I have here a statement by Mr. J. D. Roberts, one of the most important men in the building industry of South Africa. Speaking, I think in Johannesburg, on the 3rd October he pointed out that at the census in 1960 2,605.000 Whites occupied 608,269 houses. This meant that there were 4.8 persons to a house. That is not a very generous allocation. But taking into account the increase in population there should now be, said Mr. Roberts, 670,000 houses. New houses built since 1960 brought the total to only 626,948, leaving a shortfall in round figures of 43.000 houses. From 1960 until to-day we have fallen behind in the provision of houses for our White people alone by more than 43,000: and Mr. Roberts does not even refer to the non-Whites.

This simple fact supports the plea made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the needs of the ordinary family in South Africa. There was no answer. Instead of which we have to hear about the United Party’s lack of faith and lack of patriotism. They have repudiated our leader’s offer to stand together in a difficult world. We have had speech after speech on Bantu affairs, and not even a word about Coloured affairs or Indian affairs. We have a man with the authority of Mr. Roberts saying that blocks of flats will greatly help to relieve the housing shortage but that unfortunately only 10 or 12 per cent of our people live in flats. He then pointed out that if we could make it possible for people to get title deeds to the flats they occupy we may find a greater number of them moving into flats. But only two years ago the hon. member for Park-town introduced a Bill to make ownership of individual flats possible and in a moment of insight the Government took it over. They referred the Bill to a Select Committee a year ago. That Select Committee expired at the end of the session and it was not revived this Session. I hope it will be revived next session. But there is no sense of urgency, no sense of the need for action on the part of the Government when it comes to the wants of the people. Hon. members opposite concentrated almost entirely in this debate on Bantu affairs. If they want us to, we can respond. We have as much to say as they have about Bantu affairs, the only difference being that we talk sense. We are not afraid of meeting them head-on in regard to Bantu affairs, but that is only one of three legs to the amendment. It is so typical of this Government that when they are offered a tripod to give them solidity they prefer to hop along on one leg. I hope this debate will help to throw some light on our differences in regard to Bantu policy. It is clear that from the United Party point of view there are certain basic principles which are based not only on words but on the history of this country.

The first is that we need White unity in this country, the unity of a true partnership in the highest good faith, and not the sort of unity which called forth the comment from a Nationalist Member of Parliament who said last week that if unity meant that the Afrikaner had to lose his “eiesoortigheid” it would be a curse. If we want a South African unity we will all have to contribute something to create the character of that unity. But the hon. member for Primrose tells us that the unity must be such that the Afrikaner by his energy and his vigour and his drive—and I include myself among the Afrikaners because I think the world of my own people—must practically compel the English-speaking people of this country to become Afrikaners. I say there is something wrong in that kind of approach. What we want from both sides—and this is the difference between us and our friends opposite—is a willingness to act so and to live so that we create a South African unity to which each of us will contribute according to his ability and the gifts God has given him, and not that the one should lose his identity, or that the one should join the other because the other is superior as a herrenvolk or something like that.

We believe in unity not only because of itself but because if we want to face our race problems in South Africa we must be unified and we must act according to the basic and eternal principles of justice and civilization.

[Interjections.] The hon. member says they also want unity, but unless we get better evidence of the type of unity they want than we got from the hon. member for Primrose, we are not convinced. [Interjection.] Of course there are cultural differences; and we say that those cultural differences must be preserved in order to enrich South Africa. They should not be removed in order that South Africa should become a reflection of only one section of the people. We believe that for the economic development of South Africa there should be an adequate supply of efficient labour. I say “efficient” because that is one of the major differences in our policy as contrasted with that of the Government. We want an efficient, dependable labour force. If it means that to have it we must recognize the fact of economic integration, then we must do it. I cannot understand how the Government can maintain that economic integration does not and should not exist in South Africa, as the hon. the Chief Whip said. I can remember the cry that went up from hon. members opposite that economic integration must lead to political integration and political integration must be followed by biological integration. Do they still believe that economic integration is an evil thing? Or have they changed their attitude? My hon. friend, the member for Pietermaritzburg (District) made the Deputy Minister admit that even if they shift the industries of South Africa to the borders of the Reserves those industries would still remain dependent on Bantu labour; and that means economic integration. This is elementary economics. You cannot produce wealth for any section of the community unless you combine land, capital, labour and know-how or management. The labour is Black. The Government admits it, because even in the process of applying their policy of apartheid they shift the factories, not to the Western Province or to Kimberley, but to where the Black labour is. They tell us in so many words that their policy is to take the industries to the labour, and the labour is Black.

What about that?

That is economic integration. They admit that they are dependent on Black labour. Their policy now is to take the factory to the labour, but they say that is not economic integration because they are not equal.

The third basic thing is the thinking of the United Party on questions of race is that we should work in South Africa for national security, based on the co-operation of all races in order to ensure the dynamic development of all people in this land, culturally and economically, but above all, economically. I will have more to say about that because I think one of the tragedies in the world to-day is the tendency there has been among certain metropolitan powers to put political development before economic and cultural development. That is the attitude of the United Party. It is clear. We try to find similar clarity on the part of our friends opposite, but what do we find? Contradictions and illogicalities. We hear that they now want to consolidate the reserves. The hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken says it is their policy to consolidate the reserves; but to-day they cannot do it. I say it is not within the physical and other resources of South Africa to consolidate the reserves in time to be effective for the purposes for which they want to consolidate them. I have authority for it. This is what a prominent Nationalist said as recently as 1965—

So there we are. Here we have the authority of no one else but Dr. Verwoerd speaking in this House on 7th November, 1965, saying that it is not possible or feasible or practical to consolidate all the Bantu areas in South Africa, and it is quite true. This was his mature decision. But now that Bantu affairs are the charge of hon. gentlemen who are not quite so mature, we find that they want to go back to what has been proved to be impossible. We find that there is confusion on the opposite side, which I exposed a few minutes ago when I spoke about our dependence on Black labour and the fact of economic integration. Hon. members opposite admit our dependence on Black labour; they cannot deny it, but by some weird process of inexplicable and distorted logic they come to the conclusion that this interdependence and indispensability is not economic integration. The fact is that our economic organization and our methods of production in South Africa are one unit, but they do not want to accept it. It is confusion worse confounded. We find, too, that although they believe in separate development and in partition and although they believe in the creation of separate states to be sovereign and independent eventually, they are still willing to accept that for as long as they can look into the future and beyond there will be a large and rootless proletariat working in the White cities of South Africa as the subjects of foreign states.

But surely the Italians work in France?

Yes, the Italians work in France and Spaniards work in Germany and Mexicans work in Texas, but no where can one find 80 per cent of the labour force being foreigners. All these examples they quote are examples of small minorities, but here the labour force will be a majority; because remember that even their part solution to this problem is to shift the industries to the borders of the reserves, but to only the White side of the reserves. I want the Government to use common sense and to get away from contradictions and illogicalities and confusion. They want us to believe in partition. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has begged us to accept that the beacon at the end of the road is geographic partition. Let me say at once, and we have said it again and again, that if total partition were possible it would be a fair solution to the problems of South Africa.

It would be a wonderful thing if every family in South Africa could have an income of R20,000 a year; I would vote for it if it were possible. So, too, it would be a wonderful thing if we had never become inter-mixed in this country, if the first Hollanders who came here in 1652 had enforced total separation in South Africa. But we cannot do it now. If we want to partition South Africa, I say it must be done fairly, otherwise we cannot face our own consciences or the people whom we want to make the subject of partition. Can we claim that it will be fair if we give the Black people 13 per cent of the surface of South Africa? Sir, we can make it fair to give them 13 per cent of the surface of South Africa provided we set about developing that 13 per cent of the surface of South African so intensively that it can eventually carry the Black population of South Africa. That is the challenge we face. If you want to have geographic partition in South Africa, you must set about it in such a way that each different geographic area can each carry the population you want to live in that area. Sir, to talk about fragmenting South Africa and to suggest that because there are seven or eight ethnic groups amongst the Natives, the Whites are no longer a minority in this sub-continent, is to talk utter nonsense it only causes confusion. Where does it lead us? Sir, we have had a debate of two days on this issue; we have had weeks of debate on this issue, and nowhere can we get a simple-admission from the Government of what is logical and inescapable and that is that if you want to make separate development mean something, morally, physically and economically, you must develop the Native reserves vigorously from inside and you must allow private White capital and skill into the reserves. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education wants to know what we mean by free capital. What we mean by free capital is capital which is not socialized through a Bantu corporation or a Xhosa corporation. That is what we mean by free capital. Sir, you cannot help to bring about separate development, separate freedoms, or apartheid in the best sense of the word, as long as you want to separate the people in some ways but in another way you want to retain them physically for economic purposes. How can you be “apart” politically but not “apart’ economically? How can you be “apart” geographically when the Black people work in your factories, whether they work in your factories in Johannesburg or in Rosslyn or in East London? Sir, that is not apartheid, that is bluff; it is self-delusion, it is confusion. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself, speaking to the Sabra conference recently, had some very string United Party sentiments to express on the need to create an infra-structure of experienced administrators, educationists and businessmen if you want a community to govern itself. One of the important things, if one wants self-government for a community, is that they must be able to govern themselves at every level, not only the political level but at the administrative level and at every other possible level. There we are agreed; that is the basis of our federal concept. But does the hon. the Deputy Minister realize that if he wants that, then his policy should be to spend ten times as much money as he does to-day on the education of the Black people; where otherwise is this infra-structure to come from? While the hon. the Minister himself speaks eloquently and correctly of the need to create an infra-structure of human beings to prevent the debacles that we have seen in other parts of Africa, to prevent the criticism that we have against the metropolitan powers because of the over-expeditious liberation of new countries and new peoples, he still wants to limit the money spent on Bantu education to the amount spent in 1948. Sir, the problem is real and the need is urgent. How can one take a policy seriously when hon. members opposite on the one hand adopt that policy and on the other hand refuse to accept the consequences of their own philosophy? Sir, it is as simple as that. We want to see these Native reserve? develop. We are willing to support the Government if they spend money and if they use personnel, if they use imagination, if they are bold and courageous about it; we shall not make a political issue out of it; we will give them our full support, because we believe that it is wise and necessary to reduce the pressure of Black workers upon certain so-called White areas in South Africa, and it would be the same whether they were Black or not Black. It is wise sociological policy to prevent the over-crowding of your urban areas. But why must the decentralization and shift be only to East London and Rosslyn, Queenstown and Pietersburg and places of that kind? Why not similar inducements for industry that come to the Western Cape to give better opportunities to the Cape Coloureds? Are they not South Africans? Are we not responsible for them too?

Would you support that?

Of course I would support that. I would support decentralization of industry, provided it is on the same terms, to any part of South Africa where there is a need for development or where there is a need among the people for higher standards of living. We would support that. We would encourage these Native areas to develop. Politically we will encourage them to accept a federal association with South Africa, in their case with a geographic content and in the case of the detribalized Natives, with a population content. Sir, I was most interested in speeches made here by the hon. member for Queenstown, who tries to be serious and sincere—I appreciate that—and in speeches made by the hon. member for Middelland who does his best, too, to deal with this question of a federal concept as a step in the political solution of our problems. What surprises me about the hon. member for Middelland is this: He has read about the constitution of the United States of America and there all his concepts of federation and federalism end. I can remember how during the referendum some of us in telling our people that we were opposed to the establishment of a republic also told them that there was no need to be prejudiced against a republic per see that a republic could be good and that a republic could be bad. Hitler’s Germany was a republic; the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics is a republic; they are bad examples. But you have good republics like the Republic of America and that of France. The same applies to a federation. Federation is a general concept dealing with a particular type of government; it is not identical in every country of the world. In the United States of America every State has two representatives in the Senate. Some of those States have 10,000,000 to 18,000,000 voters; others have 100,000 voters, but they have equal representation in the Senate. In Canada—I have an authority here on Canada —under the British North America Act of 1867 they gave 24 Senators to the four original provinces—three of them, counting two of the maritime provinces as one—and when Prince Edward Island joined it was only given four and the number of senators from two maritime provinces was reduced to ten each. To-day they have 102 senators in Canada and the representation varies from 24 in the case of the original provinces to four in the case of some of the newer states of the Federation of Canada. Equality is not necessary. And this fact does not apply to the Senate only. Here I have another constitution. That of Cyprus, which only has one House. It has no Senate at all. It fixes the ratio between the races. The constitution specifically provides: “The proportion of representatives stated in this paragraph shall be independent of any statistical data.” Sir, they do not count heads. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said, they look at the importance of the political role that people play in a particular community and they give them representation accordingly. Take Germany in the days of Kaiser Wilhelm. I have not got time to quote it but here I have the authorities. Prussia dominated the Government of that country, under the constitution, and it was accepted by all the people. Since that is the position, can we not agree in South Africa that we will accept the development of the Bantu areas, those areas reserved for Bantu occupation; cannot we agree that we shall develop them together but that we shall differ about their ultimate fate? The Government will try to lead them to independence; we shall encourage them to accept a federal relationship with the rest of South Africa. Let the people eventually decide, but let us do to-day what is necessary to-day. But as long as the Government plays the fool with this problem and refuses to let the necessary skill and enterprise enter those Native areas for their development, so long will the policy of separate development remain without meaning, without significance and without hope for South Africa.

I find myself in a very unenviable position to-day. I have listened to the debate, and the financial side of the debate was such that all I can do is act in an instructive, corrective and admonitory manner. I do not like the role of teacher very much! As far as other matters are concerned, I listened here to a sad repetition, not only of what has already been said during this Session, but what has been said over and over again in this House in recent years.

When did you hear about S. E. D. Brown before?

As far as the hon. member who has just sat down is concerned, I just want to say that if there was ever a case of repetition ad nauseum then it is in his case. Sophistries have fallen from his lips like the saliva of Pavlov’s dogs. Just as in the case of Pavlov’s experiments, it has through repetition become almost automatic. And just look at how superficial it all is. I just want to pause a while on one of the superficialities. We have just heard the 13 per cent story again. On one occasion I was addressing a meeting at Upington. Somebody in the audience asked me this hoary old question: What about the 13 per cent of the country’s entire surface area which is being set aside for the Bantu? My reply was: Sir, if you were a farmer you would know that 13 morgen of land adjoining the Groot River is worth much more than 87 morgen in the Kalahari. To talk about 13 per cent of the surface area of South Africa without taking into consideration the value of the land, is childish, not so? It is an argument which belongs in a kindergarten; it is not an argument which one ought to put forward in this House. It was one of the hon. member’s major points, not an original one, but a repetition of an old point which we have now heard ad nauseam in this House.

I would rather talk about something else. We have heard a lot here about love for one’s country, about patriotism. Hon. members on that side have pointed out that patriotism is not necessarily associated with membership of one or other party. But I still believe in practical patriotism, a patriotism which can withstand certain tests, and I want to apply a few tests here. We are engaged to-day in a very important war against inflation. If we lose then we must have no illusions: Our hands will then be tied in every respect. As far as defence is concerned, we will not be strong enough to ward and frighten off possible aggression. If we lose the fight against inflation we will not be able to make ourselves strong enough to be able to ward off sanctions successfully if they are applied to South Africa. If we lose this war then we cannot expect to retain the tremendous confidence overseas which we are enjoying at the moment. These are elements which are so very important to our survival as a nation, for our integrity as a country. That is why I say that it is a very important struggle which we are engaged in here. In July the Government announced its four-point attack, and the last part has now been implemented during this Session. It has therefore taken a stand against this national danger. But what about the Opposition? Are they joining us in the fight against this common enemy? Judging from their actions in this Session they are standing altogether aloof, but not only aloof, because they have endeavoured as far as possible to make political capital out of the position which has arisen as a result of our struggle for the preservation of that which is of importance to all of us. There was no indication on their part in this debate that they support the war, or even that they agree with the steps which the Government has taken. I have challenged them to tell us whether they agree with the steps we have taken, but they did not condescend to reply. There has been no constructive criticism —which is what I should have liked—in regard to the steps we took or any proposals to the effect that there were other ways of combating this enemy. I should have liked to have heard something of a constructive nature. But I heard nothing like that. It seems to me I have no alternative but to state to-day that there is nothing in the Opposition’s actions to indicate that they are really in earnest as regards this important battle we are waging for South Africa. On their part there is only complete indifference, even as to the meaning of the struggle. In addition, there has been an opportunistic exploitation of the necessary sacrifices which this struggle of ours has demanded. They have had a lot to say about the consequences of inflation, for example high prices. That is what they were worried about. However, they took no interest in the combating of inflation. How can they use these rising prices as an argument against the Government? That is the matter which is of paramount importance to them. I maintain that there is an opportunity here for the Opposition to demonstrate its patriotism. This is an opportunity for them to be able to prove that they are prepared to refrain from putting temporary party advantage above the permanent interests of our country. This is the Opposition’s opportunity. Up to now I can only say that the Opposition has fallen pitifully short of the requirements of practical patriotism which is being required of them here. However, it is not yet too late. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only lend us his support as unambiguously as he lent his support to the warning issued in the United Nations by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and would only follow it up with the necessary deeds, then he could still redeem this tragic example of lack of practical patriotism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did say something about this matter. He did say we were treating the symptoms of inflation and not the cause. That was his contribution. I do not know whether he meant that the increasing prices were the cause, because immediately after he had finished his sentence he referred to the rising price level and to the possibility of further wage claims being made. But if there was any doubt in my mind in regard to what he actually regarded, or what the United Party actually regards, as the cause of this inflation, then it was put at rest by the argument made by the hon. member for Green Point, because he recommended an almost absolute form of price control here. In other words, he adopted the attitude that it is a cause and not a result. Now I do not know whether the hon. member will receive much support on economic grounds if he states that the increase of prices is the cause of inflation. I do not think he will receive much support for that attitude. We adopt another attitude. Our attitude is that the main cause of the inflation we are experiencing to-day is the overspending on capital and consumer goods.

By the Government.

Look at that. I shall come to that point as well. I thought the hon. member would have learnt by now what Government expenditure means. Let me put it to him like this: The gross domestic spending was for a time even higher than the gross domestic product. In reality we were living above our means. That is why it is essential that that position be rectified. That is the cause. Our solution is to close the tap—their solution is to dry up the overflow. That is the difference. The one wants to try and meddle with the results and the other says that it wants to turn off the stream, close the tap which is causing this excess water to run onto the floor.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the House adjourned for supper I was dealing with the allegation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that we were allegedly treating the symptoms of inflation and not the causes. I do not know whether I am doing him an injustice by saying that he apparently regards the cause of inflation as being the increase in prices.

That is a symptom.

What is the cause then?

Overspending, particularly by the Government.

The hon. member for Green Point made a much clearer statement in this regard. As it appears to me, he is in favour of large-scale price control as a solution to the problem of inflation. If that is not so then English no longer has that meaning which it has had up to now. The hon. Leader of the Opposition never said that in his speech, but I want to accept it and that is why I want to proceed immediately to a discussion of the accusation that the real cause of inflation is high Government expenditure. In my reply to the debate on the Estimates, I stated very clearly what was meant by Government expenditure. It means not only the expenditure of the Central Government, but also the expenditure of provincial councils, of municipalities and of the major corporations. All that expenditure is included in the term “Government expenditure”. But actually it is Government expenditure in the narrow sense of the word. I also said that if we were to look at the different components of the gross domestic spending we would find that there is not only private consumer spending, but also fixed public and private investment, plus increase in stores and current Government expenditure. This is all included in the concept of domestic spending.

I also pointed out that if one were to look at the amount of extra money—not percentages—which has been brought into circulation as a result of the increase in this spending, one would see that the private consumer and investment spending was very much higher than that of the public sector, both as far as investment and current Government expenditure was concerned. But the hon. member came along and stated that increased Government expenditure had been the cause of inflation. But in the same breath he pleaded for even greater expenditure! He stated, for example, that we were not spending enough on water; he stated that we were not spending enough on housing! He was followed by other hon. members on that side who pleaded for higher food subsidies. As far as food subsidies are concerned, we are not only granting R14,000,000 more as stated in the Estimates, but R1,000,000 must still be added to that as a further subsidy on bread for this financial year only, because we have promised that the price of bread will not rise. Nevertheless, hon. members have asked for increased Government expenditure. On the other hand, however, they complain that the expenditure of the Government is too high. Then they talk about muddled thinking! This is an example of muddled thinking if you like. The hon. member for Green Point then proceeded and stated that he wanted us to improve the pension rights of civil pensioners. That is still Government expenditure. The hon. member for Durban (Central) came along and alleged that we were lagging quite a long way behind as far as chemical expansion was concerned. He stated that we should by this time already have had a third Sasol, and we know what a Sasol costs—approximately R100,000,000. Those are the people who say that Government expenditure is the cause of inflation, and yet they come along and plead for even greater Government expenditure! Mr. Speaker, how can one build up an economy with the kind of building materials one is being offered here? I think it is high time the Opposition changed their economic mentor, whoever he may be. They must adopt a more sober and consistent attitude to the finances of the country. They must not come along here and, through their own words, make a further contribution to inflation. They are contributing to inflation, not only by pleading for increased Government expenditure, but also by pleading for a decrease in taxation. Any decrease in taxation would only mean that the Government would, to that extent, have to finance its expenditure in an inflationary manner. That is the pitiful position of the hon. Opposition to-day.

But there is another example of the muddled thinking one finds in the ranks of the United Party. There is, for example, the hon. member for Newton Park who has stated that the producers must get more for their products and that the consumers must pay less for those products. Let the Government pay in the difference, he stated. The State must therefore simply increase its subsidies so that the consumer can purchase his products cheaper while the farmer must at the same time be assured of a good price. But surely if the subsidy on food is increased, it would mean increased Government expenditure? And yet the hon. member has stated that the extent of Government expenditure to-day is the cause of inflation! Hon. members are therefore not combating inflation now, they are advocating it. If they only had someone who could explain the elementary principles of Government finances to them they would not find themselves in such a ridiculous position. As I have just said, we have increased food subsidies by R15,000,000 for this year alone. We have asked them to say what expenditure, as set out in the Estimates, we should not proceed with. Whereupon the hon. member for Pinetown said that they were declaring themselves against the expenditure of R10,000,000 for border industries. At the same time, however, his party is ridiculing this side of the House because the return flow of Bantu from the cities to the Bantu areas is not taking place rapidly enough! But nevertheless they want to reduce those things which will draw the Bantu away from our cities in order at the same time to be able to say that we are not progressing rapidly enough.

But that is not all. There is another example I can mention. The hon. member for Green Point has proposed that we must do away with the means test in respect of civil pensioners. I asked him then whether he knew what it would cost the State. I do not deny that it is something which is desirable. In fact, it has already been considered and it is still being considered. But we shall have to see whether we can find the necessary amount because you see, Sir, hon. Members on the opposite side have stated that we must not increase Government expenditure, but to do what they are asking us to do will cost the State an extra R3,000,000 per year. Government expenditure will be increased even further as a result. I want to tell the hon. member that he must first thrash these things out with his own side before he comes along and asks me for more Government expenditure. But hon. members on the opposite side contradict one another. They have not the faintest notion of what they are talking about. Their only inspiration for saying what they do in fact say here is the hope of winning a few beggarly votes. That is why they are now trying to break a lance for the civil pensioners.

You say that the abolition of the means test for civil pensioners would cost the Government an additional R3,000,000. But is that not the amount which they lose in temporary allowances if they decide to go and work again?

The position is that if we do what the hon. member has asked, it would cost the Government an extra R3,000,000 per year.

Is that all?

Yes, that is all. Nevertheless it is an increase in Government expenditure. The hon. member for Yeoville is the man who told me just now that Government expenditure was the major cause of inflation, but now the same man is pleading for increased Government expenditure. Mr. Speaker, it is almost grotesque. How can one understand the logic and the sense of such a party? The hon. member for Green Point has asked that we adjust the salaries of the Public Service to the cost of living. Does the hon. member not know that we have been doing so for years? That is one of the things which we inherited from their Government. Do you know, Sir, to what extent the public service officials came and pleaded with me at that time, when I was Minister of the Interior, to make an end to that system? Do you remember, Sir, how in 1958 I set aside that system and consolidated the cost of living allowances with their salaries at a cost of a few million rand? Now the hon. member is asking that we should return again to that which the Government officials rejected in 1958 and in the years prior to that.

The hon. member for Parktown came along and alleged that we were not doing enough to encourage exports. I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs dealt with this allegation under his Vote, particularly the question overseas trade representations. But while the hon. member is stating that we are not doing enough for exports, we are in fact experiencing a record month for overseas exports. The hon. member has therefore chosen an exceptionally inopportune time. He stated that we were not doing enough, but according to the latest figures we now have exports at an annual rate of R1,400,000,000.

Where did your exports go?

I shall still deal with the point in regard to South America. Apparently the hon. member does not realize that we are spending R550,000 per annum for overseas trade missions alone. He does not realize either that we have now accepted contingent responsibility under the export insurance scheme. He does not realize that the contingent expenditure amounts to millions of rand. But we have done so in order to place our exporters in a position to export their machinery and other goods overseas. We are giving them the necessary insurance by means of this export insurance company. The hon. member also spoke about South America. Does the hon. member know why we waited so long before establishing representatives in South America? There are two reasons. The first reason is that there was a lack of interest on the part of South African exporters in that market. The second reason was that there were difficulties in regard to the payment for exports in those South American countries. The Government can appoint hundreds of trade representatives in various parts of the world. In fact it has trade representatives in 25 different countries. It is all of no avail, however, if the exporters themselves do not make use of those opportunities. But we are spending a tremendous amount, and the proof of the pudding is really the pudding itself. The pudding in this case is that we have just, in August, achieved an alltime record month for exports in South Africa.

Hon. members have also argued that this Budget, because it imposes indirect taxes on goods, has been responsible for an increase in prices. Elementary speaking, that sounds correct. It is quite true. We do not deny that we have caused the prices of certain articles to rise. But they must not for one moment hold us responsible for all the price increases which have taken place. In regard to beer and other articles it has been said that if the tax is increased by a certain amount, the industry takes an extra little bit for itself. Of course higher indirect taxes increase certain prices, but on the other hand it affords the Government the means of covering its essential expenditure, which the hon. members are complaining about. In most cases this expenditure is expenditure which the Government is asked to incur by the private sector, expenditure which is in the interest of the private sector, expenditure without which there could be no economic growth in the country, expenditure which helps to finance the infra-structure in a non-inflationary way. It is quite true that, if we introduce taxation to combat inflation, there would be an increase in prices. However, the whole purpose of doing so is to kill inflation which results in a continual increase of prices and which later leads to a vicious circle of higher prices followed by higher wages. In this way one factor follows another and the country’s economy enters the abyss.

Those are a few examples of the muddled economic thinking of the Opposition.

I now come to a last point. It has been alleged here that the degree of inflation in South Africa is exceptionally high. I want to maintain that South Africa has succeeded very well in keeping prices low during a time of inflation. According to the figures in the latest quarterly of the Reserve Bank, prices have increased at a lower rate, namely 3.1 per cent during the period from January to August, 1966, than they did in 1965 when the increase was 3.2 per cent. At the same time as this increase of 3.2 per cent took place in 1965, the total wages and salaries in 1965 increased by 9.3 per cent. If the hon. members would look at the White Paper which was submitted together with my Budget speech, they would find that on page 11 it is stated that wages and salaries increased by 9.3 per cent in 1965 while consumer prices increased by only 3.2 per cent. The increase of 9.3 per cent in wages amounts to approximately 6 per cent per capita. Wages increased by 6 per cent per capita and the consumer prices increased by only 3.2 per cent. The hon. members are now talking about our position. I have here the latest International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. There is a comparison here of the average for the second quarter of 1965 with the second quarter of 1966. These figures will give one a picture of South Africa’s position in comparison with other comparable countries. In Germany the increase between the second quarter of 1965 and the second quarter of 1966 was 4.3 per cent. In France it was 3 per cent, in the United Kingdom 4.1 per cent, in Canada 4.5 per cent, in Australia 3.5 per cent, in Sweden 8.1 per cent, in Italy 2.3 per cent—I am drawing your attention to this figure because Italy is the only country in which the increase was more favourable than it was in South Africa. In the Netherlands it was 7.1 per cent, in Belgium 5.2 per cent, in the United States 2.8 per cent, and in South Africa it was 2.6 per cent! You can now see that the increase in prices in South Africa was almost the lowest in the world in comparison with comparable countries. That means that we have combated the inflationary danger here in a much more effective way. Inflation is a very serious matter, particularly for a gold-producing country like South Africa, and particularly for a country which has to deal with other countries to a large extent as far as its export trade is concerned. and which has to lay down competitive prices. That is why the Government took such strict action with its four-point plan, although the danger here was not as great as elsewhere. You can now ask me what effect these measures which we took has had? I want to say at once that in no country in the world have the necessary statistics been made available in such a short time which will enable one to form a judgment in regard to this matter. What the latest particulars do indicate, however, and indicate very clearly, is that the steps which were taken in July and August were very essential and also very timeous. In the latest quarterly of the Reserve Bank in which the same matter is discussed, the following, inter alia, is said (translation)—

The additional measures which we took were in other words essential and, at that stage, also timeous. That is why I am so concerned about the fact that I have received so little support from that side of the House in this struggle which we are waging, this war which we have declared on inflation in this country. The success of the measures which we have announced here will also depend largely upon our ability to draw loan money—not loan money which we obtain from the monetary banks, but loan money which comprises genuine savings—in order to finance our loan account. That is what the success of our anti-inflationary Budget depends on.

I want to announce here that the loan which was floated on 1st October this year appears to have been reasonably successful. Up to now, without taking into consideration anything which the Public Debt Commissioners can contribute, cash subscriptions for R74,000,000 has been received. Of that amount R54,000,000 is long-term and R20,000,000 is short-term. After allowing for R8,00,000 which we have had to pay on the loan which we have now redeemed, we have therefore received a net amount of R66,000,000 in new money, and that is without any contribution by the Public Debt Commissioners. I am very happy to say that of that R66,000,000, only R11,000,000 came from the monetary banks.

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if this struggle which we are waging against inflation is an obsession with me. It is because I am so very well aware of the dangers there will be if we lose that struggle, and it is because I am also aware that if we do not take steps now we shall in a year’s time have to take much more drastic steps in order to combat the danger. I have just indicated that we have been more fortunate than other countries in our combating of inflation, but that is no reason for complacency, and I want to urge our people, our entrepreneurs, our industrialists and our businessmen to be careful. I get the impression that a feeling is beginning to take root in the country that the danger of inflation has actually passed, a feeling that conditions are now such that the restriction which we have imposed on credit, as well as all the other restrictions, will shortly be lifted and that conditions are now such that we can be prepared at any moment now for a great forward surge in our economy. Now, I want to say at once that optimism is a good thing and that I hope we will never destroy it. But we must also be realistic. In my opinion it is far too soon to talk about a relaxation of our different anti-inflationary measures. I think it is still far too soon even to give an indication as to when that anti-inflationary policy will be relaxed. We must bide our time. At the moment the liquidity of our economy is still far too great. The amount of money and quasi-money in circulation is still alarmingly large, for the reason which I have already mentioned in my Budget speech. It will, of necessity, still take some time before the inflation danger can be eradicated. I said a while back that we were not out of the woods yet and that we must not for a moment think that we will be out of the woods until a more reasonable ratio between our money and quasi-money in circulation and our gross national product is established. It is to-day still far too high. The second requirement is that our gross national product must be greater than our gross domestic spending. That includes everything and not only the State. The State is only a smaller part, or a less important part of that. We must first try and bring that down. Only then, when we have succeeded in bringing it down for a period, can we say that we are now out of the woods. I said just now that it is difficult at this stage already to stipulate a date on which this will take place. But we must not sit back, particularly under the present circumstances where so many uncertain overseas factors, both political and economic, are involved. They make it doubly essential that we keep our economy strong. It is strong to-day, but we must not become complacent and sit back. We must keep it strong. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are firmly determined to keep our economy strong because we realize that the entire future of South Africa is bound up in a strong economy which will enable us to withstand all the cruel winds of the world which can blow over us. That is the purpose of this Government. It has declared war, and all it is now seeking is allies from the opposite side of the House as well.

Question out That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.: Botha, M. W.; Botha. P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; de Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; de Wet, J. M.; de Wet. M. W.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.: Frank, S.: Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobier, M. S. F.: Grobier, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.: Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Knobel. G. J.; Koorn-hof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langlev. T.; le Grange, L.; Ie Roux, F. J.; le Roux, J.P. C.; le Roux, P. M. K.: Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan. J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.: Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.: Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van Breda, A.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J.G.; van der Merwe, C. V.; van der Merwe, H.D. K.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Rens-burg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Tonder, J. A.; van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: B. J. van der Walt and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes —37: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.;

Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G.S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.;Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D.J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move as an unopposed motion—

When the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate to-night, we thought we might hear something new and constructive from him, something better than he had presented to us in the past as regards the Estimates. Instead of that, the hon. the Minister not only repeated all the old stuff he had said previously, but he did not even repeat it very well. The hon. the Minister began by saying that he received no support from this side of the House in the battle against the deadly enemy of inflation. That is the spirit in which the Government acts nowadays. It says that there is no support from this side of the House for any Government measure. The hon. the Minister reminds me very much of the old farmer who was travelling with a friend in his “spider” with his two fine horses. He whipped the two horses, they got out of hand, ran into a tree and broke the shaft. The farmer and his friend landed on the ground, and then he said to his old friend: “Couldn’t you have whistled a bit louder?” Mr. Speaker, who holds the reins as far as this inflation is concerned? Who was responsible for the inflation? The hon. the Minister denies that the Government was in any way responsible for the inflation. He is forgetting that he got up in this House a year ago and on behalf of the Government claimed all honour for the economic upsurge which the Government had supposedly created. Who is responsible for this inflation? The hon. the Minister says that we have lived above our means, but he is forgetting that he and the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs and other Ministers were urging manufacturers and industrialists and everybody else continually “to spend for prosperity”. They pointed out continually that the economy of the country was sound and that the public could keep spending in order to bring their money into circulation. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that we live above our means. Has the hon. the Minister forgotten that over a period of three or four years this side of the House pleaded repeatedly for an increase in the salaries of Public and Railways officials, and that we had to hear repeatedly from that side of the House: “They do not need more, they just want more.” And what happened then? In a bound the salaries of Public and Railways officials were increased by almost R80,000,000, very shortly before the election. That R80,000,000 had to be found somewhere. The hon. the Minister told us that he would be able to raise that money only by means of additional taxation. R90,000,000 of his surplus was then transferred to loan account and the balance of R53.000,000 which he needed to balance his Estimates, he is going to collect by imposing additional taxes. Mr. Speaker, to what extent has this side of the House been critical of that additional taxation? Is it fair of the hon. the Minister to say that he received no assistance from this side of the House? Did we say that no additional taxes whatsover should be imposed? We did adopt a critical attitude towards the higher duty on fuel; we pointed out that it would increase production costs and that the cost of living would then rise and that inflation would then simply increase. We did criticize the increased duty on beer, and we did criticize the higher duty on children’s toys, but we did not criticize the other increased taxes and higher customs duties. But no, the hon. the Minister will not give this side of the House credit for that; according to him we give him no support whatsoever in his battle against the deadly enemy of inflation. He said we had adopted the attitude that increased taxation was not necessary at all. Mr. Speaker, if saving must be effected, who should start with it? Is it not the duty of the Government itself to save? The hon. the Minister said, when he asked where there should be savings, that there was only one speaker on this side of the House who had said that the Government should save as regards border industries. But surely that is not the only place where the Government can save. The Government can surely also curtail its expenditure as far as its own expansion works are concerned if there is not enough money available to spend at the rate it would like to spend. Whether it is the Orange River scheme or an extension to Sasol, whether it is the aircraft factory and whether it is the expenditure on I.D.C., the Government should set the example if it wants everybody to save. Where did the Government save? The Government reserves the right to continue its development works programme. I am not saying that many of the works are not essential; of course they are essential, but is it necessary to continue Government expenditure at the same rate at this stage? The hon. the Minister increased the duty on certain products, and because we on this side contended that the duty on those products should not have been increased, the reproach is levelled against us that we do not want to help the Government in its battle against the deadly enemy of inflation. The hon. the Minister says that it has now become an obsession with him to fight inflation, but then it must have become an obsession in the course of the last year, because up to a year ago he encouraged inflation, as the mouthpiece of the Government; he was one of the people who appealed to the public to “spend for prosperity”. Industrialists were encouraged to establish more industries, whether they had the manpower or not, and now that the chickens have come home to roost, we are reproached for not wanting to help him.

Mr. Speaker, there are many hon. members on this side who will deal at greater length with the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. At this stage I do not want to deal with the Minister of Finance any further; I want to come back to arguments advanced earlier in the day by several members on that side in connection with Bantu Affairs, and I want to begin with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. [Interjections.]

I want to warn hon. members that they must stop making interjections. If hon. members persist in shouting “order”, I shall take steps against them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development put a very pertinent question to me this afternoon, but I shall come to that in a moment. Across the floor of the House I asked him whether he was in favour of the Transkei and the Ciskei being consolidated as one Bantustan, and when I put the question to him I had in mind the words spoken by the Deputy Minister when he visited that region and when he said he wanted to warn the Bantu that they should think twice before proposing a consolidated unit? Is that correct?

Your point was geographic consolidation, and my point was political consolidation.

I spoke of the consolidation of the two territories. The question is whether the Transkei and the Ciskei should be consolidated, either as a geographical unit or as a political unit or as both a geographical and a political unit, as one Bantustan, or whether they should become two Bantustans. If the hon. the Deputy Minister’s warning in that regard was correct, when he told them that he wanted to warn them not to consolidate as one Bantustan, is it his intention then to create a ninth independent Bantustan for the Ciskei?

May I give a personal explanation?

The hon. the Deputy Minister will have another turn to take part in the debate. He had an opportunity this afternoon of giving his explanation, because he knew that this point would be raised.

I shall give you a reply.

Well, I put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he can give us his reply when it is his turn again.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

He will never allow that; he is scared.

The hon. the Deputy Minister went further and said: “If there are Black spots in the Humansdorp district. would I be opposed to their being consolidated with the Ciskei as a larger unit?” Mr. Speaker, where are we heading? Look where Humansdorp is, and where the Ciskei is. Where is the Fish River, and where is Humansdorp? Not one of the Ministers has ever told us where the imaginary boundaries of the Bantustans are to be. No, they will never do that. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us about the somewhat more than 1,000.000 morgen of scheduled land which must still be bought in terms of the 1936 Agreement, and he did not tell us over what period that had to be done. When will we hear whether it is to be done before the year 1980 or 2000? When will we hear where the boundaries of that territory are?

Answer the question I have asked you.

Very well, I shall answer it at once. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked me what my attitude would be if the entire White area of Umtata, including the commonage, were occupied by industries and there were no longer any space left for Whites to acquire property; he asked me whether I would then be in favour of their obtaining title in the non-White areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister is forgetting that it is not our policy that the Bantu homelands should become independent Bantustans, and if they do not become independent Bantustands, it makes no difference.

Therefore a White may as well buy there?

The Whites have always had property there.

Therefore the Whites may as well go there and buy property in the Bantu area?

It is the policy of the Government to create sovereign independent Bantustans, and he wants to know whether I would be in favour of a White having title in an independent Bantu state. Of course not, but we do not subscribe to the Government’s policy, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows very well.

The hon. member for Heilbron, who is now sitting next to the Deputy Minister, sat here this afternoon and did some juggling with figures; I have not seen such juggling for a long time. He spoke of 1.12 million Bantu who had returned to their homelands—I speak under correction—or was it 1.22 million? The hon. member for Heilbron is not the only man who can read figures or who can give them. I also have census and statistics in front of me. I do not know whether we are reading different statistics. Here I have census and statistics that show that in 1951 the total Bantu population in the country was 8.5 million. The urban Bantu were then 2.3 million. In 1960 the Bantu total was 10.92 million and the urban Bantu were then 3.47 million. In 1960 the rural Bantu were 7.45 million, an increase of 1.3 million over that period of nine years. Is the hon. member for Heilbron really trying to tell use that 1.2 million Bantu have returned to their homelands, while we have these figures indicating an increase of Bantu in the urban and the rural areas as such?

Are you so stupid that you do not know …

Order!

… that figures go …

Order, order!

… only up to ….

Order! Will the hon. member for Heilbron please withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting. The hon. member for East London (City) may continue.

[Mr. G. F. van L. Froneman thereupon withdrew.]

I want to take these figures somewhat further. I say that in those respective years there was a total of 145,5000Whites in agriculture in 1951, and in 1960 they totalled 117,000, a decrease of almost 30,000. I do not know why we quarrel repeatedly about the figure by which the number of Whites decreased as far as the rural areas are concerned. Whether it is 32,000 or 30,000, the fact remains that they decreased considerably. Hon. members on the Government side say repeatedly that it is a natural trend throughout the world. I am also quite prepared to admit that it is the trend throughout the world for the rural population to move to the cities more and more and to decrease. But what is the position as regards the non-White population? These figures that the hon. member for Heilbron tried to adduce this afternoon, let us have a look at them. In 1951 the total number of male Bantu in agriculture was 1.25 million, and in 1960 they totalled 1.45 million, i.e., 200,000 more male Bantu were employed in agriculture. Surely that does not tally. Surely it is elementary to deduce that the number of Bantu in the urban areas and in the rural areas is growing disturbingly, frighteningly. And then we hear from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration— it is a pity that I do not see him here at the moment—that everything must be mechanized, the mines as well. Border industries must absorb the Bantu and the other concerns must be mechanized. I do not know whether the mines can mechanize any further, and I do not know to what extent the coal mines can still be mechanized, I do not know how much further the steel industry can be mechanized. Mr. Speaker, I do know this, however, that industries have to confine themselves to where their raw materials are, and if there are industries that are not dependent on raw materials, they can go to the border areas if it is convenient for them to go there, if they can go there. But the Deputy Minister beat the big drum this afternoon by saying: “We shall see to it that they go there, because the Witwatersrand complex has too many Bantu and they have to move out to the border industry areas. Whether the Opposition likes it or not, it will happen.” It will happen, he said. It is rather strong language to say that it will happen, and I should, therefore, like to ask this question. In the case of the border industries it is beyond dispute that the labour force used there does not come from the Bantu areas only. Is it not so that the Bantu, whom we now no longer allow to go and work in the Witwatersrand complex but who are now going to the border industries, remain in the Republic quite as much? The other day the hon. the Minister gave me a reply with regard to the Bantu township Mtanzani. He said 5,700 families had now been resettled there, and the people who went from there to work, totalled 8,500. We know that 8,500 is a small proportion of 5,700 families. It is only a very small proportion. The hon. the Minister could not tell me how many of them worked in border industries. I now want to ask whether the Bantu who work in border industries, who work in Cyril Lord’s, come from the Transkei. Of course not. They come from Mtanzani and the people of Mtanzani are those who used to be in the Republic. There are no others. They are still only the Bantu who were in the Republic and who now go and work in the border industry once again because their position in the border areas is such that it is not very easy to reach industries outside the border area. I think it is a rather daring statement to say that we shall force our industries because we do not want a larger influx of Bantu in the urban areas.

Then it is also laid at our door repeatedly that what we advocate is decentralization of industries, but we do not advocate border industries. I am surprised that such an allegation should be made against the Opposition. This side of the House said that decentralization of industries was sound because it has the result that there is not such a large concentration of people who live together, regardless of whether they are White or non-White. It is also for the good of the country if the industries can be decentralized. We do not believe it is always such a sound move to force an industry to be a border industry and to go to border areas. I must say that, apart from the success of which we are hearing so much in respect of these border industries as such, there has not been very much success in that regard up to this stage. I am prepared to accept the figures adduced by the Government and the Minister in connection with border industries. But I want to make the statement that not all industries can be mechanized to an even larger extent than they are mechanized at present. Nor can agriculture be mechanized much more. Or are we supposed to let three Bantu drive ten tractors? Have we no redundant machines, compared with the number of drivers available, in respect of agriculture? Is it not one of our great complaints that there are too many tractors, too much mechanization, too many machines for agriculture; that we should produce more co-operatively and that the same units should work for more farmers instead of every farmer, large and small, having his own complex of machines? And then the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration comes along and makes a plea for more mechanization. More mechanization in the agricultural industry is an evil, as it was when the draft oxen and the two natives who handled the team of oxen had to be dispensed with as a result of mechanization. We would be much better off if we could go back to the oxen. No, Mr. Speaker, it is no use telling us that this Bantu complex must be reduced as far as the urban areas are concerned. Listening to the hon. member for Heilbron this afternoon, I should have thought we had already reached 1978; the tide had already turned; they were returning to their homelands. That is not so. The figures prove that they still enter to sell their labour, because it is the only product they have to sell. Until such time as we can develop the Bantu homelands—and I want to use this word because I heard it this afternoon—by means of White capital to such an extent that it will not be necessary for them to come and sell the only asset they have to sell, namely their labour, until then more and more Bantu will filter into the country. We cannot prevent that. The fact remains, whether we will admit it or not, that the United Party policy is better in this respect than the Government policy, because we say that the homelands should be developed, they should be developed more and more, and more and more should be done. It will be no use the Minister of Finance asking me; “With what, with what money? You do not want the taxes to be increased.” We are in favour of White capital, even selective capital, going to those Bantu homelands. They must be developed so that there will be more opportunities for work for the Bantu in those areas. That will be the answer to the problem of how to have fewer Bantu in our urban areas, and of how to stop the influx of more Bantu. How can we argue about that? Surely it is elementary. Regardless of whether the man has sovereign independence in his homeland, one must create a job for him there. At this stage the only way in which one can create it for him more rapidly than he can create it himself, is by pouring in capital and White initiative in order that it may be done that way. If we cannot do it that way, why do we talk such rubbish about stopping the flow of Bantu to the cities? What must become of them? Must they go and starve in their own areas?

I cannot understand why this side of the House is attacked repeatedly for saying that the influx of Bantu to the Republic will grow more and more because he has to come and sell his labour. There is no other solution than to develop him in his own areas by means of White capital, White know-how and White initiative, until he has developed there to such an extent that he has the desire to stay there. If he can earn the same he is earning here, he will stay there. In that way the tide may be turned.

But we should not forget that if the tide is turned it will be no use saying that we should mechanize more. If we are using so many Bantu in this country at this stage, that we have to bring in an additional 1,000,000 Bantu from neighbouring territories to come and help us keen the wheels of commerce and industry turning, what will we do if we eventually have 2,000,000, 3,000.000, 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 fewer? Is it right of us to encourage the industrial complex to develop more and more if we know that the Bantu will return to their areas? Surely we cannot do both at the same time. Surely we cannot build an ever-growing economy with more industries here, based on more manual labour, and then talk in the same breath of the tide that has to be turned, and of their having to go back to their own areas. These two points of view do not tally.

I should like to hear the Minister of Finance take a somewhat stronger line than he took to-night, when he spoke at the end of the second-reading debate in defence of the fact that it was necessary for the Government to take these steps, and blamed us that we did not want to help him in this struggle. This side of the House will help him in the struggle, not only against inflation but also against any enemy that threatens our country, provided that the Government also listens to this side of the House now and then and tries to check or stop inflation systematically. They should not allow it to get out of hand and then blame us and allege that we want to do nothing to help to stop inflation. This side of the House is prepared, as far as possible, within limits and within reason, to help this Government. But when they are unreasonable— as the Minister of Finance was to-night in his reply to the second-reading debate—they must not call on our assistance.

Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member who has just sat down, is unreasonable. I think it is unreasonable of him to call the hon. Minister of Finance unreasonable after the hon. the Minister of Finance gave a very clear and lucid explanation tonight of the position, and also of the reasons why he introduced the Budget the way he did. The hon. member also ended on the note of Bantu area development. I hope I shall have enough time to make a few observations about this. First I should like to make a few remarks with reference to what the hon. member said at the beginning.

The hon. member held it against the Government that the Minister of Finance had made the remark—and that this side of the House had in fact made that remark—that our people were living above their means. The hon. the Minister was quite clear on that point, and it also appears in the White Paper submitted to us. In fact, it is also demonstrated by all the reports of the Reserve Bank. If we say that a nation is living above its means, it may indeed be expressed in terms of figures. It is expressed in terms of the figures we have before us, namely that the gross domestic expenditure, i.e. the total expenditure of the population, exceeded the gross national product by about R354,000,000. That means that the people in general are spending money faster than they earn it, and that means in turn that the circulation rate of the money is becoming higher. Somewhere a breaking point must therefore be reached. What the hon. the Minister did in fact do, was to restrain matters somewhat. Some time ago the graphs of total expenditure and total national production crossed one another, i.e. followed a parallel course for a while, and now there is again a tendency on the part of the gross domestic expenditure to rise somewhat higher.

If hon. members come along and say that the hon. the Minister should not increase the taxes, they are pleading for inflation, as the hon. the Minister rightly said, because in order to combat inflation the Minister has to remove money from circulation by means of his fiscal measures. That is in fact what the hon. the Minister has done. On the other hand, if hon. members come and say that the Minister should spend less, it means no less than that hon. members are telling the Minister that he should have curtailed expenditure somewhere. All the Session we have been trying to find out from hon. members where they want the Minister to save. Do they want the Government to spend less on dams, for example? Or should the Government grant fewer subsidies to agriculture? Must the Government save on pensions or on the Defence Account? The Government’s task is to maintain the infra-structure. It has to do that, and it has to do that for strategic reasons. It may not slacken in its endeavours, because many of the items of expenditure relate to strategic services that have to be maintained.

In addition, South Africa has to develop an inner economic strength that will enable it to meet the future energetically. If there must be saving, it would be no more than responsible on our part to insist that this saving should also take place on the part of the private sector. I want to make a few observations about spending in the private sector. Apart from its internal financial condition, there is also another reason why it is urgently necessary that South Africa should be most cautious in its financial affairs, and that it should endeavour to maintain the equilibrium. And I shall tell you why. If we compare South Africa’s position with that of most other countries, it is indeed true that South Africa’s present position is such that it may in future become the most sought-after country, by all norms, in the Western world. The hon. the Minister has already compared the index figures in respect of South Africa with those of other countries for the past year. There are two other comparative sets of figures that I want to mention. The first is the cost of living index of South Africa, compared with that of other countries, particularly with that of our trade partners, because those are the countries with which we compete. As regards price increases over the past five years, the position is therefore that in France there has been an annual average increase of 4.4 per cent, in Canada of 1.8 per cent, in West Germany of 3.2 per cent, in Holland of 4.7 per cent, in Switzerland of 3.4 per cent, in England of 4 per cent and in South Africa of 2.3 per cent. The increase in the case of South Africa is therefore considerably lower than in most other countries. But more important than the stability of our prices is the increase in our gross national product. If we compare the figures of the total increase in the wealth of the respective countries, we find that the real growth-rate of the gross national product per capita over the past five years showed the following averages: France, 3.9; Canada, 3.3; U.S.A., 2.7; West Germany, 3.5; Holland, 3.2; Switzerland, 3; England, 2.7; and South Africa, 4 per cent. In assessing the significance of these percentages it should also be borne in mind that we have a White as well as a non-White population, and that the White population has to carry the non-White population to a large extent. We nevertheless find that whereas the percentage price increase in South Africa was virtually the lowest, the growth-rate of its national income was the highest. In other words, it means that the prices in South Africa on which our economic stability rests, are rising more slowly than in the case of any other country in the West, while we are growing more rapidly than those countries as regards the increase in our national wealth. If we succeed in maintaining adequate stability in our economy in years to come, the disparity in favour of South Africa should become larger and larger. This, in turn, can have the result that as far as the future is concerned, we shall become more and more stable and more and more strong as an investment country and as a country that must display stability in other forms. Apart from South Africa’s internal position it is therefore most important that we should also compare our position with the rest of the world and endeavour to achieve a state of affairs in which South Africa will make economic progress and may become the strongest country in the whole world per capita of the population. That is important. That is why we should maintain stability at all costs.

Now there is another point I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister, and that relates to the flow of money to South Africa. As regards our liquidity position, I want to tell the Minister that it is a good thing that one specific section of the private sector is disciplined by the Minister as regards the nature of expenditure and also the way in which it expands or curtails its economy. It is unfortunately true that in recent years we have seen the phenomenon that a very large section of the private sector was not reached by the Minister and was also out of reach as far as the Reserve Bank was concerned. Through the consolidation of companies, company groups became so strong that they began mutual financing—the so-called grey market. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if the commercial banks in South Africa control only 42 per cent of the deposits, and because this is also the sector which has to make a contribution if the Minister needs money, it gives rise to concern that there is another money pool which need not carry any obligations. The method companies have developed for lending short and long term money among themselves, and that on quite a large scale and also while they do not even fall within the same groups of companies, means that another colossus is developing over and above the monetary bank sector. I therefore hope the hon. the Minister will lay down a norm of judgment to prevent large sums of money from flowing to an fro unless the companies involved are mutually controlled companies. Companies that lend money to one another should fall within the same group—in other words, there should be a controlling relationship, otherwise they will have to come under the discipline of the monetary bank sector. I raise this matter at this late stage of the Session merely to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s notice that there is some concern about this and that the section disciplined by the measures taken by him is becoming smaller and smaller, and that it is therefore becoming more and more difficult to maintain discipline in the economy of South Africa. I do not expect the Minister to give me a reply on this matter to-night, but I nevertheless hope that as far as the future is concerned he will be able to devise a formula in terms of which the major part of the private sector will come under the discipline of the Minister’s control measures.

I want to make one further observation with reference to what was said by the hon. member who spoke before me in connection with border areas development. Hon. members on the opposite side seem to hold the view that the existing population migration trend is an irrevocable trend. But that is not so. The previous Prime Minister and other Ministers who dealt with that, said that it was impossible to bring the flow of Bantu to a complete stop at any given moment and to turn it back at once. It involves the development of an infra-structure, and that takes time. Just as it takes time to build one town, it also takes time to build an infra-structure which will make it possible to shift the Bantu population. But it was also said that there should be a turning point somewhere in the future. Hon. members do not believe in the turning point, however, and therefore do not believe that the time will come when we shall be able to turn back the flow of Bantu. In fact, certain sectors are already reaching this turning point. There have been some errors as regards the facts concerning border industries development. Over the past five years 92 industries have settled in the border areas by means of aid facilities, while 60 existing industries in border areas have undergone expansion. In addition, a further 68 industries have been established without the aid facilities. Although these figures are not significant per se it is significant that the rate and curve of development is rising rapidly and that this development is not taking place at ah border areas but mainly at four. The industries that are being planned, however, do not relate to four areas only but to approximately 29. Here, too, the economic law that money begets money, is valid, because development at a more rapid rate in an area must necessarily influence other industries around it. And if this law and the larger number of growth points are borne in mind, plus the increased moment every growth point will attain, and if the rising rate of development at existing growth points is also taken into account, then I may tell the hon. member that the achievement that has been gained is significant. If we take the most recent figure of 53,000 labour active Bantu, i.e. male Bantu workers employed in the border areas at the moment, then the rate at which the development will take place will not be doubled or trebled, but the snowball effect will in fact have the result that in a further ten years it will be possible to settle several millions inside homelands by means of the border industries. And what the Government is doing in the meanwhile is to create this infra-structure in as many places as possible in order that the development may be built on it. And if the hon. members adopt the attitude that the development of the Bantu homelands is the only development, as though it is the only alternative in the development process, then they are deliberately steering a very cautious course around the border areas development. I want to tell the hon. members that as regards the development of the Bantu areas themselves, they need not look at large industries only. The attitude of the Government is that one starts off with the simple and the well-known. And the first and obvious and ready potential of the Bantu areas is their agriculture. Hence the development to initiate a great forestry industry everywhere. Hence the possibility of inquiring into the potential of the areas that receive a higher rainfall and that are the most fertile in our country, particularly with a view to initiating labour-intensive agricultural industries that may easily be adapted and that may easily accommodate the Bantu. I mention only these few examples to hon. members. There is the example of the tea development. At this stage, of course, South Africa has no tea of its own in use, but it is a most labour-intensive industry. It can very easily be established in certain Bantu areas. In this regard I think, for example, of Vendaland, the Shangaan area and the North-Sotho area. This offers a possibility of establishing industries relatively cheaply, if the per capita cost is taken into account. These are industries that may be coupled with agriculture. They are industries which are capable not only of being self-supporting, but industries which will indeed make a contribution to the economy of South Africa. There are also various others. There is the possibility of cultivating coffee intensively. Then there is the possibility of the fibre industry and many others. Hon. members should not come and speak of industrial development only. It is contemplated that the primary and well-known industries should also be initiated, i.e. the labour-intensive industries associated with agriculture. And as such, those may potentially accommodate hundreds of thousands, in fact, millions of people in Bantu areas.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for Soutpansberg in trying to give this debate a turn in the direction of finance. I think it was a good example set by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the second-reading debate. I cannot quite follow the hon. member for Soutpansberg in some of his reasoning. He said for example that people are living beyond their means. “Die volk” are living beyond their means. Who are living beyond their means?It is not the old age pensioner. It is not the ordinary worker, the artisan. He is not living beyond his means. The African population are certainly not living beyond their means. The Coloured people are not living beyond their means. If as a country we are living beyond our means I think perhaps the hon. member for Soutpansberg might be retiring to the Government. He also says that we White people in South Afria have to carry the rest. In certain respects we have to provide the skills and direction. But we are not carrying the rest. Every section of our population plays its part. And some of them would like to play a better part, a fuller part. But they do not get the opportunities. As a matter of fact we have heard from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs quite recently that he sees in the future through Bantu education that there will be a breakthrough in productivity. He said South Africa will produce more. If that is the case surely it would be a very good investment if we were to invest more in Bantu education. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs gave that message about two or three weeks ago. And I think it is a message that we should take note of.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg spoke about more than one financial colossus we have in this country. That I think is a natural modern development. I give one example. Let us take the mining industry. In the old days every mine had its own engineer. It had its own development and own planning. But nowadays we have a head office, consulting engineers and better technical advice. And through that our mining industry is much more efficient than it used to be. As a matter of fact it is regarded as the most efficient mining industry in the world. I think to a great extent it is due to the fact that we have a wonderful financial organization. We have heard a great deal about this flow back to the reserves. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his two Deputy Ministers have told us very confidently that there will eventually—and this is happening to-day—be a flow back to the reserves. I think hon. members are whistling to keep up their spirits. If we look at the statistics we find that the African population in our great cities is increasing.

In our great cities of South Africa you find that the African population is generally greater than the White population. That is the position we have to-day. I should like to devote a few minutes to the discussion of what I regard as the theme of this Appropriation Debate we have had for the last two days. I think the theme, if we could get one word to describe it, would be patriotism. Hon. members have been very anxious to tell us that our patriotism is not as good as it ought to be. and that in order to be patriots we should give them greater support in their own policies, their domestic policies as well as their foreign policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated quite clearly at the beginning where we as a people, a South African people, and as an Opposition, can assist the Government. But it is because we differ fundamentally on certain aspects of government that we are sitting here in Opposition. That is why we come here. It cannot be expected that we should all think the same way and look the same way. Their attitude towards patriotism I think is a very narrow one.

Hon. members seem to think that flag wagging as they used to call it and singing the National Anthem is proof that one is a patriot. We have had that exemplified in Another Place where they have been discussing it. Patriotism is something deep and subconscious in a man’s breeding that in time of crises comes to the surface and inspires him in his actions. I always think of the greatest form of patriotism of all, the patriotism of the young man who volunteers to be a soldier, a sailor or an airman when his country is in danger. He to my mind is the greatest patriot. We do not remember his actions as we ought to do. We do not think of him. We do at the time revere him, but later we do not give him the consideration he deserves. I am always reminded when thinking of the highest form of patriotism of this verse by the English poet Thomas Jordan, of the 17th century. He said—

That I regard as the highest form of patriotism. That is not the patriotism we admire as we ought to do. And now I come to the lowest form of patriotism. I spoke of Thomas Jordan of the 17th century. Now, the great Dr. Samuel Johnson in the 18th century told us about the lowest form of patriotism. He said “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. When a man has nothing left that is good to commend him he tells you: “I am a patriot”, and he beats his chest. That is his form of patriotism. And in between the highest and the lowest, right through the whole gamut we find lip loyalty, people who are very proud to say that they are patriotic South Africans. What does the Book say: “Aan hulle vrugte sal jy hulle ken”. “By their deeds ye shall know them”. And I think a man should be judged by his actions, not necessarily by what he says. Talk is very cheap. Patriotism is not a matter of talk and telling other people what they have to do. If patriotism means supporting the policy of the Nationalist Party, then I am a very bad patriot. I make no claim to that sort of patriotism. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance in introducing the Budge debate told us what his plan was.

We have discussed the Budget. We have discussed the estimates. We now reach the final stage of the appropriation, namely voting the money that he finds necessary. I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister during the Budget debate. You will remember we had the Budget debate shortly after receiving the South West Africa judgment at the Hague. And I made this appeal to him. We are thinking of South West Africa and my thoughts go back to the men who marched into South West Africa in 1914. I think of those young fellows —a young lad of 18 in those days is now well over 70—these boys that marched into South West Africa. That includes the commandos too, South Africans who went there. And because of them there is a South West Africa to-day and we have six South West Africa members in the House.

I said that now it will be a very good time for the hon. the Minister of Finance to extend to those veterans of the South West African campaign and the First World War generally, the same privileges and pension as he has already extended to the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War. I think that is a reasonable request. The extension to the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War was brought about by Dr. Eric Louw when he was our Minister of Finance. I think this is the opportune time. Now, Sir, I have received support from an unexpected source. Last week at UNO in presenting the South African case one of the strong arguments of the South African delegation was that we are in South West Africa by right of conquest. That is a new one. I have not heard that one before. This argument was advanced internationally. Our representative said we are there by right of conquest, over 50 years ago. It is a strong case. Let us think of those fellows now. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to be a bit more generous in his thinking about those men. I think of many of them. We have had this very poor argument advanced that those men were well aid. They were not. The men who went to Delville Wood received a shilling a day. That was also the wages of the British Tommy. I feel to-day that we should make that gesture.

Now, Sir, I should like to say a word to the hon. the Minister of Finance about this great battle he has fought, because he was thinking of the theme of patriotism. He has given us a talk on patriotic financing. He says there are certain shortcomings amongst the Opposition. He thinks we are not playing our part. I think we have done reasonably well. The hon. the Minister says he is fighting the great deflationary battle; he is saving the country from inflation. That is the enemy at the door. “Come and join our forces”, he says. Let us take a look back at this Session. What about the Budget introduced by the Minister of Transport? Was that deflationary?

No.

That is the most inflationary movement we have had in this country for 15 years. That was introduced by the Government. And then the hon. the Minister of Finance, not to be outdone by the great increase in freights by the Minister of Transport, came along and said that if the railway-user has to pay more, why should not the motorist pay more, and he increased the price of petrol. Was that deflationary? I gave the hon. the Minister of Finance the figures. I said a very small percentage of petrol in this country is used for private transport. The hon. the Minister of Transport, in spite of appeals we made to him, in his usual courteous manner, for which I give him full marks— there is no member of the Cabniet who can say “no” as gracefully as the Minister of Transport—when we told him it costs him 1 cent to take a gallon of petrol from Durban to Johannesburg and he charges 7 cents for the service, he said he wanted the money. That is inflationary. Anything that increases costs is inflationary.

Now let us come to our Estimates. The hon. the Minister of Finance, and I should like to congratulate him, has told us that he is now receiving money on Loan Account, at 6 per cent. If that is the case, why does he allow a Government institution to borrow money at 8 per cent? I saw in the Press this week that Sasol is raising a loan at 8 per cent, and if Sasol raises a loan it is guaranteed by the Government. Is that not inflationary, raising the rates of interest, or is that supposed to be deflationary, so that people will not be able to get money at all? And while Sasol is doing that, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare tells us he is going to control rents on the old rate of 8 per cent and 6 per cent. Hon. members will know what that means. Surely that is inconsistent. We cannot go on at that rate. The hon. the Minister of Finance was right; he repeated what we had said. It is not that he does not spend money; he spends money but we think he spends it in the wrong direction and in the wrong way. Let me give one example. We have had two debates in this House on the amount of money given to the Industrial Development Corporation, R26,000,000. We said to him, when we had voted the money, “Are we not going to know how it is spent?” This is Parliament and we want to help the hon. the Minister of Finance. We want to sit on a Select Committee and find out what happens to the money after we have voted it.

In regard to the increase in Government expenditure, I want to mention only one item before I sit down. The total expenditure in respect of revenue ten years ago was R533,000,000. To-day it is R1,286,000,000. 2½ times as much. I think the hon. the Minister has allowed it to develop too fast. He should have controlled it two or three years ago.

The hon. the Minister of Finance in his reply to the second-reading debate chided the Opposition because he said that there was very little to which he could reply of a financial nature. I want to draw his attention again to the remarks I made in the second reading in connection with the financial aspect of the concessions in Namaqualand. The hon. the Minister of Finance chose not to reply. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is conspicuous by his absence. The hon. the Minister of Mines, who heard what I had to say in the second reading, did not choose to reply or to enter this debate. I feel that the Minister of Finance should apply his mind to the way that Government funds are being spent, because during the second-reading debate the Minister of Mines went to great pains to more or less cross-question me by way of interjections as to whether or not the proposition, which had been submitted for the prospecting and development and the possible mining of the farm Leliefontein by a Coloured company, was a correct story or not. So I find myself, not having had a reply of any kind whatsoever from any of the Ministers responsible for this particular aspect of the Government’s activities, in the position of having to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance that there is a gross waste of public money and that he could save the Exchequer quite a few pounds if he would give the concession, where it should have been given originally, namely to the Coloured company.

I have with me this evening a copy of a letter which the Coloured company known as the Leliefontein Mining Company Limited wrote to no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Mines himself on 3rd September, 1966, last month, and the hon. the Minister of Mines, with an air of innocence and ignorance of the facts of the case, did not disclose to the House that he was fully aware of the whole of the negotiations, which had been taking place, and that he knew in detail, what that Coloured company was doing, had been doing, and contemplated doing. He chose not to reply. The thing, in a nutshell, is, that not only was that the case, but as I said in the second reading, one of the original persons selected at a properly constituted meeting of the Coloured Diggers’ Advisory Committee at Barkly West, received a letter out of the blue, from the Coloured Development Corporation, in which it was said that no assistance by the De Beers Company was acceptable to the directors of the Corporation, and the Minister of Mines was at great pains to ask me who wrote the letter and who signed it. Let me tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the letter did come from the C.D.C. and was signed by the manager of the Corporation himself, Mr. Greyling. In addition to that, this Coloured company wrote a second letter to the Minister on 8th September, and queried, chapter and verse, the decisions and the attitudes of the Development Corporation in no uncertain terms. I want to say this evening that the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as custodian of the public purse, should look into this matter himself and without any further delay, because this company wrote to the Minister of Mines on 8th September and said—

May I just say in parenthesis that a speculative undertaking like the prospecting for diamonds, is one, to which the Minister of Finance should pay some attention. The letter continues—

You will recall, Sir, that this was the point queried by the Minister of Mines—

Then they go further and say this—

So I put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance that the time has come when, in this case, he should intervene with the parties, who are concerned, and make absolutely certain that State funds are not speculated in a project of this kind when there is private capital available by a company which is in this line of business and which seeks to make no profit out of the deal, because the final paragraph of the offer of De Beers to this group of gentlemen acting for the Coloured mining company says—

The hon. the Minister of Mines chose to adopt an attitude of injured innocence and suggested across the floor of the House that I had an interest in promoting the proposition because of some association with De Beers. He also suggested that I might know the source of the money which these people were offering. Let us examine what De Beers really offered; I think it is just as well that it should go on to the record. Item 1—

This group of Coloured diggers, acting as they thought, in the best interest of the Coloured diggers as a whole, and in the best interest of Government policy and accepting the generosity of the Cabinet in insisting that certain of the Coloured areas be confined to Coloured diggers, floated a company, drew up a memorandum and articles of association and included this extraordinary clause which the Coloured Development Corporation chose to ignore—

Sir, they go further and they describe the types of persons who shall be permitted to purchase shares in the company, i.e. persons who are bona fide Coloured diggers namely those who—

1. (i) in terms of the Population Registration Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950) are classified as a member of the Cape Coloured, Malayan or Griqua Group or the group Other Coloureds; and
2. (ii) at the time of their application are holders of valid diggers’ certificates and who have proved to the satisfaction of the Mining Commissioner concerned that they have personally for at least three months during the 12 months ending on 31st October, 1964, carried on digging operations for precious stones in alluvial ground.

The last point that I want to make is this. The articles also contain this further provision—

That is fair enough. Sir, you will pardon me if I say that there must be some other reason why the Minister of Mines or the directors of the Coloured Development Corporation have rejected this extremely generous offer of De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited, because I want to say that everybody concerned in this deal over a period of two years has known exactly what the second and third parties in the deal contemplated doing, and have done, and that copies of all correspondence and copies of the memorandum and articles of association were submitted to the hon. the Minister for his information as far back as 3rd September this year, but in spite of that, this is the type of letter that went out from the Coloured Development Corporation, first of all, to Mr. O. E. Fortuin. They thanked him for his telegram and then they go on to say that in the light of the telegram they must draw his attention to what was said by the Corporation’s General Manager, Mr. Greyling, at the meeting attended by him and Mr. Hertzog in Kimberley on 12th March, 1966. The letter then goes on to say—

1. 1. The Coloured Development Corporation Limited had received the right to prospect at Leliefontein from the Minister of Mines and that no prospecting rights were given to your proposed company.
2. 2. Your proposed company were designated as the contractors of the Corporation to prospect the area on behalf of the Corporation.
3. 3. Your proposed company could not apply for any prospecting rights for precious stones in regard to Leliefontein as these rights had been given to the Corporation.
4. 4. That the proposed terms of assistance granted by De Beers were not acceptable to the Corporation’s directors and that De Beers could not be appointed to do the prospecting on your behalf.

Then on 13th September a letter, signed by Mr. M. J. Pentz, administrative manager, was written by the Coloured Development Corporation to Messrs. Keeble and Fortuin—

This was written in the knowledge that correspondence had been sent to the Minister of Mines—

who have been so strangely silent—

Sir, I think that the Government is insincere in regard to the Coloured community. Here we have a group of genuine, bona fide diggers who are prepared to work with the Government, to work in terms of Government policy, and at this late hour they find themselves faced with the threat, that they will have their concession cancelled, and the hon. the Minister of Mines sat there on Saturday afternoon and gave me the impression that he knew nothing about it. As I say, I think he knew everything about it and I think the time has come when the hon. the Minister of Finance might look into this matter. Perhaps even a select committee might be appointed to investigate this matter and find out why the directors of the Coloured Development Corporation do not want De Beers to do what they have offered to do, at no expense to the State and in all probability at considerable expense to themselves, and with the ultimate benefit, if any, accruing to the Coloured community and the Coloured community alone.

In regard to the plea made here by the hon. member for Karoo and the information he gave to this House, I just want to say that I have no knowledge of the facts, but it will astonish me to hear that a large company is as altruistic as the hon. member suggested here. It would be a very pleasant surprise to me, but I am not in the possession of the facts and I cannot judge whether the company was quite as altruistic as the hon. member suggested Tiere.

As regards the point raised here by the hon. member for Kensington, namely the Sasol loan at an effective rate of 8 per cent, I just want to say that I have no knowledge of that, but I shall see what the actual facts are in that regard. However, I cannot express an opinion on that. My Department does not know anything about such a loan.

There are other points which were raised by the hon. member. He said that pensioners did not share in this recent growth. However, I want to give the hon, member the assurance that I have specially caused a survey to be made and found that the increase in the real pensions received, was higher per capita than the real per capita national income. Over the past few years the income of pensioners has therefore shown a greater increase than the general real income per capita. At the same time I want to say that it increased much more rapidly than the cost of living. It was therefore not quite correct to leave the impression that pensioners did not share in the prosperity we have enjoyed over the past few years. If the hon. member merely looks at the extra amounts we have voted them over the past six years, he will not say here that they experience difficulties at present, as compared to what they had six or eight or ten years ago. The increase in their pensions has kept pace very well with the increase in the cost of living, and it compares very favourably with the real per capita income of the nation as a whole.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg drew my attention to the so-called grey market. These are inter-company loans. He said that to a certain extent these were taking the place of loans granted by the monetary banks. That is quite true. We are aware of the fact that the restrictions we imposed on credit did not affect inter-company loans to any large extent. That is a defect in our system as a whole. I should very much like to know how to curb that. Unfortunately the hon. member for Soutpansberg did not tell me how that should be done. The actual problem with which we are faced, is that in proportion to the gross national product, the amount of money and quasi-money is still too high. As a general criterion—not accurately, but according to the existing definition of money and quasi-money —I should say that we cannot feel quite happy about the position, unless that ratio which money and quasi-money bear to the national product is more or less 25 per cent and lower. According to the latest figures the ratio is still 30 per cent. It is to a large extent for that reason that there is over-spending. That is why we are continually trying to reduce that general liquidity. If we take out such money, as we have now done with this loan, it is a step towards reducing that general liquidity which exists, because it is savings we are getting in in this way, and that is the way in which we shall continue. All I can say in regard to the matter of grey market activities, is that one may perhaps do something to exercise even tighter control than is the case at present over the receiving of deposits—because that is, after all, merely a loan from one company to another—by ordinary companies which are not registered as banks. That is a defect, a loophole, a substitute for the ordinary bank credits which we have curbed to such an extent that it is even lower than the figure we asked them to keep to, namely the outstanding deposits as at 31st March, 1965. The banks complied with that—R100,000.000 less than the amount we had fixed as a maximum. But there are also other ways in which the money was lost. I am glad that a constructive idea was at least put forward here, something I am unfortunately unable to say about the contribution made by the hon. member for East London (City). He says that they did in fact contribute to combating the inflationary condition which has developed since 1963. But what was this contribution? In 1965, when the inflationary pressure reached its climax, they proposed salary increases for public servants. However, we said that it could not be done at that stage. But if we had in fact done that, we would have been in a real dilemma to-day. That is why we postponed these increases for as long as we possibly could, and when the increases were eventually granted, i.e. in the second half of 1965, the position had already become much more favourable. At that time and during the first two terms of 1966 as well, we unfortunately had this major inflow of foreign capital. This inflow of capital, I think it was the first in six years, was the cause of this great liquidity of our economy. It also meant that the steps we had taken in 1965, were not adequate to cope with this new inflationary condition. However, fortunately the steps we had taken in July, nipped this new condition in the bud to a certain extent. Hon. members on the other side also came with proposals for a reduction in taxation. In 1965 these reductions would have amounted to R.50,000,000. The United Party therefore proposed that we should bring an additional R50,000,000 into circulation in the country and increase the liquidity of our economy even further by those means. We had to augment the spending power of the private consumer as well as the investing power of the private companies to that extent! I want to repeat that, if we had accepted the proposals made by the United Party at that time, we would have been in a real dilemma to-day. However, fortunately we knew better. We took steps against inflation, steps which did not cause a major disruption in our economy and steps which would have been successful, if it had not been for the major inflow of capital we experienced subsequently. To a large extent the hon. member is perhaps correct in saying that the Government is responsible for inflation, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, we are responsible for the prosperity, for the amazing, rapid growth of our economy in the past year. We must be blamed for that, and accordingly we are prepared to take the blame. That is one of the prices one has to pay for prosperity. It is an experience which is not only confined to us. I referred to other countries which had also experienced prosperity and which were consequently faced with similar problems. The only difference is that they did not cope with those problems as successfully as we did. Consequently the cost of living in South Africa did not rise as rapidly as it did in the case of those overseas countries. Whereas we have achieved this prosperity and maintained a high rate of growth, it speaks volumes for the control of our finances that with a higher rate of growth, we, in contrast, have experienced a very small rise in our cost of living.

Under the circumstances I want to say that the contribution made by the Opposition in this struggle, was a negative contribution. I only hope that they will in time realize the gravity of the situation and that they will in time make a statement to the effect that they want to lend us their whole-hearted support in this struggle against inflation. If they do not do that, they must not blame me or the people if we decide that they have failed this first great test of practical patriotism.

Bill read a Third Time.